CFP Discussion

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,328
Location
Auburn, AL
I would love to see someone ask him why he thinks Washington is better than UGA.
Because ESPN told him to do so.

Finebaum mentions occasionally that being employed by ESPN comes with surrendering editorial control. He has said on multiple occasions that a W-2 is a very influential document.

If ESPN finds it useful to promote Washington over UGA, they will say so internally.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,620
That is exactly what is so hard to swallow (for me included). It is all very subjective... riiiiiiiiight up until NOW ... when the results on the field (the playoffs) will be all that matters. It is a frustrating deal. It really seems to me if guys like Herbstreit REALLY believe what he's saying... then they'd like us to back 30+ years and 'vote' on a national champ. Of course, no one is endorsing that... so, we're left having to 'put up' with the double-talk. ... and everyone sees right through it. I just wish these folks would be honest and not pretend it is a great system/process to determine a champion.
I hope you’re right with the “right up until now” part….

For decades, we had the beauty pageant presided over by pretty much anonymous coaches and AP voters who coronated a “national champion.” Most of the teams in contention never even played a common opponent, but that was no matter. It was a CLEARLY bogus and biased system, but it was the “best college football could do.”

WHEN COLLEGE FOOTBALL FIGURED OUT HOW TO MONETIZE conference championship games (30 years ago), they sold it to us as the first step in “settling it on the field.” It would lead to clear conference champs who would be matched in bowl games and take some of the ambiguity out of the national championship voting. Result: same ol beauty pageant.

WHEN COLLEGE FOOTBALL FIGURED OUT HOW TO MONETIZE a true national championship bowl game (25 years ago), they sold us on the BCS… the “closest thing we could ever get to a playoff,” given the bowl structure of college football. No longer would the #1 play #12 while #2 played #8… no longer would we split national champs, it’s gonna be 1 vs 2 on the field, baby! Not to mention, all of the old biases are gone… computers, metrics, statistics are going to INSURE we have the true 1 vs 2 matchup… not some silly voters. Result: cyber beauty pageant.

WHEN COLLEGE FOOTBALL FIGURED OUT HOW TO MONETIZE a four-team mini-playoff structure, we were told, “we’re finally there! College football playoff!” Conference championship games are now the de facto first round and the four big conference winners face off head to head! Playoffs baby!! Oh, and by the way, computers suck. They gave us crappy matchups based on flawed data and we don’t want that anymore. We have a committee of experts who are COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL and will weigh all of the same data and metrics and standards, but won’t be subject to the wild results spit out by computer models. Result; still a beauty pageant.

WHEN COLLEGE FOOTBALL FIGURED OUT HOW TO MONETIZE a 12-team playoff structure….

The only constant that I see is that when some new structure appears to be more profitable than the old way, we will be fed a song and dance about a huge movement toward quality and impartiality and transparency. The 12 team playoff will be glorious for at least a couple of years, I’m sure.
 

TampaBuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,170
I still contend that the best solution is to divvy all the teams between eight (8) conferences. The conference champ determined by a conference championship game moves to an 8 team playoff. No wildcards. Eight conference champions that are won on the field of play. The only "beauty pageant" part is seeding the eight finalists.

You would see teams fleeing the SEC and Big 10 to get into other conferences so they would have a real change of getting to the playoff. Currently, they are packing those conferences on the assumption that a minimum of 4 teams from each will be in the 12-team playoff.
 

Oldgoldandwhite

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,773
I still contend that the best solution is to divvy all the teams between eight (8) conferences. The conference champ determined by a conference championship game moves to an 8 team playoff. No wildcards. Eight conference champions that are won on the field of play. The only "beauty pageant" part is seeding the eight finalists.

You would see teams fleeing the SEC and Big 10 to get into other conferences so they would have a real change of getting to the playoff. Currently, they are packing those conferences on the assumption that a minimum of 4 teams from each will be in the 12-team playoff.
You’d still see ESPN try to screw it up.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,081
I still contend that the best solution is to divvy all the teams between eight (8) conferences. The conference champ determined by a conference championship game moves to an 8 team playoff. No wildcards. Eight conference champions that are won on the field of play. The only "beauty pageant" part is seeding the eight finalists.

You would see teams fleeing the SEC and Big 10 to get into other conferences so they would have a real change of getting to the playoff. Currently, they are packing those conferences on the assumption that a minimum of 4 teams from each will be in the 12-team playoff.
Why would anyone in the B1G or SEC go for that solution? Most schools would take the extra $50M+ rather than have a shot at a football NC. See Maryland as a case in point! Neither the B1G or SEC is willingly giving up their monetary advantage.
 

TampaBuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,170
Why would anyone in the B1G or SEC go for that solution? Most schools would take the extra $50M+ rather than have a shot at a football NC. See Maryland as a case in point! Neither the B1G or SEC is willingly giving up their monetary advantage.
Oh I know. It would only occur if all the powers that be agreed that TV money is irrelevant and decided that they want to devise a system that has a true and honest way of determining a national champion. And since those powers know they are all biased, they agree to find a neutral party (one guy) that loves college football and ask him to craft a solution. But who they ask? After much debate, they learn about this guy in Tampa, FL (I think his neighbor's dog is friends with another dog whose owner is 2nd cousin twice removed of a guy that used to work for a broadcast company and who knows somebody in Kansas that knows somebody at the university, that knows someone else.....) that is bored with golf and sailing and they beg him to give them the solution. :D 🤔 :ROFLMAO:
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,328
Location
Auburn, AL
sEcSPN will try to manipulate the field to get the highest viewership teams involved so they can make more money.
How does that work? Most of ESPN's revenue comes from carriage fees, the fees providers pay to network owners to carry their channels. According to an estimate from SNL Kagan, ESPN charges pay-TV operators $8 to $9 per subscriber.

