FC/OT: CFP to stay at 4 teams through current contract.
- Thread starter Midnighter
- Start date
I must confess that I no longer care what they do or who they do it to
Sec driven. Why would they change at all!!! Especially with Oklahoma and Texas coming in. They very likely will always have two teams in.
The only thing that's left is for the Big Ten to announce that it's going to keep its divisions intact, to help ensure that it will never have two teams qualify for a playoff run.
OSU's AD said BIG10 is keeping 9 game conference schedule as well don't know how true it is though.
I stopped watching a couple years ago. I don't watch the playoffs, and I don't watch bowl games. My interest won't be revived until PSU is in the playoff, or they switch to a 12/16 team playoff format.
Not too surprising. The SEC was hoping to push expansion under the ESPN deal and the alliance didn't want to change the format without putting the TV contract back out to bid. If they couldn't reach an agreement on a possible expansion to satisfy all conferences then the natural next step is simply to play out the existing contract as is and reassess it when that deal is up for renewal.
The Rose Bowl is an obstacle blocking CFP expansion, per sources - Sports Illustrated
The Rose Bowl wants to keep its conventional January 1st game date, which is an issue for College Football Playoff expansion.
www.si.com
I 100% want an expanded playoff, if only to potentially add another game to Penn State’s schedule every year. Having said that, I don’t think a 4-team or a 100-team playoff would result in a different outcome. Still have to beat the powerhouses at some point, and most teams, including PSU, aren’t in the same category.
But, back to the topic, it stinks that we’re stuck with this for another four years.
But, back to the topic, it stinks that we’re stuck with this for another four years.
Except for this year when Jan 1 is on a Sunday.The Rose Bowl is an obstacle blocking CFP expansion, per sources - Sports Illustrated
The Rose Bowl wants to keep its conventional January 1st game date, which is an issue for College Football Playoff expansion.
Lol, getting to that point. Guess I would have liked to have seen at least 8 to see what it looks like and open it up a little.
Big Ten led all Power Five conferences in revenue for 2020 fiscal year
College football continues to make money hand over fist and the Big Ten is leading the way. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic that swept the globe beginning a little over a year
247sports.com
I never thought "4' made any sense whatsoever for a "playoff" (not when you have 5 major conferences comprising the supposed demographic, along with the various "mid majors"). No sense whatsoever. I have never heard a single rational argument of how you can call four teams - selected from such a demographic, especially given that those various subgroups don't even play one another on the field with any regularity - and call it a "playoff" without generating a big LOL at the inanity of the thought.
Could I compose a much more reasoned process? Of course. It wouldn't be difficult. So could just about anyone else (aside from the leadership of that demographic, apparently
), I would hope.But the number of invitees to the so-called "playoffs"? With all the rest of the nonsense going on in big-money college athletics? I could think of a dozen more impactful issues - just involving NCAA Division 1 football - than how many are invited to the inane "playoff" nonsense.
I get the feeling the “alliance” was just lip service to stop the expansion talk. Now that’s seemed to have blown over, I don’t expect to hear much more about it.
Before we postulate that the deal has "ended", someone remind me - When did it "start"?
I do recall three of the most empty-suitiest leaders to ever don the "I'm serious" makeup (Kevin Warren, Jim Phillips, and George Kliavkoff) pumping out a ZOOM meeting video - with a nifty backdrop of an "Alliance" logo behind them
- and rambling on about nothing for an hour or so (complete with massive doses of word salad including terms like "equity" and "vision" and "robust" and "best practices" and "generative" and "synergy"). But that's about it, unless I missed something?
Last edited:
I think it was more of a reaction to the SEC voting to accept Texas and Oklahoma. They needed to take some sort of action to make themselves feel better and prove to the football world they’re still relevant.Before we postulate that the deal has "ended", someone remind me - When did it "start"?
I do recall three of the most empty-suitiest leaders to ever don the "I'm serious" makeup (Kevin Warren, Jim Phillips, and George Kliavkoff) pumping out a ZOOM meeting video - with a nifty backdrop of an "Alliance" logo behind them
I don't see how these issues go away in four years. Granted, unanimous consent won't be required to formulate an agreement, but if major components (conferences, bowl games, etc) don't buy in, whaddya' got?The Rose Bowl is an obstacle blocking CFP expansion, per sources - Sports Illustrated
The Rose Bowl wants to keep its conventional January 1st game date, which is an issue for College Football Playoff expansion.
