Why there were automatic byes ...

WhosYourDawggy

WhosYourDawggy

Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Posts
8,436
Reaction score
6,876
Bookie:
$ 1,000.00
I have seen this sentiment in a lot of posts here, on X, and elsewhere:

- Automatic byes awarded to conference winners. Don't like byes that much in general, but if they were to exist they should have been awarded to highest ranks in the final poll, not defaulted to conference champs

So long as you have conference championship games, you have to have byes. So long as you have a team that isn't in a conference, you have to have byes. Because the CFP values conference championships, something I like even with the new lack of balance between conferences, they have to make so there is no disincentive to get to your CCG. Notre Dame is also involved here ... it would be unfair for them to not play in a CCG and get a bye. They would get 2 weeks off.

So, until we don't have CCGs, we should have byes.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
I have seen this sentiment in a lot of posts here, on X, and elsewhere:

- Automatic byes awarded to conference winners. Don't like byes that much in general, but if they were to exist they should have been awarded to highest ranks in the final poll, not defaulted to conference champs

So long as you have conference championship games, you have to have byes. So long as you have a team that isn't in a conference, you have to have byes. Because the CFP values conference championships, something I like even with the new lack of balance between conferences, they have to make so there is no disincentive to get to your CCG. Notre Dame is also involved here ... it would be unfair for them to not play in a CCG and get a bye. They would get 2 weeks off.

So, until we don't have CCGs, we should have byes.
Click to expand...

They will prop up CCGs as long as they can, once it goes to 16 teams the CCGs take a big hit because there will be no BYEs. I don't think they will eliminate them though until the ultimate expansion to 24 teams.
 
osubuckeye89 said:
They will prop up CCGs as long as they can, once it goes to 16 teams the CCGs take a big hit because there will be no BYEs. I don't think they will eliminate them though until the ultimate expansion to 24 teams.
Click to expand...
- The TV contract that runs to 2032 says 12 or 14 teams, no more.
- The only way they go to 16 is in 2023 and TV revenue is enough to pay for getting rid of CCGs. I would be for that, although I really like the SECCG.
- I can't see anything beyond 16 because you can't have teams playing 18 games, and no way they shorten the season. Not to mention there aren't 12 good enough teams - even though I support 12 - there certainly aren't 24.

16 without byes, no CCGs, is probably where it ends in my lifetime.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
- The TV contract that runs to 2032 says 12 or 14 teams, no more.
- The only way they go to 16 is in 2023 and TV revenue is enough to pay for getting rid of CCGs. I would be for that, although I really like the SECCG.
- I can't see anything beyond 16 because you can't have teams playing 18 games, and no way they shorten the season. Not to mention there aren't 12 good enough teams - even though I support 12 - there certainly aren't 24.

16 without byes, no CCGs, is probably where it ends in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

I think they will get greedy and eventually move to 24, it won't be anytime in the next 10 years but maybe by like 2040? 16 is absolutely coming though.
 
jjc2009 said:
Automatic byes were the product of P4 conferences’ sense of entitlement.
Click to expand...
I explained it above, and your AD was a member of the group that came up with the idea. Did he have a sense of entitlement?

Example: ND doesn't play in a conference so they get Championship week off. Let's say they are ranked 4th and get a bye. Now they have an extra week. That's not going to fly.

When you say automatic bye, I think you are confusing byes and automatic qualifiers. Which do you mean?
 


1737508114362.png
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
I explained it above, and your AD was a member of the group that came up with the idea. Did he have a sense of entitlement?

Example: ND doesn't play in a conference so they get Championship week off. Let's say they are ranked 4th and get a bye. Now they have an extra week. That's not going to fly.

When you say automatic bye, I think you are confusing byes and automatic qualifiers. Which do you mean?
Click to expand...
I meant bye. Our AD went along with it because he didn’t have a choice and/or he’s weak.

And the conferences are already talking about doing away with their championship game so that excuse will die soon too. As this devolves into two mega conferences how long before certain other blue bloods decide it isn’t worthwhile to split revenue 20 + ways.
 
