|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 2, 2024 14:39:54 GMT -5
College football 2024: Who will make the 12-team playoff?
John Adams/Icon Sportswire ESPN Feb 2, 2024, 08:00 AM ET
Last week, ESPN's college football reporters made their cases for the players, teams and games that they are most excited to see in the fall. This week, they're talking about the 12-team playoff -- what the issues with the format might be and which teams will be able to make the most of the new system. They'll also give their way-too-early predictions for the 12 teams that will compete for the national title.
What are you most looking forward to -- or what is your biggest concern -- about the new format? David Hale: The argument against a playoff -- any playoff -- was always about watering down the regular season. For the most part, that wasn't a concern during the four-team era, though there were certainly signs of problems. In a 12-team playoff with just four power conferences now -- and some might argue just two -- there's a real concern games that meant a ton in the regular season before are now more about spectacle than stakes. With seven "at-large" bids, teams that finish third or even fourth in the SEC or Big Ten will still have a real shot at the playoff. That may be a good thing to a degree, but it will also water down the impact of the three months of games that lead up to the playoff.
Take last year's Penn State -- a team that finished the regular season ranked in the top 10, which would have guaranteed a playoff bid under this new system. The Nittany Lions beat Iowa (meh) and lost badly to both Michigan and Ohio State. No other games on the schedule really moved the needle. So, under the 12-team model, you'd have a playoff team that basically only needed to win one marginally impactful game all year to earn its spot. Is that really what we want?
And what, exactly, is the point of a conference title game when both teams that play in the SEC or Big Ten championship will head to the playoff? The big Georgia-Clemson game to open the 2024 season? The outcome means virtually nothing in the playoff discussion. In a time when other sports are desperately trying to find ways to add intrigue to the regular season -- baseball's "Field of Dreams" game, the NBA's in-season tournament, the NHL's outdoor classic -- college football has effectively sold off its most valuable asset (the stakes of every Saturday's games) in favor of a larger playoff field.
Harry Lyles Jr.: Hale's concern about a watered-down regular season is also mine. As somebody who was in the Big House on Nov. 25 this year, lessening stakes of rivalry games at the end of the season like Ohio State-Michigan feels like the wrong decision. With that said, I fully plan on embracing the new format and will still enjoy it, especially once we get into on-campus games at schools that historically haven't been in championship or playoff contention. Those electric environments are going to be great, and are one of the many reasons why I love college football. And hey, the one year we get a true Cinderella will validate all of this, right?
Chris Low: This is an easy one: the on-campus games in the first round. College football was made to be played on college campuses with students walking from their dorms to the stadium, three generations of a family tailgating in the same spot they have for decades and music blaring from fraternity houses. Then there's the ambiance that goes along with playing at campus venues -- Clemson running down the hill at Death Valley, the giant "T" opening at Neyland Stadium as the Tennessee players charge onto the field, Washington fans arriving to Husky Stadium by boat and sailgating, Penn State white outs in Happy Valley and the Notre Dame fight song being played with Touchdown Jesus looking down on a cold winter day in South Bend. Granted, it's just one round of on-campus sites. But at least we get one round of real, live college football pageantry.
Bill Connelly: Honestly, I'm looking forward to not being nearly as angry about the selection process and the top of the rankings. The CFP committee has proven that when picking the top four teams is particularly tough -- as it was in 2014 and 2023 -- it can make some super-strange (and, in the case of 2023, infuriating and misguided) decisions. But now it obviously has quite a bit of margin for error. Plus, with the autobids in place for a set number of conference champions, there's a path for more than half of FBS to reach the CFP no matter what the committee thinks of them. Obviously there will still be some ways for the committee to anger people. We'll figure out a way to get fired up over whoever ranks 13th, for one, and it could still screw up who gets access to the playoff from the Group of 5 level. But it's pretty clear at this point that if we want the right four teams in the semifinals, we need to invite a lot more than four teams to the party, and this margin for error will be a welcome thing for my blood pressure.
David's right in that the trade-off for this margin for error is that certain games become spectacles only and the stakes for specific, big rivalry games are lowered. But man, oh man, are the conference title races going to be fun. The Big 12 is going to have about 10 teams that are exactly the same from a quality standpoint. The ACC could have about four to six. And considering how much of an advantage byes could give for the top four teams (a.k.a. conference champions), there should still be plenty of stakes for Ohio State-Michigan, Oklahoma-Texas, et cetera. I always enjoy the regular season, and I'll be shocked if I don't enjoy it even more this fall.
