This Big XII Way Of Thinking...

Who all is for playoff expansion? I love more "meaningful" football, but will expansion be meaningful? You can't increase the amount of something and have it just as valuable or more valuable, right? Teams have to fight and claw to get a top 4 spot. If your team from a P5 conference gets 1 loss during the season, you better not lose another one (or so the story goes at least by the CFP standards currently). So the CFP expands to 12 or 16 teams or whatever. Okay, the #3 team beats the #14 team 8 times in the next 10-12 years. Will people to say, "Well, this playoff thing didn't really change much"? I mean, yeah the #5, #6, #7 team might make it to the semi-final or final here and there. I have mixed feelings. Would Cinderella happen in college football anywhere near as much as it does in college basketball? If this was in place last season, what type of crowd and TV ratings would Cincinnati vs. Pitt (just an example, not calling any schools out) bring?
 
Collegefbfan said:
Who all is for playoff expansion? I love more "meaningful" football, but will expansion be meaningful? You can't increase the amount of something and have it just as valuable or more valuable, right? Teams have to fight and claw to get a top 4 spot. If your team from a P5 conference gets 1 loss during the season, you better not lose another one (or so the story goes at least by the CFP standards currently). So the CFP expands to 12 or 16 teams or whatever. Okay, the #3 team beats the #14 team 8 times in the next 10-12 years. Will people to say, "Well, this playoff thing didn't really change much"? I mean, yeah the #5, #6, #7 team might make it to the semi-final or final here and there. I have mixed feelings. Would Cinderella happen in college football anywhere near as much as it does in college basketball? If this was in place last season, what type of crowd and TV ratings would Cincinnati vs. Pitt (just an example, not calling any schools out) bring?
Click to expand...
Good questions. I never liked a national champion being determined by "votes" from results of a regular season. They were too "unequal" regular seasons. We didn't have enough cross conference games to get a good comparison.

And I didn't like the BCS where "votes" also put two teams into a single game playoff. While CFP still has a version of "votes" in the form of the committee, I'm okay with it...because the two finalists have to beat another team head to head to get to the final. And they have to do it on the field instead of a smoke filled back room.

What "the regular season" sacrosancts do not want to see happen is a team that struggles early (let's say with a couple of losses) get on a roll at the end of a season and carry it into the playoffs and run the table. According to those sacrosancts, those two early season losses devalue the regular season if they are allowed into a playoff.

I like on the field playoffs, not votes. If an "underserving" team (according to sacrsancts) gets in so what. They'll get beat in the first round just like they have in the CFP. March Madness has a lot of first round routs. Big deal. It also has a ton of great first round games...with many leading to upsets.

Bottom line is I'm good with 4, 8, 12 or even 16. I don't buy the "that's too many games" argument for 12 or 16. If you are that concerned about the number of games, drop one of the cupcakes on the schedule. My other response is nearly all the finalists in Texas high school playoffs play 16 games....and are damn glad to do so. They're in the finals. They could have lost along the way and reduced their number of games. Where I would agree with the sacrosancts regarding the regular season value is with the 12 team proposal. I liked the regular season reward ideas of both first round byes for 1-4 and first round games at home sites for 5-8.
 
Deep Creek said:
Well Cincy did make it into the CFP with the mere crumbs of G5 revenue so that sounds like they will support which of the two is friendlier to them.

Kind of makes a person wonder what the hell a lot of P5 programs that get 20+ times G5 revenue are doing with it. They ain’t getting comparable results. 12 of 14 PAC schools haven’t made the playoffs. 9 of 10 Big 12 teams haven’t. 11 of 14 B1G teams haven’t. 12 of 14 ACC teams haven’t. Only the SEC has decent varied representation. But lowly Cincy makes it off of crumbs.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't come as a surprise that the stars and moons can align once in what, 8 years, and have one team make it.

I'm curious, what is your position on how G5 should be handled? Should they be treated as equals? Should they have their own playoff?
 
TaikoTiger said:
Sankey can be mad but he still only has one vote 🙂

But I agree that we're looking at 4-6 top ranked conference champs getting into the expanded playoffs
Click to expand...
Not sure if the smiley face means you are serious or not, but we both know that the SEC and B1G will be the leaders here. Officially they may have one vote each, but their votes clearly count more.

