I think there’s a realistic chance that the P5 fail to agree on a new playoff model. There seems to be some serious difference of opinion as to who gets to play, how many teams play, and how the money gets divided.

Let me pose this scenario: unable to find an acceptable compromise with the SEC, the Big 10 convinces the PAC 12, ACC, and Big 12 to adopt their own champs only format with the Rose (Big 10 and PAC) and Orange (Big 12 and ACC) Bowls serving as the semi-final sites. FOX becomes their television partner for the post season and pays huge for the 3 play off games.

The SEC, not wanting to be left with runners up and G5 champs, moves their CCG to the Sugar Bowl on NYD and play semi-final games on campus sites in early December.

Craig Thompson rallies the G5, over the objections of Mike Aresco, and creates their own post season that includes a play in game for champs 4 vs 5 the 2nd weekend in Dec, semis on the 3rd weekend, and a G5 Championship Game on NYE.

lol, yeah, that would be a big no.

I think you are talking more on hope than you are in reality. Big Ten and Pac 12 tried that **** 30 years ago not joining the Bowl Alliance, and it screwed up their recruiting so bad that they had to go to the BCS. Big 12 isn't going with that joke.

I think the first meeting everyone threw their cards on the table and it was more of a venting process. I believe there is too much external pressure and $$$ left on the table for there not to be an eventual compromise for a new format. If this was easy to do then it would've been done years ago. Something that formed over decades to land where we are now isn't going to be undone over the course of one or two meetings. There's a lot of stakeholders and that complicates the process.

There’s not a whole lot of love between the SEC and the other P5 conferences:

The Big 10 have long considered them their biggest rival and they’ve been at philosophical loggerheads on just about every issue.

The SEC’s models are a direct threat to the Pac 12’s access to the Rose Bowl, an institution they built. The Pac 12 will follow the Big 10’s lead.

The SEC took 4 of the Big 12’s best teams. If that’s not reason enough to oppose them, I’m not sure what would.

That leaves the ACC. I don’t think they like playing 2nd fiddle in the South and the academic wing on the conference is inclined to want to associate with the Big 10 and Pac 12.

——

The potential saboteur is ND. They want an SEC style playoff that affords lots of at large spots. An alliance of 4 could leave them without a post season ally, unless they are incorporated into the ACC.

(01-12-2022 11:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s not a whole lot of love between the SEC and the other P5 conferences:

The Big 10 have long considered them their biggest rival and they’ve been at philosophical loggerheads on just about every issue.

The SEC’s models are a direct threat to the Pac 12’s access to the Rose Bowl, an institution they built. The Pac 12 will follow the Big 10’s lead.

The SEC took 4 of the Big 12’s best teams. If that’s not reason enough to oppose them, I’m not sure what would.

That leaves the ACC. I don’t think they like playing 2nd fiddle in the South and the academic wing on the conference is inclined to want to associate with the Big 10 and Pac 12.

——

The potential saboteur is ND. They want an SEC style playoff that affords lots of at large spots. An alliance of 4 could leave them without a post season ally, unless they are incorporated into the ACC.

The Pac 12 said they were fine with anything.

Big 12 wasn't in the alliance and is partnered with the SEC in the Sugar Bowl.

I think you're talking a lot of personal hope there.

(01-12-2022 10:55 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think there’s a realistic chance that the P5 fail to agree on a new playoff model. There seems to be some serious difference of opinion as to who gets to play, how many teams play, and how the money gets divided.

Let me pose this scenario: unable to find an acceptable compromise with the SEC, the Big 10 convinces the PAC 12, ACC, and Big 12 to adopt their own champs only format with the Rose (Big 10 and PAC) and Orange (Big 12 and ACC) Bowls serving as the semi-final sites. FOX becomes their television partner for the post season and pays huge for the 3 play off games.

The SEC, not wanting to be left with runners up and G5 champs, moves their CCG to the Sugar Bowl on NYD and play semi-final games on campus sites in early December.

Craig Thompson rallies the G5, over the objections of Mike Aresco, and creates their own post season that includes a play in game for champs 4 vs 5 the 2nd weekend in Dec, semis on the 3rd weekend, and a G5 Championship Game on NYE.

