I think most of that is fair. The CCGs are simple, and they are owned by the conferences. They present a significant hurdle to overcome in order to make college football playoff expansion work. They also provide a negotiating piece for the B1G and SEC. There are some some significant potential gains to be had with playoff expansion, and those gains could very easily be realized disproportionately by the SEC and B1G. So I don’t think the CCG hurdle is insurmountable provided the B1G and SEC gain essentially P2 status within that structure.

You mention the CFP committee which currently includes a rep from each P5 conference. There’s no reason why that committee membership couldn’t be negotiated to include 2 reps each from the SEC and B1G conference. There are a number of ways that the B1G and SEC could achieve greater power within the playoff structure in order to ensure that the playoff structure benefits their interests. The entirety of the CFB playoff exists at the discretion of the P5. In light of recent shifts, it’s pretty clear that the focus needs to shift to empowering the P2. IMO, giving up the CCG is one potential way for the SEC and B1G to negotiate this favored status. It also sets the table for the SEC and B1G to continue to expand should they choose to do so (a top division champs model would basically allow the SEC and B1G to split into more divisions, each automatically represented in the CFP, should they continue to expand).

(02-23-2022 01:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The latter is inherently more complicated and it's all subject to universal agreement that certain conferences can "own" playoff games in the first place. That doesn't mean that it *can't* be done, but it's also a matter of determining of the proverbial question of whether the juice is worth the squeeze, so to speak, particularly when you're asking the most powerful conferences with the most valuable CCGs to give up an asset that they have 100% control over.

[…]

Football CCGs are like those basketball conference tournament on steroids and that would be even more the case if the playoff expanded (*especially* if conference champs get extra considerations like byes). Eliminating them is a non-starter. Period.

I’m crossing conversations here, but much of what you said is pertinent to the larger thread themes.

The conference basketball tournaments is a great analogy. I think the issue some see (and, I admit, may be exaggerating) is that college football is hemmed in by Summer heat and the NFL playoffs, and by the physical nature of football which limits teams to a single game per week. March Madness can go into April because it only competes against regular season NBA games and the opening month of MLB. With college football you need to find ways to stream-line the calendar.

Control is a big issue. For something like this to work, conferences would have to first be given AQ status. AQ status, whether we are talking 5-1-2 or some other playoff model essentially turns those 13th games into playoff games that the conferences own outright, regardless of teams on the field.

In contrast to JRJ, I think the 5-1-2 works fine with a single WCG playing into one of those 2 at large spots. I also think if given the option some (but not all) power conferences may choose to utilise their 13th game differently so as to enhance that game’s marketability.

Whether 0, 3, or all 5 AQs allow the committee to select opponents for their RS champions, I think the basic format of the playoff will stay the same. Putting an SEC team into the ACC/P12/B12’s game scratches the dual itches of getting a Top 25 brand for those second tier conferences AND getting more at large spots for the SEC.

(02-23-2022 04:40 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 01:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The latter is inherently more complicated and it's all subject to universal agreement that certain conferences can "own" playoff games in the first place. That doesn't mean that it *can't* be done, but it's also a matter of determining of the proverbial question of whether the juice is worth the squeeze, so to speak, particularly when you're asking the most powerful conferences with the most valuable CCGs to give up an asset that they have 100% control over.

[…]

Football CCGs are like those basketball conference tournament on steroids and that would be even more the case if the playoff expanded (*especially* if conference champs get extra considerations like byes). Eliminating them is a non-starter. Period.

I’m crossing conversations here, but much of what you said is pertinent to the larger thread themes.

The conference basketball tournaments is a great analogy. I think the issue some see (and, I admit, may be exaggerating) is that college football is hemmed in by Summer heat and the NFL playoffs, and by the physical nature of football which limits teams to a single game per week. March Madness can go into April because it only competes against regular season NBA games and the opening month of MLB. With college football you need to find ways to stream-line the calendar.

