Jump to content

Hurtlocker

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hurtlocker

  1. Funny you should mention that ... The 'P' now stands for 'Pathetic' thanks to outgoing Pac-12 commissioner's CFP whining
  2. possible, but its the closest we have. Kind of like projecting the final 4 coming out of the BCS
  3. If I remember right, when they announced the structure with the top six champs and all that, they said it completely assed 8, but in 12 only 4 teams in the top 12 over 7 years would have been knocked out. Can't imagine many are going to cry about that.
  4. It came from this, someone went through to figure out top six champions, who got the bye, and who would have been in based off final week CFP rankings:
  5. 4-5 seems high. Here's how the past 7 years would have played out:
  6. If they approve the 12 model, there is zero reason for the Big 12 to expand any more. Reason #1, eight isn't getting you anything, especially not if you're just replacing a conference game with a P5 game. I'd put money down right now that you'll see the Power Five programs start to shed the lower schools for more bigger games. If you have to give people more access, then you want to stand out more to drive them back out. The P5 could schedule 12 P5 games by getting rid of shit games and cross pollenating and I guarantee you no other AAC team is getting in except the champion. They'll dominate by scheduling different. Reason #2, this expansion will destroy the Sugar/Rose/Orange tie ins, those will basically become playoff games, a major reason why the 12 pays 3x more. Highly likely that, like today, while granting access, the P5 will split 80% of the proceeds. At 3x though, when the post season now rivals the regular season valuation, having less teams makes everyone more money
  7. I'd agree that at the beginning of the CFP it didn't matter. But Oklahoma and Iowa State last year had a combined 5 losses and both were in the top ten. Granted, Covid was crazy, but the only other team with three losses in the top ten was Florida, who played in the SEC championship game too and has multiple natties in the past 15 years
  8. The concept is really that you get more wins throughout the conference if you gift everyone one more win. The 9 conference games give 4.5 more teams a loss. This is how the SEC kind of built its PR machine showing all the big wins. But its kind of missing the bigger point. An 8 game conference schedule isn't what blew up the SEC's brand, not even close. What mattered is that from 2005 they won 11 championships with 4 different teams. Do they get a boost by having a few more wins at the end of the season, yes, but what set them up isn't that, its that they dominated championships Case in point, the ACC, with 8 conference games, is not viewed the same. Yes FSU and Clemson got championships in that time, making them the second most successful, but also went 0-6 last year in the post season. So you have to win when you get there, playing 8 doesn't do that. Winning when you get there does.
  9. Probably already answered, but I'm really behind... Lack of inclusion was laying the groundwork for lawsuits against the CFB Playoff structure, specifically from the AAC. This is basically getting ahead to control the process than having terms dictated to you from outside.
  10. This...there is no second option. Its money OR its easy. It is not both, not for decades.
  11. The Big 12 doesn't really need to expand at all. If we average out the last 7 years, which seems relatively fair, this is the percent of the conference that has been in the playoffs: Big Ten = 20.4% SEC = 19.3% Big 12 = 17.1% Pac 12 = 13.1% ACC = 11.2% AAC = 7.7% To match the Big Ten's 20%, the Big 12 just needed to put two more teams into the playoff over 7 years. That's not really a massive issue you change everything to accomplish. And, if you expand, do you actually increase the odds? The Big Ten got nearly twice the teams into the playoffs than the Big 12, but they still only put 20% of their total teams in, a 15% difference. Considering the money will most likely be split evenly still between the P5, if you increase size for more spots, but same percentage, you're really just diluting your payout.
  12. Agreed, and more fan participation. Not many fan bases are going to go fill quarters, semis and championship. Most will likely wait for semi/champ. However, why not keep even more money in the school's homes instead of sending it to bowls. My guess is because its how ESPN planned to boost its bowl revenue and dangled a carrot in front of the consultants helping.
