| NEWS Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said he only supports football playoff expansion if Power 5 conference champs guaranteed spot - The Register-Guard

S

SEC Sports


NEW YORK — A Pac-12 team has made the College Football Playoff just twice in six seasons and none of the last three.
If anyone should be leading the charge toward expanding the current four-team model, you would think it would be Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott.

“I completely get that it would really release the pressure of being the one that’s been on the outside looking the most in the first six years to say that automatically we’ve got our champion (in),″ Scott said Thursday. “But we also have agreements through 2026 (the championship game) that I think will be very challenging for us to all agree how we’re going to amend and change.“n if Power 5

Scott, in New York for a forum on college athletics sponsored by Sports Business Journal, said while changes to the playoff are already being discussed behind the scenes, being halfway through the current 12-year television rights contract with ESPN means there is no urgency.

“I’ve tended to see in my 10 years here these things don’t change until they have to,” Scott said.

Last year at this time, speculation about playoff expansion was the loudest it has been since this postseason format was implemented in 2014. The Big Ten having its champion left out for a second consecutive season had Commissioner Jim Delany and coaches and athletic directors in that conference grumbling publicly about the selection process.

The university presidents who oversee the playoff released a statement the day of last season’s national championship game that tamped down the chatter, saying it was “way too soon″ to know if expansion was even a possibility.

This year, the four teams for the playoff fell into place without controversy after Utah lost the Pac-12 title game to Oregon. That left the Pac-12 as the only Power Five league with a champion that had lost more than one game.

“The committee’s gotten a little luck,” Scott said.


″And this year, to be the one league of the five that doesn’t have a team in it, that’s harmful to our positioning, our brand and everything we’ve got,” he said. “First and foremost, we’ve got to be better. And we’re engaged in: Is there a better mousetrap going forward?″

Scott said the Pac-12 would only support expansion if it meant guaranteeing spots for the champions of each Power Five conference. The Pac-12 would also be protective of the Rose Bowl, its longtime partner and a showcase that dates to 1902.

Scott added he would like to see more consistency among the conferences in how they schedule if the playoff format is going to change.
The Pac-12, Big 12 and Big Ten all play nine conference games. The Southeastern Conference and Atlantic Coast Conference each play eight conference games. The SEC and ACC have never missed the playoff.

Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby said he would like each conference to require its members to play at least 10 games against Power Five competition, regardless of whether those were conference or nonconference opponents.

Scott said he would support that, but he also noted much more goes into scheduling than playoff positioning. Across major college football, schools are trying to schedule more appealing games as a way to reverse declining attendance trends.

“I think people assume that our athletics directors and our football coaches are fixated on the playoff more than they are,″ Scott said. “So when it comes to schedule, they’re focused on: What do the student-athletes want? What’s going to attract them to my school? What does my fan base need and require? How does where I play and who I play affect student recruitment and alumni engagement?″

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has generally steered away from talk of playoff expansion. He said this week that four teams works.

“There is a reason four was the number chosen,” Sankey said. “That doesn’t mean it’s perfect for everybody, but certainly it’s fulfilled the expectations.”
 
I have to say, I have thought about it multiple times in the past few weeks. I'm really glad there is a 4 team play off.

With OSU, LSU, & Clemson, all undefeated. This would have been disastrous had we still had the BCS.

I know expansion will happen, there is too much money involved for it not to. My question is how do you do it? I think playing the first rounds at home stadiums is the way to go. This will keep some semblance of allowing the average joe fan to attend a big game. I see the play off headed the direction of the super bowl. It will eventually be so expensive that corporate sponsors will have all the tickets due to sponsorship and only those involved with sponsorship, or the very rich will be able to attend. The fact that there are multiple games/travel/etc, makes this a difficult undertaking for the average fan already.

And Larry Scott should have been fired years ago. I think it is apropos this jack-wagon represents the conference on the left coast. I wish I was as bad at my job and still got paid like that.
 
I have to say, I have thought about it multiple times in the past few weeks. I'm really glad there is a 4 team play off.

With OSU, LSU, & Clemson, all undefeated. This would have been disastrous had we still had the BCS.

I know expansion will happen, there is too much money involved for it not to. My question is how do you do it? I think playing the first rounds at home stadiums is the way to go. This will keep some semblance of allowing the average joe fan to attend a big game. I see the play off headed the direction of the super bowl. It will eventually be so expensive that corporate sponsors will have all the tickets due to sponsorship and only those involved with sponsorship, or the very rich will be able to attend. The fact that there are multiple games/travel/etc, makes this a difficult undertaking for the average fan already.

