Comments from Commissioners meeting 6/13/12

[CuseLegacy]

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ted-multiple-options-college-football-playoff

Multiple playoff options on table. Ultimately presidents will decide on post season.

 

[OrangePA]

This has been the trend - Athletic Directors are no longer making the decisions - presidents (non-professionals) are calling the shots.

And that is why we have had the kind of upheaval in college football.

The pros - the guys that truly understand the college football business - should be empowered.

 

[Chip]

This has been the trend - Athletic Directors are no longer making the decisions - presidents (non-professionals) are calling the shots.

And that is why we have had the kind of upheaval in college football.

The pros - the guys that truly understand the college football business - should be empowered.

While this is certainly true, I think the Presidents have always called the shots. For years, we heard how there would be no playoff at all because the Presidents would never go for it, they wanted to protect the tradition of the bowls.

But at this point, the noise is getting too great. The Athletic Directors are the ones who feel that pressure for a playoff, and probably pass that onto the Presidents. I do believe that the Athletic Directors are very trusted advisors to whatever decisions the Presidents vote for, as are the Conference Commissioners (let's not forget about them). Problem is, the Athletic Directors themselves, as well as the Conference Commissioners, have different ideas of how the playoff should work.

In reality, they aren't that far off, so it might just be a sword fight at this point. These are the most likely options that I've heard.

1. Top 4 teams, regardless of Conference Champions, in a semi-final/final format.
2. Top 4 teams, to include Conference Champions if Conference Champions are ranked in the Top 6. If the Top 5 is all Conference Champs, then the Top 4 go. Semi-final/final format.
3. Play the bowls, then have a Plus one game of two top ranked teams after the bowls are played.

There are other logistics such as where to play the games, but the biggest issue is deciding which of those 3 options. And when you think about it, those 3 options just aren't all that different. #3 would probably be least popular because of no semi-final to final format. But #1 and #2 are almost identical to me, it's splitting hairs.

 

[Moontan]

But #1 and #2 are almost identical to me, it's splitting hairs.

They're quite different actually. When there's a period where one conference is clearly dominant, like the SEC has been of late, there's a possibility for a conference to have 3 participants in a playoff of 4 teams. Don't think so? What would've happened if Georgia (perhaps with an extra win in the east) had beaten LSU in the SEC championship game last year?

 

[OrangePA]

While this is certainly true, I think the Presidents have always called the shots. For years, we heard how there would be no playoff at all because the Presidents would never go for it, they wanted to protect the tradition of the bowls.

But at this point, the noise is getting too great. The Athletic Directors are the ones who feel that pressure for a playoff, and probably pass that onto the Presidents. I do believe that the Athletic Directors are very trusted advisors to whatever decisions the Presidents vote for, as are the Conference Commissioners (let's not forget about them). Problem is, the Athletic Directors themselves, as well as the Conference Commissioners, have different ideas of how the playoff should work.

In reality, they aren't that far off, so it might just be a sword fight at this point. These are the most likely options that I've heard.

1. Top 4 teams, regardless of Conference Champions, in a semi-final/final format.
2. Top 4 teams, to include Conference Champions if Conference Champions are ranked in the Top 6. If the Top 5 is all Conference Champs, then the Top 4 go. Semi-final/final format.
3. Play the bowls, then have a Plus one game of two top ranked teams after the bowls are played.

There are other logistics such as where to play the games, but the biggest issue is deciding which of those 3 options. And when you think about it, those 3 options just aren't all that different. #3 would probably be least popular because of no semi-final to final format. But #1 and #2 are almost identical to me, it's splitting hairs.

A friend of mine is a professional - a college athletics executive.

He tells me that too many decisions are being made by those who do not possess the skill set - that there has been the shift that I described.

He does not seem to agree that ADs are considered consiglieris (sp) in the process - not at all.

 

[Scooch]

I think it's a friggin' joke that college President's spend so much time thinking about football.

What the hell has become of our academic instituions?

Oh Lord

 

[Chip]

They're quite different actually. When there's a period where one conference is clearly dominant, like the SEC has been of late, there's a possibility for a conference to have 3 participants in a playoff of 4 teams. Don't think so? What would've happened if Georgia (perhaps with an extra win in the east) had beaten LSU in the SEC championship game last year?

