🏈 What the last 3 college football playoffs would've looked like

[PhillyGirl]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1237394-participants-in-the-last-three-college-football-playoffs

Interesting read. Also, I am so sick of hearing Boise State fans complain. Maybe if they do well in the Big East, we can talk.

 

[doemasters]

Should be fun to see how Boise does this year, hopefully Michigan State will go ahead and beat them right off this year, that might be the only team in the top 25 that plays them unless BYU makes it

 

[UAgrad93]

I've heard that Boise has not signed on completely with the Big Least just yet. Seems they may be afraid that no AQ could be a deal breaker. Who knows?!!

 

[TerryP]

I've heard that Boise has not signed on completely with the Big Least just yet. Seems they may be afraid that no AQ could be a deal breaker. Who knows?!!

This is true, in a sense.

Boise hasn't officially removed itself from the Mountain West yet. There's a quasi type of deadline to leave the MWC at the end of this week which is more monetary than probably anything else. I am not sure if I have these numbers correct, but it seems like their penalty for leaving was 2.5MM. If it goes past Saturday, it could be anywhere from 5MM more to 10MM more they would essentially lose. (TV money, etc.)

We've discussed what all the realignment downfalls are and among those conversations we've talked about sending non-revenue teams treking across the country. I'm assuming, or guessing if you will, Boise State is dealing with a major decision on where they place their non-revenue sports.

 

[UAgrad93]

^^^^^^^
This was exactly what I saw on ESPN the other day. Big decision to be made.

 

[TerryP]

The Big12 North has been so horrendously weak the past few years it would seem to be a good fit for them assuming they realize—like the rest of the college football world has known—the Mountain West isn't going to get them a sniff of a spot on the four unless A LOT falls their way.

But, as I say that, I am almost willing to bet OU would object. (I know TX would, they don't want to return to 12)

 

[Bo]

The Big12 North has been so horrendously weak the past few years it would seem to be a good fit for them assuming they realize—like the rest of the college football world has known—the Mountain West isn't going to get them a sniff of a spot on the four unless A LOT falls their way.

But, as I say that, I am almost willing to bet OU would object. (I know TX would, they don't want to return to 12)

I've always thought the Texas League would be a better fit for them. But that is a very good point about OU and UTx not wanting them in there.

 

[UAgrad93]

Terry, do you and Bo think that OU and Texas might rethink their ways of not having the BIG 12 championship game in the future? If SOS is going to be taken strongly into consideration when coming up with this FINAL FOUR, both will be hard pressed to find the big OOC games due to other conferences increasing their numbers.

 

[planomateo]

They play 9 conf games and have been scheduling 1 decent OOC per year (if I remember correctly). Remember the Big-XII has had more representation in the BCS game than the confs, so they are probably thinking they already have this covered. PAC-12 has 9 and a conf championship game, ACC (not sure), SEC 8 with a conf championship game.

Purely my opinion based on zero insight with the SEC office (basically I'm talking out my arse)....I'm thinking, we will see the SEC go to 9 conf games soon. When we do this, if the Big-XII haven't moved to 12 team conf, then they will probably have to do something - more OOC or add 2 more schools.

Change is constant and you can easily see that change in college football is far from over.

 

[TerryP]

They play 9 conf games and have been scheduling 1 decent OOC per year (if I remember correctly). Remember the Big-XII has had more representation in the BCS game than the confs, so they are probably thinking they already have this covered. PAC-12 has 9 and a conf championship game, ACC (not sure), SEC 8 with a conf championship game.

Purely my opinion based on zero insight with the SEC office (basically I'm talking out my arse)....I'm thinking, we will see the SEC go to 9 conf games soon. When we do this, if the Big-XII haven't moved to 12 team conf, then they will probably have to do something - more OOC or add 2 more schools.

Change is constant and you can easily see that change in college football is far from over.

Just off the top of my head on OOC games last season and the Big12 teams...

Florida State, UCLA, and Georgia Tech cover OU, TX, and Kansas. Mizzou and Tx Tech didn't play anyone of note. Baylor opened with TCU and Kansas State played the Hurricanes I believe. I can't recall Iowa State.

Of course, the team we all know, Okie State. Their OOC game was Arizona. I know Arizona hasn't won more than eight games in a season this decade and they managed eight wins twice. We still had DuBose the last time Arizona had a competitive team...as in, in the national title picture at the end of the season.

UCONN. That's who Iowa State played.

 

[Bo]

Terry, do you and Bo think that OU and Texas might rethink their ways of not having the BIG 12 championship game in the future? If SOS is going to be taken strongly into consideration when coming up with this FINAL FOUR, both will be hard pressed to find the big OOC games due to other conferences increasing their numbers.

OU maybe, but with the arrogance of Texas, I doubt they would reconsider. Just my opinion of course.

 

[TerryP]

One thing that is holding the Big12 back right now, according to what Neinas has said, is when they've explored options on other teams joining the conference they've come up empty handed in a sense.

