Pate on major college football playoff expansion coming

[4Q Basket Case]

The problem is that the federal courts (if I'm not mistaken) have already ruled that there can hardly be any restrictions on the players' ability to transfer. So right now, the NCAA and everyone in CFB have their hands tied. But we should have known when we started getting the courts involved, things weren't going to be done logically.

That’s true. But a CBA negotiated in the structure of Labor Union / Management gets around that and is equally enforceable in all 50 states. It’s how all the professional leagues have the structure they do, and have all their restrictions on drafts, salary, free agency, etc., stand up in court.

I don’t like it because it makes the athletes employees of the school. But it’s the only solution I see that is uniformly enforceable and will stand up in court.

I guess I dislike the athletes being employees less than I dislike the current chaos.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

That’s true. But a CBA negotiated in the structure of Labor / Management gets around that and is equally enforceable in all 50 states. It’s how all the professional leagues have the structure they do, and have all their restrictions on salary, free agency, etc., stand up in court.

I don’t like it because it makes the athletes employees of the school. But it’s the only solution I see that is uniformly enforceable and will stand up in court.

I guess I dislike the athletes being employees less than I dislike the current chaos.

Yep, this would work. However, what incentive would the players have to agree to a CBA when they currently have full flexibility on what they can do?

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Yep, this would work. However, what incentive would the players have to agree to a CBA when they currently have full flexibility on what they can do?

That’s a good question, and I’ve given it some thought. It could be the schools unite, demand to negotiate with a union, and effectively have a lockout until such time as a union gets certified.

It’s unusual, and would require schools to stick together (looking at you, UTw and UTe), but it could work. Alternatively, the SEC and B1G could band together and do it. I’m not sure the ACC and Big 12 would have the clout or money to give the players a better alternative.

But you do raise a good question, and the answer could be interesting to watch play out.

Late Thought: The current system definitely benefits a few high-end players, and they get all the flashy deals we read about. But while they get a disproportionate amount of the attention, they’re a distinct minority of all players. IOW, when negotiating or ratifying a CBA, a 3rd string reserve’s vote counts exactly the same as Arch Manning’s.

So it’s possible the majority of players would be better off in a new system and would support it even though a few at the very top wouldn’t benefit.

Just one example: The gazillions of players who go into the portal and don’t find a landing spot equivalent to the one they left, or maybe not one at all.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

Yep, this would work. However, what incentive would the players have to agree to a CBA when they currently have full flexibility on what they can do?

Either the players go with it or simply get left out altogether...

 

[Ole Man Dan]

Yep, this would work. However, what incentive would the players have to agree to a CBA when they currently have full flexibility on what they can do?

My argument to the players is that they want what the Pro teams have. I think they would see this as a step towards being a Pro, and all that ensues. It's not a strong argument, but it's an argument never the less.

 

[colbysullivan]

The problem is that the federal courts (if I'm not mistaken) have already ruled that there can hardly be any restrictions on the players' ability to transfer. So right now, the NCAA and everyone in CFB have their hands tied. But we should have known when we started getting the courts involved, things weren't going to be done logically.

Yep, as soon as SCOTUS said "Amateurism is illegal, go have fun!", I knew it was the deathblow.

 

[Tidewater]

That’s true. But a CBA negotiated in the structure of Labor Union / Management gets around that and is equally enforceable in all 50 states. It’s how all the professional leagues have the structure they do, and have all their restrictions on drafts, salary, free agency, etc., stand up in court.

I don’t like it because it makes the athletes employees of the school. But it’s the only solution I see that is uniformly enforceable and will stand up in court.

I guess I dislike the athletes being employees less than I dislike the current chaos.

Pate called that when NIL first started. Employees can be criticized, and even fired. He was not sure that was where we wanted to go, but here we are.
And I agree with you that a CBA is probably the answer and is better than the current "Wild West" atmosphere.

 

[Tidewater]

Yep, this would work. However, what incentive would the players have to agree to a CBA when they currently have full flexibility on what they can do?

Monopsony.
While the players' union would have the sole supply of college football players' labor, the universities (or more accurately university athletic departments) would be the sole consumers of that labor. As long as the universities stuck together and only accepted players' union players, the the CBA would work.
Players who do not like that could go play in Europe or Mexico.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Monopsony.
While the players' union would have the sole supply of college football players' labor, the universities (or more accurately university athletic departments) would be the sole consumers of that labor. As long as the universities stuck together and only accepted players' union players, the the CBA would work.
Players who do not like that could go play in Europe or Mexico.

