Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #61
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-29-2021 04:42 PM)emu steve Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 01:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-28-2021 10:53 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They have no answer yet as to what the 4 conference champs who do not make the CFP are going to do.

Nor are they likely to have any answer different from today.

(06-28-2021 12:04 PM)emu steve Wrote:  ... Not sure I completely follow you, but I'm thinking...

Top 5 ranked P5 teams (conference champs) get an automatic invite.

Top ranked G5 champ gets an automatic invite.

The next highest ranked P5 team gets an at-large invite. (now up to 7 bids).

Next, if another G5 team is ranked (fill in the blank) they get an at large bid.

The remaining bids are filled like the NCAA MBB tourney by a committee.

If they are deliberately not specifying the 5 P5 schools and one of the rest, and if the PAC-12 (outgoing) commissioner got shot down when he proposed that amendment, they definitely are not going to carve out a special G5 at-large place.

Whether it would be nice or not is a different question to whether it would increase or reduce the amount that ESPN will pay for the rights.

The leverage that the Go5 conferences have is they have a veto on the contract change if it is an extension of the existing contract ... but trying to maintain their share of the pie as the pie grows is more likely to succeed than trying to get a revised system that cuts the media value and increases the risks of an antitrust lawsuit.

Good comments. Putting too many stipulations related to G5 conferences would diminish the value of the TV contract.

Best we can hope is for a bigger pie and maybe a larger % of that bigger pie.

The money increase is going to happen with the 12 team playoff. The money windfall is nice but its not going to radically shift the MAC's spending model on sports to something in line with the P5.

In light of the playoff structure, the only thing the MAC could possibly do to help its perception is improve its bowl games. Get out of the Boise bowl and line up a true #1 bowl arrangement for the MAC Champion.
07-01-2021 12:17 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,111
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #62
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(07-01-2021 12:17 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 04:42 PM)emu steve Wrote:  Good comments. Putting too many stipulations related to G5 conferences would diminish the value of the TV contract.

Best we can hope is for a bigger pie and maybe a larger % of that bigger pie.

The money increase is going to happen with the 12 team playoff. The money windfall is nice but its not going to radically shift the MAC's spending model on sports to something in line with the P5.

There is nothing that guarantees how big a share of the money increase goes to the MAC.

Raising the new question of whether it would "radically shift the MAC's spending model on sports to something in line with the P5" and then saying it wouldn't is a red herring.

The MAC Presidents will still prefer holding their current share of the revenue constant to allowing it to fall.

Quote: In light of the playoff structure, the only thing the MAC could possibly do to help its perception is improve its bowl games.

There you go ... instead of hoping for a complex renegotiation of multiple contracts to just magically also decide to do special favors they don't have to do to the MAC, the MAC should do what it can to help itself!

Quote: Get out of the Boise bowl and line up a true #1 bowl arrangement for the MAC Champion.

(-‸ლ)

How would abandoning it's contractual commitments and losing one of two bowls against what is perceived to be a stronger conference than the MAC help the MAC arrange a stronger bowl for the MAC Champion?
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2021 06:20 AM by BruceMcF.)
07-01-2021 06:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #63
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(07-01-2021 06:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(07-01-2021 12:17 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 04:42 PM)emu steve Wrote:  Good comments. Putting too many stipulations related to G5 conferences would diminish the value of the TV contract.

Best we can hope is for a bigger pie and maybe a larger % of that bigger pie.

The money increase is going to happen with the 12 team playoff. The money windfall is nice but its not going to radically shift the MAC's spending model on sports to something in line with the P5.

There is nothing that guarantees how big a share of the money increase goes to the MAC.

Raising the new question of whether it would "radically shift the MAC's spending model on sports to something in line with the P5" and then saying it wouldn't is a red herring.

The MAC Presidents will still prefer holding their current share of the revenue constant to allowing it to fall.

Quote: In light of the playoff structure, the only thing the MAC could possibly do to help its perception is improve its bowl games.

There you go ... instead of hoping for a complex renegotiation of multiple contracts to just magically also decide to do special favors they don't have to do to the MAC, the MAC should do what it can to help itself!

Quote: Get out of the Boise bowl and line up a true #1 bowl arrangement for the MAC Champion.

