CFP expansion discussion

[Win5002 2]

There is a real simple way of fixing this whole thing in the current setup that involves no more games and actually would create a 24 team playoff and if you want you can keep the stupid bowl games.  Although I think the whole idea of a post-season exhibition game played many times 4 weeks after the season is one of the dumbest ideas ever thought of. 

You create a 24 team playoff by having the 5 P5 conference champs and the highest G5 league using conference semi-finals instead of just a CCG.  You also facilitate this to not involve any more games by using the last game of the season probably the week after Thanksgiving as a floating game where you start the conference semi-finals and also every other team in the league is assigned a game to play(hence the last week being a floating game).   I don't know if you could do the last week of the season Thanksgiving weekend instead since there are so many rivalry games that weekend but maybe they could get used to the idea of being the week before Thanksgiving. 

Each league can do some type of ticket/gate revenue sharing among the league members to make it work.   Each league gets to monetize their own conference semi-final games.  If you can do that over the Thanksgiving weekend you can space those out over Friday/Saturday to have as few games overlap as possible for maximum viewership.   

Then everyone would play their way in and we would have a true championship without involving any extra games.  

If leagues were all 16 or more like the new SEC I think 6 teams each league and seeded like the NFL playoffs would work well. This idea wouldn't involve anymore games if we did away with the bowl games.    

 

[Scooter Monzingo 820]

Shame there isn’t already a model they could simply adapt?
 

Oh, that’s right there is a system, and it has been working for years. Unfortunately it doesn’t include our bowl partners, and we can’t have that, can we.

[LTtxfan 49143]

Heather Dinich    ESPN    January 10, 2022

College Football Playoff leaders fail to agree about expanding four-team field

Quote

INDIANAPOLIS -- The leaders of the College Football Playoff again failed to come to an agreement about expanding the current four-team field, but they didn't entirely rule out the possibility it could still happen before the end of the current 12-year contract, which runs through the 2025 season.

Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, as he left the meeting Monday morning, just hours before kickoff of the College Football Playoff National Championship Game presented by AT&T, said the 10 FBS commissioners voted, but "didn't even get close to unanimity."

"There are big enough [issues] that remain that we have a lot of work to do," he said. "I am disappointed. ... There's holdouts for four, there's holdouts for eight, there's holdouts for 12. It's been a frustrating process."

Beyond the number of teams, there continues to be disagreement in the room about revenue distribution, bowl games and whether the Power 5 conference champions should be given automatic bids. Mississippi State president Mark Keenum, the chair of the CFP's board of managers, said the commissioners presented the 11 presidents and chancellors with a 12-team proposal, but the presidents did not take an official vote.

Still, he said he remains optimistic about expansion, and said the commissioners will meet again in a few weeks to continue their discussions.

"I think we're going to get there," Keenum said. "I think that there's a commitment on the part of our commissioners that we're going to move forward to come up with an expansion for college football. And you know, time is something that we recognize that we need to move as quickly as we can. ... We still have four years remaining, but we obviously want to make a decision well before that. And I know that everyone had arrived here in hopes that we could come to a decision here at this meeting, but we still have some more work to do."

The Pac-12 released a statement Monday evening that said the league supports all of the six most discussed models that would allow for expansion to occur before the current contract ends. The league's statement is the first to publicly detail the six models the commissioners have considered, including three variations of an eight-team format:

• Qualification for the best 12 teams;

• Automatic qualifications (AQs) for the six highest-ranked conference champions and six at-large bids, which was the original June proposal;

• AQs for the Power 5 conferences and one AQ for the highest-ranked Group of Five champion, along with six at-large bids ("5+1+6");

• Qualification for the best eight teams;

• AQs for the six highest-ranked conference champions and two at-large bids ("6+2");

• AQs for the Autonomy Five conferences and one AQ for the highest-ranked Group of Five champion, along with two at-large bids ("5+1+2").

"It is clear none of the six most-discussed expansion models has unanimous consent, with most having considerable opposition, and every conference other than the Pac-12 has indicated that they would be against at least one of the proposed models," the statement read. "If all 11 CFP members are unable to agree unanimously on a new format, then no expansion can occur in the current term, and our collective focus must turn to expansion immediately following the current term. The CFP has confirmed that we have another two years before we would need to come to agreement on an expanded format that could begin immediately after the current term ends."

For three straight days, the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick met in a ballroom on the third floor of the JW Marriott in downtown Indianapolis, tucked away from the Alabama and Georgia fans there to see the eighth national championship game in the CFP era and the second in that span featuring two SEC teams.

