• The KillerFrogs

Playoff Expansion seems inevitable, my money was not on 12 teams

Zubaz

Member
Why do you think college football is considered to have the best regular season in all of sports?
1). I'm not sure this is true, considering NFL is the most popular sport in the country, dominates college in the regular season ratings, and has a pretty expansive playoff system, but ok I will stipulate to this.

2) There's no reason to believe that the proposed will hurt the regular season and plenty of reason to think it INCREASES it. Pac-12 games haven't really mattered after mid to late October for the last four years. It was a foregone conclusion that the Big 12 was out of the playoffs by late September this year. That wouldn't be the case anymore. G5 games (60+ teams and 30-some games every week with literally no chance of making the current playoffs) are important for the first time since.....uh....ever? Meanwhile the all-important byes basically keep the likelihood of any "rest games" the same as they are now. Not seeing the downside.

There aren't 12 teams even remotely capable of winning a 4-game tournament in major college football.
I think the intrigue about which teams are seeded #9-12 is going to quickly fade once people realize those teams are just fodder for the teams with byes.
Not going to agree on this point at all. You're saying that 2010 Boise at #10 couldn't have possibly made a run? 2008 Ohio State couldn't have gotten hot? 2012 A&M was arguably among the hottest teams in the country at the end of the season, you don't think that team was capable of something? Upsets happen in college ball *all the time*, the idea that the gap between #11 and #7 is so great that nobody would even care to watch them is hooey.

EDIT: You also appear to be arguing team structure and roster depth would remain static, but current elite playoff teams are able to recruit based on that elusive playoff access to score the best recruits. In other words, if an elite level recruit is choosing between Ohio State, Alabama, Miami, and USC, we know two of those teams can sell their playoff history. Expanded playoffs open that up quite a bit to change the equation 5-10 years down the line.
 
Last edited:

CountryFrog

Active Member
People love watching top 12 matchups but only in the regular season with the current playoff format. Top 12 matchups in the playoff will obviously suck and no one will watch. Additionally, no one will want to watch the regular season games anymore either because of those top 12 games in the playoff that they won't care about.



Am I getting that argument right?
 

Wexahu

Full Member
People love watching top 12 matchups but only in the regular season with the current playoff format. Top 12 matchups in the playoff will obviously suck and no one will watch. Additionally, no one will want to watch the regular season games anymore either because of those top 12 games in the playoff that they won't care about.



Am I getting that argument right?

Oh, people will watch, I'm not saying they won't. I'll watch, no doubt. But people will watch about anything. I just remember people complaining about how the semi-final games in a 4-team playoff sucked because a team or two didn't belong and it was a foregone conclusion who would win.

Just going from 2 teams to 4 has gradually resulted in arguably less parity in college football in maybe forever. And I'm sure you'll say, yeah, because the same teams go to the playoffs every year (which they really don't, there's been 11 playoff teams, there hasn't been the same 4 teams go twice). And as far as the sell to recruits, what's easier? Hey, come to Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson or Oklahoma and you'll be in the playoffs every single year almost guaranteed, or come to another school and hey, you might make it once if you're lucky. Personally, I think it's cool that a team like Ohio State can lay a [ Finebaum ] against Purdue on some October Saturday and have that cost them. Keeping it very selective makes every game critical.

And I suppose what is going to happen is all these extra games are just going to further expose the gulf between the elite teams and everyone else (especially the G5 teams). And everyone will still complain. But we'll see.
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
Oh, people will watch, I'm not saying they won't. I'll watch, no doubt. But people will watch about anything. I just remember people complaining about how the semi-final games in a 4-team playoff sucked because a team or two didn't belong and it was a foregone conclusion who would win.

Just going from 2 teams to 4 has gradually resulted in arguably less parity in college football in maybe forever. And I'm sure you'll say, yeah, because the same teams go to the playoffs every year (which they really don't, there's been 11 playoff teams, there hasn't been the same 4 teams go twice). And as far as the sell to recruits, what's easier? Hey, come to Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson or Oklahoma and you'll be in the playoffs every single year almost guaranteed, or come to another school and hey, you might make it once if you're lucky. Personally, I think it's cool that a team like Ohio State can lay a [ #2020 ] against Purdue on some October Saturday and have that cost them. Keeping it very selective makes every game critical.

