(09-26-2023 09:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 09:03 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:05 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  6+6 is huge for '24, especially for the PAC/MWC. I suspect we could end up with a completely different format after '26 though. They want to trial run this thing.

I know I've beat this drum a lot, but I'll still beat it. I still think we should end up with a 5+10 (4+6) format where we have the top 5 champs + top 4 CCG losers + 6 at-large. Adds an additional round and layer of the CFP without the risk of team playing 18 games in a season (excludes teams playing @ Hawaii, but will already be the case with 6+6) since the top 4 champs get a double bye to the quarterfinals, the 5th champ (persumably G5 champ) and 4 CCG losers (5-9 seeds) get a single bye since they played in a CCG, and the top 6 at-large play a play-in game (10-15 seeds) while leaving a standalone slot for Army-Navy, who likely only makes the CFP as a G5 champion.

To me, it just makes way too much sense for all parties involved. I don't mind staying at 6+6 for a year or 2 to playout the current contract, but I think the P4 will want to trade in 1 autobid for at least 4 at-large spots in 2026. This format keeps CCGs relevant and adds incentive for conference semis for the top 4, if they desire (I think we can learn more after 2024). It avoids cannibalizing playoff games and expanding the season beyond what 6+6 will do. G5 still gets a spot and maybe a home game. ND still has 6 at-larges with a strong shot at a home game, and in the event ND is ranked top while seeded 10th, it keep ND from meeting the other top 2 ranked team before the championship game (a neat, unintended consequence of this format).

Once again, I think people are concentrating too much on the playoff field itself and not enough on the impact on the regular season and CCGs.

To me, just allowing the CCG losers to get into the playoff automatically (effectively an automatic mulligan for everyone) devalues the CCGs way too much. Sure, there are going to be a lot of years where many or even all of the P4 CCG losers are likely to get in as at-larges, but not having a *guaranteed* safety net is a huge deal in how a viewer watches that game.

We’re also getting into hypotheticals that get talked a lot on message boards (such as the concept of conference semifinals) that haven’t gotten any traction in the “real world” at all. Personally, I’d love to see conference semifinals, but I’ve never seen a single person in the powers that be ever suggest that it’s a possibility.

IMHO, the 6+6 (or future 5+7) format is clear, concise, provides logical incentives (e.g. a bye for the top 4 conference champs that inherently needed to win an additional high stakes CCG), fits into the available TV windows (a major practical issue due to NFL conflicts and how TV networks *don’t* want playoff games during Christmas week), and can be explained to a third grader.

Like I’ve said, the format is the easiest part of all of this to resolve. Instead, the real fight is about the money. The Big Ten and SEC are going to be coming for more of the G5’s share (and they’re going to do it on the NCAA Tournament side, too).

Yeah, I can see where my format is riding on the CCG loser being in the top 8-12. I wouldn't put it past the ACC's CCG loser being ranked 20th. Conference semis could help, but as you said, not a guarantee to happen. Further reflecting on it, I think my proposal is vulnerable to assumptions. Another thing I hadn't considered with alternate proposals (and something that's not really being talked about) is we have lost all our previous data available to use thanks to realignment (as chaotic, exciting, and tragic as it was).

When the 6+6 format was proposed and later approved, we could go back to at least 2013, and even as far back as 1998, to see how that format would've looked (and that's how I considered previous proposals), but when the PAC (as we know it) dies after this season, we lose all of that because we don't fully know how a P4+G5 season will play out unlike a P5+G5/6. Sure, we can assume based on current rankings and future realignment, but Team X isn't playing in Conference Z, they're still in Conference Y, thus a flawed comparison. 2024 will be our 1st true data point now unless we want to compare this season's current realignment to the 6+6 format, and even then, it'll a very small sample size.

In defense of my format, it didn't use Christmas week for the CFP, but rather helped better bridge the gap between the regular season and CFP and followed the 6+6 format from there (utilizing Army-Navy week). I think it follows KISS pretty well (obviously not as effective as 6+6 does), but could be guilty of TMI for a 3rd grader. I think it's fair to say for my proposal, it's better to wait on data for now and see how the next decade plays out (using the 6+6/5+7 formats) and at best, can be something considered down the road and at worst, DOA like 99.9% of message board proposals.

(09-26-2023 09:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 09:18 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  Even at this point, why not let the 12th seed to determined on the field? 6th best champ vs. 7th best at-large, winner is the 12th seed, puts the debate to rest, nets everyone a little extra money.

It wouldn’t shock me if we end up with play-in games of this nature in the future, although it would almost certainly be the 5th and 6th conference champs (essentially the G5 championship) involved in at least one of them. The TV networks don’t want more than one G5 team included in the primary field. Maybe another play-in game would involve the next highest-ranked at-large teams.

We do have 2-3 TV slots available Army-Navy week.

What I would like to see is a four team play-in tournament consisting of the four highest ranked non-P4 teams (including independents) in lieu of G5 CCGs. The first round is played at the same time as P4 CCGs (on the home fields of the two highest ranked teams) and the second round a week later on the home field of the higher ranked team.

The four P4 champs get a first round bye in the 12 team CFP, and the play-in winner plays the highest ranked non-champion on the third Saturday in December.

The four team tourney is bid out separately from the CFP, with the net revenue divided equally among all FBS schools outside the P4.

(09-26-2023 08:02 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

Yes perhaps it would be good to bargain for 5+7 long term in exchange for early modification

I think there will be a strong faction pushing for top 12

Sankey said almost nobody was with him on that.

(09-26-2023 09:03 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:05 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  6+6 is huge for '24, especially for the PAC/MWC. I suspect we could end up with a completely different format after '26 though. They want to trial run this thing.

