Sure if the College Football Playoff expands to 8 teams the P5's will have more say or autonomy as to the direction of the makeup of the field. But let's say the G5's have any voice at all. The P5's give the G5's a choice of the two most popular options discussed on this board: a straight 8 and a "5-1-2", each of the P5 champions get an automatic bid, the highest G5 champ gets an autobid, and two at large teams. For this discussion, I'll make it that Notre Dame is not eligible for the G5 autobid to sweeten the pot for the G5's.

Theoretically if you're a G5, it's an insult that all five of the P5 conferences get autobids and the G5's are fighting for one automatic bid, basically saying the Pac-12 and Big 12 are better than they are.

Practically, most of the P5's would qualify for a straight 8. You can throw out 2020 for COVID-19. In the thread about A5 champions in a 6 team Playoff (https://csnbbs.com/thread-921889.html), the only 2014-19 A5 team that wouldn't have qualified for a straight 8 was #9 Washington in 2018. And in that same time frame, the only G5 to have qualified under a straight 8 would have been 2018 UCF (#8).

If you are going from a matter of principle, you don't want to be told that you are an inferior conference (other conferences get an autobid and I don't). But if I give the P5's their autobids, at least we're guaranteed one shot at the dance. Is the Pac-12 champ really preventing the AAC champ or MWC champ from getting in an 8 team Playoff? The only way that could in theory happen would be if both are in the top 8 (or any two G5 champs are in the top 8) and the Pac-12 (or replace with any P5 champ) is outside the top 8 and a lower ranked P5 champ bumps a higher ranked G5 champ (and the G5 champ would literally have to be ranked #8 to be bumped). What are the chances of that happening? It hasn't happened in the six non-COVID years. In 2020, Iowa State and Oregon would both miss a Straight 8 Playoff but only Cincinnati would make it from G5 teams.

So if you're the G5's and the P5's offer you an "automatic bid" but the price is all five of them get autobids, do you take it? Theoretically you shouldn't but practically you should. If the G5's decide it's worthwhile, I'm sure Congress won't interfere. But if the G5's don't give their blessing, they can go to get Congress involved to stop any plans for P5 autobids at the G5's expense. I think if the P5's want autobids in an 8 team Playoff, they are going to have to throw the G5's a bone to keep them happy. If a 2018 situation came up when a #8 undefeated UCF gets left out in favor of a #9 three loss Washington, that would be the end. We all know there's bias in favor of the P5's but the P5's can't flat out say it when it comes to the Playoff. If Cincinnati, Houston, or UCF wants to go to Congress and say the CFP is biased, the CFP can say there are no rules against the AAC, MWC, Sun Belt, C-USA, MAC, or Independents and they're right. Once the CFP says the P5 are "better", then there's clear cut discrimination.

I think a lot of people are thinking too hard about this. It’s all about the money.

Let’s forget about the on-the-field competitive aspect here.

Do the G5 want a guaranteed annual payment from having a playoff berth every year? I would think the answer would be 100% yes.

The Big Ten certainly doesn’t apologize if it gets a $40 million payment from the Rose Bowl when sending an unranked team to that game. I find it hard to believe that the G5 would suddenly get religion on passing up guaranteed payments on a matter of some amorphous principle. The G5 know the reality is that they either get one spot or none… so they’ll take the one.

The G5 absolutely has a voice. The G5 has 5 votes in the committee that must authorize changes to the CFP structure. Each vote has veto power (decisions must bet unanimous) if the changes are desired before 2026. In addition, the G5 recommends members to the CFP selection committee. The annual ranking and site-selection of teams for the CFP and NY6 Bowls have direct G5 input.

At a minimum, playoff expansion needs to increase accessibility and payouts. If the G5 demand an auto bid, then the likely viable compromise is a 12 team playoff. I don’t believe that P5 conferences want to increase the relative share of CFP payouts guaranteed to the G5 conferences...a 12 team playoffs (with P5 and one G5 autobid guarantee) would keep the relative payouts equal.

