You're going to be in for basically the same thing if an 8-4 team pulls an upset under this proposed system. For example, in 2018, had Northwestern upset Ohio St., they would have been a top 6 conference winner with a 9-4 record.
Pitt was a factor in new playoff model
- Thread starter TIGER-PAUL
- Start date
pittdan77
Athletic Director
But the point everyone keeps missing is that a 12 team playoff in theory is wonderful until you have to go to the TV people and get them to pay for those extra games that probably won't change the outcome. If there's not value to the network, it doesn't happen.
The current CFB playoff brings in $470 million per year in television money. The estimates that I saw for the television contract value for the 12 team playoff started at $1 billion per year and went up from there.
For instance, from the AP:
"The television rights for a proposed 12-team playoff could be worth about $1.9 billion annually, according to projections from Navigate Research, which consults with professional sports leagues and college conferences."
I don’t get your point. College football is hugely popular nationwide especially in the south and Midwest.. More games = more money for the networks.
Sums it all up right here and they don't want Pitt, cause Pitt has spent 30 plus years hurting their brand then elevating it, some done on purpose by eggheads
Right. Pitt is already getting screwed out of a 12 team CFP that they wouldn’t have qualified for based on merit in any of the last 30-plus seasons outside of maybe 2004. And of course Utah proved that Pitt had no business in a BCS bowl game to begin with.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Estimates are cool and all but you don't even have a final scheme, yet, and the game was just as popular a few years ago when expansion came up and the powers that be (TV) said no. Not saying TV won't end up paying big to do it. It just hasn't even come close to that discussion yet and they hold all of the cards. You just don't "add product" and assume that everyone involved makes more money. Diminishing returns and all.
This is the kind of thinking a lot of you have, LOL! So what if USSR lost, they would of beat USA 9 of 10 times, it's a travesty that the "best team" isn't in the finals.
I just think that's the way its been, unfortunately. With the four team playoff, they constantly are emphasizing the four best teams will be selected. With some of the selections, you wonder if they are always concerned with the final result on the field or if they are more concerned with things like preseason rankings or whatever
So game results doesn't factor into being "best team" I guess? If a "best team" loses to a perceived lesser team, the best team is still better and should trump the team they lost to in an actual game and jump over them into the playoffs? That's what it seems like in many cases. Or maybe a 12-1 "best team" get's to jump a 13-0 not so best, and the best still gets in, even if they lose? It's like welfare for the rich.
I don't disagree with you, but in recent years it just seems like that hasn't been the case. For example, when the Nitters won the Big Ten in 2016, they were still jumped by Ohio State in the playoff rankings despite beating them on the field. The Committee is just concerned with ratings and while there wouldn't have been necessarily been a revenue difference between PSU and Ohio State, I don't think the Nitters come close to winning a game. I've had multiple friends who are PSU fans say they were happy not being in the Playoff to avoid being blown out. But scenarios like this are what make me realize that we will never get in unless we are perfect and undefeated
I understand why people focus on the playoff system since it'd be something relatively easy to change. But I think the biggest challenge about college football is it the biggest inequity in how talent self-selects into a few top teams. No matter the playoff system, you're not going to have national champion Northwestern. It could be a 16 team system, they're not going to beat Alabama in round one. And if they did, they're not going to beat Clemson in round two. This harsh reality makes me a little less interested in CFB every year.
Last edited:
What expansion do you mean? This is the first time there has been an actual expansion proposal for the CFP. If you mean conference expansion, there is a big difference.
Regarding the playoffs, there is definitely more money in it for the networks. CFP games bring in significantly higher ratings than regular season games. Even if the added playoff games only bring in half the ratings of the semi finals, that's still much more than the average regular season game, or bowls.
Ratings didn't have anything to do with Ohio St. jumping Penn St. in 2016. Penn St. had 2 losses in 2016, as opposed to 1 loss for Ohio St. The very next year, Ohio St. had 2 losses and was jumped by 1 loss Alabama.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but the losses were the deciding factor in both cases.