I could see the SEC starting with (1) best 12 teams, no AQ; and then falling back to (2) 4 AQs ... the top 4 conference champs, arguing that with OU/TX and USC/UCLA leaving what we really have are 2 P5 and 8 G5 now. If they were willing to only have 1 spot for G5 before, why not do that now ... throw the ACC a bone with 3 P5 (SEC, ACC, and B1G), plus one for the other 7 G5. Not saying that is what I think should happen ... just that I can see that being the position for starting the negotiations.
 
Great post and response, IMO.
Deep Creek said:
Good questions. I never liked a national champion being determined by "votes" from results of a regular season. They were too "unequal" regular seasons. We didn't have enough cross conference games to get a good comparison.
Click to expand...
One of the best reasons. I don't think that the expansion will have people waking up the second weekend of January and saying, "shit, who thought the PAC was better than the SEC," but expansion will certainly let each conference prove things on the field.
Deep Creek said:
And I didn't like the BCS where "votes" also put two teams into a single game playoff. While CFP still has a version of "votes" in the form of the committee, I'm okay with it...because the two finalists have to beat another team head to head to get to the final. And they have to do it on the field instead of a smoke filled back room.
Click to expand...
The 4 team CFP has proven this ... if you look at where the committee has ranked teams 1 and 2, which would have been the BCS finals, you will see that more often than not they got it wrong. We don't need conjecture ... we have objective facts that while they have been getting the top 4, they have missed the order a lot.
Deep Creek said:
What "the regular season" sacrosancts do not want to see happen is a team that struggles early (let's say with a couple of losses) get on a roll at the end of a season and carry it into the playoffs and run the table. According to those sacrosancts, those two early season losses devalue the regular season if they are allowed into a playoff.
Click to expand...
I never understood that a team that loses late is somehow worse than one that loses early. A loss is a loss, no matter when it happens. The count of worldwide sport leagues that penalizes teams for losing late: zero.
Deep Creek said:
I like on the field playoffs, not votes. If an "underserving" team (according to sacrsancts) gets in so what. They'll get beat in the first round just like they have in the CFP. March Madness has a lot of first round routs. Big deal. It also has a ton of great first round games...with many leading to upsets.

Bottom line is I'm good with 4, 8, 12 or even 16. I don't buy the "that's too many games" argument for 12 or 16. If you are that concerned about the number of games, drop one of the cupcakes on the schedule. My other response is nearly all the finalists in Texas high school playoffs play 16 games....and are damn glad to do so. They're in the finals. They could have lost along the way and reduced their number of games. Where I would agree with the sacrosancts regarding the regular season value is with the 12 team proposal. I liked the regular season reward ideas of both first round byes for 1-4 and first round games at home sites for 5-8.
Click to expand...
4 is done, clearly.

8 won't happen unless you do best 8. The SEC won't agree to just 2 at-large bids. Plus, there is too much TV money to not go further.

As between 12 and 16, 12 is clearly better for a number of reasons I laid out here the other day. That said, the main thing that will keep 16 from happening is that they will not vote for a system that guarantees 17 games. The CCGs aren't going away - too much money - and they will not do a system where the top 2 teams play 17 games. With the 12 team CFP, almost always the most games played will be 16. There will be rule changes to ensure that while we are increasing the number of games, CFB will lessen the number of plays. And, that is really what matters.
 
Deep Creek said:
Well Cincy did make it into the CFP with the mere crumbs of G5 revenue so that sounds like they will support which of the two is friendlier to them.

Kind of makes a person wonder what the hell a lot of P5 programs that get 20+ times G5 revenue are doing with it. They ain’t getting comparable results. 12 of 14 PAC schools haven’t made the playoffs. 9 of 10 Big 12 teams haven’t. 11 of 14 B1G teams haven’t. 12 of 14 ACC teams haven’t. Only the SEC has decent varied representation. But lowly Cincy makes it off of crumbs.
Click to expand...
12 of the 14 of the Pac 12 havnt made it?

11 of 14 B1G teams havent made it. Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State have
only the SEC has decent varied representation. 11 of 14 SEC havent made it. Alabama, UGA and LSU have

cmon man i know you are better than this
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Not sure if the smiley face means you are serious or not, but we both know that the SEC and B1G will be the leaders here. Officially they may have one vote each, but their votes clearly count more.

