THIS makes me nauseous.

[UPitt]

Actually in the current BCS system (last year thereof) each conference picks up an equal share of BCS bowl payouts, including the Big East/AAC. In terms of access to the playoffs any team ranked in the top four will have an opportunity to play for the championship. Yes, we agree the deck is stacked against the Group of Five schools for a number of reasons including SOS. But in terms of "access" it extends somewhat to the ACC. One of the reasons FSU considered leaving the ACC is because they know that a 1 loss team in the ACC will most likely not make it to the playoffs, whereas a 1-loss SEC, B1G 12, and PAC (and possibly Big 10) champion probably will.

The BCS payout is equal under the current system. Under the new playoff system the payout to the Big 5 is still going to be equal. You said the new system will pay the big 4 more than the ACC. Some conferences make more money from TV rights, non-playoff bowls, NCAA credits, etc. than other conferences. This exists today and will continue after the new system is in place. The majority of BCS money is split evenly between 6 conferences today. Under the new system the majority of BCS money is split evenly between the Big 5 conferences. The only difference in terms of money between the old system and the new system is that the BCS money was split evenly between 6 conferences and the Playoff money will be split evenly between 5 conferences now. The remaining money earned by conferences will not change under the new system. Either way, money is not related to the original question.

The suggestion was made that the P4 would make a playoff including 12 teams. The winners of the P4 would each get a bye and the four runners up would get automatic bids to the first round games. The ACC winner and runner up would both play first round games. Two at large bids would also make the first round games. Under this scenario, the ACC is clearly at a disadvantage. I stated that as long as UNC, FSU, and ND are not in the P4, that no playoff system will use wirtten rules and seedings to penalize the ACC. This comment is not related to your quote that the ACC will struggle to get in the new 4 team playoff. I was answering a question about a future idea for a playoff that includes 12 teams.

 

[frankthetank]

Simple answer. Year after year, fewer people are watching irrelevant bowls or even care to watch them. In the 1980s, the NIT was still a big deal. Heck, there used to be a consolation game!

As years go by, and the focus turns to the 7 playoff games, the other 23 bowls will lose even more fans until they become bigger money sieves than they already are.

This is true, but once again, compared to virtually any other programming besides the NFL, the bowls still provide good TV ratings. It takes a monster regular season college basketball matchup (i.e. Duke vs. UNC when both are in the top 10) to approach the ratings of a mediocre bowl matchup. That's why I think the bowl system is still very durable: the TV viewership alone (regardless of ticket sales) is more than enough to justify it. For as much as people complain about the bowls being boring, they provide nearly 3 weeks of programming that draws more viewers on average than events like the Stanley Cup Playoffs and even early round MLB and NBA playoff games. They're not going away on that basis since the bowls (outside of the CFP bowls) are relatively inexpensive in terms of TV rights compared to those properties.

The bowls are also a mechanism for the power conferences to maintain direct control over postseason revenue, as well, which is more important than making the most money for the system overall (which is largely irrelevant to the power conferences compared to how such money is split).

 

[uconnfan68]

This is true, but once again, compared to virtually any other programming besides the NFL, the bowls still provide good TV ratings. It takes a monster regular season college basketball matchup (i.e. Duke vs. UNC when both are in the top 10) to approach the ratings of a mediocre bowl matchup. That's why I think the bowl system is still very durable: the TV viewership alone (regardless of ticket sales) is more than enough to justify it. For as much as people complain about the bowls being boring, they provide nearly 3 weeks of programming that draws more viewers on average than events like the Stanley Cup Playoffs and even early round MLB and NBA playoff games. They're not going away on that basis since the bowls (outside of the CFP bowls) are relatively inexpensive in terms of TV rights compared to those properties.

The bowls are also a mechanism for the power conferences to maintain direct control over postseason revenue, as well, which is more important than making the most money for the system overall (which is largely irrelevant to the power conferences compared to how such money is split).

Never underestimate sports betting on tv ratings.

 

[UPitt]

You're right. The NCAA Basketball Tournement is terribly set up. No one travels to those games.

It would make for a really long day to host 4 college football games in one stadium in a day.

 

[Husky25]

It would make for a really long day to host 4 college football games in one stadium in a day.

That's not what I was meant. If a team makes the Final Four, they are in three different cities over the span of three weekends. You can make the argument that it is easier to sell out a smaller arena (for the first few rounds, at least), but the power football teams travel relatively well and most bowls are in the south, the heart of college football fandom, and in locales where fans would have to travel by plane regardless...

Besides, the National Championship Football Game will be like the final 4. Each team will get their allottment, but a large number of tickets will go to large area business, sponsors, and celebrities on the hosting television station (A la the World Series. "...And Denzel Washington is here. Incidently and unrelated, I heard Denzel has a new movie coming out, produced by 20 Century Fox. What a coincidence that he have box seats behind the Dugout AND have a new movie!!")

Incidently, I believe that if a playoff gets up to 8 (or more) teams, the first rounds should be home games for the higher seeded team. That doesn't mean the bowls are going away. The boost the local economy regardless of how many tickets the participating schools sell or eat.

