Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

One thing I won’t be surprised to see: if an 8-4 or 9-3 Big 12 or ACC team plays an 11-1 opponent in the CCG, I bet the lower ranked team wins. These kind of upsets happened already in the past; now with the dynamics of the higher ranked team assured of a playoff spot already (TCU in 2022), they have less incentive to match the fanatical effort of an underdog that can make the playoffs with a bye, with a win. (And the conference officials will be aware of how much it helps to have two teams in the CFP). 

Posted
On 3/2/2024 at 7:25 PM, statsman said:

One thing I won’t be surprised to see: if an 8-4 or 9-3 Big 12 or ACC team plays an 11-1 opponent in the CCG, I bet the lower ranked team wins. These kind of upsets happened already in the past; now with the dynamics of the higher ranked team assured of a playoff spot already (TCU in 2022), they have less incentive to match the fanatical effort of an underdog that can make the playoffs with a bye, with a win. (And the conference officials will be aware of how much it helps to have two teams in the CFP). 

In his podcast, Klatt says that the B1G and SEC asked for three assigned slots each, with one assigned each for the B12 and ACC (three at large, inclusive of ND). When the lesser conferences balked, the B1G and SEC proposed the 14 team model, with the B12 and ACC getting two guaranteed slots, and still having three at-large. 
 
In this model, there would only be two byes, for the SEC and B1G champs. This proposal would keep the B1G and SEC CGs valuable, and devalue the B12 and ACC CGs. He speculated that the B12 and ACC might want to have their CGs between their #2 and #3 teams, so that there would be stakes for the winner. 

Posted

Why would the other conferences agree to any of this shit????

The big 10 and SEC really do think they’re the fucking premiere league. Someone needs to tell them they’re still JV compared to the fucking NFL. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

Why would the other conferences agree to any of this shit????

The big 10 and SEC really do think they’re the fucking premiere league. Someone needs to tell them they’re still JV compared to the fucking NFL. 

Well, as Klatt explains it, the SEC and B1G could form their own playoff and most of the world would recognize its winner as the NC. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

Why would the other conferences agree to any of this shit????

The big 10 and SEC really do think they’re the fucking premiere league. Someone needs to tell them they’re still JV compared to the fucking NFL. 

You can have a playoff without the Big12.  You can't have one without the SEC or B1G.  That's the leverage.

Posted
10 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

Why would the other conferences agree to any of this shit????

The big 10 and SEC really do think they’re the fucking premiere league. Someone needs to tell them they’re still JV compared to the fucking NFL. 

To stay included.

They'll make the most money and get the most exposure doing this.  If the SEC and Big 10 went off and did their own thing, I think they would make less money than they currently do, but they'd still make a lot of money.  And I think this playground "you can't sit with us" mentality drives as much of college football's decision making as rational thought.  So even though everyone would probably be worse off in this breakaway scenario, it's still a very realistic/plausible threat and that will motivate the Big 12 and ACC (and G5s) to go along with it.  College football isn't just the power leagues vs everyone else.  There's at least 3 tiers, and maybe 4, of conferences.  The Big 12 and ACC aren't on the same financial footing as the SEC and Big 10, but they're a long ways ahead of the guys behind them.  And there are probably a couple tiers in the G5 with MWC and AAC at the top and CUSA and the MAC at the bottom, and the Sun Belt kind of between.  Eventually I think the top brands in the SEC and Big 10 wonder ask themselves why they continue to subsidize the Purdues and Mississippi States of the world.  I think that is more likely than the current SEC and Big 10 breaking away from everyone else, and likely the next frontier of conference consolidation.

The only part that's objectionable to me is the guaranteed bye for the SEC and Big 10 winners.  Them having more guaranteed bids doesn't really bother me.  And I'd much rather have the Big 12 getting a couple bids to this dance than not.

All this highlights how unfortunate it is that there has never been a central governing body in the sport.  8 9 team geographically aligned conferences/divisions who's champions play in the playoffs would be so much better than what we're going to get.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 2/23/2024 at 10:57 AM, statsman said:

I don’t think it will be coercion. Here is what I think will happen:

The 12 team CFP will make a lot of money. The non-CFP bowls will make less and less, as they lose significance (it’s ridiculous that they still factor in final rankings). 
 
The CFP will expand to 16, with 11 at large. The SEC and B1G will consistently get ten teams combined in. They will get most of the money. 
 