Andrea Adelson: While I have been in favor of an expanded playoff since the BCS, I have concerns about a playoff with this many teams. Hopefully this does not sound like a "get off my lawn" argument, but the season is now going to stretch into late January, players will be playing more games than ever and ultimately, I think we are going to arrive to the semis and championship game with essentially the same group of schools that would have been there in a four-team CFP. What happened to Florida State last season (and UCF, Baylor, Ohio State et al previously) reinforced the need to expand. The four-team CFP was obviously, and very seriously, flawed. But 12 teams feels like too many, and it will only further diminish everything outside the playoff.
Heather Dinich: The larger field of contenders is going to be fan-freaking-tastic. While the sport will ultimately wind up with familiar faces in the national title game, the appearance of fairness will make for a far more interesting and inclusive path to it. Notre Dame should be in more often than not. Big Ten teams other than Ohio State and Michigan have a chance. It's not just Alabama and Georgia in the SEC. And the best Group of 5 team no longer faces unrealistic requirements to get into the exclusive club.
Which team will make its first playoff appearance in 2024? USC
Hale: Odds are, we'll have a handful of first-timers. Unless TCU or Cincinnati wins the Big 12, that league will definitely send a first-timer to the playoff. Utah, Kansas and Texas Tech should all be in that conversation. The Group of 5 will have an auto bid, too, which will put Memphis, Tulane, Boise State and others in the mix. Wisconsin, Penn State and Iowa each had among the best overall records of the four-team era, but never made a playoff. That could change in 2024. But here's the most fun guess: USC. The Trojans move to the Big Ten, which could either be a difficult transition or the key to improving its defense (by avoiding all those Pac-12 offenses). I'm leaning toward the latter.
Ole Miss quarterback Jaxson Dart will have an improved chance to lead his team to the playoff next season. AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis Ole Miss
Low: Ole Miss and Lane Kiffin have knocked on the playoff door in two of the last three seasons. The Rebels are poised to knock that door down in 2024. They have an elite (and experienced) quarterback in Jaxson Dart. Tre Harris returns as one of the more dynamic receivers in college football, and Ole Miss beefed up its offensive line and front seven on defense thanks to a transfer portal haul ranked as one of the best in the country. Kiffin has pumped life into an Ole Miss program that has improved in all facets, and as schedules go in 2024, the Rebels appear to have one of the more manageable ones in the SEC.
Penn State
Connelly: Expansion should indeed make for a fun batch of first-timers, but there's no question it helps the Penn States of the world over all others. In the last two regular seasons, Penn State went 0-2 against Michigan and Ohio State and 20-0 against everyone else -- that pretty much screams "annual No. 8ish seed" -- and if new offensive coordinator Andy Kotelnicki can provide a boost of creativity and explosiveness on that side of the ball, the Nittany Lions should be well on their way to hitting just about the same mark this year.
Missouri (and Arizona)
Adelson: Ole Miss feels like an easy choice, but how about Missouri from the SEC? An expanded playoff surely means the potential for at least three (or likely more?) SEC teams to make it in. Mizzou would have made a 12-team playoff last year and is returning quarterback Brady Cook and top receiver Luther Burden III. One more team to keep an eye on in the newly reconfigured Big 12: Arizona. Jedd Fisch might be gone, but Brent Brennan has proven himself at San Jose State and gets to work with one of the best QB-WR duos returning to college football in Noah Fifita and Tetairoa McMillan
Memphis
Lyles Jr.: I'll pick the Group of 5 representative and go with Ryan Silverfield's Memphis Tigers. With SMU going to the ACC, Tulane having another year of departures after 2022's run to the Cotton Bowl, and UTSA welcoming in a new quarterback, I think the Tigers are in a great position in the AAC to make a run. Quarterback Seth Henigan will be going into his fourth season as a starter on a Memphis team that's got some weapons returning around him, like wideout Roc Taylor and running back Sutton Smith. Linebacker Chandler Martin is also coming back and was a leader both emotionally and statistically on their defense. That type of continuity could be enough to help them continue to break through just as they did this past season.
What is your way-too-early prediction for the 12-team playoff field? Note: The four highest-ranked conference champions will receive the top four seeds AND a first-round bye. This means each writer's top four teams below are also predictions of conference champions -- but that might not necessarily reflect where the writer would rank those teams in his or her top 25. For example, Dinich has Utah as the No. 3 seed and projected Big 12 champion, but would rank the Utes No. 7 overall.
