(10-19-2016 09:23 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:15 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:52 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:45 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  I actually think we don't want it expanded, our AD is content as is and doesn't want changes.

The thing is, if it stays 4, and as a result the Big 12 collapses, it makes it MUCH more difficult for ND to remain indy. I would think from a ND perspective that they would want Big 12 + 8 team playoff vs no Big 12 + 4 team playoff(with 4 power conferences).

correct, Notre Dame would be pretty much locked out of the playoff with no playoff expansion and a P4 consolidation

That's year's away, heck football maybe totally different by then.

It's a lot sooner than you would think. If the Big 12 was to dissipate it would start in about 4-5 years.

The question that I do have is do the Big 10 and SEC want the Big 12 to survive. I could see the answer to that question be yes.

All of the other P5 conferences want the Big 12 to stay intact if they can't get UT into their own conference. UT and OU staying in the Big 12 is better, to them, than UT being acquired by one of their competitors.

(10-19-2016 09:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:52 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:45 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  yep, and it would have a definite supporter in Notre Dame. ND doesn't want the Big 12 to go away.

I actually think we don't want it expanded, our AD is content as is and doesn't want changes.

The thing is, if it stays 4, and as a result the Big 12 collapses, it makes it MUCH more difficult for ND to remain indy. I would think from a ND perspective that they would want Big 12 + 8 team playoff vs no Big 12 + 4 team playoff(with 4 power conferences).

correct, Notre Dame would be pretty much locked out of the playoff with no playoff expansion and a P4 consolidation

I would disagree.

Notre Dame will ALWAYS receive special treatment.

Why? It's actually in the interest of the Big Ten and SEC to do so. There is NO reason for the Big Ten and SEC to "force" Notre Dame into a conference... because that conference would be the ACC.

Only in college football message board land would it make sense for the 2 most powerful entities in the sport (the Big Ten and SEC) to push arguably the most valuable school in the entire sport into the arms of their DIRECT COMPETITOR. That would be a ludicrous thing to do in the business world and it would be a ludicrous thing for the Big Ten and SEC to do.

There will be no "forcing" Notre Dame to do anything. Whenever you see a proposal come up that is supposedly going to negatively impact ND's independence, you can be assured that everyone involved will somehow find some way to make sure ND is happy. We saw it the creation of the CFP itself (where ND's AD himself was chosen to announce its formation), we saw it in scheduling practices of conferences (e.g. the Pac-12 won't allow non-conference games late in the season... unless those non-conference games happen to be against Notre Dame), we saw it in bowl arrangements (with the Orange Bowl tie-in plus access to the ACC's other bowls), and we saw it in pretty much every other instance in the recent history of college football.

Notre Dame will be fine... because the Big Ten and SEC need/want them to be fine. ND going to the ACC does NOT help the Big Ten or SEC whatsoever. This is a point that fans REALLY need to understand.

What treatment of ND would be with a P4 and only a 4 team playoff? It pretty much guarantees 98% of the time the playoff teams are the winner of the CCG of each conference.
I'm sure there would be a once every 10 years that a CCG champ has 4 losses in which ND or a zero loss G5 school gets in, but ND along with the other conferences are pretty much out of it in that scenario. If that is still good enough for ND then OK....but I really doubt that would be the case.

I do hope there is an expansion to 8 teams, because the keeps the G5 conferences in the hunt.

(10-19-2016 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  they aren't going to have slotted quarter finals Frank. I'm sorry but the SEC, Big 12, and ACC aren't going to have a scenario where the Big Ten and Pac 12 could have a year like 2009 where their champs were like 7 and 8- and get to play each other in a QF. And ND wouldn't want any part of that either. So you have 4 of 6 very powerful votes that are voting hell no to that. And TV wouldn't want it either.

Also, they aren't going to have it where the playoff is extended until the end of January. Absolutely no interest in that at all.

Could all of your arguments end up being true? Maybe.

However, saying "absolutely no interest in that at all" is simply your opinion. Remember that the people in college football were totally and completely against even a 4-team playoff system... until they weren't anymore. To me, it's a bit naive that these university presidents that have been pretty open that college football is all about TV money are going to die on the vine with a "Football should be a one-semester sport!" argument if ESPN is offering a gazillion dollars for more playoff games in January (which happen to be MUCH more valuable than playoff games in December when TV ratings overall are always down due to the holidays). I mean, university presidents *could* choose to die on that vine, but their actions about everything with respect to TV money make me quite skeptical that their worries about two teams playing a couple of weeks later in January than now will trump a ton of TV money.