The grandiose hotel was otherwise buzzing with fans, media, agents and athletic administrators, but few if any realized the future of the sport's postseason was being decided at the end of a long hallway blocked by a security guard. More than a dozen reporters lingered for the conclusion of Monday's closed-door meeting of the presidents and chancellors, which happens annually before every national championship game. It was the culmination of eight months of conversations and debates about the 12-team proposal that was made public on June 10 -- a total of nine in-person meetings, including Monday's gathering with the 11 presidents and chancellors who have the ultimate authority over the CFP.

Their discussions Monday -- just hours before the biggest game of the year -- prolonged what has been a painstaking process for fans who have long clamored for a more inclusive system.

"It's not simple," Keenum said. "And you get down into the details ... for the average layperson, if you will, a sports fan, why not 12 teams; 16 to 32 teams, whatever team, how big a deal is there? Well, you get into the specifics, and I have a whole new appreciation for that as well. After I've been involved in this process, looking at all the legalities, all the complex matters that have to be resolved. And that's what we're going through. It's not just one school or one conference. You've got nationwide, all across the country, conferences that have a stake in this."

There have been multiple obstacles in preventing a consensus, but the commissioners entered the meetings on Saturday in disagreement about whether the Power 5 leagues should receive automatic bids in a new format. The original proposal recommended the field comprise the six highest-ranked conference champions, and the next six highest-ranked teams.

It's unclear who was the first person to raise the issue of automatic qualifiers -- multiple sources have said it was former Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott before his tenure ended, but the idea was quickly dismissed at the time. Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren had since stated publicly that he was in favor of it, citing the difficulty of a Big Ten schedule as the reason its champion deserved a spot in the playoff. Others, mostly from the Group of 5 -- a label they detest -- argued that autonomous stature is an NCAA designation that was never intended to be used as a competitive advantage. If the Power 5 champions were going to get in automatically, they argued privately, why weren't the others allowed the same benefit?

None of them, though, spoke to the media following their meetings on Saturday and Sunday.

Warren told a small group of reporters after the meetings ended, "I've made my point really clear on why I feel that way. There's a whole list of items that we just need to kind of work through. I just I just feel strongly with our conference, the difficulty of our schedule, the demands of our schedule, and going back to what was developed, even originally. I wasn't in the room, but I heard it was originally that the conference champions should be given a lot of credit, and so I'm just following that. That's important."

When asked what if they couldn't come to a consensus on that issue, Warren said, "That's why we have to keep meeting, but that's not the only issue. We have to keep working on it."

Warren wouldn't say whether he felt a sense of urgency, reiterating repeatedly that they had to get this right. But he also shared Keenum's optimism that eventually they would work out an agreement.

"From my standpoint, I can't speak for everyone else, it's to be thoughtful, to keep our student-athletes' health and wellness, mental and physical, to ask ourselves what's right for college football, and do what's right. So when we feel like we have that answer, then I think we'll have the answer."

As for the process taking longer than perhaps anticipated, since the expansion plan was revealed in June, Warren said, "Things take time. I was not looking for a quick fix. I'm not saying that this was but, I think we have to remain patient and do the right thing. These are complex issues, and I think we would not be performing at the level that we need to perform if this was a very quick decision and if it wasn't complex, because it is."

The lack of transparency in the process was questioned Sunday by New York Times reporter Billy Witz.

"Well," Hancock said Sunday, "mostly because they're not finished."

They're still not.

"We have entrenched issues," Bowlsby said, "and they're no closer to being resolved than they were before."

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said he initially walked past reporters following the meeting because he had to "reset" his "mental frame and then have a conversation responsibly."

"I've never genuinely assumed that this would just be a rubber stamp," he said. "But I also know that when issues are identified, there has to be a resolve to work to solutions, and there have to be solutions identified. If you can't do it, we can't do it. I don't know if anybody's noticed, but we're doing very well in the current system, and I'm more than willing to continue forward. In certain ways, it seems that's where others have decided we are. Many of those others were the ones who called for expansion three years ago. Vocally, publicly, and attempted to provide motivation."

Sankey was one of four members of a subcommittee who developed the original 12-team proposal, along with Swarbrick, Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson and Bowlsby.

