Agree? Lack of Playoff Expansion Helps SEC, Hurts College Football

[FishDuck Article]

I am still shaking my head at this..."lead the meek to water...."  Your thoughts?

 

Agree? Lack of Playoff Expansion Helps SEC, Hurts College Football

FISHDUCK.COM

---

The more time that passes and this subject comes up, the more I get frosted thinking about it. I was having fun checking the point spread for an upcoming NBA...

 

[Badwater]

Agree. It's a no brainer.

[Haywarduck]

If we take care of our own business it will all work out. What we can't do is put up a pathetic team for the playoffs, like we did with the dawgs, the last time the Pac-12 was in.

 

What we can't do is beg for an expansion and then get spanked. If Oregon becomes an elite program again the rest will take care of itself. This is the kind of stuff we have little control over and does cause angst. 

 

I love how Lanning and company seems focused on creating a team which will compete with the SEC. The first test will come in Atlanta, and I doubt it will be the last. We just need to make sure we get sharper and stronger each time.

 

That article is just background noise in my book. There is a spot available as is, we need to take care of our business!

[Washington Waddler]

     Agree with HD. It’s the same as worrying too much about how much you get payed. Do the job better than  anyone else and the money will follow. Be a contender and they can’t deny you.

[30Duck]

I agree with the "staleness" settling in the same way as Sankey and Paul Finebaum have realized it, the reason the Playoffs have been called "the Invitational". The sport has become all about getting to the Natty and limiting the number of teams that get the chance is bad for the sport. 

[GODUCKS15]

HD is spot on. I get the "Lets expand" idea but what that really does is say "Hey my teams not good enough to make it on their own". Expanding the playoffs only allows those that wouldn't make it to make it and still lose. Should a 9-3 P12 team deserve to be there?

No 10-2, 9-3 P12 Champ will ever win the CFP. 

Money would be the only reason for expansion right now concerning the P12

 

For the most part the P12 has stunk up the bowl season for quite a few years. It's hard to argue for expansion when P12 teams lose so many mediocre bowl games. 

 

 

IMO it boils down to win your conference with 1 loss and you should be in. Unfortunately in the P12 that doesn't happen very often because there simply just aren't any teams good enough to do that on a regular basis. 

 

 

Win your games and you earn the right to get there.

Edited May 14, 2022 by GODUCKS15

[Steven A]

The article is complete BS.

 

Why, you may ask.  Because it did not address the fact that an expansion last year would have given ESPN a monopoly on the rights for a few years starting immediately.

 

By delaying, there will be competitive bidding by Fox, CBS and whomever may decide to come to the table.

 

As we know, competitive bidding means more $$$ for everyone.

 

So, while the premise of the article is correct, it leaves out the most important piece of the pie.  Of course, since the SEC and ESPN share the same sheets, Stankey ignored the peeping elephant in the room.

 

So, short term, Pac 12 & Big 12 lose, long term we'll get back to the table.

[Vandownbytheriverduck]

But what is the Pac 12 response?

Continuing to put the conference at a disadvantage

 

While the SEC schedules late season out of conference patsy games to rest up the PAC 12 is gunning for each other one extra week. It’s hurt before and will hurt again. 

 

why the pac 12 continues to put its teams at a scheduling disadvantage is beyond comprehension.

[Drake]

Limiting a playoff to 4 teams definitely hurts college football. When we finally received a 4 team playoff format many cheered. However, a mythical National Championship looks better than what we have today from a monetary standpoint. 
 

The current CFP playoff system needs to be expanded, or abandoned altogether. College football has found out that simply adding teams to the playoff format is more complex when all variables that go into implementing that decision are taken into account. 

University of Oregon last March projected revenues of $45 million and expenses of $108 million for their athletic budget. Actual revenues are different than projections. An environment where there is less interest in college sports that generate revenue does not bode well for the long run. 

 

Conferences need to be able to pay their bills for their athletic budgets. However, in the scheme of things, the amount of money spent vs. revenue generated is problematic for many Universities.

 

Btw…U of O had a profit of around $250,000 for 2021…tough to fund a capital replacement account with $250,000 profit.

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Drake

[DanLduck]

On 5/14/2022 at 10:56 AM, Drake said:

Limiting a playoff to 4 teams definitely hurts college football. When we finally received a 4 team playoff format many cheered. However, a mythical National Championship looks better than what we have today from a monetary standpoint. 
 

