🏈 Patterson: Put six in playoff, erase title games

[BAMANEWSBOT]

Gary Patterson's 2014 Horned Frogs went 11-1, claimed the Big 12 co-championship, and sat in the College Football Playoff's all-important top-four slots heading into the final week of the season ... only, of course, to be left out of those all-important top-four slots when the playoff field was announced.

Patterson's response to that snub hasn't had the same ornery edge to it as his fellow CFP snubee Art Briles', but that doesn't mean -- duh -- he's just about to shrug his shoulders and move on. The reigning AP Coach of the Year told ESPN Friday that after the Big 12's 2014 experience, the CFP should expand to six teams -- and ensure all five Power 5 conferences are represented.

“To me, it makes no sense to have four playoff spots and then have five conferences,” Patterson said. “This way gives everybody a chance to have their champion or their best team be a part of the playoff, and a sixth team that could be from any conference, and then you get down to that final four pretty quickly and still not change the way we do things."

To make a six-team playoff work with the existing bowl calendar, Patterson said that the four other Power 5 leagues would have to join the Big 12 in abandoning their respective conference championship games, instead agreeing to play the 3-vs.-6 and 4-vs.-5 playoff games on December's first weekend.

“I think you would probably make more money on the playoff games in December than you would with the conference championship games,” Patterson said. “Other than the SEC, there were a lot of empty seats that I saw at those conference championship games. The teams playing on New Year's would have basically the same amount of time to get ready, and you wouldn't take away from everybody's recruiting or interfere with final exams.”

Sorry, Gary, but the SEC will give up its conference championship game no sooner than five minutes before the heat death of the universe, this particular expansion idea is a nonstarter (as is your suggestion the committee's search to find the "four best teams" shouldn't include data from said championship games).

But that doesn't mean a slightly different six-team calendar might not work. Given that the gap between the semifinals and finals is only 10 days, would it really be logistically impossible to play a six-team playoff's first round in mid-December, two weekends after the league title games, and still have enough time for them to prepare for the bowl-hosted semifinals? It wouldn't be easy on either the players' academic duties or committed fans' travel budgets ... but when has modern college football cared about that?

So laugh at Gary Patterson's idea today, John Q. College Football Observer. Just know he might get the last one one of these years.

 

[jdpas29]

i agree. though i do like conference games. i think if you shorten the season a game or even two this works.

 

[BamaHubMan]

What about? Doing away with conference games. Top eight teams play 2 weeks after season. Then final 4 do like they did this year. All other bowl games as usual. Sooner or later the SEC conference game is going to cost the SEC. If mizzo had beat Bama the SEC might not would have had a team in the final four.

 

[psychojoe]

I suggested and still suggest an 8 team playoff. Each of the Power 5 conferences, using whatever method they choose, gets its champion in the playoffs. The committee gets three at large picks, and seeds the field.

 

[Bamabww]

I think they'll have to change it to at least 6 and quite possibly 8, as @psychojoe suggested. That plan makes a lot of sense which is the primary reason it won't be adopted.

 

[alabama mike]

I am going with 8 or 16 teams for the playoffs. The other divisions have had the right idea for years and it is time for D 1 to catch up. Play an 11/12 game schedule and then start the playoff rounds.

 

[UAgrad93]

Doing it like the other divisions won't work for this level for one reason and one reason only; BOWL GAMES! Too much money to be made!

 

[psychojoe]

Doing it like the other divisions won't work for this level for one reason and one reason only; BOWL GAMES! Too much money to be made!

With an eight team deal you might. Lock in seven bowls and rotate what bowls get what round of the playoffs.

Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Peach, Orange, Citrus, Outback would do nicely. An added virtue would be that since four of the eight teams would play in two of the former bowl games you would be culling out some of the dreadful 6-6 teams that get bids each year.

 

[TheChief]

Doing it like the other divisions won't work for this level for one reason and one reason only; BOWL GAMES! Too much money to be made!

Money to be made... and what needs to be considered BY WHOM.

