Interesting article and well presented. Food for thought.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/the-one-move-that-could-save-the-big-12-160138736.html
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/the-one-move-that-could-save-the-big-12-160138736.html
Good article about the Big 12 and why a 6-8 team playoff is in everyone's best interest...
- Thread starter pitt-girl
- Start date
WELL....
an 8 team playoff means you can kiss Notre Dame goodbye as a full ACC member.
And no....they wont be 2-5 every year, either.....
an 8 team playoff means you can kiss Notre Dame goodbye as a full ACC member.
And no....they wont be 2-5 every year, either.....
Not with automatic bids. Notre Dame would be essentially a mid major if the P5 had automatic bids to the playoffs, and all they had was a shot at an at large bid.
I think it is very simple.
I think you go to an eight-team playoff with an automatic bid for each of the Power Five conferences plus three at-large bids.
That would settle everything down because it would disincentivize all of these conferences from raiding each other. It would also encourage much better out of conference match ups because even if you lose those games you can still make the playoff by winning your conference.
It would actually serve to incentivize better out of conference games - which is good for everyone.
The three at-large bids would also leave some room for independents like Notre Dame and BYU, little guys like Houston and Boise State, and the second best teams in very strong conferences like maybe Michigan this year, for example.
Such a system would also make these conference championship games de facto playoff games and therefore would become must-see TV.
I have heard all of the arguments against the system I just described but quite frankly, none of them hold up to scrutiny. This is definitely the best way to go and would literally be the single best thing that has ever happened to college football.
I think you go to an eight-team playoff with an automatic bid for each of the Power Five conferences plus three at-large bids.
That would settle everything down because it would disincentivize all of these conferences from raiding each other. It would also encourage much better out of conference match ups because even if you lose those games you can still make the playoff by winning your conference.
It would actually serve to incentivize better out of conference games - which is good for everyone.
The three at-large bids would also leave some room for independents like Notre Dame and BYU, little guys like Houston and Boise State, and the second best teams in very strong conferences like maybe Michigan this year, for example.
Such a system would also make these conference championship games de facto playoff games and therefore would become must-see TV.
I have heard all of the arguments against the system I just described but quite frankly, none of them hold up to scrutiny. This is definitely the best way to go and would literally be the single best thing that has ever happened to college football.
The biggest advantage of going to the automatic bid system is it would take a lot of the subjectivity out of the whole process.
That is my primary interest in all of this – cleansing the sport of it's bullshit.
I don't want committees full of "experts" like Condoleezza Rice, for example, determining who gets to play in the playoff and who doesn't. And I certainly don't want some know–nothing sports writer making that determination.
Rather, it should be.decided on the field by the teams that earn those bids – just like it is done in every other sport and at every other level of that sport.
I just cannot believe that in the year 2016 we are still making major decisions based on public opinion polling and who the television networks prefer; or which teams' fans are most likely to attend a game.
That seems incredibly backwards for the time.
That is my primary interest in all of this – cleansing the sport of it's bullshit.
I don't want committees full of "experts" like Condoleezza Rice, for example, determining who gets to play in the playoff and who doesn't. And I certainly don't want some know–nothing sports writer making that determination.
Rather, it should be.decided on the field by the teams that earn those bids – just like it is done in every other sport and at every other level of that sport.
I just cannot believe that in the year 2016 we are still making major decisions based on public opinion polling and who the television networks prefer; or which teams' fans are most likely to attend a game.
That seems incredibly backwards for the time.
I've been in favor of this system from day one. It's equitable as it needs to be to the independents and "little guys" as long as no more than one at-large can go to a P5 opponent. Hell, I'd be okay with conference champs only, period, three at-large for G5/independents anyways.
Nothing is more fair, more likely to crown a true champion, and since it means the end of the bowl system as is it will likely never happen.
I always thought 8 would be perfect. The conference winner from each of the P5 and then the next three based on rankings. To the teams who just missed from the P5, well you should have won your conference. This gives everyone a chance. From Alabama to Houston.
As soon as they announced the 4 team playoff it was only a matter of time before we made our way towards an 8 team tournament. Absolutely inevitable.
Ummmm... That would not only be terrible for competition purposes, but it would cause extreme instability. Texas would immediately be better off being an independent. And that would obviously 100% solidify ND as an independent. That would be a much, much, much worse option than the current system. There is no reason or need to be equitable or fair to G5 or independent programs. Only 1 of them had any semblance of power or positive revenue impact.
Most definitely. Clear as day.
Once the TV networks figure out how much more valuable automatic bids make their investments in these contracts, you'll see it.
8 is inevitable. 5 P5 champs plus 3 at-large.
I think the P12 and B12 should be required to have 14 teams though to match the other 3 leagues.
P12 takes UNLV (new stadium, great market) and 1 more (Boise, San Diego State, Kansas, Kansas St, or an AAC Texas school)
I think the P12 and B12 should be required to have 14 teams though to match the other 3 leagues.
P12 takes UNLV (new stadium, great market) and 1 more (Boise, San Diego State, Kansas, Kansas St, or an AAC Texas school)
Actually it's what America has become, everything is primarily to max out profit, If they could get away with it, they might put a 5-7 ND team in the tournament if they thought it would sell more tickets and get better TV ratings.
Why should they have to expand, ruin other conferences, and face our issue of never seeing half their conferencemates?
Less is sometimes more.
And dear....UNLV?
UNLV matches what matters most, they are building a new NFL stadium, intended for the Raiders, and they are in a TV footprint that no P5 really owns. It's just about money.