And I suppose what is going to happen is all these extra games are just going to further expose the gulf between the elite teams and everyone else (especially the G5 teams). And everyone will still complain. But we'll see.
I certainly agree with you that some people will complain no matter what.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I certainly agree with you that some people will complain no matter what.

The irony is I'm one of the few who hasn't complained about the current format, but I'm supposedly the one who complains about everything. And according to another poster, I'm not a "true TCU fan" because I guess I don't buy into the martyrdom complex that a true Frog fan must have.
 

YA

Active Member
The irony is I'm one of the few who hasn't complained about the current format, but I'm supposedly the one who complains about everything. And according to another poster, I'm not a "true TCU fan" because I guess I don't buy into the martyrdom complex that a true Frog fan must have.
At least you got a few things right here. So congrats to you mr. ohio state.

Does the expanded playoff help keep the big 12 viable and a secure place in a P5 conference? I say yes, but being a true Frog fan I know that isn't a martyrdom complex but REALITY!! Your mileage always varies but let us know why you know it hurts the Big 12 and TCU.
 

Froggish

Active Member
I actually don't think playoff expansion helps CFB's middle class which is where TCU squarely falls. CFB success is 99% about Recruiting/Talent Acquisition and Money aka Resources. Virtually everything comes back to those two things. Especially at the sports highest levels. So when considering an expanded playoff, you have to ask yourself who in todays landscape will expansion improve their recruiting pitch the most and who will get the most cash influx?

1. Recruiting / Talent Acquisition - TCU's pitch hardly changes at all. Its had access to the playoff 9 years. It literally can't say anything to a recruit that it couldn't already say other than now we'll get our shot when we have a great season. Its ok but it isn't altering in front of a 5 star and his family. You were probably already saying that.

-Now, if you're BlueBlood that always recruits in the top 15-18 (BCR +45/50 type teams) you can look at a recruit and say, come here...we'll be in the playoff conversation EVERY year. I can virtually guarantee you we will play in the playoff...

-G5..Yup, you just drastically altered their pitch and in doing so guess who's pocket those G5s are going to get their best recruits from? Guess where the TV money they began to glean is going to come from? Not Bama and the SEC.....It will be TCU's, PAC, B12 ETC. If your a solid G5 program (There's about 10) you can now say, we can get in, you don't have to go TCU, Baylor, Ok St, or Neb, you actually have a better chance at a playoff here than those schools. We play 2-4 decent teams a year. Finishing undefeated will be way easier. Guess what else, since we now access to the playoff, television money is now going to come calling. We are going to sink all of that into our facilities and they'll be as good as any in the country. Oh yah...and you'll be a King here! Start right away..blah blah..The point is this gives a G5 team the same ammo that a middling P5 team has and many will erase and surpass low level and middling P5 programs in recruiting and performance.

2. Money / Resources - Give me a break we already know the SEC is going to get richer. They are going to get 4 team in almost every year (They've avg 1.25 in a 4 team era) and that will be a massive financial haul.....Same with the Big 10 who will get another 3 in most years,

So now you have - Notre Dame in most years, and one G5 Team almost every year. If you counting that takes 3 conf champs and 6 at larges bids off the board... That mean the ACC, B12, and PAC will literally only get their champs in......

So tell me again how playoff expansion is good for TCU? It isn't. Its not necessarily bad either. It maybe better for football as a whole. It also probably stabilizes the B12. Certainly no reason to expand now..but the reality is we aren't any closer to playoff game than we were. Nothing really changes for TCU.
 
Last edited:

Wexahu

Full Member
At least you got a few things right here. So congrats to you mr. ohio state.

Does the expanded playoff help keep the big 12 viable and a secure place in a P5 conference? I say yes, but being a true Frog fan I know that isn't a martyrdom complex but REALITY!! Your mileage always varies but let us know why you know it hurts the Big 12 and TCU.

