B1G Commissioner Floats Expanded Playoff Idea to 28 Teams!

Donate To GopherHole

Some guy said:
Good idea if only it were legal to cap it
Click to expand...
There's a hard cap right now for revenue sharing. $20.5M for 2025-26. Going up I think around 4% per year

That's what I was referring to with the cap, apologies was not referring to a cap on endorsements ("NIL" .. what it was supposed to be)
 

Zeppelin Gopher said:
Tony Petitti is an unmitigated disaster. Needs to be impeached ASAP
Click to expand...

As long as eyeballs keep watching I think this could only to happen if the players walked out, and I don’t see that happening. Fans have totally checked out of pushing for any preservation of what was. The NCAA, conferences, and schools have already begun their PR and legislative offensive pitting the football players interests against the non-revenue sports.

My opinion is once amateurism was abandoned, you can’t go halfway. The players and their representation (anyone, anyone?) should be calling the shots, not Pettiti. They are still being used, just slightly less so.
 


GopherGrit said:
There's a hard cap right now for revenue sharing. $20.5M for 2025-26. Going up I think around 4% per year

That's what I was referring to with the cap, apologies was not referring to a cap on endorsements ("NIL" .. what it was supposed to be)
Click to expand...
Got it

I’m still not sure that cap will hold up long term
 


GopherGrit said:
"NIL" in any sense outside bonafide endorsement deals by for-profit companies actually selling a product or providing an actual service, should be gutted. Sorry if that ruffles some feathers, but that's how I feel about that.

Bring all that stuff in-house, let the schools run it, and put a hard cap on it.
Click to expand...
Here’s the deal: the schools don’t want that in house. They want it farmed out to third, fourth and fifth parties. They like the current model where the don’t pay athletes as employees. But to keep that model, they have to accept that the NIL model is the default alternative. Sure, it presents a load of problems and any restrictions put on it will likely be successfully challenged in court, but at least THEY aren’t shelling out the money… the donors are.
 

Not sure if it was mentioned in the OP or in the thread, but sounds like a key component is that conference championship games would be no more, and instead that would become the first round of the expanded playoff.

That part at least, I like

 


TNGophfan said:
Do the players have a say in this? They better if you're talking about a potential 5 more games at end of regular season.
Click to expand...

Of course they do. They can choose to not take the job they are being paid for.
 



GopherGrit said:
Not sure if it was mentioned in the OP or in the thread, but sounds like a key component is that conference championship games would be no more, and instead that would become the first round of the expanded playoff.

That part at least, I like

Click to expand...
Getting rid of conference championship games would greatly increase the chances of a big ten title in my lifetime. Because co championships would likely come back


If the bids become automatic by league. 10 conference games is announced shortly after that.
 

thank goodness we've moved to the model where sports should just be for making money, just as it was intended.

it's actually kind of weird to start this year on the above note. you have an absolutely dynamite opener with TX-OSU and the game literally does not matter as both are still going to be upwards of 95% to make the playoff. If it goes to 24 or 28, it's even higher and the winning that game just makes you basically locked to start the year.
 


upnorthkid said:
you have an absolutely dynamite opener with TX-OSU and the game literally does not matter as both are still going to be upwards of 95% to make the playoff.
Click to expand...
This. 20 years ago this would be must-see TV as the loser's season takes a major hit in terms of playing for the NC.

Now the loss will just be brushed off, as the losing team will have been starting a new QB, and that's what'll be talked about: "this isn't the Texas you saw back in August".

You only get one season. If the playoffs get any bigger, that season begins at Thanksgiving. Everything prior is just pre-season seeding games.
 



The NFL ratings during the regular season would seem to say otherwise. (As far as "mattering".)
 

GopherGrit said:
The NFL ratings during the regular season would seem to say otherwise. (As far as "mattering".)
Click to expand...
A few differences. The major being the NFL has had it's seasons like this for a long, long time. This is new for CFB and they are rolling the dice when killing off the die hards. I think the NFL can still thrive with casual fans, not so sure with college.

But if they wanna try the NFL model and hope people turn on the TV just to have football on, that's their decision. I don't think college games have as much nation-wide appeal as NFL ones do, except to die hards like me that are getting annoyed with this and tune out.

We'll see. I'd love it if no one watched TX-tOSU.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
A few differences. The major being the NFL has had it's seasons like this for a long, long time. This is new for CFB and they are rolling the dice when killing off the die hards. I think the NFL can still thrive with casual fans, not so sure with college.

But if they wanna try the NFL model and hope people turn on the TV just to have football on, that's their decision. I don't think college games have as much nation-wide appeal as NFL ones do, except to die hards like me that are getting annoyed with this and tune out.

