2012

During the winter and spring, the commissioners and presidents spent countless hours evaluating the many pros and cons of numerous possible formats. These formats ranged from returning to the old bowl system with no attempt to match the top two teams, to continuing the BCS, to creating a multi-team playoff.

The commissioners met in person January 10 in New Orleans, February 21-22 and March 26 in Dallas and several times by teleconference. They affirmed a commitment to protect college football’s regular season, the best in sports, and to preserve the bowl tradition and the bowl experience for students. Further, they focused on the realities of the academic calendar and options related to where the games should be played. They self-imposed a deadline of the summer of 2012 to decide what changes to propose to the presidents.

April 25 – At a meeting in Hollywood, Florida, the commissioners took both an 8-team and a 16-team playoff off the table. They prepared a small number of four-team options for discussion in the conference meetings to be held in May. They discussed in detail the advantages and disadvantages of various ways to rank or qualify teams.

June 12-13 – The commissioners met in Chicago to report on the outcomes of their recent conference meetings.

June 20 – Meeting in the Sullivan Room at the InterContinental hotel in downtown Chicago, the commissioners voted unanimously to recommend a four-team playoff for 12 years beginning in 2014-15, with a selection committee choosing the participating teams.

June 26 – Meeting at the Dupont Circle Hotel in Washington, D.C., the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee members voted unanimously to submit legislation to the NCAA board of directors that would allow two institutions to participate in two post-season games each year—thereby officially creating the playoff. The presidential group adopted the format and policies that had been recommended by the commissioners June 20. The NCAA would approve the proposal in August.



Why are they approving something that has nothing to do with them?

I approve of your dining choice for lunch.

Now me and the NCAA have something in common.    We're approving things that we have nothing to do with. 

The NCAA is still the governing and sanctioning body for FBS, just like they are for all sports/divisions.  They make the rules so they have to bless any games that take place between their member schools (much like they have to approve bowls), but they only make money off of championships that they run.  There is no NCAA championship for FBS.

But that sort of approval is almost invariably going to be a rubber stamp - that's where you see them placating the Power 5.

You'll have to excuse me if I have trouble believing that the NCAA doesn't, in some way or another, get a slice of the playoff pie. 

Well, it's really no different than conference championship games - the NCAA has to allow them to exist, but once they do, the conference sells the TV rights, the tickets, sponsorship, etc.  This is the same deal - the NCAA had to bless 2 teams playing 2 postseason games in a season (and that's pretty much the only thing they had to approve), but after that, the CFP corporation is the one running it, therefore they are administering the TV deals, etc.  It's ultimately just the newest flavor of the BCS.  You want to talk about the quickest way for the NCAA to run the Power 5 off?  Try having them try to stick their hand into the cookie jar in any real way.  They don't have any leverage over the big schools at this point.

You could probably find ways in which they get something indirectly, but NCAA revenues are and pretty much always have been driven by the basketball tournament.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/18/2014 8:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 9/17/2014 9:21:00 PM (view original):
There's no difference between deciding between 2nd and 3rd when two teams make it, or between 4th and 5th if four teams make it, or between 16th and 17th if sixteen teams make it.

"Best" is subjective, if it weren't we could just have one person pick the teams and everyone would agree with the decision.

No one said a two loss team is eliminated, besides you when you put words in people's mouths.

I can quote posts from you and moranis saying something along the lines of "A two loss SC team should not be in the playoff".

Do I have to?   This thread isn't that long. 

Please quote it, maybe you'll actually read it instead of imagining what I put. There's more than the fact of two losses, it's that they got blown out at home. There's definitely scenarios where I'd take a 2 loss team over a 1 loss team. A 1 loss Big 10 team for instance, probably wouldn't be in my top 4.

Posted by stinenavy on 9/16/2014 2:41:00 PM (view original):
South Carolina got beat up at home. There's no reason they should be considered if they end up with 2 losses.

Oklahoma has an important game this week. Alabama only beat WV by 10, so it'll be good for them to try and pack on points to have a good margin of victory.

Here.   The important part:

"There's no reason they should be considered if they end up with 2 losses."

Hell, you're saying "I don't care if they win the SEC championship.   There is absolutely no reason they should be in the CFB playoffs with two losses."

Posted by AlCheez on 9/18/2014 11:59:00 AM (view original):
Well, it's really no different than conference championship games - the NCAA has to allow them to exist, but once they do, the conference sells the TV rights, the tickets, sponsorship, etc.  This is the same deal - the NCAA had to bless 2 teams playing 2 postseason games in a season (and that's pretty much the only thing they had to approve), but after that, the CFP corporation is the one running it, therefore they are administering the TV deals, etc.  It's ultimately just the newest flavor of the BCS.  You want to talk about the quickest way for the NCAA to run the Power 5 off?  Try having them try to stick their hand into the cookie jar in any real way.  They don't have any leverage over the big schools at this point.

You could probably find ways in which they get something indirectly, but NCAA revenues are and pretty much always have been driven by the basketball tournament.

Yeah, I probably could find ways in which they get something indirectly.   You probably could too. 

Sure, but unless you're going to argue it's entirely off the books, whatever they get from football is insignificant in the scope of their overall revenues, and relative to the amount of money in play in major college football. The schools/conferences control the purse strings in FBS.

No, I'm sure it's not off the books.  I'm equally sure it's not an insignificant number.   The NCAA may make much more off the basketball tourney, they almost have to due to number of games, but I sincerely doubt the take off CFB is insignificant. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/18/2014 2:24:00 PM (view original):
No, I'm sure it's not off the books.  I'm equally sure it's not an insignificant number.   The NCAA may make much more off the basketball tourney, they almost have to due to number of games, but I sincerely doubt the take off CFB is insignificant. 

Did you look at the numbers in the article I posted?  Last year, 84% of their revenue came from the basketball tournament, and nothing football related even merited it's own line item in the remaining 16%.  The NCAA doesn't have any FBS football related property to sell - the regular season belongs to the schools and conferences like it does in every other sport, and they've never had their own championship, so unlike every other sport, they've left that up to the schools/conferences as well.  They would have to be cut in to profit in any real way, and while at one point they might have had the leverage to make that happen, they certainly don't now.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/18/2014 2:24:00 PM (view original):
No, I'm sure it's not off the books.  I'm equally sure it's not an insignificant number.   The NCAA may make much more off the basketball tourney, they almost have to due to number of games, but I sincerely doubt the take off CFB is insignificant. 

then you aren't paying attention.

Sure I have.   The NCAA puts in a lot of time "investigating" college football procedures.   It's a poor business model to do stuff for free.   

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/18/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):
Sure I have.   The NCAA puts in a lot of time "investigating" college football procedures.   It's a poor business model to do stuff for free.   

So then you ARE saying the football money is off the books. 

And for the record, the NCAA does pretty much everything it does for "free" (or, more accurately at a steep loss) - thankfully for it, it does have one thing it does that's a total cash cow.

Nope. I'm sure the NCAA does not operate in the red.   The more popular college athletics, the more profit they can make by "overseeing" it.