"We're being asked to consider some things that are substantial direction changes," he said. "I don't know that our membership's there. I'm being told by others that their membership can't accept certain things. Are we, you know, in a standoff? I don't think so. I'm willing to work through that. If we don't decide soon, the decision is still ahead. That's the square one. We're not able to move now. We have to go through this anyway, looking ahead at what's for proverbially now this Year 13."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/33035877/college-football-playoff-leaders-fail-agree-expanding-four-team-field

[Laxtonto 12078]

So once again, FUCK YOU A&M!

If you guys didn’t leak the OU/UT SEC move before the CFB vote, it probably goes through and the SEC, which now includes us, would be raking in more cash.

 

 

[4th&Five 41510]

 

[bullet 1596]

Pac says they are for all 6 models being considered.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/33035877/college-football-playoff-leaders-fail-agree-expanding-four-team-field

 

 

"...The league's statement is the first to publicly detail the six models the commissioners have considered, including three variations of an eight-team format:

• Qualification for the best 12 teams;

• Automatic qualifications (AQs) for the six highest-ranked conference champions and six at-large bids, which was the original June proposal;

• AQs for the Power 5 conferences and one AQ for the highest-ranked Group of Five champion, along with six at-large bids ("5+1+6");

• Qualification for the best eight teams;

• AQs for the six highest-ranked conference champions and two at-large bids ("6+2");

• AQs for the Autonomy Five conferences and one AQ for the highest-ranked Group of Five champion, along with two at-large bids ("5+1+2").

"It is clear none of the six most-discussed expansion models has unanimous consent, with most having considerable opposition, and every conference other than the Pac-12 has indicated that they would be against at least one of the proposed models," the statement read. "If all 11 CFP members are unable to agree unanimously on a new format, then no expansion can occur in the current term, and our collective focus must turn to expansion immediately following the current term. The CFP has confirmed that we have another two years before we would need to come to agreement on an expanded format that could begin immediately after the current term ends....""

[Asu2215 247]

7 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

So once again, FUCK YOU A&M!

If you guys didn’t leak the OU/UT SEC move before the CFB vote, it probably goes through and the SEC, which now includes us, would be raking in more cash.

 

 

More cash isn't making CFB any better than it was in its glory days of the 80s or 90s. In fact, it's likely making it worse. 

[ouflak 60]

5 hours ago, Asu2215 said:

More cash isn't making CFB any better than it was in its glory days of the 80s or 90s. In fact, it's likely making it worse. 

Arguably. But the tsunami of money has been pouring in since the late 80's and only more is coming in. So we should all be figuring out how best to ride these waves, not anchoring ourselves in place and hoping that the things happening all around us will somehow just miraculously stop and stay the same. Whoever the A&M leaker was, I wonder if they aren't beginning to realize just how short-sighted a decision that was for their own school, as well as the impact on several others that would have had a chance to get into a playoff and just maybe, if perhaps rarely, grab a championship.

Edited January 11, 2022 by ouflak

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

College football is run by a bunch of megalomaniacs who are never satisfied with having more than everyone else and they have to continue to try and consolidate further power and money for themselves, and people are surprised that they can't get along.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10228]

I think I agree with Warren on this. If you are going to expand, P5 conference champs should be guaranteed a spot period.  Don't care if it's an upset or whatever.

Can debate about # of teams etc but conference champions should matter and every P5 conference team should have shot at that guaranteed slot.

 

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

Why in the hell would Bowlsby, Kliavkoff (sp), and the ACC guy not be with Warren on this one?

[Sbbruin 21829]

Just now, Al_4_ISU said:

Why in the hell would Bowlsby, Kliavkoff (sp), and the ACC guy not be with Warren on this one?

I think they are, but aren't willing to die on that hill if that is going to kill expansion.  

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

7 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

I think they are, but aren't willing to die on that hill if that is going to kill expansion.  

If they all agree, how could they not ram it through?

[Sbbruin 21829]

3 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If they all agree, how could they not ram it through?

Because Greg Sankey won't make any changes to the existing deal which expires in '26 that he doesn't think are favorable to the SEC.  It's his world.  The others are just along for the ride.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

On 1/11/2022 at 7:18 AM, ouflak said:

Arguably. But the tsunami of money has been pouring in since the late 80's and only more is coming in. So we should all be figuring out how best to ride these waves, not anchoring ourselves in place and hoping that the things happening all around us will somehow just miraculously stop and stay the same. Whoever the A&M leaker was, I wonder if they aren't beginning to realize just how short-sighted a decision that was for their own school, as well as the impact on several others that would have had a chance to get into a playoff and just maybe, if perhaps rarely, grab a championship.