The networks will ask for an expanded playoff, to 24 or 32 teams. The main beneficiaries would be the ACC and B12, who will be all in favor. I think the SEC and B1G would balk- why expand to add teams that don’t make more money for the P2?

The networks suggest an alternate playoff to the non-P2 world, a playoff where the non-P2 world gets all the money. They accept. 
 
Thats how I think it goes down. Maybe there’s even a final game between the winner of the two playoffs. 

Beyond 16 and you gut the regular season.  4 losses will get you in.  There is a lot of money made by schools on Saturdays.

Posted
On 2/22/2024 at 10:17 AM, Huckleberry said:

I'm the same pedant I've always been. If you want to have a playoff then have a playoff. 

And the end game in that is to split them off, not for me to watch Coastal Carolina and New Mexico in the CFP playoff.

Only a little more than half of the G5 has even been in FBS for 30 years.  They really don't belong.  And other than Boise (6 times from 2004-2011), only 5 G5 teams have made the top 12 or even top 14.

Posted
On 2/23/2024 at 12:06 PM, Al_4_ISU said:

The Big 10 and SEC would all but be guaranteed 2-3 bids here.  Codify it, I guess, but that’s not an at large.

If the past decade has taught us anything it’s that the committee values brand Uber alles.  If the Big 10 or SEC failed to get multiple bids in this scenario, it’s because the leagues were truly putrid that year.

But now that we have 12 it’s never going to 8.  That’s just a thought experiment on what I think the best product looks like.

No.  Giving the SEC and Big 10 more access is a Scarlet letter on every ACC and Big 12 team.  It will be used against them in recruiting by the Purdues  and Mississippi States.

Plus, it damages the CCGs which are big money makers.

Posted
10 hours ago, bullet said:

No.  Giving the SEC and Big 10 more access is a Scarlet letter on every ACC and Big 12 team.  It will be used against them in recruiting by the Purdues  and Mississippi States.

Plus, it damages the CCGs which are big money makers.

Almost everyone in the Big 12 and ACC will have a far better chance of making the playoff than Purdue or Mississippi State ever will, even in such an arrangement.

I think the bottom half SEC and Big 10 schools are quietly becoming major losers in all of this.  Yes, they'll get big checks and get to brag about being in the wealthy conference, but they're just well-compensated versions of the Washington Generals going forward.  Until maybe one day they aren't.  With this unstoppable greed train, it seems impossible that Ohio State and Michigan will never tire of floating the Purdues of the world.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Almost everyone in the Big 12 and ACC will have a far better chance of making the playoff than Purdue or Mississippi State ever will, even in such an arrangement.

I think the bottom half SEC and Big 10 schools are quietly becoming major losers in all of this.  Yes, they'll get big checks and get to brag about being in the wealthy conference, but they're just well-compensated versions of the Washington Generals going forward.  Until maybe one day they aren't.  With this unstoppable greed train, it seems impossible that Ohio State and Michigan will never tire of floating the Purdues of the world.

The B1G and SEC still need bottom feeder programs to prop up their top tier teams. Also, other than with Temple in the Big East and except for conferences imploding, I can’t recall a team getting relegated. The Vanderbilts and Northwesterns are safe.

Posted
20 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

The B1G and SEC still need bottom feeder programs to prop up their top tier teams. Also, other than with Temple in the Big East and except for conferences imploding, I can’t recall a team getting relegated. The Vanderbilts and Northwesterns are safe.

Washington State and Oregon State just got relegated.

It comes down to money.  If TV wants a super exclusive super league, it’s going to happen.

2/3rds of the Big 10 and half the SEC are Big 12 and ACC level programs getting subsidized by the blue bloods.  They are “leaches” much like the I8 have been called time and time again on this board.  If they aren’t relegated they’ll be forced to take a lesser share, which will narrow the gap between them and the B12/ACC.  In this era of insatiable greed, one of these outcomes seems inevitable.

Posted
47 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

The Vanderbilts and Northwesterns are safe.

If you went on a board like this 10 years ago and said the Pac would dissolve, Oregon would be in the B1G, Texas would be in the SEC and players would have unlimited NIL $, you would have been laughed off the internet. 

No one is safe.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

If you went on a board like this 10 years ago and said the Pac would dissolve, Oregon would be in the B1G, Texas would be in the SEC and players would have unlimited NIL $, you would have been laughed off the internet. 

