CFP expansion discussion

[Huckleberry 32848]

I'll play my broken record, it should be 16 with all conference champs getting an auto bid. If it's possible to go undefeated and not win the competition's championship then it's not a real playoff. The possibility is now much smaller as it would usually take multiple undefeated small conference teams but it still exists. 

If the power conferences don't like that then man up and split off from the rest of FBS. 

Last point is that as top programs continue to consolidate into fewer conferences the season records we instinctively associate with good teams will have to change. When we finally and fully get into a power 2 situation and they increase conference games and get rid of crappy non-conference matchups a 9-3 record will typically mean that's a very good team.

Edited February 22 by Huckleberry

[closetojumping 62565]

45 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I'll play my broken record, it should be 16 with all conference champs getting an auto bid. If it's possible to go undefeated and not win the competition's championship then it's not a real playoff. The possibility is now much smaller as it would usually take multiple undefeated small conference teams but it still exists. 

If the power conferences don't like that then man up and split off from the rest of FBS. 

 

Who are you? The Bob Costas of college football? If some G6 team goes undefeated and yet still isn't ranked in the top 12 as the second G6 undefeated team, they're simply not to be taken seriously. This year was nearly a great example. Liberty went undefeated playing the absolute worst SOS in FBS. SMU almost jumped them into the NYD6 bowl, and they actually should have. If SMU, in the scenario where a CFP of 12 happened in '23 had jumped Liberty no one but a few Liberty people and morons on radio looking to fill air would give one fuck. That Liberty team was a fucking joke and picking Oregon in the bowl pools was the easiest choice ever. 

[Huckleberry 32848]

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.

[formermav43 4606]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Last point is that as top programs continue to consolidate into fewer conferences the season records we instinctively associate with good teams will have to change. When we finally and fully get into a power 2 situation and they increase conference games and get rid of crappy non-conference matchups a 9-3 record will typically mean that's a very good team.

I’m clearly in the minority, but I’m not really interested in watching that sport.

[Vertigo 20276]

Going to 16 teams will ensure that every team needs to play 3 games to win the title. That will drastically impact the regular season. I could see conference championship games going away since the top teams will essentially play an NFL schedule. 

Edited February 22 by Vertigo

[utee94 15807]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

... a 9-3 record will typically mean that's a very good team.

Yes, similar to the NFL, where an 11-6 team is not only a very good one, but is capable of winning-- and did win-- the Superbowl.

It's going to take some getting used to, and I don't believe every current college football fan is going to be willing or able to make the journey.

 

[Juicy 725]

23 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Going to 16 teams will ensure that every team needs to play 3 games to win the title. That will drastically impact the regular season. I could see conference championship games going away since the top teams will essentially play an NFL schedule. 

Isn't it 4 games? 

Round of 16

Round of 8

Semis

Final

[Mitch Cumsteen 18547]

32 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

I could see conference championship games going away since the top teams will essentially play an NFL schedule. 

The conferences are such whores for the championship game cash, that it seems like that's the only reason that we don't have 16 already. They just don't want to give up that revenue. And they sure as shit don't want to sacrifice it so Georgia can go beat the piss out of some G5 scrub that skates through their bullshit schedule into the playoff.

I think the trick is to balance out the urgency / do or die nature of the regular season while maxing the number of teams in the playoff and still make the CCG mean something. Maybe they are going to go to from 12 to 14 and just give the SEC and Big 10 Champion an auto bye? That would be kind of hilarious.

[statsman 5451]

I think the CFP will make a lot of money. The SEC and B1G will collect the most. The B12 and ACC will want a larger playoff, so they can get more teams in and get more money. That will be countered by the P2 not wanting to expand the CFP, because their top teams can win it, and they don’t want to keep adding games. 
 
This could be resolved by the B12, ACC and G5 breaking away and having their own playoff, with as many teams as they want. It will still be popular, like Texas 5A is a big deal, even though there is still a 6A. 

[Juicy 725]

9 minutes ago, statsman said:

 
This could be resolved by the B12, ACC and G5 breaking away and having their own playoff, with as many teams as they want. It will still be popular, like Texas 5A is a big deal, even though there is still a 6A. 

I think something like this is probably the end game.

SEC/B1G end up as two 20 team conferences, and their playoff is made up of their 4 or 8 best teams at the end. ACC/pac2 and B12 end up with their own playoff, and we are back to split national championships. Although would be sweet to have to two playoff champs face off champions league style. If there is money it will come. 