Regardless, I have no problem with your opinions and believe that they are valid, but I do have a problem with you stating that your opinions are somehow absolute concrete facts. University presidents have pretty much zero credibility on any statements about what they think is the proper postseason procedures as evidenced by the fact that they were vehemently arguing that a 4-team playoff wasn't necessary only a few weeks before they decided to approve one. You put too much stock in their public statements on this particular issue.

The big thing is, and we've seen it with the playoff formation, is the other conferences just don't kiss the Big Ten/Pac 12/Rose Bowl tradition ring any longer. I think that's the big thing. I just do not see the ACC, SEC, and Big 12 saying ok Big Ten and Pac 12- you get your special matchup. Because there are years where like 2009 that would be 7 vs 8.

The timing of the Big 12's TV contract (ending after the 2024-25 season) lines up pretty nicely with the current College Football Playoff deal (ending after the 2025-26 season). The Big 12 should be able to defer extending its TV deal and GOR until it knows the CFP structure moving forward. In particular, expanding the CFP to 8 schools would require some lead time. The 4 teams format was approved two years in advance. A similar, or even greater, lead time would be necessary to go to 8 in order to arrange sites, etc.

Having said that, I for one like the 4 team format. It has preserved one of the things I like best about the sport - the "every week is a playoff game" feel. Moving to 8 would really diminish the importance of out of conference games. Out of conference season ending rivalry games may not even matter to schools preparing for a CCG. 3 or even 4 loss teams may make the playoff while 1 loss teams stay home.

(10-19-2016 10:10 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The timing of the Big 12's TV contract (ending after the 2024-25 season) lines up pretty nicely with the current College Football Playoff deal (ending after the 2025-26 season). The Big 12 should be able to defer extending its TV deal and GOR until it knows the CFP structure moving forward. In particular, expanding the CFP to 8 schools would require some lead time. The 4 teams format was approved two years in advance. A similar, or even greater, lead time would be necessary to go to 8 in order to arrange sites, etc.

Having said that, I for one like the 4 team format. It has preserved one of the things I like best about the sport - the "every week is a playoff game" feel. Moving to 8 would really diminish the importance of out of conference games. Out of conference season ending rivalry games may not even matter to schools preparing for a CCG. 3 or even 4 loss teams may make the playoff while 1 loss teams stay home.

Um, no.

2014 there were 8 0 or 1 loss teams.
2015 there were 6 0 or 1 loss P5 teams. (and only 7 2 loss teams)

so odds are really good that there wouldn't be any 1 loss p5 teams staying home in a 8 team playoff.

(10-19-2016 09:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  they aren't going to have slotted quarter finals Frank. I'm sorry but the SEC, Big 12, and ACC aren't going to have a scenario where the Big Ten and Pac 12 could have a year like 2009 where their champs were like 7 and 8- and get to play each other in a QF. And ND wouldn't want any part of that either. So you have 4 of 6 very powerful votes that are voting hell no to that. And TV wouldn't want it either.

Also, they aren't going to have it where the playoff is extended until the end of January. Absolutely no interest in that at all.

To another point, you point out 2009, but then ignore a year like 2014 where a Rose Bowl quarterfinal between #2 Oregon and #4 Ohio State would have been a much tougher matchup seeding-wise than any other quarterfinal. It can go both ways depending upon the year. You're likely going to find a lot more examples of where the at-large placements of teams are going to help the SEC, Big 12 and ACC much more than the locked-in Rose Bowl matchup.

Regardless, this isn't just about the Rose Bowl. Here is why the bowl tie-ins overall matter: they are the legal contractual mechanism to provide the auto-bids to the P5 (and *only* the P5) in the first place. If you bring together some oversight committee to arbitrarily decide that P5 get playoff auto-bids while no one else does, then you're inviting antitrust scrutiny. What the bowl tie-ins allow for is the argument that all of the conferences are able to go into the free market and have the freedom to contract in how they see fit. The Rose Bowl isn't contracting with the Big Ten and Pac-12 because some committee told them to do so. Instead, they're entering into a contract because the Rose Bowl believes that the Big Ten and Pac-12 are worth x amount of dollars in the free market (regardless of whether there is a playoff or not). Same thing with the Sugar Bowl with the SEC, and so on and so forth. By the same token, none of those bowls believe that any of the G5 conferences are worth that amount of money in the marketplace, so they can freely (and legally) not enter into contracts with them.

The upshot is that the bowl tie-ins allow the P5 to argue that they are simply worth more in the marketplace and that's why they get these contracts. They can also state the that G5 leagues are free to get their own contracts if they want and the P5 isn't preventing that at all, but it's not the P5's fault if the top bowls don't want them or would pay them much less.