Money isn't the issue.   Here are the past 5 years records, NYC/Playoff bowls played (E.g. big marketing bowls played, not counting losing a championship) and championships won for a random assortment of teams who had more than $90m in revenue for football alone:

All of these schools make an egregious amount of money and all end the year with less than Texas.  One item of note is most seem to spend more of their money made, which could imply that spending money, not making it, matters more.

And, as a comparison, here are schools that make far less, but have had better results:

Clemson made roughly $80M less in football revenue than Texas, but spent around 40% more on football.  

So, this has nothing to do with making more money and more to do with spending more money.   Over $40m gives you a shot, over $50m puts you in the upper tier.  

The move to the SEC had nothing to do with money and everything to do with recruiting.   The expansion of CFB isn't about money, though more will be made, it is about who will dominate the PR/Marketing/Exposure aspect of the post season in order to sustain success.

[Huckleberry 32848]

54 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I think I agree with Warren on this. If you are going to expand, P5 conference champs should be guaranteed a spot period.  Don't care if it's an upset or whatever.

Can debate about # of teams etc but conference champions should matter and every P5 conference team should have shot at that guaranteed slot.

 

No, it's dumb. Why should Utah have had a guaranteed spot over Cincinnati this year? Top 6 conference champs is the better idea.

In reality 16 teams with all champs guaranteed is the best option but that's a long way off. 

[Nueces River Rat 5537]

On 1/7/2022 at 11:37 AM, Win5002 said:

There is a real simple way of fixing this whole thing in the current setup that involves no more games and actually would create a 24 team playoff and if you want you can keep the stupid bowl games.  Although I think the whole idea of a post-season exhibition game played many times 4 weeks after the season is one of the dumbest ideas ever thought of. 

You create a 24 team playoff by having the 5 P5 conference champs and the highest G5 league using conference semi-finals instead of just a CCG.  You also facilitate this to not involve any more games by using the last game of the season probably the week after Thanksgiving as a floating game where you start the conference semi-finals and also every other team in the league is assigned a game to play(hence the last week being a floating game).   I don't know if you could do the last week of the season Thanksgiving weekend instead since there are so many rivalry games that weekend but maybe they could get used to the idea of being the week before Thanksgiving. 

Each league can do some type of ticket/gate revenue sharing among the league members to make it work.   Each league gets to monetize their own conference semi-final games.  If you can do that over the Thanksgiving weekend you can space those out over Friday/Saturday to have as few games overlap as possible for maximum viewership.   

Then everyone would play their way in and we would have a true championship without involving any extra games.  

If leagues were all 16 or more like the new SEC I think 6 teams each league and seeded like the NFL playoffs would work well. This idea wouldn't involve anymore games if we did away with the bowl games.    

 

I say dump the bowl games, but accommodate some of the cities who have hosted longstanding and successful bowl games with playoff host opportunities.   Take the Sun Bowl for example..   Use it as  first round location along with other tier two bowls like the Music City in Nashville, etc.   Then the second round, you give cities like San Antonio and San Diego the chance to host in place of their bowls....  Then the third (semi) and championship goes to what was considered the NY5 bowls.

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

37 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Because Greg Sankey won't make any changes to the existing deal which expires in '26 that he doesn't think are favorable to the SEC.  It's his world.  The others are just along for the ride.

Of course he's going to do what's best for the SEC, but he's one vote.  If the SEC doesn't like it, why don't they just go play their own thing and call it good?  I mean hell, I think a lot of college football fans both inside and outside of the SEC footprint would be completely fine with that.

[chitown bevo 17]

i understand holding out for guaranteed spots for conference champs. Without that the board will do all they can to put in as many SEC teams as possible and so will the Big Ten.  playoffs will expand but we will end up with the same eye test crap we get now. Guaranteed spots is the only way of limiting the power of the jackwagons sitting in Grapevine choosing who gets to play.

Edited January 12, 2022 by chitown bevo

[SimonBolivar 10957]

14 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Of course he's going to do what's best for the SEC, but he's one vote.  If the SEC doesn't like it, why don't they just go play their own thing and call it good?  I mean hell, I think a lot of college football fans both inside and outside of the SEC footprint would be completely fine with that.