 

adding some incoherent rambling about what it could look like. 

SEC/B1G are the decision makers, 8 slots left for football, ND is going to have to join somewhere or get left out eventually. They already miss out on any chance at a bye. FSU/Clemson/Miami/UNC seem like the most likely ACC options, but not sure UNC would ever leave Duke. Utah/OkState/Kstate/TCU??? from the new b12

 

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

On 2/22/2024 at 8:25 AM, Huckleberry said:

I'll play my broken record, it should be 16 with all conference champs getting an auto bid. If it's possible to go undefeated and not win the competition's championship then it's not a real playoff. The possibility is now much smaller as it would usually take multiple undefeated small conference teams but it still exists. 

If the power conferences don't like that then man up and split off from the rest of FBS. 

Last point is that as top programs continue to consolidate into fewer conferences the season records we instinctively associate with good teams will have to change. When we finally and fully get into a power 2 situation and they increase conference games and get rid of crappy non-conference matchups a 9-3 record will typically mean that's a very good team.

I was bored and piece this together for how this past year would have played out.

 

 

I used the "also receiving notes" of the AP poll to seed out the bottom teams.

 

First two rounds higher seed host the games on campus. Semis and finals are at a rotation of NY6 bowls.

[Juicy 725]

5 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I was bored and piece this together for how this past year would have played out

 

I used the "also receiving notes" of the AP poll to seed out the bottom teams.

 

First two rounds higher seed host the games on campus. Semis and finals are at a rotation of NY6 bowls.

Pretty good chance the final 4 would have ended up the same, looking at that bracket. The only real games until the semis would have been OSU vs Washington, and UGA vs Texas. 

[Al_4_ISU 12452]

23 minutes ago, statsman said:

I think the CFP will make a lot of money. The SEC and B1G will collect the most. The B12 and ACC will want a larger playoff, so they can get more teams in and get more money. That will be countered by the P2 not wanting to expand the CFP, because their top teams can win it, and they don’t want to keep adding games. 
 
This could be resolved by the B12, ACC and G5 breaking away and having their own playoff, with as many teams as they want. It will still be popular, like Texas 5A is a big deal, even though there is still a 6A. 

There would be less interest in both of these playoffs, IMO.  They would both make plenty of money, but they aren't going to make more than a big playoff that gives everyone a theoretical shot.  One of the reasons March Madness is so well watched is because everyone at least gets a shot at the same crown and occasionally Cinderella makes a run.  

The Big 12 and ACC just want some guaranteed access.  Is there a reason the SEC and Big 10 can't accommodate that?  They're already making far more money, and the playoffs will be set up in a way that they make the most.  This whole idea of a break away is fueled far more by this desire (that's always lurked in college sports) to have an exclusive tree fort that the ugly kids can't play in than it is about long term financial success.  Big 12 and ACC fans are going to watch Big 10 and SEC games when they know that those are schools they might play in the post season.  If they aren't competing for the same thing, they're going to watch a lot less of it.  The whole thing seems predicated on the idea that the left out schools will just become fans of Big 10 and SEC schools, and it completely misunderstands the whole root of collegiate fandom.

I enjoy watching the FCS playoffs when I get a chance, but it's not appointment television because it doesn't really affect my school or who we play.  That's what will happen (in each direction) with further splintering.  The only way I see a splintering possibly making more money is if it's the absolute 15-20 elite brands shedding the Indianas and Mississippi State's of the world to come play in a quite large second tier that has a truly national scope and can organize on regional basis.

The SEC and Big 10 already won financially.  It's over.  A modicum of clemency would make for a product that would maximize ratings and profitability.

[someguy 1508]

24 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I was bored and piece this together for how this past year would have played out.

 

 

I used the "also receiving notes" of the AP poll to seed out the bottom teams.

 

First two rounds higher seed host the games on campus. Semis and finals are at a rotation of NY6 bowls.

Semis and finals are 3 games.  NY6 is, obviously, 6 games.  What do you do with the other 3 bowl games in the year they are not part of the playoff?  With the top 16 teams off the board, who is going to play in the other NY6 games?  Is the Rose Bowl really going to be played between 4 loss teams?  Are the NY6 bowls only going to be played the year they are part of the playoff?  Do bowls go away entirely with the playoff?