That having been said, the G5 can still increase its absolute payouts and accessibility (probability of making the playoffs) without a guaranteed auto bid. The G5 may actually be able to better leverage higher absolute and relative payouts by “allowing” the P5 to have their auto bids in a 6 or 8 team playoffs. This is just a negotiation.

(05-13-2021 07:11 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The G5 absolutely has a voice. The G5 has 5 votes in the committee that must authorize changes to the CFP structure. Each vote has veto power (decisions must bet unanimous) if the changes are desired before 2026. In addition, the G5 recommends members to the CFP selection committee. The annual ranking and site-selection of teams for the CFP and NY6 Bowls have direct G5 input.

At a minimum, playoff expansion needs to increase accessibility and payouts. If the G5 demand an auto bid, then the likely viable compromise is a 12 team playoff. I don’t believe that P5 conferences want to increase the relative share of CFP payouts guaranteed to the G5 conferences...a 12 team playoffs (with P5 and one G5 autobid guarantee) would keep the relative payouts equal.

That having been said, the G5 can still increase its absolute payouts and accessibility (probability of making the playoffs) without a guaranteed auto bid. The G5 may actually be able to better leverage higher absolute and relative payouts by “allowing” the P5 to have their auto bids in a 6 or 8 team playoffs. This is just a negotiation.

You make the incorrect assumption that slots = $$$.

The money from participation is minimal. Most of the money is guaranteed.

As I recall (may be slightly different now), each of the P5 gets $50 million + their guaranteed bowl + $4 million for the first game and $6 million for the championship.

If academic presidents have any say, a 12 team playoff would be a hard sell as it would add two extra games/weeks to the season as opposed to one extra game/week. Also, if coming from ESPN or a media perspective, going from 4 teams and 3 games to 12 teams and 11 games is a much bigger leap financially. Maybe eventually they will go to 12 teams or even 16 but I doubt they will go directly from 4 to 12 or 16, 8 will be the next step.

(05-13-2021 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:11 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The G5 absolutely has a voice. The G5 has 5 votes in the committee that must authorize changes to the CFP structure. Each vote has veto power (decisions must bet unanimous) if the changes are desired before 2026. In addition, the G5 recommends members to the CFP selection committee. The annual ranking and site-selection of teams for the CFP and NY6 Bowls have direct G5 input.

At a minimum, playoff expansion needs to increase accessibility and payouts. If the G5 demand an auto bid, then the likely viable compromise is a 12 team playoff. I don’t believe that P5 conferences want to increase the relative share of CFP payouts guaranteed to the G5 conferences...a 12 team playoffs (with P5 and one G5 autobid guarantee) would keep the relative payouts equal.

That having been said, the G5 can still increase its absolute payouts and accessibility (probability of making the playoffs) without a guaranteed auto bid. The G5 may actually be able to better leverage higher absolute and relative payouts by “allowing” the P5 to have their auto bids in a 6 or 8 team playoffs. This is just a negotiation.

You make the incorrect assumption that slots = $$$.

The money from participation is minimal. Most of the money is guaranteed.

As I recall (may be slightly different now), each of the P5 gets $50 million + their guaranteed bowl + $4 million for the first game and $6 million for the championship.

Yes, the distribution of CFP payouts was negotiated...IIRC the G5 conferences are splitting about 15% of the revenue (comparable to what each P5 is getting). Each slot gets a little extra.

My point being, the CFP expansion will also be negotiated. If the G5 demand an auto bid, they may be sacrificing payouts.

(05-13-2021 06:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think a lot of people are thinking too hard about this. It’s all about the money.

Let’s forget about the on-the-field competitive aspect here.

Do the G5 want a guaranteed annual payment from having a playoff berth every year? I would think the answer would be 100% yes.

The Big Ten certainly doesn’t apologize if it gets a $40 million payment from the Rose Bowl when sending an unranked team to that game. I find it hard to believe that the G5 would suddenly get religion on passing up guaranteed payments on a matter of some amorphous principle. The G5 know the reality is that they either get one spot or none… so they’ll take the one.