Hale First-round byes: 1. Georgia, 2. Ohio State, 3. Clemson, 4. Kansas First-round matchups: 5. Oregon vs. 12. Memphis; 6. Texas vs. 11. USC; 7. Notre Dame vs. 10. Florida State; 8. Alabama vs. 9. Ole Miss
Low First-round byes: 1. Georgia, 2. Ohio State, 3. Utah, 4. Clemson First-round matchups: 5. Texas vs. 12. Liberty; 6. Oregon vs. 11. Michigan; 7. Alabama vs. 10. Penn State; 8. Ole Miss vs. 9. Notre Dame
Connelly First-round byes: 1. Georgia, 2. Oregon, 3. Florida State, 4. Kansas State First-round matchups: 5. Texas vs. 12 Memphis; 6. Ohio State vs. 11. Utah; 7. Penn State vs. 10. Alabama; 8. Ole Miss vs. 9. Michigan
Adelson: First-round byes: 1. Georgia, 2. Ohio State, 3. Clemson, 4. Arizona First-round matchups: 5. Oregon vs. 12. Boise State; 6. Ole Miss vs. 11. Florida State; 7. Texas vs. 10. Kansas State; 8. Notre Dame vs. 9. Missouri
Lyles: First-round byes: 1. Georgia, 2. Oregon, 3. Florida State, 4. Utah First-round matchups: 5. Texas vs. 12. Memphis; 6. Ohio State vs. 11. Penn State; 7. Ole Miss vs. 10. Alabama; 8. Notre Dame vs. 9. Michigan
Dinich First-round byes: 1. Georgia, 2. Ohio State, 3. Utah, 4. Louisville First-round matchups: 5. Texas vs. 12. Boise State; 6. Ole Miss vs. 11 USC; 7. Oregon vs. 10. Missouri; 8. Notre Dame vs. 9. Alabama
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Feb 2, 2024 18:12:37 GMT -5
Easy answer, shine a turd, it is still a turd.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 4, 2024 19:12:59 GMT -5
ESPN's Heather Dinich on an even more expanded playoff. About a decade ago, a few folks mentioned the slippery slope of the playoff. We were laughed at. The Big Ten Commish apparently already has his eyes set on 16. I wonder if he is thinking double elimination might even add more gold to the pot.
Heather Dinich, ESPN Senior Writer Feb 4, 2024, 01:30 PM ET
The last CFP deal lasted 10 years of a 12-year contract before a format change arrived. And while there's no imminent format change beyond the new 12-team field, simple math would hint toward one being considered seriously before the eight years is up. One source called it "the elephant in the room," as the Big Ten has grown to 18 teams and the SEC is at 16. That's 34 programs, many of which were at the top of their former leagues.
In a meeting earlier this fall, Petitti initiated a discussion about a 16-team format, a source told ESPN. There's no indication anything will change in the short term. Petitti's perspective makes sense from a pure math and access standpoint, as he's now in charge of 18 teams, many of whom harbor legitimate playoff expectations.
There's a lot to sort out for the CFP before any format changes, and growth comes with complications.
CFP leaders will likely want the TV contract to include a clause or some language that addresses the possibility of the field expanding beyond 12 teams. Although ESPN is considering paying the hefty price tag of about $1.3 billion, a field larger than 12 teams would lead to increased costs, and at some point, diminishing returns. CFP sources have indicated the commissioners, presidents and chancellors want full control of how large the field is.
Why does access loom as a compelling topic? Whether the playoff has four, 12, 16 or 100 teams, there will be fights over the final few spots. In an era of super conferences, the criteria for making the expanded field will be closely watched. Will those rules -- and the people making them -- change over time?
Currently, changes to the existing contract, structure and finances have to be unanimously approved by the 11 presidents and chancellors who have the ultimate authority over the playoff.
Should the Sun Belt have the same say as the SEC? Should the Big Ten have similar power to the MAC?
Those are questions being asked, and concerns being raised as this contract heads toward the finish line. Especially with unanimous approval needed on the 5+7 model, the revenue that will (or won't) be allocated to new incoming ACC member SMU, and voting power being given to the remaining Pac-12 schools, Oregon State and Washington State.
Entering the last CFP contract nearly a decade ago, there was always going to be controversy over four teams being picked when there's five major conferences (plus Notre Dame). This version's inherent controversy will be rooted in the bye for conference champions that wouldn't normally be ranked in the top four. (In 2022, for example, the model would have given ACC winner Clemson and Pac-12 winner Utah byes and bumped out TCU and Ohio State from the Top 4. Clemson and Utah finished No. 7 and No. 8 in the final CFP rankings.)