It doesn't hurt, or help, the Big 12 IMO. Do you really think if the Big 12 gets 1-2 playoff teams every year while the B10 and SEC get 2-3 that's going to be enough to satisfy people? When the SEC lands three teams to the Big 12's one (which will happen someday) you think there won't be a bunch of chatter about how the Big 12 won't last? There's nothing wrong with the Big 12 today other than it's self-identity crisis. 3rd highest payouts per team, better than the P12 and ACC. Best schedule structure of any conference in football and bball. The Big 12 is never going to make as much as the Big 10 or SEC, whether the playoff is 4 teams or 48 teams. If making the most possible money for OU and UT ends up being the driving factor in conference affiliation decisions, the conference is toast anyway.

The Mr. Ohio State stuff is pathetic btw.
 

satis1103

DAOTONPYH EHT LIAH LLA
So tell me again how playoff expansion is good for TCU? It isn't.
Nothing really changes for TCU?

It's simple. Envision any future season where TCU wins the B12, with one loss. It's happened before, and barring a massive program implosion, it will happen again. And lets make the very reasonable assumption that at least some recruits we compete for are interested in the exposure and excitement of potentially being in the NCAA playoffs.

In a 4 team current scenario, our conference opponents, specifically OU and UT, can point to us when talking to recruits and say "TCU has to be undefeated to make the playoffs, even if they win the B12". They will reference 2014 and we will not really have much of an argument against that. After all, no guarantees the P12 or ACC champ won't also have one/fewer losses and be better ranked, any given year. They will have actual evidence on the other hand that a blue blood like OU will make the playoffs at 12-1, maybe even be in the running with 2 losses.

In the proposed scenario, a 12-1 TCU, B12 champ (or 12-1 B12 runner up for that matter) makes the playoffs, end of sentence, full stop. The recruiting message goes away, and even better - us fans don't have to sweat selection Sunday in such a scenario. Maybe I'm missing something, but that's blatantly obvious improvement to me.
 

Jared7

Active Member
The proposed new structure is obviously beneficial to TCU for a wide variety of reasons. TCU would have qualified 8 out of the last 25 seasons under this system but qualified instead for zero under the BCS and the current 4-team invitational system. 5 of those were because we were the highest ranked non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 team (2000, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011) and 3 because we would have been at large selections (2008, 2014, 2015). In addition, the proposed system guarantees the Big12 champ a bid whereas, as 2014 demonstrated, the current system does not (unless your name is Oklahoma, or in theory, Texas). To make the playoffs, we would either have to win the Big 12 or finish in the Top 11-12. This is an undeniable massive change.

Financially, it will also benefit all Big 12 schools. The Wilner article projects that the payouts for each of the 6 units will be $333 million per year, which, divided by 10 Big 12 schools, will mean $33.3 million per year. 14-team conferences like the SEC/Big10/ACC will also earn $333 million, but divided by 14, that is $23.6 million. Unless the distribution formula is changed, that means that each Big 12 school will be making $10 million per year more than each 14-team conference school from the new system.

But that's just the "conference payout" portion of the formula. In addition, the P5 conferences earn money because of their "contract bowls." That is, Big 12 schools earn about $6 million per year from the conference payout portion and about $3 million (it varies per big bowl and because in some years, that bowl is part of the playoff) for a total of $9 million per year. We don't know for sure how the bowls will be included as yet, but the contract bowl portion will almost certainly remain in the formula in some form. We'll see. But that's even more money (also divided by 10 as compared to 14).

Access-wise and money-wise, it will be a windfall for everyone, but especially for the Big 12, who has been left out of 3 CFP's. Now, the champ is a lock, the 2nd place team has a good chance and it's conceivable that there could be a 3rd. The 9-game schedule plus a CCG that is a re-match militates against both a 2nd and 3rd team (the 2nd team will "probably" have at least 2 losses), but that's not a function of the proposed system but the Big 12's rules. The benefits are undeniable. Did some, perhaps, benefit more? Maybe. But that's a different argument than that there is no benefit at all.
 

