What the hell is Bowlsby thinking?!

[cyfanatic]

AQ's are a terrible idea for an 8 team format. Hell this year you would have two bids going to #11 Utah and #12 Pitt. Not to mention more years than not ND is going to lock up one of the at large bids. If the goal is the 8 best teams than AQ's aren't the answer.

I get your general assessment...but I wouldn't mind seeing a Utah vs any of the CFP teams right now! I would like to think that having AQ's makes the conference season more meaningful though.

 

[cykadelic2]

Im confused by what the OP stated and what he linked. They are the opposite. Bowlsby an idiot but I still don’t really see the correlation in the OP and the links.

The OP is the idiot, not Bowlsby.

 

[cyclonestunners]

So what's better for the Big12? An 8 team CFP with AQ for the A5? Or a good partnership and big money TV contract with the guys who will promote or denigrate your league?

If Big12 votes for the 8 team playoff, and it generates further ire from ESECPN which continues its campaign to turn the Big12 into a G5 conference... is that in the best interest of the Big12 long term?

These two aren't mutually exclusive. You don't get a lucrative tv contract for a league that's been demoted to a secondary status without an automatic qualifier. That secondary status of a less prestigious league that doens't get an AQ leads to less respect and less tv revenue. It also becomes a self fulfilling prophesy, where once your league is looked down upon, then it is harder to get in the playoff, even if expanded. We've seen it again and again with playoff rankings... the np5 schools get pushed out and instead p5 are favored, right down to the ranking of teams 21-25 to give the p5 more "top 25" wins.

 

[cyclonestunners]

I get your general assessment...but I wouldn't mind seeing a Utah vs any of the CFP teams right now! I would like to think that having AQ's makes the conference season more meaningful though.

Bowlsby's goal should not be the 8 best teams. It should be the best option for Big 12 teams to guarantee a spot every year.

 

[superiorcyclone]

There will never be enough teams in a football playoff. It is not like basketball. Therefore, conference titles should matter as they should be part of the playoff. That does not support mega-conferences. Rankings are a popularity contest, two thirds of the votes are along the eastern seaboard. To minimize this biased approach, you have to play your way in, not get voted in, by winning your conference. It should be irrelevant what a sports writer in New York City thinks about Iowa State or Baylor being in the playoffs. The playoffs should be strictly about results.

 

[NickTheGreat]

What kind of negotiation starts with admitting to everyone that your best position isn't a good one?

It's reverse psychology, duh. Like when I tell my kid she can't have my broccoli because she wouldn't like it.

 

[BCClone]

It's reverse psychology, duh. Like when I tell my kid she can't have my broccoli because she wouldn't like it.

Or don’t let them use your weakness against you. You want that naw, convince me why that is or is t good. Btw, it looks like OU and UT will be here another year while you take time doing that.

 

[isucy86]

Beating a dead horse, but obviously SEC wants 12, so they can get 4 and some years 5 into the Playoff. (25% of their new conf.) Massive $ at stake. OU/UT almost certainly joined based on that assumption. This arrangement would give the top tier brands (Florida/UGA/Bama/A&M/LSU/OU/UT) consistent shots at the playoff even with 2/3 conf losses. Sankey was backroom dealing while goading Bowlsby to support a 12 team system. I think that A&M leak was unintentionally helpful, otherwise things would have been swift with no leverage or reaction ability.........

Bowlsby's statement is a posturing stance with the "alliance". He's not an idiot. I actually think he's done a good job managing this, considering the circumstances. The "Alliance" sees a great power shift and slimy $ grab by the SEC. While Sankey's is chest puffing about being fine with status quote; ie. getting two in the current playoff, he knows that is bad business long-term for the new SEC. Time is not on his side. The threat of remaining at 4 teams (Max 2 SEC in best years, 2/16 of new conference at best) is a real issue for Sankey. The "blue bloods" having an even worse chance at the playoff than now would create constant instability and chaos in the SEC. (this absolutely stupid cycle of guaranting coaches ridiculous contracts and then buying them out after two years of not making the playoff)

The stand-off could either force an early payout to Big12, pre-empt the next round of TV talks, or otherwise kick-start another great reshuffling (which has been hinted at vaguely from various "insiders"). For the Big 12, the massive peg-knocking in TV contracts is the real issue. Especially relative to the SEC and B1G.