No one is safe.  

I'm pretty sure the Aggy trophy cabinet is safe from clutter, though.

Posted

https://sports.yahoo.com/will-sec-big-ten-greed-ruin-college-sports-as-we-know-it-202735432.html

 

Dan Wetzel suggests the Big 10 and SEC extreme demands may well be an effort to destabilize the Big 12 and ACC and lead to more raids.

"...If the Big Ten and SEC are able to set a playoff up in direct contrast to how college sports have always operated — codifying more guaranteed access, more guaranteed on-field competitive advantages (including a bye) and more guaranteed money — then the operation may be passing the point of no return.

This isn’t just about hoarding power — although that’s part of it. It’s about eliminating other teams and leagues from being able to compete on the field, therefore further destabilizing other conferences. We just saw the century-plus-old Pac-12 perish for no particularly good reason. The ACC and Big 12 might be next.

“Automatic first-round byes for the Big Ten and SEC is like the NFL saying the [Dallas] Cowboys get a first-round bye since they have more fans than the [Cincinnati] Bengals,” TCU coach Sonny Dykes noted. “How preposterous is that?”

So preposterous that the cutthroat, bottomline, chase-every-nickle NFL wouldn’t even try it. And Dykes' point extends to uneven revenue sharing and multiple automatic bids.

It’s particularly preposterous because based on the competitive strength and historic success of Big Ten and SEC teams, they would likely be able to earn those bids, byes and even money via competition. If so, good for them.

By putting it in writing though, this becomes a play to break apart other conferences and pick off a few more of the most valuable brands...."

Posted
4 hours ago, bullet said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/will-sec-big-ten-greed-ruin-college-sports-as-we-know-it-202735432.html

 

Dan Wetzel suggests the Big 10 and SEC extreme demands may well be an effort to destabilize the Big 12 and ACC and lead to more raids.

"...If the Big Ten and SEC are able to set a playoff up in direct contrast to how college sports have always operated — codifying more guaranteed access, more guaranteed on-field competitive advantages (including a bye) and more guaranteed money — then the operation may be passing the point of no return.

This isn’t just about hoarding power — although that’s part of it. It’s about eliminating other teams and leagues from being able to compete on the field, therefore further destabilizing other conferences. We just saw the century-plus-old Pac-12 perish for no particularly good reason. The ACC and Big 12 might be next.

“Automatic first-round byes for the Big Ten and SEC is like the NFL saying the [Dallas] Cowboys get a first-round bye since they have more fans than the [Cincinnati] Bengals,” TCU coach Sonny Dykes noted. “How preposterous is that?”

So preposterous that the cutthroat, bottomline, chase-every-nickle NFL wouldn’t even try it. And Dykes' point extends to uneven revenue sharing and multiple automatic bids.

It’s particularly preposterous because based on the competitive strength and historic success of Big Ten and SEC teams, they would likely be able to earn those bids, byes and even money via competition. If so, good for them.

By putting it in writing though, this becomes a play to break apart other conferences and pick off a few more of the most valuable brands...."

Ah yes - This is all a ploy by the SEC and Big Ten to destabilize the Big 12 enough that they can pick off all of the Big 12 schools that they have long wanted but never could dream of pulling away...  Or maybe it's all a ploy to get FSU, a team that desperately wants to leave the ACC to... leave the ACC.

  • Haha 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Or maybe it's all a ploy to get FSU, a team that desperately wants to leave the ACC to... leave the ACC.


Not sure I follow. 
 

In the ACC (or b12 for that matter), having 2 guaranteed spots seems bad at face value, but for the teams that matter, it really isn’t as their competition for those 2 spots gives them a better shot than the competition would for 3 spots.

This is taking the pay increase out of the equation, and just referencing CFP spots/path.

 

Posted
26 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:


Not sure I follow. 
 

In the ACC (or b12 for that matter), having 2 guaranteed spots seems bad at face value, but for the teams that matter, it really isn’t as their competition for those 2 spots gives them a better shot than the competition would for 3 spots.

This is taking the pay increase out of the equation, and just referencing CFP spots/path.

 

I was just making fun of Wetzel suggesting that the Big Ten and SEC are doing this in order to destabilize the membership of the Big 12 and ACC when they could have any of of those schools if they really wanted to without worrying about destabilizing the conferences first.