 

[IthacaMatt]

In your proposal if they guarantee the big 5 conference an automatic bid then with these large 14 team conferences with a 12 game schedule they will likely go 10 game conference schedules since each conference will have a guaranteed playoff spot and will want their best team to come from their conference and play conference games. I don't see this scenario happening unless the big 5 conferences agreed to give one of the 3 at-large spots to a non-power 5 conference team for fairness. The best scenario IMO would be a 16 team playoff a la FCS and give all 11 D-1 conferences(AAC, ACC, B1G, Big XII, CUSA, MAC, MWC, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt, WAC) an automatic bid and 5 at-large teams. Play first round on-campuses, play quarter-finals at 2 sites with double-headers at each BCS sites(Orange, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar), semi-final doubleheader(at one of the two sites not used in the quarter-final), then the Championship game at the 4th site.

By having double-headers it would get 4 fanbases to one site and would fill the stadium up regardless of the four teams there and would create a march madness type atmosphere. Michigan, Ohio State fans at the Rose Bowl site with Ohio State playing Oregon and Michigan playing Alabama it would be tremendous theater. If they wanted to do a two single headers on back to back days that would work as well one game on Friday, the other game on Saturday like that a la the Pac-12 Championship game on Friday, and the B1G game on Saturday.

I like the double-header idea, which sounds pretty original, but I think that going to 16 teams is too many unless they eliminate the conference championship games.

 

[UPitt]

That's not what I was meant. If a team makes the Final Four, they are in three different cities over the span of three weekends. You can make the argument that it is easier to sell out a smaller arena (for the first few rounds, at least), but the power football teams travel relatively well and most bowls are in the south, the heart of college football fandom, and in locales where fans would have to travel by plane regardless...

Besides, the National Championship Football Game will be like the final 4. Each team will get their allottment, but a large number of tickets will go to large area business, sponsors, and celebrities on the hosting television station (A la the World Series. "...And Denzel Washington is here. Incidently and unrelated, I heard Denzel has a new movie coming out, produced by 20 Century Fox. What a coincidence that he have box seats behind the Dugout AND have a new movie!!")

Incidently, I believe that if a playoff gets up to 8 (or more) teams, the first rounds should be home games for the higher seeded team. That doesn't mean the bowls are going away. The boost the local economy regardless of how many tickets the participating schools sell or eat.

I was joking about 4 games in a day. I do think the structure of the NCAA tourney promotes fans to travel for the games because it is a weekend event as opposed to a day event. Also, as you touched on the small arenas make it easier to sell tickets and indoor arenas allows these events to take place in NYC, Chicago, Boston, LA (not northern but outdoors in winter), and other northern cities.

But this is football. If the playoffs include the best 8 (or even 16) teams, the the tickets will sell even at neutral sites. Maybe the NCAA will need to charge a lesser amount for the first round games as they do in BB, or play the games at home sites as you suggested. But the real money will be made on TV, and the NCAA just nees to ensure the seats are not empty.

 

[alsacs]

only reason this won't happen is because it puts the SEC, Big, and Pac on same footing as Sun Belt, AAC, and WAC.
no way these power conferences give a perceived lessor conference that equal access.

I understand what your saying, but those 5 at-large spots would come from Pac-12, SEC, B1G, ND for the most part anyway. Giving the smaller conference teams a slot shuts down any anti-trust challenges if college football wanted to expand its playoff system.

Also to other points made, any site without weather problems Georgia Dome, Super Dome, JerryWorld, Rose Bowl could host double-headers easily. Have a 1pm game and then 8pm game. Obviously you couldn't have 4 games at one site like the NCAA tournament. Also, the size of your football field would have no bearing on the playoffs. If your 12-0 and earn the 8 seed you get whomever the committee deemed your opponent would be. Thus, if Northern Illinois was deemed a top 8 seed last year which is doubtful, but possible they would host their first round game. The TV generated from being able to broadcast these games would be sufficient that stadium capacity wouldn't matter. They could disburse the revenue in credits a la the basketball tournament and thus giving each conference atleast 1 credit to divide which would be better than the current system, and the top conferences would earn their additional credits by how their teams performed.

Here is how I would have done it under what I suggested based on last year season.
3rd week in December
1. Notre Dame(at-large) vs. 16. Wisconsin(B1G) (following the LAX model of reducing travel)
2. Alabama(SEC) vs. 15. Arkansas State(Sun Belt)
3. Florida(at-large) vs. 14. Northern Illinois(MAC)
4. Oregon(at-large) vs. 13. Utah State(WAC)
5. Georgia(at-large) vs. 12. Louisville(AAC)
6. Stanford(Pac-12) vs. 11. Boise State(MWC)
7. Texas A&M(at-large) vs. 10. Tulsa(CUSA)
8. Kansas State(Big XII) vs. 9. Florida State(ACC)
Remember in lacrosse geography matters I would flip Tulsa and Louisville if A&M-Tulsa and Georgia-Louisville didn't make better geographic sense.