Currently, the National Championship (or any 'second' bowl) requires sufficient A5 support. The Rose-Orange semi arrangement could be reached, but it'd have to incorporate the G5 somehow (play-ins, gotta have a ND spot too) to get sufficient votes to allow them to stage a follow-up "championship game."

The question then is whether such a format is preferable to all those non-SEC parties to the current format.

The 10-team BCS format is certainly preferable for ALL parties over separate bowl contracts. And, I suspect, the current 4-team format would still receive more support than the BCS format. I could see an impasse prompting a tweak to the current semifinal-rotation and -qualification procedures too, if they don't want to drop back to a single-round bowl season.

More likely the ND and the SEC start their own, using the Big 12 and G5 as needed.

And whatever schools in the alliance that have institutional wealth tied to being a top tier football program

On that last part, how damaged is Ohio St if the SEC, ND, and whatever else follows starts their own, with the SEC pay to play? Good luck recruiting against that. Ohio St has a lot of equity in the BIG, but even more in the notion they’re playing at the highest level.

(01-12-2022 10:55 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think there’s a realistic chance that the P5 fail to agree on a new playoff model. There seems to be some serious difference of opinion as to who gets to play, how many teams play, and how the money gets divided.

Let me pose this scenario: unable to find an acceptable compromise with the SEC, the Big 10 convinces the PAC 12, ACC, and Big 12 to adopt their own champs only format with the Rose (Big 10 and PAC) and Orange (Big 12 and ACC) Bowls serving as the semi-final sites. FOX becomes their television partner for the post season and pays huge for the 3 play off games.

The SEC, not wanting to be left with runners up and G5 champs, moves their CCG to the Sugar Bowl on NYD and play semi-final games on campus sites in early December.

Craig Thompson rallies the G5, over the objections of Mike Aresco, and creates their own post season that includes a play in game for champs 4 vs 5 the 2nd weekend in Dec, semis on the 3rd weekend, and a G5 Championship Game on NYE.

I think that decision-makers are actually close to a compromise, but that the timing hurts this process. Currently, every decision-maker has veto power. Everyone has some blame if this attempt to expand the playoffs fails.

Rather than burn bridges by trying to exclude the SEC. A better approach would be for the A5 to work in a smaller group to determine if there is a better starting point for playoffs expansion (basically what the PAC commissioner suggested). The SEC’s success in the current CFP format rightfully gives them more influence in any expansion decision, and the SEC’s offer to go to 12 was a good-faith proposal.

(01-12-2022 11:17 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 11:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s not a whole lot of love between the SEC and the other P5 conferences:

The Big 10 have long considered them their biggest rival and they’ve been at philosophical loggerheads on just about every issue.

The SEC’s models are a direct threat to the Pac 12’s access to the Rose Bowl, an institution they built. The Pac 12 will follow the Big 10’s lead.

The SEC took 4 of the Big 12’s best teams. If that’s not reason enough to oppose them, I’m not sure what would.

That leaves the ACC. I don’t think they like playing 2nd fiddle in the South and the academic wing on the conference is inclined to want to associate with the Big 10 and Pac 12.

——

The potential saboteur is ND. They want an SEC style playoff that affords lots of at large spots. An alliance of 4 could leave them without a post season ally, unless they are incorporated into the ACC.

The Pac 12 said they were fine with anything.

Big 12 wasn't in the alliance and is partnered with the SEC in the Sugar Bowl.

I think you're talking a lot of personal hope there.

As I pointed out in another thread, this might be the tipping point. Way back in August/September, the Pac-12 was the first one to campaign for an automatic bid long before the ACC and Big Ten wanted to. If the Pac-12 is "fine with anything", I think the Big Ten will agree as well, especially to spite the SEC if they are "fine with staying at four".

(01-12-2022 11:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s not a whole lot of love between the SEC and the other P5 conferences:

The Big 10 have long considered them their biggest rival and they’ve been at philosophical loggerheads on just about every issue.

The SEC’s models are a direct threat to the Pac 12’s access to the Rose Bowl, an institution they built. The Pac 12 will follow the Big 10’s lead.

The SEC took 4 of the Big 12’s best teams. If that’s not reason enough to oppose them, I’m not sure what would.

That leaves the ACC. I don’t think they like playing 2nd fiddle in the South and the academic wing on the conference is inclined to want to associate with the Big 10 and Pac 12.