Going to 8, with an AQ for Big 12 would be best for ISU program IMO. Guarantee an annual spot (New B12 on relative level playing field increases likelyhood of ISU getting in) The competitve balance and program quality in the new Big12 is also better than the Pac and ACC. Hopefully TV consortium values that.

I haven't seen clarity on this, but would love to understand the actual "voting" procedure for expansion amongst the playoff board. Ie. Does each P5 conference get 1 vote and the G5 collectively gets 1 vote, or some other way?

I agree 8 team playoff is the ideal next step. Nothing is written in stone, so in 10 years maybe 12 or 16 makes sense. But now, 8 is a good number because there just isn't enough parity. Look at this year's CCG's- the Big10, Pac12 and ACC were blowouts. Either the conferences are doing a terrible job of identifying their top 2 teams or we lack parity.

 

[KnappShack]

I agree 8 team playoff is the ideal next step. Nothing is written in stone, so in 10 years maybe 12 or 16 makes sense. But now, 8 is a good number because there just isn't enough parity. Look at this year's CCG's- the Big10, Pac12 and ACC were blowouts. Either the conferences are doing a terrible job of identifying their top 2 teams or we lack parity.

I'd guess it'll be more about money than parity when it comes down to it. The payoff is a TV show. They'll pick the big names and cash the checks.

 

[CascadeClone]

AQ's are a terrible idea for an 8 team format. Hell this year you would have two bids going to #11 Utah and #12 Pitt. Not to mention more years than not ND is going to lock up one of the at large bids. If the goal is the 8 best teams than AQ's aren't the answer.

Disagree.

So you take Utah & Pitt. Baylor also gets in as AQ, ranked #7. Assume the current top 4 as well. So who gets left out?

These are the 5 teams ranked above Utah/Pitt: ND, Ohio St, Ok St, Mich St, Ole Miss. Only one gets in, instead of 3. It is very very arguable, of course, but I don't think it's a capital crime if Utah gets in instead of Michigan St, or a 3rd SEC team.

Another way to look at it: that pile of 7 teams, trying to pick 3. You could argue all day long, eye test, advanced stats, SOS, quality wins bad losses, etc. But the CCG winners is not debatable at all, it's earned.

My opinion of course, but I think the AQ fulfills the "earned it" view on who should get in, and the at larges fulfill the "best teams" view. So having 5 AQ and 3 at-large is a good combo.

 

[isucy86]

AQ's are a terrible idea for an 8 team format. Hell this year you would have two bids going to #11 Utah and #12 Pitt. Not to mention more years than not ND is going to lock up one of the at large bids. If the goal is the 8 best teams than AQ's aren't the answer.

That's why I think P5 teams will need to earn their right to have an auto qualifier. If a conference doesn't win a playoff game over a 3-4 year window, they lose their auto qualifier.

Initially, I like the idea of each P5 and potentially G5 getting an auto qualifier because there just isn't enough inter-conference games between P5 schools to really say this conference is horrible and this conference is great.

If we looked at schedules, overall I would bet only 8-10% of P5 games are inter-conference games. Think back on all the hype when Oregon beat OSU. Michigan's best non-con win is NIU. Baylor is BYU. Alabama is Miami. Good thing Cincy had ND on it's schedule or I doubt they make the playoff.

I caught a few Utah games late in the year and they look like a Playoff quality team. But it's hard to determine- did they look great because of inferior competition or is the Nov Utah team significantly better than the Sep Utah team? IMO this year Utah squad is a great reason to give each P5 and auto bid (at least initially).

 

[JohnnyFive]

8 teams with 5 AQ is what's best for the Big12. To go to 12 teams helps the SEC separate themselves further by getting a bigger chunk of the CFP pie. Only way 12 should be considered is if the payouts are set are not tied to the at large qualifiers.