(-‸ლ)

How would abandoning it's contractual commitments and losing one of two bowls against what is perceived to be a stronger conference than the MAC help the MAC arrange a stronger bowl for the MAC Champion?

I didn't say anything about the MAC's percentage share of the CFP money. I said that with an increase of the playoff to 12 I am near certain that the total amount the MAC will receive will be greater than current.

The playoff committee didn't have to select the Top 6 highest rated champions instead of giving the P5 at-large spots but it did. Who is to say then more equitable contracts for the overall bowl system won't be also forthcoming? The MAC may have an opportunity (I'm not saying will).

MAC is better than MWC because it has a smaller travel footprint. It doesn't host bowl games in its own football stadiums and has a neutral site championship game in Detroit. Its closer to the fertile recruiting grounds of the Southeast too.

The MWC is going to be sending their champ to play in LA moving forward now that the new NFL stadium is done. There is no reason for the MAC to continue to play two games with the MWC out west if their champion isn't part of the equation.

Also the two bowl ties against the SBC in Alabama has to be dropped as well. Keep 1 and give the other to CUSA.

Sending the MAC #1 to the Independence Bowl to play CUSA #1 on ABC would be a better idea than against 3rd or 4th place MWC teams in Arizona or Boise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80...bowl_games
07-01-2021 10:36 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofToledoFans Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,672
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Toledo and G5
Location:
Post: #64
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-30-2021 01:46 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I don't know anyone who made fun of WMU for their NY6 appearance. NIU, yeah, Florida St fans certainly did. But those don't seem to be popular opinions.

Giving 2016 WMU or 2013 NIU a chance at the playoff, yeah, that's when you start getting made fun of. A bowl game vs solid (but not championship-caliber) P5, no.

Have you ever been on the Sun Belt or AAC board? SBC fans cant stop repeating we are the worst league and just "missremember" about the MAC teams who got blown out in those games. Its a very common false talking point.

To their point, those games havent drawn well for us in comparison to UCF, UC, BOISE etc. So thats true.

In the end, I think an 11 vs. 6 game would be better for the league than a regular cotton bowl where players now opt out to get ready for the draft. EVEN if its only every 5 years we make it. We only made the access that much anyhow.

And I cant speculate with perfrction but KIT KAT... WE ARENT GETTING SHUT OUT FOR ETERNITY. The MAC will have the best G5 team every once in a while. New blood with coaches, amazing success storied with stand out players will bring us there once in a blue moon. The SBC used to suck eggs... now with APP, ULL, and Coastal they have a legit shot. Its all cyclical.
07-01-2021 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #65
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(07-01-2021 11:21 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  
(06-30-2021 01:46 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I don't know anyone who made fun of WMU for their NY6 appearance. NIU, yeah, Florida St fans certainly did. But those don't seem to be popular opinions.

Giving 2016 WMU or 2013 NIU a chance at the playoff, yeah, that's when you start getting made fun of. A bowl game vs solid (but not championship-caliber) P5, no.

Have you ever been on the Sun Belt or AAC board? SBC fans cant stop repeating we are the worst league and just "missremember" about the MAC teams who got blown out in those games. Its a very common false talking point.

To their point, those games havent drawn well for us in comparison to UCF, UC, BOISE etc. So thats true.

In the end, I think an 11 vs. 6 game would be better for the league than a regular cotton bowl where players now opt out to get ready for the draft. EVEN if its only every 5 years we make it. We only made the access that much anyhow.

And I cant speculate with perfrction but KIT KAT... WE ARENT GETTING SHUT OUT FOR ETERNITY. The MAC will have the best G5 team every once in a while. New blood with coaches, amazing success storied with stand out players will bring us there once in a blue moon. The SBC used to suck eggs... now with APP, ULL, and Coastal they have a legit shot. Its all cyclical.

Aren't you worried about going undefeated and being shut out of the playoff behind the P5 and AAC with their champions rated higher?
07-01-2021 01:20 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
axeme Offline
Sage
*

Posts: 20,023
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: hoops
Location: Location: Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsDonatorsCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #66
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
Worry? How many undefeated MAC teams has that happened to this century? Answer: none.
07-02-2021 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,111
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #67
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(07-01-2021 10:36 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(07-01-2021 06:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  There is nothing that guarantees how big a share of the money increase goes to the MAC.

