The CFP rent’s too damned high, ctd.

Okay, as a follow up to yesterday’s post about playoff expansion, I wanted to share a few semi-facetious thoughts about a better path.

I say semi-facetious because we all know what college football’s Jed Clampetts and Mickey are going to do, no matter what, and so any suggestions to the contrary are basically pissing in the wind.  That being said, there is a certain freedom in wind pissing that I appreciate.

So, let’s start with this basic premise:  as a general rule of thumb, there aren’t four teams worthy of national title consideration in a given season.

Or, to put it another way,

There just aren’t that many teams built to win national championships. Just because there’s a playoff with X number of teams doesn’t mean that they all are good enough to win it:

Over the past 25 seasons, every team that has won or shared a national title has had an S&P+ rating in the 95th percentile or better, with rounding. The worst was 2002 Ohio State at 94.8 percent. However, all but three teams (four, if you include UCF in 2017) were in the 98th percentile or higher. Usually the elitest of the elite earn the ring.

As I wrote yesterday, one of college football’s unique aspects is that it boasts less parity between D-1 teams than any other major competitive sport in this country.  There simply aren’t that many great teams in a given season.  Which is why I think this conclusion is a stretch:

The Playoff semifinals are weed-out classes. The best teams almost always get through, but they’re good for ensuring the best teams really are the best teams.

So far, it’s worked. The four national champs in the Playoff era have finished first, first, second, and second in S&P+. Bama and Clemson are in the top two spots heading into this season’s title game. It’s time for the final exam.

There really hasn’t been much weeding out.  As Matt Hinton pointed out, only two of the first ten semi-final games have finished with single-digit margins between the participants.

In other words, a four-team playoff hasn’t really been needed for the most part to separate the two best teams from the pack.

There is a but, though.  Here’s my second basic premise:  to the extent that there is any real tension behind the drive to expand the college football playoffs, it comes from years when there are three teams with legitimate claims to earning a national title.

Those sorts of season aren’t the standard, but they crop up often enough to be an issue.  The problem is that a mandated four-team (soon to be eight-team) format is a cure worse than the disease, if the goal is to reward the very best in college football, given the likelihood that teams unworthy of that final goal are being incorporated into the process in an attempt to make sure the worthy teams are given their place.

Let me extend that medical metaphor one step further.  The reason the cure is worse than the disease is that an expanded playoff creates a new symptom.  A watered down playoff field not only makes the playoff itself less entertaining, but it also makes the top tier bowl games less entertaining because those match ups are diminished by bracket creep.

As crazy as that seems, what’s even crazier is that the only solution the powers that be appear to have for the problem is to introduce a larger playoff field, something that will only exacerbate the exact problem they’re trying to fix, or, more accurately, the problem they claim they’re trying to fix.  The real problem for the suits is leaving money on the table for their product.

It’s a broken system.  How, then, could the patient be cured, or at least nursed back to health, so to speak?  Well, one way would be to level the playing field a good bit through re-engineering scheduling or roster size, but that’s an even bigger pipe dream than holding back the tide on playoff expansion.

If it were up to me, here’s where I would go.  First, outsource the selection process to the folks with no skin in the game, the bloodless types who run Vegas sports books.  They have no inherent bias or conflict, other than avoiding the loss of money.  In one fell swoop, you would eliminate a factor that was introduced with the shift from the BCS to the CFP, the consideration of spreading the wealth between the P5 conferences.  (That factor being, of course, the primary motivation behind expansion to a quarter-finals.)

Vegas power ranks programs.  Let Vegas come up with whatever games involving the top teams would result in setting lines of less than, say, eight points.  If there is only one game that meets that criteria, so be it.  If there are three teams that are on that level, then fashion a semi-finals that includes the three and winds up with the top team getting to face the fourth best.  Nobody deserving is left out in that situation, and we’ve still got a decent shot of having at least one competitive game worth watching.