New Year's week
The quarterfinals
Rose Bowl(Pasadena)- hosts ND-Wisconsin winner vs. K State-FSU winner, Oregon-Utah State winner vs. Georgia-Louisville winner
Orange Bowl(Miami)- Alabama-Arkansas State winner vs. A&M-Tulsa winner, Florida-NIU winner vs. Stanford-Boise winner

2nd week in January
Sugar Bowl(New Orleans)- doubleheader featuring 4 winners

4th week in January week between NFL Conference Championships and Superbowl
Chick-Fil-A Bowl(Atlanta)- National Championship game

 

[frankthetank]

I understand what your saying, but those 5 at-large spots would come from Pac-12, SEC, B1G, ND for the most part anyway. Giving the smaller conference teams a slot shuts down any anti-trust challenges if college football wanted to expand its playoff system.

Also, any site without weather problems Georgia Dome, Super Dome, JerryWorld, Rose Bowl could host double-headers easily. Have a 1pm game and then 8pm game. Obviously you couldn't have 4 games at one site like the NCAA tournament. Also, the size of your football field would have no bearing on the playoffs. If your 12-0 and earn the 8 seed you get whomever the committee deemed your opponent would be. Thus, if Northern Illinois was deemed a top 8 seed last year which is doubtful, but possible they would host their first round game. The TV generated from being able to broadcast these games would be sufficient that stadium capacity wouldn't matter. They could disburse the revenue in credits a la the basketball tournament and thus giving all the conferences atleast 1 credit to divide would be better than the current system, and the top conferences would earn their additional credits by how their teams performed.

Here is how I would have done it under what I suggested based on last year season.
3rd week in December
1. Notre Dame(at-large) vs. 16. Wisconsin(B1G) (following the LAX model of reducing travel)
2. Alabama(SEC) vs. 15. Arkansas State(Sun Belt)
3. Florida(at-large) vs. 14. Northern Illinois(MAC)
4. Oregon(at-large) vs. 13. Utah State(WAC)
5. Georgia(at-large) vs. 12. Louisville(AAC)
6. Stanford(Pac-12) vs. 11. Boise State(MWC)
7. Texas A&M(at-large) vs. 10. Tulsa(CUSA)
8. Kansas State(Big XII) vs. 9. Florida State(ACC)
Remember in lacrosse geography matters I would flip Tulsa and Louisville if A&M-Tulsa and Georgia-Louisville didn't make better geographic sense.

New Year's week
The quarterfinals
Rose Bowl(Pasadena)- hosts ND-Wisconsin winner vs. K State-FSU winner, Oregon-Utah State winner vs. Georgia-Louisville winner
Orange Bowl(Miami)- Alabama-Arkansas State winner vs. A&M-Tulsa winner, Florida-NIU winner vs. Stanford-Boise winner

2nd week in January
Sugar Bowl(New Orleans)- doubleheader featuring 4 winners

4th week in January week between NFL Conference Championships and Superbowl
Chick-Fil-A Bowl(Atlanta)- National Championship game

It's plausible that the power conferences would be willing to provide one spot to the non-power conferences in an 8-team playoff (similar to what it's granting to them in terms of the new CFP bowl system). You will see the power conferences split off from the NCAA before you'll ever see an NCAA Tournament-style autobid for every conference for football, though. Saying that the power conference "should" get more at-large bids has never, ever, ever been a persuasive argument for them to open up access. Limiting access in and of itself is what the power conferences need (whether it's fair or not) and for various reasons, they've always been confident that they could withstand any antitrust challenge. Look at how many times the BCS was threatened by vote-seeking state AGs over the past 15 years, yet NOT A SINGLE LAWSUIT was ever filed. (Whether you'll get sympathetic politicians squawking is a different matter, although the loudest ones from Utah have been largely placated with how the Utes are now part of the power structure.)

 

[frankthetank]

Never underestimate sports betting on tv ratings.

There's an impact there, but even accounting for that, bowl games are still pretty good programming. Fans are bothered by bowls in terms of comparing them to what they wish the system could be (a full-scale playoff) and obsess upon how they come up short, yet ESPN sees bowls as better than 99% of whatever else could be put in those timeslots in December. The latter is what ultimately matters.

 

[Husky25]

I was joking about 4 games in a day. I do think the structure of the NCAA tourney promotes fans to travel for the games because it is a weekend event as opposed to a day event. Also, as you touched on the small arenas make it easier to sell tickets and indoor arenas allows these events to take place in NYC, Chicago, Boston, LA (not northern but outdoors in winter), and other northern cities.

But this is football. If the playoffs include the best 8 (or even 16) teams, the the tickets will sell even at neutral sites. Maybe the NCAA will need to charge a lesser amount for the first round games as they do in BB, or play the games at home sites as you suggested. But the real money will be made on TV, and the NCAA just nees to ensure the seats are not empty.

That's not necessarily true, unless you get tickets for more than one session on different days.

The NCAA instituted a rule a few years back that the Final Four and regional championships may not be played in venues that do not sit at least 75k and 40K (or similar thresholds, I don't remember the exact numbers), respectively. That means that there are no more championship games at Rupp Arena, in New Mexico, or at the Thomas & Mack Center.