——

The potential saboteur is ND. They want an SEC style playoff that affords lots of at large spots. An alliance of 4 could leave them without a post season ally, unless they are incorporated into the ACC.

Eh - I really don't think that's the case. I've pointed out before that the Big Ten and SEC are actually the leagues that are the most similar to each other, which then causes them to overexaggerate their differences on a handful of items.

Ultimately, I honestly think it's (for better or worse) more fundamentally elitist than that. Whatever the Big Ten might want to say about the SEC or Notre Dame, those entities are revenue generators as opposed to revenue takers. They might have philosophical differences, but those parties and the other P5 conferences know that they all need each other in order to maximize revenue. Jim Delany probably did more to block playoff expansion over the course of 25 years than any single other person, but when it came to finalizing the current CFP system, he sat down with Mike Slive and got it done because the interests of the Big Ten and SEC were (and still are) much more aligned with each other than not.

It's the "revenue takers" that the Big Ten will always have much more of an issue with here. The Big Ten honestly doesn't care if the SEC gets 6 at-large bids per year. That's why no matter what fans on these message boards want to say, there hasn't been a single instance where the actual people in the room have suggested a cap on the number of at-large bids that a league can receive. Instead, the Big Ten is just pushing back on the notion that a "revenue taker" could *ever* take the spot of a revenue generator (however unlikely it might be in a given year).

Everyone that keeps talking about on-the-field "fairness" isn't getting the point where the bigger issue is off-the-field financial "fairness" - and note that "fairness" in that context is NOT equality, but rather ensuring that the most valuable entities are the ones that are receiving the lion's share of revenue.

Let's use a Hollywood comparison. Mark Hamill appeared in Star Wars: The Force Awakens for about 30 seconds and didn't even speak... and reportedly received as much as $3 million. Daisy Ridley had the lead role and made 10 times *less* than Hamill despite doing 100 times more work.

Is that "fair" with respect to the efforts in contributions to that particular movie? Probably not.

However, does the multi-billion franchise of Star Wars exist in the first place without Mark Hamill? Absolutely not.

Essentially, the P5 conferences are what Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and the late Carrie Fischer were to the latest Star Wars Trilogy. Even if they had a fraction of the scenes of most of the characters in those movies, they were compensated way more because the Star Wars ecosystem wouldn't have existed without them in the first place.

The billions of dollars that an expanded CFP would generate do NOT exist without the P5 and ND - it's those particular entities that are bringing virtually the entire value of the system. A P5/ND-only playoff would effectively make the same as an all-FBS playoff system, whereas a G5-only playoff would be worthless. As a result, it's not a surprise that they would want access and money to reflect that disparity of value.

(01-12-2022 01:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 11:17 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 11:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s not a whole lot of love between the SEC and the other P5 conferences:

The Big 10 have long considered them their biggest rival and they’ve been at philosophical loggerheads on just about every issue.

The SEC’s models are a direct threat to the Pac 12’s access to the Rose Bowl, an institution they built. The Pac 12 will follow the Big 10’s lead.

The SEC took 4 of the Big 12’s best teams. If that’s not reason enough to oppose them, I’m not sure what would.

That leaves the ACC. I don’t think they like playing 2nd fiddle in the South and the academic wing on the conference is inclined to want to associate with the Big 10 and Pac 12.

——

The potential saboteur is ND. They want an SEC style playoff that affords lots of at large spots. An alliance of 4 could leave them without a post season ally, unless they are incorporated into the ACC.

The Pac 12 said they were fine with anything.

Big 12 wasn't in the alliance and is partnered with the SEC in the Sugar Bowl.

I think you're talking a lot of personal hope there.

As I pointed out in another thread, this might be the tipping point. Way back in August/September, the Pac-12 was the first one to campaign for an automatic bid long before the ACC and Big Ten wanted to. If the Pac-12 is "fine with anything", I think the Big Ten will agree as well, especially to spite the SEC if they are "fine with staying at four".

Perhaps the beginning of the end for the vaunted Alliance, where the PAC & B1G start to turn on their weak sister ally the ACC. What the B1G ultimately wants I think will determine the fate of the Alliance - do they want to weaken the PAC and add the best brands there in a Tournament of Roses conference? Or do they want to weaken the ACC and sit down with the SEC someday to carve off the best bits of Conference Frankenstein? Perhaps the way they vote on this will give us an inkling into which of their allies they ultimately picture being on their plate.

