Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Two CFP Possible Expansion Articles by Hokie Mark
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
OrangeDude Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 611
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #1
Two CFP Possible Expansion Articles by Hokie Mark
Don't think these have been linked on this board yet and I think they are worth discussing here, particularly the updated one with an ACC focus.

Hokie Mark really does a great job with this blog site.

Making Playoff Expansion Sausage

Playoff Expansion Update

Cheers,
Neil
12-19-2018 08:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,772
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 702
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #2
RE: Two CFP Possible Expansion Articles by Hokie Mark
Thanks for the kind words. Now, time to make more sausage.

[Image: makingsausage.gif]
12-19-2018 10:27 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 611
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Two CFP Possible Expansion Articles by Hokie Mark
For me, the most intriguing part of the update blog was this:

"Assuming the SEC is quite happy with the status quo, they will need the votes of the ACC. What should the conference ask for in return?"

You follow this up with stating what the three possible requests the ACC might involve.

The first being an auto-bid for the champion regardless of ranking rather than the highest ranked team from the conference. Your reasoning behind this is sound, since you rightly determine that this makes the Conference Champion Games more relevant. For me the solution to this is to go division-less since it ensures at the very least the ACCCG will pit one against two or at worse one against three. So I would want the league to modify this request to be BOTH the champion is the auto-bid of the conference but to get better match-ups in those games, conferences should have the right to go division-less. This accomplishes two goals in my mind - increases the importance of CCGs (increasing the $$$ value of them) and ensures an improvement of better regular season conference match-ups (potentially increasing the conference's TV $$$ value).

The second item on your list is immaterial to me. Yes, I believe this is counter-intuitive, but even if the hoped for reasoning comes about (which I highly doubt), I think it would be a PR nightmare for the conference and the others might use it to attempt to drive a wedge between ND and the full members of the conference - especially given the fact that the Irish will be sitting at the same table when these issues are discussed. If anything, I would have Swofford use any leverage he could to ensure the G5 has a high enough ranking to qualify using ND, Georgia, and LSU as examples as to why that should be the case. 03-wink

The third item on your list is intriguing. This, of course, assumes the proposed CFP changes occur prior to the end of the current CFP contract. If it does, I am all for this. But with 4 additional games in the CFP will contract bowls even exist in this next iteration? And if not, all five P5 conferences will need to be compensated monetarily for the missing $40 million in which case Swofford should be arguing for an equal share.

Left out of this article is what are the potential ramifications (if any) should the SEC feel very strongly about keeping things the way they are and are counting on the ACC to side with them? It seems to me that the SEC would need to feel strongly on not expanding the CFP in order for the ACC to have any leverage at all otherwise there goes any leverage the ACC has in this scenario.

Would the ACC be better off siding with the SEC on this (again assuming the SEC feels strongly in not expanding) due to the ESPN connections and the number of OOC games it has with the SEC?

ACC Total P5 and ND OOC Games 2013-2018

SEC - 151.124 million viewers; average 3.977; 38 games
ND - 96.429 million viewers; average 3.592; 26 games
B1G - 34.057 million viewers; average 3.406; 10 games
B12 - 13.391 million viewers; average 3.348; 4 games
PAC - 11.029 million viewers; average 1.838; 6 games

Just food for thought.

Cheers,
Neil
12-20-2018 01:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,772
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 702
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #4
RE: Two CFP Possible Expansion Articles by Hokie Mark
(12-20-2018 01:55 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  For me, the most intriguing part of the update blog was this:

"Assuming the SEC is quite happy with the status quo, they will need the votes of the ACC. What should the conference ask for in return?"

You follow this up with stating what the three possible requests the ACC might involve.