Raising the new question of whether it would "radically shift the MAC's spending model on sports to something in line with the P5" and then saying it wouldn't is a red herring.

The MAC Presidents will still prefer holding their current share of the revenue constant to allowing it to fall.

Quote: In light of the playoff structure, the only thing the MAC could possibly do to help its perception is improve its bowl games.

There you go ... instead of hoping for a complex renegotiation of multiple contracts to just magically also decide to do special favors they don't have to do to the MAC, the MAC should do what it can to help itself!

Quote: Get out of the Boise bowl and line up a true #1 bowl arrangement for the MAC Champion.

(-‸ლ)

How would abandoning it's contractual commitments and losing one of two bowls against what is perceived to be a stronger conference than the MAC help the MAC arrange a stronger bowl for the MAC Champion?

I didn't say anything about the MAC's percentage share of the CFP money. I said that with an increase of the playoff to 12 I am near certain that the total amount the MAC will receive will be greater than current.

Given the responsibilities of the position, we can say with confidence that the MAC Presidents would prefer the MAC's share of the CFP money be held to what it is now, if at all possible. That fact that you are not concerned about it falling behind is not all that important in the position that the non-contract Conferences take.

Quote: The playoff committee didn't have to select the Top 6 highest rated champions instead of giving the P5 at-large spots but it did. Who is to say then more equitable contracts for the overall bowl system won't be also forthcoming? The MAC may have an opportunity (I'm not saying will).

They may indeed have had advice that they really do have to. In the top-four system, having four at-large picks reduces exposure to anti-trust claims. Having a lot of the extra money for the P5 channeled through commercial contracts with individual bowl committees helps it even more.

On past history, there will be a meaningful difference between the two less than once a decade, so it's not a major difference.

But regarding the idea that the P5 will choose to hand over large sums of money it does not have to hand over, if your argument is "who is to say? I am not taking a position that it will, but maybe it will", that is not an argument.

Indeed, there are a lot of people over on the main conference realignment willing to argue that the P5 will certainly be aiming to keep the same proportion of money, if not more, and the only thing to work out is the details of how the money is channeled.

Quote: MAC is better than MWC because it has a smaller travel footprint. It doesn't host bowl games in its own football stadiums and has a neutral site championship game in Detroit. Its closer to the fertile recruiting grounds of the Southeast too.

The MWC is going to be sending their champ to play in LA moving forward now that the new NFL stadium is done. There is no reason for the MAC to continue to play two games with the MWC out west if their champion isn't part of the equation.

The "state your conference" is better than "state other conference" because "a characteristic of your conference" argument is at least taking a position, but it's a pretty silly one. Being "more compact" doesn't make the MAC more valuable than the MWC, it just means schools in the MAC have lower travel costs.

Quote: Also the two bowl ties against the SBC in Alabama has to be dropped as well. Keep 1 and give the other to CUSA.

"Also"? Now you are calling for reducing the bowls that the MAC has available to it by a net one and increasing the risk that a bowl eligible MAC school has to stay home?

Quote: Sending the MAC #1 to the Independence Bowl to play CUSA #1 on ABC would be a better idea than against 3rd or 4th place MWC teams in Arizona or Boise.

The MAC doesn't have the power to send it's #1 to the Independence Bowl when the Independence Bowl has existing bowl commitments.

It certainly doesn't have a commitment at present to send its #1 to play the MWC. Obviously, since there are often higher ranked MWC teams available to play, the MWC often offers the most desirable match-up for the champion, but if a better match up is available in one of the other bowls, there's no reason they can't make that match up instead.

Indeed, when the last round of bowls were being negotiated. there is no reason to doubt that the MAC expressed an interest in the Liberty, and that the current contracts with Army and the PAC-12 represent the Liberty Bowl committee's preference after taking into account that the MAC was available.

I have a lot more confidence that the Mid-American Conference got the best bowls that were available to it than I do in your assumption that the MAC can snap its fingers and land a better bowl tie in just because it wants to.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2021 09:16 AM by BruceMcF.)
07-02-2021 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #68
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(07-02-2021 09:09 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(07-01-2021 10:36 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(07-01-2021 06:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  There is nothing that guarantees how big a share of the money increase goes to the MAC.