The current CFP playoff system needs to be expanded, or abandoned altogether. College football has found out that simply adding teams to the playoff format is more complex when all variables that go into implementing that decision are taken into account. 

University of Oregon last March projected revenues of $45 million and expenses of $108 million for their athletic budget. Actual revenues are different than projections. An environment where there is less interest in college sports that generate revenue does not bode well for the long run. 

 

Conferences need to be able to pay their bills for their athletic budgets. However, in the scheme of things, the amount of money spent vs. revenue generated is problematic for many Universities.

 

Btw…U of O had a profit of around $250,000 for 2021…tough to fund a capital replacement account with $250,000 profit.

 

Better than a debt, though.

[ICamel]

On 5/14/2022 at 10:56 AM, Drake said:

Btw…U of O had a profit of around $250,000 for 2021…tough to fund a capital replacement account with $250,000 profit.

Net surplus would be better terminology than "profit" in a "not for profit" institution.

[DanLduck]

I'd like a Natty, same as all Duck fans. But making that prize the all or nothing goal, is why college football has gone stale.

 

The reality is only one of a handful of schools can win it each year, and it's always the same schools. 

No matter how many teams you add to a "playoff" we know in all likelihood it will end up being the same teams.

 

And most fan bases realize this.

I think that is why so few schools in the Pac12 are willing to enter the "arms race" for football supremecy. Same with the ACC and even the B1G. If only one or two schools really have a chance, why make such a financial commitment to chase it?

 

The race for 1st has made all the bowl games meaningless. That hurts the fans. I used to love traveling in late Dec for some fun with other fans. Better yet if it was New Years. Now if we make the playoffs, which game do you go to?

 

I'm sure if 12 teams make a playoff, more fans will be happy at first. But in the end, the same teams will win it all.

This isn't bball. There will not be a "Cinderella". So, eventually, the playoffs will be stale.

 

The desire to be #1 has made losing a single game the ruin of a season. We need to make football fun again. The mighty $$ is taking the fun out of it.

I know winning is more fun than losing, but somehow we need to make the Natty a bonus, and not the main thing.

 

Getting a good education. Learning to be a team player. Developing into good citizens. These are worthwhile goals and attainable at every school. These should be the main thing.

 

I know I'm a "Pollyanna", but thanks for listening to my rant.

[Drake]

On 5/14/2022 at 12:00 PM, ICamel said:

Net surplus would be better terminology than "profit" in a "not for profit" institution.

Net asset becomes the proper term.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Drake

[Nevada Dawg]

I posted the target article to Charles because I knew it would generate discussion and raise a few hackles. I grew up in California and was a lifelong fan of the PAC-12 and its predecessors (Remember Snow White and the 7 dwarfs) and have watched its gradual slide in the  football arena over the past 20 years. There are several reasons for that in my opinion but that is beside the point. Given the system we have, two few teams have a  realistic  shot at the playoffs.

 

Sure an Oregon or an SC will occasionally break through and land one of the coveted 4 spots. But recruiting out West is going to have to be a lot better for that to happen consistently. Comparing talent on rosters of Pac 12 teams begs the issue. Dudes want to play with dudes, and this is why Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Texas A$M, Clemson, Notre Dame and (formerly) Oklahoma were so darned attractive to recruits. You don't build  championship rosters with a few 4- and 5-star recruits. You need bunches of them in all your recruiting classes.

 

I love college football but it is becoming a bit stale. I want to see more  conferences represented (especially the PAC-12) and the 12-team playoff format is a way to get that ball rolling. The cool thing about that proposal  is that the first-round four games would be played in the home stadiums  of the higher seeded teams, with the top overall four seeds getting  a bye. Talk about juicing fan enthusiasm!

 

If more recruits  see more teams in the playoff picture, this should help to diminish the view  that "I have to go to one of the 5 or 6 schools listed above to have any chance of my team being relevant." Over time, this may level the talent playing field and eventually give more schools a realistic shot of winning a Natty now and then. 

 

Every one of my points can be counterargued, but the status quo is not good for  college football. Oh, and I get the indignation over the "lead the meek to water" quote in the target article. I felt it as well.

[30Duck]

On 5/14/2022 at 12:08 PM, DanLduck said:

, but thanks for listening to my rant.

DanLduck, I know a rant, and that was no rant! The idea to have the championship decided on the field sounded good. But it was fun back when after the games were played everybody waited for the polls to come out, and sometimes they weren't the same and that made it even more fun!