As a fan of a "smaller" P5 school. Everything to me is revolved around beating our rivals and a conference title. I never really think about winning the playoffs. I mean sure it's technically possible, but in the NIL world it isn't really going to be all that feasible. I wish more fans of schools that don't have the likelihood of making the playoffs looked at it similarly. ESPN is all in on the playoffs because they own the rights, but to me a random weekend in October is much more enjoyable than the title game of SEC vs SEC/Clemson/Ohio State. College football is just so much deeper than waiting to see who wins the overall title.

Edited January 12, 2022 by SimonBolivar

[Sbbruin 21829]

27 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Of course he's going to do what's best for the SEC, but he's one vote.  If the SEC doesn't like it, why don't they just go play their own thing and call it good?  I mean hell, I think a lot of college football fans both inside and outside of the SEC footprint would be completely fine with that.

He can't be "outvoted" when it comes to negotiating a restructuring of the current playoff arrangement.  ALL of the conferences, and their Presidents, have to be on board and then collectively negotiate with the current rights holder, ESPN, on a new format.

[Richard Kimball 1494]

57 minutes ago, Nueces River Rat said:

I say dump the bowl games, but accommodate some of the cities who have hosted longstanding and successful bowl games with playoff host opportunities.   Take the Sun Bowl for example..   Use it as  first round location along with other tier two bowls like the Music City in Nashville, etc.   Then the second round, you give cities like San Antonio and San Diego the chance to host in place of their bowls....  Then the third (semi) and championship goes to what was considered the NY5 bowls.

No reason to dump the bowl games, but if the playoffs expand, the value of bowls will drop. If Kansas State and Ole Miss don't make the playoffs and want to play in a bowl game, it doesn't hurt anyone. Biggest problem for the bowls then will be that the best teams are in the playoffs.

40 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

As a fan of a "smaller" P5 school. Everything to me is revolved around beating our rivals and a conference title. I never really think about winning the playoffs. I mean sure it's technically possible, but in the NIL world it isn't really going to be all that feasible. I wish more fans of schools that don't have the likelihood of making the playoffs looked at it similarly. ESPN is all in on the playoffs because they own the rights, but to me a random weekend in October is much more enjoyable than the title game of SEC vs SEC/Clemson/Ohio State. College football is just so much deeper than waiting to see who wins the overall title.

A lot of us forget that. If all you want to do is fast forward to the end of the season to see who's champion, you're missing all the fun. 

21 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

He can't be "outvoted" when it comes to negotiating a restructuring of the current playoff arrangement.  ALL of the conferences, and their Presidents, have to be on board and then collectively negotiate with the current rights holder, ESPN, on a new format.

This right here, and points out the difficulty, even after the contract expires. During the COVID year, the B1G tried to swing it's dick and thought everyone would follow them cancelling the season. Then the SEC said, "We're playing. We got fourteen teams and we can play a full schedule without going out of conference." College isn't like the NFL, where they take a vote and everyone follows, whether they like it or not. Each college and each conference can make their own decisions. 

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

46 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

He can't be "outvoted" when it comes to negotiating a restructuring of the current playoff arrangement.  ALL of the conferences, and their Presidents, have to be on board and then collectively negotiate with the current rights holder, ESPN, on a new format.

I didn't realize that.  I kind of figured the whole point of that stupid Alliance last summer was to form a voting block against the SEC and overrule them.

[bullet 1596]

5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Why in the hell would Bowlsby, Kliavkoff (sp), and the ACC guy not be with Warren on this one?

And why would Warren care?  Since 1998 when the BCS began, the Big 10 was outside the top 6 champs only twice.  Once when unbeaten Ohio St. was on probation and another time when co-champ Iowa would have been the final wildcard and Michigan (who won tiebreak) would have just missed.  And that was with Louisville in the Big East and Utah in the MWC, so with current P5 lineups, Michigan would have made it as a top 6 champ.

 

The Big 10 will miss under a 6-6 maybe once in a 100 years barring probation.

[CooterBrown 18003]

No reason to dump the bowl games, but if the playoffs expand, the value of bowls will drop.

Yeah, let’s protect the dozen bowls featuring 6-6 Slapdick Tech vs 6-7 Cheesedick U.

You’re not devaluing any of these games. They’ll get the same viewership they get today…Bored dudes channel surfing while off work for the holidays.

[Richard Kimball 1494]

2 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

 

Yeah, let’s protect the dozen bowls featuring 6-6 Slapdick Tech vs 6-7 Cheesedick U.

You’re not devaluing any of these games. They’ll get the same viewership they get today…Bored dudes channel surfing while off work for the holidays.