If Georgia beat LSU, then the playoff under #2 would still be LSU, Alabama, Oregon, Oklahoma State, right? Oregon and Oklahoma State would have been the only Conference Champs in the Top 6 (not Georgia, not Clemson, not Wisconsin, not West Virginia). So then it goes to the 2 best teams. Unless a loss somehow dropped LSU behind Stanford, but I can't imagine that would have happened. Still wouldn't have forced Alabama out though.

Top 6 is a pretty high standard for a Conf Champ to hit.

SEC should also keep in mind that last year was an anomaly, but if I'm right even that anomaly wouldn't have prevented them from 2 playoff teams in the Conf Champ scenario. There will be increased parity in that league (thought I just read that 8 or 9 of the Top 12 recruiting classes was SEC?). There will be years where their best team will have 2 losses, and won't be in the Top 4 just based on record, even though it might be the best team in the country. But would/could be in the Top 6. They'd be squeezing themselves out.

 

[Chip]

A friend of mine is a professional - a college athletics executive.

He tells me that too many decisions are being made by those who do not possess the skill set - that there has been the shift that I described.

He does not seem to agree that ADs are considered consiglieris (sp) in the process - not at all.

Interesting. Would make you think AD salaries should come down. If they're just schedule makers but not advisors in such a process, then why pay a premium?

Where do Conf Commissioners fit in? I know at the end of the day, their job is to look out for the interests of those they represent, but they don't strike me as the type that says "so what do you think". They strike me as the type that say "here's what you think".

 

[cuseincincy]

While this is certainly true, I think the Presidents have always called the shots. For years, we heard how there would be no playoff at all because the Presidents would never go for it, they wanted to protect the tradition of the bowls.

But at this point, the noise is getting too great. The Athletic Directors are the ones who feel that pressure for a playoff, and probably pass that onto the Presidents. I do believe that the Athletic Directors are very trusted advisors to whatever decisions the Presidents vote for, as are the Conference Commissioners (let's not forget about them). Problem is, the Athletic Directors themselves, as well as the Conference Commissioners, have different ideas of how the playoff should work.

In reality, they aren't that far off, so it might just be a sword fight at this point. These are the most likely options that I've heard.

1. Top 4 teams, regardless of Conference Champions, in a semi-final/final format.
2. Top 4 teams, to include Conference Champions if Conference Champions are ranked in the Top 6. If the Top 5 is all Conference Champs, then the Top 4 go. Semi-final/final format.
3. Play the bowls, then have a Plus one game of two top ranked teams after the bowls are played.

There are other logistics such as where to play the games, but the biggest issue is deciding which of those 3 options. And when you think about it, those 3 options just aren't all that different. #3 would probably be least popular because of no semi-final to final format. But #1 and #2 are almost identical to me, it's splitting hairs.

None of these are good options. They all lend too much to opinion and pre-season rankings. Which by the way also gives the SEC an inherent advantage right now. Its really quite simple. Pick your auto bid conferences which at this point should be 5 since the Big East won't deserve one after WVU, Pitt and SU are gone. Then add your 3 at large bids. At this point I don't care if all 3 at large come from the same conference. But make them play it out against the other conference champions. Football schedules are so conference dominated and teams play so few out of conference games its hard to rate conferences against each other.

 

[Moontan]

If Georgia beat LSU, then the playoff under #2 would still be LSU, Alabama, Oregon, Oklahoma State, right? Oregon and Oklahoma State would have been the only Conference Champs in the Top 6 (not Georgia, not Clemson, not Wisconsin, not West Virginia). So then it goes to the 2 best teams. Unless a loss somehow dropped LSU behind Stanford, but I can't imagine that would have happened. Still wouldn't have forced Alabama out though.

Top 6 is a pretty high standard for a Conf Champ to hit.

SEC should also keep in mind that last year was an anomaly, but if I'm right even that anomaly wouldn't have prevented them from 2 playoff teams in the Conf Champ scenario. There will be increased parity in that league (thought I just read that 8 or 9 of the Top 12 recruiting classes was SEC?). There will be years where their best team will have 2 losses, and won't be in the Top 4 just based on record, even though it might be the best team in the country. But would/could be in the Top 6. They'd be squeezing themselves out.

