I’d imagine the B1G and PAC will heavily veto this because of the date of the Rose Bowl and not wanting their athletes and coaches to be extended that late into the season should OSU or Oregon advance to the NCG. I mean recruiting picks up in February, no? I see them heavily pushing back.

(06-18-2021 10:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 09:40 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 09:36 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 09:28 PM)spenser Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 03:56 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Why would it crater the deal? The Pac 12 is one of 11 conferences plus ND. WE ALREADY KNOW that the SEC, Big 12, MWC, ND, and the AAC are for this deal. That's 5 for and one against. We probably know that the Sun Belt, CUSA, and MAC are for it (as it gives them more access than they have now, which is zero). That's now 8 for, 1 against.

Sorry, too many people are for this deal the way it is. Unless the Pac 12's new commish can convince a boatload of people.

To renegotiate a deal all parties must agree, unanimous or nothing until it ends. PAC knows they are not a top 6 Champion unless USC/Oregon get over hyped.

Who says it has to be unanimous. What is your source for that. If 10 out of 11 agree with the top 6, who says the Pac 12 can stop it. Where is that written.

This isnt a majority rules vote. Where is it written that it is?

Again. Give me a source document that the Pac 12 can shoot it down.

The ones saying the Pac 12 can shoot it down made the claim. So, it's on them to provide proof of that. I simply asked for proof.

None has been given.

Well, I don't have access to "source documents", if by that you mean the actual CFP contract documents, but media sources have pretty consistently said things like this:

"The CFP management committee is comprised of 10 FBS commissioners along with Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick. The management committee would need to unanimously approve any format change before the current CFP contract expires after the 2025 season."

https://www.si.com/college/2021/04/23/co...ding-field

So to me, that means every P5 commissioner, and Notre Dame, has a veto-power over this proposal going in to effect before 2026. If you are not convinced by these reports, fine, but I am.

If they want to have the best teams by the P5? Then they should look at expanding to take all the best schools out of the G5, and only give them 1 access. For the past 20 years, Boise State, Hawaii, Fresno State, UNR and Wyoming did had better records more often than any PAC 12 schools. Even better at times than a Big 12 school.

(06-19-2021 06:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, I don't have access to "source documents", if by that you mean the actual CFP contract documents, but media sources have pretty consistently said things like this:

"The CFP management committee is comprised of 10 FBS commissioners along with Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick. The management committee would need to unanimously approve any format change before the current CFP contract expires after the 2025 season."

https://www.si.com/college/2021/04/23/co...ding-field

So to me, that means every P5 commissioner, and Notre Dame, has a veto-power over this proposal going in to effect before 2026. If you are not convinced by these reports, fine, but I am.

The CFP.com press release doesn't go into that detail, but that would not be surprising ... it's one thing to give a management committee majority power to interpret the terms of the existing contract, a quite different thing to give a management committee majority power to change the terms of the contract over your own conference's opposition. So just for each P5 conference looking out for its own interests, that would be a perfectly understandable clause to have in the contract.

If sports reporters have gone and asked the follow up questions in reaction to the press release, including how many yes votes is required, and pass the answer on in their reporting, that would seem to answer the demand for a source for the information.

(06-16-2021 01:04 PM)micahandme Wrote:  Do you really believe that they'd potentially have Team X play in a CCG on a Friday or Saturday in one neutral city...travel back home...and then travel again the following Thursday or Friday to another city (if the away team)?

Seems like too tight of a window to me. Seems like two weeks (or at least 9-10 days) are needed between CCG weekend and the 1st round.

I's more likely the CCG is moved up to the Saturday after Thanksgiving - and it may even be a foregone conclusion based on some of the posts earlier in this thread. This then gives 12-14 days before the first round game. The NFL starts sucking up all of the Saturday time slots now beginning with Week 15, as the 2021 season will be the first to feature Saturday flexible scheduling. This would put the first round of the CFP on NFL Week 14, where there are no Saturday games. The CFP quarterfinals straddle the New Year's holiday. The only question is how to space out the semifinals and championship.

As a bonus there could be some bowl games on the first Saturday of December (especially if they involve teams that don't make a CCG).

