I’m quietly confident in Harlan to get a good schedule taken care of. I hope it’ll help if the PAC goes to 8 conference games, so that there can be a touch more flexibility.
2 Likes
It’s still P5. Stop the P4 nonsense. It’s a weak attempt at conference smack and that the PAC12 has to fight to show superiority to the BiG12 and put them in their place.
Big12 won’t be a B game league. They won’t be G5 (or G6). They likely will be similar in money to PAC12, we’ll see how it shakes out. Still a power conference with power money. No, they aren’t part of the nebulous Alliance or the SEC, but an Iowa St or Cinci (this year) could easily be in a 4 team playoff with PAC12 being left out (hypothetical if the leagues were set today and OU/UT were counted with SEC).
1 Like
By saying we have 4 conferences that are different than others proves my point. The Big12 is definitely in flux, but they are landing in a decent place. Let’s not exclude them or punish them too early for losing OU/UT - they’ve added some decent teams. Maybe not big names with history. As far as quality football teams, OU was the big loss, UT not so much (last 10 years) while Cinci is really peaking like Utah was when we joined PAC12 and UCF, Houston, and even BYU are decent strength (all probably normal middle of the pack like K State) with occasional good/great years.
I still would prefer scheduling and playing most of the future Big12 teams over ACC (esp. in Texas and UCF for recruiting) and half of the Big10 (nice to have the PAC12/BIG10 connection for history sake, but not useful for recruiting). Nice to get some SEC teams on there as well like we have.
Agree that we won’t want to overdo it if other P5 teams aren’t as well. I’m just saying let’s not exclude or count future Big12 out - PAC12 will likely be battling them still for the 4th spot in a 4 team playoff (or both be fighting for last spot when 2 SEC teams are selected). Separate point, we need that expanded playoff badly ;).
I would say we have the SEC, bar none, at the top. We have the Big10 that is solid. ACC is debatable, but somehow has a leg up because Clemson is carrying them and winning natty’s while Big10 and current Big12 get to the playoff and choke. Without OU/UT, Big 12 is fighting to stay alive as well as relevant, but TBH, PAC12 is fighting for relevance (when was our last playoff win or national champion?).
My point was that saying P4 several times (understood, partially for convenience) is changing the rhetoric around the P5 (which is an official designation) when there’s still too much in flux and motion over the next several years to see what value each conference actually has. It seems like premature ‘othering’ and that somehow PAC12 is somehow in a stronger position (may be true, but there are few details on what the Alliance will actually do and when). I think the Alliance was actually a pre-emptive move to not only strengthen the strategy to face SEC/ESPN power, but also to stabilize the 3 conferences involved to make sure we left Big12 to their own issues and the PAC12 wasn’t put in a more precarious position to be weakened in comparison to other conferences (hence our conf leading the charge).
I don’t disagree. I think they get less than the Big12 gets now, but the number is anchored higher. It will definitely drop, but dropping it down 20-30% (probably wouldn’t be cut in half) could still put it on par or even better than PAC12 unless we can get a better new deal in the next round of negotiations. We’ll see.
UCF played some high level football several years ago. Cincinnati has been good, but not stellar. Houston has had flashes of great, but only flashes.
In Men’s Basketball, all have all been top shelf. Adding these teams to Kansas, Baylor, and Okie State will make for a murderers row of a conference schedule. This may be where the money is in their contract.
Again, travel costs are going to be brutal as hell. Having every road trip being a mileage logistical peer of going to Hawaii is going to eat up an athletic department budget…especially in the non revenue sports. The new TV contract will need to be huge to rub out this cost. If it is the lesser deal that is likely, these schools will need to do find other revenue to cover the costs - not an easy thing to do.
3 Likes
They were #8 last year and the past three years have a winning record against some good P5 teams. Better respect the Bearcats and what Luke Fickle is doing.
1 Like
You give me too much credit, but thanks friend 
. Each paradigm shift (bowl alliance, bcs, playoff) brings a different environment for teams to compete in. It will be interesting to see where everything settles in the next 3 years amongst teams, conference realignment, tv/streaming deals, pecking order, NIL/recruiting, bullying, Definitely going to change what ‘college’ football looks like. We’ll have to be patient and hope Utah and PAC12 are positioned well and can continue to improve (and make smart moves instead of PAC12 after hours crap that regionalizes us).
BTW, I also thought the AAC commissioner saying they were part of the P6 was annoying as well … take it for what it’s worth 
Definitely not there now. MWC is probably 6 and they don’t sniff the top 25 too much. Heard Sun Belt positioning to be the ‘next up’ (lol).
Each has shown with the right coach (before they get poached) can play at the higher levels (not highest, but in a more recognized conference, will have a chance). Each has had their moments. Good adds and each could be in the picture over time.
Amen. MBB is going to be stellar. Good point that they should hopefully gain here while they likely give back $$ for football.
Amen. This is probably the big ‘what if’. Flight costs are up in general (non-revenue teams) and some teams like football will likely charter. This is going to cost a lot.