 

[UAgrad93]

A 6 or 8 team playoff would suffice. My comment earlier was geared toward the idea of a 16 team playoff. I just see the Power 5 NOT giving up their title game though, especially the SEC! Our game never struggles to fill the stands. I could see the ACC and PAC 12 dropping their game like a bad date!

 

[TerryP]

If UA were to cut one game off of the schedule there's a loss of 7/8 million...loss of the SECCG takes another couple off million of the table...

Why?

 

[TerryP]

I am going with 8 or 16 teams for the playoffs. The other divisions have had the right idea for years and it is time for D 1 to catch up. Play an 11/12 game schedule and then start the playoff rounds.

Take this year's calendar and work that out...

 

[alabama mike]

8 bowl games/ playoff week 1 top 16 teams

4 bowl games/ playoff week 2 with the 8 winners

2 bowl games/ playoff week 3 with the 4 winner

National Championship Game with the winners site rotated with the major bowls.

11 game schedule

 

[TerryP]

@alabama mike Where are the off weeks? When do you start the bowl games for the eight teams, the week following the SECCG?

If you take the DII format, and use the 2014 schedules as an example, you're losing two games off the regular season. Those playoff games started the same weekend the Tide played Western Carolina. This past season that means the Tide would have lost two home games—roughly 14/15 million in revenue. How are teams supposed to replace those monies?

I've seen people say "the playoffs can replace that money." For eight teams it could IF those eight teams kept all the monies generated. The other 115+ teams?

We got a glimpse at what is happening with some of the bowl games this season. If the playoffs are stretched out over a four week period as suggested consider how many more games are going to be affected.

With so many teams already operating in the red there needs to be some finanical restructing. I certainly don't want to see an even bigger socialistic type model followed.

There's a ton of questions here in my eyes...no simple answers without tearing down the entire structure.

 

[TheChief]

I saw this coming with @TerryP It's why I didn't post more earlier. I'd much rather see another round of playoffs than see the Tide play Western Carolina. Money, money, money. Much hand wringing over the loss of money for the University of Alabama. Geesh. Millions and millions. Come on man...

 

[TerryP]

I saw this coming with @TerryP It's why I didn't post more earlier. I'd much rather see another round of playoffs than see the Tide play Western Carolina. Money, money, money. Much hand wringing over the loss of money for the University of Alabama. Geesh. Millions and millions. Come on man...

Let me pose a couple of questions.

Do you think we'd have enjoyed the success we've enjoyed if we didn't have the surplus we have now?
We talk about how the facilities we have are a large part of what's been built. How's that supposed to be paid for if we aren't thinking "money?"

Setting Alabama aside. The last time I looked there were roughly 15% of FBS programs that were self-sufficient. We, as in the University of Alabama, are not. The fact remains there are still charges to students to supplement the Athletic Department. (I do believe that could be restructured and those fees eliminated.)

IF we take two games off the regular season, those programs who are operating in the red, what happens to them? They end up taking more monies from the states taxpayers. People that scoff at the monetary aspect are living in an isolated world. It's not all about how it hampers this program, but how it would drive other further into debt.

To me, it's a case of cutting off the hand that's feeding.

 

[TheChief]

Let me pose a couple of questions.

Do you think we'd have enjoyed the success we've enjoyed if we didn't have the surplus we have now?
We talk about how the facilities we have are a large part of what's been built. How's that supposed to be paid for if we aren't thinking "money?"

Setting Alabama aside. The last time I looked there were roughly 15% of FBS programs that were self-sufficient. We, as in the University of Alabama, are not. The fact remains there are still charges to students to supplement the Athletic Department. (I do believe that could be restructured and those fees eliminated.)

IF we take two games off the regular season, those programs who are operating in the red, what happens to them? They end up taking more monies from the states taxpayers. People that scoff at the monetary aspect are living in an isolated world. It's not all about how it hampers this program, but how it would drive other further into debt.

To me, it's a case of cutting off the hand that's feeding.