For the 2023 season:
August 26-November 18, 2023: Regular season (13 weeks)
November 25, 2023: Conference Championship Games
December 8-9, 2023: CFP First Round (1 game on Friday, 3 on Saturday)
January 1-2, 2024: CFP Quarterfinals (3 on Monday, 1 on Tuesday)
January 11-12, 2024: CFP Semifinals (Thursday-Friday)
January 22, 2024: CFP Championship game

For the 2024 season:
August 24-November 22, 2023: Regular season (13 weeks)
November 30, 2024: Conference Championship Games
December 13-14, 2024: CFP First Round (1 game on Friday, 3 on Saturday)
December 31, 2024-January 1, 2025: CFP Quarterfinals (Tuesday-Wednesday)
January 16-17, 2025: CFP Semifinals (Thursday-Friday)
January 27, 2025: CFP Championship Game (Monday)

For the 2025 season:
August 23-November 22, 2025: Regular season (13 weeks)
November 29, 2025: Conference Championship Games
December 12-13, 2025: CFP First Round (1 game on Friday, 3 on Saturday)
January 1-2, 2026: CFP Quarterfinals (Thursday-Friday)
January 15-16, 2025: CFP Semifinals (Thursday-Friday)
January 26, 2025: CFP Championship Game (Monday)

On years where there are 9 Saturdays in September and October, the season could start on the last Saturday in August instead of the second-to-last-Saturday in August - that is the case for both 2026 and 2027. Ironically, it also happens this year and next (2021 and 2022), but we know those are off the table for CFP expansion.

(06-19-2021 02:47 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I's more likely the CCG is moved up to the Saturday after Thanksgiving - and it may even be a foregone conclusion based on some of the posts earlier in this thread.

There has yet to be a single sourced report saying this. It’s nowhere close to a foregone conclusion - certainly not based off speculatory message board posts.

(06-18-2021 01:28 PM)usffan Wrote:  

Larry Scott, everybody!

USFFan

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-direction

Quote:American Athletic Conference boss Mike Aresco calls guaranteeing each Power 5 champion a CFP berth 'step in the wrong direction'

In response to a statement released Friday by outgoing Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco told ESPN on Saturday that guaranteeing each Power 5 conference champion a spot in a potential 12-team playoff format would be "an enormous step in the wrong direction."

Aresco said the Pac-12 was the only conference to raise the issue this week at the two-day College Football Playoff meetings in Chicago, where all 10 FBS commissioners met to formally review a proposal for a 12-team format. After the meetings on Friday, Scott released a statement saying the Pac-12 "supports expansion of the CFP and believes that the Autonomy Five champions should annually qualify for the CFP."

"I didn't sense any other traction for it," Aresco said. "That would be an enormous step in the wrong direction from the working group's proposal as far as I'm concerned. The top six conferences, without favor, is merit-based. It's fair. It doesn't reward privilege for privilege's sake."

Quote:Aresco said there aren't any automatic qualifiers in the current four-team playoff system, which rewards the selection committee's four highest-ranked teams with spots in the semifinals.

"The most desirable outcome obviously in our view is for this to be a meritocracy, where you have to earn it," Aresco said of the 12-team proposal. "That was what was the smartest thing about the top six. I applaud the working group for doing that. To my mind and our conference, it was the most welcome part of it."

USFFan

(06-18-2021 10:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 09:40 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 09:36 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 09:28 PM)spenser Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 03:56 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Why would it crater the deal? The Pac 12 is one of 11 conferences plus ND. WE ALREADY KNOW that the SEC, Big 12, MWC, ND, and the AAC are for this deal. That's 5 for and one against. We probably know that the Sun Belt, CUSA, and MAC are for it (as it gives them more access than they have now, which is zero). That's now 8 for, 1 against.

Sorry, too many people are for this deal the way it is. Unless the Pac 12's new commish can convince a boatload of people.

To renegotiate a deal all parties must agree, unanimous or nothing until it ends. PAC knows they are not a top 6 Champion unless USC/Oregon get over hyped.

Who says it has to be unanimous. What is your source for that. If 10 out of 11 agree with the top 6, who says the Pac 12 can stop it. Where is that written.

This isnt a majority rules vote. Where is it written that it is?

Again. Give me a source document that the Pac 12 can shoot it down.

The ones saying the Pac 12 can shoot it down made the claim. So, it's on them to provide proof of that. I simply asked for proof.

None has been given.

The PAC cannot be forced to participate. It would be suicide for them to be the only conference to opt out especially considering their current standing.