If Georgia had beaten South Carolina (only lost by 3) or the season opener against Boise, the win over LSU would've had them at 12-1 as SEC champions, LSU at 12-1 and Alabama at 11-1. Methinks they all get in... ahead of Oregon and Stanford.

I'd prefer an 8-team playoff, but for a 4 team playoff I'd like to see the top 3 conference champions (must be ranked in the top X... 6?) with the field filled with the remaining highest ranked teams.

I agree that 3 out of 4 would be very rare... but just imagine the outrage.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Interesting. Would make you think AD salaries should come down. If they're just schedule makers but not advisors in such a process, then why pay a premium?

Where do Conf Commissioners fit in? I know at the end of the day, their job is to look out for the interests of those they represent, but they don't strike me as the type that says "so what do you think". They strike me as the type that say "here's what you think".

too many chiefs, not enough indians.

 

[Chip]

None of these are good options. They all lend too much to opinion and pre-season rankings. Which by the way also gives the SEC an inherent advantage right now. Its really quite simple. Pick your auto bid conferences which at this point should be 5 since the Big East won't deserve one after WVU, Pitt and SU are gone. Then add your 3 at large bids. At this point I don't care if all 3 at large come from the same conference. But make them play it out against the other conference champions. Football schedules are so conference dominated and teams play so few out of conference games its hard to rate conferences against each other.

Don't know if I necessarily agree with this. I do agree that preseason rankings often have some crap in there, where big name teams who might not be very good get votes, and then the lesser names teams have higher to climb.

But I also think that it tends to shake out by the end of the year. I know there are bad examples of course, but take Cincy. Wouldn't they have been in the playoffs a couple years ago under the Conf Champ in the Top 6 scenario? I can't imagine they were ranked too highly (if at all) in the preseason.

The one other complication they need to resolve (in addition to game locations) is how teams are ranked. That will be a big one.

 

[cuseincincy]

Don't know if I necessarily agree with this. I do agree that preseason rankings often have some crap in there, where big name teams who might not be very good get votes, and then the lesser names teams have higher to climb.

But I also think that it tends to shake out by the end of the year. I know there are bad examples of course, but take Cincy. Wouldn't they have been in the playoffs a couple years ago under the Conf Champ in the Top 6 scenario? I can't imagine they were ranked too highly (if at all) in the preseason.

The one other complication they need to resolve (in addition to game locations) is how teams are ranked. That will be a big one.

No doubt there is still potential for a less than deserving team to make the 8 team tournament. The Big East in particular has had a few clunker champions in the past 10 years but I think its better to include 1 potential clunker out of 8 than to only go 4 and potentially only include only 2 conferences in the 4 team tournament. My way gives the 3 at larges to make sure at least the top 4 teams are still included even they are all in the same conference. You have to draw the line somewhere and imo 4 is too few with now 5 major conferences left. If one of the New BE teams is in the top 8 they should still be able to grab an at large.

 

[OrangePA]

Interesting. Would make you think AD salaries should come down. If they're just schedule makers but not advisors in such a process, then why pay a premium?

Where do Conf Commissioners fit in? I know at the end of the day, their job is to look out for the interests of those they represent, but they don't strike me as the type that says "so what do you think". They strike me as the type that say "here's what you think".

I wonder as well.

I wish I knew more about it.

 

[rrlbees]

This has been the trend - Athletic Directors are no longer making the decisions - presidents (non-professionals) are calling the shots.

And that is why we have had the kind of upheaval in college football.

The pros - the guys that truly understand the college football business - should be empowered.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I think many times the BOT Executive Committees make the calls and not the President.

 

[cuseincincy]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I think many times the BOT Executive Committees make the calls and not the President.

I'm just guessing Bees but are those guys in your signature singing "Call Me Maybe?"

 

[OrangePA]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I think many times the BOT Executive Committees make the calls and not the President.

I suspect that that's not so.

I suspect that the BOT can urge, convince, push etc.

But in many if not most or all instances the president makes the call.

Coach P is an example that comes to mind.

 

[rrlbees]

I suspect that that's not so.

I suspect that the BOT can urge, convince, push etc.

But in many if not most or all instances the president makes the call.

Coach P is an example that comes to mind.

Not talking about hire and fire decisions necessarily.

 

[OrangePA]

Not talking about hire and fire decisions necessarily.

Well, in the same ball park, I guess.