However, once you remove those bowl tie-ins and have someone/thing start just saying that these 5 conferences get auto-bids while the other 5 don't (and more importantly, the money that comes with it... don't forget about the money), then that's when you start getting into antitrust issues or allegations that this is an illegal cartel.

Now, we can argue that the P5 is indeed a cartel, but the point is that the bowl contracts enable the P5 to have their power in a perfectly legal and contractual manner based on free market principles. That doesn't work if you have an NCAA Tournament-esque committee decide that the P5 deserves auto-bids while the G5 don't deserve them. The P5 can very easily defend themselves in court if they can argue that they're simply taking advantage of the free market based on their *financial* value. It's when they start saying that they're basing their P5 status on on-the-field performance that holes start getting poked.

Big 12 will be fine with the 4 team playoff imo. They'll have fewer teams than other conferences overall maybe, but they also only have 10 teams so that is expected. I also don't expect them to be really different long term (outside of the SEC and maybe Big Ten).

(10-19-2016 10:10 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  they aren't going to have slotted quarter finals Frank. I'm sorry but the SEC, Big 12, and ACC aren't going to have a scenario where the Big Ten and Pac 12 could have a year like 2009 where their champs were like 7 and 8- and get to play each other in a QF. And ND wouldn't want any part of that either. So you have 4 of 6 very powerful votes that are voting hell no to that. And TV wouldn't want it either.

Also, they aren't going to have it where the playoff is extended until the end of January. Absolutely no interest in that at all.

Could all of your arguments end up being true? Maybe.

However, saying "absolutely no interest in that at all" is simply your opinion. Remember that the people in college football were totally and completely against even a 4-team playoff system... until they weren't anymore. To me, it's a bit naive that these university presidents that have been pretty open that college football is all about TV money are going to die on the vine with a "Football should be a one-semester sport!" argument if ESPN is offering a gazillion dollars for more playoff games in January (which happen to be MUCH more valuable than playoff games in December when TV ratings overall are always down due to the holidays). I mean, university presidents *could* choose to die on that vine, but their actions about everything with respect to TV money make me quite skeptical that their worries about two teams playing a couple of weeks later in January than now will trump a ton of TV money.

Regardless, I have no problem with your opinions and believe that they are valid, but I do have a problem with you stating that your opinions are somehow absolute concrete facts. University presidents have pretty much zero credibility on any statements about what they think is the proper postseason procedures as evidenced by the fact that they were vehemently arguing that a 4-team playoff wasn't necessary only a few weeks before they decided to approve one. You put too much stock in their public statements on this particular issue.

The big thing is, and we've seen it with the playoff formation, is the other conferences just don't kiss the Big Ten/Pac 12/Rose Bowl tradition ring any longer. I think that's the big thing. I just do not see the ACC, SEC, and Big 12 saying ok Big Ten and Pac 12- you get your special matchup. Because there are years where like 2009 that would be 7 vs 8.

Really? I actually think the CFP process showed just how much the bowls are still entrenched in the system.

Regardless, I know that you seem to believe that the conferences care about on-the-field purity and performance as the be all end all. From my vantage point, I believe that the conferences care much more about maximizing money (and the playoff is simply another vessel to deliver more money). If you were to argue to me that the P5 would somehow be leaving money on the table because of these bowl tie-ins, then we might get somewhere. However, I just don't think an adherence to the seeding process (which, to be clear, is completely based on the opinion of a bunch of guys in a conference room in Dallas as opposed to some ironclad scientific analysis or proclamations from The Pope) is going to dictate the much more important financial goals of the P5.

(10-19-2016 10:10 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Having said that, I for one like the 4 team format. It has preserved one of the things I like best about the sport - the "every week is a playoff game" feel.

For who? A grand total of 12 teams a year? Don't believe the hype friend. Every week isn't a playoff for the majority of schools in FBS (or P5 for that matter). 8 actually keeps hope alive for more teams and creates more "every week a playoff game."

(10-19-2016 10:10 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Moving to 8 would really diminish the importance of out of conference games. Out of conference season ending rivalry games may not even matter to schools preparing for a CCG. 3 or even 4 loss teams may make the playoff while 1 loss teams stay home.

Going to eight would have no discernible affect on the regular season. 5 power bids, 1 auto for the g5 (if ranked in the top 15) and two at large. Every conference game is just as important as it is now. Those OOC rivalry games don't change one bit and rivalries are rivalries, there is more to them than playoff implications. They'll be fine.

