(08-15-2021 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:19 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 07:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The combination of the drop in status of the Remaining 8 to a "tweener" conference and six champions being selected is to come as close as possible to giving the PAC-12 the automatic bid they would prefer (but were knocked back on) without actually giving automatic bids.

So if the PAC-12 has a say on the position of the alliance, it would seem like it would entrench the top six rather than change it.

The PAC-12 certainly will have a say, all conferences will I guess.

IMO, the PAC's desire would be overridden by what is better for the B1G, which IMO is 5+7.

Plus, having 5 autobids defacto emphasizes the demoted status of the L8. Which for money distribution might be important.

Lol..no Quo...this is all about the Big Ten and Pac 12 wanting this to go to the open market. The votes of the 10 Conferences isnt there for a 5/7 and definitely what you truly want is 12 picked in a room.....

No question, I would prefer "straight 12". But I know that some kind of conference-champs provision is a done deal at this point.

I'm not sure that the SEC would object to an expanded CFP going to the open market is. So I'm not sure it is about that either. It makes sense for every conference to want bids to be solicited from all media companies before signing a deal.

I just think that in 6+6, the operative assumption was spots for the P5 conferences plus a G5 spot. I think the exclusion of the L8 from the "triple alliance" means the L8 will not be so included going forward, and so I expect this to be reflected in the playoff.

I would like a "straight 12" as well, as long as they aren't picked by a committee. I wasn't a fan of the BCS formula which included # of losses as one element. But I would like to see a composite of existing polls and computer rankings. But I agree, it's not going to happen.

(08-15-2021 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 01:24 PM)Crayton Wrote:  I think conference caps are going to be hard to bring back. 6+6 gives more wiggle room than 5+7, no matter how many power conferences. I think AQs and réduction to 8 teams are the only ?s remaining.

Think a pasted-on, mid-December play-in round COULD occur before 2027 if keeping the current Bowls-as-Semifinals, but I buy the idea that a split package could be sold starting then.

I agree with this. One reason is that it is hard to justify.

The only tangible claim a power conference can have is for its champ to make the playoffs. Once that is assured, as a 5+7 or 6+6 would ensure, unless your champ is so putrid it would be embarrassing for them to be in, then you have no further claim on the slots and trying to limit someone else's is just petty envy.

In the NCAA hoops tournament, it is sometimes the case that one P-conference may get just 3 teams in while another gets 9 teams in. Nobody whines about that because everyone gets their champ in, so ....

Ya, the only way to limit the % of a playoff any one conference gets is by tilting the makeup of the playoff toward fewer at large bids. A 6+2 is in that type of direction. However, as we’ve noted, limiting the SEC limits the Big Ten. Sankey helped craft the 12-team proposal, what does the Big Ten want?

(08-15-2021 08:32 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 01:24 PM)Crayton Wrote:  I think conference caps are going to be hard to bring back. 6+6 gives more wiggle room than 5+7, no matter how many power conferences. I think AQs and réduction to 8 teams are the only ?s remaining.

Think a pasted-on, mid-December play-in round COULD occur before 2027 if keeping the current Bowls-as-Semifinals, but I buy the idea that a split package could be sold starting then.

I agree with this. One reason is that it is hard to justify.

The only tangible claim a power conference can have is for its champ to make the playoffs. Once that is assured, as a 5+7 or 6+6 would ensure, unless your champ is so putrid it would be embarrassing for them to be in, then you have no further claim on the slots and trying to limit someone else's is just petty envy.

In the NCAA hoops tournament, it is sometimes the case that one P-conference may get just 3 teams in while another gets 9 teams in. Nobody whines about that because everyone gets their champ in, so ....

Ya, the only way to limit the % of a playoff any one conference gets is by tilting the makeup of the playoff toward fewer at large bids. A 6+2 is in that type of direction. However, as we’ve noted, limiting the SEC limits the Big Ten. Sankey helped craft the 12-team proposal, what does the Big Ten want?

Right - there seems to be this automatic reflex from a lot of people that what’s good for the SEC must be bad for everyone else, but that’s not true. As others have pointed out, the Big Ten would have actually received the most at-large bids if this 12-team playoff system was in place during the CFP era as opposed to the SEC. They could push back against conference caps on at-large bids as much as the SEC would.