Control is a big issue. For something like this to work, conferences would have to first be given AQ status. AQ status, whether we are talking 5-1-2 or some other playoff model essentially turns those 13th games into playoff games that the conferences own outright, regardless of teams on the field.

In contrast to JRJ, I think the 5-1-2 works fine with a single WCG playing into one of those 2 at large spots. I also think if given the option some (but not all) power conferences may choose to utilise their 13th game differently so as to enhance that game’s marketability.

Whether 0, 3, or all 5 AQs allow the committee to select opponents for their RS champions, I think the basic format of the playoff will stay the same. Putting an SEC team into the ACC/P12/B12’s game scratches the dual itches of getting a Top 25 brand for those second tier conferences AND getting more at large spots for the SEC.

Sure - I understand what you're stating.

In practicality, this just seems like applying the bowl system to the playoffs where the P5 champs are contracted (effectively "own") with specific games and then their opponents are slotted from an at-large pool.

I actually don't personally have an issue with that notion. Frankly, if we just had the 4 top bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange and take your pick of either the Fiesta or Cotton), have their P5 traditional tie-ins plus 3 at-large bids and turned them into an 8-team playoff, I'd be super happy as a fan. I've probably proposed that playoff format 100 times-plus over the years on my blog or on this forum. It's honestly my personal favorite playoff format option. (Yes, RUscarlets may be surprised to hear that.)

However, I'm also a realist that actually wants to see an expanded playoff come to fruition as opposed to dying in committee like it is now. What I just described above is clearly not going to be agreed upon by the parties involved. The SEC is insisting upon a seeded bracket (along with more at-large bids) and there's not really a great competitive argument against it. (There might be some financial arguments against it, particularly with respect to the Big Ten/Pac-12/Rose Bowl relationship.)

At the same time, I'm seeing a lot of proposals in this thread simultaneously (a) underrating how committed the current powers that be (or at least the "powers that matter") are to the current 12-game regular season and CCG financial structure and (b) totally overrating how committed those same powers that matter care whatsoever about the current *calendar* structure.

My firm belief is that the powers that be are going to be VERY flexible with the calendar structure with the potential money involved, which means that there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to change a single thing about the current 12-game regular season and CCG schedule.

Others seem to believe that it's the calendar structure that the powers that be care about, so they're twisting themselves into knots on trying to radically alter the structure of the regular season/CCG schedule instead.

We'll see what happens, but my bet is going to be that it's a whole lot easier to simply add a week or two to extend the college football year into January instead of attempting to convince all of these conferences to radically change the regular season/CCG schedule structure. I don't think that's exactly crazy considering that's *exactly* what the CFP committee proposed and the Big Ten and Pac-12 were negotiating the Rose Bowl protections with the exact same assumption that the quarterfinals would occur on or around NYD and then the semifinals and final would occur in the weeks thereafter further into January. Once again, absolutely everyone involved has known from day one that there would be conflicts with the NFL with any type of CFP expansion further into January, yet that's still what garnered an 8-3 vote (and the Big Ten/Pac-12 issues don't have anything to do with that schedule as shown by how they're negotiating the Rose Bowl protections).

As I've stated before, there's a lot of zigging and zagging proposals when the reality is that a straight line proposal is right here in front of us (and actually *has* been proposed). It's not as if though the proposals in this thread even address the concerns of the ACC or Big Ten with CFP expansion, too, so we can't even argue that issue.

I think the calendar structure is a minor issue, but I think the total number of games played is a major issue.
12 game regular season
13- CCG
14-play in game for non-bye teams
15- elite 8
16- final 4
17- finals

I DO NOT think the schools have an appetite for a 17 game season. I DO think that “player safety” is more than just lip service meant to encompass fans slipping on ice at B1G stadiums. I think 16 is truly the max that anyone wants to sign off on, but they would consider the expansion to 12 with the expectation that a team would rarely play 17 games (or 18 if they happened to use the Hawaii rule). I think the schools would be much more willing to expand the playoffs if they could cap things at 16 games.