So while the Big Ten and SEC champs would be virtually guaranteed a bye as one of the highest ranked conference champions, there's going to be increased tension as the SEC and Big Ten have both added significant brands and weakened other leagues. The 12-team model was set in motion before the moves of Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC and USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon took off for the Big Ten. Is the SEC No. 3 better than the ACC No. 2? Is the Big Ten No. 3 better than the Big 12 No. 2?
Those are the debates as we adjust to a system where multiple losses are going to become an accepted playoff résumé. Will the Big Ten and SEC push for a model with more guaranteed spots? Or does a model that just chooses the 12 highest ranked teams favor them more?
|
|
|
Post by tonythegator on Feb 4, 2024 20:16:35 GMT -5
The way things are going, it won't be long before ESPN replaces the NCAA as the official governing body of college football. After all, they are really running the show already.
|
|
|
Post by geauxtigerfan on Feb 4, 2024 20:31:33 GMT -5
The way things are going, it won't be long before ESPN replaces the NCAA as the official governing body of college football. After all, they are really running the show already. Money rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2024 4:20:47 GMT -5
Take last year's Penn State -- a team that finished the regular season ranked in the top 10, which would have guaranteed a playoff bid under this new system. The Nittany Lions beat Iowa (meh) and lost badly to both Michigan and Ohio State. No other games on the schedule really moved the needle. So, under the 12-team model, you'd have a playoff team that basically only needed to win one marginally impactful game all year to earn its spot. Is that really what we want? As opposed to say, 2023 Michigan, who played 2 games to reach the playoffs, one against the very Penn State team that you are running down? And what, exactly, is the point of a conference title game when both teams that play in the SEC or Big Ten championship will head to the playoff? This, of everything, is the biggest hypocritical slap in the face of the whole article. I mean, this is rich coming from ESPN, who didn't seem to care about the CCG when they were pushing tOSU over Penn State in 2016, or when they pushed the complete bullshit UGA-LSU rematch in 2011, or when they pushed for Bama in the playoffs in 2018, or...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2024 4:37:53 GMT -5
And one more thing- if you think that ESPN (with their exclusive rights) weren't a part of the push to create the very 12 team playoff that some of them are now ragging on, I have a bridge...
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 6, 2024 7:30:52 GMT -5
Take last year's Penn State -- a team that finished the regular season ranked in the top 10, which would have guaranteed a playoff bid under this new system. The Nittany Lions beat Iowa (meh) and lost badly to both Michigan and Ohio State. No other games on the schedule really moved the needle. So, under the 12-team model, you'd have a playoff team that basically only needed to win one marginally impactful game all year to earn its spot. Is that really what we want? As opposed to say, 2023 Michigan, who played 2 games to reach the playoffs, one against the very Penn State team that you are running down? And what, exactly, is the point of a conference title game when both teams that play in the SEC or Big Ten championship will head to the playoff? This, of everything, is the biggest hypocritical slap in the face of the whole article. I mean, this is rich coming from ESPN, who didn't seem to care about the CCG when they were pushing tOSU over Penn State in 2016, or when they pushed the complete bullshit UGA-LSU rematch in 2011, or when they pushed for Bama in the playoffs in 2018, or... Do we know that David Hale supported Ohio State over Penn State in 2016? And who pushed a UGA-LSU rematch in 2011? UGA lost three games including SEC Championship game to LSU. Think you meant Bama-LSU. ESPN, specifically Herbie pushed for rematch of Ohio State and Michigan in 2006 because they were clearly the two best teams in the country...well, maybe not clearly. Remember, this is a group of people currently working for ESPN, obviously with different opinions.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 6, 2024 7:49:53 GMT -5
And one more thing- if you think that ESPN (with their exclusive rights) weren't a part of the push to create the very 12 team playoff that some of them are now ragging on, I have a bridge... Reminder. I posted an article and didn't even comment on it. The opinions were from a variety of ESPN writers and they obviously varied. I don't know much about David Hale, but he is most likely had nothing to do with 2011 or 2016. He previously for a short period of time covered UGA for the AJC and then the Philadelphia Phillies. He was one of the few very outspoken critics of FSU being left out this year. And yep, without any doubt ESPN pushed and continued to push for the expanded playoff. However, hypocrisy is in their DNA. After all, we always hear Reece Davis and Herbie pleading with fans that they should not just focus on the playoff teams but also on the other bowl games. Then, once the bowl games start, every single half time is spent on at least one of the 4 teams in the playoffs. I couldn't agree more on the hypocrisy charge for the network as a whole. But as this article shows, clearly the different writers have different opinions. Remember, Booger McFarland was adamant about FSU getting in the playoff vice almost every other talking head who said Bama was the right choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2024 8:31:02 GMT -5