Posted
1 hour ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I was just making fun of Wetzel suggesting that the Big Ten and SEC are doing this in order to destabilize the membership of the Big 12 and ACC when they could have any of of those schools if they really wanted to without worrying about destabilizing the conferences first.


 

Ah, got ya. So yeah, fuck that guy. 

Posted
4 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I was just making fun of Wetzel suggesting that the Big Ten and SEC are doing this in order to destabilize the membership of the Big 12 and ACC when they could have any of of those schools if they really wanted to without worrying about destabilizing the conferences first.

Yeah exactly.  If the Big 10 and SEC wanted any more of those schools they could take them any day.

Posted
On 3/13/2024 at 1:49 AM, Texas Wahoo said:

Ah yes - This is all a ploy by the SEC and Big Ten to destabilize the Big 12 enough that they can pick off all of the Big 12 schools that they have long wanted but never could dream of pulling away...  Or maybe it's all a ploy to get FSU, a team that desperately wants to leave the ACC to... leave the ACC.

Yeah, that seems like a bad take. At some point, and we’re probably already there if not super close, the B1G and SEC adding more teams starts to devalue the current conference members. What other teams out there would add enough to a contract that every member would get more money than they do now? There’s not many.

Posted

Which is one reason the b1g gave half shares to oregon and wash.

Is there a team in the acc or b12 that would turn down a half share to join the b1g/sec?

Not saying it would happen, but simply commenting on how the math works out.

Posted (edited)

Looks like the expanded CFP contract is final.
Some take aways

B1G and SEC schools get 21 mil

ACC schools 13

Big12 gets 12 per

Notre Dame 12 

1.3 BIL total / year

AND that’s prorated up if playoffs expanded from 12 to 14.

Also interesting that ESPN can subcontract out some of the playoff games to NBC / CBS / Fox too. I wonder if that’s going to happen.

Oh and the championship games is moving to ABC 


 

https://theathletic.com/5354221/2024/03/19/espn-college-football-playoff-tv-contract/
 

Quote

ESPN and the College Football Playoff on Tuesday announced a finalized agreement granting the network exclusive rights through the 2031-32 season. Financial terms were not disclosed, but The Athletic has previously reported the deal is a six-year extension worth an average of $1.3 billion annually.

Two seasons remain on ESPN’s original 12-year deal for the New Year’s Six bowls (two of them CFP semifinals) and national championship game. As part of the deal, ESPN adds the four new first-round games involved in the expanded 12-team format that begins this season. The six-year extension begins in 2026-27.

 

ESPN, which to this point has aired all CFP games on its flagship cable network, said it will move the national championship game to ABC beginning in 2026-27. The company also has the option to sublicense “a select number of games” to other networks beginning this season, potentially allowing the likes of Fox, NBC and CBS to become part of the CFP lineup. The parties have a commitment to air a minimum of one game per round on an over-the-air network beginning in 2026-27, a source briefed on the discussions told The Athletic.

The $1.3 billion annual average marks an increase from the $608 million average in ESPN’s original seven-game deal that began in 2014-15. In the 12-team format beginning this season, four of those bowls become quarterfinal Playoff games, with two other bowls hosting the semifinals on a rotation.

Network executives previously told The Athleticthe deal will remain at the same dollar figure even if the CFP opts to expand the field from 12 to 14 teams. The CFP met with numerous potential media partners during recent negotiations, but no other network made a bid for any games.

“We look forward to enhancing our valued relationship (with the CFP) over the next two years, and then continuing it for six more as we embark on this new, expanded playoff era,” ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro said in a statement.

The terms of the ESPN deal have been set for some time, according to executives, but the conferences had delayed approving it due to a lack of clarity over the future structure of the event. Finally last Friday, the nine continuing FBS conferences and Notre Dame signed off on a basic framework that includes uneven revenue distribution among the major conferences. Multiple sources briefed on the model confirmed the Big Ten and SEC will receive more than $21 million per school, the ACC around $13 million each and the Big 12 around $12 million each, with around $1.8 million for the Group of 5 conferences collectively. The remainder goes to independents, including more than $12 million for Notre Dame, and the Football Championship Subdivision.

 

The CFP’s internal contract includes a look-in clause in 2028, allowing the parties to potentially reshape the agreement based on performance or further conference realignment, according to multiple people familiar with the negotiations

 

Edited by Dnaguy
Posted (edited)

The Big 12 made out like a bandit, considering its member schools are 1-2 (TCU and Cincinnati) in Bowl Alliance championships, BCS CGs, and CFP games. 