[Al_4_ISU 12452]

3 minutes ago, someguy said:

Semis and finals are 3 games.  NY6 is, obviously, 6 games.  What do you do with the other 3 bowl games in the year they are not part of the playoff?  With the top 16 teams off the board, who is going to play in the other NY6 games?  Is the Rose Bowl really going to be played between 4 loss teams?  Are the NY6 bowls only going to be played the year they are part of the playoff?  Do bowls go away entirely with the playoff?

Nah.  They already "don't matter".  It's still an opportunity to create interesting non-conference exhibition games in interesting travel locations that people can bet on.

There will be fewer bowl games, but there will still be bowl games.  IMO.

Plus, that's a TON of ad revenue that TV networks aren't going to just say "fuck it" towards.

Edited February 23 by Al_4_ISU

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

6 minutes ago, someguy said:

Semis and finals are 3 games.  NY6 is, obviously, 6 games.  What do you do with the other 3 bowl games in the year they are not part of the playoff?  With the top 16 teams off the board, who is going to play in the other NY6 games?  Is the Rose Bowl really going to be played between 4 loss teams?  Are the NY6 bowls only going to be played the year they are part of the playoff?  Do bowls go away entirely with the playoff?

I don't give a shit about them....bowls are dead anyway

 

You have them on rotation as I stated. 3 one year, 3 the next so it is all pre-planned for years. If the 3 that aren't hosting CFP games want to host meaningless bowl games of a 18th ranked team vs a 25th ranked team then so be it. 

Edited February 23 by BurntOrange&White

[statsman 5451]

59 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

There would be less interest in both of these playoffs, IMO.  They would both make plenty of money, but they aren't going to make more than a big playoff that gives everyone a theoretical shot.  One of the reasons March Madness is so well watched is because everyone at least gets a shot at the same crown and occasionally Cinderella makes a run.  

The Big 12 and ACC just want some guaranteed access.  Is there a reason the SEC and Big 10 can't accommodate that?  They're already making far more money, and the playoffs will be set up in a way that they make the most.  This whole idea of a break away is fueled far more by this desire (that's always lurked in college sports) to have an exclusive tree fort that the ugly kids can't play in than it is about long term financial success.  Big 12 and ACC fans are going to watch Big 10 and SEC games when they know that those are schools they might play in the post season.  If they aren't competing for the same thing, they're going to watch a lot less of it.  The whole thing seems predicated on the idea that the left out schools will just become fans of Big 10 and SEC schools, and it completely misunderstands the whole root of collegiate fandom.

I enjoy watching the FCS playoffs when I get a chance, but it's not appointment television because it doesn't really affect my school or who we play.  That's what will happen (in each direction) with further splintering.  The only way I see a splintering possibly making more money is if it's the absolute 15-20 elite brands shedding the Indianas and Mississippi State's of the world to come play in a quite large second tier that has a truly national scope and can organize on regional basis.

The SEC and Big 10 already won financially.  It's over.  A modicum of clemency would make for a product that would maximize ratings and profitability.

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. 

[Al_4_ISU 12452]

1 minute ago, 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. 

This sounds a little like the proposals to have a 128 team NCAA hoops tournament.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

3 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

This sounds a little like the proposals to have a 128 team NCAA hoops tournament.

Wait until you hear his 134 team NCAA Football Tournament proposal.

[SimonBolivar 10957]

3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Wait until you hear his 134 team NCAA Football Tournament proposal.

I'd be 100% down as it's not my brain with CTE. 

[Al_4_ISU 12452]

I still like 8.

AQ for SEC, B10, B12, ACC champs. No byes.

4 at large. If G5 has a team ranked above a certain point they’re in. SEC probably gets 3 bids, Big 10 probably gets 2, everyone else gets 1. Generally speaking.

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

38 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I still like 8.

AQ for SEC, B10, B12, ACC champs. No byes.

4 at large. If G5 has a team ranked above a certain point they’re in. SEC probably gets 3 bids, Big 10 probably gets 2, everyone else gets 1. Generally speaking.

We'll never have a system with the same or fewer at large bids than we have now (4), Sankey has been crystal clear on this point.  In your model the ACC and Big12 get a much easier AQ path than the B1G and SEC.  The only way it would work would be to codify 2 bids each for B1G and SEC.  But then you're back to the limited at large spots which screws both the SEC and potentially Big12 if they have a good year.