I know I've beat this drum a lot, but I'll still beat it. I still think we should end up with a 5+10 (4+6) format where we have the top 5 champs + top 4 CCG losers + 6 at-large. Adds an additional round and layer of the CFP without the risk of team playing 18 games in a season (excludes teams playing @ Hawaii, but will already be the case with 6+6) since the top 4 champs get a double bye to the quarterfinals, the 5th champ (persumably G5 champ) and 4 CCG losers (5-9 seeds) get a single bye since they played in a CCG, and the top 6 at-large play a play-in game (10-15 seeds) while leaving a standalone slot for Army-Navy, who likely only makes the CFP as a G5 champion.

To me, it just makes way too much sense for all parties involved. I don't mind staying at 6+6 for a year or 2 to playout the current contract, but I think the P4 will want to trade in 1 autobid for at least 4 at-large spots in 2026. This format keeps CCGs relevant and adds incentive for conference semis for the top 4, if they desire (I think we can learn more after 2024). It avoids cannibalizing playoff games and expanding the season beyond what 6+6 will do. G5 still gets a spot and maybe a home game. ND still has 6 at-larges with a strong shot at a home game, and in the event ND is ranked top while seeded 10th, it keep ND from meeting the other top 2 ranked team before the championship game (a neat, unintended consequence of this format).

Adds a full extra week to the playoffs and shortens the time between the 2nd round and NYD, making travel and game planning more difficult.

(09-26-2023 09:52 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 09:36 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference is Straight 12. Autobids allow for the unlikely possibility of 6, 7, or 8 win teams qualifying.

I will never understand this viewpoint.

Every other sport allocates spots to their championship based on an actual achievement on the field as opposed to a hotel conference room in Dallas.

Does this mean that every conference champ should get into the playoff? Absolutely not. I believe that a certain number of subjective at-large spots is good for the playoff, but the problem up to this point is that it has been ALL 100% subjective fields. We’re now going to 50/50 objective/subjective in the beginning and going to 42/58 if/when there’s a 5+7 format. That fear of a 6-win team making to the playoff is both (a) unrealistic and (b) even if it happens, who cares (just as we don’t care after 48 hours when some random basketball team with a losing record wins a conference tourney and gets tk to the NCAA Tournament)?

A playoff format isn’t going to cover every single variable to give a perfect field every single year. If that’s what people demand, then that isn’t going to occur no matter what format is chosen. We obsess waaaaay too much about the exceptions. Instead, a playoff format should reasonably encompass the teams that could win the championship - the fact that it might contain a couple of teams that have little chance of winning the championship is much less bothersome than a system like the current one that often shuts out legit championship contenders. It should also have clear objective parameters, balance interest in the regular season with the playoff itself, and be TV-friendly.

The fact that somehow the SEC and MWC (among others) were able to agree upon this 12-team playoff format is a monumental achievement. This is the one good thing that the powers that be have done for the sport.

I'm with you. History has shown that those people in smoke field rooms don't have a clue how to accurately rank the teams, so what is wrong with objective criteria?

(09-26-2023 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

Only reason to give it up is a larger % payout in the next deal. 5-7 is all but guaranteed to happen, only the SEC really wants top 12 and the G5 does have enough leverage to prevent some sort of 4-8 format. It's really just going to be about the financial split, and the only way if I'm the G5 leagues I give up 2 years of 6-6 is for a real win on the financial split. Obviously not like making them equal win but I believe the P5 currently splits like 80% of the money and instead of it being the P4 getting 80% it's something like the P4 getting 70% and the G5/G6 getting 30%. That would probably be worth going to 5-7 early.

And that’s why I think we’ll see 6+6 for the next 2 years and then the Big Ten and SEC will put the hammer down in the next contract. My educated belief is that the Big Ten and SEC care waaaaaaaay more about making that revenue split even *more* in their favor (such as 85/15 for the P5/G5/6 split) than the playoff format. The token G5 spot isn’t a big deal to the P2. However, the P2 getting even more of the money is a *very* big deal to them.

Well having 5 is important. For anti-trust, political and perception reasons they can't guarantee a spot to the P4 and there will be years when one of them has the 5th best champ. 4/8 and straight 12 are probably non-starters for everyone but ND and the SEC.

(09-26-2023 12:07 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 09:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 09:03 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:05 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  6+6 is huge for '24, especially for the PAC/MWC. I suspect we could end up with a completely different format after '26 though. They want to trial run this thing.

I know I've beat this drum a lot, but I'll still beat it. I still think we should end up with a 5+10 (4+6) format where we have the top 5 champs + top 4 CCG losers + 6 at-large. Adds an additional round and layer of the CFP without the risk of team playing 18 games in a season (excludes teams playing @ Hawaii, but will already be the case with 6+6) since the top 4 champs get a double bye to the quarterfinals, the 5th champ (persumably G5 champ) and 4 CCG losers (5-9 seeds) get a single bye since they played in a CCG, and the top 6 at-large play a play-in game (10-15 seeds) while leaving a standalone slot for Army-Navy, who likely only makes the CFP as a G5 champion.

To me, it just makes way too much sense for all parties involved. I don't mind staying at 6+6 for a year or 2 to playout the current contract, but I think the P4 will want to trade in 1 autobid for at least 4 at-large spots in 2026. This format keeps CCGs relevant and adds incentive for conference semis for the top 4, if they desire (I think we can learn more after 2024). It avoids cannibalizing playoff games and expanding the season beyond what 6+6 will do. G5 still gets a spot and maybe a home game. ND still has 6 at-larges with a strong shot at a home game, and in the event ND is ranked top while seeded 10th, it keep ND from meeting the other top 2 ranked team before the championship game (a neat, unintended consequence of this format).

Once again, I think people are concentrating too much on the playoff field itself and not enough on the impact on the regular season and CCGs.

To me, just allowing the CCG losers to get into the playoff automatically (effectively an automatic mulligan for everyone) devalues the CCGs way too much. Sure, there are going to be a lot of years where many or even all of the P4 CCG losers are likely to get in as at-larges, but not having a *guaranteed* safety net is a huge deal in how a viewer watches that game.

We’re also getting into hypotheticals that get talked a lot on message boards (such as the concept of conference semifinals) that haven’t gotten any traction in the “real world” at all. Personally, I’d love to see conference semifinals, but I’ve never seen a single person in the powers that be ever suggest that it’s a possibility.

