(06-22-2021 04:44 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 04:09 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 01:47 PM)usffan Wrote:  Man, some of the pearl clutchers who seem to think the B1G and Pac-12 are going to kill this must be tightening their grips right about now...



USFFan

It could easily get killed… and I’ve laid out exactly how:

“The next step will be full discussions with bowl partners and ESPN television executives, along with continued conversations with coaches, athletic directors and athletes. Keenum said the presidents want to know how a longer season that could reach 17 games will affect the athletes, their academic calendars and their well-being.”

This was the number one impediment I put in context well before today’s meeting. Believe me, travel and ticket sales is the number one factor, but academics and student athlete well-being will be the ultimate excuse.

Make it an 8-team playoff with the 5-1-2 format (essentially a plus one model) and call it a day. Problem solved. 16 games would be the maximum for teams that play in a CCG, 15 games for the two at-large teams that do not.

Sent from my LM-G820 using CSNbbs mobile app

The hay is out of the barn on this...it is gonna be 12...

I still think 6+2 or whatever you want to call it is most likely. ND will have to bite the pill. However, they could put in some minimum ranking like top 12. It’s a contrarian call and will most likely get shut down by ND and G5 if it comes down to those two formats, but I’m going to go 6+2 with campus sites as QFs. 12 is too big a leap. Otherwise they will axe the conference champ games to get the 5-12 round if there is a way to forgo those games and maintain equivalent revenue. Some of the championship games have bombed with the likes of teams having already qualified for the playoff playing a meaningless CC game against 8-4 or 9-3 competition.

(06-22-2021 04:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still think 6+2 or whatever you want to call it is most likely. ND will have to bite the pill. However, they could put in some minimum ranking like top 12. It’s a contrarian call and will most likely get shut down by ND and G5 if it comes down to those two formats, but I’m going to go 6+2 with campus sites as QFs. 12 is too big a leap. Otherwise they will axe the conference champ games to get the 5-12 round if there is a way to forgo those games and maintain equivalent revenue. Some of the championship games have bombed with the likes of teams having already qualified for the playoff playing a meaningless CC game against 8-4 or 9-3 competition.

MAYBE, if they want an expanded postseason before 2026 but can't coax the Bowls to play along.

(06-22-2021 04:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still think 6+2 or whatever you want to call it is most likely. ND will have to bite the pill. However, they could put in some minimum ranking like top 12. It’s a contrarian call and will most likely get shut down by ND and G5 if it comes down to those two formats, but I’m going to go 6+2 with campus sites as QFs. 12 is too big a leap. Otherwise they will axe the conference champ games to get the 5-12 round if there is a way to forgo those games and maintain equivalent revenue. Some of the championship games have bombed with the likes of teams having already qualified for the playoff playing a meaningless CC game against 8-4 or 9-3 competition.

I don't see how an 8-team playoff that isn't straight 8 will fly. Because the B1G and SEC would correctly view that as a "leveler", greatly enhancing the relative value of the other P5 and even the AAC, at their expense.

With just two at-large, one if we figure ND will make the field many years, there's no real reason to go to the SEC as opposed to the ACC or PAC. Because most years everyone is just getting one team in.

(06-22-2021 05:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 04:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still think 6+2 or whatever you want to call it is most likely. ND will have to bite the pill. However, they could put in some minimum ranking like top 12. It’s a contrarian call and will most likely get shut down by ND and G5 if it comes down to those two formats, but I’m going to go 6+2 with campus sites as QFs. 12 is too big a leap. Otherwise they will axe the conference champ games to get the 5-12 round if there is a way to forgo those games and maintain equivalent revenue. Some of the championship games have bombed with the likes of teams having already qualified for the playoff playing a meaningless CC game against 8-4 or 9-3 competition.

I don't see how an 8-team playoff that isn't straight 8 will fly. Because the B1G and SEC would correctly view that as a "leveler", greatly enhancing the relative value of the other P5 and even the AAC, at their expense.