That should never be a consideration, what will "probably" happen in the next game, if you win the championship game, you DEVERVE to get to the next step even if you're blown out. I'd rather GET IN and lose 50-0 than not go at all. When Pitt went to that Fiesta Bowl in '04, I was happy to go and get blown out, better than not going at all.
But sometimes in the past 20 years, those teams where not great, they had losing seasons, so who's to say teams like Bama and Clemson are destined to be top dogs forever?
I don't think that should ever be a consideration as well, but you know the Committee is taking that into consideration when making these selections. Obviously it's not the right thing to do, but unfortunately I think it is the reality of the situation.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
We're discussing playoff expansion, right? There was nothing formal. The discussion was rejected out of turn when it came up.
More money doesn't mean more profit. Nobody knows what TV is willing to pay because nobody has asked them (that we know of).
There has been no playoff expansion that was rejected by the TV networks. In the past, the CFP itself stated the playoffs would not expand, when it was speculated in the media. The networks have never rejected it though.
Actually more money does mean more profit, in this case. There is more than enough data to know what the ratings will be, how much revenue will come from advertisers, etc.
Just out of curiosity, how often has that happened? I mean a 3-4 loss team upsetting the "best team" in the conference championship game of a P5 League. Any examples? so if it almost never happens, or happens once every 10 years or even less, what's the big F'ing deal with rewarding the team that pulls off the miracle once every decade? I don't think it's very common, is it?
Oklahoma got into the BCS title game 20ish years ago after losing to K State in the Big12 championship game.
Sorry, the best team doesn't lose their last game. If playing that logic, what if the "best" team loses the playoff final? Just crown them as champ?
And remember who decides who is "best". It's people like Bob Smizik.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
No, there wasn't. The CFP rejected the notion without discussion several times. Literally comes up every year. Not sure how many different ways I can write it.
You have no idea if TV thinks it's worth it. Nobody outside of that circle does.
Even though as a Pitt fan it'd be nice to see the a repeat of 2018 with a different result in the Championship game, but I also believe that the playoffs are about putting the teams that had the best season in contention for the national championship.
Does anyone actually feel that Pitt was the 12th best team in the country in 2018? Of course not. If the conferences want to hand out their championship based on a single championship game, then that's up to them and Pitt should have been more than satisfied to be crowned conference champ during a 6-5 season. But that doesn't mean they should be in the running for national champion.
Does anyone actually feel that Pitt was the 12th best team in the country in 2018? Of course not. If the conferences want to hand out their championship based on a single championship game, then that's up to them and Pitt should have been more than satisfied to be crowned conference champ during a 6-5 season. But that doesn't mean they should be in the running for national champion.
3-loss Kansas State (that lost to Marshall)beat undefeated No.1 in the nation Oklahoma in 2003. They got rewarded with the Big 12 Championship. Oklahoma still went on to play No. 2 LSU for the National Championship. The right team played for the crown, Kansas State got to put up a banner...all was right in the world.
Exactly. It’s crazy how people can look at the 247 Team Talent Calculator and then say, “it’s a conspiracy to get the same few teams in every year.”
The same few teams compete for the spots every year because they dominate recruiting, and therefore, dominate on the field.
There’s no Illuminati conspiracy to this. One day Alabama will stop recruiting at this level. And do you know who will take their place? Another southern team. Why? Because that’s where all the talent is. And that southern team will constantly make the playoffs.
You said in an earlier post TV networks rejected expansion. That never happened.
I absolutely know that TV thinks it's worth it. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the college presidents go for it. They are the ones making this decision.
Do you seriously think that the group that was working on this proposal had no contact at all with anyone in the television industry to gauge networks interest in the plans they were kicking around and estimates as to how much money it would all be worth? Really?
Just because they haven't told us, that doesn't mean that they don't have a reasonably good idea.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
pittdan77
Athletic Director
The group was tasked with coming up with a playoff scheme. I seriously doubt that the working group was permitted to have that discussion. I don't even know how anyone could float a number without knowing the logistics of the scheme. Costs are very different if you're using existing bowls versus giving schools home games. How do you get around existing contracts another network may have with the bowl? It's not like you just call ESPN and have them float a number.
