107 replies to this topic

[BSLSteveBirrer]

2. Only once would the G5 have had more than one team, which was the somewhat anomalous 2020 season. Besides 2020, only 2 other times did the would-be G5 representative finish in the Top 12 of the CFP rankings, that being UCF in 2017-18. That means in the other 4 seasons the team that finished #12 in the final CFP rankings did not make the field.

Yes but they have never had even one team under the current format. And if you go back to even the BCS days, a G5 never had a BCS prebowl ranking in the top 4. No G5 was ever going to get in a 4 team playoff. So this is a great step.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Yes but they have never had even one team under the current format. And if you go back to even the BCS days, a G5 never had a BCS prebowl ranking in the top 4. No G5 was ever going to get in a 4 team playoff. So this is a great step.

 

I am warming up to Playoff expansion, and specifically the currently proposed format, more with each passing day. Of course leave it to none other than Larry Scott, the outgoing (thank goodness) Pac 12 commissioner, to release a statement after the formal presentation this week saying he thinks P5 conference champions should get automatic bids. I'm not sure where the incoming commissioner, George Kliavkoff, personally stands on the issue, but I hope that he and the conference as a whole disagree with Scott's statement.

 

I understand the concerns of the Pac 12 when it comes to trying to play catch-up with their peers, and the inherent disadvantage they have being located on the West Coast. But the only time in the Playoff era, and probably at any point in modern college football history, that the Pac 12 champion would not have qualified under the proposed format was last season; which comes with a big enough asterisk attached to it that it almost doesn't bear mentioning. Let's not let this become something like the universally-hated European Super League proposal, and let everyone earn their way in.

 

Just curious, Steve, but how do you feel these days about BSU's decision years ago to abandon their plan to join the Big East for football? At the time, it seemed like the smart choice to stay in the MWC and keep all its sports in one regionally-based conference. But if you play devil's advocate, it would seem it could have worked out where they would have eventually ended up in the AAC (with other sports in the Big West IIRC), and clearly at this point in time the AAC is the class of the G5 in football. So with 6 conference champions guaranteed in under the new format, the AAC would seem to be sitting pretty right now.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Mike,

 

To respond to your questions and thoughts.

 

1. I wanted to go to the Big East for football and let the other sports go to the Big West. I also thought they should have gone all in after a Big XII invite (although they never did expand.) And I thought they should have OPENLY pursued the AAC when they were apparently evaluating an expansion here recently. The only sport that anybody cares about being a downgrade is basketball. All the other sports would be just fine in the Big West. This has been discussed many times on the BSU forum and one of the things that gets stated over and over as fact is that it would cost so much and the travel time is too much. But I did an extensive look at these points and neither are correct.

a. Travel has to look at total time. Can't just say its a 4 hour flight from Boise to Orlando and only 1 1/2 hours from Boise to San Diego. You have look at all the picture. Campus to airport, time through security and boarding, flight time, time from airport to campus. When you look at the whole picture there's really not much difference between BSU flying to play SDSU or UCF.

b. Travel costs are also overstated. The difference between a $250/person ticket and a $400/person ticket amounted to not much. Lets say you have to pay for 80 tickets. 80x$400x6 trips a season is $192K. 80x$250/6 is $120K.  So the travel is less than $100K/year. Easily made up with increased revenue from TV and ticket sales. Easily.

2. The AAC is clearly the better conference right now. Sure that could change. Many BSU fans argue that just go undefeated and win the MWC and you'll get the bid unless a AAC team is also undefeated. I don't totally agree with that. I can easily see a one loss AAC champ getting in over an undefeated MWC champ. In fact last year that is likely to have been  the case if Cinn had lost a game along the way. No way SJSU was getting in over Cinn. Plus here is the simple thing that gets overlooked. If BSU were in the AAC then I see no scenario ever where the MWC is regarded better than the AAC.

 

Ok derail over...LOL

[BSLMikeLowe]

b. Travel costs are also overstated. The difference between a $250/person ticket and a $400/person ticket amounted to not much. Lets say you have to pay for 80 tickets. 80x$400x6 trips a season is $192K. 80x$250/6 is $120K.  So the travel is less than $100K/year. Easily made up with increased revenue from TV and ticket sales. Easily.

 

Given the sheer number of people that travel when a FBS football team plays on the road, I would think everyone is chartering planes rather than purchasing nearly 100 individual tickets on a regular commercial flight? Not sure how that expense pencils out when you have to go farther, but I do know that a lot of programs let boosters travel on the planes with them, as a way to both fill empty seats and thank them for their donations that make the cost of getting the plane affordable.

 

I would imagine if the AAC thought it was advantageous to add Boise St and someone like SDSU (who IIRC were going to go to the Big East with BSU), they might be willing to give them a nominal travel stipend to entice them into joining. I do think that if this new Playoff proposal comes to pass, Boise St and SDSU should see if they can lobby to align with the AAC.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Mike I think that's correct. But the math still works pretty much the same. All but the really big schools with huge endowments aren't chartering if it isn't cost effective. Bottom line is that fans make way more out of the travel costs than is reality.

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: Why College Football Playoff expansion is a complicated task with the potential for significant fallout

https://www.cbssport...ficant-fallout/

[BSLChrisStoner]

• Dabo not in favor of 'inevitable' 12-team CFP

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Dabo can suck it. Same old story line. Players don't want to play more games. Aren't 12 teams good enough Blah Blah Blah. FCS has been doing more than 12 for years. And the way they structure a 12 team playoff isn't that big of an increase in number of games.