(01-12-2022 10:55 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think there’s a realistic chance that the P5 fail to agree on a new playoff model. There seems to be some serious difference of opinion as to who gets to play, how many teams play, and how the money gets divided.

Let me pose this scenario: unable to find an acceptable compromise with the SEC, the Big 10 convinces the PAC 12, ACC, and Big 12 to adopt their own champs only format with the Rose (Big 10 and PAC) and Orange (Big 12 and ACC) Bowls serving as the semi-final sites. FOX becomes their television partner for the post season and pays huge for the 3 play off games.

The SEC, not wanting to be left with runners up and G5 champs, moves their CCG to the Sugar Bowl on NYD and play semi-final games on campus sites in early December.

Craig Thompson rallies the G5, over the objections of Mike Aresco, and creates their own post season that includes a play in game for champs 4 vs 5 the 2nd weekend in Dec, semis on the 3rd weekend, and a G5 Championship Game on NYE.

Ummm---all 10 FBS conferences remain under contract are tied to the current format until the end of the 12 team deal. Nobody can go their "own way" here. Thats why the ONLY way a change occurs prior to the end of the current deal is for EVERY party that signed the original deal (including ESPN) to agree on the changes. Now--once the current deal ends---sure something like you describe might be feasible---but its absolutely unlikely and would not maximize the network value of a playoff.

Frankly, I think you'll see a 6+6 or 5+1+6 system adopted at the next CFP meeting. There may be some horse trading and compromise required to get it done, but I still think cooler heads will prevail. Too much money is on the table for all parties involved to just walk away over relatively trivial details. I dont think the G5 is walking away from a deal that nets them guaranteed annual participation in the playoff and no P5 is walking away from a deal that does the same for them---and nets them a ton more money.

(01-12-2022 01:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Frankly, I think you'll see a 6+6 or 5+1+6 system adopted at the next CFP meeting.

Maybe not at the very next meeting, but by the start of the 2022 CFB season.

There is a chance that the failure to adopt the 6-6 model will ultimately lead to to a P5/G5 split.

Welcome to the turbulent 20's, COVID, UT/OU to the SEC, NIL concerns.

(01-12-2022 02:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is a chance that the failure to adopt the 6-6 model will ultimately lead to to a P5/G5 split.

Welcome to the turbulent 20's, COVID, UT/OU to the SEC, NIL concerns.

I would believe a P5/G5 split if the bickering occurred with the P5's on one side and the G5's on the other. It isn't. The P5's are bickering within each other. Chris Rock once had a punch line in his comedy act along the line of there's a reason that women don't rule the world and that is because women hate women. If the SEC and Big Ten could work together they probably could destroy the rest of college football (ACC and Pac 12 included). But that would require them to ... work together.

(01-12-2022 01:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Frankly, I think you'll see a 6+6 or 5+1+6 system adopted at the next CFP meeting. There may be some horse trading and compromise required to get it done, but I still think cooler heads will prevail. Too much money is on the table for all parties involved to just walk away over relatively trivial details. I dont think the G5 is walking away from a deal that nets them guaranteed annual participation in the playoff and no P5 is walking away from a deal that does the same for them---and nets them a ton more money.

I think you'll be right here.

It's all great in theory that parties are willing to walk away from hundreds of millions of dollars of money on a symbolic principle... but when they come back to reality on their campuses and the soccer team needs a new field and the swimming pool needs to be repaired and the volleyball team needs a new locker room and they just lost out on a few home games of basketball revenue because of COVID cancellations... they ultimately can't in good faith walk away from hundreds of millions of dollars where the system is 99% the same whether it's 6+6 or 5+1+6. That's especially true if that money for an expanded playoff in 2024 and 2025 is already covered in the current contract (as has been reported), which means all of the supposed worry about ESPN getting an extended CFP contract without having it go to the open market is irrelevant. The money for 2024 and 2025 is apparently clear, so if the powers that be can't a deal done, they're straight up giving up $450 million that can't be recouped.

I always come back to that this is free money for the vast majority of these schools without having to accomplish a single thing. They're essentially being gifted millions of dollars per year even if their own football team goes 0-12. It's insanity to me that anyone is passing that up here.