If the PAC truly hates the idea, from a practical perspective they must get the Big 10 on their side so that both conferences can tell the CFP that they are not in favor of the change and will just go back to their champions playing in the Rose Bowl if they are not accommodated.

To me that is the only way the PAC can "veto" and it is a incrediblely long shot to occur. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Columbus if they were forced out of the CFP in a losing vote. It would be the COVID cancelations ×1000

(06-19-2021 04:11 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 10:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 09:40 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 09:36 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 09:28 PM)spenser Wrote:  To renegotiate a deal all parties must agree, unanimous or nothing until it ends. PAC knows they are not a top 6 Champion unless USC/Oregon get over hyped.

Who says it has to be unanimous. What is your source for that. If 10 out of 11 agree with the top 6, who says the Pac 12 can stop it. Where is that written.

This isnt a majority rules vote. Where is it written that it is?

Again. Give me a source document that the Pac 12 can shoot it down.

The ones saying the Pac 12 can shoot it down made the claim. So, it's on them to provide proof of that. I simply asked for proof.

None has been given.

The PAC cannot be forced to participate. It would be suicide for them to be the only conference to opt out especially considering their current standing.

If the PAC truly hates the idea, from a practical perspective they must get the Big 10 on their side so that both conferences can tell the CFP that they are not in favor of the change and will just go back to their champions playing in the Rose Bowl if they are not accommodated.

To me that is the only way the PAC can "veto" and it is a incrediblely long shot to occur. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Columbus if they were forced out of the CFP in a losing vote. It would be the COVID cancelations ×1000

They dont have to opt out. There is an enforceable media contract signed by ESPN and every single conference. That deal is binding and enforceable until it expires. It can be amended and/or extended---but unless every single signee agrees to the new terms (thats all the conferences and ESPN)----the old agreement continues to stand and remains enforceable. I dont see any way around the media contract issue--thus, you have to have everyone on board.

The Pac-12 is not going to opt out. Where do you guys dream this up?

There is strong movement to do away with divisions among the Pac-12 ADs. As is they play 9 of 11 schools anyway. Half the CCGs are repeat games as is for the Pac-12, and every CCG is a repeat for the Big 12. Heck most NFL playoff games are repeats. But that doesn't turn off any fans. (Well those with OCD maybe)

What is likely to happen is the Pac-12 and B1G will set it up so that they have the inside track to be in the Rose Bowl semi-final. The SEC (and maybe B12) may do similar with the Sugar Bowl. Those will be fixed on New Years. The Citrus (ESPN home), Fiesta, Cotton (Jerry Jones) and Peach will rotate between New Years and the Semi-Final game. CCG will be up for bid.

(06-19-2021 04:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The Pac-12 is not going to opt out. Where do you guys dream this up?

There is strong movement to do away with divisions among the Pac-12 ADs. As is they play 9 of 11 schools anyway. Half the CCGs are repeat games as is for the Pac-12, and every CCG is a repeat for the Big 12. Heck most NFL playoff games are repeats. But that doesn't turn off any fans. (Well those with OCD maybe)

What is likely to happen is the Pac-12 and B1G will set it up so that they have the inside track to be in the Rose Bowl semi-final. The SEC (and maybe B12) may do similar with the Sugar Bowl. Those will be fixed on New Years. The Citrus (ESPN home), Fiesta, Cotton (Jerry Jones) and Peach will rotate between New Years and the Semi-Final game. CCG will be up for bid.

The suggestion came from the idea that the PAC would try and play hardball to force P5 auto bids.

The PAC and the Big 10 weren't apart of the working group. Will they sign off on something that doesn't 100% guarantee them special status.

The PAC would have been left out of the playoff if it had been in place this past year. While this past year was special do they want to risk something like that again? Hence their new push for auto bids for P5

The Big 10 has been conspicuously quiet in this new development.

If they want auto bids for P5 as opposed to a merit based 6 best Champions, I could see them threatening to go back to a PAC-Big 10 Rose Bowl once the current agreement expires to try and get what they want

(06-19-2021 04:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  What is likely to happen is the Pac-12 and B1G will set it up so that they have the inside track to be in the Rose Bowl semi-final. The SEC (and maybe B12) may do similar with the Sugar Bowl. Those will be fixed on New Years. The Citrus (ESPN home), Fiesta, Cotton (Jerry Jones) and Peach will rotate between New Years and the Semi-Final game. CCG will be up for bid.

