(09-26-2023 10:23 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  IMHO, the best way forward is to retain the 6+6 format for 2024 and 2025. Beginning in 2026, expand the CFP to 16 teams with a 6+10 format. This should appeal to everyone.

Why not 128 teams? Then all but a few are happy?

(09-26-2023 11:13 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Lets say many of the P5 schools go with 2 or more loses and an undefeated Liberty, Fresno State and Marshall enters into the top 10? How are they going to do that? Include three G5 in the playoffs?

If somehow 3 G5s got ranked in the top ten, then as Frank said below, the top G5 would get a bye as one of the top 4 conference champs, and the other two would be in as at-larges.

I don't think you'd ever see more than one G5 in the top ten though. (TCU and Boise STate that year was a long time ago, and a half dozen teams have joined the P5 since then including TCU) If they somehow got ranked by the commitee (or by the polls-and-computers if they switch back to that), then they'd get playoff spots.

Let's say its 4+8. It will usually be: ACC, B1G, SEC, and XII.

Let's use tie-ins.

Cycle Year 1 - Semfinals at Fiesta Bowl and Peach Bowl.
ACC champion - Orange Bowl.
B1G champion - Rose Bowl.
SEC champion - Sugar Bowl.
XII champion - Cotton Bowl.

Cycle Year 2 - Semfinals at Cotton Bowl and Orange Bowl.
ACC champion - Peach Bowl.
B1G champion - Rose Bowl.
SEC champion - Sugar Bowl.
XII champion - Fiesta Bowl.

Cycle Year 3 - Semifinals at Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl.
ACC champion - Orange Bowl.
B1G champion - Fiesta Bowl.
SEC champion - Peach Bowl.
XII champion - Cotton Bowl.

If another champion is ranked higher, then they substitute in the above. So, if the MWC champion is ranked higher than the ACC champion in Cycle Year 2, then they must play in the Peach Bowl.

(09-26-2023 10:23 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  IMHO, the best way forward is to retain the 6+6 format for 2024 and 2025. Beginning in 2026, expand the CFP to 16 teams with a 6+10 format. This should appeal to everyone.

That would be smart, fair, and lucrative.
I'm sure college football leadership will mess it up.

(09-26-2023 11:34 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  Whatever happens, I'm sure it will be to the benefit of the SEC, B10 and ESPN... and to the detriment of everyone else.

Yup...the way it should be.

(09-26-2023 11:41 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:23 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  IMHO, the best way forward is to retain the 6+6 format for 2024 and 2025. Beginning in 2026, expand the CFP to 16 teams with a 6+10 format. This should appeal to everyone.

Why not 128 teams? Then all but a few are happy?

Putting aside fairness, on these matters, always think like a TV executive.

Don’t think of it as the number of teams, but rather the number of *exclusive* time slots.

The CFP isn’t like the NCAA Tournament where anyone wants playoff games overlapping in the same time slot and/or having games on in the middle of a weekday or late at night. In reality, there are really only 4 time slots available on a weekend: 1 on Friday and 3 on Saturday. Thursday and Sunday are off-limits because of the NFL (and they’re already facing the NFL on Saturday at that point).

So, despite my general statement that “more playoff games = more TV money”, there is a point of diminishing returns in going from 12 to 16 because that means the first round game time slots would start overlapping with each other… and the TV networks aren’t paying billions of dollars for a playoff with games that overlap each other. Add in the devaluation of the P4 CCGs if the first round bye is no longer an incentive and you can see how 12 teams ended up being the Goldilocks porridge number: not too big, not too small, and just right to fit into the maximum value TV windows.

(09-26-2023 10:56 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:13 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  One compromise which I think would be good is make the 5th spot a play-in between the 5th and 6th champions at a bowl site (Sun Bowl) a week before.

This way the 5th and 6th conference champions get to play in a traditional bowl game instead of facing slaughter on the road against a SEC/B1G blueblood. The winner can also say the won a major bowl game, a step on the ladder to a potential Top 10 run next year.

But everyone's going to know that it's a lie. If #16 Tulane beat #24 Troy last year in the Formerly-Known-As-The-Cotton Bowl at JerryWorld, nobody cares. A barely-top-25 G5 champ beat another barely-top-25 G5 champ.

It definitely would be considered a major bowl game as part of the CFP package.

(09-26-2023 11:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:41 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:23 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  IMHO, the best way forward is to retain the 6+6 format for 2024 and 2025. Beginning in 2026, expand the CFP to 16 teams with a 6+10 format. This should appeal to everyone.

Why not 128 teams? Then all but a few are happy?

Putting aside fairness, on these matters, always think like a TV executive.

Don’t think of it as the number of teams, but rather the number of *exclusive* time slots.