So, the revenue is baked in already based on subscriber count ... it doesn't really matter is more eyeballs watch or not.

I suppose ESPN could use it to justify raising its carriage fees in the future, but given the fiasco at the start of this year ... I'm not sure that's an option.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,328
Location
Auburn, AL
Why would anyone in the B1G or SEC go for that solution? Most schools would take the extra $50M+ rather than have a shot at a football NC. See Maryland as a case in point! Neither the B1G or SEC is willingly giving up their monetary advantage.
A show earlier today predicted that next year, the B1G and SEC will have 5 teams each in the playoff. Other conferences will compete for the other two spots.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,933
Location
Oriental, NC
A show earlier today predicted that next year, the B1G and SEC will have 5 teams each in the playoff. Other conferences will compete for the other two spots.
Some time after the championship game there will be a meeting of the CFP board. In order to make changes to the 12 team selection process the bylaws require a unanimous vote. The PACn is still a member. I do not know if the CFP bylaws allow for kicking a P5 member off the board, but it appears WSU and OSU are planning to play as a two team conference if necessary to win the pot of money in the PAC bank account. Right now there will be two G5 conference champions in the CFP next season. And four P5 champions.
 

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,836
Some time after the championship game there will be a meeting of the CFP board. In order to make changes to the 12 team selection process the bylaws require a unanimous vote. The PACn is still a member. I do not know if the CFP bylaws allow for kicking a P5 member off the board, but it appears WSU and OSU are planning to play as a two team conference if necessary to win the pot of money in the PAC bank account. Right now there will be two G5 conference champions in the CFP next season. And four P5 champions.
I'm confused. Right now there is a 6+6 format - the five P5 champs plus highest highest-ranked G5 champ, plus six at-large spots. If the PACn is still a member, wouldn't that mean all five P5 champs get auto-bids?
It would also seem that the 2024 arrangement precludes the combo of both 5 SEC and 5 B1G teams. I can still see the SEC getting 5 teams in, but not both SEC and B1G since there aren't enough spots after the auto-bids.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,393
How does that work? Most of ESPN's revenue comes from carriage fees, the fees providers pay to network owners to carry their channels. According to an estimate from SNL Kagan, ESPN charges pay-TV operators $8 to $9 per subscriber.

So, the revenue is baked in already based on subscriber count ... it doesn't really matter is more eyeballs watch or not.

I suppose ESPN could use it to justify raising its carriage fees in the future, but given the fiasco at the start of this year ... I'm not sure that's an option.
That would be it. It’s like advertising fees bases on average viewership. Their fees are ultimately based in eyeballs.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
I'm confused. Right now there is a 6+6 format - the five P5 champs plus highest highest-ranked G5 champ, plus six at-large spots. If the PACn is still a member, wouldn't that mean all five P5 champs get auto-bids?
It would also seem that the 2024 arrangement precludes the combo of both 5 SEC and 5 B1G teams. I can still see the SEC getting 5 teams in, but not both SEC and B1G since there aren't enough spots after the auto-bids.
It's not P5 champs plus highest ranked G5 champ. It's the 6 highest rated conference champions. I don't think the Pac12 can claim a conference champion with out having a certain number of teams. Therefore, the two highest ranked G5 teams are in. Its even possible for more than that if the ACC or B12 produce a dud of a champion.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,328
Location
Auburn, AL
That would be it. It’s like advertising fees bases on average viewership. Their fees are ultimately based in eyeballs.
ESPN doesn’t get that revenue. The network (Spectrum, Time Warner, etc) does. ESPN does get ad revenue from streaming.

What ESPN can do is raise the carriage fees in the future. But they just did in Sept.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,933
Location
Oriental, NC
ESPN doesn’t get that revenue. The network (Spectrum, Time Warner, etc) does. ESPN does get ad revenue from streaming.

What ESPN can do is raise the carriage fees in the future. But they just did in Sept.
I think ESPN is the owner of most of the ad time on their broadcasts. There is time negotiated for the carrier (Spectrum, etc.) to insert their ads, but ESPN owns the feed. I have YouTube TV and the the ads are the same as the Spectrum ads my neighbor gets.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,328
Location
Auburn, AL
I think ESPN is the owner of most of the ad time on their broadcasts. There is time negotiated for the carrier (Spectrum, etc.) to insert their ads, but ESPN owns the feed. I have YouTube TV and the the ads are the same as the Spectrum ads my neighbor gets.
You may be right, but what a bad deal for the carrier. They pay the carriage fee (highest in pay tv) AND surrender the ad revenue. Yuck.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,514
You may be right, but what a bad deal for the carrier. They pay the carriage fee (highest in pay tv) AND surrender the ad revenue. Yuck.
I think the station (ESPN) gets some ads and the carrier does.

I have ATT, and they don’t even sell all their ads. There’s a placeholder where an ad should go a lot of the time
 
Top