(07-27-2017 05:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Speaking of cupcakes, Mike Leach addressed this issue at Pac-12 media days and said everyone should go the other way and play 8 conference games like the SEC:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/...ach_l.html

Quote:During Pac-12 Media Days, Leach was asked: "Do you think it's fair that the SEC has four non-conference games with one of them usually in November when most of the rest of the country -- I think they nicknamed it the Cupcake Wars -- where most of the country is in rivalry games and the meat of the conference schedule?"

Here is Leach's response: "I think it's very smart by the SEC, and I think it's a lesson we can learn from the SEC," he said. "I think there is a lot of kind of figurative muscle flexing that goes on with regard to how many conference games and who plays who and who they play non-conference, and all this chest beating is kind of -- quite overrated. I think it's important to win your conference. I think as a result of that, I think the SEC laughs all the way to the bank. And I think other conferences would be able to laugh a little louder if we learned some of those things."

Leach also said he would be ok with more conference games as long as everyone played the same number of them.

I think the PAC-12 can and should play 8 conference games. Being at 12 members makes is pretty comfortable to play 8 games. Not only that but it would help the PAC have move bowl eligible teams.

The PAC playing 9 games with 10 members gave the conference extra losses but it also provide a champion for the most part. Now at 12 members they should move down to 8 with the addition of the CCG.

(07-31-2017 05:08 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-27-2017 05:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Speaking of cupcakes, Mike Leach addressed this issue at Pac-12 media days and said everyone should go the other way and play 8 conference games like the SEC:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/...ach_l.html

Quote:During Pac-12 Media Days, Leach was asked: "Do you think it's fair that the SEC has four non-conference games with one of them usually in November when most of the rest of the country -- I think they nicknamed it the Cupcake Wars -- where most of the country is in rivalry games and the meat of the conference schedule?"

Here is Leach's response: "I think it's very smart by the SEC, and I think it's a lesson we can learn from the SEC," he said. "I think there is a lot of kind of figurative muscle flexing that goes on with regard to how many conference games and who plays who and who they play non-conference, and all this chest beating is kind of -- quite overrated. I think it's important to win your conference. I think as a result of that, I think the SEC laughs all the way to the bank. And I think other conferences would be able to laugh a little louder if we learned some of those things."

Leach also said he would be ok with more conference games as long as everyone played the same number of them.

I think the PAC-12 can and should play 8 conference games. Being at 12 members makes is pretty comfortable to play 8 games. Not only that but it would help the PAC have move bowl eligible teams.

The PAC playing 9 games with 10 members gave the conference extra losses but it also provide a champion for the most part. Now at 12 members they should move down to 8 with the addition of the CCG.

The issue is that the PNW teams want as many games vs. USC and UCLA as they can get. Eight conference games with the current divisions would mean fewer LA games for the PNW teams.

If the Pac played 8 conference games and realigned the divisions to make them geographically correct -- i.e., the California and Arizona teams in the south, and Utah and Colorado joining the Oregon and Washington schools in the north -- then each PNW team would get either USC or UCLA each season, which is exactly what they get now.

(07-31-2017 09:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:08 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-27-2017 05:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Speaking of cupcakes, Mike Leach addressed this issue at Pac-12 media days and said everyone should go the other way and play 8 conference games like the SEC:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/...ach_l.html

Quote:During Pac-12 Media Days, Leach was asked: "Do you think it's fair that the SEC has four non-conference games with one of them usually in November when most of the rest of the country -- I think they nicknamed it the Cupcake Wars -- where most of the country is in rivalry games and the meat of the conference schedule?"

Here is Leach's response: "I think it's very smart by the SEC, and I think it's a lesson we can learn from the SEC," he said. "I think there is a lot of kind of figurative muscle flexing that goes on with regard to how many conference games and who plays who and who they play non-conference, and all this chest beating is kind of -- quite overrated. I think it's important to win your conference. I think as a result of that, I think the SEC laughs all the way to the bank. And I think other conferences would be able to laugh a little louder if we learned some of those things."

Leach also said he would be ok with more conference games as long as everyone played the same number of them.

I think the PAC-12 can and should play 8 conference games. Being at 12 members makes is pretty comfortable to play 8 games. Not only that but it would help the PAC have move bowl eligible teams.

The PAC playing 9 games with 10 members gave the conference extra losses but it also provide a champion for the most part. Now at 12 members they should move down to 8 with the addition of the CCG.

The issue is that the PNW teams want as many games vs. USC and UCLA as they can get. Eight conference games with the current divisions would mean fewer LA games for the PNW teams.