Id say the G5 takes an automatic bid if they can get it---and if Im the G5---I'd do it even if the monetary percentage split stays the same. Under such a deal, the G5 would still realize more money due to the increase in the size of the overall CFP payout. However, more importantly--guaranteed inclusion in the playoff makes the G5 relevant again---which increases their tv media value and drives increased interest in stadium ticket purchases. Its important for the sport to have a legitimate path to the playoff available for every single team--no matter what conference they play in--but it may be even more important for the long term financial health of all G5 programs.

(05-13-2021 07:55 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:11 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The G5 absolutely has a voice. The G5 has 5 votes in the committee that must authorize changes to the CFP structure. Each vote has veto power (decisions must bet unanimous) if the changes are desired before 2026. In addition, the G5 recommends members to the CFP selection committee. The annual ranking and site-selection of teams for the CFP and NY6 Bowls have direct G5 input.

At a minimum, playoff expansion needs to increase accessibility and payouts. If the G5 demand an auto bid, then the likely viable compromise is a 12 team playoff. I don’t believe that P5 conferences want to increase the relative share of CFP payouts guaranteed to the G5 conferences...a 12 team playoffs (with P5 and one G5 autobid guarantee) would keep the relative payouts equal.

That having been said, the G5 can still increase its absolute payouts and accessibility (probability of making the playoffs) without a guaranteed auto bid. The G5 may actually be able to better leverage higher absolute and relative payouts by “allowing” the P5 to have their auto bids in a 6 or 8 team playoffs. This is just a negotiation.

You make the incorrect assumption that slots = $$$.

The money from participation is minimal. Most of the money is guaranteed.

As I recall (may be slightly different now), each of the P5 gets $50 million + their guaranteed bowl + $4 million for the first game and $6 million for the championship.

Yes, the distribution of CFP payouts was negotiated...IIRC the G5 conferences are splitting about 15% of the revenue (comparable to what each P5 is getting). Each slot gets a little extra.

My point being, the CFP expansion will also be negotiated. If the G5 demand an auto bid, they may be sacrificing payouts.

If there is an impasse, then the only leverage in negotiations that G5 conferences have is to veto any changes to the current CFP agreement.

But that veto would only freeze the current system in place for the 5 seasons remaining in this CFP agreement, after which the P5, if they want, could start a new playoff over which they have all the voting power. Hell, the SEC can start their own playoff and keep all the voting power for themselves 5 years from now if the current agreement has expired and that's what they want. The G5 might prefer (IMO should prefer) getting a new agreement now that lasts for 10 or 12 years.

It might not matter in any event. The new ACC commissioner said today that he wants expansion discussions to proceed slowly. If he really means that, then the whole idea of CFP expansion might get punted until the current format expires. By the time a slow process involving university presidents and athletic bureaucrats gets anywhere, they would be pretty close to just running out the next 5 years under the current agreement.

(05-13-2021 08:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:55 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:11 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The G5 absolutely has a voice. The G5 has 5 votes in the committee that must authorize changes to the CFP structure. Each vote has veto power (decisions must bet unanimous) if the changes are desired before 2026. In addition, the G5 recommends members to the CFP selection committee. The annual ranking and site-selection of teams for the CFP and NY6 Bowls have direct G5 input.

At a minimum, playoff expansion needs to increase accessibility and payouts. If the G5 demand an auto bid, then the likely viable compromise is a 12 team playoff. I don’t believe that P5 conferences want to increase the relative share of CFP payouts guaranteed to the G5 conferences...a 12 team playoffs (with P5 and one G5 autobid guarantee) would keep the relative payouts equal.

That having been said, the G5 can still increase its absolute payouts and accessibility (probability of making the playoffs) without a guaranteed auto bid. The G5 may actually be able to better leverage higher absolute and relative payouts by “allowing” the P5 to have their auto bids in a 6 or 8 team playoffs. This is just a negotiation.

You make the incorrect assumption that slots = $$$.

The money from participation is minimal. Most of the money is guaranteed.

As I recall (may be slightly different now), each of the P5 gets $50 million + their guaranteed bowl + $4 million for the first game and $6 million for the championship.