The only thing more playoff hurts is the corrupt bowl system. That is a good thing.

looking at the last 10 years-
2015 3 vs 6
2014 2 vs 4
2013 4 vs 5
2012 4 vs ur
2011 5 vs 10
2010 2 vs 5
2009 7 vs 8
2008 5 vs 8
2007 1 vs 7
2006 1 vs 8

so in 2 years would have helped the other conferences, but in 4 of the years would have hurt the other conferences. The other 4 close enough to no big deal....

I just do not think TV wants a scenario where a- the #1 team would have a tougher game than 7th team, and b- a rose situation like 2014 where 2 and 4 meet in 1st round....

(10-19-2016 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:10 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  they aren't going to have slotted quarter finals Frank. I'm sorry but the SEC, Big 12, and ACC aren't going to have a scenario where the Big Ten and Pac 12 could have a year like 2009 where their champs were like 7 and 8- and get to play each other in a QF. And ND wouldn't want any part of that either. So you have 4 of 6 very powerful votes that are voting hell no to that. And TV wouldn't want it either.

Also, they aren't going to have it where the playoff is extended until the end of January. Absolutely no interest in that at all.

Could all of your arguments end up being true? Maybe.

However, saying "absolutely no interest in that at all" is simply your opinion. Remember that the people in college football were totally and completely against even a 4-team playoff system... until they weren't anymore. To me, it's a bit naive that these university presidents that have been pretty open that college football is all about TV money are going to die on the vine with a "Football should be a one-semester sport!" argument if ESPN is offering a gazillion dollars for more playoff games in January (which happen to be MUCH more valuable than playoff games in December when TV ratings overall are always down due to the holidays). I mean, university presidents *could* choose to die on that vine, but their actions about everything with respect to TV money make me quite skeptical that their worries about two teams playing a couple of weeks later in January than now will trump a ton of TV money.

Regardless, I have no problem with your opinions and believe that they are valid, but I do have a problem with you stating that your opinions are somehow absolute concrete facts. University presidents have pretty much zero credibility on any statements about what they think is the proper postseason procedures as evidenced by the fact that they were vehemently arguing that a 4-team playoff wasn't necessary only a few weeks before they decided to approve one. You put too much stock in their public statements on this particular issue.

The big thing is, and we've seen it with the playoff formation, is the other conferences just don't kiss the Big Ten/Pac 12/Rose Bowl tradition ring any longer. I think that's the big thing. I just do not see the ACC, SEC, and Big 12 saying ok Big Ten and Pac 12- you get your special matchup. Because there are years where like 2009 that would be 7 vs 8.

Really? I actually think the CFP process showed just how much the bowls are still entrenched in the system.

Regardless, I know that you seem to believe that the conferences care about on-the-field purity and performance as the be all end all. From my vantage point, I believe that the conferences care much more about maximizing money (and the playoff is simply another vessel to deliver more money). If you were to argue to me that the P5 would somehow be leaving money on the table because of these bowl tie-ins, then we might get somewhere. However, I just don't think an adherence to the seeding process (which, to be clear, is completely based on the opinion of a bunch of guys in a conference room in Dallas as opposed to some ironclad scientific analysis or proclamations from The Pope) is going to dictate the much more important financial goals of the P5.

I think the CFP formation though DID show how much things have changed. Instead of having it unseeded and based on precedence, they did the seedings. 2014 prime example. Ohio St and Oregon were both in the top 4. But did they play each other in the Rose Bowl? Nope.

(10-19-2016 10:30 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:10 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Having said that, I for one like the 4 team format. It has preserved one of the things I like best about the sport - the "every week is a playoff game" feel.

For who? A grand total of 12 teams a year? Don't believe the hype friend. Every week isn't a playoff for the majority of schools in FBS (or P5 for that matter). 8 actually keeps hope alive for more teams and creates more "every week a playoff game."

(10-19-2016 10:10 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Moving to 8 would really diminish the importance of out of conference games. Out of conference season ending rivalry games may not even matter to schools preparing for a CCG. 3 or even 4 loss teams may make the playoff while 1 loss teams stay home.

Going to eight would have no discernible affect on the regular season. 5 power bids, 1 auto for the g5 (if ranked in the top 15) and two at large. Every conference game is just as important as it is now. Those OOC rivalry games don't change one bit and rivalries are rivalries, there is more to them than playoff implications. They'll be fine.

The only thing more playoff hurts is the corrupt bowl system. That is a good thing.

Agreed.

An 8-team playoff is still very small, especially when looking at 120-plus FBS schools competing for those slots. It would still be, by a wide margin, the most exclusive and difficult postseason to gain a berth to in major American sports.