With just two at-large, one if we figure ND will make the field many years, there's no real reason to go to the SEC as opposed to the SEC or PAC. Because most years everyone is just getting one team in.

That why we are at 12...the SEC & Big Ten see most years they would get 2 @ large bids...JMO, most years it going to be the Champions of the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac 12 and AAC-(I know MWC, Sunbelt and C-USA Fans will beg to differ)...Notre Dame as long as they finish in the Top 12 with a @ Large Bid..the Big Ten/SEC dominating the 5 remaining @ Large Bids. That means more money for the 2 Super Power Leagues. Why would those two limit access with just 2 Total @ Large Bids...

(06-22-2021 04:48 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 04:23 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 03:58 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 03:30 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 03:07 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  The AAC AND another conference would have to consistently outperform the PAC-12 on a regular basis for there be any reason to be concerned.

This. Even if the AAC is consistently the 5, the PAC would still have to get outplayed by the Fun Belt to miss the playoff.

As others have said, the resources are there. They'll be fine. They just need to not play a conference only schedule again.

The Pac 12 kind of already started the process of going from 9 Conference games to 8 and going to no divisions.

Easy there. All they said was that they were "engaged in preliminary discussions" about it. That's a long way from being in the process of going from 9 to 8.

USFFan

Stand corrected....but we know where this is headed....

You do? Because the Pac-12 does not know where this is headed. The Pac-12 is transitioning to a new commissioner, starting on July 1st. They have not had any leadership in a while. They had a meeting where they threw around a lot of ideas. That means nothing. In 2013, they discussed moving to an eight game schedule. They decided against it. The coaches were for it, because they wanted an easy game to add to their win totals. It didn't happen and there is no reason to move to eight this time around, either.

Playing in divisions has not cost a Pac-12 school a playoff berth in a four team playoff system and I doubt it will in a 12 team playoff system. If a conference is worried about losing a playoff berth in this proposed system because of a loss in a CCG, then just get rid of the CCG and the divisions.

(06-22-2021 06:17 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 04:48 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 04:23 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 03:58 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 03:30 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  This. Even if the AAC is consistently the 5, the PAC would still have to get outplayed by the Fun Belt to miss the playoff.

As others have said, the resources are there. They'll be fine. They just need to not play a conference only schedule again.

The Pac 12 kind of already started the process of going from 9 Conference games to 8 and going to no divisions.

Easy there. All they said was that they were "engaged in preliminary discussions" about it. That's a long way from being in the process of going from 9 to 8.

USFFan

Stand corrected....but we know where this is headed....

You do? Because the Pac-12 does not know where this is headed. The Pac-12 is transitioning to a new commissioner, starting on July 1st. They have not had any leadership in a while. They had a meeting where they threw around a lot of ideas. That means nothing. In 2013, they discussed moving to an eight game schedule. They decided against it. The coaches were for it, because they wanted an easy game to add to their win totals. It didn't happen and there is no reason to move to eight this time around, either.

Playing in divisions has not cost a Pac-12 school a playoff berth in a four team playoff system and I doubt it will in a 12 team playoff system. If a conference is worried about losing a playoff berth in this proposed system because of a loss in a CCG, then just get rid of the CCG and the divisions.

We shall see....

6+2 with a top 12 minimum will keep those lucrative early season OOC games in play. Of course the AAC and rest of G5 would balk, but it’s not so unreasonable compared to what a ND would have to do. Or maybe if none of the G5 are in the top 12, you have an one or two play in games, but I don’t see how that’s possible for a G5 teams that already plays 13 including their CCG. Or… the top 2-4 At-Large not involved in a CCG play on campus play-in games first weekend of December. I can easily see something like that. It’s easier to ad hoc a game or two as opposed to a preliminary round prior to QFs. But this creates more complications in the event of CCG upsets, so not “play-in” games per say.

The only way I see this 12 team format passing is if the Bowls are eliminated or become placeholders for the sake of tradition. The Rose Bowl will not take 5-12 losers. And NYD is too late to play QFs. They don’t even play SF games that late 2/3 years.