Edited by statsman
Posted
4 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

Looks like the expanded CFP contract is final.
Some take aways

B1G and SEC schools get 21 mil

ACC schools 13

Big12 gets 12 per

Notre Dame 12 

1.3 BIL total / year

AND that’s prorated up if playoffs expanded from 12 to 14.

Also interesting that ESPN can subcontract out some of the playoff games to NBC / CBS / Fox too. I wonder if that’s going to happen.

Oh and the championship games is moving to ABC 


 

https://theathletic.com/5354221/2024/03/19/espn-college-football-playoff-tv-contract/
 

 

 

 

  • 1 month later...
Posted
On 3/20/2024 at 12:26 PM, statsman said:

The Big 12 made out like a bandit, considering its member schools are 1-2 (TCU and Cincinnati) in Bowl Alliance championships, BCS CGs, and CFP games. 

Missed this from a couple of months ago. So Kansas, KSU, ISU, etc. get roughly the same amount as Notre Dame.  That's amazing.

Posted
12 minutes ago, TxEx84 said:

Missed this from a couple of months ago. So Kansas, KSU, ISU, etc. get roughly the same amount as Notre Dame.  That's amazing.

From the playoff.  ND's making so much god damn money from every other aspect of their existence that I doubt they'll even notice.

  • 2 months later...
  • 5 months later...
Posted (edited)

Stewart Mandel: Arrogance of Big Ten, SEC leaders on full display in New Orleans college football meetings

Quote

For two decades, every hare-brained development in college football could be boiled down to a simple explanation: “No one is in charge.” Today, however, two indisputable ruling parties are controlling the sport: the Big Ten and SEC. And they’re about to light the whole thing aflame. Leaders of the two leagues are meeting this week in New Orleans, where they’re expected to push forward with a full-on takeover of the College Football Playoff. 

Beginning in 2026, the field would expand to 14 or 16 teams, and the Power 2 would grant themselves four automatic berths each.  The ACC and Big 12 would get two, the Group of 5 one, leaving just one or three at-larges. It’s a ludicrous and unnecessary provision, one made possible by the fact that the Power 2 conferences already negotiated themselves favored nation status in the new CFP contract that begins next year. 

The previous version required unanimous agreement among the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame to make changes to the format. The Big Ten and SEC now get to dictate changes to the others. While the four-bid idea was first discussed a year ago, before the 2024 season played out, behold the arrogance if the SEC pushes it through immediately after landing just three bids last season.

The first year of the 12-team CFP exposed some largely fixable flaws in the format when it came to seeding and byes. But for the most part, it achieved exactly what was intended. New faces — Arizona State, Indiana, SMU — got to enjoy their moment in the sun. The entire bowl season got a much-needed interest boost from those mid-December games. 

And No. 8 seed Ohio State and No. 7 seed Notre Dame earned their way to the championship game rather than getting voted into the semifinals like before. What better way to undermine the event’s credibility before it has barely started than by formally stacking the deck for two conferences that were likely to dominate the tournament anyway with or without special provisions.

Big Ten and SEC leaders will tell you it’s a necessary acknowledgment of the post-realignment landscape as if they themselves didn’t orchestrate the whole thing. Oklahoma and Texas didn’t slip and fall into the SEC. And the Pac-12 would still exist if the Big Ten didn’t decide to add two schools (USC and UCLA) located 2,000 miles from the league office.

Big Ten and SEC leaders will point out the numbers are essentially right in line with how many bids those leagues would have earned on average historically. That’s true, but that doesn’t mean they should be preordained. What if a conference has a down year — like the SEC did just last season?

Finally, Big Ten and SEC leaders will spin this as a means to reduce subjectivity in the system. Rather than allowing the selection committee to use its ever-shifting criteria to determine most of the participants, we can just go by their own league standings. As if the leagues’ own convoluted tiebreakers aren’t themselves confusing and arbitrary.

Had this model been in place last season, the SEC’s four berths would have gone to Texas (7-1 in league play), Georgia (6-2), Tennessee (6-2) and whoever emerged from a six-way tie among 5-3 teams Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Missouri, South Carolina and Texas A&M. One decimal point difference in the cumulative win percentage column would be the difference between making the CFP and making the ReliaQuest Bowl.

