|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 14, 2021 7:19:38 GMT -6
In the eight seasons analyzed in the source cited above, two G5 schools made it once.
No big problem with this last year but don't think it's earthshaking success for G5. This is overwhelmingly to get more P5 schools in the money round.
The bone to G5 will mostly leave G5 school playing a token game against the 5 seed school which had a legit gripe about not being in the top 4.
Look at those 8 years of playoff FB and make a case that leaving G5 schools out was a big problem. Or a factor in the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jun 14, 2021 7:23:17 GMT -6
This is overwhelmingly to get more P5 schools in the money round. Really ? How so ? I can't wait for this answer, and what exactly is the "money round" ?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 14, 2021 9:40:22 GMT -6
This is overwhelmingly to get more P5 schools in the money round. Really ? How so ? I can't wait for this answer, and what exactly is the "money round" ? I am surprised you can't see additional P5 revenue. Surely that motivates them to like this new setup. Do you really think there is some other motive that is more influential?
Postseason bowl games make money for the P5 schools who dominate the current high revenue bowls. (That is a the money round, postseason extra revenue games)
More Postseason games with high TV revenue from the Playoff package represents an additional revenue stream for the P5. With usually 7 P5 teams added, very rarely less than 6 teams, it will be significantly higher total revenue from TV games.
Look at the number of postseason games the P5 currently gets, those with very high revenue potential. Currently 4 teams are in the tournament (sometimes ND makes it, so only 3), two teams get a second game with very high ratings. At least ONE extra game from playoffs considering previous bowl structure.
Currently a number of P5 teams do get ONE bowl game for additional revenue. Some bowl games are not blockbuster ratings and high revenue for the lower level P5 schools, that likely remains about the same. P5 participation in current bowl games will continue since they represent VERY large alumni groups who travel to the games and watch the broadcasts. The teams qualifying for the tournament are probably in high revenue bowl games.
So adding playoffs means very little loss of revenue if any for the P5. How much gain?
Adding a playoff series means in most years 7 more P5 teams get in, Since mostly G5 teams will not win a game, that means 3 or 4 MORE P5 teams get TWO postseason games in playoffs instead of ONE.
The top 4 teams continue to get the really big games, 2 of them get multiple big games now. It will be 5 or 6 in the new set up. That is a lot of extra P5 game revenue.
If all 7 of the new P5 teams would normally be in ONE bowl game without playoff football, it is still a large gain. Some of them could easily lose a playoff game and make more money than the existing bowl structure would provide due to the high interest in playoff FB.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jun 14, 2021 10:01:46 GMT -6
Any tournament that doesn't include all conference champions as automatic qualifiers is not a legitimate tournament.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 14, 2021 10:18:21 GMT -6
Any tournament that doesn't include all conference champions as automatic qualifiers is not a legitimate tournament. That sort of assumes all conferences are created equal, surely a fiction. If we want a sort of Hoosier Hysteria tournament, I suppose a tournament that doesn't include every team is not legitimate in one sense. That's not possible with one game a week...
The question really is whether a tournament that includes a bunch of teams with little or no chance is legitimate, and how many teams really could win a game?
In FB adding a round of games probably means giving up regular season games. For the P5 those games are lucrative, and that is expensive, and even for the little guys with no chance it is expensive too, since they would likely lose their "money" games early in the season if regular season was shortened.
The current evidence is there isn't that much parity. What's the ideal number? NOT very large, too many regular season games lost. 16 teams meanings finding 2 extra weeks in December and a January extra game.
It's clear the 12 team compromise was to prevent those big schools regularly playing 4 more postseason games. Especially since most have a conference championship game squeezed in there.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jun 14, 2021 11:33:04 GMT -6
"Adding a playoff series means in most years 7 more P5 teams get in,"
How is that "overwhelming more" than 4 out of 4 ?
The one thing it will do is cause a bit of chaos in the P5 coaching ranks, where making the 12 will be the new standard elite program coaches are judged by. For instance, there is no way Jim Harbaugh would still be at Michigan under this new playoff scenario. Regardless of what oo'dumbass says this isn't really slanted to the P5 conferences, it's slanted to the best teams every season.
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Jun 14, 2021 11:52:57 GMT -6
Any tournament that doesn't include all conference champions as automatic qualifiers is not a legitimate tournament. Have to agree. If the G5 conferences are considered D1, every D1 conference champion has to have a spot in the playoffs. After that you can stack it with the Power 5 conference teams. Otherwise, let’s just admit that the G5 programs are 1AA and get on with life. Have our own tournament, structured more fairly and have some rough and tumble fun. I think we and college football would be better off this way anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jun 14, 2021 12:17:02 GMT -6
Any tournament that doesn't include all conference champions as automatic qualifiers is not a legitimate tournament. If the G5 conferences are considered D1, every D1 conference champion has to have a spot in the playoffs. Okay, except the P5 conferences aren't guaranteed a spot either. You could see seasons where the PAC 12 or even the Big 12 don't have a single school in this playoff.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 14, 2021 12:24:46 GMT -6
"Adding a playoff series means in most years 7 more P5 teams get in," How is that "overwhelming more" than 4 out of 4 ? First of all that is not 7 total teams in instead of 4. It is possibly 11 teams instead of possibly 4.
But you miss the point in addition to bad math, you just don't read well. Here is what I said: In the eight seasons analyzed in the source cited above, two G5 schools made it once. No big problem with this last year but don't think it's earthshaking success for G5. This is overwhelmingly to get The bone to G5 will mostly leave G5 school playing a token game against the 5 seed school which had a legit gripe about not being in the top 4. Look at those 8 years of playoff FB and make a case that leaving G5 schools out was a big problem. Or a factor in the outcome. In clear language this proposal is "overwhelming to get more P5 schools in the money round." Not any other reason. That refers to the motive of P5 schools to expand the tournament. What do you think their motive is anyway?