IMHO, the 6+6 (or future 5+7) format is clear, concise, provides logical incentives (e.g. a bye for the top 4 conference champs that inherently needed to win an additional high stakes CCG), fits into the available TV windows (a major practical issue due to NFL conflicts and how TV networks *don’t* want playoff games during Christmas week), and can be explained to a third grader.

Like I’ve said, the format is the easiest part of all of this to resolve. Instead, the real fight is about the money. The Big Ten and SEC are going to be coming for more of the G5’s share (and they’re going to do it on the NCAA Tournament side, too).

Yeah, I can see where my format is riding on the CCG loser being in the top 8-12. I wouldn't put it past the ACC's CCG loser being ranked 20th. Conference semis could help, but as you said, not a guarantee to happen. Further reflecting on it, I think my proposal is vulnerable to assumptions. Another thing I hadn't considered with alternate proposals (and something that's not really being talked about) is we have lost all our previous data available to use thanks to realignment (as chaotic, exciting, and tragic as it was).

When the 6+6 format was proposed and later approved, we could go back to at least 2013, and even as far back as 1998, to see how that format would've looked (and that's how I considered previous proposals), but when the PAC (as we know it) dies after this season, we lose all of that because we don't fully know how a P4+G5 season will play out unlike a P5+G5/6. Sure, we can assume based on current rankings and future realignment, but Team X isn't playing in Conference Z, they're still in Conference Y, thus a flawed comparison. 2024 will be our 1st true data point now unless we want to compare this season's current realignment to the 6+6 format, and even then, it'll a very small sample size.

In defense of my format, it didn't use Christmas week for the CFP, but rather helped better bridge the gap between the regular season and CFP and followed the 6+6 format from there (utilizing Army-Navy week). I think it follows KISS pretty well (obviously not as effective as 6+6 does), but could be guilty of TMI for a 3rd grader. I think it's fair to say for my proposal, it's better to wait on data for now and see how the next decade plays out (using the 6+6/5+7 formats) and at best, can be something considered down the road and at worst, DOA like 99.9% of message board proposals.

The 16 team SEC & Big 12, 17 team ACC and 18 team Big 10 do make it really hard to see how things would have looked. The schedules everyone plays are different and divisions are going away.

(09-26-2023 12:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 09:03 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:05 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  6+6 is huge for '24, especially for the PAC/MWC. I suspect we could end up with a completely different format after '26 though. They want to trial run this thing.

I know I've beat this drum a lot, but I'll still beat it. I still think we should end up with a 5+10 (4+6) format where we have the top 5 champs + top 4 CCG losers + 6 at-large. Adds an additional round and layer of the CFP without the risk of team playing 18 games in a season (excludes teams playing @ Hawaii, but will already be the case with 6+6) since the top 4 champs get a double bye to the quarterfinals, the 5th champ (persumably G5 champ) and 4 CCG losers (5-9 seeds) get a single bye since they played in a CCG, and the top 6 at-large play a play-in game (10-15 seeds) while leaving a standalone slot for Army-Navy, who likely only makes the CFP as a G5 champion.

To me, it just makes way too much sense for all parties involved. I don't mind staying at 6+6 for a year or 2 to playout the current contract, but I think the P4 will want to trade in 1 autobid for at least 4 at-large spots in 2026. This format keeps CCGs relevant and adds incentive for conference semis for the top 4, if they desire (I think we can learn more after 2024). It avoids cannibalizing playoff games and expanding the season beyond what 6+6 will do. G5 still gets a spot and maybe a home game. ND still has 6 at-larges with a strong shot at a home game, and in the event ND is ranked top while seeded 10th, it keep ND from meeting the other top 2 ranked team before the championship game (a neat, unintended consequence of this format).

Adds a full extra week to the playoffs and shortens the time between the 2nd round and NYD, making travel and game planning more difficult.

1st round (3 games) would be the same week as Army-Navy leaving a spot for the Army-Navy game, 2nd round would be the 3rd weekend of December, and the quarterfinals would be around New Years. It's the same format at 5+7, but with 3 play-in games before the 12 team starts. The 6 teams playing in the 1st round would have CCG weekend off while the 5 teams that played in the CCG get Army-Navy week off. The 8 participants of the 2nd round would be on their 14th game unless they played 13 regular season games that involved playing @ Hawaii.

(09-26-2023 01:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 12:07 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 09:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 09:03 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:05 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  6+6 is huge for '24, especially for the PAC/MWC. I suspect we could end up with a completely different format after '26 though. They want to trial run this thing.

I know I've beat this drum a lot, but I'll still beat it. I still think we should end up with a 5+10 (4+6) format where we have the top 5 champs + top 4 CCG losers + 6 at-large. Adds an additional round and layer of the CFP without the risk of team playing 18 games in a season (excludes teams playing @ Hawaii, but will already be the case with 6+6) since the top 4 champs get a double bye to the quarterfinals, the 5th champ (persumably G5 champ) and 4 CCG losers (5-9 seeds) get a single bye since they played in a CCG, and the top 6 at-large play a play-in game (10-15 seeds) while leaving a standalone slot for Army-Navy, who likely only makes the CFP as a G5 champion.

To me, it just makes way too much sense for all parties involved. I don't mind staying at 6+6 for a year or 2 to playout the current contract, but I think the P4 will want to trade in 1 autobid for at least 4 at-large spots in 2026. This format keeps CCGs relevant and adds incentive for conference semis for the top 4, if they desire (I think we can learn more after 2024). It avoids cannibalizing playoff games and expanding the season beyond what 6+6 will do. G5 still gets a spot and maybe a home game. ND still has 6 at-larges with a strong shot at a home game, and in the event ND is ranked top while seeded 10th, it keep ND from meeting the other top 2 ranked team before the championship game (a neat, unintended consequence of this format).

Once again, I think people are concentrating too much on the playoff field itself and not enough on the impact on the regular season and CCGs.