Yes, the distribution of CFP payouts was negotiated...IIRC the G5 conferences are splitting about 15% of the revenue (comparable to what each P5 is getting). Each slot gets a little extra.

My point being, the CFP expansion will also be negotiated. If the G5 demand an auto bid, they may be sacrificing payouts.

If there is an impasse, then the only leverage in negotiations that G5 conferences have is to veto any changes to the current CFP agreement.

But that veto would only freeze the current system in place for the 5 seasons remaining in this CFP agreement, after which the P5, if they want, could start a new playoff over which they have all the voting power. Hell, the SEC can start their own playoff and keep all the voting power for themselves 5 years from now if the current agreement has expired and that's what they want. The G5 might prefer (IMO should prefer) getting a new agreement now that lasts for 10 or 12 years.

It might not matter in any event. The new ACC commissioner said today that he wants expansion discussions to proceed slowly. If he really means that, then the whole idea of CFP expansion might get punted until the current format expires. By the time a slow process involving university presidents and athletic bureaucrats gets anywhere, they would be pretty close to just running out the next 5 years under the current agreement.

He also said the bowl system is worth saving. The ACC will not like the 12 team playoff as many on this board pointed out.

(05-13-2021 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  As I recall (may be slightly different now), each of the P5 gets $50 million + their guaranteed bowl + $4 million for the first game and $6 million for the championship.

Pretty close. Each P5 gets around $50m just for existing + their guaranteed contract bowl if it is not a playoff that year, and then a conference gets $6 million for each team that makes the playoffs. But there is no additional money for making the championship game.

So this year, the ACC got $12 million for Notre Dame and Clemson making the playoffs. The SEC got $6 million for the same, even though Clemson and ND went collectively 0-2 while the SEC team went 2-0 and won the title.

Beyond that, each conference gets $4 million for every team it places in an NY6 bowl other than the contract bowls. So the SEC got another $8 million for placing Georgia in the Peach and Florida in the Cotton Bowl. The SEC got $27 million for putting Texas AM in the Orange Bowl, but as that is a contract bowl for them they did not get an extra $4 million on top of that.

(05-13-2021 08:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:55 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:11 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The G5 absolutely has a voice. The G5 has 5 votes in the committee that must authorize changes to the CFP structure. Each vote has veto power (decisions must bet unanimous) if the changes are desired before 2026. In addition, the G5 recommends members to the CFP selection committee. The annual ranking and site-selection of teams for the CFP and NY6 Bowls have direct G5 input.

At a minimum, playoff expansion needs to increase accessibility and payouts. If the G5 demand an auto bid, then the likely viable compromise is a 12 team playoff. I don’t believe that P5 conferences want to increase the relative share of CFP payouts guaranteed to the G5 conferences...a 12 team playoffs (with P5 and one G5 autobid guarantee) would keep the relative payouts equal.

That having been said, the G5 can still increase its absolute payouts and accessibility (probability of making the playoffs) without a guaranteed auto bid. The G5 may actually be able to better leverage higher absolute and relative payouts by “allowing” the P5 to have their auto bids in a 6 or 8 team playoffs. This is just a negotiation.

You make the incorrect assumption that slots = $$$.

The money from participation is minimal. Most of the money is guaranteed.

As I recall (may be slightly different now), each of the P5 gets $50 million + their guaranteed bowl + $4 million for the first game and $6 million for the championship.

Yes, the distribution of CFP payouts was negotiated...IIRC the G5 conferences are splitting about 15% of the revenue (comparable to what each P5 is getting). Each slot gets a little extra.

My point being, the CFP expansion will also be negotiated. If the G5 demand an auto bid, they may be sacrificing payouts.

If there is an impasse, then the only leverage in negotiations that G5 conferences have is to veto any changes to the current CFP agreement.

But that veto would only freeze the current system in place for the 5 seasons remaining in this CFP agreement, after which the P5, if they want, could start a new playoff over which they have all the voting power. Hell, the SEC can start their own playoff and keep all the voting power for themselves 5 years from now if the current agreement has expired and that's what they want. The G5 might prefer (IMO should prefer) getting a new agreement now that lasts for 10 or 12 years.

