CFP expansion = el muerto

[Vowelguy]

 

[huskymedic]

 

[huskysupporter]

Horrendous.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[huskymedic]

 

[Palatine]

The current system is killing college football. But making the P5 enormously rich.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[huskymedic]

 

[metsfan2323]

Not expanding now probably helps them leverage more money from the new contract.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Not expanding now probably helps them leverage more money from the new contract.

Maybe. But if they keep putting up dud ratings over the next 4 years that ain't helping their case much.

 

[businesslawyer]

No one should assume the Big XII will be on the right side of the next split. Maybe it will be, maybe it won’t be, but it’s market power lags way behind the other four.

 

[Jimdish255]

The current system needs a few more years to effectively relegate non-P5 schools into 3rd class feeder systems for NIL rich schools who can raid the lower tier during every transfer period. "Then we can talk"

 

[Jimdish255]

No one should assume the Big XII will be on the right side of the next split. Maybe it will be, maybe it won’t be, but it’s market power lags way behind the other four.

If they have enough NIL dollars to buy enough players they can stay. But if they fall behind bye bye.

 

[UC1995]

I say that the next 8 teams create their own tournament like the NIT. I would watch that more than the Top 4 teams. More unpredictability and chaos.

 

[gioff2323]

So the guy next to get poached is declaring the war is over. Good luck with that.

 

[CL82]

No one should assume the Big XII will be on the right side of the next split. Maybe it will be, maybe it won’t be, but it’s market power lags way behind the other four.

Agree. No one should assume that P5/P4 autonomy will stop at merely football autonomy either. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but the revenue is generated by March madness seem too big to be left on the table.

 

[businesslawyer]

Agree. No one should assume that P5/P4 autonomy will stop at merely football autonomy either. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but the revenue is generated by March madness seem too big to be left on the table.

I have been saying for 25 years that folks shouldn't assume the football powers wouldn't walk away for all sports. Or threaten to if distributions aren't done more by markets and less by on court performance. I continue to post that warning. What folks have to remember is that the power football schools don't have to generate anything near the revenue of the NCAA tourney with their own tournament. That's because the bulk of the money is used by the NCAA for fund their entire operations and give grants to smaller schools. The power football schools could make more money for each of them with a tournament that only generates a fraction of the total revenue of the current tourney.

 

[uconnfan68]

No one should assume the Big XII will be on the right side of the next split. Maybe it will be, maybe it won’t be, but it’s market power lags way behind the other four.

It’s a basketball league!

 

[UConnJim]

Agree. No one should assume that P5/P4 autonomy will stop at merely football autonomy either. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but the revenue is generated by March madness seem too big to be left on the table.

People should research the NCAA men’s basketball tournament and where the money goes. The money goes to almost every college (D1, D2, and D3) in every state and the money is also used for running the championships of every sport but football. I think there would be major pushback from everywhere if people tried to blow up the tournament. And, tournament revenues would probably be cut by eliminating so many schools and the championships would still have to be funded (although smaller), so the net profit gains aren’t that great.

Football was much easier to take over because the NCAA never had their fingers in the pot as there was no championship and the NCAA was never involved with the bowls.

 

[CL82]

People should research the NCAA men’s basketball tournament and where the money goes. The money goes to almost every college (D1, D2, and D3) in every state and the money is also used for running the championships of every sport but football. I think there would be major pushback from everywhere if people tried to blow up the tournament. And, tournament revenues would probably be cut by eliminating so many schools and the championships would still have to be funded (although smaller), so the net profit gains aren’t that great.

Football was much easier to take over because the NCAA never had their fingers in the pot as there was no championship and the NCAA was never involved with the bowls.

Your post kind of makes the point that there is a ton of low hanging fruit there. If the P5 schools decided they no longer wanted to be part of the NCAA, what would be the “pushback“? Are people going to say that they have to be members of the NCAA?

 

[UCFBfan]

Just put that final nail in the coffin. I hope people enjoy watching Alabama vs another SEC school for the next four years until it turns into an official minor league for the NFL when the P4 break away. What a joke. At least they aren't going to pretend to hide it anymore.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Just put that final nail in the coffin. I hope people enjoy watching Alabama vs another SEC school for the next four years until it turns into an official minor league for the NFL when the P4 break away. What a joke. At least they aren't going to pretend to hide it anymore.

Agreed - the next big move is for the P4/5 to govern themselves separate and apart from everyone else. That's when the SEC will really aschew any semblance of education standards, fair play rules, etc and so the divide will become even larger/they'll become NFL-lite (as if they aren't already). The most interesting aspect will be seeing what the rest of the P4/5 conferences decide to do in terms of those issues. Seems like there is still a commitment to standards within the B10, and Pac and to a lesser degree the ACC. Time will tell.