Froggish

Active Member
Nothing really changes for TCU?

It's simple. Envision any future season where TCU wins the B12, with one loss. It's happened before, and barring a massive program implosion, it will happen again. And lets make the very reasonable assumption that at least some recruits we compete for are interested in the exposure and excitement of potentially being in the NCAA playoffs.

In a 4 team current scenario, our conference opponents, specifically OU and UT, can point to us when talking to recruits and say "TCU has to be undefeated to make the playoffs, even if they win the B12". They will reference 2014 and we will not really have much of an argument against that. After all, no guarantees the P12 or ACC champ won't also have one/fewer losses and be better ranked, any given year. They will have actual evidence on the other hand that a blue blood like OU will make the playoffs at 12-1, maybe even be in the running with 2 losses.

In the proposed scenario, a 12-1 TCU, B12 champ (or 12-1 B12 runner up for that matter) makes the playoffs, end of sentence, full stop. The recruiting message goes away, and even better - us fans don't have to sweat selection Sunday in such a scenario. Maybe I'm missing something, but that's blatantly obvious improvement to me.

Now that the B12 title game exist I think a 12-1 Big 12 champ TCU makes the playoff today and if winning the B12 title is the only scenario that a team like TCU can make it in then well, it’s not any different than today.

I honestly the math tells us that the PAC, B12, and ACC will be fighting for only 1 at large in most years. That means it’s going to be B12 title or bust for TCU and I just don’t see that working out any differently than now.

Having said, if the B12 is getting 2 teams in every year then that certainly would change things. The math just feels against us
 

asleep003

Active Member
So we travel to a CCG(or not/while eliminating it)... then 3 more trips to the finale, as a Big12 Championship is no Guarantee of a bye... so count on 4 post season games to get to a NCG game... brutal.
 

Froggish

Active Member
The proposed new structure is obviously beneficial to TCU for a wide variety of reasons. TCU would have qualified 8 out of the last 25 seasons under this system but qualified instead for zero under the BCS and the current 4-team invitational system. 5 of those were because we were the highest ranked non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 team (2000, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011) and 3 because we would have been at large selections (2008, 2014, 2015). In addition, the proposed system guarantees the Big12 champ a bid whereas, as 2014 demonstrated, the current system does not (unless your name is Oklahoma, or in theory, Texas). To make the playoffs, we would either have to win the Big 12 or finish in the Top 11-12. This is an undeniable massive change.

Financially, it will also benefit all Big 12 schools. The Wilner article projects that the payouts for each of the 6 units will be $333 million per year, which, divided by 10 Big 12 schools, will mean $33.3 million per year. 14-team conferences like the SEC/Big10/ACC will also earn $333 million, but divided by 14, that is $23.6 million. Unless the distribution formula is changed, that means that each Big 12 school will be making $10 million per year more than each 14-team conference school from the new system.

But that's just the "conference payout" portion of the formula. In addition, the P5 conferences earn money because of their "contract bowls." That is, Big 12 schools earn about $6 million per year from the conference payout portion and about $3 million (it varies per big bowl and because in some years, that bowl is part of the playoff) for a total of $9 million per year. We don't know for sure how the bowls will be included as yet, but the contract bowl portion will almost certainly remain in the formula in some form. We'll see. But that's even more money (also divided by 10 as compared to 14).

Access-wise and money-wise, it will be a windfall for everyone, but especially for the Big 12, who has been left out of 3 CFP's. Now, the champ is a lock, the 2nd place team has a good chance and it's conceivable that there could be a 3rd. The 9-game schedule plus a CCG that is a re-match militates against both a 2nd and 3rd team (the 2nd team will "probably" have at least 2 losses), but that's not a function of the proposed system but the Big 12's rules. The benefits are undeniable. Did some, perhaps, benefit more? Maybe. But that's a different argument than that there is no benefit at all.

