The Athletic - College football leaders ready to discuss eight-team Playoff

[rickyspub 801]

1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

I personally prefer the 8 team model that is primarily being discussed, but curious why you think this model would lose money over that one?

Rounds 1 & 2 at home basically just gives 8 teams an extra home game as compared to the 8 team playoff, and 8 additional televised playoff games. Granted, many of them will be heavy pointspread games, but more people would watch Fresno take on Bama or Clemson than watched them take on Arizona State.

Over time you will have 5 or your 8 first round games being dogshit. People won't watch and you can't cover them up by having dozens of other games to show like the basketball tournament. The value of an 8-game playoff using any of the methods discussed here will have almost as many high quality games as a 16 team playoff with G5s. I just don't think any media partner is going to pay the needed premium to add another round of playoffs just to include the G5 champs. Adding that extra round will also increase the discussions around shortening the regular season. I imagine that will get everyone off the 16-team bandwagon quickly as the majority of teams, even the G5s won't want to lose a regular season game so that Fresno State can get destroyed by Bama in the first round of the playoffs.

[BurntOrange&White 40003]

Tbh I don’t think the big 12 will exist past the end of its current TV deal.

[TXSooner518 2438]

4 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

Over time you will have 5 or your 8 first round games being dogshit. People won't watch and you can't cover them up by having dozens of other games to show like the basketball tournament. The value of an 8-game playoff using any of the methods discussed here will have almost as many high quality games as a 16 team playoff with G5s. I just don't think any media partner is going to pay the needed premium to add another round of playoffs just to include the G5 champs. Adding that extra round will also increase the discussions around shortening the regular season. I imagine that will get everyone off the 16-team bandwagon quickly as the majority of teams, even the G5s won't want to lose a regular season game so that Fresno State can get destroyed by Bama in the first round of the playoffs.

I don't think most of those games will be dogshit, and people will enjoy it when a Cinderella looks like they can pull off the upset. It will happen from time to time. I wouldn't be shocked if this year's Notre Dame lost to a team like Fresno or some such.

[Treefidy 1469]

12 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I just can't reconcile "better slate of games" with "those games don't matter."  Games aren't good if they don't matter.

For example, this year, if OU could only get in the playoffs by winning the B12, and could never get in if they don't win the B12, you really think they are going to schedule, say, Michigan, and play Kyler Murray the entire game?  You're insane if you think that. They will either schedule the powdery puffiest games to be healthy for the "actual season" or teams will start resting starters in the exhibition OOC games.

Yeah your probably right, didn't think about that.  I don't watch NFL at all so wasn't going through that angle. 

So best case overall would be to have the CCG as the first round so the best 2 from each conference play an elimination then it's on to cross conference play.  Eliminate at large, you win you conference or you don't move on.  

[TXSooner518 2438]

4 minutes ago, Treefidy said:

Yeah your probably right, didn't think about that.  I don't watch NFL at all so wasn't going through that angle. 

So best case overall would be to have the CCG as the first round so the best 2 from each conference play an elimination then it's on to cross conference play.  Eliminate at large, you win you conference or you don't move on.  

So why do you no longer care about good OOC games? The way to have good OOC games is to reward the teams that schedule and win those games, and the way to do that is to have at-large entrants. With zero at-larges, every OOC game is a completely worthless exhibition, an absolutely awful outcome.

[rickyspub 801]

11 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I don't think most of those games will be dogshit, and people will enjoy it when a Cinderella looks like they can pull off the upset. It will happen from time to time. I wouldn't be shocked if this year's Notre Dame lost to a team like Fresno or some such.

We will have to disagree there. The value of Northern Illinois being down by 35 to Bama at half is going to be zilch. OU being down by 21 is going to draw better numbers and you at least keep some casual viewers through halftime. The reality is that even a true Cinderella game probably only draws a crowd in the 4th quarter when it looks like there might be an upset. Advertisers aren't going to pay a premium for that. There's a reason the G5 games aren't worth crap. It's the same reason T3 content of P5 teams is worth much less than T1. The Big 12 can't even go down to 8 conference games because of the risk that too much of that inventory is wasted on G5 games. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by rickyspub

[Huckleberry 33087]

A first round playoff game will draw better than a random G5 regular season matchup. You know that.

