CC's 16 team NCAA Football Postseason Tournament (2018)

Packinatl said:
On a neutral field would a 3-4 loss team be favored over a Fresno or Northern Illinois.
Click to expand...

Those particular 3-4 loss teams, yeah. For sure. It's a quirk of my system but one that I would live with. It places an onus on both quality scheduling and winning your conference.

I agree we'll never see more than 8 unless they straight up abandon the amateur/college format. Though the FCS and D-III make it work.
 
Crease Creature said:
Those particular 3-4 loss teams, yeah. For sure. It's a quirk of my system but one that I would live with. It places an onus on both quality scheduling and winning your conference.

I agree we'll never see more than 8 unless they straight up abandon the amateur/college format. Though the FCS and D-III make it work.
Click to expand...
Yes and the quality schedule is the real challenge. Your looking 5-7 years out in some cases and then balance of a home and home deal.
 
Packinatl said:
Yes and the quality schedule is the real challenge. Your looking 5-7 years out in some cases and then balance of a home and home deal.
Click to expand...

And as we've seen the last few years, an opponent can be a top 25 team for years, you schedule them, and the season you play them they stink.
 
I can remember when they played an 8 game season, plus a bowl game, if you were lucky. When they raised it a game people were screaming how it was going to cause so many injuries. Didn't happen, so they raised the number again, and again, and again. Every time they raised the number the same things came out, and guess what? The continued raising the number of games.

So, now they're at 14 games. The NFL is at 16 plus playoffs. A possibility of playing 20 games. Yet we're concerned that two elite college teams will play 4 playoff games, for a total of 17? Cut back by one during the regular season so there's only 16. You do that by putting entire conferences into a singular list of teams, not east and west, so you get rid of the stupid playoff games. For the most part, they're meaningless anyhow.

I hate dismissive statements. They're BS. It's like dealing with management here in our park. When we have something we need, and want, their answer is; "We're concerned about the liability factor. That's not an acceptable answer. It's a cop out."
 
TW said:
I can remember when they played an 8 game season, plus a bowl game, if you were lucky. When they raised it a game people were screaming how it was going to cause so many injuries. Didn't happen, so they raised the number again, and again, and again. Every time they raised the number the same things came out, and guess what? The continued raising the number of games.

So, now they're at 14 games. The NFL is at 16 plus playoffs. A possibility of playing 20 games. Yet we're concerned that two elite college teams will play 4 playoff games, for a total of 17? Cut back by one during the regular season so there's only 16. You do that by putting entire conferences into a singular list of teams, not east and west, so you get rid of the stupid playoff games. For the most part, they're meaningless anyhow.

I hate dismissive statements. They're BS. It's like dealing with management here in our park. When we have something we need, and want, their answer is; "We're concerned about the liability factor. That's not an acceptable answer. It's a cop out."
Click to expand...

Its not a liability issue, its a financial issue. A couple of things...

#1 not all teams are at 14 games unless you reach the conference title game, you get 12 games plus 1 for your bowl game and thats it. I know I am splitting hairs here but its more a mandate form University presidents than anything else, yes they feel they are "student athletes" but thats a separate discussion

#2. While conference title games are not well attended (exception SEC) FOX and ABC/ESPN pay an obscene amount of money to the conferences to televise them as part of their package / contract. I know for a fact the SEC is not giving up its title game, the others not so sure but $$$$ will determine it. Are they meaningless? No. If Oklahoma loses in the title game they are not in the final 4, if UGA beats Bama they are in. Last year if UW beats OSU they are in.

#3 Not all conferences schedules are set up the same, B1G plays 9 conference games, SEC and ACC 8. No Power 5 school is going to give up a home game (see $$$$) to accommodate an extra tier of playoffs

#4 Adding weeks also would compete with NFL playoffs if you push into January. Would ESPN/ABC want to go head to head with the NFL then?

#5 what to do with the million dollar gorilla Notre Dame. They have to be in the "At large" mix if they are in the 1 loss range. They don't technically play in a conference so no title game

#6. If you add 2 weeks and 12 more teams its going to alter the bowl schedule. Again follow the $$$$. Conferences make $$$$$ on bowls. Forget the attendance, TV money rules. And yes presidents and some AD's love "tradition"

#7. One issue even now is fans traveling to non campus locations for semi finals and finals. Short time to plan travel, additional cost. Big donors not the issue, but they are the minority here

If the AD's and university presidents can see $$$$ (TV $$$) this will go to 8 real soon and most ad buy deals with that are connected to the CFP expire in the next year so its a definite possibility. Will it ever go to 16, 99% sure never
 
Of course it's not a liability issue. I never said it was. I said that was the excuse used for years, and it was bogus. It was money that spoke, and money will continue to speak.

There's a reason the NCAA basketball tourney more than doubled in size. It's called money, and more for average schools to share. It's what keeps some of them "somewhat" competitive.

I remember the old NHL real well. Six teams. Imagine playing each team in your league 14 to 16 times every season. To be honest, it was the same rodeo over and over again.

They advanced from the old playoff format when they added more teams. The more they added, the deeper they went with playoff teams. The same should apply to college football.

Now, don't split hairs over number of games or any of that crap on the issue. Look at it from the money spread across the board to teams that are barely holding their programs together. The objective is to keep them alive, not bury them under the weight of the handful of teams who make money.