Here is how I would have done it under what I suggested based on last year season.
3rd week in December

The 3rd weekend in December is either the beginning or is smack dab in the middle of Finals week for most schools. If the NCAA wants to continue the ruse of calling the players Student-Athletes, a playoff of 8 would have to start, at the latest, 2 weeks after Thanksgiving. Any playoff involving over 8 teams would back that up by a week, forcing the start of the season to be pulled forward by a week or a bye week being eliminated.

I suggested a page or two back of following the FCS schedule. 2nd Weekend = round of 8, 3rd weekend = semi's, 4th weekend = Bye week. First week of January = Championship week. Done...

Again. Who's against this?

 

[Husky25]

There's an impact there, but even accounting for that, bowl games are still pretty good programming. Fans are bothered by bowls in terms of comparing them to what they wish the system could be (a full-scale playoff) and obsess upon how they come up short, yet ESPN sees bowls as better than 99% of whatever else could be put in those timeslots in December. The latter is what ultimately matters.

It's The Most Wonderful Week of the Year!!!

 

[alsacs]

That's not necessarily true, unless you get tickets for more than one session on different days.

The NCAA instituted a rule a few years back that the Final Four and regional championships may not be played in venues that do not sit at least 75k and 40K (or similar thresholds, I don't remember the exact numbers), respectively. That means that there are no more championship games at Rupp Arena, in New Mexico, or at the Thomas & Mack Center.


The 3rd weekend in December is either the beginning or is smack dab in the middle of Finals week for most schools. If the NCAA wants to continue the rouse of calling the players Student-Athletes, a playoff of 8 would have to start, at the latest, 2 weeks after Thanksgiving. Any playoff involving over 8 teams would back that up by a week, forcing the start of the season to be pulled forward by a week or a bye week being eliminated.

I suggested a page or two back of following the FCS schedule. 2nd Weekend = round of 8, 3rd weekend = semi's, 4th weekend = Bye week First week of January = Championship week. Done...

Yeah, your probably right push it up or back a week as I left wiggle room. The end game for a National Championship game would be the week between the NFL conference championships and Super Bowl.

 

[frankthetank]

That's not necessarily true, unless you get tickets for more than one session on different days.

The NCAA instituted a rule a few years back that the Final Four and regional championships may not be played in venues that do not sit at least 75k and 40K (or similar thresholds, I don't remember the exact numbers), respectively. That means that there are no more championship games at Rupp Arena, in New Mexico, or at the Thomas & Mack Center.


The 3rd weekend in December is either the beginning or is smack dab in the middle of Finals week for most schools. If the NCAA wants to continue the ruse of calling the players Student-Athletes, a playoff of 8 would have to start, at the latest, 2 weeks after Thanksgiving. Any playoff involving over 8 teams would back that up by a week, forcing the start of the season to be pulled forward by a week or a bye week being eliminated.

I suggested a page or two back of following the FCS schedule. 2nd Weekend = round of 8, 3rd weekend = semi's, 4th weekend = Bye week First week of January = Championship week. Done...

All of this is why, push comes to shove, a larger playoff would be more likely to extend further into January with New Year's as the starting point as opposed to being the end point.

Remember that the NCAA is largely irrelevant there. Any expansion of the playoff would be because the power conferences (and particularly the Big Ten and SEC) have agreed to do so, which means that it will be on their terms. To me, that means limited access for the non-power conferences and continued use of the bowls. Once again, the use of bowls enable the power conferences to control the system, which is why they aren't going away. They also want the playoff teams playing in the games around New Year's as opposed to blowing their wad with December playoff games and then taking them out of the bowl system altogether. It's not what the non-power conferences want to see, but that doesn't matter since they really have no say in this.

 

[alsacs]

It's plausible that the power conferences would be willing to provide one spot to the non-power conferences in an 8-team playoff (similar to what it's granting to them in terms of the new CFP bowl system). You will see the power conferences split off from the NCAA before you'll ever see an NCAA Tournament-style autobid for every conference for football, though. Saying that the power conference "should" get more at-large bids has never, ever, ever been a persuasive argument for them to open up access. Limiting access in and of itself is what the power conferences need (whether it's fair or not) and for various reasons, they've always been confident that they could withstand any antitrust challenge. Look at how many times the BCS was threatened by vote-seeking state AGs over the past 15 years, yet NOT A SINGLE LAWSUIT was ever filed. (Whether you'll get sympathetic politicians squawking is a different matter, although the loudest ones from Utah have been largely placated with how the Utes are now part of the power structure.)

I get what your saying, but the revenue would be larger in a 16 team playoff versus an 8 team playoff. Also, I agree the non-power 5 would likely get access in an 8 team situation and if the 5 power conference teams got automatic berths that leaves only 3 at-larges, where if you go with the 11 conferences all get 1 berth that leaves 5 at-large berths.
In an 8 team playoff based on last year assuming all 5 power conference teams got berths it would be IMO
Rose Bowl- 1. Notre Dame vs. 8. Wisconsin
Fiesta Bowl- 4. Stanford vs. 5. Florida
Orange Bowl- 3. Georgia vs. 6. Florida State
Sugar Bowl- 2. Alabama vs. 7. Oregon

I think once the drip of an 8 team playoff occurs after the "plus 1" we will see a push for 16 under giving 11 conference champions and those five extra at-large bids. Maybe its modified and you earn an automatic bid by reaching certain bench marks over a period of time to protect the top conferences.