 

It is the only way that Washington got its'ship, but that shouldn't mean it was a terrible system. Oregon probably would have played Miami; it was a computer decided it should be Miami. The BCS and now the ESECPN Show has made football the mess it is now. Expansion isn't the cure, but it's a step. 

[GODUCKS15]

Get rid of the CFP committee so who goes doesn't have a human factor involved. But then what would ESPN have to do on Sunday afternoons if they weren't trying to make money from their reveal shows?

Bust up the football conferences and make 4 conferences and the winner of those goes to the CFP.

 

 

We don't need 8-12 teams vying for the title. There would be plenty of action with 4 conferences having divisional playoff games to determine who goes to the CFP.

Getting rid of the human decision making factor would go a long way towards more fairness as to who does or doesn't go.

[Flyin Vee]

the BCS model was broken from the beginning. 5 power leagues 4 slots with hokey pokey requirements for non power 5 teams. The framework encourages media perception manipulation, see TV contracts.  Anything short of league champions is questionable in the shoulda, coulda, and woulda argument.

[Tandaian]

4 teams for 5 conferences doesn't work, however it does limit the money pouring into the SEC.  If we go to 8-12 teams and there isn't a cap on money going to a conference, the bias for SEC teams will make it 2 or 3 times worse.  The SEC is the only team to have 2 teams make the playoff in the same year.  I'm not going to count ND and Clemson in the COVID season.

 

If we go to 8 with the 5 top ranked conference champs given an automatic birth, the SEC is going to pull in more teams on average because of the SEC bias.

ESPN rankings before bowls

2021:  Alabama, UGA, Michigan, tOSU, Cincy, Pitt, ND, Baylor

2020:  Alabama, Florida, tOSU, Iowa St. Oklahoma, USC, Clemson, ND

2019:  LSU, UGA, tOSU, Wisconsin, Oregon, Oklahoma, Clemson, Baylor

2018:  Alabama, UGA, tOSU, Michigan, Washington, Oklahoma, Clemson, ND

 

B1G TEN and SEC both would have averaged 2 teams per year the last 4 seasons.

 

Move to 12 and the SEC will likely average 3 teams and maybe 4.  The first 2 teams, from each conference, get full money credit, but then there has to be a decrease for each additional team.  Also, ND should never get a full payout.  Join a league already!

 

This article, 

How Much Money Can An Expanded College Football Playoff Generate?

ATHLETICDIRECTORU.COM

---

AthleticDirectorU and Navigate present financial projections for an expanded 12-team College Football Playoff (CFP).

 says the SEC would have averaged 400+ mil with a 12 team playoff, the B1G TEN 300+ mil with a 12 team playoff.  The SEC are the big boys at the table, but if they don't have the rest of college football, they are insigificant.

[Mike West]

On 5/14/2022 at 7:20 AM, Haywarduck said:

If we take care of our own business it will all work out. What we can't do is put up a pathetic team for the playoffs, like we did with the dawgs, the last time the Pac-12 was in.

 

What I saw was a very , very solid defensive effort that controlled Alabama's offense, and spotty QB play.  Remember, one of Bama's TDs was a pick six.

 

 

That was a very close game through and through.  And UW played Bama far better than we handled tOSU (completely).

 

When it's said we just need to handle business in the regular season, I believe we need to stomp on all but the elite teams in the conference.  No mercy.  

 

The cream of the conference has spent to much time letting mediocre teams believe they have a chance to win.  We need to see Pete Carroll, David  Shaw's and Chip's Oregon teams back in 2010-2012 ( and I hate to say it Chris Peterson's teams in 2015 and 2016 ).

 

 

[Mike West]

On 5/14/2022 at 8:59 AM, 30Duck said:

I agree with the "staleness" settling in the same way as Sankey and Paul Finebaum have realized it, the reason the Playoffs have been called "the Invitational". The sport has become all about getting to the Natty and limiting the number of teams that get the chance is bad for the sport. 

 

The only problem with that is the semifinals are already boring.  The cream teams smoke the pretenders.

 

Now I get that an extra four teams will deliver more dramatic games in the quarterfinals, but the semis have got to get better.

 

So it won't matter much if the SEC dominates in the playoff field (given they already do for the most part now).

 

It's a simple fact: more teams need to up their game.  The rest is noise to me when it comes down to it. If you suck now, you'll suck in the playoffs. If you don't get better, you'll get stomped when the real teams face you.