 

I'd watch that. I don't see it as protecting bowls. Nobody's going to skip the playoffs to play in the (Hell, I can't even think of a name too goofy to be a real bowl game) bowl, but if Slapdick Tech and Cheesedick U. want to square off in the Punkin Bowl, what difference does it make? In basketball, the National Invitational Tournament doesn't take anything away from March Madness.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

.500 teams should not get bowl games. However many of those games you need to remove should be done. 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10228]

12 hours ago, bullet said:

And why would Warren care?  Since 1998 when the BCS began, the Big 10 was outside the top 6 champs only twice.  Once when unbeaten Ohio St. was on probation and another time when co-champ Iowa would have been the final wildcard and Michigan (who won tiebreak) would have just missed.  And that was with Louisville in the Big East and Utah in the MWC, so with current P5 lineups, Michigan would have made it as a top 6 champ.

 

The Big 10 will miss under a 6-6 maybe once in a 100 years barring probation.

He's for inclusion to strengthen parity for conferences. He trying to protect against exactly what the Big12 faced for years with its top teams... "they aren't really that good, they just play in the Big12".  Take the ability to "eye test" that away and make it guaranteed.  If everyone can't get on board with that there is no need to expand it past 4 as it will continue to be what it is now anyway. A P5 conference champion, if we are going to continue to award that, shouldn't have to ever plead their way into an expanded playoff.

[Huckleberry 32848]

24 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

He's for inclusion to strengthen parity for conferences. He trying to protect against exactly what the Big12 faced for years with its top teams... "they aren't really that good, they just play in the Big12".  Take the ability to "eye test" that away and make it guaranteed.  If everyone can't get on board with that there is no need to expand it past 4 as it will continue to be what it is now anyway. A P5 conference champion, if we are going to continue to award that, shouldn't have to ever plead their way into an expanded playoff.

This is still silliness. This structure would be the exact opposite of strengthening parity for conferences. You realize that the G5 are actual FBS conferences, right? Protecting P5 champs only and not the top conference champs doesn't strengthen conference parity, it destroys it by further codifying the line between the haves and have nots.

If the P5 want to act like they're a separate league then branch off and actually be a separate league.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Huckleberry

[MonkeyDoughnut 10228]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

This is still silliness. This structure would be the exact opposite of strengthening parity for conferences. You realize that the G5 are actual FBS conferences, right? Protecting P5 champs only and not the top conference champs doesn't strengthen conference parity, it destroys it by further codifying the line between the haves and have nots.

If the P5 want to act like they're a separate league then branch off and actually be a separate league.

I'd gladly take all FBS conference champs get in expansion, but they can't even do P5 champs get in.

They currently won't "guarantee" the SEC conference champion a spot in an expanded playoff. That is what is silly.

[Huckleberry 32848]

32 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I'd gladly take all FBS conference champs get in expansion, but they can't even do P5 champs get in.

They currently won't "guarantee" the SEC conference champion a spot in an expanded playoff. That is what is silly.

How? If the SEC is so awesome then their champion will always be in as one of the top 6 conference champs. Your argument is self-contradictory. You want the P5 conference champs to be guaranteed a berth because their teams are so awesome in case their teams aren't awesome.

When was the last time the SEC champion wasn't one of the top 6 conference champions? And when you find that season, explain why that champion would have been wronged by not being in a national championship playoff. It should be pretty instructive that the SEC doesn't give a shit if their champion isn't guaranteed a berth because they're a P5 champion and is perfectly fine with the top 6 conference champions being guaranteed a berth instead.

[bullet 1596]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

How? If the SEC is so awesome then their champion will always be in as one of the top 6 conference champs. Your argument is self-contradictory. You want the P5 conference champs to be guaranteed a berth because their teams are so awesome in case their teams aren't awesome.

When was the last time the SEC champion wasn't one of the top 6 conference champions? And when you find that season, explain why that champion would have been wronged by not being in a national championship playoff. It should be pretty instructive that the SEC doesn't give a shit if their champion isn't guaranteed a berth because they're a P5 champion and is perfectly fine with the top 6 conference champions being guaranteed a berth instead.

During the BCS and CFP era, the SEC champ and the Big 12 champ were always in the top 6.  Big 10 and Pac 12 only missed twice.  For the Big 10, it was an Ohio St. probation season coupled with a ccg upset and a year when the co-champ would have qualified but the champ just missed because Louisville and Utah were not in the P5.  For the Pac 12 one year was 1999 when the Big East was still in existence and the other was the Covid year.  So it will be extremely rare for the Big 10 or Pac 12 to miss going forward.