[Al_4_ISU 12452]

5 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

We'll never have a system with the same or fewer at large bids than we have now (4), Sankey has been crystal clear on this point.  In your model the ACC and Big12 get a much easier AQ path than the B1G and SEC.  The only way it would work would be to codify 2 bids each for B1G and SEC.  But then you're back to the limited at large spots which screws both the SEC and potentially Big12 if they have a good year.

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.

[Dnaguy 11920]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I was bored and piece this together for how this past year would have played out.

 

 

I used the "also receiving notes" of the AP poll to seed out the bottom teams.

 

First two rounds higher seed host the games on campus. Semis and finals are at a rotation of NY6 bowls.

[gernblansten 3196]

3 hours ago, Juicy said:

Pretty good chance the final 4 would have ended up the same, looking at that bracket. The only real games until the semis would have been OSU vs Washington, and UGA vs Texas. 

Pretty decent of the same four, and why does anyone want to watch UM v. 5 loss Boise and UW v. a Miami (OH) team that lost to craptastic Miami (FL) 38-3? All that's asking for is an injury to a key player for UM or UW that derails their playoff chances. 

Not to mention, why anyone has to watch UGA v. Ole Miss again after UGA beat them 52-17. And, congrats tOSU for beating PSU in that 20-12 snooze fest, now go do that again. That punishes tOSU and America's football viewing community. 

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

3 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

Pretty decent of the same four, and why does anyone want to watch UM v. 5 loss Boise and UW v. a Miami (OH) team that lost to craptastic Miami (FL) 38-3? All that's asking for is an injury to a key player for UM or UW that derails their playoff chances. 

Not to mention, why anyone has to watch UGA v. Ole Miss again after UGA beat them 52-17. And, congrats tOSU for beating PSU in that 20-12 snooze fest, now go do that again. That punishes tOSU and America's football viewing community. 

Teams play teams they played prior in NFL playoffs and it's the most popular sport in our country. 

[Vertigo 20276]

On 2/22/2024 at 9:15 AM, Juicy said:

Isn't it 4 games? 

Round of 16

Round of 8

Semis

Final

You are correct, even more reason to do away with CCG and maybe even drop a non conference regular season game and go back to 11.  

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

47 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

You are correct, even more reason to do away with CCG and maybe even drop a non conference regular season game and go back to 11.  

The only way the CCG ever gets dropped is if the playoff $ is > the CCG $.  And the CCG generates a LOT of money directly into the pocket of the conference vs. getting a cut from the playoff.

[gernblansten 3196]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Teams play teams they played prior in NFL playoffs and it's the most popular sport in our country. 

McDonald’s is the most popular burger joint in the entire world, which is just as relevant as your statement considering the obvious differences that exist between NFL and CFB. Well, obvious to people that are able to tie their own shoes.

[The_Great_Hornsby 3236]

1 hour ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

The only way the CCG ever gets dropped is if the playoff $ is > the CCG $.  And the CCG generates a LOT of money directly into the pocket of the conference vs. getting a cut from the playoff.

CCGs are going to start to look like exhibitions when its a situation like #1 Georgia vs #3 Texas and they already played once in the regular season and are probably gonna play again in the playoffs and teams will play their cards close to the vest and not want to risk injuring starters. CCGs will go extinct, it is only a matter of time. The only benefit of winning is a bye and you probably are gonna basically have a bye anyways with a home playoff game against Tulane or one of those shitter G5 schools.  

[Al_4_ISU 12452]

Something about a world where you don’t care about winning your conference seems awful.

[Juicy 725]

18 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Something about a world where you don’t care about winning your conference seems awful.

For me, when Michigan first won the B1G a few years ago, it was cool to get in the playoffs, even if they got bombed by UGA, but winning the B1G was huge. I am sure Texas fans feel the same way about it this year. 

Winning it all is insanely difficult, but hopefully teams will still want to be the B1G or SEC champ and realize that is an incredible feat. 

You may get those absolute Machine UGA teams that only have one goal of winning it all or the season is a failure, but hopefully most teams don't feel that way. 