I think NY6 bowls are effectively dead if this goes through. Fine by me, but that’s the end result, with a full 16 team slate to follow by 2030s or so. The ESPN payout will have to be so big that you can justify killing these bowls. Otherwise, they’ll crunch the first two rounds of the playoff in such a tight window that the season will not have to be extended beyond where it is already. If they had a solution to this, it would have been done in the early 2000s. I’d bet they still don’t have a solution.

The rest of the P5 pretty much gave the PAC 12 notice that there won’t be a welfare system in place to keep the PAC 12’s elite status. Can’t beat out 2 G5 champs? Too bad, you’re out of the playoff.

(06-22-2021 06:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The rest of the P5 pretty much gave the PAC 12 notice that there won’t be a welfare system in place to keep the PAC 12’s elite status. Can’t beat out 2 G5 champs? Too bad, you’re out of the playoff.

They should stay at 4 then if they dont want a welfare system. Its pathetic that 3 loss teams will get in.

We know the real reason theyre expanding. Its money.

I actually love the 6+6 format as much as the next guy. Especially forcing At-Large teams in another game. The problem for the G5 team (and other qualifying conference champ) will be playing back to back weekends so the idea those teams will make a run following their CCG and preliminary game subsequent to a NY6 QF is far fetched.

But I see the Presidents killing the proposal unless the money is UNREAL and they “Et tu, Brute?” their Bowl partners. I don’t think the Rose wants to be a QF game every year. I just can’t see it. Why didn’t this happen 15 years ago when they took the BCS out of the hands of the computers and back into the hands of a committee (at least partially). They had every excuse to expand at least to 4 back in the Saban/LSU days…. That’s when they should have expanded. They were worried about an extra week of travel and marginalizing BCS bowls then… until they realized the monetary bump was evident going from 2 to 4. Maybe the same fact is evident now… only ratings have been declining. They are not expanding from a position of strength like the NFL. This reeks of gimmick like MLB wild card game and NBA play in games. And it’s plagued by the same “issues” to a greater degree now than the early 00’s.

I think the ratings decline can be attributed to Ohio St/Alabama/Clemson/Oklahoma fatigue.

(06-22-2021 05:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 04:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still think 6+2 or whatever you want to call it is most likely. ND will have to bite the pill. However, they could put in some minimum ranking like top 12. It’s a contrarian call and will most likely get shut down by ND and G5 if it comes down to those two formats, but I’m going to go 6+2 with campus sites as QFs. 12 is too big a leap. Otherwise they will axe the conference champ games to get the 5-12 round if there is a way to forgo those games and maintain equivalent revenue. Some of the championship games have bombed with the likes of teams having already qualified for the playoff playing a meaningless CC game against 8-4 or 9-3 competition.

I don't see how an 8-team playoff that isn't straight 8 will fly. Because the B1G and SEC would correctly view that as a "leveler", greatly enhancing the relative value of the other P5 and even the AAC, at their expense.

With just two at-large, one if we figure ND will make the field many years, there's no real reason to go to the SEC as opposed to the ACC or PAC. Because most years everyone is just getting one team in.

And they'd be stupid to do a straight 8 based on how much it would devalue the conference championships. The 6-6 model is perfect for keeping things interesting down to the last play of the season.

(06-22-2021 06:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The rest of the P5 pretty much gave the PAC 12 notice that there won’t be a welfare system in place to keep the PAC 12’s elite status. Can’t beat out 2 G5 champs? Too bad, you’re out of the playoff.

The Pac-12 has looked incompetent in their handling of the playoff proposal. Any sane person could have looked at this playoff proposal and realized this was going to work well for the Pac-12. Had this system been in place from 2014 through 2019, the conference champion would have been in every season. On top of that, two teams would have made it in 2014, three teams in 2016, two teams in 2017, and two teams in 2019. Asking for a guarantee when you basically already have it, is monumentally stupid and looks weak.