It's not like they can't pull marquee teams in, it's the ones that are realistic fits for the conference bring nothing to the table as far as expanding their TV revenue/footprint. (They want Notre Dame. And, they are discussing ND whether they admit it publicly or not. They denied interest or discussions, but read these email exchanges available from a FOI Act proving that to be a lie)

They very well may rethink their position. But, they are going to fall behind the excuse—or reason depending on how you look at it—what does going to 12 add to our conference in terms of TV revenue.

I've seen pundits say the conference is better off because they now have TCU and WVU as compared to A&M and Mizzou. Now, the reasoning was interesting but at first glance a little faulty. TCU is a good program so they've brought in someone who is competitive. But, what has it added in terms of stability and increase? Nothing. Was there a chance with OU and Texas they'd somehow lose the Dallas market? It's a rhetorical question.

The addition of WVU does bring in another market so it falls into a completely different conversation. However, I see it benefiting WVU far more than it does the Big12 as a whole.

So, taking all of that into consideration, what is going to be their motivating factor?

I think it's the payoff for the CCG. And, it's because of that thought their logic on the other area fails.

We would like to expand because it brings in more money with TV revenue. But, we don't want to expand to a championship game which brings in more TV revenue.

Texas is hanging their hats on the LHN. It's that hat rack that drove the exodus of teams from the Big12 in the first place.

In retrospect, TX should have gone independent when they started the LHN. It's about the only feasible way I see that network having any success. But, that's just my opinion.

(FWIW, in the end—as it is today—the conference expansions have two winners. The PAC and the SEC. And, when you compare the two additions to both conferences which one comes out on top.

Setting aside our SEC glasses compare Utah and Colorado to A&M to Mizzou. When it comes to revenue, there is no question.

When it comes to competitive teams in all sports? Someone find me the latest time a Colorado team competed on a national stage in a sport because I can't think of one. I know we've got Utah in the Sugar in 2008. However, we can pretty well take that appearance as an anomaly.

Mizzou is on the forefront with basketball. So, there's one of the major three sports we see an improvement with. A&M, right now, brings competition in non-revenue sports so that's almost a wash.

 

[RollTideRandy]

So in ’09 they would have left Tebow crying on the sidelines and let Cincinnati and TCU into the play-off? Really? Does anyone really think that would have really happened? Look folks, at the end of the day this whole thing is about the same thing as the rest of college football…$$$$$$ We have a playoff system now because CFB leaders know they left a lot cash on the table last year by not giving College Football fans what they wanted, a play-off game between Alabama and Ok St to determine who played LSU. That game would have gotten HUGE ratings! You could have sold $1.5 million ads to Budweiser and Doritos for that game all day long but no body will ever get that revenue because they had no way to make that game happen. Now they do.

I don’t understand all I’m reading about who will be on the committee, how the committee will make it’s selections, would they have let Alabama in last year? If the committee has a chance, the will ALWAYS let Alabama in. Same with Texas, Michigan, Notre Dame, and USC. Why? Because love us or hate us when we play in a big game, we draw millions of Dorito eaters and Budweiser drinkers to their TVs to soak up that sweet advertising that generates that revenue all these schools love so much.

No way Tebow would not have been in the play-off in 2009. That would have led to way too much lost revenue.

<o></o>

 

[TerryP]

So in ’09 they would have left Tebow crying on the sidelines and let Cincinnati and TCU into the play-off? Really? Does anyone really think that would have really happened? Look folks, at the end of the day this whole thing is about the same thing as the rest of college football…$$$$$$ We have a playoff system now because CFB leaders know they left a lot cash on the table last year by not giving College Football fans what they wanted, a play-off game between Alabama and Ok St to determine who played LSU. That game would have gotten HUGE ratings! You could have sold $1.5 million ads to Budweiser and Doritos for that game all day long but no body will ever get that revenue because they had no way to make that game happen. Now they do.

I don’t understand all I’m reading about who will be on the committee, how the committee will make it’s selections, would they have let Alabama in last year? If the committee has a chance, the will ALWAYS let Alabama in. Same with Texas, Michigan, Notre Dame, and USC. Why? Because love us or hate us when we play in a big game, we draw millions of Dorito eaters and Budweiser drinkers to their TVs to soak up that sweet advertising that generates that revenue all these schools love so much.

No way Tebow would not have been in the play-off in 2009. That would have led to way too much lost revenue.

<o></o>

They very well may have left UF out. Based on what we understand now you'd would have Cincy winning a BCS conference as the conference champ. Add to that you have UF playing two ranked opponents coming out with a 1-1 record vs Cincy playing three ranked opponents and remaining undefeated.

Hindsight tells us Cincy wasn't in the same league as UF. The Gators killed them. I don't recall the exact number other than UF had over 650 yards of offense in that bowl game and it the Gators had 40 something on the scoreboard at the end of the 3rd versus Cincy who may have had double digits, but it certainly wasn't two touchdowns: 10-13 points maybe?

I'd be really inclined to think Cincy would get in if there was a large media contingent on the selection committee.