To me, just allowing the CCG losers to get into the playoff automatically (effectively an automatic mulligan for everyone) devalues the CCGs way too much. Sure, there are going to be a lot of years where many or even all of the P4 CCG losers are likely to get in as at-larges, but not having a *guaranteed* safety net is a huge deal in how a viewer watches that game.

We’re also getting into hypotheticals that get talked a lot on message boards (such as the concept of conference semifinals) that haven’t gotten any traction in the “real world” at all. Personally, I’d love to see conference semifinals, but I’ve never seen a single person in the powers that be ever suggest that it’s a possibility.

IMHO, the 6+6 (or future 5+7) format is clear, concise, provides logical incentives (e.g. a bye for the top 4 conference champs that inherently needed to win an additional high stakes CCG), fits into the available TV windows (a major practical issue due to NFL conflicts and how TV networks *don’t* want playoff games during Christmas week), and can be explained to a third grader.

Like I’ve said, the format is the easiest part of all of this to resolve. Instead, the real fight is about the money. The Big Ten and SEC are going to be coming for more of the G5’s share (and they’re going to do it on the NCAA Tournament side, too).

Yeah, I can see where my format is riding on the CCG loser being in the top 8-12. I wouldn't put it past the ACC's CCG loser being ranked 20th. Conference semis could help, but as you said, not a guarantee to happen. Further reflecting on it, I think my proposal is vulnerable to assumptions. Another thing I hadn't considered with alternate proposals (and something that's not really being talked about) is we have lost all our previous data available to use thanks to realignment (as chaotic, exciting, and tragic as it was).

When the 6+6 format was proposed and later approved, we could go back to at least 2013, and even as far back as 1998, to see how that format would've looked (and that's how I considered previous proposals), but when the PAC (as we know it) dies after this season, we lose all of that because we don't fully know how a P4+G5 season will play out unlike a P5+G5/6. Sure, we can assume based on current rankings and future realignment, but Team X isn't playing in Conference Z, they're still in Conference Y, thus a flawed comparison. 2024 will be our 1st true data point now unless we want to compare this season's current realignment to the 6+6 format, and even then, it'll a very small sample size.

In defense of my format, it didn't use Christmas week for the CFP, but rather helped better bridge the gap between the regular season and CFP and followed the 6+6 format from there (utilizing Army-Navy week). I think it follows KISS pretty well (obviously not as effective as 6+6 does), but could be guilty of TMI for a 3rd grader. I think it's fair to say for my proposal, it's better to wait on data for now and see how the next decade plays out (using the 6+6/5+7 formats) and at best, can be something considered down the road and at worst, DOA like 99.9% of message board proposals.

The 16 team SEC & Big 12, 17 team ACC and 18 team Big 10 do make it really hard to see how things would have looked. The schedules everyone plays are different and divisions are going away.

It's not so much going divisionless that's the issue. You could do what the PAC did dropping divisions, but keeping the schedule as is and take the top 2 for the CCG instead of the 2 division winners. It's the 10 PAC schools leaving for 3 conferences while the PAC-2 is in limbo while OUT joins the SEC that makes it tough.

(09-26-2023 01:20 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 01:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 12:07 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 09:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 09:03 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  I know I've beat this drum a lot, but I'll still beat it. I still think we should end up with a 5+10 (4+6) format where we have the top 5 champs + top 4 CCG losers + 6 at-large. Adds an additional round and layer of the CFP without the risk of team playing 18 games in a season (excludes teams playing @ Hawaii, but will already be the case with 6+6) since the top 4 champs get a double bye to the quarterfinals, the 5th champ (persumably G5 champ) and 4 CCG losers (5-9 seeds) get a single bye since they played in a CCG, and the top 6 at-large play a play-in game (10-15 seeds) while leaving a standalone slot for Army-Navy, who likely only makes the CFP as a G5 champion.

To me, it just makes way too much sense for all parties involved. I don't mind staying at 6+6 for a year or 2 to playout the current contract, but I think the P4 will want to trade in 1 autobid for at least 4 at-large spots in 2026. This format keeps CCGs relevant and adds incentive for conference semis for the top 4, if they desire (I think we can learn more after 2024). It avoids cannibalizing playoff games and expanding the season beyond what 6+6 will do. G5 still gets a spot and maybe a home game. ND still has 6 at-larges with a strong shot at a home game, and in the event ND is ranked top while seeded 10th, it keep ND from meeting the other top 2 ranked team before the championship game (a neat, unintended consequence of this format).

Once again, I think people are concentrating too much on the playoff field itself and not enough on the impact on the regular season and CCGs.

To me, just allowing the CCG losers to get into the playoff automatically (effectively an automatic mulligan for everyone) devalues the CCGs way too much. Sure, there are going to be a lot of years where many or even all of the P4 CCG losers are likely to get in as at-larges, but not having a *guaranteed* safety net is a huge deal in how a viewer watches that game.

We’re also getting into hypotheticals that get talked a lot on message boards (such as the concept of conference semifinals) that haven’t gotten any traction in the “real world” at all. Personally, I’d love to see conference semifinals, but I’ve never seen a single person in the powers that be ever suggest that it’s a possibility.

IMHO, the 6+6 (or future 5+7) format is clear, concise, provides logical incentives (e.g. a bye for the top 4 conference champs that inherently needed to win an additional high stakes CCG), fits into the available TV windows (a major practical issue due to NFL conflicts and how TV networks *don’t* want playoff games during Christmas week), and can be explained to a third grader.

Like I’ve said, the format is the easiest part of all of this to resolve. Instead, the real fight is about the money. The Big Ten and SEC are going to be coming for more of the G5’s share (and they’re going to do it on the NCAA Tournament side, too).

Yeah, I can see where my format is riding on the CCG loser being in the top 8-12. I wouldn't put it past the ACC's CCG loser being ranked 20th. Conference semis could help, but as you said, not a guarantee to happen. Further reflecting on it, I think my proposal is vulnerable to assumptions. Another thing I hadn't considered with alternate proposals (and something that's not really being talked about) is we have lost all our previous data available to use thanks to realignment (as chaotic, exciting, and tragic as it was).