Of course there's logistics problems with where you play your games in the playoffs. The same thing applies to basketball. You find ways to overcome some of those problems, and as I've heard people say out here, it's not the seats filled in the stands, it's all about the TV bucks. Now that's forgotten? Please!

I like to look at the underside of some of these issues. I've always done that. Like the issue of Vegas getting an NFL team, and the Chargers moving to LA. I saw both happening, and talked to people who told me to quit listening to the BS being put out there, because both were going to happen. I was told I was nuts, didn't know what I was talking about, and well.... it don't make any difference. Guess what? The guy was right. Vegas and LA. Just like called.

He happens to be the same guy who I've discussed NCAA tourney formats with for football. He stated you could still place games effectively by having the top rated team for the first two rounds play home games, to insure that there'd at least be a stadium pretty much full of people. After that, go ahead and use advanced locations, just like they do now. Seems simple enough. Of course this would be wrong, but so was Vegas.

And by the way, as an adder, People might be surprised where the Raiders will land for next year, if they don't have Vegas digs until the following year. Of course, as I'd be told, "It will never happen. They can't support a team."
 
TW said:
Of course it's not a liability issue. I never said it was. I said that was the excuse used for years, and it was bogus. It was money that spoke, and money will continue to speak.

There's a reason the NCAA basketball tourney more than doubled in size. It's called money, and more for average schools to share. It's what keeps some of them "somewhat" competitive.

I remember the old NHL real well. Six teams. Imagine playing each team in your league 14 to 16 times every season. To be honest, it was the same rodeo over and over again.

They advanced from the old playoff format when they added more teams. The more they added, the deeper they went with playoff teams. The same should apply to college football.

Now, don't split hairs over number of games or any of that crap on the issue. Look at it from the money spread across the board to teams that are barely holding their programs together. The objective is to keep them alive, not bury them under the weight of the handful of teams who make money.

Of course there's logistics problems with where you play your games in the playoffs. The same thing applies to basketball. You find ways to overcome some of those problems, and as I've heard people say out here, it's not the seats filled in the stands, it's all about the TV bucks. Now that's forgotten? Please!

I like to look at the underside of some of these issues. I've always done that. Like the issue of Vegas getting an NFL team, and the Chargers moving to LA. I saw both happening, and talked to people who told me to quit listening to the BS being put out there, because both were going to happen. I was told I was nuts, didn't know what I was talking about, and well.... it don't make any difference. Guess what? The guy was right. Vegas and LA. Just like called.

He happens to be the same guy who I've discussed NCAA tourney formats with for football. He stated you could still place games effectively by having the top rated team for the first two rounds play home games, to insure that there'd at least be a stadium pretty much full of people. After that, go ahead and use advanced locations, just like they do now. Seems simple enough. Of course this would be wrong, but so was Vegas.

And by the way, as an adder, People might be surprised where the Raiders will land for next year, if they don't have Vegas digs until the following year. Of course, as I'd be told, "It will never happen. They can't support a team."
Click to expand...

First to where the Raiders will play next year, good chance its San Antonio, heard that from some who should know I will leave it at that

As too football playoffs vs NCAA basketball tournament. It's not an apples to apples discussion. One is a sanctioned NCAA event one is not. Different revenue models, different TV packages. The truth is the Power 5 schools don't care about the Group of 5 school. Hell they even put guidelines in make the sure the Group of 5 school is ranked at a certain level, its not even a guarantee that they get a New Years 6 Bowl. I am all in favor of playing one week on campus but that also begs the question who controls the revenue since its on campus, does the conference get a take of revenue? 2 things college presidents and conference like is bowl games, its a cash cow, thats why they are added each year and not dropped. adding 12 (16 team playoff) more teams eliminates 12 teams from playing in a bowl game and then you run the risk of sub 500 teams qualifying. You go to 8 it keeps the bowl integrity and only takes 4 out of existing bowls....big difference.

The current CPF contact ends in 2026 but the TV buy agreements end sooner. Will rights fees go up yes but ratings have been less that spectacular so how much is the billion dollar question
 
Oh and let’s not forget that university presidents still think players are “Student Athletes “ and adding games will take kids out of classes and impact acedemics. I know it’s BS but that’s the mindset
 
Yes. San Antonio looks like where they'll play.

I think people are going to be amazed at how the people in the area will fill the stadium for them. The Alamodome is about 60,000 capacity.

A little dicey getting in and out with a car, unless your know how to navigate the area. Not really enough parking.

But, if the Raiders play there the entire season, there will be buses running all the way from Austin down the I-35 corridor to get people to and from the games. There will be numerous place to catch buses on Loop 1604, and Loop 410. They're gonna show everyone just how damned good they are about supporting football, even if the team totally sucks!

I know a travel agent down here in the Valley, who works with our park in packages, who says they want to get at least 200 season tickets because they can fill four buses in a heartbeat heading up there. About a 4.5 hour drive with a 45 minute stop in George West/Three Rivers.

I might even climb on board for one of those rides to San Antonio for a game.
 
Why traditional bowl games are here to stay? Schools and their leagues earned a collective profit of $448 million from last year’s bowl games, according to NCAA documents obtained by USA TODAY. That’s $561 million in bowl payouts, minus $113 million in expenses associated with participating in the games, including the $25 million they lost on unsold tickets. Adding an extra 12 teams to a playoff will not net $448m . Most of that bowl payout money ($465 million) came from only six games: the Cotton, Peach and Fiesta bowls, plus the three games of the Playoff (Rose, Sugar and championship).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top