(07-09-2018 01:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 01:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 12:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  That's what they did in FCS football. A number of conferences did not have an autobid. Now they are 24 teams.

And it was more of an effort to try to increase the money flow to the schools by having more schools, however, it hasn't really done anything of the sort and still some schools lose money on the FCS playoffs.

I do have a thought process which I think I'll post in a new thread by it means getting the NCAA out of football all together.

The NCAA is pretty much out of it except for eligibility, scholarship limits, and playing rules.

Right, that's what the big boys wanted. They want a football postseason that is not like March Madness, because March Madness led to the membership of D-I doubling due to the autobids, and because the NCAA collects the giant pot of MM money and controls the distribution of little bits and pieces of it throughout Division I.

I think the true significant point was the NCAA skims it and puts in various pots.

And how much of the money ends up going to the top teams and/or their conferences.

Would be interesting to compare the percentage of CFP revenue that goes to the 4 playoff teams and/or their conferences, versus the percentage of March Madness revenue that goes to the Final Four teams and/or their conferences.

(07-09-2018 01:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 12:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats the general NCAA policy--but the NCAA policy is also that every conference has an autobid. So essentially, the primary guiding NCAA principals regarding the structure of the postseason would be in conflict. The NCAA usually solves the issue by expanding the field---because---typically, expanding the field is not a big issue and it's the path of least resistance. In this case, I dont think that would be an option.

That's what they did in FCS football. A number of conferences did not have an autobid. Now they are 24 teams.

And it was more of an effort to try to increase the money flow to the schools by having more schools, however, it hasn't really done anything of the sort and still some schools lose money on the FCS playoffs.

I do have a thought process which I think I'll post in a new thread by it means getting the NCAA out of football all together.

The NCAA is pretty much out of it except for eligibility, scholarship limits, and playing rules.

Right, that's what the big boys wanted. They want a football postseason that is not like March Madness, because March Madness led to the membership of D-I doubling due to the autobids, and because the NCAA collects the giant pot of MM money and controls the distribution of little bits and pieces of it throughout Division I.

To be clear, they want money and control. They don't care that much if there are 200 schools in FBS as long as they don't have to share any more money and still have "autonomy." They probably think there are advantages to that as it diminishes the G5 group. But I do think they are concerned autonomy could be limited if FBS got too big. So I think they are just pricing the others out of being competitive with them and limiting the number of schools that can afford it.

(07-09-2018 01:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 01:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 01:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 12:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  And it was more of an effort to try to increase the money flow to the schools by having more schools, however, it hasn't really done anything of the sort and still some schools lose money on the FCS playoffs.

I do have a thought process which I think I'll post in a new thread by it means getting the NCAA out of football all together.

The NCAA is pretty much out of it except for eligibility, scholarship limits, and playing rules.

Right, that's what the big boys wanted. They want a football postseason that is not like March Madness, because March Madness led to the membership of D-I doubling due to the autobids, and because the NCAA collects the giant pot of MM money and controls the distribution of little bits and pieces of it throughout Division I.

I think the true significant point was the NCAA skims it and puts in various pots.

And how much of the money ends up going to the top teams and/or their conferences.

Would be interesting to compare the percentage of CFP revenue that goes to the 4 playoff teams and/or their conferences, versus the percentage of March Madness revenue that goes to the Final Four teams and/or their conferences.

Guarantee you it ain't close.
It's one thing to be willing to let there be a skim from an event that began in 1939 under the umbrella of the association and grew in value. Plus some value in a collegial sense of helping fund championships for Division II and III and FCS football and some limited revenue sharing for Division, but an entirely different matter to create a new event and toss that money into the same pot as the event the NCAA created.

(07-09-2018 12:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 03:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think the likely outcome for autobids at 16 would be to follow the NCAA policy on autobids. While obviously not binding, the NCAA policy is no more than half the field should be autobids. The committee determines in advance of each season which leagues get autobids. So for 16 you would have 8 leagues getting autobids creating a real battle among Sun Belt, MAC, and CUSA most years to put together the best 3 to 5 year run in the computers to gain that last autobid slot for the upcoming season.

It would also create some realignment pressure to either create a new league shedding anchors, or raiding to move a conference leader out of a rival league that is in position to take away a slot.

A conference consistently left out is then at bigger recruiting disadvantage.

Thats the general NCAA policy--but the NCAA policy is also that every conference has an autobid. So essentially, the primary guiding NCAA principals regarding the structure of the postseason would be in conflict. The NCAA usually solves the issue by expanding the field---because---typically, expanding the field is not a big issue and it's the path of least resistance. In this case, I dont think that would be an option.

That's what they did in FCS football. A number of conferences did not have an autobid. Now they are 24 teams.

And it was more of an effort to try to increase the money flow to the schools by having more schools, however, it hasn't really done anything of the sort and still some schools lose money on the FCS playoffs.

I do have a thought process which I think I'll post in a new thread by it means getting the NCAA out of football all together.

The NCAA is pretty much out of it except for eligibility, scholarship limits, and playing rules.

Well the NCAA keeps a bit of the FCS $$ which is why it is hard for schools to make $$ when hosting a playoff. The NCAA keeps such a big chunk of it. A FBS schools get more $$ from a low bowl than a FCS team hosting a playoff.

(07-07-2018 08:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 05:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is that if the money is right, we will get a 8 team playoffs. Valuations done now don't mean much because the media and entertainment landscape could change.

But either way it's not happening before 2025 so not relevant for years.

Unlike P5 realignment, its very possible it happens before 2025. Being flush with new TV deals, however, the pressure isn't on the presidents to generate new money. But it could happen at any 3 year cycle. Since they aren't talking seriously now, its very unlikely it happens for the 2020 season, but 2023 could still happen.