Exactly. Actually, it would become necessary to get the at-large bids. Similar to basketball where schedule strength actually matters. A "two quality loss team" could get in over a one loss team that was upset or played a cupcake conference schedule.
Yea, with a new stadium, UNLV to the P12 or B12 is inevitable. The market is too big to ignore.
Last edited:
There would have to be some things happen to make an eight team playoff really worth it.
First off, the SEC can't get three bids automatically which would be ESPN's push right out of the gate.
Second, the Big 12 can't sit at 10 teams because they would simply kill their conference championship game and that wouldn't be acceptable to the other conferences.
Third, would there still be value to a bigger conference to play a title game? Why risk putting two undefeated teams in a position to maybe miss out on the playoff? Especially if you're the SEC.
First off, the SEC can't get three bids automatically which would be ESPN's push right out of the gate.
Second, the Big 12 can't sit at 10 teams because they would simply kill their conference championship game and that wouldn't be acceptable to the other conferences.
Third, would there still be value to a bigger conference to play a title game? Why risk putting two undefeated teams in a position to maybe miss out on the playoff? Especially if you're the SEC.
Been saying this for years. 8 is perfect. The power 5 get a autobid for winning conference and 3 at large with 1 being guaranteed to highest ranked non power 5 program. This insures anyone who is worthy gets in. It also makes conference games much more important and allows OOC scheduling based on matchups not easy wins. It doesn't matter if FSU plays 3 great teams OOC and loses because if they win the ACC they are in.
Yep you can't win your conference then you can't bitch. This setup would also allow teams that lose a game or two to remain in it and allow that schools fans to continue to dream, which means they will watch more games.
The TV market there really isn't very good at all.
Agreed.
The las Vegas metro population is about two million.
Pittsburgh's is 2.5 million.
Not very large at all. Not to mention, a lot of the population are transplants who aren't likely to follow a local college team.
UNLV would be a more dubious addition than Rutgers was for the Big Ten.
16 teams is realistic, every other division of college football does it. It would be a huge money maker, the brackets, office pools etc.
None of that would be a problem.
The first one isn't really an issue.
The second one doesn't matter. How the Big 12 determines its champion would not affect the other conferences. Each conference would have an automatic bid, so there is no chance of them losing that spot. The Big 12 not having a title game would not hurt the other leagues. It would not take away the automatic bid from the other conferences, and it would not help the Big 12 to get an at large bid.
The conference title games would be more valuable. That's because the winner is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. That means, even if your conference champ has 2+ losses, the winner still goes to the playoffs. Take the Pac 12 last year. There was no real "value" to their title game, because Stanford already had 2 losses and was effectively eliminated from the playoffs. However, with an automatic bid, the Pac 12 champ still goes to the playoffs, thus the title game still matters.
Regarding the two undefeated team scenario, they wouldn't be in danger of missing the playoffs. You have to keep in mind that at large teams don't have to compete with the conference champs for those 3 other spots. So for example, a 12-1 Tennessee (who loses the conference title game) won't be competing with Ohio St, Washington, Clemson, Oklahoma, for those three at large spots. They will be competing with the 2nd place teams (plus whatever G5 teams), who by definition will have some losses.
And some of them think it's a terrible idea. It's only remotely tolerated because Oakland isn't really a thriving market either.
And either way, an Nfl team in the region doesn't exactly make a team like UNLV more attractive.
The bean counters? The Raiders don't care because they are getting a hugely public funded stadium and suite and ticket agreements that will make them money. The other owners get huge move fees. The TV market won't cause a blip of change from Oakland to Las Vegas.
NO GUARANTEED BIDS !!!!! There are going to be times when a conference champ, because of the unpredictability of a playoff game, is going to have 2 or sometimes 3 losses. A 2 or 3 loss team getting a bid while one loss or even zero loss teams stay home is ridiculous and unfair.
When all the games are over the committee should look at the landscape as one big conference then choose the 4 or 6 or 8 best.
Again, automatic bids would be unfair. Say the ACC coastal champ has 3 losses but beats the Atlantic champ with 0 losses. Are you telling me that 3 loss team should get an automatic bid?
I would go with automatic bids providing that Conference Champ has no more than one loss.
If there are 5 P5 conferences and 8 playoff teams? Yes, P5 champs should get in. Then you take the next best 3. If there is a 12-1 ACC #2, there is almost a 100% chance they still get in.
Then why even attempt to schedule legit ooc teams?
You need automatic bids, just like the pros.
People bitched constantly on how unfair the bcs was.
It was fair. And it was a playoff. Just one with two teams, as compared to four or eight or whatever.
It's issue was how abstract picking the two teams were, since there weren't automatic qualifiers.
The current setup has the same issue too, except now we're arguing over team number 4v5, instead of 2v3. Baylor got rip offed that first year, with the networks preferred choice of Ohio state getting in.
Autobids prevent this.
But a 3 loss champ is still denying a one loss team somewhere. If you are going to have a playoff then pick the 4 or 6 or 8 best teams. Simple as that.
I think P5 conference auto bids solves the issue of not devaluing the conference championship games, but still making the regular season a test that pushes quality matchups OOC. However, that only makes sense if there are 8 teams, not 6, or 4.
This rarely happens, but, if it did, it is actually better for the major conferences (who drive this) because it gives them a chance to have a 2nd team in the playoff and thus make much more money. So, your hypothetical actually bolsters the argument to expand the playoff for the P5 teams.