[David Dennison 18850]

48 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

CCGs are going to start to look like exhibitions when its a situation like #1 Georgia vs #3 Texas and they already played once in the regular season and are probably gonna play again in the playoffs and teams will play their cards close to the vest and not want to risk injuring starters. CCGs will go extinct, it is only a matter of time. The only benefit of winning is a bye and you probably are gonna basically have a bye anyways with a home playoff game against Tulane or one of those shitter G5 schools.  

As long as there's money to be made, we'll have CCGs.

[The_Great_Hornsby 3236]

I would like to see a system where the top 4 sec are seeded and play each other (semis and finals) and the winner gets a birth in the final four. Same for the big 10 (but for a spot in the opposite semifinal). The rest of the conferences can play an 8 team playoff to see who the two teams are that will play the big 10 champ and the SEC champ. Then you keep your conf championship games and appropriately award the teams for winning a harder conference. 

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

2 hours ago, gernblansten said:

McDonald’s is the most popular burger joint in the entire world, which is just as relevant as your statement considering the obvious differences that exist between NFL and CFB. Well, obvious to people that are able to tie their own shoes.

IDK if you know this or not but CFB is on a collision course for NFL style model.

[Al_4_ISU 12452]

6 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

IDK if you know this or not but CFB is on a collision course for NFL style model.

Which will be the beginning of the end of the sport’s immense popularity.

College football is huge because it explicitly isn’t the NFL

[Vertigo 20276]

1 hour ago, Juicy said:

For me, when Michigan first won the B1G a few years ago, it was cool to get in the playoffs, even if they got bombed by UGA, but winning the B1G was huge. I am sure Texas fans feel the same way about it this year. 

Winning it all is insanely difficult, but hopefully teams will still want to be the B1G or SEC champ and realize that is an incredible feat. 

You may get those absolute Machine UGA teams that only have one goal of winning it all or the season is a failure, but hopefully most teams don't feel that way. 

It is going to be extremely rare that you have two undefeated teams in conference playing for a championship. Maybe not so rare to have two 1 loss teams in the championship. It would be a fairly simple exercise to give the conference champ title to the team with the better record. The tie breaker could be better conference record first, followed by better overall record. You could call it co-champs if they are still tied, but you could also move to whoever has the higher rank in the CFP if you just absolutely wanted one champ. In the new era of the expanded CFP, I can guarantee you that most coaches would prefer to not have to play that extra game in prep for the playoffs.  

Edited February 23 by Vertigo

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

36 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Which will be the beginning of the end of the sport’s immense popularity.

College football is huge because it explicitly isn’t the NFL

I disagree.....it's popular because of the top 20ish or so teams that carry the remaining 90%

[bullet 1596]

On 2/20/2024 at 5:13 PM, Horn of Gabriel said:

I predict the SEC/B1G push for a 3+3+3+3 model.  3 auto bids each for the top 3 B1G and SEC teams.  3 auto bids for the next 3 top rated conf champions, typically Big12, ACC, and a G5.  And then 3 at-large bids for the next 3 highest ranked that don't fit one of those first 3 (could be another SEC/B1G, ND, Big12, ACC, G5 whoever).

That model gives a floor of at least 3 spots to the P2 conferences, with upside to get 4 or even 5 in the playoff in a hot year.  It retains access for the Big12, ACC and G5 to get at least 1 and possibly more, and ND can still enter if they're top 12.  They'll also do a rev split model like the NCAA MBB tournament where the most money goes to the most bids and who goes the furthest into the playoff.  Bottom line, most years the B1G and SEC will walk away with 70% of the revenue from the playoff.

Does anyone know on the NCAA MBB tournament how the rev split works today exactly?  If Texas makes the final 4 they make more than if they get to the sweet 16 but do they keep all of it or is there a % to the conference?  I assume the conference takes some and the school takes some?

Kind of a cowards way to do it.  Does the SEC want to look like a bunch of aggys?  Earn your spots.  Get incentive pay based on spots earned.  Maybe average over 2-3 years so it doesn't go way up and down.

I don't like 3 guaranteed for the Big 10 and SEC at all.  What is even more stupid about that idea is that you have to do all kinds of stupid NFL type tiebreaks to figure out who #3 is.  

With 12 teams in a 5/7 model, the SEC would average around 4 in the BCS/CFP era.  Big 10 would be about 3.5.  But it goes up and down.

[bullet 1596]

On 2/20/2024 at 11:49 PM, 'stache said:

Let's say #3 UGA loses the CCG and is (12-1). And let's say #15 KSU is 9-3 and wins the Big 12, gets a first round bye, and plays UGA in round two. KSU then defeats UGA. 