 

Top 4 would only play 1 more game. The other 8 would only play max of 4 more games and that's really only 3 because they wouldn't play a bowl game. 4 of the playoff teams would not play a single game more than they do now swapping a playoff game for a bowl game. And so on.

 

Its just faulty logic. The reality is they don't want any expansion because it decreases their chance of winning a title.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Thanks to the latest round of conference realignment kicking off, it seems Playoff expansion is not as close on the horizon as it appeared just a week ago.

 

https://sports.yahoo...-212514298.html

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Thanks to the latest round of conference realignment kicking off, it seems Playoff expansion is not as close on the horizon as it appeared just a week ago.

 

https://sports.yahoo...-212514298.html

First thing I told fellow BSU fans. Conference alignment is going to change the direction of expanding the playoffs. IF they end up with several super conferences I highly doubt we see a 12 team playoff with a guaranteed spot for us peons.

[BSLMikeLowe]

If the proposed Playoff expansion had been in effect this year, who would make it and where would they be seeded? I'll take a weekly stab at it here. Just a reminder of the criteria.

 

-12 teams get in.

-The 6 highest ranked conference champions are guaranteed to make it, then 6 at-large teams.

-The Top 4 seeds must be conference champions. (thus the teams in my Top 4 are teams I think will ultimately win their conference)

-There are no limits as to how many teams any conference can have

 

1. Georgia

2. Ohio State

3. Cincinnati

4. Oklahoma

 

5. Alabama

6. Michigan

7. Ole Miss

8. Oregon

9. Michigan State

10. Iowa

11. Notre Dame

12. Pitt

[BSLMikeLowe]

Talks continue on an expanded Playoff format among conference commissioners. A reduction to an 8-team model appears dead. A new proposal favored by the Alliance conferences (ACC, B1G, Pac-12) would add a slight tweak to the original 12-team proposal. Instead of automatic bids to the 6 highest ranked conference champions, it would be a 5+1 (all Power 5 conference champs, and the highest G5 champion) plus 6 at-large teams.

 

The G5 obviously aren't happy about the proposed change, as it all but ensures they will only get one team in....although in the previous 7 Playoffs only once have two G5 champs finished higher than the lowest ranked Power 5 champ, and that was 2020; a season very heavily impacted by COVID. This season could provide a more interesting argument the G5 would be screwed though, with Clemson having an off year and the rest of the ACC not looking like anything special. Right now their highest ranked team is Wake Forest at #12. Then there's Pitt at #21, but right behind them are San Diego State and UTSA at 22 and 23, respectively. It'll be interesting to see how that shakes out.

 

Here would be the seedings for a 12-team Playoff based on current CFP rankings. (using the highest ranked team from each conference as its champion)

 

1. Georgia

2. Oregon

3. Ohio State

4. Cincinnati

---------------

5. Alabama

6. Michigan

7. Michigan State

8. Oklahoma

9. Notre Dame

10. Oklahoma State

11. Texas A&M

12. Wake Forest

 

Here's what the first round of games would look like (tweaked proposal still has higher ranked teams hosting in Round 1):

 

(12) Wake Forest at (5) Alabama

(11) Texas A&M at (6) Michigan

(10) Oklahoma St at (7) Michigan State

(9) Notre Dame at (8) Oklahoma

 

Wake at Alabama would be a snoozer, but the rest look pretty appealing.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Works for me

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: College Football Playoff expansion on hold, current four-team format will remain until 2026

https://www.cbssport...ain-until-2026/

 

Boo.

[You Play to Win the Game]

CBS Sports: College Football Playoff expansion on hold, current four-team format will remain until 2026
https://www.cbssport...ain-until-2026/

Boo.

Such a racket, as it has been from the start. I think I’m done watching the Nick Saban invitational. It’s boring and drama free anyway. One of the worst post-season’s in all of sports.

[BSLMikeLowe]

https://theathletic...._shared_article

 

Interesting piece on how putting off CFP expansion might work to the Big Ten’s benefit. The ACC and Pac-12 would seem more likely to be hurt by putting it off, so their no vote is pretty curious.

 

While I’m generally pro-expansion and definitely think we’ll have it in 2026, if not sooner, I definitely don’t think it is the silver bullet to fixing CFB’s flailing postseason. You can put as many teams as you want in a playoff, but in the end you will still have one or two teams that just steamroll the rest of the field. I also don’t think it ensures players entering the NFL won’t opt-out of playing either.

 

I’ll have more to say on it in an article I’ve been working on. (promise)

[BSLMikeLowe]

The Athletic: College Football Playoff expansion will be fun (eventually), but who does it really help?

 

 

The truth? If (when?) the CFP expands to 12 one day, the first No. 8 seed to win a national title isn’t going to be a Cinderella. It’s not going to be Pitt or Baylor or Wisconsin or Washington or Cincinnati. It’s going to be a two-loss Ohio State, Alabama or Clemson that does it because those are the types of teams that are talented enough to win multiple games on that stage when things click. And is that what the country wants? For those teams to still have a shot at winning it all despite having a failure of a regular season? Because that’s what’s going to happen.

[BSLChrisStoner]

• OSU AD: 'Can't ignore' potential of 16-team CFP

[BSLMikeLowe]

Before they do anything with the playoff they need to figure out who is going to be in what conference, and which conferences will still matter. If you have a 16-team Big Ten and a 16-team SEC who decide they just want to hold their own combined playoff to keep all the money for themselves, then a 16-team playoff field is a bad idea. This isn't the NBA/NHL.

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: Hopes raised for College Football Playoff expansion agreement as interest in 16-team model grows

https://www.cbssport...am-model-grows/