It might not matter in any event. The new ACC commissioner said today that he wants expansion discussions to proceed slowly. If he really means that, then the whole idea of CFP expansion might get punted until the current format expires. By the time a slow process involving university presidents and athletic bureaucrats gets anywhere, they would be pretty close to just running out the next 5 years under the current agreement.

Thats the normal way for college football---but---the financial hole blown in most every athletic department budget MIGHT make this time different. That said---look at the NCAA's NIL legislation for yet another example of the inability of college football to move quickly. NIL laws in probably a half dozen states will go into effect THIS JULY......Yet still nothing passed on NIL from the NCAA.

(05-13-2021 06:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think a lot of people are thinking too hard about this. It’s all about the money.

Let’s forget about the on-the-field competitive aspect here.

Do the G5 want a guaranteed annual payment from having a playoff berth every year? I would think the answer would be 100% yes.

The Big Ten certainly doesn’t apologize if it gets a $40 million payment from the Rose Bowl when sending an unranked team to that game. I find it hard to believe that the G5 would suddenly get religion on passing up guaranteed payments on a matter of some amorphous principle. The G5 know the reality is that they either get one spot or none… so they’ll take the one.

Eh, I don't think that in an expanded playoff money ties in necessarily with an autobid. The current CFP doesn't have any autobids but money payouts are rigidly defined, the two aren't coupled now and don't have to be in an expanded playoff.

This may sound strange, but if I was the commissioner of the MAC, I would insist that if in a proposed 8-team playoff the total payout over the current CFP doubles, that the G5 get the same proportional share of money it gets now, meaning that the G5 payout would double in absolute terms too. That's a no-brainer.

But as for the autobid, I would probably oppose that, as my view would be that the AAC would likely dominate it, which would allow the AAC to further separate itself from the rest of the G5, which would hurt the MAC. I would only support an autobid if each G5 conference were to get one, which ain't happening.

Give me one good reason why the AAC should share a bid with 4 other conferences. It's the AAC that has been in top 10, yet snubbed, not the "Group of 5". It's the AAC that has been to 6 or 8 NY6 bowls, not the generic "Group of 5". Can you give me a legitimate reason why the AAC shouldn't have a sole bid in any expanded playoffs, and not just because "that's the way it is" or "to bad, so sad, you're a group of 5" but a real reason?

By the way, I believe the fairest way to handle this is to go to 12 or 16 and have 10 auto bids, but that will never happen. What will happen is this so called group of 5 bid, despite nearly every year the AAC deserving it so far.

My thought is a 5-1-2 but have the 5 be the P5 conference champions or Notre Dame. If Notre Dame finishes above a P5 champ they get the conferences auto bid. A G5 auto bid (most likely AAC but open ended to keep all G5 happy) and 2 auto bid. What about the NY6 bowls? Would the G5 still get a bid to a NY6 bowl? I figure quarterfinals will be 2 weeks after Conference championship games and Semi finals at the NY6 bowls and finals a week after. At most a P5 bowl game will close with maybe a G5 bowl.

(05-13-2021 11:14 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Give me one good reason why the AAC should share a bid with 4 other conferences. It's the AAC that has been in top 10, yet snubbed, not the "Group of 5". It's the AAC that has been to 6 or 8 NY6 bowls, not the generic "Group of 5". Can you give me a legitimate reason why the AAC shouldn't have a sole bid in any expanded playoffs, and not just because "that's the way it is" or "to bad, so sad, you're a group of 5" but a real reason?

By the way, I believe the fairest way to handle this is to go to 12 or 16 and have 10 auto bids, but that will never happen. What will happen is this so called group of 5 bid, despite nearly every year the AAC deserving it so far.

Is the AAC clearly the top conference among the Group of 5? Of course.

Should we do a 6-2 as opposed to a 5-1-2? That's asking a lot because you are then telling the remaining conferences they have no automatic bid and no chance to get in except for the two at large bids where they are competing with other teams from other conferences.