Raising the new question of whether it would "radically shift the MAC's spending model on sports to something in line with the P5" and then saying it wouldn't is a red herring.

The MAC Presidents will still prefer holding their current share of the revenue constant to allowing it to fall.

Quote: In light of the playoff structure, the only thing the MAC could possibly do to help its perception is improve its bowl games.

There you go ... instead of hoping for a complex renegotiation of multiple contracts to just magically also decide to do special favors they don't have to do to the MAC, the MAC should do what it can to help itself!

Quote: Get out of the Boise bowl and line up a true #1 bowl arrangement for the MAC Champion.

(-‸ლ)

How would abandoning it's contractual commitments and losing one of two bowls against what is perceived to be a stronger conference than the MAC help the MAC arrange a stronger bowl for the MAC Champion?

I didn't say anything about the MAC's percentage share of the CFP money. I said that with an increase of the playoff to 12 I am near certain that the total amount the MAC will receive will be greater than current.

Given the responsibilities of the position, we can say with confidence that the MAC Presidents would prefer the MAC's share of the CFP money be held to what it is now, if at all possible. That fact that you are not concerned about it falling behind is not all that important in the position that the non-contract Conferences take.

Quote: The playoff committee didn't have to select the Top 6 highest rated champions instead of giving the P5 at-large spots but it did. Who is to say then more equitable contracts for the overall bowl system won't be also forthcoming? The MAC may have an opportunity (I'm not saying will).

They may indeed have had advice that they really do have to. In the top-four system, having four at-large picks reduces exposure to anti-trust claims. Having a lot of the extra money for the P5 channeled through commercial contracts with individual bowl committees helps it even more.

On past history, there will be a meaningful difference between the two less than once a decade, so it's not a major difference.

But regarding the idea that the P5 will choose to hand over large sums of money it does not have to hand over, if your argument is "who is to say? I am not taking a position that it will, but maybe it will", that is not an argument.

Indeed, there are a lot of people over on the main conference realignment willing to argue that the P5 will certainly be aiming to keep the same proportion of money, if not more, and the only thing to work out is the details of how the money is channeled.

Quote: MAC is better than MWC because it has a smaller travel footprint. It doesn't host bowl games in its own football stadiums and has a neutral site championship game in Detroit. Its closer to the fertile recruiting grounds of the Southeast too.

The MWC is going to be sending their champ to play in LA moving forward now that the new NFL stadium is done. There is no reason for the MAC to continue to play two games with the MWC out west if their champion isn't part of the equation.

The "state your conference" is better than "state other conference" because "a characteristic of your conference" argument is at least taking a position, but it's a pretty silly one. Being "more compact" doesn't make the MAC more valuable than the MWC, it just means schools in the MAC have lower travel costs.

Quote: Also the two bowl ties against the SBC in Alabama has to be dropped as well. Keep 1 and give the other to CUSA.

"Also"? Now you are calling for reducing the bowls that the MAC has available to it by a net one and increasing the risk that a bowl eligible MAC school has to stay home?

Quote: Sending the MAC #1 to the Independence Bowl to play CUSA #1 on ABC would be a better idea than against 3rd or 4th place MWC teams in Arizona or Boise.

The MAC doesn't have the power to send it's #1 to the Independence Bowl when the Independence Bowl has existing bowl commitments.

It certainly doesn't have a commitment at present to send its #1 to play the MWC. Obviously, since there are often higher ranked MWC teams available to play, the MWC often offers the most desirable match-up for the champion, but if a better match up is available in one of the other bowls, there's no reason they can't make that match up instead.

Indeed, when the last round of bowls were being negotiated. there is no reason to doubt that the MAC expressed an interest in the Liberty, and that the current contracts with Army and the PAC-12 represent the Liberty Bowl committee's preference after taking into account that the MAC was available.

I have a lot more confidence that the Mid-American Conference got the best bowls that were available to it than I do in your assumption that the MAC can snap its fingers and land a better bowl tie in just because it wants to.

Its called goals Bruce. I talk about a 7th champion access bowl or sending the champ to the Independence bowl as a goal over the present bowl arrangement.

As to the CFP money share since you want to talk about that I believe unlikely that when all revenue split factors are taken into consideration (base conference distribution, appearance money, APR money) that it will work out to be exactly the same as it was before. There should be new wrinkles and stipulations on that split. They may divert more money for example to an APR distribution. But regardless the MAC's aggregate take home pay will be higher under the new system and probably the share of the pie to appear fair to the G5 conference offices.