In fact, the benefit that I see is that we wouldn't just be looking at the national top 4 horse race and subjective "perception". Instead, we would be looking at the tangible and objective division races in each of the P5 auto-bid leagues and keeps (at least on paper) a much larger pool of schools that could conceivably make it to the playoff (by winning their conference) later into the season. I know people are worried about the devaluation of the huge top 10 matchups during the regular season, but those are still very relevant because the at-large pool is still so small. (This is VERY different than the NCAA Tournament.) Plus, many more fans are going to be able to watch THEIR team have at least an on-paper chance to make it to the playoff, which engenders a much different passion than simply watching OTHER teams competing for playoff spots. This is what the NFL does so well and why it gets such huge ratings week-to-week - teams aren't being eliminated from playoff contention in week one, so fans stick with watching their teams well into the season. I mean, I like watching big college games involving Ohio State and Alabama just as I like watching big NFL games involving the Patriots and Cowboys, but the difference is that Illinois is straight up eliminated from the national title race by week 2 or 3, whereas the Bears are still playing for a potential playoff spot for a longer period of time (at least most seasons... it's not happening this year). Only in college football do people seem to believe that only 10 or so schools having a chance at the national title by the end of the first month of the season is a good thing, as if the other 100-plus FBS schools in college football didn't exist.

Finally, at a "fairness" level (and I'm one of the people on this board that generally doesn't like "This is unfair!" complaints), the 8-team playoff would balance the objective component that college football has always lacked (win your P5 conference championship and you're in) and the subjective component that college football can still address (there is sometimes going to be a conference runner-up or independent that can beat anyone). Right now, it's 100% about the subjective component, when there should really be more of an emphasis on the objective component.

(10-19-2016 10:37 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:10 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  they aren't going to have slotted quarter finals Frank. I'm sorry but the SEC, Big 12, and ACC aren't going to have a scenario where the Big Ten and Pac 12 could have a year like 2009 where their champs were like 7 and 8- and get to play each other in a QF. And ND wouldn't want any part of that either. So you have 4 of 6 very powerful votes that are voting hell no to that. And TV wouldn't want it either.

Also, they aren't going to have it where the playoff is extended until the end of January. Absolutely no interest in that at all.

Could all of your arguments end up being true? Maybe.

However, saying "absolutely no interest in that at all" is simply your opinion. Remember that the people in college football were totally and completely against even a 4-team playoff system... until they weren't anymore. To me, it's a bit naive that these university presidents that have been pretty open that college football is all about TV money are going to die on the vine with a "Football should be a one-semester sport!" argument if ESPN is offering a gazillion dollars for more playoff games in January (which happen to be MUCH more valuable than playoff games in December when TV ratings overall are always down due to the holidays). I mean, university presidents *could* choose to die on that vine, but their actions about everything with respect to TV money make me quite skeptical that their worries about two teams playing a couple of weeks later in January than now will trump a ton of TV money.

Regardless, I have no problem with your opinions and believe that they are valid, but I do have a problem with you stating that your opinions are somehow absolute concrete facts. University presidents have pretty much zero credibility on any statements about what they think is the proper postseason procedures as evidenced by the fact that they were vehemently arguing that a 4-team playoff wasn't necessary only a few weeks before they decided to approve one. You put too much stock in their public statements on this particular issue.

The big thing is, and we've seen it with the playoff formation, is the other conferences just don't kiss the Big Ten/Pac 12/Rose Bowl tradition ring any longer. I think that's the big thing. I just do not see the ACC, SEC, and Big 12 saying ok Big Ten and Pac 12- you get your special matchup. Because there are years where like 2009 that would be 7 vs 8.

Really? I actually think the CFP process showed just how much the bowls are still entrenched in the system.

Regardless, I know that you seem to believe that the conferences care about on-the-field purity and performance as the be all end all. From my vantage point, I believe that the conferences care much more about maximizing money (and the playoff is simply another vessel to deliver more money). If you were to argue to me that the P5 would somehow be leaving money on the table because of these bowl tie-ins, then we might get somewhere. However, I just don't think an adherence to the seeding process (which, to be clear, is completely based on the opinion of a bunch of guys in a conference room in Dallas as opposed to some ironclad scientific analysis or proclamations from The Pope) is going to dictate the much more important financial goals of the P5.

I think the CFP formation though DID show how much things have changed. Instead of having it unseeded and based on precedence, they did the seedings. 2014 prime example. Ohio St and Oregon were both in the top 4. But did they play each other in the Rose Bowl? Nope.