[Huckleberry 32848]

Exactly, and as you pointed out the Big East doesn't exist anymore. For a P5 champion not to be in the top 6 conference champions they would have to be behind two G5 champs, not just one. And if that's the case then they can't say they belong in the 12 team playoff. Well they can say it but they'd be full of shit.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Huckleberry

[LTbear 4168]

23 hours ago, chitown bevo said:

i understand holding out for guaranteed spots for conference champs. Without that the board will do all they can to put in as many SEC teams as possible and so will the Big Ten.  playoffs will expand but we will end up with the same eye test crap we get now. Guaranteed spots is the only way of limiting the power of the jackwagons sitting in Grapevine choosing who gets to play.

That doesn't make sense. The only formats being considered include either guaranteed P5 champs plus one guaranteed G5 champ, or alternatively, simply guaranteed spot for top 6 conference champs (the plan Sankey endorses). Either option includes 6 at large berths. In reality, they're incredibly similar plans. But never put it past CFB to make something more difficult than it needs to be.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5792]

On 1/12/2022 at 11:23 AM, Huckleberry said:

No, it's dumb. Why should Utah have had a guaranteed spot over Cincinnati this year? Top 6 conference champs is the better idea.

In reality 16 teams with all champs guaranteed is the best option but that's a long way off. 

I haven't read much on the current proposal, are they taking the next 6 highest ranked teams for the at large bids, or mixing and matching based on multiple different criteria? I'm assuming Notre Dame is only eligible for an at large bid? 

So this year would look something like:

Top 6 conference: Bama, Michigan, Cincy, Baylor, Utah, Pitt 

At large: Georgia, ND, OSU, ?, ?, ? 

Gets kind of murky after the three obvious at large bids. Yeah I'm not sure what Warren's issue is... 

 

 

[utee94 15805]

Could be that Warren and the B1G just aren't ready to move forward with the expanded playoff yet, and this is one way to delay it.

Edited January 14, 2022 by utee94

[mdmost 42999]

I hope Clemson sucks ass the next few years and the ACC repeatedly gets shut out of the playoff.

 

[chitown bevo 17]

It would be good if ACC said what the reason was....at least Warren has given some clue. I dont see how the ACC would expect more than one team most years anyway.

[closetohumping 17434]

3 minutes ago, chitown bevo said:

It would be good if ACC said what the reason was....at least Warren has given some clue. I dont see how the ACC would expect more than one team most years anyway.

MBNCF

[Dutch 4465]

I could see that B1G and PAC would like to see ESecPN's monopoly on the CFP end and get other broadcasters (NBC, Fox, Amazon, etc) in on the bidding, both to drive up the revenue and to potentially mitigate ESPN's constant swallowing of the SEC, which is reaching Gary Danielson levels. That at least makes some sense.

The ACC? I dont understand what their play, given their rights are 100% ESPN for the foreseeable future.  Maybe they don't want the SEC filling more playoff spots and risk falling further behind? Given that the league has been "Clemson and 13 Dwarves" for a while now, you'd think they'd want expanded playoff slots. I don't get their stance.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Dutch

[ButtFumble 5164]

the ACC seems to be becoming the PAC 12 in a way......just playing sports to do what everyone else does

the PAC 12 has finally woken up to a degree and realized they will continue to fall behind in money and more so in football especially if they do not do something different

unfortunately for them doing something different seems to be churning through coaches and over paying a lot of them and trying to see what the Big 10 does

the ACC got screwed by the Big 10 on the CCG legislation and they still seem to defer to them almost as much as they do the SEC SEC SEC

[Js1 85275]

3 hours ago, closetohumping said:

MBNCF

It took me a minute to realize this is Mack Brown North Carolina Football and not Mack Brown Not Championship Football.

Both work. 

[bullet 1596]

11 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

I haven't read much on the current proposal, are they taking the next 6 highest ranked teams for the at large bids, or mixing and matching based on multiple different criteria? I'm assuming Notre Dame is only eligible for an at large bid? 

So this year would look something like:

Top 6 conference: Bama, Michigan, Cincy, Baylor, Utah, Pitt 

At large: Georgia, ND, OSU, ?, ?, ? 

Gets kind of murky after the three obvious at large bids. Yeah I'm not sure what Warren's issue is... 

