12 team playoff might be the best option

[4down20]

This conversation had me look up the growth of bowl games. I remember getting excited as a kid for bowl games.

1968- 11 bowls (before my time)
1984- 18
1997- 20
2006- 32
2014- 39 (article printed in 2014)

Less than 30% of D1 made a bowl on 1982, 59.4% of D1 made a bowl in 2014.

Back in the day Alabama's record of most bowl appearances meant something, but it's not that big of a deal really. I watch the ones I want, and the games are just as good no matter how many other games are being played.

 

[4down20]

That ain't the CFP era.

Still teams that would have made the playoffs if they had existed at the time.

 

[Deep Creek]

Still teams that would have made the playoffs if they had existed at the time.

Pure conjecture.

They only got that high in rankings because of the polls. Had the CFP committee applied the same SOS they've used the past four years, both would have been eliminated because overall conference weakness brings the SOS down in the dirt. While TCU had Boise and Utah in conference, that still wouldn't have been enough. Their OOC in '10 was Oregon State, Tennesee Tech and SMU. '09 OOC was better with Virginia, Clem, SMU and Texas State. Still wouldn't have been good enough IMHO.

 

[bamafan4evr12]

If you have to expand, expand to 6. 5 conference champions and 1 at large

 

[WizardHawk]

Now we are on to how you structure the money and if the playoffs would raise more than the bowls. The money is not the issue, that is easy enough to come up with. Since NCAA wouldn't run it, who would negotiate the payouts and govern the playoffs? Guessing a P5 committee would have to be worked out. That is why it is something that would take a long time. The big issue is getting everyone together and coordinating everything

Really?

You know a source to replace ALL of the lost revenue for dropping the bowl games and various sponsors supporting them? It's easy to replace around $500 million dollars?

No, no it's not.

There's a complete fuck ton of money created by that bowl season. 39 bowls with their large dollar sponsors and all of that ad revenue and sub sponsorship around all of those games and TV deals.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, makes a shit load of money from it. Money you WON'T be able to replace. Hell, even our buddy creek's crappy UTEP team got something north of 1 million from the bowl pot. IT IMPACTS EVERY SINGLE FBS TEAM.

 

[WizardHawk]

I don't think SEC schools lose money on bowl games because all that money is pooled together and then split up among the teams.

But even if they lost they'd probably still pay it because there are many benefits to being a bowl team. Exposure, practice, etc.

The point I made to him is there are times that teams talk about coming up short on their bowl payouts vs expenses, but they NEVER lose money on the bowl season because of those pooled payouts. It's a pure revenue sharing scheme. Every team from every conference gets money no matter how they did. The 120th worst team in the country still gets a payday.

 

[4down20]

The point I made to him is there are times that teams talk about coming up short on their bowl payouts vs expenses, but they NEVER lose money on the bowl season because of those pooled payouts. It's a pure revenue sharing scheme. Every team from every conference gets money no matter how they did. The 120th worst team in the country still gets a payday.

Plus the playoffs pay each P5 conference like $50 million each, even if the conference doesn't make it to the playoffs. G5 conferences get a bunch too, I think it's like $20 million, but I can't remember exactly.

And the bowls still payout.

 

[4down20]

Pure conjecture.

They only got that high in rankings because of the polls. Had the CFP committee applied the same SOS they've used the past four years, both would have been eliminated because overall conference weakness brings the SOS down in the dirt. While TCU had Boise and Utah in conference, that still wouldn't have been enough. Their OOC in '10 was Oregon State, Tennesee Tech and SMU. '09 OOC was better with Virginia, Clem, SMU and Texas State. Still wouldn't have been good enough IMHO.

It depends on the year. What year has the playoff committee had to choose a G5 that beat a decent P5 team and showed they belonged? I'd like to see them actually make the mistake before accusing them of it.

Also, the MW conference was on the verge of being an AQ conference until they lost all those teams. The Big East was on the verge of losing it's AQ status.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

(1)Clemson (12-1)
(2)Oklahoma (12-1)
(3)Georgia (12-1)
(4)Alabama (11-1)

(12)UCF (12-0) @ (5)Ohio St (12-1)
(11)Washington (10-2) @ (6)Wisconsin (12-1)
(10)Miami (10-2) @ (7)Auburn (10-3)
(9)Penn St (10-2) @ (8)USC (11-2)

I would vote this down. I wouldn't go more than 8, but I do respect your desire for a playoff that's more than 4 teams. Some on this board think you will need to be institutionalized for thinking more than 4 would be better.