The first being an auto-bid for the champion regardless of ranking rather than the highest ranked team from the conference. Your reasoning behind this is sound, since you rightly determine that this makes the Conference Champion Games more relevant. For me the solution to this is to go division-less since it ensures at the very least the ACCCG will pit one against two or at worse one against three. So I would want the league to modify this request to be BOTH the champion is the auto-bid of the conference but to get better match-ups in those games, conferences should have the right to go division-less. This accomplishes two goals in my mind - increases the importance of CCGs (increasing the $$$ value of them) and ensures an improvement of better regular season conference match-ups (potentially increasing the conference's TV $$$ value).

The second item on your list is immaterial to me. Yes, I believe this is counter-intuitive, but even if the hoped for reasoning comes about (which I highly doubt), I think it would be a PR nightmare for the conference and the others might use it to attempt to drive a wedge between ND and the full members of the conference - especially given the fact that the Irish will be sitting at the same table when these issues are discussed. If anything, I would have Swofford use any leverage he could to ensure the G5 has a high enough ranking to qualify using ND, Georgia, and LSU as examples as to why that should be the case. 03-wink

The third item on your list is intriguing. This, of course, assumes the proposed CFP changes occur prior to the end of the current CFP contract. If it does, I am all for this. But with 4 additional games in the CFP will contract bowls even exist in this next iteration? And if not, all five P5 conferences will need to be compensated monetarily for the missing $40 million in which case Swofford should be arguing for an equal share.

Left out of this article is what are the potential ramifications (if any) should the SEC feel very strongly about keeping things the way they are and are counting on the ACC to side with them? It seems to me that the SEC would need to feel strongly on not expanding the CFP in order for the ACC to have any leverage at all otherwise there goes any leverage the ACC has in this scenario.

Would the ACC be better off siding with the SEC on this (again assuming the SEC feels strongly in not expanding) due to the ESPN connections and the number of OOC games it has with the SEC?

ACC Total P5 and ND OOC Games 2013-2018

SEC - 151.124 million viewers; average 3.977; 38 games
ND - 96.429 million viewers; average 3.592; 26 games
B1G - 34.057 million viewers; average 3.406; 10 games
B12 - 13.391 million viewers; average 3.348; 4 games
PAC - 11.029 million viewers; average 1.838; 6 games

Just food for thought.

Cheers,
Neil

Good points - in fact, I've added an addendum: (a) divisionless scheduling along with champion auto-bid, and (b) can't give the reason I gave for best of G5 guarantee (although they could always play the altruism card).
12-20-2018 06:39 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wolfman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,244
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 161
I Root For: The Cartel
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #5
RE: Two CFP Possible Expansion Articles by Hokie Mark
1. Guaranteeing the ACC champ a spot is a double edged sword. While is isn't very likely, it is possible Clemson could have lost to Pitt in the CCG. Pitt had a great year but they are not a CFP team. Should a late-season case of the flu keep Clemson out of the CFP?

2. I don't see limiting the at-large affecting ND. Anytime ND is 12-0, maybe even 11-1, they are going to be a CFP candidate.

3. I see the value of the orange bowl going down. If 2 ACC teams make the CFP, they are down to the 3rd place team. The Orange Bowl wants Miami, FSU or Clemson. They don't care about anybody else in the ACC.
12-20-2018 08:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,772
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 702
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #6
RE: Two CFP Possible Expansion Articles by Hokie Mark
(12-20-2018 08:38 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  1. Guaranteeing the ACC champ a spot is a double edged sword. While is isn't very likely, it is possible Clemson could have lost to Pitt in the CCG. Pitt had a great year but they are not a CFP team. Should a late-season case of the flu keep Clemson out of the CFP?
Well, it wouldn't necessarily keep the Tigers out (they would just go into the pool of at-large candidates as as 12-1 team). That said, if it did knock them out, it would be their own fault for losing in the CCG - any true competitor can live with that.

(12-20-2018 08:38 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  2. I don't see limiting the at-large affecting ND. Anytime ND is 12-0, maybe even 11-1, they are going to be a CFP candidate.
Probably right. This point is weak.