We'll see. I'd love it if no one watched TX-tOSU.
Click to expand...
I think the bowl "system" is proof that people will turn on the TV just to have FB on. But I think that until CFB ensures: 1. A level playing field (NIL cap, talent distribution); and 2. Regional representation; it will fail to maximize its potential to attract fans and dollars. While expanding the playoff certainly increases the likelihood for regional representation, it's still entirely possible a large swath of the US goes without a team in the CFP, with bids dominated by eastern and southern teams.
 

swede2 said:
I think the bowl "system" is proof that people will turn on the TV just to have FB on. But I think that until CFB ensures: 1. A level playing field (NIL cap, talent distribution); and 2. Regional representation; it will fail to maximize its potential to attract fans and dollars. While expanding the playoff certainly increases the likelihood for regional representation, it's still entirely possible a large swath of the US goes without a team in the CFP, with bids dominated by eastern and southern teams.
Click to expand...
They do when they’re going h2H against nothing. You expand to this level field and you’re running games against each other and the net benefit they’re thinking is going to go down. The same as people are going to tune out of the blowouts that inevitably will only get worse same as they always do. But people are not going to turn in en masse if another option, do there is a critical threshold. There’s a reason people watch march madness in multi view and that may be their goal with fb as well getting us to say 36 eventually

That said they’ll make money no matter what. Gambling has sunk its teeth in heavily to college sports and gambling dollars will continue to see that industry prop up games and attract viewers. So just depends on if they want to lean all the way in on making money while entirely warping what made college football special for a hundred years. Think we all know which way they’ll go
 

upnorthkid said:
They do when they’re going h2H against nothing.
Click to expand...

Yep. Late December, time off from work during the week, and nothing else on but I Love Lucy reruns is different from a nice Saturday afternoon where lots of people are trying to get stuff done and if they have to choose for the wife, they'll pick Sunday to watch sports.

upnorthkid said:
The same as people are going to tune out of the blowouts that inevitably will only get worse same as they always do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we had issues with competitive games when it was just 4 teams. At least in basketball you could get excited because you knew that every f-ing year some cinderella teams were going to pull off the upset. Never going to happen in the CFP. Big brother will beat down little brother no problem, year in and year out (save me for the regular season upsets, as teams won't get caught looking ahead to the following week when it's the playoffs).
 

GopherTheJugular said:
Yep. Late December, time off from work during the week, and nothing else on but I Love Lucy reruns is different from a nice Saturday afternoon where lots of people are trying to get stuff done and if they have to choose for the wife, they'll pick Sunday to watch sports.



Yeah, we had issues with competitive games when it was just 4 teams. At least in basketball you could get excited because you knew that every f-ing year some cinderella teams were going to pull off the upset. Never going to happen in the CFP. Big brother will beat down little brother no problem, year in and year out (save me for the regular season upsets, as teams won't get caught looking ahead to the following week when it's the playoffs).
Click to expand...
yeah by and large. underdog may win one game (see ASU almost getting TX) but the likelihood of stringing anything together that anyone will remember year to year is going to be exceedingly rare. Like Boise Statue of Liberty beating Oklahoma lives in lore but imagine they get OSU or Florida in the next round (depending how you rank them) and get drilled. you forget all about the prior game. as much as i want to see a bunch of mid tier teams lose by 30+ regularly, I just don't see how that has much entertainment value other than as filler to have on a screen. Semis dropped about 17% in ratings compared with year prior. at some point they'll shoot themselves in the ass expanding unless it feels like there is some chance the long term outcome is in doubt; the talent disparity of the top teams who announce themselves during the year is too high (and I would've been a big fan if OSU actually got punished for pissing down their leg against Michigan, rather than it was a clear mulligan)
 

upnorthkid said:
Like Boise Statue of Liberty beating Oklahoma lives in lore but imagine they get OSU or Florida in the next round (depending how you rank them) and get drilled. you forget all about the prior game.
Click to expand...

This. Sounds like you and I are on the same page. On of my early complaints about playoffs was that we departed from a system where half of the "post season" teams ended with a win.

And this is a great example. One of the best games I've ever watched, and it wouldn't even be cared about if it was a first or second round playoff game. Sad.

upnorthkid said:
as much as i want to see a bunch of mid tier teams lose by 30+ regularly, I just don't see how that has much entertainment value other than as filler to have on a screen. Semis dropped about 17% in ratings compared with year prior. at some point they'll shoot themselves in the ass expanding
Click to expand...

To me it almost resembles someone gobbling up shares of stock near a market high, thinking it's only going to keep going up. Then they have cup in hand by the freeway....

upnorthkid said:
(and I would've been a big fan if OSU actually got punished for pissing down their leg against Michigan, rather than it was a clear mulligan)
Click to expand...
Me too. I miss the old days when a loss like that eliminated you from playing for the NC.
 