Yes, I know it’s a proposal that’s DOA because there’s no way Disney would be happy booking that level of uncertainty.  (I said this was a semi-facetious post, remember?)  For what’s it’s worth, though, I think that’s actually a little overstated.  ESPN could still come up with a whale of a show setting up how the playoff would look every season and — here we get to the second part of my mad scheme — the remaining games would be more competitive, more entertaining and, hence, more valuable.

To enhance that possibility, I would let the bowls do the one thing they were good at in their heyday, which is to let them have free rein in assembling the participating schools.  End the mandatory conference tie-ins; hell, make things more Wild West by letting the bowls bid for teams.  (For schools that just whiff on making the playoff, that could make for a nice consolation prize.)  Top tier bowls selfishly want games that generate fan interest.  Let them have those again.

Okay, so that’s all I’ve got.  I know it’s a waste of bandwidth, but I feel better for typing that.  (It sure beats what’s coming.)  Now I’ll go back to my college football death watch.  Just give me those five good years, please…


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, College Football

80 responses to “The CFP rent’s too damned high, ctd.

  1. Granthams replacement

    The old idea of playing all the bowls the adding one game for 1 and 2 seems more appealing now. Mickey gets more interest in several higher tier bowls and the extra Jan 7th finale.


    • Especially if you eliminate the tie ins and have the committee select playoff teams AFTER the NY6 bowls. Bowls become a top tier inter-regional matchup as a final audition to the committee. UGA-OSU in the Rose or Sugar. UCF beating LSU gives them something to think about. The Sugar Bowl means something again. Cons: you’re adding an extra week if you want 4 teams after bowls.

      Liked by 1 person

      • It would be selecting 2 on January 2.


        • Accidentally erased first try at that comment on mobile. I had written about picking 2 or 4 but it didn’t make it into 2nd draft. Maybe you eliminate conf champ games if you’re picking 4 on Jan 2. Either way this fixes the ND and weak conf championship matchup problems.


          • The SEC is never going to eliminate its championship game voluntarily. The presidents aren’t going to allow football to become a 2 semester sport even if it’s only for 4 teams.

            I do like the idea of selecting the 2 teams after the bowl games, but if we’re going that route, you may as well go back to the days of the BCS. Just my thoughts.


    • Gaskilldawg

      That was the playoff proposal Vince Dooley advocated 40 years ago. Sounds like the best solution to me.


    • gastr1

      In counterpoint to the Senator’s contention that a four-team playoff “hasn’t really been needed for the most part to separate the two best teams from the pack,” I think, actually, the games serve the useful function of clarifying what typically is a statistical/coaches’ poll/eye test separation only.

      In other words, the first-round games’ lack of competitiveness do lend credence to the idea that more rounds would be less competitive, not more. But the only way we can say that with any real authority is by having the first-round games played on the field to illustrate the disparity.


  2. St. Johns Dawg

    I’m still curious about the fan argument that an 8 team playoff should have the 5 (or 6) power conference champions … With the counter argument being “You could have a 7-5 team make the playoff field”. When this happens in the NCAA basketball tournament it’s called “Cinderella advances in the big dance” and everybody loves it … But in football it’s a problem?
    I get that ESPN hates it because the ratings for that game would likely be lower (and that affects $$$) … But depending on the Cinderella who makes it in … would they be lower?
    Even though I agree with the follow-the-money angles presented, I’d still rather watch a somewhat lame playoff game than Nevada play Arkansas State in the Whack-A-Mole Bowl on Dec. 27 every year.