And Larry Scott should have been fired years ago. I think it is apropos this jack-wagon represents the conference on the left coast. I wish I was as bad at my job and still got paid like that.
Yep...will happen....but...not with a guarentee spot for conference champion....or group of 4 or whatever its called...has to be some guidelines......still get best 4..6..8... in playoffs...
 
Best four teams. It doesn't matter if you're undefeated or not. Don't tell me an undefeated PAC12 team is equal to a one-loss SEC team. Best means best, not the best/better record.
 
Ever since I first heard about it recently, I am a lot more for getting rid of the playoff and bringing back the BCS as a +1 a week after all bowls are played. Expanding the playoff makes the other bowls even less important (note how hard it is to get folks up for Bama's bowl this year even though many might have their first comparatively affordable chance to go to a Bama bowl in years). Adding the BCS+1 makes all bowls more important.
 
Ever since I first heard about it recently, I am a lot more for getting rid of the playoff and bringing back the BCS as a +1 a week after all bowls are played. Expanding the playoff makes the other bowls even less important (note how hard it is to get folks up for Bama's bowl this year even though many might have their first comparatively affordable chance to go to a Bama bowl in years). Adding the BCS+1 makes all bowls more important.

Regardless of how the two final teams are picked, there will be people who aren't happy. Four teams, eight teams, sixteen teams or pick two teams after the bowl games - somebody won't be happy. If your plan was in place this year, and LSU, tOSU, Clemson and OU all win, who goes into the championship?
 
Best four teams. It doesn't matter if you're undefeated or not. Don't tell me an undefeated PAC12 team is equal to a one-loss SEC team. Best means best, not the best/better record.
Buttttttt..........if apac 12 team was undefeated......they will be in four chosen over 1 loss from other conferences.....or a ND and their...snicker...snicker....ACC affliction....
sure 4 is fine....but wait til it’s undefeated pac12 and undefeated ACC champs....ND........
Left out is big 10 or sec team with a loss...
O yes....will happen... when pac 12 and big 12 realize...screw this ooc competitive game ... easterns, westerns, and centrals will have great paydays
 
Regardless of how the two final teams are picked, there will be people who aren't happy. Four teams, eight teams, sixteen teams or pick two teams after the bowl games - somebody won't be happy. If your plan was in place this year, and LSU, tOSU, Clemson and OU all win, who goes into the championship?

Formula would decide. Even if you allow all undefeated into the playoff in somehow there will be someone who only lost to one team by 1 point and played 4-5 top 20 teams who will be left out while a team who played cupcakes all year gets a pass.
 
Ever since I first heard about it recently, I am a lot more for getting rid of the playoff and bringing back the BCS as a +1 a week after all bowls are played. Expanding the playoff makes the other bowls even less important (note how hard it is to get folks up for Bama's bowl this year even though many might have their first comparatively affordable chance to go to a Bama bowl in years). Adding the BCS+1 makes all bowls more important.

Larger format playoff format makes many of the bowls relevant and would also keep those players from sitting out too. It's coming, just a matter of time.

I like the BCS formula. I don't care for the subjective nature of a limited group of people of the current CFP setup. I also like computers having input.

I hate the circus it's become with ESPN.

SEC has no reason to go to 9 conference games as it hasn't cost them anything. Consecutive years of losing missing the playoffs is the only way the SEC goes to 9 conference games or the fans stop buying season tickets.
 
Larger format playoff format makes many of the bowls relevant and would also keep those players from sitting out too. It's coming, just a matter of time.

I like the BCS formula. I don't care for the subjective nature of a limited group of people of the current CFP setup. I also like computers having input.

I hate the circus it's become with ESPN.

SEC has no reason to go to 9 conference games as it hasn't cost them anything. Consecutive years of losing missing the playoffs is the only way the SEC goes to 9 conference games or the fans stop buying season tickets.

Thats right. When the cost gets greater!!!
Hasn't happened. Almost did. In 17 the team osu beat in ccg was undefeated and would have gone in ahead of bama.
So wasn't going to be best 4.
Record was more important ( guessing they would have anyway).
But committee has done pretty good job so far.
And really. So many of those bowls are really irrelevant. 6-6 teams. Maybe even 5-6 teams
At least expanded playoffs give us another weekend of impactful CF ( even though some dont think 5-8 would have anychance.... o my... cause top seeds never lose... even though #1 hasnt won it yet).
 
Larger format playoff format makes many of the bowls relevant and would also keep those players from sitting out too. It's coming, just a matter of time.