I suspect UGA will complain that KSU had an undeserved advantage because of the bye. They'll argue it was undeserved because KSU is lower ranked. 

Substitute any BIG/SEC team and any XII/ACC team. I suspect it'll happen within the first few years. 

Let's be real.  #15 KSU would be 11-1 and #3 UGA would be 11-2 because of SOS.

[bullet 1596]

On 2/21/2024 at 10:29 PM, DanTheHorn said:

Where does it say that the top conference champs get the top 4 seeds? Could they get the bye but not be seeded one through 4 ?

That's possible.

[formermav43 4606]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I disagree.....it's popular because of the top 20ish or so teams that carry the remaining 90%

It probably is for the vast majority of fans.

I do think some of the moves discussed on this page will alienate some longterm fans who prefer college to the NFL (raises hand).

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

19 hours ago, bullet said:

Kind of a cowards way to do it.  Does the SEC want to look like a bunch of aggys?  Earn your spots.  Get incentive pay based on spots earned.  Maybe average over 2-3 years so it doesn't go way up and down.

I don't like 3 guaranteed for the Big 10 and SEC at all.  What is even more stupid about that idea is that you have to do all kinds of stupid NFL type tiebreaks to figure out who #3 is.  

With 12 teams in a 5/7 model, the SEC would average around 4 in the BCS/CFP era.  Big 10 would be about 3.5.  But it goes up and down.

I don't disagree and don't favor that model either, just predicting what I think they'll go after.  It may be cowardly but it also gets them paid, and that is what matters. 

We're stuck w/ 5+7 for the next 2 years and we can see how it works, then all bets are off.  But the 5 AQs is problematic.  In down years we're going to get more Liberty-type G5 entrants, or in a weak Big12/ACC when they beat up either other, their champ could be a lower ranked AQ.  I get that they want to keep some kind of stakes in winning the conference, which is why they're doing it, but we have a P2 now, not a P5.  If we want AQ make it 3, the B1G/SEC/G5 (no anti-trust!) and 9 top ranked after.  

[satyanash 14476]

 

[Evil Bill Obrien 3266]

24 minutes ago, satyanash said:

 

Yeah how about no, just a ridiculous advantage in a playoff bracket to have byes tied to specific conferences. Would almost rather keep letting the bozos on the CFP committee keep picking all 14 playoff spots than have that. 

Really need to listen to the great philosopher Matthew McConaughey because he told us how to solve this issue: sometimes you gotta go backwards to move forwards:

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

I was right: https://theathletic.com/5306903/2024/02/28/college-football-playoff-expansion-big-ten-sec/

A person aware of the discussions told The Athletic a 3-3-2-2-1 model would feature three automatic spots each for the Big Ten and SEC (with those leagues’ champions earning the two first-round byes, according to another source briefed on the model), two each for the Big 12 and ACC and one for the Group of 5, along with three at-large spots. Yahoo Sports first reported the specific model being discussed among administrators.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

1 hour ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

I was right: https://theathletic.com/5306903/2024/02/28/college-football-playoff-expansion-big-ten-sec/

A person aware of the discussions told The Athletic a 3-3-2-2-1 model would feature three automatic spots each for the Big Ten and SEC (with those leagues’ champions earning the two first-round byes, according to another source briefed on the model), two each for the Big 12 and ACC and one for the Group of 5, along with three at-large spots. Yahoo Sports first reported the specific model being discussed among administrators.

lmao so fucking awful.

[satyanash 14476]

Chris Vannini: ACC and Big 12 face no-win situation in 14-team CFP proposal. What will they do?

Quote

Most of the headlines accompanying the recent discussion of a 14-team College Football Playoff have focused on the Big Ten and the SEC, and understandably so. The two most influential conferences’ consideration of a model in which they receive three automatic qualifying spots each and both first-round byes in a 3-3-2-2-1 AQ format is an unprecedented and obvious power play.

But the fate of the CFP may actually hinge on the other two Power 4 conferences. Only the ACC and the Big 12 had any real power to push back on the initial suggestions of as many as four automatic qualifying spots for the Big Ten and SEC.