In case you were curious as to if this system is just going to continue to feed into itself and promote those that play perceived higher value opponents with really no additional push towards diverse representation

Per ESPN

"In the current schedule strength metric, more weight will now be applied to games against strong opponents. A new, added metric of "record strength" will help the committee determine how teams performed against their schedule, rewarding those that beat high-quality opponents while minimizing the penalty of losing to one. These changes will also provide minimal reward for beating a lower-quality opponent while imposing a greater penalty for losing to one."
 

SEC was considering pushing a 32 team playoff, so B1G looks a bit more conservative in approach. SEC idea = Good, B1G idea =Bad, I guess in some eyes.
 


upnorthkid said:
In case you were curious as to if this system is just going to continue to feed into itself and promote those that play perceived higher value opponents with really no additional push towards diverse representation

Per ESPN

"In the current schedule strength metric, more weight will now be applied to games against strong opponents. A new, added metric of "record strength" will help the committee determine how teams performed against their schedule, rewarding those that beat high-quality opponents while minimizing the penalty of losing to one. These changes will also provide minimal reward for beating a lower-quality opponent while imposing a greater penalty for losing to one."
Click to expand...
I was just reading that. I like the idea of a greater penalty for losing to a G5 or lower opponent, but I'm against less of a penalty for losing to a good one.

If teams are afraid to lose then just don't play. Have a 12 game conference schedule and then let's see if people will get excited to see how the conferences compare after the regular season.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
I was just reading that. I like the idea of a greater penalty for losing to a G5 or lower opponent, but I'm against less of a penalty for losing to a good one.

If teams are afraid to lose then just don't play. Have a 12 game conference schedule and then let's see if people will get excited to see how the conferences compare after the regular season.
Click to expand...
i think the trouble becomes is, how are you getting there to decide that? Everybody was sure Bama bordered on deserving to be in last year. They finished #4 in FPI, but were 20th in SOS (11th in the SEC if that gives you an idea of how much we inflate those teams playing each other), 7th in game control. yet they lost to a 6-6 Vandy, a Tennessee team who got pantsed by OSU, an awful Oklahoma team, and a 7-5 Michigan team who sat most of their good players.

It's the problem of unless you either decide to hand it over to the computers altogether or just scrap the data, we are biased individuals. Same as the computer program is but at least you can "control" what that bias is. We would actually be equally as likely to just to use Vegas predicted odds and call it a day but I dislike anything that just moves you away from merit and that I have decided who's better or worse and over-rewarding a team who punched up one time (this will make the SEC and B10 middling teams who take down one big fish get tons of bonus points while having no impact from losing, same as making this TX-OSU game have zero consequences for the loser). There's just so little crossover data that comparing becomes near impossible when it comes to deciding between the cut line. It's the same issue in hockey, they just have been wise enough to say we're taking the humans out of it and the cutline is computer generated, though this is easier when you play 30 games as compared with 12, though given most games are against the same opponents, you should still be able to get reasonable data if you make there be more robust cross over matchups
 

upnorthkid said:
i think the trouble becomes is, how are you getting there to decide that? Everybody was sure Bama bordered on deserving to be in last year. They finished #4 in FPI, but were 20th in SOS (11th in the SEC if that gives you an idea of how much we inflate those teams playing each other), 7th in game control. yet they lost to a 6-6 Vandy, a Tennessee team who got pantsed by OSU, an awful Oklahoma team, and a 7-5 Michigan team who sat most of their good players.

It's the problem of unless you either decide to hand it over to the computers altogether or just scrap the data, we are biased individuals. Same as the computer program is but at least you can "control" what that bias is. We would actually be equally as likely to just to use Vegas predicted odds and call it a day but I dislike anything that just moves you away from merit and that I have decided who's better or worse and over-rewarding a team who punched up one time (this will make the SEC and B10 middling teams who take down one big fish get tons of bonus points while having no impact from losing, same as making this TX-OSU game have zero consequences for the loser). There's just so little crossover data that comparing becomes near impossible when it comes to deciding between the cut line. It's the same issue in hockey, they just have been wise enough to say we're taking the humans out of it and the cutline is computer generated, though this is easier when you play 30 games as compared with 12, though given most games are against the same opponents, you should still be able to get reasonable data if you make there be more robust cross over matchups
Click to expand...
Ah, I should have added some more. What I didn't say, but should have, would be if we eliminated the non-conf like I suggested, then each conference would autonomously decide their playoff participants, with their own rules for tie-breakers and such. Without that, then I agree with the above that it would be harder for a committee to make tough choices.

Your point about bama is great. Had Mississippi State had that record, no one would have thought much of them.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom