[82lsju]

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...M_ID=10410

[82lsju]

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...M_ID=10410

[Farm93]

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...M_ID=10410

Wonder what they will do at this point.
They could eliminate their 9 game round robin format.  Moving to 8 with the claim that the champion will play 9 Big 12 games.
They could keep their current round robin.  And yet deciding #1 and #2 without controversy could be tricky.  What if two or three teams share the second place spot?  Also what would #1 really gain from the deal.  A 12-0 team playing a 9-3 team creates a potential risk for the conference.
Do they go to two divisions?  If so why?  How?
I don't think the Big12 elects to bypass the CG.  I suspect that claim that it is an option is there just as an attempt to get the most money possible from TV broadcasters for the game.

My guess?  Back to 8 conference games with #1 and #2 facing off in Arlington TX each year for the Big12 CG.

[Farm93]

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...M_ID=10410

Wonder what they will do at this point.
They could eliminate their 9 game round robin format.  Moving to 8 with the claim that the champion will play 9 Big 12 games.
They could keep their current round robin.  And yet deciding #1 and #2 without controversy could be tricky.  What if two or three teams share the second place spot?  Also what would #1 really gain from the deal.  A 12-0 team playing a 9-3 team creates a potential risk for the conference.
Do they go to two divisions?  If so why?  How?
I don't think the Big12 elects to bypass the CG.  I suspect that claim that it is an option is there just as an attempt to get the most money possible from TV broadcasters for the game.

My guess?  Back to 8 conference games with #1 and #2 facing off in Arlington TX each year for the Big12 CG.

[larkinforever]

Assuming the Big 12 remains at 10 members with no divisions, they can't eliminate the 9th conference game because they would then not have the full round robin required.

Unless I'm misreading, however, it does appear that they could split their 10 members into two divisions and eliminate the 9th conference game so long as each division played a full round robin within their respective division.

[larkinforever]

Assuming the Big 12 remains at 10 members with no divisions, they can't eliminate the 9th conference game because they would then not have the full round robin required.

Unless I'm misreading, however, it does appear that they could split their 10 members into two divisions and eliminate the 9th conference game so long as each division played a full round robin within their respective division.

[French Rage]

Are they still allowed to have the 4 good teams in the conference not play each other or anyone halfway decent until November?

[French Rage]

Are they still allowed to have the 4 good teams in the conference not play each other or anyone halfway decent until November?

[oman]

It's fine the way it is.

[oman]

It's fine the way it is.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

This seems asinine.  The reason you have a conference title game is because you can't do a full round robin.  The Big 12 can, and does.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

This seems asinine.  The reason you have a conference title game is because you can't do a full round robin.  The Big 12 can, and does.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm pretty sure most every college football fan in America would rather do away with conference championship games altogether and use that weekend for another round of playoffs so we could have 8 teams.  The Pac-12 championship game really does nothing for me when winning doesn't guarantee a playoff spot with at lear a 11-2 record.  I'd way, and I mean way rather see Stanford taking on say Clemson in a playoff game - even at Clemson - than Under Stanford Control at Jed's house of horrors.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm pretty sure most every college football fan in America would rather do away with conference championship games altogether and use that weekend for another round of playoffs so we could have 8 teams.  The Pac-12 championship game really does nothing for me when winning doesn't guarantee a playoff spot with at lear a 11-2 record.  I'd way, and I mean way rather see Stanford taking on say Clemson in a playoff game - even at Clemson - than Under Stanford Control at Jed's house of horrors.

[82lsju]

I'm pretty sure most every college football fan in America would rather do away with conference championship games altogether and use that weekend for another round of playoffs so we could have 8 teams.  The Pac-12 championship game really does nothing for me when winning doesn't guarantee a playoff spot with at lear a 11-2 record.  I'd way, and I mean way rather see Stanford taking on say Clemson in a playoff game - even at Clemson - than Under Stanford Control at Jed's house of horrors.

seems to me we will end up with four conferences of sixteen teams

each conference will have two divisions

each division will play 7 in division games, 2 cross division games and 3 non-conference games

the conference championship game will be the first round of the playoffs (so the quarter finals)

the winners of these games move on to the semi-finals and those winners play in the finals.

issues to work out

1. realignment of the existing Power 5 conferences (which one disappears)
2. what about the non-Power 5 conferences who are now locked out of the playoffs

[82lsju]

I'm pretty sure most every college football fan in America would rather do away with conference championship games altogether and use that weekend for another round of playoffs so we could have 8 teams.  The Pac-12 championship game really does nothing for me when winning doesn't guarantee a playoff spot with at lear a 11-2 record.  I'd way, and I mean way rather see Stanford taking on say Clemson in a playoff game - even at Clemson - than Under Stanford Control at Jed's house of horrors.