The great irony here is those conferences (and all the others) have spent the past four years decrying other major changes to the sport — the so-called “Wild, Wild West” of NIL and the transfer portal — that have thus far had no negative effect on the product whatsoever. If anything, they’ve helped disperse talent and create more parity, making the Playoff more attainable for more of their members.

But that doesn’t mean college football is indestructible. The single biggest threat to its popularity is the most recent cycle of realignment-gone-wild, which cost 12 West Coast schools their natural rivals, exiled two (Oregon State and Washington State) to Siberia and has effectively told every fan base outside the Big Ten and SEC that their school is unimportant. Legislating that distinction into the Playoff will alienate large swaths of the country.

All for something that is completely unnecessary. The Big Ten and SEC are going to combine for eight berths more often than not. Maybe Notre Dame siphons off one from time to time like it did last season. In other years, however, the Power 2 might get nine, with the ACC, Big 12 and G5 getting one bid each.

And the Big Ten and SEC are already pocketing more money than the others. They granted themselves each 29 percent of the revenue from the CFP’s new six-year deal with ESPN that averages $1.3 billion a year, compared with 17 percent for the ACC and 15 percent for the Big 12. Those larger cuts for the Big Ten and SEC equate to more than $21 million per school, more than triple their share of the previous deal.

But apparently, that wasn’t enough. The addition of at least two more CFP games will garner even more television money. Here’s betting it won’t be divided equally. And, of course, the inevitable next step will be for the Big Ten and SEC to create their own versions of the NBA Play-In Tournament to see who gets those third and fourth auto-berths. More money, more money, more money.

But at what cost? The Big Ten and SEC have by far the most national-brand programs between them that will always get the highest TV ratings and the biggest crowds. But they also comprise just 25 percent of all FBS schools. It’s not generally a winning formula to alienate 75 percent of your customers. But the two ruling parties are only governing for themselves.

Andrew Boardwine: The SEC & Big Ten should think twice before moving ahead with terrible CFP idea

Quote

The College Football Playoff is headed for another expansion, but instead of creating a more balanced and competitive postseason, the SEC and Big Ten seem determined to turn it into their own exclusive tournament. Reports indicate that the latest proposal for an expanded CFP includes a 4-4-2-2-1 model, which would give four automatic qualifiers each to the SEC and Big Ten.

That’s not a playoff—that’s an invitational. No conference in a 14-team or 16-team playoff should be guaranteed four spots. College football has always thrived on its regional diversity, but this proposed structure would all but eliminate the idea of national competition. Instead, it turns the postseason into an echo chamber of the same teams playing each other year after year. 

A system like this doesn’t just favor the SEC and Big Ten—it completely rigs the playoff in their favor. The ACC, Big 12, and Group of Five schools would essentially be left fighting for crumbs. What’s the incentive for a program in the Big 12 or ACC to compete at the highest level when their conference’s best-case scenario is two bids while two leagues dominate the field?

Will college football fans get bored and tune out?

The SEC and Big Ten may hold most of the power in college football, but they don’t represent the entire sport. There are millions of fans who passionately support Big 12 and ACC programs, and if they feel completely shut out of the championship picture, there’s no guarantee they’ll keep watching.

Sure, Alabama vs. Texas sounds like a great CFP matchup—at first. But what happens when we’ve seen the same game year after year? What about when Michigan and Penn State square off every season in both the regular season and the playoff? What happens when rematches become the norm rather than the exception? The appeal wears off quickly when familiarity breeds predictability. 

Ohio State vs. Oregon in a rematch sounds great the first time around.  How about when it's happened three-straight years and you've watched that matchup play out six times? That was the exact reason the conferences said we needed expansion to begin with. Because they got tired of seeing Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, and Georgia play in round-robins. Well, you're about to create just that, but on a broader and larger scale.

If automatic qualifiers are a must, the SEC and Big Ten shouldn’t get more than two — or three at most if they're willing to give the ACC and Big 12 two spots. Every conference champion in the Power-4 should get a bid, and additional spots should be earned based on merit, not pre-determined entitlements. The Group of Five also deserves continued access, ensuring that Cinderella teams still have a path to the biggest stage.

But instead of prioritizing fairness, the SEC and Big Ten are dead set on tipping the scales in their favor. That’s a short-sighted move that could backfire in the long run. A top-heavy system might generate big ratings in the short term, but once fans of other conferences feel permanently left behind, the long-term health of college football could suffer.

