Gil Lebreton: "Sue The Dr. Peppers Out Of Them"

FirefightnRick · January 4, 2017

Quote

....We’ve all heard their rationalizations. But how can the whole college football regular season be weighed by one giant set of win-loss standings, when schedules, scripted by the schools themselves, vary so broadly?

And who can say now that the champions of the Big 12 and Big Ten weren’t as good as a team that didn’t even win its own conference?

Law graduates abound throughout the Big 12 alumni rolls. Why can’t a few of them take the CFP system to court? Sue the Dr Peppers out of them. Expand the playoff field....

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/gil-lebreton/article124396139.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/gil-lebreton/article124396139.html

UNT90 · January 4, 2017

16 teams. Every conference champion and 6 at larges.

This isn't rocket science.

THOR · January 4, 2017

i like it at 4...keeps plenty of big time schools pissed off and whining about not be allowed into their own club

GMG_Dallas · January 4, 2017

16 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

16 teams. Every conference champion and 6 at larges.

This isn't rocket science.

I'm in favor of increasing the number of teams in the playoffs although I think 16 is a bit much. With the increased number of games, would this require national signing day to be pushed back and would it require any other recruiting rule changes such as reevaluating the dead periods and quiet periods?

Cr1028 · January 4, 2017

22 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

16 teams. Every conference champion and 6 at larges.

This isn't rocket science.

2 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

I'm in favor of increasing the number of teams in the playoffs although I think 16 is a bit much. With the increased number of games, would this require national signing day to be pushed back and would it require any other recruiting rule changes such as reevaluating the dead periods and quiet periods?

I'm good with 8. 5 P5 champs plus 3 at large. The 3 at large must include at least one G5 conference champion and any other undefeated G5 teams. If there are more than 3 undefeated G5s, the top 3 undefeated G5s according the the playoff committee get the slots. If no undefeated G5s, the top ranked G5 conference champion goes and the two highest ranked FBS teams that are not conference champs get slots.

TreeFiddy · January 4, 2017

16 would seem to be the best solution, but greed and arrogance will surely kill any chance of it ever occurring.

Aldo · January 4, 2017

16 teams?

So the champ teams play 4 games on top of their conference championship and 12 regular season schedule?

17 total games.

Give me 6 teams, or regular season schedule needs to be more FCS-like.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Aldo
I can't math

Army of Dad · January 4, 2017

9 minutes ago, Aldo said:

16 teams?

So the champ teams play 4 games on top of their conference championship and 12 regular season schedule?

17 total games.

Give me 6 teams, or regular season schedule needs to be more FCS-like.

Reduce the regular season schedules back to 11 games. That gives you 15 max games if you eliminate conference championship games. Keep those and it's it's only (possibly) 16 for two teams.

48 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

I'm good with 8. 5 P5 champs plus 3 at large. The 3 at large must include at least one G5 conference champion and any other undefeated G5 teams. If there are more than 3 undefeated G5s, the top 3 undefeated G5s according the the playoff committee get the slots. If no undefeated G5s, the top ranked G5 conference champion goes and the two highest ranked FBS teams that are not conference champs get slots.

I like this.

Hunter Green · January 4, 2017

1 hour ago, THOR said:

i like it at 4...keeps plenty of big time schools pissed off and whining about not be allowed into their own club

They call it a playoff, but the teams are still chosen based on poll rankings. It's all BS. Just taylor it after the FCS system and utilize the bowls as a way to regionalize the playoff games.

FirefightnRick · January 4, 2017

NCAA DIII has a 32 team tournament. If they can work that in then a 16 team tournament shouldn't be difficult all.

At least a lot of sports media are discussing expansion.

Rick

Wag Tag · January 4, 2017

Expanded playoffs is going to happen, because it means more $ and exposure ( which also means more $)

From high school to the P5's everybody has a playoff except G5 football! Stupid!

forevereagle · January 4, 2017

I think a 10 team playoff is not terrible. All 10 conference champs, first round is the 4 lowest seeds playing while all others get a bye and then play based on seeding. This would make the conference championships a defacto first round. No choosing at large and the subsequent complaining. Win your conference, and you get a shot, end of story.

Hunter Green · January 4, 2017

7 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

Expanded playoffs is going to happen, because it means more $ and exposure ( which also means more $)

From high school to the P5's everybody has a playoff except G5 football! Stupid!

Not only that, but if you have the lowest ranked team playing the top ranked team, that help the little guy with exposure, and money. It will also help level the playing field just a bit even though an ass whipping may be in the works. But I seem to remember LaMo beating Bama a few years back, so it can happen.

5 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

I think a 10 team playoff is not terrible. All 10 conference champs, first round is the 4 lowest seeds playing while all others get a bye and then play based on seeding. This would make the conference championships a defacto first round. No choosing at large and the subsequent complaining. Win your conference, and you get a shot, end of story.

What about your Independents? Notre Dame, Army, etc?

Edited January 4, 2017 by Hunter Green

Army of Dad · January 4, 2017

19 minutes ago, Hunter Green said:

What about your Independents? Notre Dame, Army, etc?

Maybe @forevereagle is saying it's 'join or die' time? ?

forevereagle · January 4, 2017

2 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

Maybe @forevereagle is saying it's 'join or die' time? ?

Yep. It is silly to make a compromise in how a champion determined for 3 or 4 teams.If ND and BYU want to stay independent, fine. They should just not expect to have a shot at a title.