    • Tony Barnfart

      1. The playoff is never going to be big enough to eliminate the Wack-A-Mole bowl.
      2. But as the Senator said, what it would do is make sure AT LEAST 2 of the NY6 (and likely more) have crappier games than we saw Saturday, every single year from here till eternity with 1-8; 2-7 matchups—that’s a predicament as bad as the stand-alone BCS title game era when every old-line bowl was a permanent step child.
      3. Basketball is just fundamentally different. A Cinderella can make a run through a tournament with about 9 decent players. All a Cinderella gets you in an 8 or 16 team field is missing out on better games. Even if they beat Ohio State in Round 1, they’re not going to take out Clemson and Alabama back-to-back after that. When you need about 55 good players minimum to compete, it becomes a mathematical impossiblility to win 3 big upsets in a row in football. After San Diego State beats Washington or Ohio State, instead of then watching one of those two play Alabama and maybe knock them out, you get Alabama beating SDSU like an arctic seal.
      4. Why should the sport (basketball) that relies on funding from the other one (football) dictate how a post-season should be run ? The reason mickey deals in so much money with football decisions is because the public throws a ton of money down on football. The public doesn’t throw a ton of money down on football because it sucks in its current format.

  3. Athens Dog

    I hope we get 3………..sigh


  4. An expanded playoff and the bowl system cannot coexist. Expansion to 8 and beyond will mean the death of the bowl system for the P5. Quarterfinal losers (both players and fans) will have zero interest in the games. The bowl system has been a growing bubble for some time now … playoff expansion will be the pin that pops the bubble.

    I’m sure the expansion advocates will tell me exactly where I’m wrong and that 8 will be great for everyone.


  5. Mayor

    Im ready to go back to the polls picking the national champion. You had all the top bowls matter because teams could leap frog their way to the top. I remember one year when ND went from 5th to 1st. No players sat out because, among other reasons, they could still win the natty.


  6. Outsource the selection process to Vegas? I commend you for laying out some good ideas here Senator, but that is not one of them. We don’t want bookies telling us who gets to play who based only on their increasing opportunity to make money off of a terrible vice. I would rather have a computer or a committee.


  7. UGA '97

    All other levels of football have playoffs, so the nest team still rises to the top. I think we have to decide what is more important here. Giving the kids a shot at earning a championship on the field, or just trying to make better bowls with more even matchups?? Since highschool is kept more local to an area, region that have more similar styles of play/skill and nfl has more parity, it’s easy to see why the 4 team playoff has bad games due to teams with heavy blue chippers being so dominant. Tie ins to bowls at least tried to keep the matchups pretty even, but since styles of offense keeps evolving, transfers are happening at a faster rate, coaches and players aren’t as loyal to programs for 4 years anymore, and talent keeps skipping bowls, etc…we are seeing large swings in win/loss margins therefore attendance and viewership is dropping. Eliminating the tie ins to lesser bowls a good start to fix the entertainment value, but likely will not fix the bigger issue with the playoff, or as its become, payoff. Kids deserve the chance to be rewarded even if they blown off the field.


  8. Cynical Dawg

    College football is exactly like minor league baseball and has been for the past 20 years. The SEC is the AAA farm league for the NFL. Clemson is a very good AA team. The rest of P5 varies from AA down to the Pac 12 being Rookie A league AT BEST.


  9. Muttley

    I’ve always seen two basic problems with alleged college football championships:

    (1) The NCAA is not a league. Try comparing Georgia’s 10-2 in 2007 with Hawai’i’s 12-0. Extreme schedule disparity, conference disparity (often equally extreme), and way over a hundred programs make it impossible to interpret the language of the regular season.

    (2) Subjectivity. Just imagine for a moment if the MLB season ended with a panel of figureheads evaluating the St. Louis Cardinals “body of work” and then voting. Juries work o.k. for figure-skating and gymnastics. They have no role in any game played with a ball.

    I love the suggestion here, especially restoring the bowls. Failing that, make it a P5 championship with 4-5 as a play-in game. Or just ignore the P12. But screw Boise and UCF officially.


  10. I like the idea of the bowls being free to select anyone.
    As for the CFP using the top 4 rated S&P+ teams seems to be another solution. Until this year I though they had gotten it correct. Your Solution would be an improvement for sure.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Uglydawg.