If it goes to 12, ESPN:

“Tonight on Sportscenter, can the SEC get 8 teams in?”

“But lead story tonight, Nick Saban made a bowel movement. Stay tuned after the commercial break as we continue to monitor this breaking news”

 

[KidSilverhair]

AQ's are a terrible idea for an 8 team format. Hell this year you would have two bids going to #11 Utah and #12 Pitt. Not to mention more years than not ND is going to lock up one of the at large bids. If the goal is the 8 best teams than AQ's aren't the answer.

Speaking for myself, my goal isn’t getting the “8 best teams.” My goal is clearly defined qualification criteria and removing as much of the human-bias element as possible.

Look, it’s a given that the lesser team can occasionally upset a better team in a single game. It literally happens all the time - that’s why the committee is willing to overlook Ohio State losing to Va Tech in 2014, for example. Any playoff of a committee-defined “best” lineup is no guarantee the “best” team will survive and win the championship.

So if that’s the case anyway, make it a Tournament of Champions. Win your conference, you get to play for the title. Miss out, and too bad, somebody in your conference just proved they were “better” than you, try again next year.

For a sports fandom that’s excited for the upsets by 15/14/13 seeds in March Madness, it’s kinda mind-boggling to also see the argument “we don’t want to see Pitt or Utah in the playoff.” Imagine Pitt knocking off Michigan, say, in the first round. People start talking Cinderella story! That’s excitement! That’s interest! That’s way better than 5 SEC teams in a 12-team playoff. At least it is to me.

 

[KidSilverhair]

Disagree.

So you take Utah & Pitt. Baylor also gets in as AQ, ranked #7. Assume the current top 4 as well. So who gets left out?

These are the 5 teams ranked above Utah/Pitt: ND, Ohio St, Ok St, Mich St, Ole Miss. Only one gets in, instead of 3. It is very very arguable, of course, but I don't think it's a capital crime if Utah gets in instead of Michigan St, or a 3rd SEC team.

Another way to look at it: that pile of 7 teams, trying to pick 3. You could argue all day long, eye test, advanced stats, SOS, quality wins bad losses, etc. But the CCG winners is not debatable at all, it's earned.

My opinion of course, but I think the AQ fulfills the "earned it" view on who should get in, and the at larges fulfill the "best teams" view. So having 5 AQ and 3 at-large is a good combo.

If there are at-larges included in the playoff, I’d like to see conferences limited to 2 teams, max.

I realize this is fantasy-world thinking, cause no way the SEC (or probably the B1G) goes along with that idea, but a guy can dream.

 

[cyclonestunners]

SEC would not get 1/3 of the CFP money with 4 out of 12. The computation is not all based on how many teams you get in the playoffs. While participants in the playoffs get $6 million +expenses, with the current contract, it will go up with the new one, but the bigger increase will be in the money that goes to the Power 5 conferences, equally, and a smaller pool of money for the G5 conferences.

Everyone needs to relax. There is too much money not to expand the playoffs. Bowlsby, more than anyone else understands what the SEC is trying to do and the negotiations are far from over. My guess is that we will soon see the SEC say they will not participate in the playoffs and they will start a 4-6 team SEC year-end playoff and have a big contract with ESPN and force the other conferences with running another playoff to compete with the SEC tournament. If the 12 team plan that allows 4-5 SEC teams fails, this SEC tournament is the only way the SEC commissioner can deliver what he promised OU TX and the rest of the SEC. That is the issue that has to get solved.

We may end up with the SEC as separate conference from all the others with a professional model where it is basically pay to play. The rest of the conferences start their own organization the put in rules for NIL and other athletic comp issues. The SEC would share the airwaves in the southeast with the ACC, and the rest of the country would pay little attention to the SEC. If we are going to blow up the college football model, let's make sure we have something we want to watch.