First of all: Boosters.


Secondly: I really don't care what happens to schools like FIU and Western Carolina. What happened to UAB under the current system?

If we're suddenly worried about the fiscal crisis of various states how about this? Don't spend so much money on football if you don't have the money to begin with. Cap salaries. Cap the amount of money schools can spend. Socialist? Yes it is. Don't complain about where the money is coming from if you don't want to answer the problem yourself.

 

[TerryP]

First of all: Boosters.

That comes across as if you're quite comfortable spending other peoples money.

What's ironic is seeing complaints about the escalating ticket prices, the games being more than average families are able to afford, yet you're suggesting things that would make that gap even wider?

Secondly: I really don't care what happens to schools like FIU and Western Carolina. What happened to UAB under the current system?

If we're suddenly worried about the fiscal crisis of various states how about this? Don't spend so much money on football if you don't have the money to begin with. Cap salaries. Cap the amount of money schools can spend. Socialist? Yes it is. Don't complain about where the money is coming from if you don't want to answer the problem yourself.

Cap Salaries? On whom? Coaches? You realize that's against the law, don't you?

It's interesting you bring up UAB because under the current system they were spending millions more than they were bringing in...yet, a move like losing two games in the regular season would lead to more schools being in the same situations. Some schools happened to be pretty financially responsible. Ironically, this years game against Charleston Southern is one of those cases where they aren't spending in excess of what they are bringing in for the football program. Now, the school's athletic department is still in the red...largely due to the Title IV funding of other programs.

To me, you're going in circles here. There's no one complaining about where the money is coming from today. But, there's a contingent that's suggesting changes that remove that money altogether and without alternatives to continue those revenue streams I see complaints about mentioning changes.

I don't see any answers coming from you here Chief...I see scoffing at the mention of the finances, I see suggesting others spend more for the games you enjoy...what's your solution?

BTW, you see the article bama alum posted about Auburn's debt...take two games out and they're looking 25 million in deficit. The buyout conversations you brought up this morning in regard to Grant...it's that type of decision making that put them where they are today.

 

[BamaFan334]

I'm fine with the way it worked this year. The best four teams were in, the playoff proved that #1 and #3 may not have been the best two teams. I think the extra game proved it's purpose. I don't like the Big 12 bitching after the fact when they were dumb enough to know the scenario and still nullify a Championship game. The format doesn't need to be changed simply because one conference was left out due to their own stupidity.

 

[TheChief]

That comes across as if you're quite comfortable spending other peoples money.

What's ironic is seeing complaints about the escalating ticket prices, the games being more than average families are able to afford, yet you're suggesting things that would make that gap even wider?



Cap Salaries? On whom? Coaches? You realize that's against the law, don't you?

It's interesting you bring up UAB because under the current system they were spending millions more than they were bringing in...yet, a move like losing two games in the regular season would lead to more schools being in the same situations. Some schools happened to be pretty financially responsible. Ironically, this years game against Charleston Southern is one of those cases where they aren't spending in excess of what they are bringing in for the football program. Now, the school's athletic department is still in the red...largely due to the Title IV funding of other programs.

To me, you're going in circles here. There's no one complaining about where the money is coming from today. But, there's a contingent that's suggesting changes that remove that money altogether and without alternatives to continue those revenue streams I see complaints about mentioning changes.

I don't see any answers coming from you here Chief...I see scoffing at the mention of the finances, I see suggesting others spend more for the games you enjoy...what's your solution?

BTW, you see the article bama alum posted about Auburn's debt...take two games out and they're looking 25 million in deficit. The buyout conversations you brought up this morning in regard to Grant...it's that type of decision making that put them where they are today.

@TerryP The NCAA is a private entity. Any organization can cap salaries of its members. Happens all the time and certainly not against the law. That's a solution to spending. That's an answer. And yes, I am scoffing at the mention of finances. If schools can't manage on the millions they're generating and collecting, that's a personal problem with the schools. The schools don't have revenue streams, they've got revenue rivers and oceans.