    Micky’s rush to grab dollars stirs the wind that blows that piss-logic right back on your khakis. He don’t GAS.
    He somehow now owns CFB .
    And here’s the wind for his sails…
    There are countless dummies in particular regions (mostly the midwest) that believe their teams deserve to be in the playoffs…. just because. I can introduce you to dumb asses that think Penn State should have been in…Ohio St…of course…and even Michigan. Of course, Notre Dame with any season above 9 wins is to be considered. And a lot of these idiots are on TV, telling us immediately after the Florida beat-down of Michigan what a great team the Wolverines really are and how they’ll be “right there” next year..seeking that invite. Same with ND after Clemson cleaned their clock. We had to endure the “they’re really good, they just needed to play a perfect game” bullshit from Blackledge of all people. Good grief
    They’re going to kill the goose on the alter of the BIG and a few other pathetic fan bases that think they’re entitled.
    Start adding one or two more games and you’ll see kids saying it’s not worth the risk to their careers and they’ll be right. If one bowl game is a risk to their millions, two is twice the risk..three or four??? And esp. as the body is worn down from all of it.
    Screw you Micky, you little asshole.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. 92 grad

    I’m just resigned to being happy and satisfied if our team gets to compete for our conference title. Everything else is just too irrational for me to attach a lot of interest. It’s only fun when/if we’re invited.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. dshillz

    Don’t know if this counts as a feature or a bug, but overlooked in the playoff expansion discussion is how an expanded field will make it much more likely that the best team does not become champion. Looking to the example of basketball:

    “March Madness is an inefficient way of identifying the best team. If the better team wins an individual game 70% of the time and winning the tournament requires winning six straight games, then the chances of the stronger team winning all six games is 0.706, or roughly 12%. That means, on average, the tournament identifies the best team only once per decade. (Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths, Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions)”


    Of course talent disparity is much greater in football, and maybe this we’re all so desperate for Alabama and Clemson to get knocked off their perch that more randomness is the feature we need, but it also takes the shine off the whole process to diminish the greatness of the champions.

    Liked by 2 people

    • PTC DAWG

      i like the way it is now.

      Beat Texas


    • Mayor

      ML Baseball is an even better example of what you are saying. The Braves has the best team for about 10 years in a row. In the old days they would have won the National League every year and likely won about 5 World Series championships. But with the addition of the NLCS and the Division Series all they got was a ticket to the playoffs where they had to play a short series of games against teams that were only percentage points behind them.


  14. Thank you for eliminating the conference tie in! GO DAWGS!

    Liked by 1 person

  15. StrawmeATL

    I’d like to see the P5’s agree that they used North/South or East/West divisions as they are today for scheduling, however, in years where the second best team is one game ahead of the lesser division champ, that team plays in the conference championship. This year, Mich would’ve played OSU for example. Notre Dame would also play the ACC champ if ND’s record is one game better than the lesser participant. So ND would have played Clemson this year. Then rest of the process unfolds as it currently does. This solution doesn’t do anything to help the UCFs of the world. But I’m not sure an 8 team playoff does either.


  16. Patrick

    The bowl game is only game on a team’s schedule where the outcome has no tangible effect on winning the national title.

    Unless that changes, I don’t think any shuffling of the matchups will make bowl games valuable enough to the power brokers to keep them around. The ratings gap between playoff bowl games and non-playoff bowl games will be too much incentive to expand.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. W Cobb Dawg

    That would all be great, because the playoff that just happened was a major let down.

    It would be a huge leap forward if they’d schedule the championship game for Saturday at 5. Monday night is just fricken nuts. Let’s start with that simple move.


    • Problem is next weekend is Wild Card weekend in the NFL


      • Macallanlover

        I don’t see where that matters, two distinctively different markets, imo. But then, I don’t have an issue with Monday night either, never understood that point.


        • ESPN has one of the Wild Card days. I’m sure the contract with the NFL stipulates they can’t broadcast football during the Saturday and Sunday of that weekend. Therefore, they can’t have the championship game on Saturday or Sunday.


      • Kdsdawg

        shouldn’t matter, there is plenty of time for three games on a Saturday that don’t interfere with each other. It happens every Sunday in the NFL. 1pm
        4:15 and & 7:30 kickoffs on wild card weekend should not be a problem. Monday night is ridiculous.