I could see the SEC starting with (1) best 12 teams, no AQ; and then falling back to (2) 4 AQs ... the top 4 conference champs, arguing that with OU/TX and USC/UCLA leaving what we really have are 2 P5 and 8 G5 now. If they were willing to only have 1 spot for G5 before, why not do that now ... throw the ACC a bone with 3 P5 (SEC, ACC, and B1G), plus one for the other 7 G5. Not saying that is what I think should happen ... just that I can see that being the position for starting the negotiations.
Click to expand...
And then the "G8" counters with 6 AQs :noidea:

I just think it's funny to think the BIG and SEC has more say but only make up 2 out of the 10 votes :)
 
outofyourmind said:
I always felt like a team should be at it's best towards the end of the season, and a lot of teams can drop an early game.
Click to expand...
But it's also a function of scheduling - UM and tSOU play at the end of each year. Bama v. Auburn, end of year. No other league in any way considers this.

This will all be moot with a 12 team CFP and that's good.
 
TaikoTiger said:
And then the "G8" counters with 6 AQs :noidea:

I just think it's funny to think the BIG and SEC has more say but only make up 2 out of the 10 votes :)
Click to expand...
Economically, they do. Just like the P5 had more say than the G5. Why do you think that is so? Because the P5 had all the better teams and made a ton more money. The same thing is now happening within the P5 level. When you are going to have the B1G and SEC making 60% or more than the other conferences, you don't think they will have a greater influence on decisions like CFP expansion?
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Economically, they do. Just like the P5 had more say than the G5. Why do you think that is so?
Click to expand...
Because P5 + ND was more than G5 :noidea:
WhosYourDawggy said:
Because the P5 had all the better teams and made a ton more money. The same thing is now happening within the P5 level. When you are going to have the B1G and SEC making 60% or more than the other conferences, you don't think they will have a greater influence on decisions like CFP expansion?
Click to expand...
Sure SEC and BIG will have some influence but conferences will still vote towards what will suit them the best. So the compromise will most likely be around 6 AQs
 
TaikoTiger said:
Because P5 + ND was more than G5 :noidea:

Sure SEC and BIG will have some influence but conferences will still vote towards what will suit them the best. So the compromise will most likely be around 6 AQs
Click to expand...
It was always that the G5 just don't make enough money. That's the problem the PAC and the B12 will have this time around.

You could be correct on 6 AQs, but with the B12 and PAC being a shell of their former selves, why? I can see the SEC advocating for 4. I would imagine that the idea that it is 5 P5 + 1 G5 is totally out at this point. The Alliance was big on that, but that won't survive this round of negotiations.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
It shouldn't come as a surprise that the stars and moons can align once in what, 8 years, and have one team make it.

I'm curious, what is your position on how G5 should be handled? Should they be treated as equals? Should they have their own playoff?
Click to expand...
They should have their own division/playoffs IMO. And some of the lower level P5 schools should go with 'em!
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
The 4 team CFP has proven this ... if you look at where the committee has ranked teams 1 and 2, which would have been the BCS finals, you will see that more often than not they got it wrong. We don't need conjecture ... we have objective facts that while they have been getting the top 4, they have missed the order a lot.
Click to expand...
That's exactly why I like teams having to prove it on the field at least once before making the finals.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
The 4 team CFP has proven this ... if you look at where the committee has ranked teams 1 and 2, which would have been the BCS finals, you will see that more often than not they got it wrong. We don't need conjecture ... we have objective facts that while they have been getting the top 4, they have missed the order a lot.
Click to expand...
That's exactly why I like teams having to prove it on the field at least once before making the finals.
 
OlyDuck said:
12 of the 14 of the Pac 12 havnt made it?

11 of 14 B1G teams havent made it. Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State have
only the SEC has decent varied representation. 11 of 14 SEC havent made it. Alabama, UGA and LSU have

cmon man i know you are better than this
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. It is only three from the SEC. My bad.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
It was always that the G5 just don't make enough money. That's the problem the PAC and the B12 will have this time around.

You could be correct on 6 AQs, but with the B12 and PAC being a shell of their former selves, why? I can see the SEC advocating for 4. I would imagine that the idea that it is 5 P5 + 1 G5 is totally out at this point. The Alliance was big on that, but that won't survive this round of negotiations.
Click to expand...
Do you see the ACC making an amount anywhere close to the B1G and SEC? I don't think hoops can carry the ACC to a number anywhere close to the other two. In fact, a good case can be made that the Big 12 has been a better hoops conference lately.
 
Deep Creek said:
P5 isn’t about quality of football or any athletic program. It is about how much revenue a team/conference can generate. And using revenue as the standard, only two “P5” conferences really exist.
Click to expand...
You Got It Animation GIF by SWR Kindernetz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top