I understand that in the context of today's system, but we're also talking about a potential change (presumably) to an 8-team playoff WITH auto-bids. As I explained above, that makes things much more complicated from a legal perspective than a 4-team playoff WITHOUT auto-bids. You can have a purely seed based system from the P5 perspective because auto-bids aren't involved - the P5 has argued that the playoff is simply based on the "top 4 teams" regardless of conference affiliation (or non-affiliation in the context of independents). On paper, the G5 has "equal access" in the same manner as the P5. (We know that this isn't the reality, but the system is structured to reflect this on paper.)

That changes a lot in an 8-team playoff if the P5 wants auto-bids (which I would presume is the only reason why the P5 would want an 8-team playoff in the first place). What the P5 would be saying is that there's a playoff, but their P5 champs all automatically get in while the G5 no longer have the same "equal access". As a result, the legal and contractual mechanism for the P5 to obtain auto-bids is via the bowl tie-ins that I've stated. Those tie-ins allow the P5 to state that each bowl has the freedom to contract with whoever they want and they just happened to decide "all on their own" to enter into contracts with the P5 on an individual basis. Thus, the "equal access" that the P5 is providing to the G5 is the ability to enter into their own contracts with those top bowls. Now, once again, we know the reality is that none of the G5 would be able to get contracts with those top bowls, but this is the legal step that the P5 needs to take.

Taking it a step further, you have to allow the bowls and conferences to "decide on their own". Otherwise, it becomes an illegal collusion situation and/or cartel. You're focused on the Rose Bowl (with both the Big Ten and Pac-12), but the point is that there can't be some outside force saying that they CAN'T enter into those contracts or else the entire legal argument falls apart. The SEC, ACC and Big 12 all need their own tie-ins with whoever they choose, too, in order for this to pass legal muster. If you just put all of those conference champs into a pool with 4 bowls, then you're getting back into a potential illegal collusion situation again.

Once again, you're focused on competitive playoff purity. I believe that the real focus of the conferences is about money and power... and the bowl tie-ins are the legal hammer through which they maintain that money and power.

(10-19-2016 11:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:37 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:10 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Could all of your arguments end up being true? Maybe.

However, saying "absolutely no interest in that at all" is simply your opinion. Remember that the people in college football were totally and completely against even a 4-team playoff system... until they weren't anymore. To me, it's a bit naive that these university presidents that have been pretty open that college football is all about TV money are going to die on the vine with a "Football should be a one-semester sport!" argument if ESPN is offering a gazillion dollars for more playoff games in January (which happen to be MUCH more valuable than playoff games in December when TV ratings overall are always down due to the holidays). I mean, university presidents *could* choose to die on that vine, but their actions about everything with respect to TV money make me quite skeptical that their worries about two teams playing a couple of weeks later in January than now will trump a ton of TV money.

Regardless, I have no problem with your opinions and believe that they are valid, but I do have a problem with you stating that your opinions are somehow absolute concrete facts. University presidents have pretty much zero credibility on any statements about what they think is the proper postseason procedures as evidenced by the fact that they were vehemently arguing that a 4-team playoff wasn't necessary only a few weeks before they decided to approve one. You put too much stock in their public statements on this particular issue.

The big thing is, and we've seen it with the playoff formation, is the other conferences just don't kiss the Big Ten/Pac 12/Rose Bowl tradition ring any longer. I think that's the big thing. I just do not see the ACC, SEC, and Big 12 saying ok Big Ten and Pac 12- you get your special matchup. Because there are years where like 2009 that would be 7 vs 8.

Really? I actually think the CFP process showed just how much the bowls are still entrenched in the system.

Regardless, I know that you seem to believe that the conferences care about on-the-field purity and performance as the be all end all. From my vantage point, I believe that the conferences care much more about maximizing money (and the playoff is simply another vessel to deliver more money). If you were to argue to me that the P5 would somehow be leaving money on the table because of these bowl tie-ins, then we might get somewhere. However, I just don't think an adherence to the seeding process (which, to be clear, is completely based on the opinion of a bunch of guys in a conference room in Dallas as opposed to some ironclad scientific analysis or proclamations from The Pope) is going to dictate the much more important financial goals of the P5.

I think the CFP formation though DID show how much things have changed. Instead of having it unseeded and based on precedence, they did the seedings. 2014 prime example. Ohio St and Oregon were both in the top 4. But did they play each other in the Rose Bowl? Nope.