This would be the only way, but I wonder if they could actually do it without someone wanting to abandon ship?

 

[Tidewater]

This would be the only way, but I wonder if they could actually do it without someone wanting to abandon ship?

Notre Dame would be a prime suspect.

 

[Tidewater]

Okay, listening to a different Josh Pate video, he was talking about a "play-in Saturday?" (11:36 point in the video).

From the context, that would seem to be the same weekend as the SECCG, but for teams that did not make the SECCG, so SEC #3 plays SEC #6 and DSEC #5 plays SEC #4 and the winner gets a playoff bid. Am I hearing that right?

 

[Tidewater]

So, it seems the concept Pate is addressing is, on SECCG Saturday, the SEC would feature 3 games: 1 vs 2 for the conference championship (but under the 4-4-2-2-1-1 college football -playoff format, both players in the SECCG would be guaranteed a playoff spot).
And 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 for the remaining two SEC-dedicated playoff spots. Thus, threee meaningful SEC games that same weekend.
The drawback would be if 6 beats 3, then the SEC 1, 2, 4 & 6 would be in the playoffs, which might cause some wingeing.

I do not know if an official source is talking about this, or this plan is a product of some internet keyboard warrior thinking out loud.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

So, it seems the concept Pate is addressing is, on SECCG Saturday, the SEC would feature 3 games: 1 vs 2 for the conference championship (but under the 4-4-2-2-1-1 college football -playoff format, both players in the SECCG would be guaranteed a playoff spot).
And 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 for the remaining two SEC-dedicated playoff spots. Thus, threee meaningful SEC games that same weekend.
The drawback would be if 6 beats 3, then the SEC 1, 2, 4 & 6 would be in the playoffs, which might cause some wingeing.

I do not know if an official source is talking about this, or this plan is a product of some internet keyboard warrior thinking out loud.

Imo all that is just way too much and unnecessary.

I’d rather no conference get automatic spots.

With a field this large at 12-16 teams just take the teams ranked 1-12 or 1-16 and seed them the same way and be done with it.

If a team didn’t have a good enough season to be ranked in that range they have no reason to complain about not getting in.

We are almost getting to a point where people want to apply a Basketball Tournament format to the CFBP and that just won’t work.

 

[Tidewater]

Imo all that is just way too much and unnecessary.

I’d rather no conference get automatic spots.

With a field this large at 12-16 teams just take the teams ranked 1-12 or 1-16 and seed them the same way and be done with it.

If a team didn’t have a good enough season to be ranked in that range they have no reason to complain about not getting in.

We are almost getting to a point where people want to apply a Basketball Tournament format to the CFBP and that just won’t work.

I agree completely. Rank teams 1-16 regardless of conference, seed them 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15, etc.
Or if we stay at 12 teams in the playoffs, then 1 plays 12, 2 plays 11, etc.
Don't over-engineer things. We are not Germans.

 

[colbysullivan]

Imo all that is just way too much and unnecessary.

I’d rather no conference get automatic spots.

With a field this large at 12-16 teams just take the teams ranked 1-12 or 1-16 and seed them the same way and be done with it.

If a team didn’t have a good enough season to be ranked in that range they have no reason to complain about not getting in.

We are almost getting to a point where people want to apply a Basketball Tournament format to the CFBP and that just won’t work.

Yep. If the 1 and 2 teams in the conference are already guaranteed to make the playoff, why even have the conference title game? This is all so unnecessary.

 

[mrusso]

Imo all that is just way too much and unnecessary.

I’d rather no conference get automatic spots.

With a field this large at 12-16 teams just take the teams ranked 1-12 or 1-16 and seed them the same way and be done with it.

If a team didn’t have a good enough season to be ranked in that range they have no reason to complain about not getting in.

We are almost getting to a point where people want to apply a Basketball Tournament format to the CFBP and that just won’t work.

At this point it becomes a "tournament" champion. A team could have the greatest, undefeated regular season, make it all the way through the playoffs, and lose to a 11-5 team in the championship game. It honestly would be better to lose a game or two along the way during the regular season, just to get that loss out of the way.

 

[Titans&Tide]

I agree completely. Rank teams 1-16 regardless of conference, seed them 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15, etc.
Or if we stay at 12 teams in the playoffs, then 1 plays 12, 2 plays 11, etc.
Don't over-engineer things. We are not Germans.

While I tend to agree, we did see instances last season where teams that were WAY overrated got in. I suspect there would be some backroom finagling occurring to "engineer" the rankings to keep certain conferences from having a disproportionate number of teams qualify.