(01-12-2022 02:07 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 02:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is a chance that the failure to adopt the 6-6 model will ultimately lead to to a P5/G5 split.

Welcome to the turbulent 20's, COVID, UT/OU to the SEC, NIL concerns.

I would believe a P5/G5 split if the bickering occurred with the P5's on one side and the G5's on the other. It isn't. The P5's are bickering within each other.

This is an important point. If the P5 were totally united, then the G5 would know well enough to acquiesce.

On the other hand, if the G5 said, "You know what - we're OK with 5+1+6," I don't think the SEC would stand in the way of it all for a single second. I mean, if the SEC "loses" and "concedes" on 5+1+6... that means that get a guaranteed playoff spot even if there's a weird SEC CCG upset! I put everything in quotes in the preceding sentence because the SEC doesn't really lose or concede on anything regardless of the system!

Sankey is smart - he's positioning the SEC as being above the fray here where they're playing heads-or-tails with a two-headed coin. They win in every scenario... so they'll let everyone else do the fighting and dirty work until they compromise amongst themselves.

(01-12-2022 10:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  lol, yeah, that would be a big no.

I think you are talking more on hope than you are in reality. Big Ten and Pac 12 tried that **** 30 years ago not joining the Bowl Alliance, and it screwed up their recruiting so bad that they had to go to the BCS. Big 12 isn't going with that joke.

Yep just as likely the SEC, Big 12, Notre Dame and the G5 start their own play off model at say 8 games and go from there. They have been down this road with the Big and PAC before and the PAC is much much weaker now.

(01-12-2022 02:16 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 02:07 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 02:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is a chance that the failure to adopt the 6-6 model will ultimately lead to to a P5/G5 split.

Welcome to the turbulent 20's, COVID, UT/OU to the SEC, NIL concerns.

I would believe a P5/G5 split if the bickering occurred with the P5's on one side and the G5's on the other. It isn't. The P5's are bickering within each other.

This is an important point. If the P5 were totally united, then the G5 would know well enough to acquiesce.

On the other hand, if the G5 said, "You know what - we're OK with 5+1+6," I don't think the SEC would stand in the way of it all for a single second. I mean, if the SEC "loses" and "concedes" on 5+1+6... that means that get a guaranteed playoff spot even if there's a weird SEC CCG upset! I put everything in quotes in the preceding sentence because the SEC doesn't really lose or concede on anything regardless of the system!

Sankey is smart - he's positioning the SEC as being above the fray here where they're playing heads-or-tails with a two-headed coin. They win in every scenario... so they'll let everyone else do the fighting and dirty work until they compromise amongst themselves.

Yeah except it’s the SEC and Notre Dame that have to concede and I think they are hanging together.

(01-12-2022 02:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 01:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Frankly, I think you'll see a 6+6 or 5+1+6 system adopted at the next CFP meeting. There may be some horse trading and compromise required to get it done, but I still think cooler heads will prevail. Too much money is on the table for all parties involved to just walk away over relatively trivial details. I dont think the G5 is walking away from a deal that nets them guaranteed annual participation in the playoff and no P5 is walking away from a deal that does the same for them---and nets them a ton more money.

I think you'll be right here.

It's all great in theory that parties are willing to walk away from hundreds of millions of dollars of money on a symbolic principle... but when they come back to reality on their campuses and the soccer team needs a new field and the swimming pool needs to be repaired and the volleyball team needs a new locker room and they just lost out on a few home games of basketball revenue because of COVID cancellations... they ultimately can't in good faith walk away from hundreds of millions of dollars where the system is 99% the same whether it's 6+6 or 5+1+6. That's especially true if that money for an expanded playoff in 2024 and 2025 is already covered in the current contract (as has been reported), which means all of the supposed worry about ESPN getting an extended CFP contract without having it go to the open market is irrelevant. The money for 2024 and 2025 is apparently clear, so if the powers that be can't a deal done, they're straight up giving up $450 million that can't be recouped.

I always come back to that this is free money for the vast majority of these schools without having to accomplish a single thing. They're essentially being gifted millions of dollars per year even if their own football team goes 0-12. It's insanity to me that anyone is passing that up here.

I think so too.
The money is there ready to be counted and some need it now.
Warren and Sankey puffed their chests and made their points.
Who knows for sure anymore if it will be there in a few years?