Edited January 4, 2017 by forevereagle

Travis · January 4, 2017

1 hour ago, GMG_Dallas said:

I'm in favor of increasing the number of teams in the playoffs although I think 16 is a bit much. With the increased number of games, would this require national signing day to be pushed back and would it require any other recruiting rule changes such as reevaluating the dead periods and quiet periods?

Sounds fine to me. Let's push everything back a bit. Another month doesn't hurt. Or, make an early signing period. It doesn't seem to hurt basketball at all.

29 minutes ago, Hunter Green said:

What about your Independents? Notre Dame, Army, etc?

At large bids.

GMG24 · January 4, 2017

41 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

NCAA DIII has a 32 team tournament. If they can work that in then a 16 team tournament shouldn't be difficult all.

At least a lot of sports media are discussing expansion.

Rick

Just turn bowl games into the rounds of playoffs. That would be fun.

ghost_of_darrell_dickey · January 4, 2017

41 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

I think a 10 team playoff is not terrible. All 10 conference champs, first round is the 4 lowest seeds playing while all others get a bye and then play based on seeding. This would make the conference championships a defacto first round. No choosing at large and the subsequent complaining. Win your conference, and you get a shot, end of story.

But that's not what the powers that be want. They want the "committee" making the call on who's in. That way they can keep the same handful of teams playing for the ratings... Er... Championship. Regardless of team record. This year makes that abundantly clear by putting OSU in the playoff over the conference winner Penn State.

untjim1995 · January 4, 2017

Ok--so this is all about money. The networks pay a lot to cover these schools and conferences that make many millions from their programs. Notre Dame hasn't joined a conference in full for football because networks give them enough $$ to keep them from doing it.

Like it or not, the P5s have the money because they have the following, which leads to the media coverage and bowl tie-ins. At some point, Western Michigan can have a great season and spend $8 million on their program, but they know that a reward of playing P5s who spend tens of millions more on their program won't ever add up to getting invited to the club.

When you host teams that bring in attendance of 15k to 30k, it's not gonna add up to being included in the club that has games attended by 40k or more in paid attendance at a high price compared to what we charge. Some schools in the MWC and AAC can make this argument, but the majority of G5s cannot. It's just hard to see how we, at a school that cannot average 20k in attendance for a season, deserve a spot in the same level as the P5s. We haven't done the job to cultivate the following that they have done--it's just the truth, which is hard to swallow.

Again, if the system lets us compete for a national championship, we should thank our lucky stars, but that doesn't add up to the reality that is coming. Those Power Leagues know who is getting paid by networks and who isn't, as well as who is being sought after by big bowls and who isn't. The NCAA isn't going to let those schools go away, so they will let them play by their own rules. And the G5s will let them do it if they can still play them or if it means the NCAA tournament and College World Series won't go away from them.

Follow the money and you can see where the trail ends. It's still the ONLY thing that truly matters in this argument.

southsideguy · January 4, 2017

i am sorry but the NCAA is not the NFL, the play off system can be dumped in my humble opinion.

UNT90 · January 4, 2017

I see fans of a G5 openly wanting G5s excluded from the playoff.

And you wonder why G5s are where they are.

16 teams is the only fair system. It would be the equivalent of the NCAA basketball tournament. Start the tournament immediately after finals. If that had happened this year, the National Championship game would have been played on the weekend of 1/7, the exact same weekend it is played on this year.

Yes, it would require practice during finals week, but that already occurs with teams preparing for early bowl games.

The only reason not to do this is to keep the pile of money firmly in P5 hands.

aztecskin · January 4, 2017

18 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

Ok--so this is all about money.

This is the crux of it.

I think the argument the G5 schools have -- in a court of law, in a boardroom, in the press -- is that the playoff money could possibly help even the disparity and excluding these teams keeps G5 teams at lower levels than they would be. Utah, TCU, Boise St in the last 20 years helped dispel the idea that P5 teams were the only inherently better than all the rest. But the real change in major college football has been and will always be in reaction to money.

One thing not mentioned in the argument over TV rights, was the effect it would have on everyone else. (It turns out TV _did_ depress attendance in the long term). Putting popular (at the time) teams on TV had the effect of entrenching those teams in the impressionable minds of younger fans.

I grew up knowing that at 11am, there would be Big 10 football, at noon and later, Big 12 football, and finally Pac 10 football. I never went to a Texas State game, etc. While seeing Michigan on TV no doubt encouraged my love of college football, it also served to basically set me on the path to giving my disposable cash to 'big time cfb' instead of 'local squads'.

So basically yeah -- this is all just a continuation of that. Michigan, Texas, etc don't want to share that 30 year+ TV haul, especially as it contracts a bit.

FirefightnRick · January 4, 2017

Here's a question for you.

I've read the arguement that it's the P5 president's fighting the hardest against a true playoff because of the massive amount of money it would generate, and that money making power would set up the AD's as the most powerful positions on campus...and the president's won't stand for that.

My question is...isn't that already the case for most schools?

Rick

SHOSS · January 4, 2017

128 divided by 8 is 16, number of schools in 8 conferences...

each conf has 2, 8 team divisions

Each conf has a champ from a conf cham game in tourney

It creates a 16 team tourney... so simple.

F the pre-existing monopolistic advantages... pure tourney style champ. Level playing field for all of fbs.. ready go! Regular season would be 10 games to determine each div champs...

National champ would play 10 reg season games, conf champ game(16), quarter final(8), semi final(4), and final final(2) game. 14 game season max...done.