I'm more concerned an undefeated or 1 loss MAC Champion will be left out of the playoff with nothing because it won't get ranked in the Top 12 by the CFP committee and it won't be a Top 6 conference champion because the P5 + AAC will be ahead of it. What then is plan B going to be for the MAC Champion?
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2021 10:07 AM by Kit-Cat.)
07-02-2021 10:06 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 21,881
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1171
I Root For: Jimmy Nippert
Location:
Post: #69
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-30-2021 01:24 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  
(06-30-2021 01:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-30-2021 12:52 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 12:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 01:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Nor are they likely to have any answer different from today.

What's proposed is an 11 game format, with 4 conference champs left out.

What I'm proposing is making it a 12 game format which pits the two highest champs left out. This makes it improbable that and P5 champ would be left outside without at least an access bowl.

I'm not saying they are likely to do this but I'm saying I believe it would be a good idea and a replacement for the traditional access bowl of the G5.

They are going to view the guaranteed access for a minimum of one non-Contract Bowl conference into the championship as an upgrade to the access bowl ... which itself is far from a traditional concession, since it is only as old as the CFP itself. The previous BCS versions of access were qualified by ranking.

So also demanding a cross subsidy to generate a big money bowl for the seventh and eighth place conference champions seems to me like a bridge too far.

Quote: To be perfectly honest competing for a national championship isn't realistic for a MAC program like it is for a few of the AAC. MAC doesn't pay enough to put up a Top 10 team on a sustained basis. But going 11-2 is realistic but not a playoff worthy type record. Access bowl can then be the answer for a good MAC season.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have it to shoot for, I'm just saying that it's hard to see that version.

If the 2023 date slips because there are too many people with vetoes to satisfy everybody, then for a 2026 new contract negotiation, the version I can see as a possibility for getting up, even if not a likelihood, is if there is a semi-finals bowl rotation, they also have those bowls host the first three at-large out and the seventh conference champion in a suitably big money for "first out of the CFP" bowls. Since the PAC-12 proposal for a P5 autobid got knocked down, that might attract support from the PAC-12 as an airbag in case they crash to 7th conference champion in a year, and the PAC-12 might be able to talk the Big Ten into supporting it.

Even that is asking them to go from a minimum of one non-Contract-Conference spot set aside to a minimum of two. I am not opposed to making an ambit claim, even if it is a bit of a long odds ask, but asking for a minimum of three non-Contract-Conference spots to be set aside seems to me to be too big a jump for a single negotiation cycle.

And existing bowls with tie-ins with conferences that get pushed down by the two extra high value bowl games would cry foul, which is why even that would not likely to get up if the 12 team CFP is being pursued as an extension of the existing contract.

I'm not 100% convinced the powers that be will view the 6th highest conference champion playoff spot as a direct replacement for the G5 access bowl. If one takes that interpretation then all a top ranked G5 champ will get in most years is a trip to face program #5 on the road which isn't as nice as a season ending bowl destination.

Its great for an undefeated MAC team to do what all those Toledo, Miami, Marshall and NIU teams never had a chance to do which is to give them a fair chance at an NC.

However IMO it would be nice to see 7th and 8th fight it out for an access bowl which gives CCG's in the MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBC some meaning. Conferences that pay well enough for high quality coaching staffs but not brinks trucks for nations top recruiters. Reward champs for a nice 10 or 11 win season when 12-1 puts them into the playoff.

I'd rather mention a 7th/8th champ access bowl than to concede the 4 champs left out of the CFP are shut out from a major bowl game. At least until we know how the 12 team will adjust the bowl structure.

Believe it or not WMU and NIU are made fun of for their NY6 appearances. Folks forget real fast that the games were competitive, and blame the G5 for being bad... (in respect to the MAC). No one gives a **** about the Cotton Bowl. 4 million viewers to play the 4th SEC team? yayyy. I want a shot to knock someone off and advance. Winning said access bowl is cool and all but it means something different every year depending on the opponent and coverage/story around it. Making the Top12 playoff is essentially A sweet 16 appearance, not just a bracketbuster. Eventually someone will win a couple and make the final 4 too... Boise, TCU and UCF had teams that legitimately would have had a shot. This also keeps high profile players from sitting. Georgia had like 15 dudes out against UC last year. Florida gave up and didnt want any piece of Oklahoma last year. F those access bowls.