As opposed to say, 2023 Michigan, who played 2 games to reach the playoffs, one against the very Penn State team that you are running down? This, of everything, is the biggest hypocritical slap in the face of the whole article. I mean, this is rich coming from ESPN, who didn't seem to care about the CCG when they were pushing tOSU over Penn State in 2016, or when they pushed the complete bullshit UGA-LSU rematch in 2011, or when they pushed for Bama in the playoffs in 2018, or... Do we know that David Hale supported Ohio State over Penn State in 2016? And who pushed a UGA-LSU rematch in 2011? UGA lost three games including SEC Championship game to LSU. Think you meant Bama-LSU. ESPN, specifically Herbie pushed for rematch of Ohio State and Michigan in 2006 because they were clearly the two best teams in the country...well, maybe not clearly. Remember, this is a group of people currently working for ESPN, obviously with different opinions. Yes, sorry. I originally put Bama-UGA. meant to fic it to Bama-LSU, but accidentally put it as UGA-LSU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2024 8:33:22 GMT -5
And one more thing- if you think that ESPN (with their exclusive rights) weren't a part of the push to create the very 12 team playoff that some of them are now ragging on, I have a bridge... Reminder. I posted an article and didn't even comment on it. The opinions were from a variety of ESPN writers and they obviously varied. I don't know much about David Hale, but he is most likely had nothing to do with 2011 or 2016. He previously for a short period of time covered UGA for the AJC and then the Philadelphia Phillies. He was one of the few very outspoken critics of FSU being left out this year. And yep, without any doubt ESPN pushed and continued to push for the expanded playoff. However, hypocrisy is in their DNA. After all, we always hear Reece Davis and Herbie pleading with fans that they should not just focus on the playoff teams but also on the other bowl games. Then, once the bowl games start, every single half time is spent on at least one of the 4 teams in the playoffs. I couldn't agree more on the hypocrisy charge for the network as a whole. But as this article shows, clearly the different writers have different opinions. Remember, Booger McFarland was adamant about FSU getting in the playoff vice almost every other talking head who said Bama was the right choice. None of this was a commentary on you. I quoted you solely to quote the article. ESPN just cracks me up. They create the narrative of CFB. Have HUGE amounts of influence (no matter how hard they deny it) over the format of the playoffs, and the makeup thereof, and then criticize the narrative that they have created. Edit: and the "you" in the above post you quoted was not meant as "you=BD" it was more like "one".
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 6, 2024 9:49:20 GMT -5
😀😀😀
|
|
|
Post by geauxtigerfan on Feb 6, 2024 12:29:41 GMT -5
As one poster stated in another thread - ESPN will end up taking the NCAA's authority over college sports in the future.
Seems like that could happen sooner than later.
|
|
|
Post by geauxtigerfan on Feb 6, 2024 12:33:59 GMT -5
I wonder how many teams the BIG 10 (18) and the SEC will have in the 12 playoff format next year? Probably 6 or more teams.
|
|
|
Post by NCBulldawg on Feb 6, 2024 18:34:33 GMT -5
Wait until you see what happens with streaming platforms and who joins up with who. Times will be changing in how we are offered sports, CFB included.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 6, 2024 18:58:18 GMT -5
FOX and ESPN, aka, The Axis of Evil. Sort of like the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact.
|
|
|
Post by NCBulldawg on Feb 6, 2024 19:03:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by NCBulldawg on Feb 6, 2024 19:03:50 GMT -5
Going to make us pay to play! Bunch o' Bass Turds!!!
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 21, 2024 20:42:22 GMT -5
Paul Harvey | 2 hours ago The College Football Playoff is reportedly mulling further changes for future seasons.
On Tuesday, the CFP confirmed the methods of selecting the 12-team format. For the next two seasons, the 5 highest-ranked conference champions will be automatic qualifiers while the next 7 highest-ranked teams will receive at-large bids.
As for 2026 and beyond, the format is unclear, and the possibility of further expansion to the field is being discussed. According to ESPN’s Pete Thamel, the CFP Management Committee met Wednesday and discussed expanding the field beyond 12 teams.