        • The wild card games on Saturday are 4:15 and 8:15. No way does ESPN put the CFPCG at 1:00 on Saturday. They could play prime time on Sunday night if ESPN’s contract with the NFL would allow it.


  18. Chopdawg

    I think the FBS playoff system was originally devised to insure that a “game of the century”–’66 Notre Dame vs Michigan State, ’69 Texas-Arkansas–would be played every season.

    This year’s “game of the century” features Alabama vs Clemson and will be played next Monday night.

    I do think college football is overall a better product if the two best teams get to play each other every year, and maybe the playoff system is the best way to do this. But maybe going back to a plus-1 game, to be held after all the bowls, would work better, especially if some sort of totally unbiased system could be devised to pick the two teams.


  19. Gurkha Dawg

    Senator, before reading your article I was 100% against playoff expansion. Now I am for expanding to 8 teams. Your reasoning reminds me of the brilliant Ancient Greek philosophers who were trying to figure out how many teeth a horse had by examining the grass they ate and looking at their feces. Then some farmer walked up and said ” why don’t you just open the horses mouth and count the teeth?” So you want to have a bunch of Vegas bookies pick the 2 or 3 best teams using their fancy data and algorithms. If only there were a better way to determine the best team. Oh! I’ve got it! We can let them play an actual game!


    • Vegas installed Alabama and Clemson as heavy favorites in the semis. Both won by double digits. Both teams are 14-0. Both were favored in every game they played this season.

      What exactly did Vegas miss?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Gurkha Dawg

        I understand what you’re saying, and I certainly would never bet against Vegas. Just out of curiosity, would you have rather not have the semi final game at all? I just can’t think of a better way to determine the better team than to let them play.


      • papadawg

        What would’ve happened last year if it had been up to Vegas? Would we really have seen the Dawgs playing for the championship?
        Maybe the playoff wasn’t needed this season, but last year it seemed that the powers-that-be needed a little help determining the top two.


        • I’m not sure why you say that. Georgia was installed as a 2.5-point favorite against Oklahoma.


          • papadawg

            It was a question. I’m asking because I have a short memory. ha.
            And Bama was a favorite, too, right? So that supports that Vegas knows the teams better than the committee (big shock).
            I’m just wondering if the Vegas odds predicted how the games played out for all of the playoffs. I assume (didn’t check) that Ohio State throws a curveball a few years ago but the rest are fine.


      • Hot Dawg

        Usually, you’re advocating to get players paid. With the number of holdouts preparing for the NFL, why not throw in a dollar incentive for players as well? Watches and iPhones are nice, but why not put some cash into the equation? Say winning players get $10 K per player with the losers getting 2.5 K, all of which NCAA would sanction. It would be up to Vegas to kick in the cash as a buy-in to this new system. No money for coaches, they’re getting their paycheck. An over riding insurance policy paid by TV could cover injuries.


        • Those insurance policies are a drop in the bucket compared to the NFL contract. A player who doesn’t want to play to protect himself for the draft is going to do that regardless of the financial incentive to play.


    • JCDawg83

      Vegas would do a much better job than the beauty pageant committee that is made up of people with an absolute emotional and financial stake in who gets selected. The Vegas folks have no concern at all over who plays, their focus is purely objective, they want to set lines that ensure perfectly balanced betting on every game. Vegas does an excellent job and the CFP committee seems to do a barely adequate job.

      Until the playoff, be it 4, 6, 8, 16 or however many teams it is, is some sort of objective “tournament” where a team knows on day one of the season what it has to do to get in, the FBS national championship will continue to be “mythical”. Can you imagine the outrage if the NFL went to a system where the 8 division winners did not play each other to determine who won their conference and played in the Super Bowl but had a committee of sports writers, team owners, former coaches and “smart people” who selected the two teams that played in the Super Bowl based on “eye test”, “body of work”, etc.? As silly as that seems, it is exactly the current situation in the highest level of college football.