Maybe this was just an oversight but the Citrus isn’t leapfrogging the Orange into the playoff.

(06-19-2021 05:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The Pac-12 is not going to opt out. Where do you guys dream this up?

There is strong movement to do away with divisions among the Pac-12 ADs. As is they play 9 of 11 schools anyway. Half the CCGs are repeat games as is for the Pac-12, and every CCG is a repeat for the Big 12. Heck most NFL playoff games are repeats. But that doesn't turn off any fans. (Well those with OCD maybe)

What is likely to happen is the Pac-12 and B1G will set it up so that they have the inside track to be in the Rose Bowl semi-final. The SEC (and maybe B12) may do similar with the Sugar Bowl. Those will be fixed on New Years. The Citrus (ESPN home), Fiesta, Cotton (Jerry Jones) and Peach will rotate between New Years and the Semi-Final game. CCG will be up for bid.

The suggestion came from the idea that the PAC would try and play hardball to force P5 auto bids.

The PAC and the Big 10 weren't apart of the working group. Will they sign off on something that doesn't 100% guarantee them special status.

The PAC would have been left out of the playoff if it had been in place this past year. While this past year was special do they want to risk something like that again? Hence their new push for auto bids for P5

The Big 10 has been conspicuously quiet in this new development.

If they want auto bids for P5 as opposed to a merit based 6 best Champions, I could see them threatening to go back to a PAC-Big 10 Rose Bowl once the current agreement expires to try and get what they want

The Pac 12 this year would not have offered one of the top six league champs and, as such, would not have garnered an automatic bid. True. But league champion Oregon could still have been extended an at-large invite. So we can't assume Oregon (or any P5 champion in the future that is not one of the top six ranked DI-A champs) would have not participated in the playoff had been in place this past year.

Aresco only thinks P5 bids are the “wrong direction” because the AAC isnt part of the club. If they became P6 and got an automatic bid hed change his tune real quick.

Hypocrites.

(06-19-2021 05:44 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 05:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The Pac-12 is not going to opt out. Where do you guys dream this up?

There is strong movement to do away with divisions among the Pac-12 ADs. As is they play 9 of 11 schools anyway. Half the CCGs are repeat games as is for the Pac-12, and every CCG is a repeat for the Big 12. Heck most NFL playoff games are repeats. But that doesn't turn off any fans. (Well those with OCD maybe)

What is likely to happen is the Pac-12 and B1G will set it up so that they have the inside track to be in the Rose Bowl semi-final. The SEC (and maybe B12) may do similar with the Sugar Bowl. Those will be fixed on New Years. The Citrus (ESPN home), Fiesta, Cotton (Jerry Jones) and Peach will rotate between New Years and the Semi-Final game. CCG will be up for bid.

The suggestion came from the idea that the PAC would try and play hardball to force P5 auto bids.

The PAC and the Big 10 weren't apart of the working group. Will they sign off on something that doesn't 100% guarantee them special status.

The PAC would have been left out of the playoff if it had been in place this past year. While this past year was special do they want to risk something like that again? Hence their new push for auto bids for P5

The Big 10 has been conspicuously quiet in this new development.

If they want auto bids for P5 as opposed to a merit based 6 best Champions, I could see them threatening to go back to a PAC-Big 10 Rose Bowl once the current agreement expires to try and get what they want

The Pac 12 this year would not have offered one of the top six league champs and, as such, would not have garnered an automatic bid. True. But league champion Oregon could still have been extended an at-large invite. So we can't assume Oregon (or any P5 champion in the future that is not one of the top six ranked DI-A champs) would have not participated in the playoff had been in place this past year.

Can we please dispense with the whole "ZOMG, the Pac-12 champ would have been ranked behind two champs" thing?

1 - the weird COVID season resulted in a Pac-12 that only played 4-5 games before the conference championship game.

2 - Oregon shouldn't have even BEEN IN the championship game, but Washington wasn't able to play because of COVID.

3 - If a full season had been played and an undefeated USC had played a 1-loss Washington, they undoubtedly would have been ranked considerably ahead of both undefeated Cincinnati AND undefeated Coastal Carolina.

In a normal season, you'd have to go back to 2012 when Wisconsin won the B1G to find a case in a normal season where a P5 champ wasn't among the top 5, and if they'd done away with divisions the B1G championship game Michigan would have gone instead of Wisconsin and that wouldn't have been the case.