Conferences get a ton of revenue from their CCG. Until there is an alternative that replaces that revenue, don't expect them to vanish.
 
jjc2009 said:
I meant bye. Our AD went along with it because he didn’t have a choice and/or he’s weak.

And the conferences are already talking about doing away with their championship game so that excuse will die soon too. As this devolves into two mega conferences how long before certain other blue bloods decide it isn’t worthwhile to split revenue 20 + ways.
Click to expand...
Yeah, none of that's happening anytime soon. If anything, the idea of going to larger conferences got wiped out this year. What we have is too big.

And, no one is talking about getting rid of the conference championships until you can show them how to replace the $40+ million they generate.

AD weak? You had no choice. The B1G and SEC aren't going to do shit for ND. You can stay Indy, but you aren't going to get any breaks in all this.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
I have seen this sentiment in a lot of posts here, on X, and elsewhere:

- Automatic byes awarded to conference winners. Don't like byes that much in general, but if they were to exist they should have been awarded to highest ranks in the final poll, not defaulted to conference champs

So long as you have conference championship games, you have to have byes. So long as you have a team that isn't in a conference, you have to have byes. Because the CFP values conference championships, something I like even with the new lack of balance between conferences, they have to make so there is no disincentive to get to your CCG. Notre Dame is also involved here ... it would be unfair for them to not play in a CCG and get a bye. They would get 2 weeks off.

So, until we don't have CCGs, we should have byes.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely.

You don't need bye weeks because CCGs exist. Clemson and SMU had to play round 1 after playing in the ACC CCG.

You need bye weeks because the bracket is uneven at 12 teams.

To me, if your team finished in the top 4 of the CFP rankings, they earned that bye week in round 1 whether they have to play in a CCG or not.

1737576868932.png

Top 4 should have gotten first round byes and probably ND should have been shifted ahead of either PSU or Texas.
 
Tharvot said:
I disagree completely.

You don't need bye weeks because CCGs exist. Clemson and SMU had to play round 1 after playing in the ACC CCG.

You need bye weeks because the bracket is uneven at 12 teams.

To me, if your team finished in the top 4 of the CFP rankings, they earned that bye week in round 1 whether they have to play in a CCG or not.

View attachment 131307

Top 4 should have gotten first round byes and probably ND should have been shifted ahead of either PSU or Texas.
Click to expand...

And if it goes to 14 teams, then only the top 2 get bye weeks....most years that means the winners of the B1G and SEC.
 
Tharvot said:
I disagree completely.

You don't need bye weeks because CCGs exist. Clemson and SMU had to play round 1 after playing in the ACC CCG.

You need bye weeks because the bracket is uneven at 12 teams.

To me, if your team finished in the top 4 of the CFP rankings, they earned that bye week in round 1 whether they have to play in a CCG or not.

View attachment 131307

Top 4 should have gotten first round byes and probably ND should have been shifted ahead of either PSU or Texas.
Click to expand...
It's not me ... the CFP Committee is on record saying exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Byes are there because of CCGs, and they went to 12 instead of 8 or 16 for that exact reason.

Look at this year. UGA got one for winning the SEC. Let's say that didn't exist - UTjr would play one less game than the SEC champ if we weren't in the top 4. That would be ridiculous. Only 4 CCs get the byes, so win your CC game, and be one of the top 4 CCs.

"You need bye weeks because the bracket is uneven at 12 teams." It was just the opposite. They needed uneven teams because they needed byes because of CCGs. Just reporting what the committee said.

ND is the extreme example of why this shouldn't change. By not playing a CCG, and getting a bye, they would have a 2 week advantage over other participants in CCGs. No way they will ever let that happen.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
It's not me ... the CFP Committee is on record saying exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Byes are there because of CCGs, and they went to 12 instead of 8 or 16 for that exact reason.

Look at this year. UGA got one for winning the SEC. Let's say that didn't exist - UTjr would play one less game than the SEC champ if we weren't in the top 4. That would be ridiculous. Only 4 CCs get the byes, so win your CC game, and be one of the top 4 CCs.