When all the conference realignment hysteria cools off and emotions calm down, the playoff is simply a separate issue. Even if the SEC gets all 6 at-large bids every year, if a 12-team playoff means making a lot more money for every other conference (and all indications are that this will be very much the case and it’s *instant* money for pandemic-wrecked budgets), the powers that be won’t turn it down. You’ve got to look at it from the perspective of the 85% of FBS teams that won’t even get a sniff of a playoff berth: for them, they’re just getting to collect millions of more playoff dollars without even having to lift a finger. That’s a *great* deal for them.

(08-15-2021 08:32 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Ya, the only way to limit the % of a playoff any one conference gets is by tilting the makeup of the playoff toward fewer at large bids. A 6+2 is in that type of direction. However, as we’ve noted, limiting the SEC limits the Big Ten. Sankey helped craft the 12-team proposal, what does the Big Ten want?

Requiring the first round game to be interconference would limit the % of a playoff to any one conference to under 50% ... 5 out of 12, maximum.

It is explicitly not the approach of the system that the SEC commissioner had a hand in designing, which is strictly on committee rankings for the seeding of the eight spots other than the top four champions hosting QF.

The thing is, if the seedings ended up giving a Big Ten team hosting a Big Ten team in the first round, and assuming that the Big Ten champion is hosting a QF, I'd think the Big Ten would be happy that they have one team guaranteed through in addition to the champion waiting to enter the playoff. Indeed, if that was an entire Big Ten bracket, so they has a guaranteed Big Ten school through to the SF, with nothing but the identity to be worked out, they'd be happy with that as well.

So I don't really think that form of "loose" limit at 5 is going to get any hard push from the Big Ten.

(08-15-2021 01:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 11:49 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:19 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 07:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The combination of the drop in status of the Remaining 8 to a "tweener" conference and six champions being selected is to come as close as possible to giving the PAC-12 the automatic bid they would prefer (but were knocked back on) without actually giving automatic bids.

So if the PAC-12 has a say on the position of the alliance, it would seem like it would entrench the top six rather than change it.

The PAC-12 certainly will have a say, all conferences will I guess.

IMO, the PAC's desire would be overridden by what is better for the B1G, which IMO is 5+7.

Plus, having 5 autobids defacto emphasizes the demoted status of the L8. Which for money distribution might be important.

Lol..no Quo...this is all about the Big Ten and Pac 12 wanting this to go to the open market. The votes of the 10 Conferences isnt there for a 5/7 and definitely what you truly want is 12 picked in a room.....

Quo's agenda is to dream up new ways to belittle the Big 12; which is not a particularly good way to get USF an invitation to join in any future expansion scenario. There is no way the Big 12 or the G5 conferences would agree to this latest fantasy of his; nor (probably) the Pac-12. As you say, the "alliance" if it comes about, is more about a voting bloc for the upcoming NCAA constitutional convention and a desire to take the CFP to an open market rather than let ESPN have it solely.

And if the Sugar Bowl decides to breach its contract with the Big 12, that's more money that will be owed to the Big 12. Which, if the contract bowl component survives into the new CFP era, will probably just sign up with the Cotton Bowl.

Every conference has a "veto" over a change in the CFP structure - until 2025. But once the CFP deal runs out, then its just open to regularly negotiation. And I don't think the L8 and the G5 will have the ability to block anything the Power conferences want.

As for the Cotton Bowl, should the contract bowl component survive beyond 2025, I have grave doubts that they would sign a deal with the L8. There's no brand value there to do that.

They'd be much more likely to sign a deal taking the second, or even third, team from the SEC.

As for USF, I wish what I said on a college football forum had some sway over events that impact us in the councils of power of these conferences. Sadly, I have every reason to believe that my voice means less than nothing to the powers that be, including amongst the L8, so not likely to move the needle re USF joining the L8 in any way.

USF?? Do you mean L-USF?? I don't think L-USF will have much of a say about anything. I have grave doubts about whether L-USF will be a part of any major conference, they won't be going to the Cotton Bowl; they won't be having a veto over the CFP. L-USF will be stuck in what remains of the AAC. But by all means, keep up the trolling...

(08-15-2021 10:53 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 01:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 11:49 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:19 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The PAC-12 certainly will have a say, all conferences will I guess.

IMO, the PAC's desire would be overridden by what is better for the B1G, which IMO is 5+7.

Plus, having 5 autobids defacto emphasizes the demoted status of the L8. Which for money distribution might be important.

Lol..no Quo...this is all about the Big Ten and Pac 12 wanting this to go to the open market. The votes of the 10 Conferences isnt there for a 5/7 and definitely what you truly want is 12 picked in a room.....