Personally as alluded to previously, I'd be perfectly fine with the P5 breaking off into a separate division. But as long as the G5 belongs to the same division/league as the P5 then their conference champions deserve a bid to the playoff. Or it's not really a playoff.

[rickyspub 801]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

A first round playoff game will draw better than a random G5 regular season matchup. You know that.

Personally as alluded to previously, I'd be perfectly fine with the P5 breaking off into a separate division. But as long as the G5 belongs to the same division/league as the P5 then their conference champions deserve a bid to the playoff. Or it's not really a playoff.

The point is that the opponent matters when it comes to media valuation. (You know that.) A G5 playoff opponent isn't going to draw like a P5, it will get even worse over time if the G5 participants don't consistently punch above their weight. Sure, as a playoff game, there will be more value than a regular season game, but the same rules apply. A 16-team, CFB committee selected playoff would guarantee better TV ratings and money than a 16-team, 10 CCG champs and 6-at large teams. Is any media partner going to risk paying out a large additional sum for the second over the first? Is there even enough value to consider it over an 8-team playoff? For better or worse, the system is venal. They aren't going to expand to 16 unless the payoff is worth it.

Also, a playoff doesn't have to include every group to be a playoff. It is just a series of contests to determine the winner of a championship. The selection process can be completely arbitrary or tightly regulated, the basic definition doesn't require one or the other.

I say the G5 are only in the same division out of convenience, so I don't see why that convenience sets up a threshold for 'deserving' full access to the championship. The rules for FBS inclusion are largely arbitrary and are set at some minimal number to not seem too restrictive, but not so low as to encourage every second tier college to jump up.  It certainly wasn't devised on the concept of establishing a minimal quality of play. And I believe the rules were created pre-BCS, though perhaps they have tweaked them more recently.

[Phoenix 65]

12 hours ago, gmr548 said:

3.) Team B finished third in its division.

4.) Team B is ranked well below two other one-loss P5 at large teams as well as an undefeated G5 champion.

Then, yeah, I'm okay with 8-4 VT going over 11-1 Tech there. Maybe if Tech doesn't get absolutely smoked by OU they end up ranked ahead of Texas, whom they beat. Also keep in mind that 2008 is basically a unicorn and is a situation that repeats itself very rarely. Three one-loss P5 non-champs happens maybe once a decade. As I mentioned above, no system is perfect. But an eight team playoff with P5 champs, top ranked G5 champ, and two at larges is going to include every single team with a legit argument in most years. It's a lot better than what exists now, gives everyone a legitimate chance at the start of the year, and still gives the "deserving" teams that slip up a chance.

Texas Tech did not finish third in their division. They finished in a three-way tie for first. In a better conference setup, 10 teams with a round robin and no divisions, Texas, OU, and Texas Tech would all finish as split conference champs. So technically, all three of them would be conference champions. As it was, they were co-divisional champs and the Big 12 simply selected one of the 3 teams to represent the South in the championship game.

Texas Tech finished in the top 8 in computer rankings at the end of the regular season. VA Tech finished somewhere around 17th or 18th. There are no amount of mental gymnastics that can reasonably show that VA Tech deserved to go over Texas Tech.

 

[Huckleberry 33087]

The point is that the opponent matters when it comes to media valuation. (You know that.) A G5 playoff opponent isn't going to draw like a P5, it will get even worse over time if the G5 participants don't consistently punch above their weight. Sure, as a playoff game, there will be more value than a regular season game, but the same rules apply. A 16-team, CFB committee selected playoff would guarantee better TV ratings and money than a 16-team, 10 CCG champs and 6-at large teams. Is any media partner going to risk paying out a large additional sum for the second over the first? Is there even enough value to consider it over an 8-team playoff? For better or worse, the system is venal. They aren't going to expand to 16 unless the payoff is worth it.
Also, a playoff doesn't have to include every group to be a playoff. It is just a series of contests to determine the winner of a championship. The selection process can be completely arbitrary or tightly regulated, the basic definition doesn't require one or the other.
I say the G5 are only in the same division out of convenience, so I don't see why that convenience sets up a threshold for 'deserving' full access to the championship. The rules for FBS inclusion are largely arbitrary and are set at some minimal number to not seem too restrictive, but not so low as to encourage every second tier college to jump up.  It certainly wasn't devised on the concept of establishing a minimal quality of play. And I believe the rules were created pre-BCS, though perhaps they have tweaked them more recently.

