Quote:Of course, there is the prospect much of the CFP landscape, and potentially the rest of the bowl picture as well, could be shaken up by the expansion of the College Football Playoff from four to eight teams. In January, former CBS Sports president Neal Pilson predicted the CFP would expand during the length of its current contract.

Pilson cited two factors: rights fees and competitive pressures. Pilson estimated rights fees paid by ESPN to the CFP could jump from the current $7.2 billion to $10 billion for an eight-team playoff. He also cited a reprise of SEC fatigue with this past season’s Alabama-Georgia final, similar to the SEC fatigue after the 2011 season ended with a BCS championship game between LSU and Alabama that led to the creation of the CFP in the first place.

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/...0fbc3.html

To me, it’s always been a matter of when not if

(07-03-2018 10:15 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  To me, it’s always been a matter of when not if

My thinking as well.

They'll kick the can down the road until the end of the current CFP contract so they can postpone dealing with issues that cause conflicts, like

-- All 8 teams chosen by committee, or autobids plus a few teams chosen by committee?

-- Championship game stays where it is, with first round of playoffs about Dec. 20, or champ game moves a week later and first round is played on New Year's weekend?

-- Bowl games continue to "host" playoff games, or all 7 games are run by CFP with bowls getting only non-playoff teams and being outside the CFP contract?

-- And, of course, who gets how much of the $10 billion? (Don't worry, Delany, we won't give any to the players - they should be grateful just to have a scholarship, right?)

Can’t help but think some who remain opposed to the idea of expansion would be like, “oh, it’s only 39%?”

Here’s another shocker like this value increase from expanding the playoff...water is wet.

Old Delany will hopefully be retired by that point. He is the epitome of greed.

Replaced by a new generation of administrators who want to see every one prosper.

(07-04-2018 01:00 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Can’t help but think some who remain opposed to the idea of expansion would be like, “oh, it’s only 39%?”

Here’s another shocker like this value increase from expanding the playoff...water is wet.

That may not be enough of an increase to justify going from three games (semifinals and championship) to seven games (quarterfinals, semifinals, and championships).

Now, four of those eight teams would likely be pulling down a greater share of revenue from playing that extra game, so schools could be coming out ahead in absolute terms. The value from the expanded playoff has to exceed that of whatever it replaces - likely two non-CFP bowls. I doubt Conference Championship Games would be on the table as well, but for the right price those could be sacrificed; it would also give the CFP good cover for concerns about concussions and injuries from teams playing a sixteenth game.

I would agree to it only if they give the entire $10 billion to the players.

(07-04-2018 07:56 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  I would agree to it only if they give the entire $10 billion to the players.

Which players?

(07-04-2018 08:43 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 07:56 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  I would agree to it only if they give the entire $10 billion to the players.

Which players?

The ones on the bench and practice squads.

I could live with it as long as there are no automatic bids. Just pick the best 8 teams by some combination of independent ranking services. Take six of them, throw out the highest and lowest ranking for each school and average the rest.

I would extend the season, but not at the end. I'd add a week by starting one week earlier. We're all Jonesing for college football by late August anyway. Give us some relief.

As long as the G5 gets a guaranteed spot I would be all for it. Let the P5 conference champs get an auto bid and then let the committee choose the other 2 teams (would obviously be P5s.)

(07-04-2018 02:12 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Old Delany will hopefully be retired by that point. He is the epitome of greed.

Replaced by a new generation of administrators who want to see every one prosper.

You realize that it has been under Delany that the BCS was created that established a 2-team playoff, and then the CFP which is a 4-team playoff, right?

You realize that it has been while Delany has been B1G commissioner that traditional non-powers have never had it so good in terms of bowl access, money, and exposure, right?

IMO, USF picked the perfect time to start a football program, in 1997 on the cusp of the BCS era. That allowed us to quickly ramp up to a modicum of football notoriety. Whereas had we created a program in 1967, we probably would have remained invisible to anyone outside of the Tampa area for the next 30 years.

This is absolutely the best time ever to have a "G" football program, so why all the complaining?

What the media situation looks like will obviously greatly influence the direction. I wouldn't be surprised if we went to 12 or even 16 within 20-25 years, bracket creep is a real thing.

The question of "auto bid" really boils down to the confidence level of the conferences. If the selection committee is charged with giving significant weight to winning a conference championship, it sort of works itself out unless you field a champion with a terrible record by having upsets in your title game when one division is producing 3 loss champions.