If the Pac played 8 conference games and realigned the divisions to make them geographically correct -- i.e., the California and Arizona teams in the south, and Utah and Colorado joining the Oregon and Washington schools in the north -- then each PNW team would get either USC or UCLA each season, which is exactly what they get now.

I thought having Cal and Stanford in the North division was a bigger issue than SoCal for the PNW schools.

(07-31-2017 10:14 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 09:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:08 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-27-2017 05:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Speaking of cupcakes, Mike Leach addressed this issue at Pac-12 media days and said everyone should go the other way and play 8 conference games like the SEC:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/...ach_l.html

Quote:During Pac-12 Media Days, Leach was asked: "Do you think it's fair that the SEC has four non-conference games with one of them usually in November when most of the rest of the country -- I think they nicknamed it the Cupcake Wars -- where most of the country is in rivalry games and the meat of the conference schedule?"

Here is Leach's response: "I think it's very smart by the SEC, and I think it's a lesson we can learn from the SEC," he said. "I think there is a lot of kind of figurative muscle flexing that goes on with regard to how many conference games and who plays who and who they play non-conference, and all this chest beating is kind of -- quite overrated. I think it's important to win your conference. I think as a result of that, I think the SEC laughs all the way to the bank. And I think other conferences would be able to laugh a little louder if we learned some of those things."

Leach also said he would be ok with more conference games as long as everyone played the same number of them.

I think the PAC-12 can and should play 8 conference games. Being at 12 members makes is pretty comfortable to play 8 games. Not only that but it would help the PAC have move bowl eligible teams.

The PAC playing 9 games with 10 members gave the conference extra losses but it also provide a champion for the most part. Now at 12 members they should move down to 8 with the addition of the CCG.

The issue is that the PNW teams want as many games vs. USC and UCLA as they can get. Eight conference games with the current divisions would mean fewer LA games for the PNW teams.

If the Pac played 8 conference games and realigned the divisions to make them geographically correct -- i.e., the California and Arizona teams in the south, and Utah and Colorado joining the Oregon and Washington schools in the north -- then each PNW team would get either USC or UCLA each season, which is exactly what they get now.

I thought having Cal and Stanford in the North division was a bigger issue than SoCal for the PNW schools.

It was a bigger issue for Larry Scott, for sure. His perspective was the TV perspective. If you align geographically, the top three Pac-12 markets are in one division.

The coaches of the PNW football teams want to maximize the USC/UCLA games because that's where the people are. The five southernmost counties (LA, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego) have 21 million people combined. And even on a per capita basis, there's more blue-chip high school football talent in SoCal than in NorCal or anywhere else in the conference.

With the 4 California schools in one division, the conference wouldn't have annual football crossover games and the Washington/Oregon teams would get more games vs. USC and UCLA. As it is now, the PNW teams play USC or UCLA twice each every 6 years in a 9-game conference schedule and have 2 years out of each 6 with neither on their schedule. In an 8-game schedule with all 4 California teams in the south, the PNW teams would get more USC/UCLA games; they would play one of the SoCal teams each season.

With the 8-game schedule, the PNW teams would get the same number of games in SOUTHERN California (once every other year), but they would get fewer games in northern California (every other year, instead of every year)...and thus, fewer games in California overall.

Right now, the PNW teams play in California every year and TWICE in California every other year.

(07-27-2017 01:11 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Where do I sign up?

I say expand the playoff to 8, but no more.

Let the leagues keep the conference championship games though. Winners get an auto-bid to the playoff. The other 4 can be chosen at-large. I'm assuming there will only be a P4 by the time this sort of thing could be arranged thus 4 auto-bids.

I'm ok with adding a 13th as long as its against an FCS or G5. Maybe that can be the traditional homecoming game or something so everyone gets that 7th home game.

If you add a preseason game, keep the CCG, and have three rounds with an expanded CFP of 8 teams you are stretching the season for the finalists to 17 games. I think that is at least 1 game too many and probably 2 games two many. If you move to an expanded CFP I think the CCG's are history. Why would a strong #2 in any power conference want to risk a shot at the CFP by playing in the CCG where if they lose somebody's #3 could slip into their spot? Do that and you might sell a 16th game for the finalists.

(08-03-2017 01:57 PM)YNot Wrote:  With the 8-game schedule, the PNW teams would get the same number of games in SOUTHERN California (once every other year)

... which is what the PNW football coaches care about, because southern California has 2.5x as many people and probably 4x as much blue-chip HS football talent as northern California. NorCal by itself is probably a better recruiting ground than any other state in the pacific or mountain time zones, but not anywhere near as productive as SoCal.

(08-03-2017 02:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Why would a strong #2 in any power conference want to risk a shot at the CFP by playing in the CCG where if they lose somebody's #3 could slip into their spot?