(12-20-2018 08:38 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  3. I see the value of the orange bowl going down. If 2 ACC teams make the CFP, they are down to the 3rd place team. The Orange Bowl wants Miami, FSU or Clemson. They don't care about anybody else in the ACC.
I wasn't thinking the Orange Bowl would go down much (it gets either ACC #2 or #3 now), but I do think the Sugar Bowl in particular would drop (now it gets SEC #2 or #3 vs. Big XII #1 or #2, but assuming the SEC gets 2 and the Big XII gets at least 1 team in, this becomes a 3-vs-2 or even 4-vs-2 matchup. Ditto the Rose Bowl, which is 1-vs-1 this year but with autobids would never be better than 2-vs-2 (and likely 2-vs-3).
12-20-2018 09:04 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 47,353
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1423
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #7
RE: Two CFP Possible Expansion Articles by Hokie Mark
(12-20-2018 01:55 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  For me, the most intriguing part of the update blog was this:

"Assuming the SEC is quite happy with the status quo, they will need the votes of the ACC. What should the conference ask for in return?"

Caps. Facilities caps. Staff caps. Player compensation caps. You know ... fiscal sanity.
12-20-2018 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,772
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 702
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #8
RE: Two CFP Possible Expansion Articles by Hokie Mark
(12-20-2018 01:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(12-20-2018 01:55 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  For me, the most intriguing part of the update blog was this:

"Assuming the SEC is quite happy with the status quo, they will need the votes of the ACC. What should the conference ask for in return?"

Caps. Facilities caps. Staff caps. Player compensation caps. You know ... fiscal sanity.

Absolutely! I've been saying that for years, but people keep telling me it's against the law to cap those things...
12-20-2018 01:33 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 611
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Two CFP Possible Expansion Articles by Hokie Mark
(12-20-2018 08:38 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  1. Guaranteeing the ACC champ a spot is a double edged sword. While is isn't very likely, it is possible Clemson could have lost to Pitt in the CCG. Pitt had a great year but they are not a CFP team. Should a late-season case of the flu keep Clemson out of the CFP?

Even with division-less, which I am advocating for, this past year still likely would have resulted in a Clemson/Pitt match-up (using conference records as the standard since the Tigers were 8-0 and both Pitt and SU were 6-2, but Pitt holding the edge with its win over SU). So if Pitt won, under this scenario, they go to the CFP and Clemson must get in as one of the two wildcards. If the higher ranked team in the CFP gets in simply by their ranking in the CFP, then why play a CCG? In some ways CCGs could become the equivalent of a minor bowl game where attendance and ratings will start to decline if they don't have true meaning.

Quote:2. I don't see limiting the at-large affecting ND. Anytime ND is 12-0, maybe even 11-1, they are going to be a CFP candidate.

While I don't believe the reasoning behind this initiative as put forth by Hokie Mark is sound, and agreeing with you that a 12-0 ND will always get a wildcard spot, technically speaking currently an ND at 11-1 is vying for one of four spots. By being an independent and having 6 of 8 spots going to P5 auto-bids and the 6th to the best of the G5 (although I still think this should be restricted to the G5 being ranked at least in the Top 12, unless a P5 champion is ranked out of the Top 16 - something like this was done for BCS Bowl representation, iirc) the 11-1 Irish would be competing for one of two spots instead of one of four spots. Would this be enough for the Irish to rethink their independence stance? I don't believe so at all. But their holding fast to independence could have a very minor potential benefit for the ACC as the below item discusses.

Quote:3. I see the value of the orange bowl going down. If 2 ACC teams make the CFP, they are down to the 3rd place team. The Orange Bowl wants Miami, FSU or Clemson. They don't care about anybody else in the ACC.

The Orange Bowl itself (and what it may or may not want) has nothing whatsoever to do with how it was valued by ESPN. As I recall, the Orange Bowl was desperate NOT to wind up in the same boat as the Fiesta and the Peach in the new world order, which is where it was heading early in the development stages of the CFP.