 

[woomba]

You can't get to 16 without killing the importance of the regular season, so that will never happen.

 

[frankthetank]

I get what your saying, but the revenue would be larger in a 16 team playoff versus an 8 team playoff. Also, I agree the non-power 5 would likely get access in an 8 team situation and if the 5 power conference teams got automatic berths that leaves only 3 at-larges, where if you go with the 11 conferences all get 1 berth that leaves 5 at-large berths.
In an 8 team playoff based on last year assuming all 5 power conference teams got berths it would be IMO
Rose Bowl- 1. Notre Dame vs. 8. Wisconsin
Fiesta Bowl- 4. Stanford vs. 5. Florida
Orange Bowl- 3. Georgia vs. 6. Florida State
Sugar Bowl- 2. Alabama vs. 7. Oregon

I think once the drip of an 8 team playoff occurs after the "plus 1" we will see a push for 16 under giving 11 conference champions and those two extra at-large bids. Maybe its modified and you earn an automatic bid by reaching certain bench marks over a period of time to protect the top conferences.

The revenue would be larger for whom: the power conferences or the non-power conferences? That's what a lot of people are missing with the playoff situation. The power conferences don't really care about total revenue. What they care about is (a) how the playoff revenue is split and (b) protecting the value of their regular season TV revenue.

Let me tell you what horrifies every power conference university president, commissioner and athletic director more than virtually everything else: that regular season football TV revenue ends up getting swallowed up by the postseason in the way that the NCAA Tournament took virtually all of the regular season basketball TV revenue. You can argue all day that a 16-team playoff won't do that, but those power conference people won't believe you. They saw basketball TV revenue disappear before their very eyes and they blame the NCAA Tournament for it, which is why they have fought hell and high water against changes to the college football postseason for so long. I can't emphasize this enough: the power conferences HATE the NCAA Tournament revenue system (even though they still make the most money from it and get the most at-large bids). An 8-team playoff is somewhat viable since there's an argument that the power conferences end up owning their own de facto playoff games with their conference championship games (which they control 100% of the revenue of).

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself who is getting the larger benefit from a larger playoff: the Big Ten/SEC or the non-power conferences? If it's the latter (and most people would say that would be true for a 16-team playoff), then it's DOA. An 8-team playoff still plausibly helps the power conferences more than the non-power conferences, so that's why there's actually some talk about it out there among the people that matter.

 

[alsacs]

The revenue would be larger for whom: the power conferences or the non-power conferences? That's what a lot of people are missing with the playoff situation. The power conferences don't really care about total revenue. What they care about is (a) how the playoff revenue is split and (b) protecting the value of their regular season TV revenue.

Let me tell you what horrifies every power conference university president, commissioner and athletic director more than virtually everything else: that regular season football TV revenue ends up getting swallowed up by the postseason in the way that the NCAA Tournament took virtually all of the regular season basketball TV revenue. You can argue all day that a 16-team playoff won't do that, but those power conference people won't believe you. They saw basketball TV revenue disappear before their very eyes and they blame the NCAA Tournament for it, which is why they have fought hell and high water against changes to the college football postseason for so long. I can't emphasize this enough: the power conferences HATE the NCAA Tournament revenue system (even though they still make the most money from it and get the most at-large bids). An 8-team playoff is somewhat viable since there's an argument that the power conferences end up owning their own de facto playoff games with their conference championship games (which they control 100% of the revenue of).

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself who is getting the larger benefit from a larger playoff: the Big Ten/SEC or the non-power conferences? If it's the latter (and most people would say that would be true for a 16-team playoff), then it's DOA. An 8-team playoff still plausibly helps the power conferences more than the non-power conferences, so that's why there's actually some talk about it out there among the people that matter.

I have question that I am not sure you know the answer to yet. Besides the conferences individually making deals with the new playoff bowls in years they aren't hosting semi-final or championship games. Like Rose Bowl getting 80 million from ESPN and paying the B1G-Pac-12 conferences big bucks, Sugar Bowl getting 80 million from ESPN and paying SEC-Big XII conferences, Orange Bowl getting 55 million from ESPN and paying ACC-B1G/SEC/ND hybrid. Isn't the new playoff money basically being divided up by the power 5 teams now regardless of who makes the playoffs or is there a formula that rewards the conferences that win the NC or reach the title game? I ask because if the Big 5 right now are controlling that money and I believe they are couldn't they just expand this thing on their own give a tiny piece to the small conferences like they are now and just divide up that additional money they would get since the playoffs administrators would be selling 15 playoff games to TV versus 3 right now.