Quo's agenda is to dream up new ways to belittle the Big 12; which is not a particularly good way to get USF an invitation to join in any future expansion scenario. There is no way the Big 12 or the G5 conferences would agree to this latest fantasy of his; nor (probably) the Pac-12. As you say, the "alliance" if it comes about, is more about a voting bloc for the upcoming NCAA constitutional convention and a desire to take the CFP to an open market rather than let ESPN have it solely.

And if the Sugar Bowl decides to breach its contract with the Big 12, that's more money that will be owed to the Big 12. Which, if the contract bowl component survives into the new CFP era, will probably just sign up with the Cotton Bowl.

Every conference has a "veto" over a change in the CFP structure - until 2025. But once the CFP deal runs out, then its just open to regularly negotiation. And I don't think the L8 and the G5 will have the ability to block anything the Power conferences want.

As for the Cotton Bowl, should the contract bowl component survive beyond 2025, I have grave doubts that they would sign a deal with the L8. There's no brand value there to do that.

They'd be much more likely to sign a deal taking the second, or even third, team from the SEC.

As for USF, I wish what I said on a college football forum had some sway over events that impact us in the councils of power of these conferences. Sadly, I have every reason to believe that my voice means less than nothing to the powers that be, including amongst the L8, so not likely to move the needle re USF joining the L8 in any way.

USF?? Do you mean L-USF?? I don't think L-USF will have much of a say about anything. I have grave doubts about whether L-USF will be a part of any major conference, they won't be going to the Cotton Bowl; they won't be having a veto over the CFP. L-USF will be stuck in what remains of the AAC. But by all means, keep up the trolling...

I'm pretty realistic about USF. I get a little excited at times, but I think I have a pretty good handle on where we stand in the firmament right now - which is probably around 5th or 6th in desirability in the AAC, a G5 conference.

IOW's, I too have grave doubts about USF being in a P conference and going to the Cotton Bowl, and we will in all likelihood remain stuck in the AAC for the foreseeable future.

And in 2025 we will be happy to welcome the L8 to the "G" club. We've been in it for 9 years now, and counting.

The American has a nice story of being a tweener league, but the Big XII without the galoots is still miles ahead of the American. Stadiums, resources, attendance, fan support, investment. It’s not even close. The American has a few younger schools with giant enrollments and some large markets. Once the Big XII absorbs those precious few then the American falls behind the Mountain West.

That said, no I don’t see 6-6 changing to 5-7. Everybody needs to go through their 5 stages of butthurt and get over the fact the SEC finally got their Bevo.

(08-16-2021 08:51 AM)esayem Wrote:  The American has a nice story of being a tweener league, but the Big XII without the galoots is still miles ahead of the American. Stadiums, resources, attendance, fan support, investment. It’s not even close. The American has a few younger schools with giant enrollments and some large markets. Once the Big XII absorbs those precious few then the American falls behind the Mountain West.

That said, no I don’t see 6-6 changing to 5-7. Everybody needs to go through their 5 stages of butthurt and get over the fact the SEC finally got their Bevo.

To me, you make a point that makes me think 5-7 is even more likely. If the L8 is miles ahead of the AAC right now, and then takes say the best two or four AAC teams, then that reduces the case for six, because at that point, there really isn't a justification for allowing two G conference champs automatically in to the playoffs, if the second G-champ is coming from an obviously weak league that has no serious title contenders.

Because let's face it: The main reason for the notion of having a single playoff spot guaranteed for a conference champ beyond the number of power conferences is the desire to let a G-champ that looks like it might be good enough to contend with the big boys - like say UCF in 2017 and 2018 and Cincy in 2020 - a chance to do so. It's not so the second-best G-champ has a shot.

If the L8/L10/L12 really is monopolizing all the top G teams, and I suspect it will be, then there's no reason for two such spots, IMO.

Moving forward I expect to see more of a gradation.

In the BCS era the BCS conferences were on par, at least in the beginning. The SEC you could argue even back then was ahead because of its programs but the TV money wasn't quite the factor.

In the future the SEC/B1G will be one one level, then the ACC, then PAC the XIII followed by AAC. The SEC and B1G have bluebood FB depth and will want to stack while the others are going to be interested in playoff/bowl protections.

Walking back 6+6 to a 5+7 is not going to happen because that would be at the detriment to the ACC, PAC and XII. Say what you will about overall strength in the XII they will still be good enough to put a champ in the Top 10 most years. If I'm the PAC I'm worried about finishing behind the XII and AAC in the same season.