Georgia only had six guys out. UC had five- 5.5 considering James Hudson got booted at halftime. UC played without their starting center, running back, a DL and two all-Americans in the secondary. I’d say UC missing five guys was more taxing on them than Georgia missing six. UC still should have won the game.
(This post was last modified: 07-05-2021 08:10 AM by CliftonAve.)
07-05-2021 08:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,111
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #70
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(07-02-2021 10:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(07-01-2021 10:36 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Get out of the Boise bowl and line up a true #1 bowl arrangement for the MAC Champion.

Its called goals Bruce. I talk about a 7th champion access bowl or sending the champ to the Independence bowl as a goal over the present bowl arrangement.

You did more than just set out aspirational goals, you set out an action plan for achieving the goal which wouldn't achieve the goal and which would harm the credibility of the MAC as a partner in future negotiations to achieve the goal.

I already said that a 7th champion access bowl would be nice, so we agree on it as an aspirational goal. But if ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. If the action plan you set out to achieve that aspiration is not workable, the fact that it would be nice is not a defense of an unworkable action plan.

Quote: As to the CFP money share since you want to talk about that I believe unlikely that when all revenue split factors are taken into consideration (base conference distribution, appearance money, APR money) that it will work out to be exactly the same as it was before.

Of course it will not "work out" to be exactly the same as it was before. But if the MAC does not engage effectively in the process, it is at risk of being much lower than if it does engage effectively. So this is not the time to be diverting time and effort to aiming for pie in the sky. This is the time to be sticking the nose to the grindstone and pushing for the best deal the MAC can get.

If the deal is triple the value and the best the Go5 can get is a 150% increase, that still supports going from $10m base per conference to $25m base per conference, which is $2m+ per MAC school. That's more money than a buy game: indeed, wouldn't it be great for MAC schools that have two or three buy games to be able to cut back on one of their buy games and increase their Go5 H/A games by one?

Quote: I'm more concerned an undefeated or 1 loss MAC Champion will be left out of the playoff with nothing because it won't get ranked in the Top 12 by the CFP committee and it won't be a Top 6 conference champion because the P5 + AAC will be ahead of it. What then is plan B going to be for the MAC Champion?

I agree that working out a better post season place for the MAC is a worthwhile goal. If I didn't, I wouldn't take the time to think through whether your proposals for doing so are workable.

You are not going to get the AAC and MWC on board with committing to a Champion 7 vs Champion 8 games. They would rather have their champion play an AAC, SEC or PAC-12 school on the edge of eligibility than another Go5 champion.

And you are not going to get the MAC, CUSA or SBC on board with giving up direct bowl affiliations in return for a shot at such a game, since Presidents do not judge their bowl eligible team sitting home, in return for the Conference Champion having only a shot of getting into a slightly higher profile game, as being a net win.

The first priority is not leaving any school with a winning season at home, the second priority is a chance to place 6-6 schools.

Getting a shot at a better place for the MAC champion than the most attractive pairing available under the current system ... which for many MAC Presidents might be playing the very last bowl eligible Big Ten school in Detroit, over playing another Go5 champion ... that's going to be the the third priority at best.

So what might be workable, if we set aside "we win the lottery!" daydreams?

Now, one side effect of the 12 team CFP is that it seems likely to devalue the current P5 bowl affiliations of the SEC and BigTen to a certain extent, because they are the most likely to be placing multiple at-large schools in the CFP. So a deal where the highest ranked available champion from the MAC, SBC and CUSA are the back up for a SEC / Big Ten bowl might be workable.

Rather than giving up any firm bowl commitments, just collectively have the MAC / SBC / CUSA place the ESPN pool bowls behind their highest ranked champion commitment to that bowl.

Regarding the Liberty Bowl, shouldering Army aside does not seem likely, but Army is not going to be bowl eligible every year ... especially given that it often has two FCS schools on its schedule, and can only count one FCS win toward bowl eligibility. So a more feasible alternative there is to commit to the highest ranked champion from the MAC, CUSA and SBC to back up Army in the Liberty Bowl. And the PAC-12 looks like, at present, the conference least likely to have multiple at-large schools, so it might actually be able to fill its Liberty Bowl commitment.