The CFP isn’t like the NCAA Tournament where anyone wants playoff games overlapping in the same time slot and/or having games on in the middle of a weekday or late at night. In reality, there are really only 4 time slots available on a weekend: 1 on Friday and 3 on Saturday. Thursday and Sunday are off-limits because of the NFL (and they’re already facing the NFL on Saturday at that point).

So, despite my general statement that “more playoff games = more TV money”, there is a point of diminishing returns in going from 12 to 16 because that means the first round game time slots would start overlapping with each other… and the TV networks aren’t paying billions of dollars for a playoff with games that overlap each other. Add in the devaluation of the P4 CCGs if the first round bye is no longer an incentive and you can see how 12 teams ended up being the Goldilocks porridge number: not too big, not too small, and just right to fit into the maximum value TV windows.

This is why I've said the answer plenty of times before is to include major bowl games along with the CFP contract to provide inventory which doesn't overlap like additional playoff games.

Perhaps go 4+8 but assign the other 5 champs a major bowl to be played in the NYD as a compromise.

Or keep 6+6 and make the 5th and 6th conference champ spots be play-in bowls before the first round of playoffs.

I strongly prefer 6+6, but realize some conferences will be against that. So, I say a compromise deal is in order. Minimum of 5+7 every year. Make the 6th champion earn their way in. If the 6th champion is ranked in the CFP rankings, they earn a bid. Otherwise, go with the 5+7. If you can't finish in top 25, did you really earn a bid? This sounds fair to me.

That said, I hope it remains 6+6. It can go to 6+10 in the new contract. This is fair.

(09-26-2023 12:41 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:41 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:23 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  IMHO, the best way forward is to retain the 6+6 format for 2024 and 2025. Beginning in 2026, expand the CFP to 16 teams with a 6+10 format. This should appeal to everyone.

Why not 128 teams? Then all but a few are happy?

Putting aside fairness, on these matters, always think like a TV executive.

Don’t think of it as the number of teams, but rather the number of *exclusive* time slots.

The CFP isn’t like the NCAA Tournament where anyone wants playoff games overlapping in the same time slot and/or having games on in the middle of a weekday or late at night. In reality, there are really only 4 time slots available on a weekend: 1 on Friday and 3 on Saturday. Thursday and Sunday are off-limits because of the NFL (and they’re already facing the NFL on Saturday at that point).

So, despite my general statement that “more playoff games = more TV money”, there is a point of diminishing returns in going from 12 to 16 because that means the first round game time slots would start overlapping with each other… and the TV networks aren’t paying billions of dollars for a playoff with games that overlap each other. Add in the devaluation of the P4 CCGs if the first round bye is no longer an incentive and you can see how 12 teams ended up being the Goldilocks porridge number: not too big, not too small, and just right to fit into the maximum value TV windows.

This is why I've said the answer plenty of times before is to include major bowl games along with the CFP contract to provide inventory which doesn't overlap like additional playoff games.

Perhaps go 4+8 but assign the other 5 champs a major bowl to be played in the NYD as a compromise.

Or keep 6+6 and make the 5th and 6th conference champ spots be play-in bowls before the first round of playoffs.

4+8 has zero chance. You can't designate the P4 in without all kinds of legal, political and perception headaches. And you can't guarantee the Big 10 champ will be a top 4 champ. I don't think anyone but SEC and ND like straight 12. 5+7 is most likely, but 6+6 may get a chance the next 2 years.

(09-26-2023 01:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 12:41 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:41 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:23 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  IMHO, the best way forward is to retain the 6+6 format for 2024 and 2025. Beginning in 2026, expand the CFP to 16 teams with a 6+10 format. This should appeal to everyone.

Why not 128 teams? Then all but a few are happy?

Putting aside fairness, on these matters, always think like a TV executive.

Don’t think of it as the number of teams, but rather the number of *exclusive* time slots.

The CFP isn’t like the NCAA Tournament where anyone wants playoff games overlapping in the same time slot and/or having games on in the middle of a weekday or late at night. In reality, there are really only 4 time slots available on a weekend: 1 on Friday and 3 on Saturday. Thursday and Sunday are off-limits because of the NFL (and they’re already facing the NFL on Saturday at that point).

So, despite my general statement that “more playoff games = more TV money”, there is a point of diminishing returns in going from 12 to 16 because that means the first round game time slots would start overlapping with each other… and the TV networks aren’t paying billions of dollars for a playoff with games that overlap each other. Add in the devaluation of the P4 CCGs if the first round bye is no longer an incentive and you can see how 12 teams ended up being the Goldilocks porridge number: not too big, not too small, and just right to fit into the maximum value TV windows.