The costs aren't different. You are going to have the same costs to transport equipment, pay the employees, etc. ESPN already owns the broadcast right to all the major bowls, and most of the other bowls.
Actually you do just call ESPN and have them throw out a number. That's what the ACC did when they expanded. That's also what the Big XII did when they chose not to expand.
You're only example was 18 years ago, when they still had the BCS TWO TEAM playoff, so what if there was a 12 team playoff, what's wrong with 10-3 K State getting that bid? It seems that this scenario, 3-4 loss team pulling an upset in a P5 title game almost never happens, so if it happens once a decade, why not reward that team. Who cares about "best", if you're so "best" WIN THE F'ing GAMES!
2012 5-loss Wisconsin won the Big Ten Championship game vs. 2-Loss Nebraska. A few asterisks in there, but it happened.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I don't recall the ACC deal with expansion but they never got the "big money" that other conferences did. And there was nothing stopping the Big12 from expanding and getting paid more because it was already in their deal. That conversation went more like, "don't expect us to be happy you added garbage to get paid more when your renewal talks come around" and that helped kill it. They're also struggling to get the current TV deal renewed early. Fox and ESPN folks are stalling, citing uncertainty in the media marketplace as well as the landscape for collegiate athletics. Take that for whatever you will.
I think the costs are different depending on the scheme and that would make it difficult for anyone to ballpark a number without a definitive plan. ESPN is already tied into bowl games with deals. They may insist on using the current inventory of bowl games which saves them money but increases costs for schools. How much more does ESPN pay for the bowl games they already have? Also depends on timing. When are you starting the playoffs? Are you telling bowl committees that they have to move their game to early-December and expect them to just do it. Of course the Presidents might not go for that because of college finals (already a primary excuse). You go deeper into January and you're competing with the NFL who already has solid primetime TV slots worth $100 billion. ESPN/ABC certainly isn't going to put any CFB games up against the NFL and hurt future broadcast opportunities. And home games for higher seeds are cool except that creates a ton of issues for northern schools or schools who share their stadium with the NFL. See why the details matter? There are a ton of moving parts and a lot of unanswered questions. The article you cited is great but that's an outsiders guess. Nobody knows what anyone in TV would actually be thinking. Especially if the Big12 can't get those folks to the table.
That's long and wordy and I'm not even telling you that you're going to be wrong. TV might gush at the deal. Might negotiate it down. Might also kill it five minutes after it's voted on. I don't think anybody knows.
That was an FSU on the last leg of the Bowden era, but that was still a team that greatly outrecruited VT.
I’m not sure people got the tingles watching underachieving FSU take it’s 4* and 5* players and upset VT’s Tier II talent.
They've been working on the expanded playoff for 2 years. 100% know what TV is thinking. 0% TV might kill it.
Would people have gotten the tingles if the divisions didn't exist in 2005 and VT would have been upset by Miami or BC (the two next highest ranked ACC teams behind VT) instead of FSU? I'm skeptical.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Honestly, when I think of iconic football games, it's a back breaking play late in a game between two powers. Auburn's "Kick 6" against Bama was the stuff of legend. Vaulted them into the title game. Pretty good championship game, too. FSU with a TD at the end of the game to win.
The Big 12 actually does have a clause in their contract that limits expansion. If they expand to 12 teams, then they only get enough of an increase to keep the payout at the current level. They have to add more teams to get additional money. To your other point, the Big 12 didn't expand precisely because they were told they wouldn't get more money for the teams available. They consulted the networks before they expanded, during the investigation phase.
Your questions have already been answered. The formal proposal calls for the first round to be played on campus. The second round will be played on the NY6 bowl on new year's. The semi finals will be played the following week in the remaining NY6 bowls. The title game the following week.
The title game is already played after the NFL playoffs start.
College teams already have to deal with sharing stadiums with NFL teams. It's not hard to do.
When is the last time the networks have turned down playoff expansion for a league? The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and CFP have all expended their playoffs, and weren't turned down.
There is just way too much to the contrary evidence to make a credible argument that TV will turn down expanded playoffs.