But for the risk that it doesn't, that pool could indeed offer to back either or both sides of the primary commitments.
(This post was last modified: 07-05-2021 09:57 PM by BruceMcF.)
07-05-2021 09:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #71
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(07-05-2021 09:49 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(07-02-2021 10:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(07-01-2021 10:36 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Get out of the Boise bowl and line up a true #1 bowl arrangement for the MAC Champion.

Its called goals Bruce. I talk about a 7th champion access bowl or sending the champ to the Independence bowl as a goal over the present bowl arrangement.

You did more than just set out aspirational goals, you set out an action plan for achieving the goal which wouldn't achieve the goal and which would harm the credibility of the MAC as a partner in future negotiations to achieve the goal.

I already said that a 7th champion access bowl would be nice, so we agree on it as an aspirational goal. But if ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. If the action plan you set out to achieve that aspiration is not workable, the fact that it would be nice is not a defense of an unworkable action plan.

Quote: As to the CFP money share since you want to talk about that I believe unlikely that when all revenue split factors are taken into consideration (base conference distribution, appearance money, APR money) that it will work out to be exactly the same as it was before.

Of course it will not "work out" to be exactly the same as it was before. But if the MAC does not engage effectively in the process, it is at risk of being much lower than if it does engage effectively. So this is not the time to be diverting time and effort to aiming for pie in the sky. This is the time to be sticking the nose to the grindstone and pushing for the best deal the MAC can get.

If the deal is triple the value and the best the Go5 can get is a 150% increase, that still supports going from $10m base per conference to $25m base per conference, which is $2m+ per MAC school. That's more money than a buy game: indeed, wouldn't it be great for MAC schools that have two or three buy games to be able to cut back on one of their buy games and increase their Go5 H/A games by one?

Quote: I'm more concerned an undefeated or 1 loss MAC Champion will be left out of the playoff with nothing because it won't get ranked in the Top 12 by the CFP committee and it won't be a Top 6 conference champion because the P5 + AAC will be ahead of it. What then is plan B going to be for the MAC Champion?

I agree that working out a better post season place for the MAC is a worthwhile goal. If I didn't, I wouldn't take the time to think through whether your proposals for doing so are workable.

You are not going to get the AAC and MWC on board with committing to a Champion 7 vs Champion 8 games. They would rather have their champion play an AAC, SEC or PAC-12 school on the edge of eligibility than another Go5 champion.

And you are not going to get the MAC, CUSA or SBC on board with giving up direct bowl affiliations in return for a shot at such a game, since Presidents do not judge their bowl eligible team sitting home, in return for the Conference Champion having only a shot of getting into a slightly higher profile game, as being a net win.

The first priority is not leaving any school with a winning season at home, the second priority is a chance to place 6-6 schools.

Getting a shot at a better place for the MAC champion than the most attractive pairing available under the current system ... which for many MAC Presidents might be playing the very last bowl eligible Big Ten school in Detroit, over playing another Go5 champion ... that's going to be the the third priority at best.

So what might be workable, if we set aside "we win the lottery!" daydreams?

Now, one side effect of the 12 team CFP is that it seems likely to devalue the current P5 bowl affiliations of the SEC and BigTen to a certain extent, because they are the most likely to be placing multiple at-large schools in the CFP. So a deal where the highest ranked available champion from the MAC, SBC and CUSA are the back up for a SEC / Big Ten bowl might be workable.

Rather than giving up any firm bowl commitments, just collectively have the MAC / SBC / CUSA place the ESPN pool bowls behind their highest ranked champion commitment to that bowl.

Regarding the Liberty Bowl, shouldering Army aside does not seem likely, but Army is not going to be bowl eligible every year ... especially given that it often has two FCS schools on its schedule, and can only count one FCS win toward bowl eligibility. So a more feasible alternative there is to commit to the highest ranked champion from the MAC, CUSA and SBC to back up Army in the Liberty Bowl. And the PAC-12 looks like, at present, the conference least likely to have multiple at-large schools, so it might actually be able to fill its Liberty Bowl commitment.

But for the risk that it doesn't, that pool could indeed offer to back either or both sides of the primary commitments.