That argument is fine -- the Big 12 used it as an excuse for many years -- but the CCG's won't go away unless it's auto bids for the top 2 in a P4 and the updated CFP TV deal compensates those four conferences extra on top for the lost CCG.

That kills one of the current P confs, and explicitly shuts out the G6 from ever getting to the playoff. For the G6 to agree to that, they'd need some hefty compensation in way of money and multiple bids to major bowls. Might still turn it down.

(08-03-2017 02:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 02:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Why would a strong #2 in any power conference want to risk a shot at the CFP by playing in the CCG where if they lose somebody's #3 could slip into their spot?

That argument is fine -- the Big 12 used it as an excuse for many years -- but the CCG's won't go away unless it's auto bids for the top 2 in a P4 and the updated CFP TV deal compensates those four conferences extra on top for the lost CCG.

That kills one of the current P confs, and explicitly shuts out the G6 from ever getting to the playoff. For the G6 to agree to that, they'd need some hefty compensation in way of money and multiple bids to major bowls. Might still turn it down.

As to compensation for the remaining P4 to eliminate the CCG, absolutely it would have to be more lucrative before the move would be made.

As to the G5 which might likely become a G4, it won't happen until they have their own playoff and while there is resistance to that right now, 6 more years of growing economic disparity will eventually force them to go for that extra cash.

OK, I see your angle. Get the G_ buyoff by giving them their own playoff. Don't know if I agree that is how it will go ... but it is plausible.

How are you going to condense G6 (including, I'm assuming you're assuming Big 12 will get raided) down to G4??

(08-03-2017 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  OK, I see your angle. Get the G_ buyoff by giving them their own playoff. Don't know if I agree that is how it will go ... but it is plausible.

How are you going to condense G6 (including, I'm assuming you're assuming Big 12 will get raided) down to G4??

The content value for Texas and Oklahoma is just too strong to whatever other P conference they wind up joining and the rest of the Big 12 so uninspiring to a national audience that I don't see them hanging together. And to put that into perspective Texas and Oklahoma both carry their states. The combined population of Texas and Oklahoma equals 79.9% of the total population of the Big 12. So find homes for those two schools and you reap 80% of the benefit of paying all of the Big 12 for content.

Now will some other Big 12 schools find homes? I think definitely 2 will and possibly as many as 5 will.

As for the G5 the talk has already started among coaches for a playoff. That doesn't happen without the AD's pushing it. And the AD's are pushing it because they have to pay for the other Title IX sports and basketball doesn't pay the bills.

I haven't seen anyone on here saying that the reason G5 AD would be pushing a separate G5 CFP is to get more money. I've only ever seen it in the context of something like "we're never going to compete with the P5 teams, so we want to be able to crown our own 'national champion' in a sense".

But I do agree that the former is a plausible scenario ... if the CFP will actually agree to pay for that. Be interesting to see how much money the TV networks thing a G5 CFP is worth ... obviously less, but then again they pay for all the bowl games ... of course if you start killing bowl games in favor of a G5 CFP, then you're losing payout money from the bowls.

(08-03-2017 03:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I haven't seen anyone on here saying that the reason G5 AD would be pushing a separate G5 CFP is to get more money. I've only ever seen it in the context of something like "we're never going to compete with the P5 teams, so we want to be able to crown our own 'national champion' in a sense".

But I do agree that the former is a plausible scenario ... if the CFP will actually agree to pay for that. Be interesting to see how much money the TV networks thing a G5 CFP is worth ... obviously less, but then again they pay for all the bowl games ... of course if you start killing bowl games in favor of a G5 CFP, then you're losing payout money from the bowls.

I think one of if not the most compelling reason for a G5 playoff is the money.

Think about it this way...

Take the top 12-16 G5s and seed them into a playoff that's scheduled for the gap between the last week of the regular season and the beginning of the bowl season for Power schools. The networks would love the extra content during a down time for college football and they could also use those opportunities to plug the CFP and other bowl games for the TV audience rather than giving college football fans a reason to stop watching their network for 2-3 weeks. Cross marketing is a big thing and has always been used pretty well by ESPN, for example. That should be worth a good bit of money to the networks and a nice windfall for the G5. Think about how the networks will put G5 games on in the middle of the week now because there's nothing else on...same concept.

And you wouldn't have to get rid of all their bowls either. If the G5 is playing exclusively G5 and FCS games then there will be more teams that qualify for bowl games and you can create exhibitions for them outside of the playoff structure. That and the G5 schools will have more home games because they won't be playing on the road against Power schools so much. Now, the only loss here is that the G5s are not going to get the money games from playing Power schools. If the networks make a new structure worth their while though then everybody wins.