Plus once you look at votes 1 A5 wanting it and all the G5 going for it is enough to make a proposal happen.

(08-16-2021 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Because let's face it: The main reason for the notion of having a single playoff spot guaranteed for a conference champ beyond the number of power conferences is the desire to let a G-champ that looks like it might be good enough to contend with the big boys - like say UCF in 2017 and 2018 and Cincy in 2020 - a chance to do so. It's not so the second-best G-champ has a shot. ...

That would seem like a distant third reason, behind locking down NCAA support for extending the CFP post season game allowance from two to three, and locking down support for extending the CFP12 contract in 2023 rather than waiting until 2026.

It's pork barreling, with the 12th spot in the CFP traded off by power conferences, each of whom have a less than 50% chance of grabbing that 12th sport, which the Go5 conferences will value much more highly and make them willing ... indeed eager ... to push for the new system.

The Big12 falling from power status already frees up an extra at-large sport more years than not, compared to the 11 P5 schools that have been picked for the CFP+NY6 system. It also dramatically increases the odds of the PAC-12 champion going straight to the quarterfinal. It already makes the CFP12 system as designed more valuable to the P4, giving them even more reason to give the Go5 their sop in order to ensure their political support within the NCAA and in the CFP management committee.

spit-balling:

4+2+2

4 AQs (Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC, ACC)
2 non-AQ Champs (top Independent is eligible for 1 of these)
2 at larges (SEC and Big Ten will likely get 1 apiece; I'd still like 1 to go to a WCG Champ)

Saves squeezing an extra round out of athletes, keeps decent G5 buy-in, the SEC still has a shot at bum-rushing to 3/8 spots.

(08-16-2021 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 08:51 AM)esayem Wrote:  The American has a nice story of being a tweener league, but the Big XII without the galoots is still miles ahead of the American. Stadiums, resources, attendance, fan support, investment. It’s not even close. The American has a few younger schools with giant enrollments and some large markets. Once the Big XII absorbs those precious few then the American falls behind the Mountain West.

That said, no I don’t see 6-6 changing to 5-7. Everybody needs to go through their 5 stages of butthurt and get over the fact the SEC finally got their Bevo.

To me, you make a point that makes me think 5-7 is even more likely. If the L8 is miles ahead of the AAC right now, and then takes say the best two or four AAC teams, then that reduces the case for six, because at that point, there really isn't a justification for allowing two G conference champs automatically in to the playoffs, if the second G-champ is coming from an obviously weak league that has no serious title contenders.

Because let's face it: The main reason for the notion of having a single playoff spot guaranteed for a conference champ beyond the number of power conferences is the desire to let a G-champ that looks like it might be good enough to contend with the big boys - like say UCF in 2017 and 2018 and Cincy in 2020 - a chance to do so. It's not so the second-best G-champ has a shot.

If the L8/L10/L12 really is monopolizing all the top G teams, and I suspect it will be, then there's no reason for two such spots, IMO.

There are 5 G conferences that veto that logic. They would still be behind the autonomous 65 + maybe 2-4 more. They would be no closer.

(08-16-2021 08:18 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Because let's face it: The main reason for the notion of having a single playoff spot guaranteed for a conference champ beyond the number of power conferences is the desire to let a G-champ that looks like it might be good enough to contend with the big boys - like say UCF in 2017 and 2018 and Cincy in 2020 - a chance to do so. It's not so the second-best G-champ has a shot. ...

That would seem like a distant third reason, behind locking down NCAA support for extending the CFP post season game allowance from two to three, and locking down support for extending the CFP12 contract in 2023 rather than waiting until 2026.

It's pork barreling, with the 12th spot in the CFP traded off by power conferences, each of whom have a less than 50% chance of grabbing that 12th sport, which the Go5 conferences will value much more highly and make them willing ... indeed eager ... to push for the new system.

The Big12 falling from power status already frees up an extra at-large sport more years than not, compared to the 11 P5 schools that have been picked for the CFP+NY6 system. It also dramatically increases the odds of the PAC-12 champion going straight to the quarterfinal. It already makes the CFP12 system as designed more valuable to the P4, giving them even more reason to give the Go5 their sop in order to ensure their political support within the NCAA and in the CFP management committee.

If you go back to the beginning of the BCS era, the Big 12 had all 23 champs and 25 wildcards, slightly more than 1 per year. The realignments leave them net -1 for a total of 47 teams based on current membership.. The remainder has 24 of those 47. The G5 combined have only 20.