You're giving WAY too much credit to a guy who had no clue that his 2 premier teams were leaving for the SEC, and was meetign with the SEC on a regular basis during that time. What evidence has he

I agree 8 team playoff is the ideal next step. Nothing is written in stone, so in 10 years maybe 12 or 16 makes sense. But now, 8 is a good number because there just isn't enough parity. Look at this year's CCG's- the Big10, Pac12 and ACC were blowouts. Either the conferences are doing a terrible job of identifying their top 2 teams or we lack parity.

I'd rather have the b12 blown out consistently every year in the playoff instead of not getting a guaranteed spot

 

[RotatingColumn]

I wish we could just fast forward to when it's the Big 10 vs the SEC in the title game.
We're obviously headed to 2 conferences so let's just get it done.

 

[isucy86]

The early signing period has been vital for schools like Iowa State. trust me, you don't want to see that date pushed back any later. The LOI is meaningless after a coach leaves, it's not like these kids are handcuffed to their decision.

If it was up to me, the concept of signing day would be eliminated. Let a kid sign anytime after June 1 of their junior year.

 

[EnhancedFujita]

Speaking for myself, my goal isn’t getting the “8 best teams.” My goal is clearly defined qualification criteria and removing as much of the human-bias element as possible.

Look, it’s a given that the lesser team can occasionally upset a better team in a single game. It literally happens all the time - that’s why the committee is willing to overlook Ohio State losing to Va Tech in 2014, for example. Any playoff of a committee-defined “best” lineup is no guarantee the “best” team will survive and win the championship.

So if that’s the case anyway, make it a Tournament of Champions. Win your conference, you get to play for the title. Miss out, and too bad, somebody in your conference just proved they were “better” than you, try again next year.

For a sports fandom that’s excited for the upsets by 15/14/13 seeds in March Madness, it’s kinda mind-boggling to also see the argument “we don’t want to see Pitt or Utah in the playoff.” Imagine Pitt knocking off Michigan, say, in the first round. People start talking Cinderella story! That’s excitement! That’s interest! That’s way better than 5 SEC teams in a 12-team playoff. At least it is to me.

For the life of me I don't understand the idea that the CFB playoff and National Championship needs to be the "best" teams. No other sport that we all clamor for guarantees that the best teams play for Championships. In fact, we usually celebrate even more when the underdog out performs and wins.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Speaking for myself, my goal isn’t getting the “8 best teams.” My goal is clearly defined qualification criteria and removing as much of the human-bias element as possible.

Look, it’s a given that the lesser team can occasionally upset a better team in a single game. It literally happens all the time - that’s why the committee is willing to overlook Ohio State losing to Va Tech in 2014, for example. Any playoff of a committee-defined “best” lineup is no guarantee the “best” team will survive and win the championship.

So if that’s the case anyway, make it a Tournament of Champions. Win your conference, you get to play for the title. Miss out, and too bad, somebody in your conference just proved they were “better” than you, try again next year.

For a sports fandom that’s excited for the upsets by 15/14/13 seeds in March Madness, it’s kinda mind-boggling to also see the argument “we don’t want to see Pitt or Utah in the playoff.” Imagine Pitt knocking off Michigan, say, in the first round. People start talking Cinderella story! That’s excitement! That’s interest! That’s way better than 5 SEC teams in a 12-team playoff. At least it is to me.

The "cinderallas" would be few and far between in football though. Comparing the playoffs to the NCAA basketball tournament doesn't work. The main reason I'm against AQ's is look at how many times over the last 10 years or so the Pac 12 simply hasn't deserved a playoff slot. Not all conferences are created equally so for me AQ's actually make the playoff picture worse.

 

[isucy86]

I'd rather have the b12 blown out consistently every year in the playoff instead of not getting a guaranteed spot

Obviously, but is it better for the Big12 if there is an 8 or 12 team playoff?

As it stands today, my guess is the Big10 & SEC would favor 12 teams as they likely feel they could get at least 3 (Big10) or 4 (SEC) teams in a playoff.

A compromise on an 8 team playoff for the Big10/SEC might be ability for a P5 to lose an auto-bid if it doesn't win a playoff game. If any P5 conference doesn't win a playoff over a 3-4 year period, then they don't deserve an auto-bid.