seems to me we will end up with four conferences of sixteen teams

each conference will have two divisions

each division will play 7 in division games, 2 cross division games and 3 non-conference games

the conference championship game will be the first round of the playoffs (so the quarter finals)

the winners of these games move on to the semi-finals and those winners play in the finals.

issues to work out

1. realignment of the existing Power 5 conferences (which one disappears)
2. what about the non-Power 5 conferences who are now locked out of the playoffs

[CTcard]

seems to me we will end up with four conferences of sixteen teams

It's clear to me why you think this would be clean.

It is not clear to me why you think this will actually happen.

[CTcard]

seems to me we will end up with four conferences of sixteen teams

It's clear to me why you think this would be clean.

It is not clear to me why you think this will actually happen.

[82lsju]

[quote author=82lsju link=topic=14384.msg152797#msg152797 date=1452790165]
seems to me we will end up with four conferences of sixteen teams

It's clear to me why you think this would be clean.

It is not clear to me why you think this will actually happen.
[/quote]

well the hard part will be who gets left out and what options they have.  If the non-Power 5 are still to "have a chance" to enter the play-offs then what I outlined will never happen.

another alternative would be an 8 team playoff with the Power 5 conference champs getting a berth and 3 at-large berths.

of course I'm not a fan of the CFP as I did not watch the semi-finals and saw about a third of the final game (mostly because it was on TV at my friends house as we caught up on other topics).  I did however watch the Rose Bowl live!!!

At the end of the day the CFP will work to maximize revenue, other considerations will have little impact on what plays out.

[82lsju]

[quote author=82lsju link=topic=14384.msg152797#msg152797 date=1452790165]
seems to me we will end up with four conferences of sixteen teams

It's clear to me why you think this would be clean.

It is not clear to me why you think this will actually happen.
[/quote]

well the hard part will be who gets left out and what options they have.  If the non-Power 5 are still to "have a chance" to enter the play-offs then what I outlined will never happen.

another alternative would be an 8 team playoff with the Power 5 conference champs getting a berth and 3 at-large berths.

of course I'm not a fan of the CFP as I did not watch the semi-finals and saw about a third of the final game (mostly because it was on TV at my friends house as we caught up on other topics).  I did however watch the Rose Bowl live!!!

At the end of the day the CFP will work to maximize revenue, other considerations will have little impact on what plays out.

[rudruff]

The magic number isn't 64, it is 4. Once you get to 4 major conferences you aren't going to convince the Pac-12 to take any additional teams that don't include Texas and Oklahoma. At 4 conferences the CCG's are the first round of the playoffs no matter how many teams are in each conference.

Yes, an 8-team playoff will make a lot more money. Not sharing with 4 additional schools will make even more for each school already in the conference.

[rudruff]

The magic number isn't 64, it is 4. Once you get to 4 major conferences you aren't going to convince the Pac-12 to take any additional teams that don't include Texas and Oklahoma. At 4 conferences the CCG's are the first round of the playoffs no matter how many teams are in each conference.

Yes, an 8-team playoff will make a lot more money. Not sharing with 4 additional schools will make even more for each school already in the conference.

[CTcard]

well the hard part will be who gets left out and what options they have.  If the non-Power 5 are still to "have a chance" to enter the play-offs then what I outlined will never happen.
...
At the end of the day the CFP will work to maximize revenue, other considerations will have little impact on what plays out.

I think the issue isn't what is the hard part, it is whether there is any particular motivation to move in this direction.

It may be that a larger playoff would lead to larger revenue. However, that is unclear, especially as it would seem to be accompanied by greatly reduced attention to all the bowls. My guess is that the largest financial driver is to maximize programming for TV - and it may be that a bajillion bowls does that better than an 8 team conference playoff.

Perhaps just as important as more revenue is who gets the revenue. That will cause lots of wrangling as various folks (particularly those with clout) try to figure out which system puts them in the best relative position. 

The next question is why an 8 team playoff (or 16, or 32, or any number) necessarily means four conferences all laid out the same way. A large NCAA tournament for basketball has not done so. I also don't think the conference realignment we have recently seen was motivated by any particular desire to make a smooth playoff system - it was each individual conference trying to figure out what what would give them the best television contract.

So, my guess is that in several years, but not so soon, we will see an expanded playoff, but it will be coupled to a mishmash of conferences and rules qualitatively similar to what we have now. I think that is the direction you were going with your second option.