It's not really a playoff if a team in the league can go undefeated the entire year and not be the champion. Playoff implies that a team can win the title based only on what they do on the field.

[rickyspub 801]

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's not really a playoff if a team in the league can go undefeated the entire year and not be the champion. Playoff implies that a team can win the title based only on what they do on the field.

By definition the current FBS college playoff is indeed a playoff. It is your definition that requires inclusion of a team who didn't lose but who played a schedule of a completely different quality from the teams chosen to participate in the playoff. I doubt if you polled college football fans you find a majority who say Bama's title last season wasn't earned, even if you biased the question by noting UCF. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by rickyspub

[Huckleberry 33087]

You are conflating at least three different issues.

A setup where a team can follow every rule, win every game they play, then not participate in the championship playoff is illegitimate. If the belief is that a subset of teams in a league have no real business competing for the championship then they should be in a different league.

Again, I'm fine with a division split. But if they're in the same division then their conference champions deserve a bid. It really is that simple.

[clapclapclap 9000]

One option for fitting in an 8-team playoff in the current calendar, while keeping the conference championship games, would be to move the CCGs up a week to Thanksgiving weekend.  All conference games would be played in the first 11 games of the season, with everyone scheduling an OOC game for the final week (first weekend in December.)  The teams making the CCGs would lose that OOC game and their scheduled opponents would be reslotted to play each other instead.  (On average half of those opponents would have been hosting, so typically only half of those displaced teams would have to alter travel arrangements with just a 2-week notice.  That extra cost of rescheduling could be subsidized by the playoff pool of payments.)  The non-CCG final week's games would still matter for bowl positioning.

I'd add another wrinkle, and have the playoff committee pick 4 (or 6) wildcards to play  each other for potential remaining playoff spots on the same weekend as the CCGs.  No guarantee that any of these wildcard game winners would get into the playoffs (which keeps the emphasis on winning your conference) but you can't make the playoffs without playing Thanksgiving weekend.  This would prevent a Bama from getting a bye if they miss the CCG. 

After the final week of games the committee  would choose from the wildcard game winners and conference champ losers for the 2 (or 3) wildcard spots.  (I'd have the G5 playoff spot only guaranteed if a team is ranked in the top 15 and has no more than 2 losses.  If none qualify then the P5 get a 3rd wildcard in the 8-team playoff.)  The 4 actual playoff games would be the next week (when we currently play the CCGs.)

Thanksgiving weekend would have 10 CCGs and 2 (or 3) wildcard games.  First weekend in December would have 4 playoff games and all the other teams play their 12th game of the season, all OOC.  Bowls placement announced the next day, as usual.  Might increase attendance for all the hosting schools not in the playoffs, since students would be back on campus that weekend.  Which could offset the downside of the proposal, in that it reduces the total number of cfb games in a season by 12 or 13.  But the college presidents kept claiming that they're all about safety and too many games are why we couldn't possibly expand the playoffs.  They should love this, right?  Would also give most teams the chance to go home for Thanksgiving.

Or you could have all the final OOC games scheduled for Thanksgving weekend and the rescheduled games on the next weekend and perhaps the week in between.  Spreading them out  over and between the last 2 weekends would probably be better for tv and having fewer games overlapping with the CCG or playoff games.

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by clapclapclap

[rickyspub 801]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You are conflating at least three different issues.

A setup where a team can follow every rule, win every game they play, then not participate in the championship playoff is illegitimate. If the belief is that a subset of teams in a league have no real business competing for the championship then they should be in a different league.

Again, I'm fine with a division split. But if they're in the same division then their conference champions deserve a bid. It really is that simple.

You are conflating the issues. Show me the NCAA bylaw that guarantees an undefeated team access to the current playoff. There is only your belief that it should be so. The current division is an anachronism and it is 'real business' that keeps it that way. The G5 is well within their rights to drop down to 'Football Championship Subdivision' where the NCAA's rules for inclusion to the championship would guarantee a slot to an undefeated team. They don't drop down because they are happy to take the P5's money. Why does the G5 get more of the playoff money than any individual P5 conference, even though we all acknowledge they have no shot at being included? If fairness were so important, why would they take a bribe? 