Your seeding would be wrong. I said there would be no conference championship game.

Undefeated - Wisconsin and UCF
1 loss - Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Miami, and Alabama
2 loss - Ohio State, Penn State, USC, Auburn, Washington, and TCU

Why is more than 8 teams bad? We would include the 10-12 wins, 0-2 loss pool of teams.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Reason I prefer 12 over 8, is the bye format. That makes securing a top 4 seed paramount. It also makes the road to the championship much harder for lower seeds.

Agreed. That's correct: The higher the seed, the more advantages you get.

Top 4 rewards - two week bye, home court advantage throughout.

5-8 ranking - one week bye, home court advantage for at least the first round.

9-12 ranking - the opportunity to play. The finally seeds could get in, due to SOS being very high or the fact they are a G5 program.

It also creates an even playing system. Everybody plays the same number of games. The 13th game has had a history of rewarding teams which never qualified.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Not a bad format. I still would prefer an 8 team playoff. I think it solves most of the problems that your 12 yeam playoff does and gives the "no more than 4" folks less to bitch about. But I wouldn't complain about this one.

I really like 8, but 12 provides more rewards for the top seeds and gives G5 programs a better shot.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

The problem isn't the number of teams in the playoff...the problem
is the selection of the team(s).

There is no consistency...NONE! Just double-talk, spin and remarks
that contradict each other.

It's like Conference/Division alignment. The ACC and the Big10 for
a short period of time, had divisions that were confusing to fans.

The Big10's Leaders and Legends was atrocious. But they learned
and expanded and went to an East-West setup. Everybody could understand that. And then they could take interest and follow it.

For a playoff...the fans MUST be able to track it themselves.
They have to understand how a team will be selected. Putting
13 people, in a back room is not something anybody can follow.
It's simply using "another man's opinion" as to who gets selected.

Those 13 get influenced by ESPN who is loaded with folks that
no nothing and the majority on this board, cannot stand. Yet,
we cede to their hype. It's Bullshit.

What always separated College Football from every other sport
was, you only got one chance to beat somebody. Now we're being
reduced to being like Basketball where teams face each other 3 times a year or god knows how many times in baseball.

Plus we don't even allow for the rare upset. This is set-up to
eliminate half the teams (65) before play even begins.

It's all a waste of time debating this shit.

I have been in favor since day 1 using an algorithm instead of human polling.

 

[Deep Creek]

It depends on the year. What year has the playoff committee had to choose a G5 that beat a decent P5 team and showed they belonged? I'd like to see them actually make the mistake before accusing them of it.

Also, the MW conference was on the verge of being an AQ conference until they lost all those teams. The Big East was on the verge of losing it's AQ status.

I ain't accusing them of anything. Just the fact that unless an entire G5 conference improves to the point their in conference games are tougher up and down the schedule, the committee can't put them in unless the P5s are really sorry in such a year. Like I said earlier, Christ will return before all those stars align.

I agree with you that those three (the two TCU teams and the one Cincy team) would have been the closest. I just think when it came down to analyzing an entire schedule, there would have been four or more P5 teams that had played/beaten a more impressive group of opponents. Part of it is built in to being a P5 member.

 

[Codaxx]

Really?

You know a source to replace ALL of the lost revenue for dropping the bowl games and various sponsors supporting them? It's easy to replace around $500 million dollars?

No, no it's not.

There's a complete fuck ton of money created by that bowl season. 39 bowls with their large dollar sponsors and all of that ad revenue and sub sponsorship around all of those games and TV deals.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, makes a shit load of money from it. Money you WON'T be able to replace. Hell, even our buddy creek's crappy UTEP team got something north of 1 million from the bowl pot. IT IMPACTS EVERY SINGLE FBS TEAM.

Yes, it is. You don't think those same sponsors and TV money wouldn't be there for a playoff? I don't even understand why you would think it would simply disappear because conferences would be putting on the event instead of paying a middle man (bowls) to do it for them. And yes everyone makes money from it, including the middle man

 

[Codaxx]

The point I made to him is there are times that teams talk about coming up short on their bowl payouts vs expenses, but they NEVER lose money on the bowl season because of those pooled payouts. It's a pure revenue sharing scheme. Every team from every conference gets money no matter how they did. The 120th worst team in the country still gets a payday.