Does the AAC deserve the same privilege as the other P5's? That's AAC commissioner Mike Aresco's argument that it should be a P6 as opposed to a P5. I would say when the old Big East was demoted from the BCS it was understood that the same BCS conferences were the top men's basketball conferences (essentially the P5 today). Then in 2016 Villanova destroyed that notion by winning the national championship and won it again in 2018 and the Big East can argue they are a Power conference in men's basketball now. But can the AAC argue they belong with the P5's and do they deserve their own automatic bid? Well in my opinion no conference deserves an automatic bid. But let's consider final CFP rankings of conferences champions 2014-2019 (again throwing out 2020).

SEC: 2014: Alabama (1), 2015: Alabama (2), 2016: Alabama (1), 2017: Georgia (3), 2018: Alabama (1), 2019: LSU (1), Average: 1.5
ACC: 2014: Florida State (3), 2015: Clemson (1), 2016: Clemson (2), 2017: Clemson (1), 2018: Clemson (2), 2019: Clemson (3), Average: 2
Big 10: 2014: Ohio State (4), 2015: Michigan State (3), 2016: Penn State (5), 2017: Ohio State (5), 2018: Ohio State (6), 2019: Ohio State (2), Average: 4.17
Big 12: 2014: Baylor (HTH TB) (5), 2015: Oklahoma (4), 2016: Oklahoma (7), 2017: Oklahoma (2), 2018: Oklahoma (4), 2019: Oklahoma (4), Average: 4.33
Pac 12: 2014: Oregon (2), 2015: Stanford (6), 2016: Washington (4), 2017: USC (8), 2018: Washington (9), 2019: Oregon (6), Average: 5.83
AAC: 2014: Memphis (HTH TB) (Unranked), 2015: Houston (18), 2016: Temple (24), 2017: Central Florida (12), 2018: Central Florida (8), 2019: Memphis (17),
Average counting 26 for 2014 Memphis: 17.5

CFP Top 25 Ranked Conference Champions
MWC: 2014: Boise State (20), 2017: Boise State (25), 2018: Fresno State (21), 2019: Boise State (19)
MAC: 2016: Western Michigan (15)
Sun Belt: 2019: Appalachian State (20)

Average for MWC, counting 26 for 2 unranked conference champions: 22.83.

The AAC would be closer to the MWC than the Pac-12 in terms of average final CFP ranking for its conference champion. As much as I like to pick on the Pac-12, they are by this criteria deserving of an automatic bid as their conference champion averaged a 5.83 ranking, well within the top 8, and only missed the top 8 once (and they were a #9 that year). UCF's rise in 2017/2018 and the Pac-12's fall narrowed the gap between the two conferences. Before then and in 2019 the gap between the Pac 12 and AAC was huge (I don't count 2020 and if USC had beaten Oregon USC would have been pretty close to if not ahead of Cincinnati). The AAC by the same criteria does not deserve their own automatic bid. No question they deserve one more than the other G5 conferences but no they don't deserve one on their own.

If the P5's wanted to exclude the G5's and get away with it, they can use "average CFP ranking for conference champion 2014-2019". In fact, I believe the old BCS had a system to allow conferences to get promoted (and demoted) to "automatic qualifier" status. If a new CFP had that in place, the P5's can give themselves seats at the table, say to the G5's that "there's a way to get in" but in reality the Committee is ranking the teams so as long as they keep ranking the G5's down they're never going to make it to the big boys' table.

(05-13-2021 11:54 PM)46566 Wrote:  My thought is a 5-1-2 but have the 5 be the P5 conference champions or Notre Dame. If Notre Dame finishes above a P5 champ they get the conferences auto bid. A G5 auto bid (most likely AAC but open ended to keep all G5 happy) and 2 auto bid. What about the NY6 bowls? Would the G5 still get a bid to a NY6 bowl? I figure quarterfinals will be 2 weeks after Conference championship games and Semi finals at the NY6 bowls and finals a week after. At most a P5 bowl game will close with maybe a G5 bowl.

This is all very complicated and honestly pretty dumb. The easiest way to fix all these problems is to have a 16 team playoff with 10 autobids.