I understand that in the context of today's system, but we're also talking about a potential change (presumably) to an 8-team playoff WITH auto-bids. As I explained above, that makes things much more complicated from a legal perspective than a 4-team playoff WITHOUT auto-bids. You can have a purely seed based system from the P5 perspective because auto-bids aren't involved - the P5 has argued that the playoff is simply based on the "top 4 teams" regardless of conference affiliation (or non-affiliation in the context of independents). On paper, the G5 has "equal access" in the same manner as the P5. (We know that this isn't the reality, but the system is structured to reflect this on paper.)

That changes a lot in an 8-team playoff if the P5 wants auto-bids (which I would presume is the only reason why the P5 would want an 8-team playoff in the first place). What the P5 would be saying is that there's a playoff, but their P5 champs all automatically get in while the G5 no longer have the same "equal access". As a result, the legal and contractual mechanism for the P5 to obtain auto-bids is via the bowl tie-ins that I've stated. Those tie-ins allow the P5 to state that each bowl has the freedom to contract with whoever they want and they just happened to decide "all on their own" to enter into contracts with the P5 on an individual basis. Thus, the "equal access" that the P5 is providing to the G5 is the ability to enter into their own contracts with those top bowls. Now, once again, we know the reality is that none of the G5 would be able to get contracts with those top bowls, but this is the legal step that the P5 needs to take.

Taking it a step further, you have to allow the bowls and conferences to "decide on their own". Otherwise, it becomes an illegal collusion situation and/or cartel. You're focused on the Rose Bowl (with both the Big Ten and Pac-12), but the point is that there can't be some outside force saying that they CAN'T enter into those contracts or else the entire legal argument falls apart. The SEC, ACC and Big 12 all need their own tie-ins with whoever they choose, too, in order for this to pass legal muster. If you just put all of those conference champs into a pool with 4 bowls, then you're getting back into a potential illegal collusion situation again.

Once again, you're focused on competitive playoff purity. I believe that the real focus of the conferences is about money and power... and the bowl tie-ins are the legal hammer through which they maintain that money and power.

Right, but they could say that it's those 5 conferences, but the committee has the ability to set the matchups on a 1-8 basis. Where a team is not forced to play in original bowl. Kind of like the original 8 team BCS.

But also- if the G5 has a provision to get in- if they're ranked 8 or higher automatically- they could go along with it.

(10-19-2016 08:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:45 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:39 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Hmmm....I forgot about a playoff expansion. That would definitely solidify the ground the Big 12 is on right now and would hold the conference together.

yep, and it would have a definite supporter in Notre Dame. ND doesn't want the Big 12 to go away.

I actually think we don't want it expanded, our AD is content as is and doesn't want changes.

The thing is, if it stays 4, and as a result the Big 12 collapses, it makes it MUCH more difficult for ND to remain indy. I would think from a ND perspective that they would want Big 12 + 8 team playoff vs no Big 12 + 4 team playoff(with 4 power conferences).

Swarbrick consistently says he is not in favor of expansion of the playoffs.

(10-19-2016 11:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Right, but they could say that it's those 5 conferences, but the committee has the ability to set the matchups on a 1-8 basis. Where a team is not forced to play in original bowl. Kind of like the original 8 team BCS.

But also- if the G5 has a provision to get in- if they're ranked 8 or higher automatically- they could go along with it.

That could happen with the committee has the ability to set the matchups, but that's actually where the old BCS system got into trouble and started inviting legal scrutiny. Remember that the original 8 team BCS still had the tie-ins - it's just that they agreed to give up a tie-in that made it to the national championship game. The main difference between the 8-team BCS and the later 10-team version of the BCS is that the bowls under the 8-team BCS didn't receive a right of first refusal to replace a lost tie-in with a school from the same conference (e.g. if the Rose Bowl lost USC to the national title game, it didn't have a right of first refusal over the other BCS bowls to replace them with another then-Pac-10 team), whereas the later 10-team BCS provided that right of first refusal.

The AQ/non-AQ formula is what got the BCS into legal trouble since it started creating criteria where the a non-AQ league could conceivably get AQ status. When the MWC started coming close to or beating the old Big East on that criteria, a lot of red flags went up. That's why the new CFP process (a) went to an opaque committee-based process that doesn't have any quantitative component at all and (b) defined a class of bowls that are LITERALLY named "Contract Bowls". I mean, they're not even hiding the fact that this is completely based on free market contracts (as opposed to merit or on-the-field criteria) because that's how they completely avoid the question of "Why doesn't the AAC or MWC or anyone else get an auto-bid?"

(10-19-2016 09:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:52 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:45 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  yep, and it would have a definite supporter in Notre Dame. ND doesn't want the Big 12 to go away.

I actually think we don't want it expanded, our AD is content as is and doesn't want changes.