 

[SubbaBub]

It's really hard to justify expansion while the title game is most often a repeat of the SEC championship that follows two blow outs of supposed contenders. If that is the case, then the old pre-BCS system where you have multiple teams making claims makes more sense.

The other way to go and my preference, is to limit the playoff to only conference champions. This year, if you accept the premise in finding the true champion instead of funneling the most money to the top conferences, Alabama didn't belong. They made it on the basis that they were the second best team (they were by a lot) and that they were better than UGA because the beat them head to head (We should know by now that isn't everything). Based on strength of record, Bama lost to a middling A&M team and nearly lost several other games, while UGA only lost to the 2nd best team.

It seems strange, but as played, UGA was the best regular season team and should have received the SEC bid. Once you add the $$$ driven conference championship, UGA forfeits its bid to Bama by virtue of Bama being the SEC "Champion." The reason we don't have expansion is because the SEC/B1G and other P5's don't want to make that decision because some years it would hurt them. They want as many teams and as much money for their conference as possible.

A one bid rule would give you a true champion if based on the regular season, you could even reserve the CCG weekend for tie-breaker games instead should they be necessary. Using the same format but with a CCG determining each bid dilutes the idea of a true champion a bit in the same way the NCAA BB tournament does, but I don't think any fans would care if they chose either.

The one bid rule would also incentivize an unravelling of the superconferences and promote true round robin conference schedules.

 

[UCFBfan]

It's really hard to justify expansion while the title game is most often a repeat of the SEC championship that follows two blow outs of supposed contenders. If that is the case, then the old pre-BCS system where you have multiple teams making claims makes more sense.

The other way to go and my preference, is to limit the playoff to only conference champions. This year, if you accept the premise in finding the true champion instead of funneling the most money to the top conferences, Alabama didn't belong. They made it on the basis that they were the second best team (they were by a lot) and that they were better than UGA because the beat them head to head (We should know by now that isn't everything). Based on strength of record, Bama lost to a middling A&M team and nearly lost several other games, while UGA only lost to the 2nd best team.

It seems strange, but as played, UGA was the best regular season team and should have received the SEC bid. Once you add the $$$ driven conference championship, UGA forfeits its bid to Bama by virtue of Bama being the SEC "Champion." The reason we don't have expansion is because the SEC/B1G and other P5's don't want to make that decision because some years it would hurt them. They want as many teams and as much money for their conference as possible.

A one bid rule would give you a true champion if based on the regular season, you could even reserve the CCG weekend for tie-breaker games instead should they be necessary. Using the same format but with a CCG determining each bid dilutes the idea of a true champion a bit in the same way the NCAA BB tournament does, but I don't think any fans would care if they chose either.

The one bid rule would also incentivize an unravelling of the superconferences and promote true round robin conference schedules.

I agree to an extent. As much as I hate the SEC, they are the best conference and deserve to have two teams make an expanded field. Only have one champion from each conference really dilutes conference play after a few weeks. With a wild card or open spots, you make the regular season more exciting. The issue lies in the fact that those open spots will likely always go to a SEC school but they likely have earned it. However, if they expanded the field, there would be a possibility that those SEC schools would face tough competition in a play off situation.

Currently, top schools are too afraid to play other top schools outside their conference because a loss seals their fate usually. You don't see that in College BBall. Yes the season is longer, but the fact that you can rebound from an early loss, allows for exciting match ups outside of conference play.

Unfortunately, we won't see these types of match ups until the P4 break away in four years and form their own Minor League system for the NFL. It'll be interesting to see what the interest level will be by then after four more years of the continued norm of the current CFB Playoffs. I don't expect a zero interest, but ratings this year show that the product is stale and keeping the status quo is just going to keep getting worse.

 

[SU1968]

I have been saying for 25 years that folks shouldn't assume the football powers wouldn't walk away for all sports. Or threaten to if distributions aren't done more by markets and less by on court performance. I continue to post that warning. What folks have to remember is that the power football schools don't have to generate anything near the revenue of the NCAA tourney with their own tournament. That's because the bulk of the money is used by the NCAA for fund their entire operations and give grants to smaller schools. The power football schools could make more money for each of them with a tournament that only generates a fraction of the total revenue of the current tourney.

You make an interesting case. I just looked at the 2019 March Madness bracket, the last one before the pandemic disruption. 31 P-5 schools made that tourney, 34 if you include teams joining the Big 12 (CFU, Cincy, Houston).

That's half the bracket. Do you think that a basketball tourney of only these schools would be viable? Intriguing thought.