 

There are 6 things they are still looking at:

top 6 champs + 6 at large

P5 champs+ top G5 champ + 6 at large

12 at large

8 at large

top 6 champs + 2 at large

P5 champs + top G5 champ + 2 at large

Seems like the all at large have almost no support and the 5-1-2 has no support but from the ACC.  6-0-2 doesn't really seem to have much support.

11 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

 

[bullet 1596]

https://richmond.com/sports/college/teel-commissioner-jim-phillips-explains-accs-opposition-to-early-college-football-playoff-expansion/article_882bebb5-b613-5be2-9c6a-862fda3c646e.html

ACC commissioner trying to stop expansion.  Its a really nonsensical position.

"...Phillips outlined three primary ACC concerns:

•  The instability elsewhere in college athletics regarding governance, name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation for athletes, the transfer portal and the potential unionization of athletes.
•  How would additional games, even for a small number of teams, impact athletes’ physical health and academic pursuits?
•  A “desperate need” to review the entire college football calendar, not only the season itself, but also recruiting...."

Two of those are totally irrelevant.  The concern about additional games is absurd too given his later comments:

"...But changes to the CFP after the original contract require a more nebulous consensus rather than unanimity, and Phillips said he is “sure” the playoff will expand then.

“You’re talking about two years,” he said of the delay. “... There’s been major debate, and there’s been moments when it may feel like we’ve stalled. But we continue to come back and try to work collectively for the future of college football."”

[Jimbob 419]

18 hours ago, Dutch said:

I could see that B1G and PAC would like to see ESecPN's monopoly on the CFP end and get other broadcasters (NBC, Fox, Amazon, etc) in on the bidding, both to drive up the revenue and to potentially mitigate ESPN's constant swallowing of the SEC, which is reaching Gary Danielson levels. That at least makes some sense.

The ACC? I dont understand what their play, given their rights are 100% ESPN for the foreseeable future.  Maybe they don't want the SEC filling more playoff spots and risk falling further behind? Given that the league has been "Clemson and 13 Dwarves" for a while now, you'd think they'd want expanded playoff slots. I don't get their stance.

Perhaps with an expanded playoff and even more SEC inclusion with UT/OU adding to the preseason hype, a quick nod from the mouse and the ACC gets raided by SEC on their march toward 24 or whatever.   
 

if the B1G were as ambitious as the SEC we would probably have north and south super conferences of 24ish each. 

[bullet 1596]

2 hours ago, Jimbob said:

Perhaps with an expanded playoff and even more SEC inclusion with UT/OU adding to the preseason hype, a quick nod from the mouse and the ACC gets raided by SEC on their march toward 24 or whatever.   
 

if the B1G were as ambitious as the SEC we would probably have north and south super conferences of 24ish each. 

If the ACC schools were willing, the Big and SEC could look at gobbling up the ACC and each group having two 12 team leagues.  There are 45 schools, counting Notre Dame, between the 3 conferences.  3 from the Big 12 gets to 48.

[mdmost 42999]

Excellent work, you Alliance morons. You guaranteed the SEC still gets two teams in each year at the expense of at least one of you.

 

[BigHornedLurker 1935]

38 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Excellent work, you Alliance morons. You guaranteed the SEC still gets two teams in each year at the expense of at least one of you.

 

I don't get the play here either , this is broadcasting a few things

1. these schools have no vision

2. they are happy to take whatever comes their way when things line up 

3. they are more concerned keeping the other leagues down at their own expense from the top

4. ACC / Pac12 will not existing in their current form in 10 years 

When people wonder why Texas moved on, this is the Big12 playbook the past decade and we're in the endgame now 

[mdmost 42999]

 

[Vertigo 20276]

6 hours ago, BigHornedLurker said:

I don't get the play here either , this is broadcasting a few things

1. these schools have no vision

2. they are happy to take whatever comes their way when things line up 

3. they are more concerned keeping the other leagues down at their own expense from the top

4. ACC / Pac12 will not existing in their current form in 10 years 

When people wonder why Texas moved on, this is the Big12 playbook the past decade and we're in the endgame now 

Here is a blurb from the ESPN article that made me laugh. Once again, aggy dropped a giant turd in the punchbowl of college football because of their incessant need to feel important and total lack of strategic thinking. 

"There was an initial burst of enthusiasm and support when it came out," Aresco told ESPN last month. "But I think the expansion, the realignment -- the realignment definitely threw a wrench into it. I don't think it should have in the end because I think it's a good plan and I think we need it for college football. But I do think that paused it to some extent."

 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/33320585/why-college-football-playoff-not-expanding-next