When the 6+6 format was proposed and later approved, we could go back to at least 2013, and even as far back as 1998, to see how that format would've looked (and that's how I considered previous proposals), but when the PAC (as we know it) dies after this season, we lose all of that because we don't fully know how a P4+G5 season will play out unlike a P5+G5/6. Sure, we can assume based on current rankings and future realignment, but Team X isn't playing in Conference Z, they're still in Conference Y, thus a flawed comparison. 2024 will be our 1st true data point now unless we want to compare this season's current realignment to the 6+6 format, and even then, it'll a very small sample size.

In defense of my format, it didn't use Christmas week for the CFP, but rather helped better bridge the gap between the regular season and CFP and followed the 6+6 format from there (utilizing Army-Navy week). I think it follows KISS pretty well (obviously not as effective as 6+6 does), but could be guilty of TMI for a 3rd grader. I think it's fair to say for my proposal, it's better to wait on data for now and see how the next decade plays out (using the 6+6/5+7 formats) and at best, can be something considered down the road and at worst, DOA like 99.9% of message board proposals.

The 16 team SEC & Big 12, 17 team ACC and 18 team Big 10 do make it really hard to see how things would have looked. The schedules everyone plays are different and divisions are going away.

It's not so much going divisionless that's the issue. You could do what the PAC did dropping divisions, but keeping the schedule as is and take the top 2 for the CCG instead of the 2 division winners. It's the 10 PAC schools leaving for 3 conferences while the PAC-2 is in limbo while OUT joins the SEC that makes it tough.

They are all factors. By playing a different schedule, I was referring to the Pac 12-2 and OUT being in different conferences.

(09-26-2023 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

Only reason to give it up is a larger % payout in the next deal. 5-7 is all but guaranteed to happen, only the SEC really wants top 12 and the G5 does have enough leverage to prevent some sort of 4-8 format. It's really just going to be about the financial split, and the only way if I'm the G5 leagues I give up 2 years of 6-6 is for a real win on the financial split. Obviously not like making them equal win but I believe the P5 currently splits like 80% of the money and instead of it being the P4 getting 80% it's something like the P4 getting 70% and the G5/G6 getting 30%. That would probably be worth going to 5-7 early.

And that’s why I think we’ll see 6+6 for the next 2 years and then the Big Ten and SEC will put the hammer down in the next contract. My educated belief is that the Big Ten and SEC care waaaaaaaay more about making that revenue split even *more* in their favor (such as 85/15 for the P5/G5/6 split) than the playoff format. The token G5 spot isn’t a big deal to the P2. However, the P2 getting even more of the money is a *very* big deal to them.

I'm sure that's what they'll want to do and it will be interesting to see how that goes. They certainly are the 2 most powerful conferences, but they probably also want a larger split than the other P leagues so the voting on that is going to be interesting.

About the bolded, this is what I have been thinking. IMO the SEC and B1G likely care more about getting more $$$ out of the P-percentage than getting more away from the G-percentage.

Two scenarios:

I. PAC reconstitutes, MW remains, so we now have a P4/G6.

P-share is currently 80%, G-share is 20%. With this scenario, I think the SEC and B1G would push for something like ....

G6 .... 23% (slight boost because there is one more G mouth to feed).

P4 ..... SEC and B1G ..... 25% each.

ACC and Big 12 ............ 13.5% each.


II. PAC absorbs the MW or MW absorbs OS and WS, so we have a P4 and G5 ...

G5 ..... 20% each like now

P4 ...... SEC and B1G ..... 26% each

ACC and Big 12 ............. 14% each


Something like that. But in each case, the Gs are relatively unscathed, it is the ACC and B12 who lose big percentages.

Just MO.

There is no rationale for such a radical change in CFP-12 payouts.

Until 2026, they’re committed to the formal CFP-4 distribution scheme…83.3% to Power 5 teams, and the remaining 16.7% share to the G5. Furthermore, the P5 also already agreed to divide the payouts equally on a per team basis during the final 2 years of the original CFP term. The CFP-4 distribution scheme is justified on “contract” bowl arrangements…it received broad consensus amongst all major FBS parties. The only uncertainty is what happens to the PAC during the next two years (do WSU & OSU get P5-level shares only if they maintain the PAC? Can WSU & OSU invite new members into the PAC, at P5-level shares, in the next two years?).

Maybe the parties are willing to move a greater share of distributions into a performance sharing pool…getting larger compensation for winning CFP games. Conference leaders have been very conservative financially. They have been historically shy of variable compensation. Regardless, CFP distributions require consensus and the B1G and SEC don’t want to set precedents that could hurt them in the future.

We’ll see.

(09-26-2023 07:07 AM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  Should be a 10+2 format but 6+6 is better than 5+7 for sure.

In the NCAA championship tournament in every other sport, at least half of the bids in the field are required to be at-large. Yes, I'm aware that the NCAA doesn't sponsor the CFP, but I'm entirely unclear as to why that fact would require such a drastic difference for football.

(09-26-2023 01:16 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  ... 1st round (3 games) would be the same week as Army-Navy leaving a spot for the Army-Navy game, ...

This assumes that Navy is willing to give up hope of being in the 1st round. Color me skeptical on this particular approach to squeezing another round of games in.

______________

(09-26-2023 03:35 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  ... Maybe the parties are willing to move a greater share of distributions into a performance sharing pool…getting larger compensation for winning CFP games. Conference leaders have been very conservative financially. They have been historically shy of variable compensation. Regardless, CFP distributions require consensus and the B1G and SEC don’t want to set precedents that could hurt them in the future. ...

Yes, the discriminatory revenue between P5 conferences in the system have been the non-CFP NYD bowl appearance fees, which are locked into place with no volatility.