This is really simple they want to get more game revenue shares.
In addition to reading problems and misquoting, and math not so good about the number of teams involved, you are in addition underestimating the gain to the P5 since winning teams get multiple games. Some possibly 4 games, the top seeds now getting possibly 3.
Let's make it clear for you and calculate game revenue and compare to the current playoff.
It is most often going to be 10 or 11 P5 schools in (instead of 4). That means instead of 3 big TV games currently for 4 P5 schools at most. P5 teams get 4 shares possibly in the first round, plus 2 more in the final game.
NOW, they may share in as many as 4 first round games (involving 7 teams), as many as 4 second round games (8 teams sharing possibly) , 2 semifinal games (4 teams sharing) and the final game (2 teams).
Let's see now that could be a ratio possibly of 21 shares of game revenue as opposed to currently a max of 6 shares. That is a hell of lot of tournament revenue generated when these games may be far more lucrative than regular season games and regular bowl games.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 14, 2021 12:31:01 GMT -6
If the G5 conferences are considered D1, every D1 conference champion has to have a spot in the playoffs. Okay, except the P5 conferences aren't guaranteed a spot either. You could see seasons where the PAC 12 or even the Big 12 don't have a single school in this playoff. Now they are not guaranteed and pretty likely outside the top 4. But, but under the new setup they would almost surely be included most years, rarely excluded. ONLY if two G5 conference winners were higher ranked than the B12 or Pac whatever it is.
This helps the weaker P5 conferences, and favors them over independents.
|
|
|
Post by halftime on Jun 14, 2021 13:42:08 GMT -6
"Adding a playoff series means in most years 7 more P5 teams get in," How is that "overwhelming more" than 4 out of 4 ? First of all that is not 7 total teams in instead of 4. It is possibly 11 teams instead of possibly 4.
But you miss the point in addition to bad math, you just don't read well. Here is what I said: In the eight seasons analyzed in the source cited above, two G5 schools made it once. No big problem with this last year but don't think it's earthshaking success for G5. This is overwhelmingly to get The bone to G5 will mostly leave G5 school playing a token game against the 5 seed school which had a legit gripe about not being in the top 4. Look at those 8 years of playoff FB and make a case that leaving G5 schools out was a big problem. Or a factor in the outcome. In clear language this proposal is "overwhelming to get more P5 schools in the money round." Not any other reason. That refers to the motive of P5 schools to expand the tournament. What do you think their motive is anyway?
This is really simple they want to get more game revenue shares.
In addition to reading problems and misquoting, and math not so good about the number of teams involved, you are in addition underestimating the gain to the P5 since winning teams get multiple games. Some possibly 4 games, the top seeds now getting possibly 3.
Let's make it clear for you and calculate game revenue and compare to the current playoff.
It is most often going to be 10 or 11 P5 schools in (instead of 4). That means instead of 3 big TV games currently for 4 P5 schools at most. P5 teams get 4 shares possibly in the first round, plus 2 more in the final game.
NOW, they may share in as many as 4 first round games (involving 7 teams), as many as 4 second round games (8 teams sharing possibly) , 2 semifinal games (4 teams sharing) and the final game (2 teams).
Let's see now that could be a ratio possibly of 21 shares of game revenue as opposed to currently a max of 6 shares. That is a hell of lot of tournament revenue generated when these games may be far more lucrative than regular season games and regular bowl games.
Sorry but most is not "overwhelmingly more" than all. You are so dumb it's unbelievable. The new system is about as equitable as it can get and still be fair to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 14, 2021 14:24:07 GMT -6
Reading comprehension persists.
The profit motive is clearly overwhelmingly more a reason than anything else for them to like this and approve it.
You really think the P5 cares much about "fairness?" You think that was their altruistic motive?
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jun 14, 2021 15:31:53 GMT -6
Reading comprehension persists. The profit motive is clearly overwhelmingly more a reason than anything else for them to like this and approve it. You really think the P5 cares much about "fairness?" You think that was their altruistic motive? There will be more money for everyone, and the P5 are already getting all the major Bowl revenue anyway. So what exactly is your point again ? You are an idiot. If you don't think this is fair, please share with us how you would do it, or instead STFU.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 14, 2021 18:26:33 GMT -6
Reading comprehension persists. The profit motive is clearly overwhelmingly more a reason than anything else for them to like this and approve it. You really think the P5 cares much about "fairness?" You think that was their altruistic motive? There will be more money for everyone, and the P5 are already getting all the major Bowl revenue anyway. How exactly will "everyone" get their share anyway? What is that small share? How many schools get any share?
Not like the BB tournament where every conference is guaranteed some share, and where non P5 schools are a far greater proportion of the field to start than 1 or 2 of 12.
The P5 will succeed and get even more money which was their motivation to approve this. This will likely kill off minor bowl games where the G5 gets the bulk of their postseason appearances, and may even cut the G5's revenue from early season match ups with P5 schools if those conferences reduce their schedule by a game to accommodate the additional playoff games.
Completely possible the P5 ends up with a greater share of total CFB revenue than they have now.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Jun 14, 2021 21:58:28 GMT -6
It's always about the money.. How this money is divided out is the only question. Is it fair no not really but it's fairer than it was. Most if not all years your going to get a g5 school in. There will be minor bowl casualties so some opps will be taking away. The fairest way would be to include all conference championship but that's not going to happen. Some years you might get three g5 schools in. Most years it will be one. Mark my words the voters will keep g5 teams out of the top 12 if they can
|
|