The system is a marriage of convenience, probably more for the G5 than the P5. It is still called Football Bowl Subdivision because that is the promise...a bowl game. I feel confident we will see a split before we see a playoff that includes the G5 as a third of the participants. 

[Huckleberry 33087]

3 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

You are conflating the issues. Show me the NCAA bylaw that guarantees an undefeated team access to the current playoff. There is only your belief that it should be so. The current division is an anachronism and it is 'real business' that keeps it that way. The G5 is well within their rights to drop down to 'Football Championship Subdivision' where the NCAA's rules for inclusion to the championship would guarantee a slot to an undefeated team. They don't drop down because they are happy to take the P5's money. Why does the G5 get more of the playoff money than any individual P5 conference, even though we all acknowledge they have no shot at being included? If fairness were so important, why would they take a bribe? 

The system is a marriage of convenience, probably more for the G5 than the P5. It is still called Football Bowl Subdivision because that is the promise...a bowl game. I feel confident we will see a split before we see a playoff that includes the G5 as a third of the participants. 

You are really hard-headed. I admire that and welcome you to the club.

The NCAA has no rules about the playoff at all. This should probably be a major hint to you that I'm correct that it's an illegitimate championship playoff considering it purports to be for the championship of NCAA FBS football yet the governing body (the NCAA) doesn't even sanction it.

[NBMisha 224]

Your stamina is impressive.  Additionally, your points re all conf champs in the playoff, or split the division, is the most coherent one on offer.

[Surlybastard 65]

59 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

By definition the current FBS college playoff is indeed a playoff. It is your definition that requires inclusion of a team who didn't lose but who played a schedule of a completely different quality from the teams chosen to participate in the playoff. I doubt if you polled college football fans you find a majority who say Bama's title last season wasn't earned, even if you biased the question by noting UCF. 

Earned and completely legitimate aren't exactly the same thing. Bama earned their 14-1 record and two playoff wins. That of itself does not fully legitimize them being named the national champions of college football last year if certain teams worthy of consideration never had a chance at said title.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Surlybastard

[Chuckie Finster 22728]

1 hour ago, Phoenix said:

Texas Tech did not finish third in their division. They finished in a three-way tie for first. In a better conference setup, 10 teams with a round robin and no divisions, Texas, OU, and Texas Tech would all finish as split conference champs. So technically, all three of them would be conference champions. As it was, they were co-divisional champs and the Big 12 simply selected one of the 3 teams to represent the South in the championship game.

Texas Tech finished in the top 8 in computer rankings at the end of the regular season. VA Tech finished somewhere around 17th or 18th. There are no amount of mental gymnastics that can reasonably show that VA Tech deserved to go over Texas Tech.

 

Automatically admitting each conference champion is the only way to ensure that ranking bias doesn't seep into the playoffs.  There will eventually be a scenario where a conference will have a handful of really good teams at the top that take turns beating each other up, and any scenario that doesn't automatically admit conference champs will allow for a team that played nobody to potentially sneak in ahead of them.

Plus, if you make conference championships the qualification for auto-admission, that will now be the undeniable goal of every team instead of simply a high ranking.  You'll see more legit OOC games, since those don't matter in conference standings.

[rickyspub 801]

20 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You are really hard-headed. I admire that and welcome you to the club.

The NCAA has no rules about the playoff at all. This should probably be a major hint to you that I'm correct that it's an illegitimate championship playoff considering it purports to be for the championship of NCAA FBS football yet the governing body (the NCAA) doesn't even sanction it.

It is largely an argument over semantics, so I'll be hard-headed about definitions! A playoff, by definition, doesn't have to have any particular backing or certification to be a playoff. You want to insist that the definition be expanded to include what you believe it should have. I believe it is just what the definition is, no more no less.

Now we might be closer when it comes to whether we view the current set up as legitimate. I am still inclined to view it as an MNC. But just because the NCAA doesn't sanction the current playoff or set the rules doesn't mean that the majority of college football fans find the winner illegitimate. I find problems with the current playoff's "legitimacy" are based more on the selection process and the small number of teams chosen compared to the number of competitors (even just looking at the P5 teams) rather than the need to have hard rules governing it. There are too many teams with too much disparity in the quality of competition to hold to what I believe would be ideal. If you want to have hard rules then I believe you have to deal with level of competition first.

Our views of legitimacy aside, the reality is that UCF claims a title for last season and I believe the NCAA said they could claim it just like Bama does. aggy can claim a title in 1922 by the rules of the NCAA, even though no one between that season and a few years ago considered that team a National Champion. We have the right to claim more titles under the current rules than we claim, but we haven't claimed them and I am glad we haven't. I would rather it be decided on the field, but that has to include the regular season and I just can't agree to a system that views UCF's season in the same way that Texas's season is viewed. To me it is akin to the NBA adding the G-League division winners as a third of the playoff spots.

[gmr548 16612]

Texas Tech did not finish third in their division. They finished in a three-way tie for first. In a better conference setup, 10 teams with a round robin and no divisions, Texas, OU, and Texas Tech would all finish as split conference champs. So technically, all three of them would be conference champions. As it was, they were co-divisional champs and the Big 12 simply selected one of the 3 teams to represent the South in the championship game.
Texas Tech finished in the top 8 in computer rankings at the end of the regular season. VA Tech finished somewhere around 17th or 18th. There are no amount of mental gymnastics that can reasonably show that VA Tech deserved to go over Texas Tech.
 

I'm not inclined to get bogged down in the weeds debating a once in a decade situation anyway, and certainly not when you've again selectively addressed only a portion of my post. Call it a three-way tie for first (in which Tech comes out a clear third in tiebreakers) and muse about hypothetical conference structures if you want, but the fact is the eight team playoff covers the vast majority of the bases in the vast majority of years. If that means an 08 VT gets in over an 08 Tech once a decade, then oh well. Tech had their avenues to qualify in that scenario and couldn't. It's still far superior to the existing system.

If you actually care about fairness/deserving teams and want the bases all covered 100 percent of the time, go to 16 with every conference champion. But of course, that will also include some 8-4 squads.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[rickyspub 801]

53 minutes ago, Surlybastard said:

Earned and completely legitimate aren't exactly the same thing. Bama earned their 14-1 record and two playoff wins. That of itself does not fully legitimize them being named the national champions of college football last year if certain teams worthy of consideration never had a chance at said title.

Indeed. Just like if Huckleberry's system came into being and the G5 never won a title, but the at-large teams regularly did, I could say that system is illegitimate because it forces too many unqualified teams into the picture and leaves out too many teams that could have won if given the chance. I would be in the minority, just like Huckleberry and I are now regarding the legitimacy of the current title.

[Rimbo 26064]

5 hours ago, Bevo VIII said:

Tbh I don’t think the big 12 will exist past the end of its current TV deal.

I think it will, but I don't think Texas, OU, and possibly a pair of Little Brothers will be part of it.

[Al_4_ISU 12483]

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I think it will, but I don't think Texas, OU, and possibly a pair of Little Brothers will be part of it.

If an 8 team playoff comes before TV negotiations, I'd bet my house that all current Big 12 schools will be in the Big 12.

Texas and OU leaving their best chance to the national title in order to schedule an extra couple games against blue bloods every other year is complete insanity.

[Huckleberry 33087]

9 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If an 8 team playoff comes before TV negotiations, I'd bet my house that all current Big 12 schools will be in the Big 12.

Texas and OU leaving their best chance to the national title in order to schedule an extra couple games against blue bloods every other year is complete insanity.

I agree with this. The best chance for the Big 12 to survive with Texas and Oklahoma is a playoff system with automatic berths for P5 champions.

I'd still only put it at 50/50 for survival but it's absolutely imperative. Still doesn't address the population and TV market issues.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Al_4_ISU 12483]

15 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I agree with this. The best chance for the Big 12 to survive with Texas and Oklahoma is a playoff system with automatic berths for P5 champions.

I'd still only put it at 50/50 for survival but it's absolutely imperative. Still doesn't address the population and TV market issues.

I think the aftermath of the last round of realignment has demonstrated that issue isn't all that important.  The Pac 12 and ACC have huge population and TV markets.  They make less than the Big 12, and outside of Clemson are lagging behind on the field of play.  The Midwest and the South are where college football is king.  The Big 12 straddles those parts of the country.  

I've always believed that the make or break for the current Big 12 is whether or not Texas and OU's affiliation with it keeps them from their goals.  It doesn't appear to at this point in time, but the future of the playoffs weighs heavily on that and will likely be either the lynch pin that prevents further realignment or the catalyst for it.

[rickyspub 801]

I too am leaning towards the Big 12 surviving more or less as is. I think the live sports media market isn't as weak as ESPN's recent issues suggest. The Big 12 may end up doing what it did on its last contract by getting Fox into college football and sell part of the rights for a premium to a new entrant in the live sports media game. I think there will be competitive money for the Big 12, maybe in conjunction with a scheduling relationship with another conference.

[Treefidy 1469]

7 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

So why do you no longer care about good OOC games? The way to have good OOC games is to reward the teams that schedule and win those games, and the way to do that is to have at-large entrants. With zero at-larges, every OOC game is a completely worthless exhibition, an absolutely awful outcome.

How do you get SEC to quit scheduling shitty OOC?  At large bids won't do the trick as has been shown with the artificial inflation of their teams from pre-season on.  The story line goes something like that conference is so good that they don't have to prove anything outside winning games within their conference.  That's even with the abysmal cross conference play where they play teams every 7 years, only 2 cross division games each year.   It's a joke, we all know it, and no one really knows how good they are when they rarely play outside their conference and then it's typically a neutral site.  

I do want more, better OOC games but I don't see much of a path toward that.  Everyone else has to beat each other up trying to schedule good OOC games to boost their SoS, and in the end it doesn't matter because more years than not we would get one from each conference and 3 SEC teams.  Might as well make CCGs the first round so technically EVERY conference gets 2 teams in including the vaunted SEC. 

the fact there was even a discussion that UGA should get in over you this year is all the proof you need.  They lost their CCG but because they played mightly Bama so close,  even though Bama hasn't played anyone out of conference to prove their worth, is just bullshit.  

And Bama gets the benefit of the doubt because of recent history and their recruiting prowess.  I would argue that USC and FSU have been right there with Bama and above UGA recruiting over the past 5 years and look at those teams.  By the coaching and recruiting metric, Bama should be undefeated going on 10 years now, but they aren't.  Really good team.  Best team every year?  Who really knows. 

[Richard Kimball 1496]

13 minutes ago, Treefidy said:

...the fact there was even a discussion that UGA should get in over you this year is all the proof you need.  They lost their CCG but because they played mightly Bama so close,  even though Bama hasn't played anyone out of conference to prove their worth, is just bullshit.  

...And Bama gets the benefit of the doubt because of recent history and their recruiting prowess.  I would argue that USC and FSU have been right there with Bama and above UGA recruiting over the past 5 years and look at those teams.  By the coaching and recruiting metric, Bama should be undefeated going on 10 years now, but they aren't.  Really good team.  Best team every year?  Who really knows. 

Troof, and it's also a self-fulfilling thing. The SEC gets a significant recruiting advantage because the table is tilted towards them. 

It's also a reason they don't want G5s having legit access to the playoffs. Take UCF, two seasons undefeated, and no way they get in. Even if they got waxed in their first playoff game, recruiting would jump up, just because they were there. The blue bloods don't want that. None of the P5s ever want a four star to see a G5 as a legitimate option. 

[Longboard Horn 40499]

Leach said it best

[kopp0e 1135]

How to get your significant other to advertise the school brand when the school isn't in the CFP bracket...

 

[kopp0e 1135]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If an 8 team playoff comes before TV negotiations, I'd bet my house that all current Big 12 schools will be in the Big 12.

Texas and OU leaving their best chance to the national title in order to schedule an extra couple games against blue bloods every other year is complete insanity.

Agreed...

[BluTechsan 393]

5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If an 8 team playoff comes before TV negotiations, I'd bet my house that all current Big 12 schools will be in the Big 12.

Texas and OU leaving their best chance to the national title in order to schedule an extra couple games against blue bloods every other year is complete insanity.

Yup.

And the inverse is what I wonder about. Yes, Arkansas and LSU I'm looking at you. People always scoff at the idea of them becoming member numbers 11 and 12 but how would it not benefit all parties? If auto qualifiers are in play then this move makes a ton of sense to me.

And in a perfect world, we'd punt Baylor to allow for Nebraska's return and the BIG could then drop Rutgers to get down to 12 teams. Lastly the B12 and SECSECSEC could then swap WV and Mizzu.

 

[Treefidy 1469]

12 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

Yup.

And the inverse is what I wonder about. Yes, Arkansas and LSU I'm looking at you. People always scoff at the idea of them becoming member numbers 11 and 12 but how would it not benefit all parties? If auto qualifiers are in play then this move makes a ton of sense to me.

And in a perfect world, we'd punt Baylor to allow for Nebraska's return and the BIG could then drop Rutgers to get down to 12 teams. Lastly the B12 and SECSECSEC could then swap WV and Mizzu.

 

That would all make sense, and I would like to have LSU in our conference....

however, they are a charter member of SEC and would never leave.  If for whatever reason SEC decided to drop to 12 i would think mizzou and pig could be candidates to drop.  

[BluTechsan 393]

5 minutes ago, Treefidy said:

That would all make sense, and I would like to have LSU in our conference....

however, they are a charter member of SEC and would never leave.  If for whatever reason SEC decided to drop to 12 i would think mizzou and pig could be candidates to drop.  

That'd work too.

[BluTechsan 393]

Regarding the ACC, BIG, and SECSECSEC dropping back to 12 teams,  14 is just a hot mess scheduling wise. I would think the additional revenue of an expanded playoff would far outweigh any real or imangined revenue of those two additional markets that 13 and 14 bring to the table.

[BurntOrange&White 40003]

Agreed...

Counter point: the ND method.

[kopp0e 1135]

39 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

Counter point: the ND method.

Valid point... 
But one has to wonder how long before more than 1 program is an option for a 4 team CFP bid, as ACC: FSU/Cle B1G: tOSU/UM SEC:Ala/UGA XII: OU/UT PAC: UW/USC...
In a situation where all of those teams could have only 1 loss, while Notre Dame has one loss as well, the fact all would play in a conference championship hurts the Irish...

[Hagbard Celine 10919]

At the conclusion of the 2008 regular season, the TrapMetrics (TM) system would have scored Tech and Burglars lower than Texas because:

1) we didn't play an FCS game, and they both did;

2) road conference wins are worth 15 points;

3) neutral site conference wins are worth 14 points;

4) home conference wins are worth 13 points;

5) road conference losses have a -1 point deduction;

6) neutral site conference losses have a -2 point deduction;

7) home conference losses have a -3 point deduction.

Without consideration for OOC p5/g5/fcs games in 2008, considering only the 3 games played head-to-head the points table would have been:

Texas 14 -1 = 13

Tech 13 - 1 = 12

0u 13 - 2 = 11

Texas was the only team in the 3 games that won away from home.

gomer not advantaged.  at all.

[BluTechsan 393]

nm

Edited December 18, 2018 by BluTechsan

[S11 16]

17 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If an 8 team playoff comes before TV negotiations, I'd bet my house that all current Big 12 schools will be in the Big 12.

Texas and OU leaving their best chance to the national title in order to schedule an extra couple games against blue bloods every other year is complete insanity.

Pretty much.   The added TV revenue you’d maybe get from a move weighed against the additional overall revenue from more playoff bids makes the raw math murky even before exit fees, added travel expense, and tv network buy-ins are factored in.

[Oakbrook 67]

On 12/12/2018 at 10:35 AM, slorch said:

I get a kick out of how they make it seem so complex...and dramatic.

Prophetic words.  Seven pages in . . . TL;DR

[kopp0e 1135]

On 12/17/2018 at 10:14 AM, Bevo VIII said:

Tbh I don’t think the big 12 will exist past the end of its current TV deal.

Why..?

[kopp0e 1135]

I have a feeling this may eventually impact not only NCAA conference realignment, but also possibly CFP bracket expansion:

 

[TexasMan 10982]

Same as it ever was... 

 

 

[Dewey 3292]

I think the only thing they considered was their "contractual agreements". The use of student athlete well being warms the heart though.