      Any sort of playoff renders bowl games totally irrelevant and useless. Unless we go back to the pre BCS days when the “champion” was crowned by polls, there will be very little interest in bowl games.


  20. Tony Barnfart

    Viewers of “shitty” bowl games “nobody” watches:
    (3.790M) WISC-Miami Pinstripe
    (3.343M) Baylor-Vandy Texas
    3.334M FRES ST-ASU Las Vegas
    (2.700M) TCU-Cal Cactus
    (2.686M) MIN-GT Detroit
    (2.577M) Army-HOU Armed Forces
    (2.533M) WAKE-MEM Birmingham

    Comparable rivalry week games:
    4.109M WSH-WSH ST P12 11/23, 8:00p FOX
    3.664M NEB-Iowa B1G 11/23, Noon FOX
    3.553M UVA-VT ACC 11/23, 3:30p ABC
    (3.261M) SC-CLEM SEC, ACC 11/24, 7:00p ESPN
    2.380M UF-FSU SEC, ACC 11/24, Noon ABC
    2.176M MD-PSU B1G 11/24, 3:30p ABC
    1.919M ARK-MIZZ SEC 11/23, 2:30p CBS
    (1.741M) UCF-USF AAC 11/23, 4:15p ESPN
    1.615M OKLA ST-TCU B12 11/24, 8:00p FOX
    1.185M Texas-KU B12 11/23, Noon FS1
    (1.108M) MISS ST-MISS SEC 11/22, 7:20p ESPN
    (1.078M) UT ST-BOISE MWC 11/24, 10:45p ESPN
    (1.031M) MINN-WISC B1G 11/24, 3:30p ESPN2
    945K ORE-ORE ST P12 11/23, 4:00p FS1


    • Russ.

      Yeoman’s work, and appreciated. If the shitty bowls didn’t have viewers, they wouldn’t exist. Period. Your work confirms that.


  21. Tony Barnfart

    I suppose the counter-argument is that those Bowls have much more of an undivided competition for viewers. And there’s some truth to that.


  22. Russ.

    I agree there usually aren’t 4 worthy teams, hence the frequent mismatches in the semis. The problem is that the committee #1 team never wins it. Last year, it was #3 & 4 playing the final. That says we need the playoff to find the right two out of the four. But I hate the playoff, so there has to be another way.

    One, I guess we could use S&P to identify the top two, but there are also time that doesn’t match what I see on the field.

    I’d rather go back to the bowls (unaligned) and after all the bowls, pick 2 for a Championship game. Rejuvenate interest in the bowls, dump all the NFL wannabe fans, and get back to the regional glory that was college football.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. paul

    I’ve only been alive a little more than sixty years. However, in my lifetime we have only had the occasional season where three teams legitimately deserve to be considered as possibly the best team in the nation. Never even once have eight teams deserved to be in that conversation. And it will never happen without something drastic like the Senator’s idea about severely restricting scholarships. Under the current rules there will never be eight teams playing that well in the same season. So what do you want to see? The team that peaks at the right time or the best team for the entirety of a season? Playoffs tend to produce the former.


  24. Whiskeydawg

    “ESPN could still come up with a whale of a show setting up how the playoff would look every season” – that would be the only way the folks at “Mouseschwitz” would buy that plan; if they thought the system ultimately put more butts in the seat.


  25. Your site, your rants, and the next one will be the same.


  26. Dylan

    There was never a problem with the BCS formula, it was just that the top two were selected. BCS plus 4 teams solves the problem.


  27. Former Fan

    The only crazy thing about your post is how you insulted Jed Clampant. While he was lucky in finding his bonanza, he seemed to manage it rather well.


  28. TN Dawg

    A side question somewhat pertaining to this issue.

    Would an expansion of CFP create a couple of side effects?

    1) Would it become a benchmark for success for coaches regarding contract extensions?

    2) Would limited success begin help create a bit of party in football?