Per Thamel’s report, a 14-team format was discussed at the meeting as an idea that would begin in the 2026 season. Nothing is imminent at this point in the process, but Thamel described it as “significant” that the topic came up.
Mulling a 14-team format presents some interesting questions, including how to deal with automatic bids, byes and overall seeding.
While fans prepare for a brand-new Playoff format and an entirely new conference landscape, it looks like even more changes could soon be on the horizon. There is also a report that one proposal for the future of the CFP included multiple automatic bids for certain conferences.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 21, 2024 20:43:53 GMT -5
Ah, come on guys. Just make it 32 so you can then jump to 64...and 68 if you want to have a play in game. Vandy vs Georgia Southern should be a dandy.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 23, 2024 14:16:29 GMT -5
Playoffs will not water down the regular season....greatest myth of all time. First it was 2, then 4, soon 12, two years after that 14....oh wait, why not add two more for 16. While we are at it, do away with conference championship games. Why, oh because they are irrelevant. So CFB was terribly flawed because it did not truly have a champion. So to fix it, we will eliminate conference champions. Makes sense. Well, let Andy Staples and Dan Wetzel fill you in on their Leonardo da Vinci level point:
With the College Football Playoff expanding to a dozen teams this season, the Playoff has adopted a 5+7 model that features five automatic bids for the five highest-ranked conference champions. However, that doesn’t mean the system isn’t in further need of improvement, which is where On3’s Andy Staples and Yahoo! Sports’ Dan Wetzel came out firing this morning.
During his Andy Staples On3 show Friday, Staples spoke with Wetzel about how to best fix the Playoff moving forward in the years to come. To start, Staples suggested his idea of a 16-team format with no automatic bids through conference championships. He feels like it’s the best way to do it subjectively and Wetzel agreed considering a worthy champion should be within that group.
“If we’re not going to have a regionally balanced, competitively balanced set of divisions or conferences where you can have objective criteria like the NFL does for the playoff, if we’re going to be subjective about it, [then] no auto-bids — [the] top 16 teams are in,” said Staples.
“You’re better off just going to give us our 16 best,” Wetzel agreed. “If you can’t make the Top-16, you don’t deserve in.”
Then, as the next step of that, Staples made a case for removing the conference title games. It would be a casualty of adding more games to the actual playoff but would lead to value of its own, both monetarily and in matchups in the national title race.
“You have a 16-team Playoff, best 16 regardless of conference champ or whatever, [so] we’re going to get rid of the conference championship games,” Staples explained. “I realize they’re cash cows, I realize they make money. But you’re taking more money because we’re adding more games. You’re going to get $100-118 million a game. We’re adding more games here. You’re going to have eight first-round games. One will play 16, that is basically a bye in college football. But, by the time you get to 3 [vs] 14, you can have real upsets.”
Wetzel concurred with Staples again considering, in his opinion, the conference championships are mostly insignificant anyways. According to Wetzel, they proved to not hold much value in the former four-team version of the Playoff, which is why he feels as though they can be left behind ahead of the newest one.
“If you get rid of the conference championship games, … I have done story after story on this most years on Yahoo that’ll show you the conference championship games, most years, are, either all or down to one, completely irrelevant. Nothing matters, even in a four-team playoff,” Wetzel said. “It’s totally irrelevant. There’s only two of the games that make money and it’s the Big Ten and the SEC. They already have all the money. Getting rid of conference championship games would be ideal. That’d be one of my top three things that would solve a lot of problems.”
Finally, in their last point, Staples and Wetzel took a look at the bowl system and schedule in relation to the Playoff. To Staples, the two should not be connected in order to bring the playoff games to campuses across the country until the championship. With that being the case, it would remove the bowls in a way where he thinks we can just move where they’re played on the calendar.
“The bowls, [get them] out of the Playoff,” said Staples. “There’s one neutral site game as the national championship game. Everything else is on campus where college football is better, which helps the regular season, makes your seeding matter more.
“I like bowls, I don’t want the bowls to go away. I, actually, still want the filler content on weeknights in December. But I also want the major bowls, and even the minor ones can do this if they want. I still want them played. I want them played with everybody playing. You know where we’re going to play those? Labor Day weekend,” Staples continued. “It’s just a a game, a non-conference game that people want to see. Your new team is going to play in it.”
Wetzel saw where he was coming from again, especially since he believes bowls are nothing more than entertainment for the fans with how costly they are on the programs. That’d be a shift that he’d like to see too in order to bring the sport’s best games to its top, on-campus venues.