 

[woomba]

I have question that I am not sure you know the answer to yet. Besides the conferences individually making deals with the new playoff bowls in years they aren't hosting semi-final or championship games. Like Rose Bowl getting 80 million from ESPN and paying the B1G-Pac-12 conferences big bucks, Sugar Bowl getting 80 million from ESPN and paying SEC-Big XII conferences, Orange Bowl getting 55 million from ESPN and paying ACC-B1G/SEC/ND hybrid. Isn't the new playoff money basically being divided up by the power 5 teams now regardless of who makes the playoffs or is there a formula that rewards the conferences that win the NC or reach the title game? I ask because if the Big 5 right now are controlling that money and I believe they are couldn't they just expand this thing on their own give a tiny piece to the small conferences like they are now and just divide up that additional money they would get since the playoffs administrators would be selling 15 playoff games to TV versus 3 right now.

The answers to your questions are here

Basically all teams in the playoff get an additional $6M each. There is no additional payout for the championship game. The "host" bowl teams get $4M each. However there is no payout for "contract" bowls - all revenue is paid out to conferences.

One of the main things that I don't think has been resolved yet is how the G5 conferences are going to split their 27% share. The P5 conferences basically just set aside that amount and are letting the other conferences sort it out on their own.

 

[freescooter]

You're right. The NCAA Basketball Tournement is terribly set up. No one travels to those games.

That is a mistake everyone makes in comparing the two. First off, you only need 2500 to travel to make it seem like a "huge" crowd. And you have 4, or in the early rounds 8, teams. With the excpetion of the Final four, the games are played in facilities where capacity is between 12 and 16,000 +-. Compare that with the seating at the Rose Bowl (92,000) or the Superdome (76000). You could fit 5 Verizon Centers into the Rose Bowl for heaven sakes. And you'll have 1 not 4 games. Further, the NCAA has made a pretty significant effort to place teams so that their early round games are not that far from home. Even though they were in the "West" region, UConn and Bucknell, And the Southeast Regional, Pitt and Old Dominion all played in Washington DC. and look at the crowds...they are usually fairly skimpy for most games in reality. The NCAA was reporting session attendance, not individual games and even that didn't exceed capacity at most sites. In fact, lack of attendance at the early round games is a problem the NCAA is trying to look at. As far as problematic weather, the days of worrying about that ended in about 1975. Only the Big really cares about that any more. For everyone else, playing in bad weather is just a part of the game. Northern teams regularly play at home into December and the NFL does it through January. I know I've sat through at least 2 UConn games where it has snowed.

A final note, look carefully at the attendance figures for the various conference Championships. Even the Big only drew around 40,000 last year. They reported 62000 (Lucas normal capacity) for the 1st year, but it was the first one. If they stay in the 40,000 range watch for them to take a page from the PAC and move it on campus. FWIW even on campus the PAC drew a measly 31500 last year in Palo Alto, and they didn't even sell out their first one at Oregon. The ACC was literally selling tickets for less than the parking fee at the stadium and requiring ACC basketball ticket buyers to also by football championship tix and still only got 62000, well under BoA Stadium's capacity. Based on what I saw on tv, that was tickets sold, not fannies in the seats. Only the SEC actually draws for those games (and I have to be a little skeptical of their attendance reports when they claim as much as 15,000 over capacity for some games.Even in the SEC, I doubt those numbers) But I think those games provide a lesson for what one can expect for the early round playoffs. they might do ok early but as time goes on attendance will lag and they won't make sense. And the farther a fan base has to travel the worse it will be.

 

[woomba]

The difference between CCGs and Bowls is that people have more than a week's notice that their team is going though.

I'm not sure you can really draw such a direct comparison when bowl season is during holiday season so more people are on the move anyway.

 

[UPitt]

I get what your saying, but the revenue would be larger in a 16 team playoff versus an 8 team playoff. Also, I agree the non-power 5 would likely get access in an 8 team situation and if the 5 power conference teams got automatic berths that leaves only 3 at-larges, where if you go with the 11 conferences all get 1 berth that leaves 5 at-large berths.
In an 8 team playoff based on last year assuming all 5 power conference teams got berths it would be IMO
Rose Bowl- 1. Notre Dame vs. 8. Wisconsin
Fiesta Bowl- 4. Stanford vs. 5. Florida
Orange Bowl- 3. Georgia vs. 6. Florida State
Sugar Bowl- 2. Alabama vs. 7. Oregon

I think once the drip of an 8 team playoff occurs after the "plus 1" we will see a push for 16 under giving 11 conference champions and those two extra at-large bids. Maybe its modified and you earn an automatic bid by reaching certain bench marks over a period of time to protect the top conferences.