    I don’t have any hard and fast positions on this, I just wonder about these things based on trends we see in NCAA basketball.

    It seems that oft-times when discussing a BB coaches accomplishments we discuss how many times they “took a team to the tournament” and the number of occasional Final Four appearances they had as relative, somewhat reasonable benchmarks for coaches. So a coach like Mark Few is highly respected and coveted in his trade, though he has never won a title. Even a coach like Calipari tends to avoid criticism in off seasons because his team got to the Round of 8, Sweet Sixteen, etc.

    In the Age of Saban, that seems like that would be welcome relief in the era of fan bases using a Ricky Bobby dichotomy, first or last.

    Regarding parity, I again will reference Gonzaga. There is probably a decent reason to believe that Gonzaga’s early runs into the Elite 8 and Sweet 16 whilst they were largely unknown to most of the country, improved their ability to compete for top recruits and better atheletes going forward (Boise State would be the closest I can think of in football) and build a top-tier competitive program year-in/year-out. Could national exposure in the playoffs do the same for programs outside of the ultra-elite in football?

    Just a thought, not sure it’s worth much.


  29. TN Dawg

    In regards to your theory, it’s sounds fairly reasonable.

    My question, however, is how Vegas calculates the line. Is it actually an attempt to predict the outcome?

    I have always been under the assumption that Vegas sets lines in an effort to get bettors to wager equally on both sides, not necessarily to try to predict an outcome.


    • In a perfect world, they want to get the opening line as close to their projected result as possible (in other words, market equilibrium). The lines move to react to money coming in. It’s the classic supply and demand curve. If money is demanding Bama over Clemson, the price for the next bet on Bama has to go up. Therefore, the book has to require the bettor to give more points to wager Bama to cover. The opposite is true when money moves on Clemson to take the points. The bettor has to take fewer points to bet Clemson to cover the spread. The bettor has to react to the moving spread to determine if the price is right.


    • Macallanlover

      In a word, no. They could care less about the actual winner, it is all about how they do financially on any given game. The line is set, and adjusted, to achieve a perfect 50/50 split of money on each team. That guarantees them of a guaranteed 5% net on the total dollars bet with no risk at all. Oddly, Vegas isn’t in the business of “gambling”, just want the sure thing every time. They cannot get it perfect of course, so there is a minimal amount of profit/loss on each game, not enough to try and control the outcome….they don’t want the sport to go away as it is another profit opportunity each week. A gambling scandal would reduce the number of players and dollars for them.


  30. dawg10mc

    I think that expanding would actually bring in more $$$$ for the rat in Florida.
    I think they would have to clean up the selection process but if done right…could make this work really well…or at least better than now.


  31. Will Trane

    Well, so much for the SEC East teams performances in the bowls.
    They are getting their butts beat this year.
    Only Florida has held up its end of the deal
    The level of play in SEC East has to get much better than what it is now.
    South Carolina and Missouri looked flat and bad.


  32. How does Mizzou lose that game? 600+ yards…only the SOD could find himself in a situation to wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory.


  33. illinidawg

    Report from Bourbon Street at 5am. My dogs loved the puke and pizza and some of the joints were going strong. Go Dawgs.


  34. Scotty Gadlin

    Obviously this will never happen, because $$$, but an ideal scenario for playoff expansion would coincide with making college football once again more of a regional sport. An 8 team playoff with 5 guaranteed bids for conference champion and 1 for group of 5. That leaves 2 at large spots. The regular season is decreased to 11 games, and 9 of those must be conference games (for conferences like the sec with 14 teams I would prefer 10 conference games. That leaves 2 non conference games that teams can schedule to their own desire. Leave it up to the conferences to determine their champion, most likely keeping the conference title game. Hopefully teams would schedule compelling ooc games as you need to make a case to get one of the 2 at large bids if you don’t win your conference. The main emphasis for each team going into the season is to win the conference to get access to the playoff, and actually have somewhat true conferences by playing more conference games. The fact that we haven’t played A&M yet is just ludicrous to call them a conference opponent.