If the SEC and Big 10 both get left out in 2018, I would bet on it happening by 2023.

FWIW, i know it can happen, i just think there is close to zero chance of it actually happening. I think the P5 are colectively happy with the CFP.

Remember, the B1G has been putting 3 schools in the NY6. They are happy.

(07-09-2018 03:53 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 12:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats the general NCAA policy--but the NCAA policy is also that every conference has an autobid. So essentially, the primary guiding NCAA principals regarding the structure of the postseason would be in conflict. The NCAA usually solves the issue by expanding the field---because---typically, expanding the field is not a big issue and it's the path of least resistance. In this case, I dont think that would be an option.

That's what they did in FCS football. A number of conferences did not have an autobid. Now they are 24 teams.

And it was more of an effort to try to increase the money flow to the schools by having more schools, however, it hasn't really done anything of the sort and still some schools lose money on the FCS playoffs.

I do have a thought process which I think I'll post in a new thread by it means getting the NCAA out of football all together.

The NCAA is pretty much out of it except for eligibility, scholarship limits, and playing rules.

Well the NCAA keeps a bit of the FCS $$ which is why it is hard for schools to make $$ when hosting a playoff. The NCAA keeps such a big chunk of it. A FBS schools get more $$ from a low bowl than a FCS team hosting a playoff.

Well to be technical, like the NCAA basketball tournament it is the Association's money because it is their event and the schools are just receiving some of what they collect for being a host. The playoff game exists because the NCAA created the game.

(07-10-2018 09:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 08:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 05:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is that if the money is right, we will get a 8 team playoffs. Valuations done now don't mean much because the media and entertainment landscape could change.

But either way it's not happening before 2025 so not relevant for years.

Unlike P5 realignment, its very possible it happens before 2025. Being flush with new TV deals, however, the pressure isn't on the presidents to generate new money. But it could happen at any 3 year cycle. Since they aren't talking seriously now, its very unlikely it happens for the 2020 season, but 2023 could still happen.

If the SEC and Big 10 both get left out in 2018, I would bet on it happening by 2023.

FWIW, i know it can happen, i just think there is close to zero chance of it actually happening. I think the P5 are colectively happy with the CFP.

Remember, the B1G has been putting 3 schools in the NY6. They are happy.

Don't you think each generation of athletic administrators wants to make changes so they can leave their mark?

For that reason the current paradigm can't last forever.

Maybe the change isn't going to 8 in the playoff but having the playoff post bowl games.

(07-10-2018 11:12 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 08:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 05:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is that if the money is right, we will get a 8 team playoffs. Valuations done now don't mean much because the media and entertainment landscape could change.

But either way it's not happening before 2025 so not relevant for years.

Unlike P5 realignment, its very possible it happens before 2025. Being flush with new TV deals, however, the pressure isn't on the presidents to generate new money. But it could happen at any 3 year cycle. Since they aren't talking seriously now, its very unlikely it happens for the 2020 season, but 2023 could still happen.

If the SEC and Big 10 both get left out in 2018, I would bet on it happening by 2023.

FWIW, i know it can happen, i just think there is close to zero chance of it actually happening. I think the P5 are colectively happy with the CFP.

Remember, the B1G has been putting 3 schools in the NY6. They are happy.

Don't you think each generation of athletic administrators wants to make changes so they can leave their mark?

For that reason the current paradigm can't last forever.

Maybe the change isn't going to 8 in the playoff but having the playoff post bowl games.

It won't surprise me at all if when the CFP contract ends in 2025 that a new system, possibly an 8 team playoff, comes next.

But it will shock me if the CFP is changed or ended before 2025. I expect it to run its 12 year course.

If the first 4 years of the CFP are any indication, then the lowest rank any P5 champion has got so far is #8.

So it might be reasonable to expand to 8 teams without adding any autobids. For the rare times the P5 champion is not in the top8, the P5 conference may be content to just shrug its shoulders and say oh well.

Now if you want to include the highest ranked G5 champion in the CFP too, that will be an issue if there are no autobids for the G5 champion.

(07-10-2018 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 11:12 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 08:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 05:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is that if the money is right, we will get a 8 team playoffs. Valuations done now don't mean much because the media and entertainment landscape could change.

But either way it's not happening before 2025 so not relevant for years.

Unlike P5 realignment, its very possible it happens before 2025. Being flush with new TV deals, however, the pressure isn't on the presidents to generate new money. But it could happen at any 3 year cycle. Since they aren't talking seriously now, its very unlikely it happens for the 2020 season, but 2023 could still happen.

If the SEC and Big 10 both get left out in 2018, I would bet on it happening by 2023.

FWIW, i know it can happen, i just think there is close to zero chance of it actually happening. I think the P5 are colectively happy with the CFP.

Remember, the B1G has been putting 3 schools in the NY6. They are happy.

Don't you think each generation of athletic administrators wants to make changes so they can leave their mark?

For that reason the current paradigm can't last forever.

Maybe the change isn't going to 8 in the playoff but having the playoff post bowl games.

It won't surprise me at all if when the CFP contract ends in 2025 that a new system, possibly an 8 team playoff, comes next.

But it will shock me if the CFP is changed or ended before 2025. I expect it to run its 12 year course.

BCS was hated as anything by people, but ESPN cut a deal to extend it. CFP will be no different. The schools and bowls are tone-deaf to the criticism. It's their thing, and if networks will dump boatloads of money on it, they'll take it.

I expect a really great ratings year (like, unlike anything we've yet seen) to prompt an extension behind closed doors.

I'm not expecting eight teams in on this anytime soon. Seems like you can get six, giving the top two teams a bye, with the potential for wider access...I wouldn't bet on that even during a renegotiation.