The brands in the SEC and Big Ten are powerful, no doubt. But, they're not the NFL, and they never will be. You need parity in college football — that's what makes the sport great — and if you're only going to have games that matter from two conferences every Saturday, don't be surprised when fans check out.

Ultimately, the SEC and Big Ten are pushing college football toward a future where two conferences dictate everything, and that’s not a good thing for the sport. A 4-4-2-2-1 playoff model makes no sense, isolates millions of fans, and risks turning the postseason into an exclusive club that few programs can enter.

If the goal is to expand the CFP while keeping the sport competitive and engaging, the SEC and Big Ten need to reconsider their approach. Otherwise, they might find out the hard way that locking out a large portion of the country isn’t a sustainable plan.

 

Edited by satyanash
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

It's pretty stupid though, and at this rate (whether any of us here live to see it or not) it's inevitable that without some kind of central leadership, college football is going to eat itself in the relentless pursuit of greed.  The absurdity of what's happening off the field is largely overshadowing the action on the field, and everyone is cool with it until the leopard eats their face, because they're convinced the leopard could never eat their face.

It's really kind of a mirror of American society in many ways.

And just like America, those of us bitching the most about it are probably staying here anyways and going down with the ship because it's just been hardwired into us.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted

I still like the idea of automatic berths for conference champions.  Just don't seed off of that.

Having a play in situation is great entertainment, and I'm sure that's what this is going to turn into.  All the multi bid conferences are going to have internal playoffs to determine their 4 or 2 automatic participants, and that's how it will increase the monetization of all this.

You'll have 4 games in the SEC and Big 10 determining these spots, and 2 in the Big 12 and ACC.  Maybe the G5 does some kind of tournament to determine their entrant.  It's a ploy to create more "meaningful" inventory, and get more money.  More, more, more.

And I'll fucking watch it because it's what I do.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

They know people will watch. I just think it creates a disincentive to participate in the B1G and SEC title games. Those two teams most likely will both make the playoffs and will definitely suffer from the fatigue and injuries of that extra game, the way Oregon, Penn State, Texas, and Georgia did.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I think it is a terrible idea. Just stupid. They are going to kill it. The greed will destroy this. You need everyone to be involved for it to be healthy.

SuperBestFriendsConference; 84 teams, 7 in each pod. Rotate the non-pod games and the 12 pod winners go to the playoffs.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

They know people will watch. I just think it creates a disincentive to participate in the B1G and SEC title games. Those two teams most likely will both make the playoffs and will definitely suffer from the fatigue and injuries of that extra game, the way Oregon, Penn State, Texas, and Georgia did.

I don’t think there are going to be CCGs.

Theres going to be an 8 team play in to represent the SEC/Big 10; a 4 team play in to represent the ACC/Big 12, and some event to determine the G5 rep.

Posted

I'm always baffled by the complaints about more CFB games being played. It used to be bitching about "meaningless" bowl games. Now it's about hypercompetitive play-in scenarios to make the playoffs, which will be larger unto itself as well. Bizarre shit.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, PittsburghTiger said:

 

SuperBestFriendsConference; 84 teams, 7 in each pod. Rotate the non-pod games and the 12 pod winners go to the playoffs.

Worse idea. This is putting Texas back into a Gulliver and Lilliput situation. 
 
Auto bids are needed, because we have a quarter century of evidence that committees rate college football teams, first, by looking at the loss column, and there is so much variance in schedule quality. 
 
Check out the Sagarin final top 12, and who played them in the (pre CCG) regular season. 
 
The Buckeyes played three top 12 Sagarin teams. 
ND played none. 
Oregon played one. 
Texas played two. 
PSU played one. 
Ole Miss played one. 
UGA played four(!) (and Clemson wasn’t one of them)

Bama played two

two Indiana played one

Tennessee played two

LSU played two

Michigan played four

ASU played none

ISU played none

Clemson played one

SMU played none 

The SEC is a sixteen team conference playing an eight game schedule, and its best teams averaged 2.2 tough games. The B1G’s best teams, playing a nine game schedule, played an average of 2 tough games. The B12 and ACC can barely manage any tough games. You want the SEC to go to nine conference games? You don’t want to guarantee it CFP spots? Then, show that you can differentiate between an 11-1 team that has played nobody and a 9-3 team that survived a murderer’s row. As yet, that hasn’t been shown. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I'm always baffled by the complaints about more CFB games being played. It used to be bitching about "meaningless" bowl games. Now it's about hypercompetitive play-in scenarios to make the playoffs, which will be larger unto itself as well. Bizarre shit.