(05-13-2021 11:14 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Give me one good reason why the AAC should share a bid with 4 other conferences. It's the AAC that has been in top 10, yet snubbed, not the "Group of 5". It's the AAC that has been to 6 or 8 NY6 bowls, not the generic "Group of 5". Can you give me a legitimate reason why the AAC shouldn't have a sole bid in any expanded playoffs, and not just because "that's the way it is" or "to bad, so sad, you're a group of 5" but a real reason?

Well, playing the angel's advocate (LOL), I would say the CFP era has not shown that the AAC deserves an autobid. The AAC has never been snubbed, as making the top 10 is not good enough to make a four-team playoff. If that's the standard, than the conferences that have been snubbed the most by the CFP are the B1G and SEC. And the only reason the AAC has played in 5 of 7 NY6 bowls is because there has been a "G5 autobid". Sans that autobid, the AAC would have placed two teams in the NY6 the past seven years, not a whole lot.

Now, that's clearly better than the rest of the G5, which has had no top-10 ranked teams and would have placed no teams in the NY6 sans an autobid. But it's also not nearly P5-level as well. As we know, the AAC has performed as a "tweener" league, albeit one closer to the G group than the P group.

(05-13-2021 08:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:55 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:11 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The G5 absolutely has a voice. The G5 has 5 votes in the committee that must authorize changes to the CFP structure. Each vote has veto power (decisions must bet unanimous) if the changes are desired before 2026. In addition, the G5 recommends members to the CFP selection committee. The annual ranking and site-selection of teams for the CFP and NY6 Bowls have direct G5 input.

At a minimum, playoff expansion needs to increase accessibility and payouts. If the G5 demand an auto bid, then the likely viable compromise is a 12 team playoff. I don’t believe that P5 conferences want to increase the relative share of CFP payouts guaranteed to the G5 conferences...a 12 team playoffs (with P5 and one G5 autobid guarantee) would keep the relative payouts equal.

That having been said, the G5 can still increase its absolute payouts and accessibility (probability of making the playoffs) without a guaranteed auto bid. The G5 may actually be able to better leverage higher absolute and relative payouts by “allowing” the P5 to have their auto bids in a 6 or 8 team playoffs. This is just a negotiation.

You make the incorrect assumption that slots = $$$.

The money from participation is minimal. Most of the money is guaranteed.

As I recall (may be slightly different now), each of the P5 gets $50 million + their guaranteed bowl + $4 million for the first game and $6 million for the championship.

Yes, the distribution of CFP payouts was negotiated...IIRC the G5 conferences are splitting about 15% of the revenue (comparable to what each P5 is getting). Each slot gets a little extra.

My point being, the CFP expansion will also be negotiated. If the G5 demand an auto bid, they may be sacrificing payouts.

If there is an impasse, then the only leverage in negotiations that G5 conferences have is to veto any changes to the current CFP agreement.

But that veto would only freeze the current system in place for the 5 seasons remaining in this CFP agreement, after which the P5, if they want, could start a new playoff over which they have all the voting power. Hell, the SEC can start their own playoff and keep all the voting power for themselves 5 years from now if the current agreement has expired and that's what they want. The G5 might prefer (IMO should prefer) getting a new agreement now that lasts for 10 or 12 years.

It might not matter in any event. The new ACC commissioner said today that he wants expansion discussions to proceed slowly. If he really means that, then the whole idea of CFP expansion might get punted until the current format expires. By the time a slow process involving university presidents and athletic bureaucrats gets anywhere, they would be pretty close to just running out the next 5 years under the current agreement.

That's right. The first time any G5 conference exercises its veto power would be the last time. That's all the excuse the P5 would need to start over, excluding the G5 entirely.

IMO, nothing happens until both NIL and some resolution on the pay for play question is resolved. Nobody is going to want to enter into a long-term agreement with that much uncertainty hanging over their heads.

There's a fairly good chance that resolving those two fundamental questions will lead to a broad restructuring of D-I football, with no more than 70-80 schools participating at the top level, and probably even fewer than that.

Until then, expect a lot of talk, very little action.

