(01-15-2022 08:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 01:34 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 06:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:04 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 08:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I actually think there's a logic to the ACC stance. It wouldn't be my logic, but then again I don't share the ACC's values. The ACC seems committed to a 8-team, P5 autobids model. That's the model that squeezes Notre Dame, and if they have any real concerns about player health, it is better as well.

I suspect that from the recent Board of Managers meetings, the ACC realizes that they are in a small minority, maybe a minority of one, in insisting on both of those things. So why go down to defeat now by agreeing to a new plan?

It's kind of like if you are the Prime Minister of the UK, where the law says there must be a new election in at most three years, but you can call an early election before then if you want. If the polls say you are way ahead of the opposition right now, well then call the election for now. But if you are behind now, then postpone it for two or three years in hopes you can change the political situation around between now and then.

The ACC may be just thinking, "we've done fine under the CFP so far, so we can live with it rather than sign on to an expansion plan we don't like. Hopefully, when we *have* to vote on a new plan in a couple years, we will have persuaded enough conferences that 8 and P5 autos are the way to go".

Not an unreasonable approach, IMO, given their priorities.

Let’s say:

1. The ACC wants a smaller expansion with auto bids or some other format such as 4 team play off after bowls.
2. The BIG doesn’t want to accept the proposed model. They don’t exactly reveal exactly what they want other than they want an autobids for P5 champs. But let’s just say their position is aligned with the ACC’s.
3. The PAC just wants an expansion but is willing to follow the ACC’s and the BIG’s lead.
4. The ACC and the BIG believe they have the leverage not the SEC and the B12.

Under the above assumptions, what Phillips said completely make sense to me. If he believes that he will get what he wants in a few years, why does he have to agree with the current proposal which he doesn’t want.

I agree with your conclusion. I just have a lot of doubts about the "let's say" parts. Specifically, if we assume the ACC wants 8 and P5 autobids (I discount the 4 teams after the bowls idea because IMO that is indistinguishable from the current CFP (if the bowls do not feed in to who makes the playoffs), or from an 8 or 12 team playoff, if the bowls do feed in to who makes the playoffs):

1) The ACC has said it does not want expansion now, the PAC says it would support any of the proposed expansion plans. That seems like a contradiction to me. the PAC is fine with waiting. Phillips said the expansion will happen after the current contract expires. Seems like NO contradiction to me

I don't think the PAC is fine with waiting. I think it wants expansion now. In their statement the other day they said "The Pac-12 is strongly in favor of CFP expansion, and we support all of the six most-discussed expansion models that would allow for expansion to occur in time for the final two years of the current CFP agreement."

2) IIRC, the B1G has not said it supports an 8-team model over 12 teams. It has only voiced support for half of what I am assuming what the ACC wants, the P5 autobids. this is a big mystery. If the P5 autobid is the only sticking point, don’t you think the BIG and the SEC would have already made an agreement? The BIG didn’t say anything negative about waiting. What does that imply?

IMO, the P5 autobid is a big enough issue to prevent the SEC and B1G from coming to an agreement. I think it is a big deal, to both.

3) In November, the Alliance itself was reported to have proposed a 12-team model, with P5 autobids. This too contradicts the ACC, if the ACC does indeed want 8 or fewer. Phillips keeps brining up the player safety. That’s a code word for 8 or fewer team playoff.

That's my point - Phillips appears to be at odds with his Alliance partners. The Alliance issued a 12-team proposal, but now he seems to be solid on 8.


4) I have no reason to think that the ACC believes it and its allies have more leverage than the SEC and its coalition. IMO, no viable expansion format can proceed without both (i.e., each has an effective veto) and the perpetuation of the either the status quo of the existing CFP or a return to the pre-BCS poll-and-bowl system would seem to be of no more harm to the SEC than to the Alliance members. I had called for a brinkmanship strategy and Phillips actually did it. Either Phillips is a complete nuts as some people on this board believe or he must believe he has some leverage.

I don't think the ACC is engaged in brinksmanship. I think it is just saying it doesn't want expansion now on terms it can get, and I believe them.

Given these things, to me, what makes the most sense is what I said above - the ACC knows that it doesn't have the votes right now to get what it wants, so it makes no sense to have the issue decided now. Even if, as I believe, it has no reason to think it will have a better chance of getting what it wants two to three years from now, when a decision about a replacement for the CPF has to be made, it is still better for it to wait until then, when things might be better for it, rather than decide now, when it knows the situation is surely against it.

But I could be wrong.

See my answers above. I could be completely wrong too. I am just a random Asian guy.

See above. Fun discussion.

I don't think the PAC is fine with waiting. I think it wants expansion now. In their statement the other day they said "The Pac-12 is strongly in favor of CFP expansion, and we support all of the six most-discussed expansion models that would allow for expansion to occur in time for the final two years of the current CFP agreement."

Yeah I agree with you that would logically make sense….

So why did Kliavkoff say in the LA Times:

“So I think the right solution is let’s put aside worrying about what the last two years of the current contract look like and instead let’s think about what the next contract should look like, because we have no obligation to each other after the end of the current contract. If we focus on what the right outcome is going forward, I actually don’t think you need all 11 to agree, certainly contractually you don’t. If enough folks agree then others can make a decision about whether to join the playoffs or not. I think they would choose to join the playoffs, but they don’t have to vote yes to begin with.”