We all understand that pooling of bowls ends up positive. The Rose bowl payout can subsidize a lot of shitty bowls. That doesn't mean those bowls didn't cost the University

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I just want more football, if I could, I would love a 64 team bracket like men's basketball lol.

I'd settle for the same FCS style playoff with 24 teams... however, I hate the idea of giving out bye weeks. Every team should get the same treatment... meaning everyone plays.


But... I'd totally settle for 8 or 16 for sure.

 

[WizardHawk]

Plus the playoffs pay each P5 conference like $50 million each, even if the conference doesn't make it to the playoffs. G5 conferences get a bunch too, I think it's like $20 million, but I can't remember exactly.

And the bowls still payout.

The G5's split something around $81m and it typically works out to be something close to if not just north of $1m for even the lowest paid team while some make considerably more depending on how many from their conference make any bigger bowls.

They were smart when they formed this latest version of the playoffs. The guaranteed cash to every single team in FBS ensures they can weather all of the voices wanting more drastic changes. I'm sure we will be saying this until we are blue in the face, but no matter how many times they keep claiming change is inevitable and a bigger playoff/less bowls are coming it just simply isn't going to happen. Money talks and THIS system is talking LOUDLY. None of those voices ever have actual answers for replacing a half a billion dollars a year other than 'its easy, they'll find it' or some such.

 

[WizardHawk]

Yes, it is. You don't think those same sponsors and TV money wouldn't be there for a playoff? I don't even understand why you would think it would simply disappear because conferences would be putting on the event instead of paying a middle man (bowls) to do it for them. And yes everyone makes money from it, including the middle man

So you think you can replace 39 bowls and an extra title game entirely with just an 8 or 12 team tournament and come up with more money? I mean do the math. There are currently 40 games that bring in a half a billion dollars a year. Now you expect 6-10 games to earn at least as much AND still only give the 8-12 teams doing ALL of the work for it now (vs nearly 80 teams now) to still hold next to nothing of it and give all of it away to every FBS team? I mean do you REALLY think there is any type of model where that works? I seriously can't find anything that would come even half way to that number and there's no way the current sharing would work under that model.

Not

At

ALL

We all understand that pooling of bowls ends up positive. The Rose bowl payout can subsidize a lot of shitty bowls. That doesn't mean those bowls didn't cost the University

What part of this are you not understanding? There currently isnt any team in FBS that comes out behind after ALL playoff/bowl money is distributed. No one comes close. When teams talk about net losses they are talking about JUST the part of THEIR OWN BOWL they keep vs expenses. IT DOES NOT COUNT THE CONF DISTRIBUTION.

I don't think there is a P5 team that gets less than $4m just in conf payouts. Every indy team gets a guaranteed predetermined payout and there is $81m in guaranteed payouts to how many G5's? Less than 81. DO THE MATH. The whole damned thing is a GIANT CASH GRAB.

And NO PLAYOFF ONLY FORMAT CAN COME CLOSE TO REPLACING IT. Period.

 

[NolePride]

I have been in favor since day 1 using an algorithm instead of human polling.

I prefer the playing field. Conf Champs only. Everybody can follow that.

 

[WizardHawk]

I prefer the playing field. Conf Champs only. Everybody can follow that.

So I'll ask you again.

How is an 8-9 game regular season better than the current format? As in, there wouldn't ever be another solid OOC game again. So how is it better?

Conf champ auto bids would eliminate independent teams forever. No one would ever schedule one. ND has no chance of doing their traditional rivalries unless they met in the playoffs. They have to join a conf or quit playing football. No more ND/Stanford or USC. No more out of conf rivalries. No more FSU/Florida. Ever.

You entirely reduce college football to intraconf matchups and exhibition games against teams like Mercer.

Even you would want to fire your AD for scheduling Florida for a game that had zero impact on your post season chances and one of your stars ended up hurt playing them. Guaranteed your base would call for his head.

Please, some of you really think about the consequences of what you are asking for. It can't and won't work. It entirely destroys way way more than it solves.