“To me, the existence of the bowl system and the playoff are not really related,” Wetzel said. “Almost every bowl game the schools go to, they lose money. They spent more money on travel, buying tickets for their band, coaches bonuses – all the different stuff you have to do. I would absolutely, if you could pull this off, just play on campus, including New Year’s Day.”
The playoff hasn’t even reached 12 teams yet and the discussion is already moving to what it could be in the future. If it’s going to keep changing, though, those like Staples and Wetzel want to see it changed for the better and these are their ideas to make that a reality.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 23, 2024 14:21:11 GMT -5
Wetzel also should get his facts correct. Teams do not lose money by going to a bowl game..at least not unless you are going to one of the very minor ones. Teams do lose money, but it is because they share their winnings with the rest of the league. And in some cases, like the SEC, it is shared evenly regardless of how your team performs. So 13 other teams get the same Rose Bowl share as Bama and 13 get the same Orange bowl share as Georgia. Teams make money on bowl games. Teams like Vanderbilt make lots of money on bowl games.
Nothing like watching the Rose Bowl parade on Labor Day though. If they hurry up and implement this by 2025, I might be able to see the Parade in shorts when UCLA hosts UGA.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Feb 24, 2024 11:31:09 GMT -5
was listening to ESPN this morning on XM and they had some thoughts...
1. ND can never have a bye 2. what happens to the 1st round $$$? the top 4 teams do not get to host a game for revenue that would be generated... do they lose out every year or do they get something? kinda sucks... a 16 team playoff would make them money. 3. WSU president said that "one of the 4 major conferences put forth a proposal that his conference should get '4 auto bids every year'.... which means if it was the b10, then the sec would also want want it... and vise versus... 4. the deal is only for 24 and 25...... the whole thing gets redone in 2026 and could go to 14 or 16 very soon.
thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by geauxtigerfan on Feb 24, 2024 12:53:49 GMT -5
Going to 14 teams doesn't make any sense to me. But I never mattered anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 25, 2024 21:34:03 GMT -5
Mike Germanese
Greed-Attacking College Football Playoffs
© Kirby Lee-USA TODAY Sports
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer Cell” Edward Abbey
The ink is still wet on the new playoff model agreement, and the College Football Playoffs (CFP) is already looking to expand the playoff again, the CFP board is already discussing going from a 12-14 team model. The CFP board wasted no time to see how the new playoff model will look and work, moving right into talks to expand again. All signs point to nothing more than greed now pushing the CFP board to maximize every dollar possible as fast as possible. The more teams, the more games, the more money with the biggest question becoming at what point do they stop expanding?
Many people believe that the SEC and the Big 10 are now pushing for dominance after joining together to form a joint advisory group. Rumors already started to come out, not only do the SEC and Big 10 want multiple automatic bids but they are also looking for bigger payouts compared to the other conferences involved. Conference realignment has given both the SEC and Big 10 a big advantage, due to the number of top programs that play in the two conferences.
The SEC and Big 10 Joining together has given both an advantage when negotiating what should and has to happen in the Texas meetings. The SEC and Big 10 control most of the biggest brands in college football, making the other conferences fearful that the two could establish their own playoff. Both conferences already with mega television deals now look to take as much as possible from the playoff TV deal as well.
“Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful” Warren Buffett
The SEC and Big 10 power and dominance come directly from television viewership and teams making the college playoffs. If conference realignment and expanded playoff had happened a year earlier, out of the 20 teams involved in the ten most watched games, twelve came from the Big 10, five from the SEC, and only one from the ACC, Big 12, and Notre Dame. This past year's playoff field was no different, with 5-teams coming from the Big 10, five from the SEC, one from the ACC, and one from Conference USA.
The greatest regular season in all sports, where every game mattered, and one loss could end your season changes to a completely different model where 9-3 teams will now be getting reward. LSU went 9-3 last year and lost all their "big games” and would still get into this new 14-team playoff model. The new 12 and 14-team model puts an end to almost all must-win games.