The early returns on the Orange Bowl as a NY6 (non-CFP semi-finalist) are it lags behind the Rose Bowl but so far has slightly outperformed the Sugar in terms of both ratings and attendance (but will likely lose ground in both with a Georgia-Texas match-up this year, particularly attendance wise).

As Hokie Mark points out though, in an 8-team playoff it will basically (assuming contract bowls survive in some format under a new CFP) ensure the Sugar will the vast majority of times have #3 SEC vs #2 B12. Two ACC teams making the CFP will likely be rare so the Orange Bowl will have in most years a #2 ACC vs #3 (or #4) B1G or a #4 (or #5) SEC or an 11-1/10-2 ND.

Using this year as an example (with none of the Rose, Sugar, and Orange as semi-finalist games) and with ND losing once the CFP would have been Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Washington, Central Florida, Georgia, and Michigan. The Sugar would have been Texas vs LSU, the Rose Washington State vs Penn State and Notre Dame would have fallen to the Orange Bowl. Which probably would have been the case even had the Irish had two losses this year under this scenario.

Again this latter point is immaterial since with more games in the CFP the likelihood of the Sugar, Rose, and Orange not being hosts for CFP games year in and year out is unlikely unless the quarter-final games are played during the 15th week of current season (alongside the Army/Navy game) and at the home of the higher ranked quarter-final team then the semi-finals (and the NY6) could remain the same as they are now.

Cheers,
Neil
12-20-2018 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,267
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 200
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #10
RE: Two CFP Possible Expansion Articles by Hokie Mark
(12-20-2018 01:55 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  For me, the most intriguing part of the update blog was this:

The first being an auto-bid for the champion regardless of ranking rather than the highest ranked team from the conference. Your reasoning behind this is sound, since you rightly determine that this makes the Conference Champion Games more relevant. For me the solution to this is to go division-less since it ensures at the very least the ACCCG will pit one against two or at worse one against three. So I would want the league to modify this request to be BOTH the champion is the auto-bid of the conference but to get better match-ups in those games, conferences should have the right to go division-less. This accomplishes two goals in my mind - increases the importance of CCGs (increasing the $$$ value of them) and ensures an improvement of better regular season conference match-ups (potentially increasing the conference's TV $$$ value).

If you have autobids for CCG winners it would be in every conferences best interest to go divisionless IMO. No one wants a NW v tOSU upset scenario to occur, especially the networks. No divisions resolves so many internal conference issues; from essential rivals to divisional balance.
12-23-2018 06:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 22,906
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2172
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Two CFP Possible Expansion Articles by Hokie Mark
The time to revisit this topic is after the IX District rules on the Alston case. Until that verdict comes in all speculation about extending the CFP is premature. It may be premature simply because of the existing bowl contract. And I think in part the Big 10's willingness to discuss it may simply be a platform in which they can air their issues with the selection process, more than actually push for an expansion at this time.

I doubt that ESPN wants to expand it until their current contract with the bowls expires. So by pushing it the Big 10 sets themselves up to be pacified in the next selection process.

We'll see. But, if the Alston case comes back in favor of the plaintiff then we are moving to a compensation system and likely one with a prohibition against caps since that is at the heart of the Alston case.

If that happens we could see division within the current FBS with a tier willing to play with no caps, and tiers below them that agree to caps which would be legal as long as players had a division to opt to play in which had no caps.

And it's deuce difficult to know how this might also affect basketball first schools.

Do we wind up with a variegated set of tiers:
1. Football / Basketball / Baseball or Hockey with no caps
2. Basketball / Baseball or Hockey with no caps but Football with caps.
3. Basketball only with no caps and Baseball or Hockey and Football with caps
4. Etc. as the variables are fairly numerous.

Any of that is possible with a favorable verdict for Alston.

If it does happen there will no longer be a need for CFP expansion, but their might be a need for tiers of playoffs.
12-24-2018 01:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.