For 2026 and beyond, a system which would leave the majority of the revenue split even but which would tilt it in the favor of the SEC/BigTen would be to continue to have six shares, which one share split amongst the G5/G6, four shares pooled for the "QF affiliate" conferences + ND (or however they dance around anti-competitive practices issues), and handed out on a per-school basis, and one share split based on the number of CFP12 participants from each conference.

Then if a conference has one participant, it gets an extra 1.4% of the pool, and if it has four participants, it gets an extra 5.6% of the pool.

(09-26-2023 03:35 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Only reason to give it up is a larger % payout in the next deal. 5-7 is all but guaranteed to happen, only the SEC really wants top 12 and the G5 does have enough leverage to prevent some sort of 4-8 format. It's really just going to be about the financial split, and the only way if I'm the G5 leagues I give up 2 years of 6-6 is for a real win on the financial split. Obviously not like making them equal win but I believe the P5 currently splits like 80% of the money and instead of it being the P4 getting 80% it's something like the P4 getting 70% and the G5/G6 getting 30%. That would probably be worth going to 5-7 early.

And that’s why I think we’ll see 6+6 for the next 2 years and then the Big Ten and SEC will put the hammer down in the next contract. My educated belief is that the Big Ten and SEC care waaaaaaaay more about making that revenue split even *more* in their favor (such as 85/15 for the P5/G5/6 split) than the playoff format. The token G5 spot isn’t a big deal to the P2. However, the P2 getting even more of the money is a *very* big deal to them.

I'm sure that's what they'll want to do and it will be interesting to see how that goes. They certainly are the 2 most powerful conferences, but they probably also want a larger split than the other P leagues so the voting on that is going to be interesting.

About the bolded, this is what I have been thinking. IMO the SEC and B1G likely care more about getting more $$$ out of the P-percentage than getting more away from the G-percentage.

Two scenarios:

I. PAC reconstitutes, MW remains, so we now have a P4/G6.

P-share is currently 80%, G-share is 20%. With this scenario, I think the SEC and B1G would push for something like ....

G6 .... 23% (slight boost because there is one more G mouth to feed).

P4 ..... SEC and B1G ..... 25% each.

ACC and Big 12 ............ 13.5% each.


II. PAC absorbs the MW or MW absorbs OS and WS, so we have a P4 and G5 ...

G5 ..... 20% each like now

P4 ...... SEC and B1G ..... 26% each

ACC and Big 12 ............. 14% each


Something like that. But in each case, the Gs are relatively unscathed, it is the ACC and B12 who lose big percentages.

Just MO.

There is no rationale for such a radical change in CFP-12 payouts.

Until 2026, they’re committed to the formal CFP-4 distribution scheme…83.3% to Power 5 teams, and the remaining 16.7% share to the G5. Furthermore, the P5 also already agreed to divide the payouts equally on a per team basis during the final 2 years of the original CFP term. The CFP-4 distribution scheme is justified on “contract” bowl arrangements…it received broad consensus amongst all major FBS parties. The only uncertainty is what happens to the PAC during the next two years (do WSU & OSU get P5-level shares only if they maintain the PAC? Can WSU & OSU invite new members into the PAC, at P5-level shares, in the next two years?).

Maybe the parties are willing to move a greater share of distributions into a performance sharing pool…getting larger compensation for winning CFP games. Conference leaders have been very conservative financially. They have been historically shy of variable compensation. Regardless, CFP distributions require consensus and the B1G and SEC don’t want to set precedents that could hurt them in the future.

We’ll see.

The way I see it, the justification would be the IMO much greater brand value of the B1G and SEC, which has come about due to the recent realignment.

To me, this means that in a brand-sense, we have a P2 and an M2. And since contract bowl ties with conferences will I believe be gone, that brand value is a good basis for making the distinction in pay.

Also, I agree that for 2024 and 2025, the current pay scheme will be in effect, equal shares among the P5, with the only issue being the status of the PAC depending on whether it still exists as of 2024 or not. So what I am talking about with regard to the M2 making significantly less then the P2 is for 2026 and beyond. I should have stated that in the last post.

Just MO, like you said, we shall see.

(09-26-2023 12:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Only reason to give it up is a larger % payout in the next deal. 5-7 is all but guaranteed to happen, only the SEC really wants top 12 and the G5 does have enough leverage to prevent some sort of 4-8 format. It's really just going to be about the financial split, and the only way if I'm the G5 leagues I give up 2 years of 6-6 is for a real win on the financial split. Obviously not like making them equal win but I believe the P5 currently splits like 80% of the money and instead of it being the P4 getting 80% it's something like the P4 getting 70% and the G5/G6 getting 30%. That would probably be worth going to 5-7 early.

And that’s why I think we’ll see 6+6 for the next 2 years and then the Big Ten and SEC will put the hammer down in the next contract. My educated belief is that the Big Ten and SEC care waaaaaaaay more about making that revenue split even *more* in their favor (such as 85/15 for the P5/G5/6 split) than the playoff format. The token G5 spot isn’t a big deal to the P2. However, the P2 getting even more of the money is a *very* big deal to them.

I'm sure that's what they'll want to do and it will be interesting to see how that goes. They certainly are the 2 most powerful conferences, but they probably also want a larger split than the other P leagues so the voting on that is going to be interesting.

About the bolded, this is what I have been thinking. IMO the SEC and B1G likely care more about getting more $$$ out of the P-share than getting more away from the Gs.

Two scenarios:

I. PAC reconstitutes, MW remains, so we now have a P4/G6.

P-share is currently 80%, G-share is 20%. With this scenario, I think the SEC and B1G would push for something like ....

G6 .... 23% (slight boost because there is one more G mouth to feed).

P4 ..... SEC and B1G ..... 25% each.

ACC and Big 12 ............ 13.5% each.


II. PAC absorbs the MW or MW absorbs OS and WS, so we have a P4 and G5 ...

G5 ..... 20% each like now

P4 ...... SEC and B1G ..... 26% each

ACC and Big 12 ............. 14% each


Something like that. But in each case, the Gs are relatively unscathed, it is the ACC and B12 who lose big percentages.

Just MO.