  13. Fuck the Rose Bowl
  14. Yeah I mentioned that too, the SEC gave up money to get exposure and it worked out great. They'll want to fill that spot, but they don't want to fill it with 15 games with every team from the SEC getting a shot. They actually want about 12 games so they can show golf tournaments at the beginning of the year, which puts the Big 12 in a great spot to take that 3:30 eastern timing. As for this game, Fox got the pick and they've been marketing the Big Noon slot that they use a lot with the Big Ten. Sucks because there are not any other good afternoon games on, but part of this bouncing order of picked games
  15. As much as I'd say the 8 route does work for better records, I think that ship has sailed. It seems to only be working for the SEC, who has numerous schools holding a title in the past two decades, and people are starting to catch on. Connolly has been roasting Clemson for their schedules this year and they open against Georgia. Also, those extra conference games are the reason why the SEC is paid $45m and the B1G is $53m. Additionally, one of the main reasons they didn't expand was every non-Texas team gets two games a year in the state. That may keep the status quo more than anything else.
  16. That would be interesting and obviously I don't know for sure, but I remember it being announced there is no look in on this current contract. So even if they voted to have 12, they'd need the media partner to accept it. Voting to have 12 doesn't break the current agreement. And the current agreement has more than just playoff, it also includes the Sugar, Rose, etc, so not sure how they'd field 12 outside the current agreement, e.g. offer new games. We're all just spitballing at this point without a contract on our hands, but this is a cool wrinkle to the entire process.
  17. Agreed, Amazon and Apple are both kind of the wild cards at the moment. They could buy Disney with change found in the employee lounge sofa.
  18. Yellow is "making the playoff", they're just showing all the teams in each conference. Those highlighted are from the year by year break down.
  19. Not sure they can shop a deal, they have 5 years left on this one. That gives ESPN the ability to ante up and keep it for longer, fucking the other networks. They already own the rest of the bowls, I think if I were the mouse I'd force the conferences to give up their auto bowls so I could micromanage every match up for TV and just pay out everyone evenly to shut them up.
  20. Percent of league who would have participated in playoff if started at 12: AAC - 36.4% ACC - 28.6% B1G - 50% B12 - 50% G4 - 6% Indy - 14.3% P12 - 58.3% SEC - 57.1%
  21. Agree to disagree! My take on the current bowl system: Pros: Lots of football at the end of the season to watch Cons: Literally everything about how the current bowl system is set up. Here's the viewership breakdown from last year: Nineteen bowls made up a total of a quarter of the total post season viewership. That's crap. Yes, its great there are games on, but how it is set up is stupid. You're never going to make them as valuable as the other four, but the death grip the P5 conferences have on bowl selection is not doing anyone any favors. Lets say you had 10-15 extra bowls outside the playoff structure, having them play in rated games, e.g. 13v14, 15v16, etc would increase viewership more than the 6th best team of the B1G playing the 7th best team of the SEC or whatever nonsense lays it out. It would also let better teams have higher access, e.g. UCF, BYU, Houston, hell Buffalo last year, Boise, etc. Now instead of playing the Idaho Potato bowl, they can move up to play someone good and generate a better game over all. Also, the gif was solid. You're a hater.
  22. Its not really a "threat to blue bloods" conversation, its threat to those battling for third. Would they want to get rid of the increased exposure that Mizzou and Arky could take back that they're currently losing now for being middling programs in their divisions.
  23. Yeah, totally agree here. You'd have to get something better because, at the moment, the Ohio State/Michigan/PedState/Bama/Georgia/LSU/Floridas of the world are keeping down several high revenue schools who just are not going to sniff a championship in their own conference, let alone a natty. Why let them be competitive? All the exposure comes from participating in the end game any more. Has Iowa State ever had so much attention as last year? Or how about the TCU/Baylor scuffle year? That's worth far more than most value.
  24. Its all fucked man, just embrace the fuckiness
×
×
  • Create New...