This is why I've said the answer plenty of times before is to include major bowl games along with the CFP contract to provide inventory which doesn't overlap like additional playoff games.

Perhaps go 4+8 but assign the other 5 champs a major bowl to be played in the NYD as a compromise.

Or keep 6+6 and make the 5th and 6th conference champ spots be play-in bowls before the first round of playoffs.

4+8 has zero chance. You can't designate the P4 in without all kinds of legal, political and perception headaches. And you can't guarantee the Big 10 champ will be a top 4 champ. I don't think anyone but SEC and ND like straight 12. 5+7 is most likely, but 6+6 may get a chance the next 2 years.

Yeah - I think the P4 (or P2) group knows well enough that there practically needs to be at least 1 spot that allows for a G5 champ to get into the playoff. It’s a classic “pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered” scenario.

(09-26-2023 10:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:54 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:27 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I suspect it remains 6-6 and then becomes 5-7 for the next deal. Sure the SEC would like the top 12, but they are probably the only one.

Notre Dame probably would like it as well. But imho, a more important fight for ND would be to eliminate the provision that conference champions are guaranteed the top four seeds. Big Ten and SEC might agree with that provision.

No, I don’t think the Big Ten will agree to that. I still don’t think a lot of people understand just how much more the Big Ten cares about conference championships specifically compared to the SEC (who seems to just think it’s an irrelevant point in the seeding exercise). The B1G and SEC are not one and the same on the “Top 12” format.

I see the expanded Big Ten grab the Rose Bowl as its conference championship game WITHIN the CFP structure. The Big Ten will be a national conference and will need a bigger, higher-profile scope for its conference championship.

The top Big Ten championship contenders will play in Indianapolis and Las Vegas in the early CFP round. Winners play for the Big Ten championship in the Rose Bowl - as a quarterfinal CFP matchup. Big Ten champion gets the automatic bid into the CFP Final Four.

The SEC will do the same with Atlanta, Arlington, and the Orange Bowl.

Guaranteed access. Guaranteed ratings. Guaranteed money.

The rest will consider themselves lucky to still have a path to the CFP semifinals against either the Big Ten or SEC champ....and a smaller portion of the CFP money.

(09-26-2023 03:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  ... I see the expanded Big Ten grab the Rose Bowl as its conference championship game WITHIN the CFP structure. The Big Ten will be a national conference and will need a bigger, higher-profile scope for its conference championship.

The top Big Ten championship contenders will play in Indianapolis and Las Vegas in the early CFP round. Winners play for the Big Ten championship in the Rose Bowl - as a quarterfinal CFP matchup. Big Ten champion gets the automatic bid into the CFP Final Four.

The SEC will do the same with Atlanta, Arlington, and the Orange Bowl. ...

And which decade do you see this happening? Because it won't be the current decade.

5-7

Winning one of the 4 major leagues gets you a bye and a trip straight to your conference’s historic bowl tie in (Big 10–Rose, SEC-Sugar, ACC-Orange, Big 12-Fiesta(or maybe Cotton?))

The at larges and and the G5 play the opening round.

This should help with ticket sales and makes the CCGs meaningful as not only does winning one of the 4 majors get you a bye but a trip to the destination your conference hoped to reach for decades.

According to Ross, Mike Aresco now supports going to a 5+7 format:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...3375495554

(09-26-2023 06:03 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  According to Ross, Mike Aresco now supports going to a 5+7 format:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...3375495554

That's not very clear does he mean for the future or for the end of the current deal? For the future deal it's going to end up being 5-7, but for the remaining deal there's little incentive to just willingly go to 5-7 unless there's some sort of financial benefit being offered.

It'll probably be 5-7 come 2026, but maybe we see a compromise where the 5th & 6th best conference champs and the 7th & 8th best at-larges play in play-in games similar to March Madness.

(09-26-2023 06:15 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:03 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  According to Ross, Mike Aresco now supports going to a 5+7 format:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...3375495554

That's not very clear does he mean for the future or for the end of the current deal? For the future deal it's going to end up being 5-7, but for the remaining deal there's little incentive to just willingly go to 5-7 unless there's some sort of financial benefit being offered.

A reply to his 1st post.

(09-26-2023 06:15 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:03 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  According to Ross, Mike Aresco now supports going to a 5+7 format:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...3375495554

That's not very clear does he mean for the future or for the end of the current deal? For the future deal it's going to end up being 5-7, but for the remaining deal there's little incentive to just willingly go to 5-7 unless there's some sort of financial benefit being offered.

Presumably the benefit is the future (post 2025) playoff system.

Two years of 6-6 is a good way to end up with no autobids in 2025. or top 4 conference champs.

A more direct quote from the AAC commissioner.