It's kind of laughable that the Pac-12 is doing this. Part of the reason for expanding the playoff is to bring the Pac-12 back into the CFP conversation. I suspect that the reason for the top 6 instead of the autobids is to ensure there's no antitrust complications. Furthermore, I don't see the B1G walking away from an expanded CFP, so the Pac-12 would be in danger of trying to go this alone.

Then again, it's the outgoing commissioner. This is a trial balloon, and if it doesn't work the Pac-12 can dismiss Scott's statement easily.

USFFan

(06-19-2021 06:06 PM)usffan Wrote:  Then again, it's the outgoing commissioner. This is a trial balloon, and if it doesn't work the Pac-12 can dismiss Scott's statement easily.

USFFan

Excellent point and I hope that is the case.

I'm just of the mindset that if both the Big 10 and PAC 12 don't like the proposal as is, modifications will have to be made.

You're not going to force the Big 10 into something they don't like and it sounds like they're West coast buddy is already willing to shoot it down if they don't get what they want.

The Big 10 wrecked divisionless play last time for the ACC

I'll feel a lot more confident of the proposals chances once the Big 10 signs off.

(06-19-2021 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:11 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 10:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 09:40 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 09:36 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Who says it has to be unanimous. What is your source for that. If 10 out of 11 agree with the top 6, who says the Pac 12 can stop it. Where is that written.

This isnt a majority rules vote. Where is it written that it is?

Again. Give me a source document that the Pac 12 can shoot it down.

The ones saying the Pac 12 can shoot it down made the claim. So, it's on them to provide proof of that. I simply asked for proof.

None has been given.

The PAC cannot be forced to participate. It would be suicide for them to be the only conference to opt out especially considering their current standing.

If the PAC truly hates the idea, from a practical perspective they must get the Big 10 on their side so that both conferences can tell the CFP that they are not in favor of the change and will just go back to their champions playing in the Rose Bowl if they are not accommodated.

To me that is the only way the PAC can "veto" and it is a incrediblely long shot to occur. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Columbus if they were forced out of the CFP in a losing vote. It would be the COVID cancelations ×1000

They dont have to opt out. There is an enforceable media contract signed by ESPN and every single conference. That deal is binding and enforceable until it expires. It can be amended and/or extended---but unless every single signee agrees to the new terms (thats all the conferences and ESPN)----the old agreement continues to stand and remains enforceable. I dont see any way around the media contract issue--thus, you have to have everyone on board.

I'm talking about upon expiration of the current CFP if the rest of the conferences try and jam changes down the throats of the Big 10 and Pac 12

(06-19-2021 06:45 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:11 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 10:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 09:40 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  This isnt a majority rules vote. Where is it written that it is?

Again. Give me a source document that the Pac 12 can shoot it down.

The ones saying the Pac 12 can shoot it down made the claim. So, it's on them to provide proof of that. I simply asked for proof.

None has been given.

The PAC cannot be forced to participate. It would be suicide for them to be the only conference to opt out especially considering their current standing.

If the PAC truly hates the idea, from a practical perspective they must get the Big 10 on their side so that both conferences can tell the CFP that they are not in favor of the change and will just go back to their champions playing in the Rose Bowl if they are not accommodated.

To me that is the only way the PAC can "veto" and it is a incrediblely long shot to occur. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Columbus if they were forced out of the CFP in a losing vote. It would be the COVID cancelations ×1000

They dont have to opt out. There is an enforceable media contract signed by ESPN and every single conference. That deal is binding and enforceable until it expires. It can be amended and/or extended---but unless every single signee agrees to the new terms (thats all the conferences and ESPN)----the old agreement continues to stand and remains enforceable. I dont see any way around the media contract issue--thus, you have to have everyone on board.

I'm talking about upon expiration of the current CFP if the rest of the conferences try and jam changes down the throats of the Big 10 and Pac 12

If the other conferences tried to jam anything down the B1G and PAC throats, we'd be back to 1992 - 1997, the Bowl Alliance years, when the B1G and PAC didn't participate and played their Rose Bowl.

That would make the whole notion of a playoffs untenable, so nothing will be shoved down their throats.

(06-19-2021 06:06 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 05:44 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 05:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The Pac-12 is not going to opt out. Where do you guys dream this up?

