CFP Exec Dir Bill Hancock in advance of tonight's inaugural CFP National Championship touched on a variety of subject and said his staff "isn't talking about expanding" the playoff field from four team, according to Heather Dinich of ESPN.com. He said there are a "lot of reasons they put in four for 12 years." Hancock: "The conference championship games are important to those conferences. That’s one of the things that was an issue with eight when we looked at it. We know there is a tipping point beyond which the size of a postseason bracket will begin to erode the regular season. The fact is, nobody knows where that tipping point is. We know it’s not four." Hancock also said that perhaps "fewer rankings would be released" next season. Hancock: "It will be pretty easy to lop off one week and we might knock another one off." Meanwhile, he said that it will cost the CFP "an estimated $500k to reimburse parents and guardians of Ohio State and Oregon players for their airfare, meals and lodging to the national championship game." Hancock: "We can absolutely afford to do this. I was delighted to get that call from the NCAA telling us it could happen." He noted that eight to 12 cities "have expressed interest in hosting the national championship game" for '18-20, and the winning cities "will be announced in September" (ESPN.com, 1/9). Hancock said, "I don't know when the last major sporting event was created in this country from scratch, probably the Super Bowl. It had to grow into what it had to grow into." He said of the playoff selection process, "College football has never done anything like this selection committee. Nothing exemplified the new paradigm that those early committee rankings created. It became clear that it just wasn't about wins and losses. That with this system the committee could dig deep in evaluating teams. Forever, college football has been mostly about wins and losses. You win you move up, you lose you move down. The committee wanted that deeper dive and we got it" (NOLA.com, 1/9).
FOUR SCORE? Hancock said of the four-team CFP field, "We know we were able to keep the regular season and keep the bowls, keep the experience and the tradition of the bowls. So this worked out really, really well." The AP's Stephen Hawkins noted some things "preventing an expansion" of the CFP field include "more travel for teams and fans and the locations for extra games" (AP, 1/9). In Dallas, Tim Cowlishaw wrote the clamor for an eight-team playoff "is loud and it is wrong." A four-team playoff "works just fine, thanks" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 1/11). In Chicago, Teddy Greenstein wrote the first CFP "has been fantastic." Greenstein: "Part of my beef with expanding is that I don't want college football to creep toward college basketball, where so little attention is paid until the season's final month" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 1/10).
TIMING IS EVERYTHING: In Columbus, Rob Oller writes the CFP "still requires tweaking, including the way it has set up the dates for future semifinal games." This year's semifinals "were perfectly placed on Jan. 1," but because the bowl games "still hold too much sway ... semifinal games for the next two years of playoffs will take place on Dec. 31." New Year's Eve "is about watching the ball drop, not the ball being caught, kicked and thrown." In addition, New Year's Day "is about to become mostly irrelevant again because the semifinals will be played a day earlier" (COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 1/12).
NO PLAYOFF PAYOFF FOR PLAYERS: In N.Y., Mike Lupica wrote under the header, "The Rich Get Richer: College Football Will Feel More Like Professional Football Than It Ever Has" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 1/11). In L.A., Bill Plaschke wrote it is no coincidence that Saturday's CFP media day "mirrored the NFL's Super Bowl media day, right down to the podiums for the stars, the ticketed fans, and the feeling that this was clearly a pay-per-view show." The CFP has "thought of everything, everyone seemingly making money off this game with one exception," the students "actually playing in it." It "truly seems ridiculous that the players are not sharing even a small piece of this value they create" (L.A. TIMES, 1/11). CBSSPORTS.com's Jon Solomon wrote under the header, "CFP Title Game: Where Everyone's Getting Paid -- Except Players." Solomon asked more than 30 players, "If you could change anything about the NCAA or college football, what would it be?" The "overwhelming response" was that the CFP should "let players get some money" (CBSSPORTS.com, 1/10). In a special to the L.A. TIMES, College Athletes Players Association Founder Ramogi Huma writes even the players "at the top of the game, who will be engulfed in adulation Monday night," are subject to the NCAA's "abuses of power." Those who run NCAA sports "enjoy multimillion-dollar salaries in a multibillion-dollar industry built on the talent, sweat and hard work of college athletes." Too many of them "justify depriving the players of basic rights and protections" under the cover "of outdated notions about amateurism" (L.A. TIMES, 1/12).