I see a 4 or 8 team playoff as producing the best competition and as being most profitable for college football. A 16 team playoff has the following unintended consequences:

1. Too many weeks of football for the players. Including a CCG and a game in Hawaii, a team could play 18 games in a season. This would create a season longer than the NFL. By the end of the season, the level of play would begin to slip due to injuries, wear and tear, and exhaustion.
2. Injuries. The extra weeks of football produce more injuries and affect the overall product. More soreness from more games creates greater risk of injury. These injuries also produce a greater risk to the athletes. We can argue about paying players or is the free education enough, but that is not the point. Playing a few extra games each year increases the risk of major injury to players that seek a career in the NFL.
3. Less time for studies. Again, we can argue that athletes are not students, but for the athletes that do take class serious this would be a few more weeks of games.
4. Games against lesser opponents. A 16 team playoff would likely include auto bids from leagues outside the Big 5. This may create games that hold less value. You can argue that the game is a bonus for TV, but you can also argue that two lesser opponents in a bowl game create a better game for TV than a pair of first round blowouts.
5. Star players may sit out. Good teams may rest star players and thus create an exibition game in the first round. Also, some star players may refuse to play so many extra games for fear of injury.
6. Players leave college earlier. Players will leave earier for the draft to avoid wear and tear and injury.
7. Less Bowl Games. If 16 teams make the playoff, then less teams make the bowl games. Bowl games are an end of the season event that creates good TV and fans travel for the final game. Playoffs do not have this atmosphere.
8. The best teams will not always win. We love the NCAA BB Tourney because of the upsets and storylines. For BB, this creates buzz and more revenue. For football, we all want the two best teams in the country playing for the championship. You can argue that teams ranked 3 and 4 could be ranked 1 or 2 in many years. At 8, you clearly have include the best 2 to 4 teams. But at 16, you just have more teams. I think you get the best national championship game by selecting 2 or 4 teams for the playoffs. At 8 teams you will not always get the best 2 teams, and at 16 its even less likely.
9. The regular season is less important. College football conferences sell TV rights for games. The games are worth a high value because every game is valuable. At 16 teams, conferences may lose value in the TV contracts.
10. Less Bowl Games. Bowl games make lots of money. A 4 or 8 team playoff, with 6 extra bowls is more valuable than a 16 team playoff without the bowls.
11. The Power Conferences do not want to share the access. At 16, they will have to share the access.
12. No turning back. I think a slow process to 4 and then 8 will allow the leagues to evaluate if it is more profitable. If they went to 16 this year, there would be no turning back even if it was a money loser.

There are many other reasons for staying at 2, 4, or 8 and there are many reasons to argue for 16 teams in a playoff. I am sure that many people on this board can argue for 16 teams, as it is a favorite idea for fans. But going to 16 may not be the most profitable and may do more harm than good.

 

[Husky25]

That is a mistake everyone makes in comparing the two. First off, you only need 2500 to travel to make it seem like a "huge" crowd. And you have 4, or in the early rounds 8, teams. With the excpetion of the Final four, the games are played in facilities where capacity is between 12 and 16,000 +-. Compare that with the seating at the Rose Bowl (92,000) or the Superdome (76000). You could fit 5 Verizon Centers into the Rose Bowl for heaven sakes. And you'll have 1 not 4 games. Further, the NCAA has made a pretty significant effort to place teams so that their early round games are not that far from home. Even though they were in the "West" region, UConn and Bucknell, And the Southeast Regional, Pitt and Old Dominion all played in Washington DC. and look at the crowds...they are usually fairly skimpy for most games in reality. The NCAA was reporting session attendance, not individual games and even that didn't exceed capacity at most sites. In fact, lack of attendance at the early round games is a problem the NCAA is trying to look at. As far as problematic weather, the days of worrying about that ended in about 1975. Only the Big really cares about that any more. For everyone else, playing in bad weather is just a part of the game. Northern teams regularly play at home into December and the NFL does it through January. I know I've sat through at least 2 UConn games where it has snowed.

A final note, look carefully at the attendance figures for the various conference Championships. Even the Big only drew around 40,000 last year. They reported 62000 (Lucas normal capacity) for the 1st year, but it was the first one. If they stay in the 40,000 range watch for them to take a page from the PAC and move it on campus. FWIW even on campus the PAC drew a measly 31500 last year in Palo Alto, and they didn't even sell out their first one at Oregon. The ACC was literally selling tickets for less than the parking fee at the stadium and requiring ACC basketball ticket buyers to also by football championship tix and still only got 62000, well under BoA Stadium's capacity. Based on what I saw on tv, that was tickets sold, not fannies in the seats. Only the SEC actually draws for those games (and I have to be a little skeptical of their attendance reports when they claim as much as 15,000 over capacity for some games.Even in the SEC, I doubt those numbers) But I think those games provide a lesson for what one can expect for the early round playoffs. they might do ok early but as time goes on attendance will lag and they won't make sense. And the farther a fan base has to travel the worse it will be.

1) With only 4 to 8 teams, this is the defacto Final 4.
2) A session to the NCAA BB Tourament covers two games, not four.
3) You'll have the opportunity of tailgating to take the place of the second basketball game.

As for your final point...I think its an apples/oranges comparison to between the conference championships and the National Championship tournament. Take the Big East BB tournament at MSG for instance. Rarely were the first sessions on Tuesday well attended, even if tickets were sold. As I said later, I agree that if the tourament were 8 teams or greater, the first round(s) should be played at or near the higher seeded team.