The thing is, if it stays 4, and as a result the Big 12 collapses, it makes it MUCH more difficult for ND to remain indy. I would think from a ND perspective that they would want Big 12 + 8 team playoff vs no Big 12 + 4 team playoff(with 4 power conferences).

correct, Notre Dame would be pretty much locked out of the playoff with no playoff expansion and a P4 consolidation

I would disagree.

Notre Dame will ALWAYS receive special treatment.

Why? It's actually in the interest of the Big Ten and SEC to do so. There is NO reason for the Big Ten and SEC to "force" Notre Dame into a conference... because that conference would be the ACC.

Only in college football message board land would it make sense for the 2 most powerful entities in the sport (the Big Ten and SEC) to push arguably the most valuable school in the entire sport into the arms of their DIRECT COMPETITOR. That would be a ludicrous thing to do in the business world and it would be a ludicrous thing for the Big Ten and SEC to do.

There will be no "forcing" Notre Dame to do anything. Whenever you see a proposal come up that is supposedly going to negatively impact ND's independence, you can be assured that everyone involved will somehow find some way to make sure ND is happy. We saw it the creation of the CFP itself (where ND's AD himself was chosen to announce its formation), we saw it in scheduling practices of conferences (e.g. the Pac-12 won't allow non-conference games late in the season... unless those non-conference games happen to be against Notre Dame), we saw it in bowl arrangements (with the Orange Bowl tie-in plus access to the ACC's other bowls), and we saw it in pretty much every other instance in the recent history of college football.

Notre Dame will be fine... because the Big Ten and SEC need/want them to be fine. ND going to the ACC does NOT help the Big Ten or SEC whatsoever. This is a point that fans REALLY need to understand.

I have been saying this for over a decade on this board and its prior Big East Conference predecessor. Thanks for this post, Frank.

(10-19-2016 09:55 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:52 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 08:45 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  I actually think we don't want it expanded, our AD is content as is and doesn't want changes.

The thing is, if it stays 4, and as a result the Big 12 collapses, it makes it MUCH more difficult for ND to remain indy. I would think from a ND perspective that they would want Big 12 + 8 team playoff vs no Big 12 + 4 team playoff(with 4 power conferences).

correct, Notre Dame would be pretty much locked out of the playoff with no playoff expansion and a P4 consolidation

I would disagree.

Notre Dame will ALWAYS receive special treatment.

Why? It's actually in the interest of the Big Ten and SEC to do so. There is NO reason for the Big Ten and SEC to "force" Notre Dame into a conference... because that conference would be the ACC.

Only in college football message board land would it make sense for the 2 most powerful entities in the sport (the Big Ten and SEC) to push arguably the most valuable school in the entire sport into the arms of their DIRECT COMPETITOR. That would be a ludicrous thing to do in the business world and it would be a ludicrous thing for the Big Ten and SEC to do.

There will be no "forcing" Notre Dame to do anything. Whenever you see a proposal come up that is supposedly going to negatively impact ND's independence, you can be assured that everyone involved will somehow find some way to make sure ND is happy. We saw it the creation of the CFP itself (where ND's AD himself was chosen to announce its formation), we saw it in scheduling practices of conferences (e.g. the Pac-12 won't allow non-conference games late in the season... unless those non-conference games happen to be against Notre Dame), we saw it in bowl arrangements (with the Orange Bowl tie-in plus access to the ACC's other bowls), and we saw it in pretty much every other instance in the recent history of college football.

Notre Dame will be fine... because the Big Ten and SEC need/want them to be fine. ND going to the ACC does NOT help the Big Ten or SEC whatsoever. This is a point that fans REALLY need to understand.

What treatment of ND would be with a P4 and only a 4 team playoff? It pretty much guarantees 98% of the time the playoff teams are the winner of the CCG of each conference.
I'm sure there would be a once every 10 years that a CCG champ has 4 losses in which ND or a zero loss G5 school gets in, but ND along with the other conferences are pretty much out of it in that scenario. If that is still good enough for ND then OK....but I really doubt that would be the case.

I do hope there is an expansion to 8 teams, because the keeps the G5 conferences in the hunt.

Yes, it actually will. Independence, by and for itself, is that important to ND.

If we are at a P4, and the committee's charge is for conference champs to get priority, I don't see how ND can remain indy. P4 for Notre Dame does them no favors at all. NONE.

(10-19-2016 11:43 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If we are at a P4, and the committee's charge is for conference champs to get priority, I don't see how ND can remain indy. P4 for Notre Dame does them no favors at all. NONE.

Well, you have been wrong before and you may just end up being wrong again.

Time will tell.