Now it’s the ACC and Big 12 with the toughest decisions to make. In the 3-3-2-2-1 model, those two conferences have the most to gain and the most to lose. In exchange for more guaranteed CFP access, they would solidify themselves as second-class conferences. That’s an offer on the table (among other options, yes, but this model has gained the most traction, according to sources familiar with the discussions).

It’s not hard to see why two guaranteed CFP spots each could be appealing to the ACC and Big 12. In 2023, the leagues had just one team from each of their future memberships finish in the top 14 of the College Football Playoff rankings: Florida State (ACC) and Arizona (Big 12). Under this model, the last team left out of a 14-team field last year would’ve been LSU, which finished 13th; meanwhile, Louisville (15th) and Oklahoma State (20th) would have made the cut. In many years, the ACC and the Big 12 could get teams outside the top 14 into the field, likely at the expense of a higher-ranked Big Ten or SEC team.

But there’s the other side of that deal, which requires the ACC and Big 12 to relegate themselves to lesser-than status, admitting that the Big Ten and the SEC are better conferences that deserve more guaranteed spots, more guaranteed money and the only byes. That would still leave them ahead of the Group of 5, yes, but the Power-2/Middle-2 disparity would be an extremely hard sell to fans, many of whom feel insulted that this tiered model is even being discussed. And if you’re the ACC trying to keep Florida State and Clemson from leaving, the admission that more postseason opportunity lies elsewhere definitely doesn’t help.

The perception of equal access and opportunity separates American sports from other sports like European soccer, where the best leagues and teams constantly have rules and formats bent in their favor. But college football has never really acted like U.S. pro sports. Its recent consolidation of power is the latest in a long line of moves leaders have made to narrow the paths of money and influence.
go-deeper

The ACC and Big 12 don’t have enough sway to stop that consolidation in this situation, only to delay it. They face a choice accompanied by a thinly veiled threat that the Big Ten and SEC could leave the current college sports power structure and do their own thing without everyone else. A month ago, the Big Ten and SEC formed an advisory group with a vague mission statement that seems to be about charting their own course in an uncertain future and making sure they have the money to do it. If you’re the ACC and Big 12, you can’t let them create any further formal separation.

Faced with these options and no perfect way out, the ACC and Big 12 have to at least consider a deal that comes with two guaranteed CFP spots they may not get every year otherwise. The math and the money say that the Big Ten and SEC hold almost all the cards, and there’s no more pretending after this summer’s realignment. Without a need for unanimity to change CFP rules for 2026 onward, those two can bend this format and future CFP revenue and governance in their favor and threaten to storm off altogether.

The model on the table does have positives beyond the guaranteed bids. It would emphasize conference standings over rankings — a results-based focus. A version of this model might have been the perfect solution 20 years ago when conferences were closer to equal in size and strength. But today, when everyone has a conference title game and intricate standings tiebreaker rules, this idea feels like a mess.

In the summer of 2021, commissioners and presidents praised their new 12-team CFP proposal. Everyone sacrificed something to produce an expanded playoff that helped the entire sport. It was a rare moment of optimism. A month or so later, Texas and Oklahoma jumped to the SEC, and conferences ripped each other apart with realignment. The Alliance formed and died. Commissioners stopped talking to each other. CFP expansion was put on ice and later revived. The Pac-12 collapsed.

By the time the 12-team CFP finally begins next winter, half of the 10 commissioners in place during its proposal will have changed, as well as the Notre Dame athletic director job. Everyone is out for themselves. It’s been the case for years, and it’s what the ACC and Big 12 have to consider now. Is this the best deal they can get for themselves out of a no-win situation? Or do they hold on to some hope that their football leagues can stay equal to the Big Ten and SEC? Because the Big Ten and SEC look determined to make sure that never happens again.

 

['stache 21797]

I seriously don’t get the proposal. Currently there are 7 at large which most years will go to BIG/SEC. The new proposal guarantees two at large for each and another three that will go to them almost every year, so seven at large between them most years, same as now. Only downside for XII and ACC is that they won’t ever get a bye, which is kinda bs, but they’re guaranteed a second team each. It feels more like the BIG 10 trying to guarantee themselves 3 teams for years where the SEC might take most of the 7 at large in the current system.

[thunderlounge 7815]

I think that's the model they end up going with, but rewording it that the top 2 ranked champs get the bye, which means in theory it  wouldn’t necessarily be sec or b1g. They most likely will be, but not a guarantee. Which is also a much better chance than a guaranteed no.