I like the BCS formula. I don't care for the subjective nature of a limited group of people of the current CFP setup. I also like computers having input.

I hate the circus it's become with ESPN.

SEC has no reason to go to 9 conference games as it hasn't cost them anything. Consecutive years of losing missing the playoffs is the only way the SEC goes to 9 conference games or the fans stop buying season tickets.

The BCS process is only good if you have the right formula. How do you know if it's right? If you judge by "it looks right," then it's the same as the CFP process. Creating an algorithm to predict the "best" teams is something a statistician should do using multiple years of data to try and predict past winners. Since we only have five years of data, that's not a lot of statistical accuracy.
 
the BCS+1
I have to say, I have thought about it multiple times in the past few weeks. I'm really glad there is a 4 team play off.

With OSU, LSU, & Clemson, all undefeated. This would have been disastrous had we still had the BCS
BCS +1 is an interesting way to look at these three.

For the hell of it under the old bowl system...

OSU heads to the Rose Bowl and plays Oregon.
Clemson heads to the Orange Bowl and plays Oklahoma.
LSU heads to the Sugar Bowl and plays Wisconsin.
Those would shoot Baylor over to the Fiesta and that would be another SEC team traveling (in this case UGA or UF.) .

I'm good with those games. Let the chalk run, all three end up undefeated, and let 'em argue about it for the next 30 years.

FWIW, the BCS would have selected the same four teams. That makes six years in a row the BCS formula had the top four correct.
The BCS would have also had three of the top six hailing from the SEC.
 
The BCS process is only good if you have the right formula. How do you know if it's right? If you judge by "it looks right," then it's the same as the CFP process. Creating an algorithm to predict the "best" teams is something a statistician should do using multiple years of data to try and predict past winners. Since we only have five years of data, that's not a lot of statistical accuracy.

I get that the BCS prediction and CFP are getting the top 4 right. The CFP is clearly using data to make decisions.

My point being I want data as part of the analysis. I'm a data guy, I like hard indisputable facts. I like 6 computer models having a weight of 33% of the formula. With the CFP this isn't overly clear how their doing this, but obvious they are using data to come to a conclusion based on the same top 4 being selected.

130 FBS teams * 12 games per year = 1560 FBS games per year. 5 years with is ~7500 FBS games. 150 years of college football is a lot of data :)
 
I get that the BCS prediction and CFP are getting the top 4 right. The CFP is clearly using data to make decisions.

My point being I want data as part of the analysis. I'm a data guy, I like hard indisputable facts. I like 6 computer models having a weight of 33% of the formula. With the CFP this isn't overly clear how their doing this, but obvious they are using data to come to a conclusion based on the same top 4 being selected.

130 FBS teams * 12 games per year = 1560 FBS games per year. 5 years with is ~7500 FBS games. 150 years of college football is a lot of data :)

Who won games in the first few weeks does not indicate who will win a NC. Going back 150 years also causes a problem because what made a team good in 1943 is very different than today. What the data needs to predict is who is #1 and #2. What defines best? Since any mathematical prediction would be based on opinion polls, would it be factual? The CFP committee uses data, but not math. It's their combined opinion that ranks the teams.
 
Who won games in the first few weeks does not indicate who will win a NC. Going back 150 years also causes a problem because what made a team good in 1943 is very different than today. What the data needs to predict is who is #1 and #2. What defines best? Since any mathematical prediction would be based on opinion polls, would it be factual? The CFP committee uses data, but not math. It's their combined opinion that ranks the teams.

I don't believe you dismiss data from any period of time. You can weight the data accordingly. Sure the game has changed in 150 years. But it's changed significantly since 2009.
 
BCS +1 is an interesting way to look at these three.

For the hell of it under the old bowl system...

OSU heads to the Rose Bowl and plays Oregon.
Clemson heads to the Orange Bowl and plays Oklahoma.
LSU heads to the Sugar Bowl and plays Wisconsin.
Those would shoot Baylor over to the Fiesta and that would be another SEC team traveling (in this case UGA or UF.) .

I'm good with those games. Let the chalk run, all three end up undefeated, and let 'em argue about it for the next 30 years.

FWIW, the BCS would have selected the same four teams. That makes six years in a row the BCS formula had the top four correct.
The BCS would have also had three of the top six hailing from the SEC.
O goodness....
You really prefer that to...
This weeken...
Uga at Oklahoma
Wisconsin at clemson
Florida at osu
utah at lsu
Wouldnt that be awesome saturday football...some blowouts. Some upsets
Some bad weather
 
Back
Top Bottom