1 Like
The more I think about the power dynamics, $, and control, why would the ‘big dogs’ do a 12 team playoff where all 10 champs + 2 are included that would give ‘G5’ more access and $ when they could just go to 8 and guarantee a spot for 1 G5/G6 while keeping the rest of the money and prestige? There will always be a spectrum of power. Or the SEC says ‘we get 3 spots or we set up our own thing and grab a couple other teams’. The Alliance is meant to balance that but no one is going to set up a system to be more fair, only one that gives them more money than the current system. Seems like the end game is SEC leading a couple to form a new division.
1 Like
They also are practicing at Alabama since the storm. I’d be cool with adding them to the league. They had OU licked till a couple bad breaks.
2 Likes
16 teams…all conference champions and the top ranked filling out the rest of the holes.
3 Likes
This
I like 16 without all the conference champs getting an auto bid. Give an auto bid to P5 and then the next 11 best teams. If it’s an auto bid let’s just move to the MAC or MWC where we’ll get an auto bid 3 out is every 4 years. Just kidding but an auto bid to the MAC, CUSA, MWC etc. seems ridiculous to me.
Otherwise I like a 12 team playoff where the top 4 earn a first round bye during the regular season. P5 champs are automatic and then the next 7 best teams.
1 Like
I’ve been on this train even back in the BCS days.
1 Like
I’d also like to edit my answer because what I’d REALLY like is a 24 team playoff system that essentially mirrors the FCS. 10 conference champions plus the next best 14. It also means that about 20 percent of all teams make the FBS & FCS Playoffs as well as about 20 percent of basketball teams into March Madness. I don’t think 24 teams unnecessarily dilutes the product.
start with 8 and see how it plays out.
I don’t want to see a first round of Alabama vs. Old Dominion, Georgia vs. Western Michigan, Oklahoma vs. Nevada type games
Last year you would have had 4 SEC schools and Alabama would have had Cincinnati in the first round. Yawn.
I think moving it from 4 to 8 doesn’t make it more interesting. It adds more injuries. It’s more interesting at 16 then every team has a title shot. Including Nevada.
3 Likes
If given a choice, I’d go 16, like the FCS. Home team is the higher seed until the semi’s then use the bowls like we do now.
No 8-16 really has a real shot to win. 4 games in a row over the competition. Realistically, 4-5 teams have a chance to win the championship each year and in reality, 2 or 3. With 4 games in a row, the turn around to game plan and execute favors the rich with analysts and the very best coaches.
I think people want ‘fair’ but really they want to be entertained and their team to have a ‘chance’. It depends what we want - to crown an undisputed champ (goal of BCS, 4-team playoff) or give access.
17 extra games is a lot. It might come down to injuries and depth, which also favors the big boys. They will win the battle of attrition. I guess if we are heading the way of semi-pro, I guess it makes sense. FCS does it but FBS has more talent, speed, size, and that can lead to more injuries.
I have always liked at least 8. 12 makes more sense but the byes would be dumb (I would guess 3 out of 4 would make the semis). 16 makes it 14 extra games than we have now. Could slot into bowls, but really would kill all the other bowls as exhibitions which are fun.
All proposals have pros and cons for the fans, players, and the almighty dollar. I just don’t see how the SEC, Alliance, and TV partners would allow 5 teams in from outside their power. Just not going to happen. It’s going to be 2 or 3 from SEC, at least one from each of Alliance (Champs and/or highly ranked), 1 Big12, and top 1 or 2 G5 plus a few wild cards. There will be heavy stipulations like before - have to be ranked top 8, 16, 25 to be eligible, etc.
So I’m guessing it will be 12. They will want to protect the top 4. It adds games/$ while really just being an expanded 4. Maybe 1 or 2 lower seeds get through to semi’s and it’s a big story which adds buzz but we’ll get a lot of 1/2, 1/3, 2/4 match ups. Maybe in a crazy year we’ll get a 2 vs 5. Whoa.
1 Like
So you just like the number 8. Because everything you said is opposition for 8 team playoff. In fact you just gave the argument against expansion. Also, you realize 17 extra games that the champion won’t play all 17 games, right? It’s literally 2 extra games than what they play now. They could easily play 11 game season and make it just one more game. Home games for the high seed that replace a cupcake and add a playoff game would be more lucrative to them than the current setup. Plus, TV would be all over this.
If football every wants a shot at a “Cinderella story,” a 16 team playoff opens that door.
Right now the CFP is simply SOSDD. Unless you are one of 3 teams, you got no shot of even getting in the door, let alone the discussion.
1 Like
I’ve always thought 8 is a good compromise between addressing the gripes about access and it not becoming even more a work program for mobile professors of basket weaving during FB season.
(Anyone else remember Robert Smith of tOSU thinking about quitting FB as a FR because he wanted to do pre-Med and the coaches told him “no way, we need your time”.)
Besides, in college ball, a first round matchup of Alabama vs Old Dominion means Alabama plays a lot of 2s.
Like in baseball where a 7 game series tilts things more toward the team with more talent, playing more games in the CFP favors depth. Cinderella has no chance playing their starters 4 games against physical & talented competition.
(Another way to look at it - who would win in football if there was a 7 game series? As ridiculous as that sounds. Answer: whoever has the best 60-95.)
1 Like