I heard on ESPN that there was a big push by the B10 for at least 8 teams, but ND and the ACC were supposedly staunchly opposed. Then there was a crazy suggestion about a 16 team, 10 team, and finally something along the line of the top two seeds getting a bye and 3, 4, 5 and 6 played to get into the 4 team playoffs, I actually liked the 6 team format.
Yeah nothing was ever finalized but I thought they were heading in that direction as soon as they settled out the 8 or 9 game conference schedule issues. If they are staying at 9 then the cross over games are all but dead.Before we postulate that the deal has "ended", someone remind me - When did it "start"?
I do recall three of the most empty-suitiest leaders to ever don the "I'm serious" makeup (Kevin Warren, Jim Phillips, and George Kliavkoff) pumping out a ZOOM meeting video - with a nifty backdrop of an "Alliance" logo behind them
And, yes, those 3 commissioners have zero gravitas and appear to be focused on nonsense rather than running leagues to compete with the SEC.
A 6-team would create even more wailing and gnashing of teeth over "who got in" (and even more so about what "seed" they got) than the current system.
Now, some people may really like wailing/gnashing (certainly the talking head sports media would LOVE it), and want more of it. If so, 6 (or 12) is the way to go.
I'm honestly not sure. If Bama and whoever the token SEC #2 are going to dominate a 4 team invitational, adding teams at least creates intrigue prior to the SEC Championship pt.2.
Is there some fear of losing games in total for the sake of an expanded playoff? It's basically ESPNs December content.
Let’s see. The 1st & 2nd seed get a bye. Seeds 3, 4, 5, 6 play to round out the 4 team play offs. Is it perfect, no. Is it better than the 4 team playoffs, I think so. An 11-1 Nittany Lion team might get in with a 4 team playoff where six teams are in play.
Last edited:
They can't agree on access, how to integrate the bowl system (at least the Rose), and the number of teams/games. Leads me to wonder whether anyone has a good fix on how much they'll get paid for media rights, something that has bitten ESPN on the *** since they've owned them.
I've heard the B1G voted against expansion without each Power 5 Conference Champ getting an automatic bid. If this is true, I agree with the B1G. This has to be a component of any expansion plan.
I agree that any format that doesn't include each P5 and at least one representative from independents + G5s is flawed. I'd like to see a 6 team playoff with automatic bids for each P5 conference champ and one spot for the top ranked independent/G5. This maintains one of the best things about college football, the importance of the regular season, while giving every conference a fair shake and puts onus on the conferences to govern selection of their champion (which is more reasonable since teams in the same conference play more similar schedules and have more common opponents making it easier to rank them) and nerfs the importance of the subjective playoff committee which is a laughingstock and is the biggest flaw in the current system. Since many might oppose 6 teams which requires byes for the top 2, I'd be open to 8 teams as well with the 2 additional spots going to top ranked at large teams from any conference. With 8 the higher seed can host the first round, then once down to 4 shift to the existing rotational bowl site format.I never thought "4' made any sense whatsoever for a "playoff" (not when you have 5 major conferences comprising the supposed demographic, along with the various "mid majors"). No sense whatsoever. I have never heard a single rational argument of how you can call four teams - selected from such a demographic, especially given that those various subgroups don't even play one another on the field with any regularity - and call it a "playoff" without generating a big LOL at the inanity of the thought.
Could I compose a much more reasoned process? Of course. It wouldn't be difficult. So could just about anyone else (aside from the leadership of that demographic, apparently
But the number of invitees to the so-called "playoffs"? With all the rest of the nonsense going on in big-money college athletics? I could think of a dozen more impactful issues - just involving NCAA Division 1 football - than how many are invited to the inane "playoff" nonsense.
I really don't think it's that hard but I'm sure the NCAA and conferences will completely overthink it and screw it up when they do eventually put in a new format.
Believe the acc is just as culpable. Although I don’t understand their reasoning.
Get unlimited access today.