(06-22-2021 08:57 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the ratings decline can be attributed to Ohio St/Alabama/Clemson/Oklahoma fatigue.

Definitely a part of it. Question becomes how much TV value is there in rounds 5-12 (lots of value IMO) and POTENTIAL weeknight mid January SF and NCG games? That’s where you are leaving money on the table. It will look like **** on TV not having traveling fan bases coming out to support those teams in any of those rounds. Will the TV contract and streaming deals make up for that “atmosphere” of a big college football game?

And to add, giving the top 4 a bye increases the gap between them and everyone else. It’s very anticlimactic having 3/4 dud QFs following an exciting 5-12 preliminary round.

(06-22-2021 04:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still think 6+2 or whatever you want to call it is most likely. ND will have to bite the pill. However, they could put in some minimum ranking like top 12. It’s a contrarian call and will most likely get shut down by ND and G5 if it comes down to those two formats, but I’m going to go 6+2 with campus sites as QFs. 12 is too big a leap.

If 12 was too big a leap, the working committee wouldn't have settled on it. Some details may be amended, but it's only falling back to eight if it falls down on inability to hammer those details out ... it's not falling back at this point on "12 is too many".

It seems likely it was the change in the NFL schedule that opened the door to the 12 team format. That was what always blocked an eight team playoff with quarterfinals at the NY bowls. As soon as the door opened to that structure, the door also opened to the 12 team structure.

(06-22-2021 09:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 04:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still think 6+2 or whatever you want to call it is most likely. ND will have to bite the pill. However, they could put in some minimum ranking like top 12. It’s a contrarian call and will most likely get shut down by ND and G5 if it comes down to those two formats, but I’m going to go 6+2 with campus sites as QFs. 12 is too big a leap.

If 12 was too big a leap, the working committee wouldn't have settled on it. Some details may be amended, but it's only falling back to eight if it falls down on inability to hammer those details out ... it's not falling back at this point on "12 is too many".

It seems likely it was the change in the NFL schedule that opened the door to the 12 team format. That was what always blocked an eight team playoff with quarterfinals at the NY bowls. As soon as the door opened to that structure, the door also opened to the 12 team structure.

No, the change in the NFL schedule is something they didn’t think through, unless they planned to phase out the Rose Bowl from NYD or have it stand separately from the CFP. Why? Because there is less than one week’s rest on years when the 1st doesn’t fall on a Saturday, like this year. I’m very curious as to how they plan on utilizing that Saturday. The only way is the Rose Bowl has to move back… or forwards, depending on whether it’s a QF or SF. Otherwise a Rose Bowl/QF hybrid can only take place on the 1st every six or seven years. That’s the detail they need to lock down.

(06-22-2021 09:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 04:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I still think 6+2 or whatever you want to call it is most likely. ND will have to bite the pill. However, they could put in some minimum ranking like top 12. It’s a contrarian call and will most likely get shut down by ND and G5 if it comes down to those two formats, but I’m going to go 6+2 with campus sites as QFs. 12 is too big a leap.

If 12 was too big a leap, the working committee wouldn't have settled on it. Some details may be amended, but it's only falling back to eight if it falls down on inability to hammer those details out ... it's not falling back at this point on "12 is too many".

It seems likely it was the change in the NFL schedule that opened the door to the 12 team format. That was what always blocked an eight team playoff with quarterfinals at the NY bowls. As soon as the door opened to that structure, the door also opened to the 12 team structure.

What particular NFL schedule change?

(06-22-2021 06:29 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  6+2 with a top 12 minimum will keep those lucrative early season OOC games in play. Of course the AAC and rest of G5 would balk, but it’s not so unreasonable compared to what a ND would have to do. Or maybe if none of the G5 are in the top 12, you have an one or two play in games, but I don’t see how that’s possible for a G5 teams that already plays 13 including their CCG. ...

A 5-(2)-2 fits exactly the same as a 6-6 ... the play-in game in the 5-(2)-2 is the same extra game as playing in the first round of the 6-6.