I think that’s wishful thinking from the G5. The P2 knows that they can basically take whatever they want from the G5 by getting all of the P4 plus ND to band together with their supermajority power. The Big Ten and SeC aren’t really bothered by the Big 12 and ACC making similar money… and even if they were bothered by it in reality, it’s still simply the path of least resistance that they can use the P4 plus ND supermajority power to impose whatever they want on the G5 than try to fight those within the supermajority club.

I just think that if I was an SEC or B1G honcho, I don't see why my share of the CFP pie should be the same as the B12 and ACC when we have far greater brand value thanks to the recent realignment. The G5 share I would view as similar to how I viewed it during the past 10 years, kind of a necessary thing so that we can call it the champ of "FBS" football.

But I would want to get more of the P-share as IMO it would be my league that has the brands that are driving the overall value among the Ps. I would make the case that we really have a P2 and M2 now, so pay should be adjusted accordingly.

Then again, nobody at the SEC or B1G has ever contacted me about being a honcho, so I could well be wrong about how they think.

We'll see.

(09-26-2023 05:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 12:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  And that’s why I think we’ll see 6+6 for the next 2 years and then the Big Ten and SEC will put the hammer down in the next contract. My educated belief is that the Big Ten and SEC care waaaaaaaay more about making that revenue split even *more* in their favor (such as 85/15 for the P5/G5/6 split) than the playoff format. The token G5 spot isn’t a big deal to the P2. However, the P2 getting even more of the money is a *very* big deal to them.

I'm sure that's what they'll want to do and it will be interesting to see how that goes. They certainly are the 2 most powerful conferences, but they probably also want a larger split than the other P leagues so the voting on that is going to be interesting.

About the bolded, this is what I have been thinking. IMO the SEC and B1G likely care more about getting more $$$ out of the P-share than getting more away from the Gs.

Two scenarios:

I. PAC reconstitutes, MW remains, so we now have a P4/G6.

P-share is currently 80%, G-share is 20%. With this scenario, I think the SEC and B1G would push for something like ....

G6 .... 23% (slight boost because there is one more G mouth to feed).

P4 ..... SEC and B1G ..... 25% each.

ACC and Big 12 ............ 13.5% each.


II. PAC absorbs the MW or MW absorbs OS and WS, so we have a P4 and G5 ...

G5 ..... 20% each like now

P4 ...... SEC and B1G ..... 26% each

ACC and Big 12 ............. 14% each


Something like that. But in each case, the Gs are relatively unscathed, it is the ACC and B12 who lose big percentages.

Just MO.

I think that’s wishful thinking from the G5. The P2 knows that they can basically take whatever they want from the G5 by getting all of the P4 plus ND to band together with their supermajority power. The Big Ten and SeC aren’t really bothered by the Big 12 and ACC making similar money… and even if they were bothered by it in reality, it’s still simply the path of least resistance that they can use the P4 plus ND supermajority power to impose whatever they want on the G5 than try to fight those within the supermajority club.

I just think that if I was an SEC or B1G honcho, I don't see why my share of the CFP pie should be the same as the B12 and ACC when we have far greater brand value thanks to the recent realignment. The G5 share I would view as similar to how I viewed it during the past 10 years, kind of a necessary thing so that we can call it the champ of "FBS" football.

But I would want to get more of the P-share as IMO it would be my league that has the brands that are driving the overall value among the Ps. I would make the case that we really have a P2 and M2 now, so pay should be adjusted accordingly.

Then again, nobody at the SEC or B1G has ever contacted me about being a honcho, so I could well be wrong about how they think.

We'll see.

I think the Big Ten and SEC believe that they’re worth more than the ACC and Big 12 (because it’s true), but they also know that they have complete control of the CFP - including the financial distributions - if all of the P4 and ND vote together. That is worth more than trying to squeeze more money out of each other.

We’ve seen the history of conference realignment since the dawn of the BCS era - the power conferences keep raiding each other and even destroyed each other in the cases of the Big East and Pac-12, but the power conferences left standing always ended up treating each other equally when it came to postseason revenue (even if they would end up raising each other again a few years later). Whatever differences the power leagues might have between each other, they’re unified in wanting to ensure they’re taking the lion’s share of revenue as opposed to the G5. They don’t see the G5 as the same as before - they see Houston, UCF, Cincinnati and BYU all moved up and out of that group, so the P4 view the G5 as worth even less than before. It’s a barely concealed secret that they want to do this with the NCAA Tournament money, too.

(09-26-2023 05:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 03:35 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  And that’s why I think we’ll see 6+6 for the next 2 years and then the Big Ten and SEC will put the hammer down in the next contract. My educated belief is that the Big Ten and SEC care waaaaaaaay more about making that revenue split even *more* in their favor (such as 85/15 for the P5/G5/6 split) than the playoff format. The token G5 spot isn’t a big deal to the P2. However, the P2 getting even more of the money is a *very* big deal to them.

I'm sure that's what they'll want to do and it will be interesting to see how that goes. They certainly are the 2 most powerful conferences, but they probably also want a larger split than the other P leagues so the voting on that is going to be interesting.

About the bolded, this is what I have been thinking. IMO the SEC and B1G likely care more about getting more $$$ out of the P-percentage than getting more away from the G-percentage.

Two scenarios:

I. PAC reconstitutes, MW remains, so we now have a P4/G6.

P-share is currently 80%, G-share is 20%. With this scenario, I think the SEC and B1G would push for something like ....

G6 .... 23% (slight boost because there is one more G mouth to feed).

P4 ..... SEC and B1G ..... 25% each.

ACC and Big 12 ............ 13.5% each.


II. PAC absorbs the MW or MW absorbs OS and WS, so we have a P4 and G5 ...

G5 ..... 20% each like now

P4 ...... SEC and B1G ..... 26% each

ACC and Big 12 ............. 14% each


Something like that. But in each case, the Gs are relatively unscathed, it is the ACC and B12 who lose big percentages.

Just MO.

There is no rationale for such a radical change in CFP-12 payouts.