I think most everyone is cool with the "more games" part.  That's clearly the silver lining here.

It's the seismic changes created by a mindless unquenchable drive for revenue creation in a sport that people are largely attached to for very emotional, personal reasons, that gets folks pissed off.

We generally develop these attachments early in life and radical change to something we know and love is difficult - especially when said change was utterly unnecessary.

Posted
3 minutes ago, statsman said:

Worse idea. This is putting Texas back into a Gulliver and Lilliput situation. 
 
Auto bids are needed, because we have a quarter century of evidence that committees rate college football teams, first, by looking at the loss column, and there is so much variance in schedule quality. 
 
Check out the Sagarin final top 12, and who played them in the (pre CCG) regular season. 
 
The Buckeyes played three top 12 Sagarin teams. 
ND played none. 
Oregon played one. 
Texas played two. 
PSU played one. 
Ole Miss played one. 
UGA played four(!) (and Clemson wasn’t one of them)

Bama played two

two Indiana played one

Tennessee played two

LSU played two

Michigan played four

ASU played none

ISU played none

Clemson played one

SMU played none 

The SEC is a sixteen team conference playing an eight game schedule, and its best teams averaged 2.2 tough games. The B1G’s best teams, playing a nine game schedule, played an average of 2 tough games. The B12 and ACC can barely manage any tough games. You want the SEC to go to nine conference games? You don’t want to guarantee it CFP spots? Then, show that you can differentiate between an 11-1 team that has played nobody and a 9-3 team that survived a murderer’s row. As yet, that hasn’t been shown. 

It wouldn't have to be that.

If you eliminate the idea of separate conferences as fifedoms that share their money with themselves and no one else, have one massive NFL-ish collective bargaining agreement, and then dish out revenue to individual schools on the basis of ratings, Texas (or anyone else) isn't beholden to the teams on their schedule as some kind of partner that they have to enrich.  TTU and Baylor would have no say in the rules Texas was up against in this situation.  They'd probably be on the schedule, and that's the end of the arrangement.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It's the seismic changes created by a mindless unquenchable drive for revenue creation in a sport that people are largely attached to for very emotional, personal reasons, that gets folks pissed off.

I think the genie is out of the bottle there as college football increasingly resembles the NFL.  Fans still support regional teams for emotional, personal reasons (me excepted because fuck you Bud Adams, I hope your hell is being forced to watch the 1993 Bills comeback for eternity) even if the players are mostly self interested in their careers.

I do wonder if there’s an inevitable collision at some point between college football revenue growth and the NFL because kids aren’t watching or playing football like previous generations.  

Posted (edited)

Do we really need four loss teams in the playoffs?  I guess aggie will be excited when 8-4 gets them fourth place in the SEC one day.  This whole one conference thing is also dumb as hell.  

Edited by Hook1997
Posted

So if a play-in thing replaced CCGs, this is what it would have looked like last year (assuming you use regular season standings to seed):

SEC

1 UT vs 8 Ole Miss

2 UGA vs 7 Aggy

3 Tenn vs 6 SC

4 Bama vs 5 LSU

Big 10

1 Oregon vs 8 Minnesota

2 Indiana vs 7 Michigan

3 Pedo vs 6 Iowa

4 OSU vs 5 Illinois

Big 12

1 ASU vs 4 CU

2 ISU vs 3 BYU

ACC

1 SMU vs 4 Cuse

2 Clemson vs 3 Miami

The SEC, Big 12, and ACC games would have been pretty entertaining for the most part.  The Big 10 is just glaring in it's gap between the top and everyone else, outside of Indiana/Michigan which was played and was actually a good game.

Posted

Yeah, what we really need are the 9-3 teams that lost conference games to the 3 best teams they played to prove again in the playoffs that they can't beat them. I have no idea why people want to watch Ole Miss lose to UGA a second time instead of watching UGA play Arizona State in a lose and go home game. Just admit you want CFB to be the NFL and create an all SEC/Big 10 CFB Big Boys Division that copies the NFC/AFC model and an Everyone Else CFB Division that operates in a manner more closely resembling CFB than the NFL. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...