(05-14-2021 08:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 08:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:55 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 07:11 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The G5 absolutely has a voice. The G5 has 5 votes in the committee that must authorize changes to the CFP structure. Each vote has veto power (decisions must bet unanimous) if the changes are desired before 2026. In addition, the G5 recommends members to the CFP selection committee. The annual ranking and site-selection of teams for the CFP and NY6 Bowls have direct G5 input.

At a minimum, playoff expansion needs to increase accessibility and payouts. If the G5 demand an auto bid, then the likely viable compromise is a 12 team playoff. I don’t believe that P5 conferences want to increase the relative share of CFP payouts guaranteed to the G5 conferences...a 12 team playoffs (with P5 and one G5 autobid guarantee) would keep the relative payouts equal.

That having been said, the G5 can still increase its absolute payouts and accessibility (probability of making the playoffs) without a guaranteed auto bid. The G5 may actually be able to better leverage higher absolute and relative payouts by “allowing” the P5 to have their auto bids in a 6 or 8 team playoffs. This is just a negotiation.

You make the incorrect assumption that slots = $$$.

The money from participation is minimal. Most of the money is guaranteed.

As I recall (may be slightly different now), each of the P5 gets $50 million + their guaranteed bowl + $4 million for the first game and $6 million for the championship.

Yes, the distribution of CFP payouts was negotiated...IIRC the G5 conferences are splitting about 15% of the revenue (comparable to what each P5 is getting). Each slot gets a little extra.

My point being, the CFP expansion will also be negotiated. If the G5 demand an auto bid, they may be sacrificing payouts.

If there is an impasse, then the only leverage in negotiations that G5 conferences have is to veto any changes to the current CFP agreement.

But that veto would only freeze the current system in place for the 5 seasons remaining in this CFP agreement, after which the P5, if they want, could start a new playoff over which they have all the voting power. Hell, the SEC can start their own playoff and keep all the voting power for themselves 5 years from now if the current agreement has expired and that's what they want. The G5 might prefer (IMO should prefer) getting a new agreement now that lasts for 10 or 12 years.

It might not matter in any event. The new ACC commissioner said today that he wants expansion discussions to proceed slowly. If he really means that, then the whole idea of CFP expansion might get punted until the current format expires. By the time a slow process involving university presidents and athletic bureaucrats gets anywhere, they would be pretty close to just running out the next 5 years under the current agreement.

That's right. The first time any G5 conference exercises its veto power would be the last time. That's all the excuse the P5 would need to start over, excluding the G5 entirely.

IMO, nothing happens until both NIL and some resolution on the pay for play question is resolved. Nobody is going to want to enter into a long-term agreement with that much uncertainty hanging over their heads.

There's a fairly good chance that resolving those two fundamental questions will lead to a broad restructuring of D-I football, with no more than 70-80 schools participating at the top level, and probably even fewer than that.

Until then, expect a lot of talk, very little action.

The G5 commissioners are in a tough place because they have conflicting interests and the CFP payout system has bundled these conferences together. The AAC needs to further differentiate itself from the other 4 non-autonomous conferences. The MWC can be competitive with the AAC; in a given year, Boise State, Fresno State and San Diego State can be just as competitive as the best teams from the AAC. The investment required to stay competitive with teams from the autonomous conferences is resulting in larger deficits. I also expect smaller changes to the CFP structure while the regulatory issues are allowed to develop.

(05-14-2021 06:39 AM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 11:54 PM)46566 Wrote:  My thought is a 5-1-2 but have the 5 be the P5 conference champions or Notre Dame. If Notre Dame finishes above a P5 champ they get the conferences auto bid. A G5 auto bid (most likely AAC but open ended to keep all G5 happy) and 2 auto bid. What about the NY6 bowls? Would the G5 still get a bid to a NY6 bowl? I figure quarterfinals will be 2 weeks after Conference championship games and Semi finals at the NY6 bowls and finals a week after. At most a P5 bowl game will close with maybe a G5 bowl.

This is all very complicated and honestly pretty dumb. The easiest way to fix all these problems is to have a 16 team playoff with 10 autobids.

The P5 are never going to be ok with 5 autobids for the G5—it’s just not realistic.