There is strong movement to do away with divisions among the Pac-12 ADs. As is they play 9 of 11 schools anyway. Half the CCGs are repeat games as is for the Pac-12, and every CCG is a repeat for the Big 12. Heck most NFL playoff games are repeats. But that doesn't turn off any fans. (Well those with OCD maybe)

What is likely to happen is the Pac-12 and B1G will set it up so that they have the inside track to be in the Rose Bowl semi-final. The SEC (and maybe B12) may do similar with the Sugar Bowl. Those will be fixed on New Years. The Citrus (ESPN home), Fiesta, Cotton (Jerry Jones) and Peach will rotate between New Years and the Semi-Final game. CCG will be up for bid.

The suggestion came from the idea that the PAC would try and play hardball to force P5 auto bids.

The PAC and the Big 10 weren't apart of the working group. Will they sign off on something that doesn't 100% guarantee them special status.

The PAC would have been left out of the playoff if it had been in place this past year. While this past year was special do they want to risk something like that again? Hence their new push for auto bids for P5

The Big 10 has been conspicuously quiet in this new development.

If they want auto bids for P5 as opposed to a merit based 6 best Champions, I could see them threatening to go back to a PAC-Big 10 Rose Bowl once the current agreement expires to try and get what they want

The Pac 12 this year would not have offered one of the top six league champs and, as such, would not have garnered an automatic bid. True. But league champion Oregon could still have been extended an at-large invite. So we can't assume Oregon (or any P5 champion in the future that is not one of the top six ranked DI-A champs) would have not participated in the playoff had been in place this past year.

Can we please dispense with the whole "ZOMG, the Pac-12 champ would have been ranked behind two champs" thing?

1 - the weird COVID season resulted in a Pac-12 that only played 4-5 games before the conference championship game.

2 - Oregon shouldn't have even BEEN IN the championship game, but Washington wasn't able to play because of COVID.

3 - If a full season had been played and an undefeated USC had played a 1-loss Washington, they undoubtedly would have been ranked considerably ahead of both undefeated Cincinnati AND undefeated Coastal Carolina.

In a normal season, you'd have to go back to 2012 when Wisconsin won the B1G to find a case in a normal season where a P5 champ wasn't among the top 5, and if they'd done away with divisions the B1G championship game Michigan would have gone instead of Wisconsin and that wouldn't have been the case.

I agree that had we played a full season in 2020, it would be very, very unlikely that the PAC champ would not have been in the top six champs.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the PAC did just issue a statement opposing the proposal and calling for P5 autobids. So even if you and I think they have nothing to actually worry about, they do seem worried anyway.

(06-19-2021 07:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 06:45 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:11 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 10:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Again. Give me a source document that the Pac 12 can shoot it down.

The ones saying the Pac 12 can shoot it down made the claim. So, it's on them to provide proof of that. I simply asked for proof.

None has been given.

The PAC cannot be forced to participate. It would be suicide for them to be the only conference to opt out especially considering their current standing.

If the PAC truly hates the idea, from a practical perspective they must get the Big 10 on their side so that both conferences can tell the CFP that they are not in favor of the change and will just go back to their champions playing in the Rose Bowl if they are not accommodated.

To me that is the only way the PAC can "veto" and it is a incrediblely long shot to occur. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Columbus if they were forced out of the CFP in a losing vote. It would be the COVID cancelations ×1000

They dont have to opt out. There is an enforceable media contract signed by ESPN and every single conference. That deal is binding and enforceable until it expires. It can be amended and/or extended---but unless every single signee agrees to the new terms (thats all the conferences and ESPN)----the old agreement continues to stand and remains enforceable. I dont see any way around the media contract issue--thus, you have to have everyone on board.

I'm talking about upon expiration of the current CFP if the rest of the conferences try and jam changes down the throats of the Big 10 and Pac 12

If the other conferences tried to jam anything down the B1G and PAC throats, we'd be back to 1992 - 1997, the Bowl Alliance years, when the B1G and PAC didn't participate and played their Rose Bowl.

That would make the whole notion of a playoffs untenable, so nothing will be shoved down their throats.

Exactly

So if Pac 12 and Big 10 presidents aren't going to sign off on a system where they don't get codified special treatment, the proposal on the table won't happen.

I will say the architects of this plan have done a masterful job at its roll-out.

If it doesn't pass, everyone will know who to blame