Until 2026, they’re committed to the formal CFP-4 distribution scheme…83.3% to Power 5 teams, and the remaining 16.7% share to the G5. Furthermore, the P5 also already agreed to divide the payouts equally on a per team basis during the final 2 years of the original CFP term. The CFP-4 distribution scheme is justified on “contract” bowl arrangements…it received broad consensus amongst all major FBS parties. The only uncertainty is what happens to the PAC during the next two years (do WSU & OSU get P5-level shares only if they maintain the PAC? Can WSU & OSU invite new members into the PAC, at P5-level shares, in the next two years?).

Maybe the parties are willing to move a greater share of distributions into a performance sharing pool…getting larger compensation for winning CFP games. Conference leaders have been very conservative financially. They have been historically shy of variable compensation. Regardless, CFP distributions require consensus and the B1G and SEC don’t want to set precedents that could hurt them in the future.

We’ll see.

The way I see it, the justification would be the IMO much greater brand value of the B1G and SEC, which has come about due to the recent realignment.

To me, this means that in a brand-sense, we have a P2 and an M2. And since contract bowl ties with conferences will I believe be gone, that brand value is a good basis for making the distinction in pay.

Also, I agree that for 2024 and 2025, the current pay scheme will be in effect, equal shares among the P5, with the only issue being the status of the PAC depending on whether it still exists as of 2024 or not. So what I am talking about with regard to the M2 making significantly less then the P2 is for 2026 and beyond. I should have stated that in the last post.

Just MO, like you said, we shall see.

There's no way to measure that. And the M2 would fight that with a passion. And as Frank says about hogs....

They will try to attain it with incentive based pay. A larger portion will be based on CFP appearances than today.

(09-26-2023 06:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... I think the Big Ten and SEC believe that they’re worth more than the ACC and Big 12 (because it’s true), but they also know that they have complete control of the CFP - including the financial distributions - if all of the P4 and ND vote together. That is worth more than trying to squeeze more money out of each other.

We’ve seen the history of conference realignment since the dawn of the BCS era - the power conferences keep raiding each other and even destroyed each other in the cases of the Big East and Pac-12, but the power conferences left standing always ended up treating each other equally when it came to postseason revenue (even if they would end up raising each other again a few years later). Whatever differences the power leagues might have between each other, they’re unified in wanting to ensure they’re taking the lion’s share of revenue as opposed to the G5.

They ended up treating each other roughly equally when it came to postseason revenue ... but the larger Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl and smaller Orange Bowl payouts and the quotas for appearances on the other side of the non-SF Orange Bowls ensured that the SEC and Big Ten were "firsts among equals", with the Big12 leveraging their smaller numbers to make up for it on the per school front.

2/3 to be shared out equally per P4 school and 1/6 to be shared out based on number of CFP12 participants{*} would give a similar "roughly equal, but actually more for the BigTen and SEC" outcome.

Quote: ... They don’t see the G5 as the same as before - they see Houston, UCF, Cincinnati and BYU all moved up and out of that group, so the P4 view the G5 as worth even less than before. It’s a barely concealed secret that they want to do this with the NCAA Tournament money, too.

Further, the best G5 champion is getting into the actual CFP, rather than getting a consolation NYD exhibition bowl game. Getting that step up in access, and also holding onto an across the board per FBS school pot -- even at the same $300,000/school -- plus a 1/6 slice of the main pot of money plus a 1/12th slice of an appearance fee portion of the main pot of money would have to be considered a reasonably successful outcome for the G5 conferences.

___________
{* Participants, not appearances (that is, not like the NCAA units), because number of participants per conference is less volatile than number of wins in round 1, the QF, and SF}

(09-26-2023 07:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... I think the Big Ten and SEC believe that they’re worth more than the ACC and Big 12 (because it’s true), but they also know that they have complete control of the CFP - including the financial distributions - if all of the P4 and ND vote together. That is worth more than trying to squeeze more money out of each other.

We’ve seen the history of conference realignment since the dawn of the BCS era - the power conferences keep raiding each other and even destroyed each other in the cases of the Big East and Pac-12, but the power conferences left standing always ended up treating each other equally when it came to postseason revenue (even if they would end up raising each other again a few years later). Whatever differences the power leagues might have between each other, they’re unified in wanting to ensure they’re taking the lion’s share of revenue as opposed to the G5.

They ended up treating each other roughly equally when it came to postseason revenue ... but the larger Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl and smaller Orange Bowl payouts and the quotas for appearances on the other side of the non-SF Orange Bowls ensured that the SEC and Big Ten were "firsts among equals", with the Big12 leveraging their smaller numbers to make up for it on the per school front.

2/3 to be shared out equally per P4 school and 1/6 to be shared out based on number of CFP12 participants{*} would give a similar "roughly equal, but actually more for the BigTen and SEC" outcome.

Quote: ... They don’t see the G5 as the same as before - they see Houston, UCF, Cincinnati and BYU all moved up and out of that group, so the P4 view the G5 as worth even less than before. It’s a barely concealed secret that they want to do this with the NCAA Tournament money, too.

Further, the best G5 champion is getting into the actual CFP, rather than getting a consolation NYD exhibition bowl game. Getting that step up in access, and also holding onto an across the board per FBS school pot -- even at the same $300,000/school -- plus a 1/6 slice of the main pot of money plus a 1/12th slice of an appearance fee portion of the main pot of money would have to be considered a reasonably successful outcome for the G5 conferences.

___________
{* Participants, not appearances (that is, not like the NCAA units), because number of participants per conference is less volatile than number of wins in round 1, the QF, and SF}

The only G5 schools out there who were ever in a power conference are Tulane, who left the SEC in 1966, Rice, who got dropped with the dissolution of the SWC in 1996, UConn and USF who were added in 2004 and 2005 to the Big East and dropped with the end of the Big East/AAC BCS status and Memphis, if you want to count their membership in the one BCS year of the AAC. Several of those along with SDSU, are about the only schools that have been seriously discussed to be added to the P5.