College football was a sport based on tradition and the history that made it. Now it's based solely on the dollar, and nothing is off-limits on how to maximize every dollar. In an ideal world, the Playoff committee would have moved to an 8-team model years ago, which could have saved the now-abandoned PAC 12. Greed is ultimately attacking the college football landscape causing a massive change to the sport. Many believe college football is already moving more to an NFL model, NFC/Big 10 and AFC/SEC with only those two conferences surviving.
|
|
|
Post by Geaux Tigers on Feb 26, 2024 9:44:02 GMT -5
Wetzel also should get his facts correct. Teams do not lose money by going to a bowl game..at least not unless you are going to one of the very minor ones. Teams do lose money, but it is because they share their winnings with the rest of the league. And in some cases, like the SEC, it is shared evenly regardless of how your team performs. So 13 other teams get the same Rose Bowl share as Bama and 13 get the same Orange bowl share as Georgia. Teams make money on bowl games. Teams like Vanderbilt make lots of money on bowl games. Nothing like watching the Rose Bowl parade on Labor Day though. If they hurry up and implement this by 2025, I might be able to see the Parade in shorts when UCLA hosts UGA. I could be wrong but believe this is the case; the team playing in the bowl gets to collect all expenses from the Bowl payout before the payout is distributed equally though out the conference. Therefore, in most cases, a team seldom (if at all) loses money.
|
|
|
Post by omuhroads on Feb 29, 2024 18:50:12 GMT -5
I think the way the playoff schedule is that it will begin it's games on the same day as the Army-Navy game. I guess they dont plan on them ever making it to the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 29, 2024 19:30:18 GMT -5
Well, that might happen with 14 teams but right now the 12 team slate starts on Dec 20 this year. But eventually, I think you might be right.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Feb 29, 2024 19:50:25 GMT -5
Report: SEC, Big Ten pushing for their champions to get 2 automatic byes in 14-team CFP
Andrew Graham • about 3 hours • AndrewEdGraham
As conference leaders continue to try and hammer out a new plan for the College Football Playoff beyond the 2025-26 season, a new potential wrinkle has emerged. In a proposed 14-team CFP model, only the champions of the SEC and Big Ten would be eligible for the two byes in the postseason tournament, according to Yahoo Sports Ross Dellenger.
In recent weeks, the Big Ten and SEC reportedly began working together in examining the future of college football and athletics. So far, the resulting moves, particularly with respect to the College Football Playoff, have signaled an intent for the leagues to elevate themselves further above the other Power 5 (soon four) leagues.
To wit, it’s been proposed that in a 14-team CFP model, the Big Ten and SEC would each get three automatic bids, while the Big 12 and ACC would get two each. Additionally, an auto bid would be given to the highest-ranked Group of 5 champion before three at-large teams to round out the field. The deal would also guarantee a spot to Notre Dame if the Irish finish ranked in the Top 14.
A move to make the champions of the respective two leagues — in most years perceived as two of, if not the top two teams in the sport — effectively a permanent No. 1 and No. 2 seed would be another level of hegemony.
There’s also an urgency to get a playoff deal done for beyond the 2025-26 playoff, as currently college football has no postseason mechanism to crown a champion without the playoff. A new deal, and subsequent TV deal, likely need to be sorted out in the coming months, putting the pressure on all involved to find an acceptable compromise.
And as college and conference administrators keep pushing forward to make a new CFP beyond the remaining two years on the contract, it seems clear one thing will be constant: The Big Ten and SEC pushing for ever-bigger portions of the pie.
Expansion might not stop at 14 teams News surfaced Wednesday that a proposal to expand the College Football Playoff to 14 teams is gaining steam, but it’s not the only option on the table when it comes to potential expansion.
There exists a possibility that the sport’s power brokers could also explore a 16-team playoff field, in part as a way of opening up more automatic qualification spots in the playoff.
For now, though, the 14-team model is the one with the most thrust behind it.
“My sense in speaking with sources is that 14 is the most favorable option because, again, we’re also talking about a parallel conversation with the TV contract here,” ESPN’s Heather Dinich said on the Paul Finebaum Show. “Some of this is, quite frankly, above my pay grade, so I don’t want to speak on behalf of ESPN or TV executives by any means. But at some point you’ve got to stop paying money. There’s a price on the table.”
Dinich is something of an expert covering College Football Playoff matters, having done it for the Worldwide Leader for the past decade or so.
She outlined the primary factor when it comes to weighing an increase in the size of the playoff field.
“Can 14 teams without any increase in price satisfy everyone’s needs who are at the table?” Dinich asked. “Whereas if it were to go to 16 teams at some point, are there diminishing returns? Is there advertising? Does ESPN want to pay more than $1.3 billion for this? My guess is probably not. But again, I think that you can’t untangle those two conversations as to the number of teams and the actual TV contract that’s on the table currently.”
|
|
|
Post by NCBulldawg on Feb 29, 2024 20:17:03 GMT -5
<gasp> Feigning shock and being overly dramatic with the posting by bigdawgs above!
|
|