Your G5 references are irrelevant as it isn’t the competitive landscape we are currently in and it also uses the false assumptions that the ranking outcomes used pre 2012 are the same way teams are ranked today. They are most certainly not. In many of those years we could have been the highest ranked G5 and not be a top 6 conference winner.

You are correct in that the conference will share a lot more money but the presumption that the B12 will get more than 1 team in the playoff any more than 30% of the time feels unrealistic to me. I would wager without any hesitation that the B12 has a less than 10% chance of ever getting 3 teams in.

Money will pour into college football at every level because of this playoff. It’s relative in that if everyone is getting richer your differentiation doesn’t exist any differently than it does today.

I think at the end of the day where most people disagree with me is that I see CFB outcomes as largely driven by Recruiting, Money/Resources, and Popularity and by those standards I don’t see how TCUs relation to the rest of the sport will be much if any different than today. Is the playoff going to make us wealthier? Heck yes and that’s good for TCU the school but my argument is strictly regarding football and from that perspective it doesn’t change where we are in the pecking order of the sport.

Having said all that…I’d like to think you’re right. I’m just not there.
 
Last edited:

Jared7

Active Member
Your G5 references are irrelevant as it isn’t the competitive landscape we are currently in and it also uses the false assumptions that the ranking outcomes used pre 2012 are the same way teams are ranked today. They are most certainly not. In many of those years we could have been the highest ranked G5 and not be a top 6 conference winner.

You are correct in that the conference will share a lot more money but the presumption that the B12 will get more than 1 team in the playoff any more than 30% of the time feels unrealistic to me. I would wager without any hesitation that the B12 has a less than 10% chance of ever getting 3 teams in.

Money will pour into college football at every level because of this playoff. It’s relative in that if everyone is getting richer your differentiation doesn’t exist any differently than it does today.

I think at the end of the day where most people disagree with me is that I see CFB outcomes as largely driven by Recruiting, Money/Resources, and Popularity and by those standards I don’t see how TCUs relation to the rest of the sport will be much if any different than today. Is the playoff going to make us wealthier? Heck yes and that’s good for TCU the school but my argument is strictly regarding football and from that perspective it doesn’t change where we are in the pecking order of the sport.

Having said all that…I’d like to think you’re right. I’m just not there.
I'm glad that you hope that I'm right, but otherwise, your response is bizarre. TCU would, in fact, have qualified for the proposed 12-team CFP format 8 times in the last 25 years. This is not "irrelevant" or "false." There have been numerous articles and analyses showing what would have happened and they all agree on this; your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. You may be confused by the fact that TCU might not have been a Top 6 champ - this is irrelevant because the number of power conferences has decreased (from 6 to 5). In the years I mentioned, TCU, as the highest rated champ of a non-BCS/non-AQ conference, would have qualified.

You bemoan the possibility of the Big 12 not getting multiple teams in the proposed 12-team system. In the BCS era, the Big 12 got 5 teams in the BCS Championship game out of 18 years. And in the CFP era, the Big 12 got 4 teams (all OU) in a 4-team system in 7 years. That's a grand total of 9 Big 12 participants in 25 years. In the proposed system, for the next 25 years, that would be at least 25 teams, which is inarguably a much better number. The Big 12 champ, which could be TCU, will always get a shot to settle it on the field in the proposed system.

You were earlier arguing that the SEC would get richer - yes it will, but not by as much as the per school payout for the Big 12 schools. Big 12 schools will, yet again, inarguably, get more. Only if the distribution formula is changed will that be inaccurate.

Most observers believe that football outcomes depend upon blocking, tackling, running, passing and scoring points - you seem to believe that resources, recruiting and popularity are more important. You're right about that as it applied to the BCS system and the current 4-team playoff system - but under the proposed system, things will be (more) decided on the field. TCU (and teams like TCU) would now actually have a chance to change the pecking order by winning a NC by scoring more points than the other team.
 
Last edited:

Wexahu

Full Member
Your G5 references are irrelevant as it isn’t the competitive landscape we are currently in and it also uses the false assumptions that the ranking outcomes used pre 2012 are the same way teams are ranked today. They are most certainly not. In many of those years we could have been the highest ranked G5 and not be a top 6 conference winner.