[CTcard]

well the hard part will be who gets left out and what options they have.  If the non-Power 5 are still to "have a chance" to enter the play-offs then what I outlined will never happen.
...
At the end of the day the CFP will work to maximize revenue, other considerations will have little impact on what plays out.

I think the issue isn't what is the hard part, it is whether there is any particular motivation to move in this direction.

It may be that a larger playoff would lead to larger revenue. However, that is unclear, especially as it would seem to be accompanied by greatly reduced attention to all the bowls. My guess is that the largest financial driver is to maximize programming for TV - and it may be that a bajillion bowls does that better than an 8 team conference playoff.

Perhaps just as important as more revenue is who gets the revenue. That will cause lots of wrangling as various folks (particularly those with clout) try to figure out which system puts them in the best relative position. 

The next question is why an 8 team playoff (or 16, or 32, or any number) necessarily means four conferences all laid out the same way. A large NCAA tournament for basketball has not done so. I also don't think the conference realignment we have recently seen was motivated by any particular desire to make a smooth playoff system - it was each individual conference trying to figure out what what would give them the best television contract.

So, my guess is that in several years, but not so soon, we will see an expanded playoff, but it will be coupled to a mishmash of conferences and rules qualitatively similar to what we have now. I think that is the direction you were going with your second option.

[stupac2]

I think there's some people missing an important point here. If there were only 5 power conferences then some conference officials would be out of jobs, or at the very least in different jobs that are less powerful/influential. Why would they willingly do that? It's one thing if the writing's on the wall like it was with the Big East, but unless there's some new Sports King appointed I doubt we see consolidation any time soon.

[stupac2]

I think there's some people missing an important point here. If there were only 5 power conferences then some conference officials would be out of jobs, or at the very least in different jobs that are less powerful/influential. Why would they willingly do that? It's one thing if the writing's on the wall like it was with the Big East, but unless there's some new Sports King appointed I doubt we see consolidation any time soon.

[BostonCard]

At the end of the day the CFP will work to maximize revenue, other considerations will have little impact on what plays out.

At the end of the day, I really wish CFB would do something to student-athlete wellfare instead of maximizing revenue.  College football is not a young version of the NFL, and we should stop trying to become one.  Colleges rightly don't want to pay athletes.  But they sure seem to be doing everything short of that to become a professional league.  It makes me sad.

BC

[BostonCard]

At the end of the day the CFP will work to maximize revenue, other considerations will have little impact on what plays out.

At the end of the day, I really wish CFB would do something to student-athlete wellfare instead of maximizing revenue.  College football is not a young version of the NFL, and we should stop trying to become one.  Colleges rightly don't want to pay athletes.  But they sure seem to be doing everything short of that to become a professional league.  It makes me sad.

BC

[CTcard]

At the end of the day, I really wish CFB would do something to student-athlete wellfare instead of maximizing revenue.  College football is not a young version of the NFL, and we should stop trying to become one.  Colleges rightly don't want to pay athletes.  But they sure seem to be doing everything short of that to become a professional league.  It makes me sad.

I think CFB already does a lot to student-athlete welfare, most of it bad.

It's pretty easy to see the problem, however. Remember when Ted Leland complained about the athletics arms-race, and at least mused about trying to not take part. He then became enemy #1 of the Stanford football fan base. Anyone in charge of a Power 5 athletic program who tries to do anything to scale back, or even hold back, is going to lose their job promptly.

Of course the only answer is to act together with rules that limit everyone. That should work easily, seeing as how everyone so loves the NCAA.

[CTcard]

At the end of the day, I really wish CFB would do something to student-athlete wellfare instead of maximizing revenue.  College football is not a young version of the NFL, and we should stop trying to become one.  Colleges rightly don't want to pay athletes.  But they sure seem to be doing everything short of that to become a professional league.  It makes me sad.

I think CFB already does a lot to student-athlete welfare, most of it bad.

It's pretty easy to see the problem, however. Remember when Ted Leland complained about the athletics arms-race, and at least mused about trying to not take part. He then became enemy #1 of the Stanford football fan base. Anyone in charge of a Power 5 athletic program who tries to do anything to scale back, or even hold back, is going to lose their job promptly.

Of course the only answer is to act together with rules that limit everyone. That should work easily, seeing as how everyone so loves the NCAA.

[CornFed]

Of course.  Why wouldn't everyone love and respect the NCAA after all they have done to establish their trustworthiness and insight?

[CornFed]

Of course.  Why wouldn't everyone love and respect the NCAA after all they have done to establish their trustworthiness and insight?