 

[Husky25]

I see a 4 or 8 team playoff as producing the best competition and as being most profitable for college football. A 16 team playoff has the following unintended consequences:

1. Too many weeks of football for the players. Including a CCG and a game in Hawaii, a team could play 18 games in a season. This would create a season longer than the NFL. By the end of the season, the level of play would begin to slip due to injuries, wear and tear, and exhaustion.
2. Injuries. The extra weeks of football produce more injuries and affect the overall product. More soreness from more games creates greater risk of injury. These injuries also produce a greater risk to the athletes. We can argue about paying players or is the free education enough, but that is not the point. Playing a few extra games each year increases the risk of major injury to players that seek a career in the NFL.
3. Less time for studies. Again, we can argue that athletes are not students, but for the athletes that do take class serious this would be a few more weeks of games.
4. Games against lesser opponents. A 16 team playoff would likely include auto bids from leagues outside the Big 5. This may create games that hold less value. You can argue that the game is a bonus for TV, but you can also argue that two lesser opponents in a bowl game create a better game for TV than a pair of first round blowouts.
5. Star players may sit out. Good teams may rest star players and thus create an exibition game in the first round. Also, some star players may refuse to play so many extra games for fear of injury.
6. Players leave college earlier. Players will leave earier for the draft to avoid wear and tear and injury.
7. Less Bowl Games. If 16 teams make the playoff, then less teams make the bowl games. Bowl games are an end of the season event that creates good TV and fans travel for the final game. Playoffs do not have this atmosphere.
8. The best teams will not always win. We love the NCAA BB Tourney because of the upsets and storylines. For BB, this creates buzz and more revenue. For football, we all want the two best teams in the country playing for the championship. You can argue that teams ranked 3 and 4 could be ranked 1 or 2 in many years. At 8, you clearly have include the best 2 to 4 teams. But at 16, you just have more teams. I think you get the best national championship game by selecting 2 or 4 teams for the playoffs. At 8 teams you will not always get the best 2 teams, and at 16 its even less likely.
9. The regular season is less important. College football conferences sell TV rights for games. The games are worth a high value because every game is valuable. At 16 teams, conferences may lose value in the TV contracts.
10. Less Bowl Games. Bowl games make lots of money. A 4 or 8 team playoff, with 6 extra bowls is more valuable than a 16 team playoff without the bowls.
11. The Power Conferences do not want to share the access. At 16, they will have to share the access.
12. No turning back. I think a slow process to 4 and then 8 will allow the leagues to evaluate if it is more profitable. If they went to 16 this year, there would be no turning back even if it was a money loser.

There are many other reasons for staying at 2, 4, or 8 and there are many reasons to argue for 16 teams in a playoff. I am sure that many people on this board can argue for 16 teams, as it is a favorite idea for fans. But going to 16 may not be the most profitable and may do more harm than good.

1. No way regular season schedules stay at 12 if a 16 team playoff is instituted.
2.-5. Agreed, Though I would love to see David v. Golith games.
6. NFL Rule for player safety, a player is not eligible unless he is at least 3 years removed from High School Gradulation.
7. I don't see this as a problem. The Bowls were exhibitions anyway. The firsts ones (albeit in the early 1900s were not included in the season records).
8. That's the best part...

 

[freescooter]

1) With only 4 to 8 teams, this is the defacto Final 4.
2) A session to the NCAA BB Tourament covers two games, not four.
3) You'll have the opportunity of tailgating to take the place of the second basketball game.

As for your final point...I think its an apples/oranges comparison to between the conference championships and the National Championship tournament. Take the Big East BB tournament at MSG for instance. Rarely were the first sessions on Tuesday well attended, even if tickets were sold. As I said later, I agree that if the tourament were 8 teams or greater, the first round(s) should be played at or near the higher seeded team.

1. No it isn't. You could well have to travel 3000 miles to play in the championship game. If you're in the Final Four, you have to walk across the Street 2 days later. Huge difference.
2. Right but in the early rounds there are 8 teams and 8 sets of fans in town. Some, not all but some choose to attend the "other" regionals.
3. For a week?
4. As to the comparison, here's the point. You are asking fans to travel potentially to 3 destinations in 3-4 weeks. And 2 of them are possibly long trips, maybe even all three. So this isn't like traveling to Washington for the 1st 2 rounds of the NCAA. Let's take an Ohio State fan from Dayton since they don't all live in Columbus. So He has to get to Indianapolis, not a terrible trip about 2-2.5 hours (I did it once). I-70. Easy. Then the Rose Bowl. Over 2000 miles so he's probably flying. Add hotel, maybe a rental. So Ohio State wins and the next week its off to Miami for the Championship. That's only 1200 miles, so you could drive it, if you have a spare 17 hours. So more likely another flight and another hotel stay. But one kid needs braces and the other one needs his tuition payment...so you have to choose one. LA for a guarenteed game or take the risk of waiting for the big one in Miami? And what I think these types of "semi-final" games, and conference championship games are a good example, don't have that much attraction to the local fans. The fans of the school, sure. But what we've seen is that the general public stays away in droves. the did it in Tampa, they did it in Indianapolis, they did it in northern California. They did it in Charlotte. And they'll do it in LA, and Miami and New Orleans and Phoenix and Dallas unless there is a local connection when those games become mere semi-final or quarter final events.