I'll give you in this discussion the P5 is better than the MAC just on the basis of prestige alone. For about half of the universities in the P5 the best thing you could say about them is their B1G, SEC, PAC, XII, ACC membership.

But the AAC that is where they put you when you can't get into a P5. The are very good academic schools in the AAC no doubt but its not a prestigious organization to be part of. The AAC is better academically on average than the MAC but its not like being in the AAC does anything to improve your academics like a P5.

The same goes for the MWC. Out west it means something to say you are a PAC school. Oregon State compared to Montana State. Big time public compared to the small time. MWC has Colorado State and New Mexico as publics which are regarded as significant in some academic circles but most are not regarded as better than their FCS counterparts (which include reputable ones though like Cal Poly) in that region.

The MAC should work with the MWC/ACC on higher tier bowl options. There is no reason resign being placed in a MAC/CUSA/SBC bucket because for better and worse the MAC isn't the same as CUSA/SBC. The MAC is an alternative to playing the SBC/CUSA in a bowl game, something the AAC and MWC don't want to do too much of.

The idea you are discussing is the MAC would in addition to playing the P5 in Detroit would play backup to P5 in another entry level bowl sounds like something the AAC likes to try. Backing up the 11th pick of the SEC, ACC, XII in a bowl with little support from my perspective isn't as good as developing a sequence of mid tier games G5 and independents.

As far as the bowl pool its already being done to move opponents around in lower tier games. Its ok but I'd like to see a true #1 bowl game for the champ.

When you say Liberty here its really the Independence Bowl down in Shreveport that you are referring to where Army has a slot in. The Liberty is XII #4 vs. SEC and has moved beyond a G5 tie-in.

The Independence bowl I have mentioned could be a good place to put a higher level G5 bowl together which is where Army has that conditional slot. Army has been bowl eligible 4 out of the last 5 years so backfilling won't be reliable. Then you want to split the backfill between the highest ranked champ between the MAC/CUSA/SBC. This seems like a very marginal arrangement from the MAC perspective since they have a very slim chance at a opening.

I definitely am aware of preferences and limitations in the bowl system. Nobody wants to play the MAC in its backyard. But there are other things also going on like the AAC wanting separation from CUSA/SBC and the MWC desperate for regional bowl games. This plays into the MAC's favor as we have already with the MWC games. There are 4 new independents that weren't around at the start of the last bowl cycle (NMSU, UMass, UConn, Liberty) that could also be worked into an arrangement.

As to the money I would trade some money for an contract CFP bowl for the MAC champion to solve the non-playoff champ placement problem. If not that then a bowl for the two highest rated non-playoff champs and so forth down the line.
07-06-2021 01:30 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #72
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
Ideally if there was to try a G5 centric bowl solution for the MAC champ here is one possible way.

1) Have the MWC, CUSA, SBC all host bowls for their #1 if they aren't in the playoff.

2) Move the MWC's Arizona bowl to the new Aztec stadium in San Diego.

3) SBC can host its #1 in New Orleans. CUSA host #1 in Boca Raton.

4) BYU/Army would commit themselves to the bowls in 2 out of 6 seasons. This would allow BYU/Army to have bowl destinations spread out across the country for recruiting.

5) The MAC champion would then go to one of San Diego, New Orleans, or Boca Raton if not in the playoff.

Then start a new bowl MAC bowl game in Indianapolis with CUSA/AAC as rotating conferences to replace the bowl game in Boise. They have enough teams in that region to make a bowl game work. MAC has NIU, WMU, BSU and Miami that could all travel well for Indianapolis.
07-06-2021 10:18 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,111
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #73
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(07-06-2021 10:18 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Ideally if there was to try a G5 centric bowl solution for the MAC champ here is one possible way.

1) Have the MWC, CUSA, SBC all host bowls for their #1 if they aren't in the playoff. ...

The system is dead in the water at the outset ... the MWC Presidents are not going to give up it's bowl against the PAC-12 to be able to host a Go5 school.

Indeed, if the Big Ten puts a team in the Detroit Bowl, the MAC Presidents are not going to commit their #1 team to a Go5 bowl if they make a more appealing matchup in Detroit.
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2021 11:39 PM by BruceMcF.)
07-10-2021 11:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.