If you are worried that your champion isn't going to be one of the 10 or 12 best then yeah you want auto bids, as long as you can get your champion to around 12 then the "weight" given for winning a championship ought to put you in.

Once the committee started putting non-champs in the playoff, thus leaving at least two P5 champs out every year that they do that, it decreased the believability of the committee's "We'll give a lot of weight to conference titles" rhetoric, and increased the chances that autobids will be included in the next playoff expansion.

But, if the TV guys paying the money prefer that a committee select all 8 teams, then money will probably win out over FOMO.

(07-04-2018 03:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Once the committee started putting non-champs in the playoff, thus leaving at least two P5 champs out every year that they do that, it decreased the believability of the committee's "We'll give a lot of weight to conference titles" rhetoric, and increased the chances that autobids will be included in the next playoff expansion.

But, if the TV guys paying the money prefer that a committee select all 8 teams, then money will probably win out over FOMO.

I'm not sure the P5 care much about conference champs missing the playoffs. The B1G, for example, put up basically zero fuss about Ohio State missing out this past year.

The P5 like the CFP money situation and they know that college football, for 120 years, has never had a process that auto-included conference champs. The CFP has allowed at least 3, and in most of its years 4, major conference champs a chance to compete for the title, that's way more opportunity than ever has existed before.

So IMO, money alone will determine if the playoffs expand to 8 next go round or not.

Not necessarily speaking about you, but seems that this forum has a lot of posters who are young, who basically have grown up watching college football in the BCS era, and don't know much about how things historically were. So to them, the lack of a big elaborate formal playoff system with conference champ slots seems outrageous, and it also makes them believe that its coming is inevitable.

What people always miss is how much regular season value would be lost. Any playofff expansion will of course increase playoff money. It will also diminish regular season value though as the stakes will be smaller. #1 loosing in a any week wont be nearly as big of a deal and the ability of conferences to get fans from other regions (outside their cores) to watch will be far harder.

If you are on the east coast for instance it wont particurally matter is USC looses a game in October when ranked high as they will almost certainly still control their destiny and the PAC-12 is probably getting a spot regardless. Meanwhile, the teams from your conference are probably getting a spot or two in regardless too.

This sport is at its core a regional one that has become national in the regular season laregly because of the setup. Diminish that and you get a bigger version of basketball (local following of most teams in the regular season and only huge national folllowing for the post season).

(07-04-2018 04:13 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  What people always miss is how much regular season value would be lost. Any playofff expansion will of course increase playoff money. It will also diminish regular season value though as the stakes will be smaller. #1 loosing in a any week wont be nearly as big of a deal and the ability of conferences to get fans from other regions (outside their cores) to watch will be far harder.

If you are on the east coast for instance it wont particurally matter is USC looses a game in October when ranked high as they will almost certainly still control their destiny and the PAC-12 is probably getting a spot regardless. Meanwhile, the teams from your conference are probably getting a spot or two in regardless too.

This sport is at its core a regional one that has become national in the regular season laregly because of the setup. Diminish that and you get a bigger version of basketball (local following of most teams in the regular season and only huge national folllowing for the post season).

????
Having the autobid of conferences increases the importance of the regular season.

I have no doubt it will go to 8

The sticking point will be autobids.

The B12 is desperate for an autobids to keep their Conference viable. The SEC and B1G will probably not want them and instead just Top 8 ranked teams so they can max their number of teams. PAC and ACC might be split on the issue.

(07-04-2018 06:59 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 01:00 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Can’t help but think some who remain opposed to the idea of expansion would be like, “oh, it’s only 39%?”

Here’s another shocker like this value increase from expanding the playoff...water is wet.

That may not be enough of an increase to justify going from three games (semifinals and championship) to seven games (quarterfinals, semifinals, and championships).

Now, four of those eight teams would likely be pulling down a greater share of revenue from playing that extra game, so schools could be coming out ahead in absolute terms. The value from the expanded playoff has to exceed that of whatever it replaces - likely two non-CFP bowls. I doubt Conference Championship Games would be on the table as well, but for the right price those could be sacrificed; it would also give the CFP good cover for concerns about concussions and injuries from teams playing a sixteenth game.

Arguing against playing a 16th game is stupid, even high school teams do it