You are correct in that the conference will share a lot more money but the presumption that the B12 will get more than 1 team in the playoff any more than 30% of the time feels unrealistic to me. I would wager without any hesitation that the B12 has a less than 10% chance of ever getting 3 teams in.

Money will pour into college football at every level because of this playoff. It’s relative in that if everyone is getting richer your differentiation doesn’t exist any differently than it does today.

I think at the end of the day where most people disagree with me is that I see CFB outcomes as largely driven by Recruiting, Money/Resources, and Popularity and by those standards I don’t see how TCUs relation to the rest of the sport will be much if any different than today. Is the playoff going to make us wealthier? Heck yes and that’s good for TCU the school but my argument is strictly regarding football and from that perspective it doesn’t change where we are in the pecking order of the sport.

Having said all that…I’d like to think you’re right. I’m just not there.

I assume the CCGs will stay? If so, the B12 needs to drop theirs if they want two teams in the playoffs in most years. Guaranteeing that one of the two teams with the best record in the league loses its last game is a recipe for only getting one team in. There goes what, $3-4 million per team that that game brings in?
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I'm glad that you hope that I'm right, but otherwise, your response is bizarre. TCU would, in fact, have qualified for the proposed 12-team CFP format 8 times in the last 25 years. This is not "irrelevant" or "false." There have been numerous articles and analyses showing what would have happened and they all agree on this; your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. You may be confused by the fact that TCU might not have been a Top 6 champ - this is irrelevant because the number of power conferences has decreased (from 6 to 5). In the years I mentioned, TCU, as the highest rated champ of a non-BCS/non-AQ conference, would have qualified.

You bemoan the possibility of the Big 12 not getting multiple teams in the proposed 12-team system. In the BCS era, the Big 12 got 5 teams in the BCS Championship game out of 18 years. And in the CFP era, the Big 12 got 4 teams (all OU) in a 4-team system in 7 years. That's a grand total of 9 Big 12 participants in 25 years. In the proposed system, for the next 25 years, that would be at least 25 teams, which is inarguably a much better number. The Big 12 champ, which could be TCU, will always get a shot to settle it on the field in the proposed system.

You were earlier arguing that the SEC would get richer - yes it will, but not by as much as the per school payout for the Big 12 schools. Big 12 schools will, yet again, inarguably, get more. Only if the distribution formula is changes will that be inaccurate.

Most observers believe that football outcomes depend upon blocking, tackling, running, passing and scoring points - you seem to believe that resources, recruiting and popularity are more important. You're right about that as it applied to the BCS system and the current 4-team playoff system - but under the proposed system, things will be (more) decided on the field. TCU (and teams like TCU) would now actually have a chance to change the pecking order by winning a NC by scoring more points than the other team.

The reality is TCU has a very, very slim chance of ever winning a NC with a 4-team playoff. At 12 teams, that very, very slim chance goes to essentially no chance.

Had a much better chance of winning a title before there ever was a playoff at all, like BYU, Colorado and Georgia Tech did.
 

Jared7

Active Member
The reality is TCU has a very, very slim chance of ever winning a NC with a 4-team playoff. At 12 teams, that very, very slim chance goes to essentially no chance.

Had a much better chance of winning a title before there ever was a playoff at all, like BYU, Colorado and Georgia Tech did.
I completely disagree. The reality is that TCU, under the BCS system and the 4-team Invitational, has a very very very very very very very very slim chance of ever becoming eligible to play for a NC; essentially amounting to no chance whatsoever. As the past 25 years have proven. Any chance at all is better than the no chance whatsoever we've had to deal with for the past quarter of a century.

Agreed on your 2nd paragraph.

And on your prior post, the Big 12 should consider having only 8 conference games if they want to game the possibility of more teams in the proposed system. The 8-game thing is why the SEC looks arbitrarily better each year and the Big 12 and Pac 12 arguably worse.
 
Top