"You need bye weeks because the bracket is uneven at 12 teams." It was just the opposite. They needed uneven teams because they needed byes because of CCGs. Just reporting what the committee said.

ND is the extreme example of why this shouldn't change. By not playing a CCG, and getting a bye, they would have a 2 week advantage over other participants in CCGs. No way they will ever let that happen.
Click to expand...

That's just plain dumb then. But i guess that tracks for any "official committee" in the sports landscape. They "needed" bye weeks for the CCGs but then the ACC champ and runner up both played in round 1. They ended up playing against other teams that also participated in their CCGs so neither had an extra week of rest, but still its just kinda silly reason to back into an uneven format.

Hopefully its something they address in their winter meeting. Not as bad as the Leaders and Legends divisions, but not far off it.
 
Tharvot said:
That's just plain dumb then. But i guess that tracks for any "official committee" in the sports landscape. They "needed" bye weeks for the CCGs but then the ACC champ and runner up both played in round 1. They ended up playing against other teams that also participated in their CCGs so neither had an extra week of rest, but still its just kinda silly reason to back into an uneven format.

Hopefully its something they address in their winter meeting. Not as bad as the Leaders and Legends divisions, but not far off it.
Click to expand...
They have said over and over that they value conference championship games. If you value CCs, it's not dumb at all.

What changed was the conferences, not the CFP. When they came up with this scheme, you had a Pac and you had TX/OU in the B12. The P5 conferences were such that you expected something like UGA/Bama, Clemson/FSU, Ore/USC/UDub, tOSU/UM/PSU, and TX/OU to come out of those 5 conferences. Take the 4 best and give them byes because they won the extra game non-CCG-particiapants didn't play in. It's not perfect ... the loser play an extra game, but they mostly would get home games which proved to be very valuable.

They already met last week in Atlanta. They can't do anything in 2025, but 2026 they can make more changes. But, it has to be 12 or 14 teams.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
They have said over and over that they value conference championship games. If you value CCs, it's not dumb at all.

What changed was the conferences, not the CFP. When they came up with this scheme, you had a Pac and you had TX/OU in the B12. The P5 conferences were such that you expected something like UGA/Bama, Clemson/FSU, Ore/USC/UDub, tOSU/UM/PSU, and TX/OU to come out of those 5 conferences. Take the 4 best and give them byes because they won the extra game non-CCG-particiapants didn't play in. It's not perfect ... the loser play an extra game, but they mostly would get home games which proved to be very valuable.

They already met last week in Atlanta. They can't do anything in 2025, but 2026 they can make more changes. But, it has to be 12 or 14 teams.
Click to expand...

Considering the massive shifts out of the B12 and PAC, i think it would be reasonable to reassess the CFP setup.

I still hate the idea of forcing bye weeks so they can keep CCGs and their payouts, but I guess we can't expect them to intentionally turn down money.

A 14 team bracket with the B1G and SEC winners getting byes would be better than the awkward 4 bye setup we currently have considering the consolidation of power now.
 
Tharvot said:
Considering the massive shifts out of the B12 and PAC, i think it would be reasonable to reassess the CFP setup.

I still hate the idea of forcing bye weeks so they can keep CCGs and their payouts, but I guess we can't expect them to intentionally turn down money.

A 14 team bracket with the B1G and SEC winners getting byes would be better than the awkward 4 bye setup we currently have considering the consolidation of power now.
Click to expand...
That's probably where they end up. It won't be stated that way ... it will be top 2. In that Oregon and UGA, the two teams that would get byes in a CFP-14, both lost in the quarter-finals, it is going to be difficult to argue the SEC/B1G get the byes. Just say top 2 and that will almost always be the B1G/SEC Champs.

With 14, you still would get 2 of OM, USCjr, Bama, and Miami bitching. I think any of those 4 are better teams than ASU, SMU, Clemson, and Indiana. But they all had warts, and there will always be someone bitching. BYU, as an example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top