(10-29-2021 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:02 PM)Huan Wrote:  5 AQ; 3 at large,
max of two from any conference (i find it highly improbable any conference could end up with qualifying teams after the conference championship; and yes i am aware of how the big 12 almost had 3)

Total nonstarter from the networks. They want the best teams.

That's not really true. The networks want the biggest name brand teams. Rest assured that the networks absolutely, 100% do NOT care about access for the G5. When the networks say they want the "best teams", they mean 4 SEC teams, 4 Big Ten teams, the champs from the other 3 P5 conferences, and Notre Dame.

(10-29-2021 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Possible compromises here:

— 12 team playoff with P5 autobids, one best-of-G autobid, six at large teams chosen by committee or by composite of rankings a la BCS

or

— 12 team playoff with P5 autobids, two best-of-G autobids, five at large teams chosen by committee or by composite of rankings a la BCS

I think that we end up with the bolded with the committee. I know a lot of fans can't stand it (including me), but the powers that be love using a freaking committee.

(10-29-2021 02:22 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:02 PM)Huan Wrote:  5 AQ; 3 at large,
max of two from any conference (i find it highly improbable any conference could end up with qualifying teams after the conference championship; and yes i am aware of how the big 12 almost had 3)

Total nonstarter from the networks. They want the best teams.

That's not really true. The networks want the biggest name brand teams. Rest assured that the networks absolutely, 100% do NOT care about access for the G5. When the networks say they want the "best teams", they mean 4 SEC teams, 4 Big Ten teams, the champs from the other 3 P5 conferences, and Notre Dame.

what is the revenue difference between 2 big named schools playing each other as compared to one big name playing against a g5 champ?

At this point in the pi$$ing contest...
it'll need to end up being something in between. Neither one can lose face.

10 teams. 6 top conference champs get in. 4 at-larges.

Team 7 hosts team 10 and team 8 hosts team 9 in mid-December. Play-in round.

Quarterfinals at New Year's. Semis two weeks after. Championship on the week before the Super Bowl.

Less total games for the student-athletes. Access for G5 schools. Virtually a guaranteed spot for P5 champs. At-large spots for the SEC because they think they'll be able to get all 4 of those. 6 more games for the networks to buy from the conferences (2 play-ins, 4 quarterfinals). Everybody kinda wins.

(10-29-2021 02:26 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:22 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:02 PM)Huan Wrote:  5 AQ; 3 at large,
max of two from any conference (i find it highly improbable any conference could end up with qualifying teams after the conference championship; and yes i am aware of how the big 12 almost had 3)

Total nonstarter from the networks. They want the best teams.

That's not really true. The networks want the biggest name brand teams. Rest assured that the networks absolutely, 100% do NOT care about access for the G5. When the networks say they want the "best teams", they mean 4 SEC teams, 4 Big Ten teams, the champs from the other 3 P5 conferences, and Notre Dame.

what is the revenue difference between 2 big named schools playing each other as compared to one big name playing against a g5 champ?

Is this a serious question? Just look at how much the NY6 contract bowls pay for even second tier non-playoff matchups between the power conferences compared to any games involving the G5, much less the TV ratings data. It's not even in the same universe.

Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm personally a firm believer that the top G5 champ should get an auto-bid to a 12-team playoff system regardless of where they might rank overall nationally. IMHO, that makes for a better playoff for the entire college football system. However, we shouldn't pretend that the networks actually want that at all or are looking for a straight 1-to-12 ranking - they'd swap that a low-brand-value team out for a random SEC or Big Ten team in a heartbeat if they had a choice.

(10-29-2021 01:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  SEC and ND have already said 8 is DOA.

If 8 is DOA, then 12 is DOA. I can understand Notre Dame's concern about an 8 team playoff with a 5-1-2 format, but I do not understand the SEC's concern over an 8 team format with a 5-1-2 format. The SEC, as powerful as they may seem to be, gets one vote. They can blow up playoff expansion if they want to or they can work with the other conferences to come up with satisfactory solutions for all of the conferences.

(10-29-2021 02:22 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:02 PM)Huan Wrote:  5 AQ; 3 at large,
max of two from any conference (i find it highly improbable any conference could end up with qualifying teams after the conference championship; and yes i am aware of how the big 12 almost had 3)

Total nonstarter from the networks. They want the best teams.

That's not really true. The networks want the biggest name brand teams. Rest assured that the networks absolutely, 100% do NOT care about access for the G5. When the networks say they want the "best teams", they mean 4 SEC teams, 4 Big Ten teams, the champs from the other 3 P5 conferences, and Notre Dame.

Not sure I completely buy that. The networks are invested in the G5 conferences as well. They earn revenue from broadcasts of G5 games, and the existence of a G5 berth in the playoff would enable them to hype up a lot of games involving top G5 conference teams late in the season. Moreover whatever playoff game involves the G5 team is going to draw a lot of eyeballs nationally in addition to the fans of the two teams playing, just because of the underdog factor. I'm sure though that the networks would never want to see more than one G5 team in a 12-team playoff.

(10-29-2021 02:30 PM)micahandme Wrote:  At this point in the pi$$ing contest...
it'll need to end up being something in between. Neither one can lose face.

10 teams. 6 top conference champs get in. 4 at-larges.

Team 7 hosts team 10 and team 8 hosts team 9 in mid-December. Play-in round.

Quarterfinals at New Year's. Semis two weeks after. Championship on the week before the Super Bowl.

Less total games for the student-athletes. Access for G5 schools. Virtually a guaranteed spot for P5 champs. At-large spots for the SEC because they think they'll be able to get all 4 of those. 6 more games for the networks to buy from the conferences (2 play-ins, 4 quarterfinals). Everybody kinda wins.

I don't think that changes anything, though.

It might be fewer teams, but the system is still adding a first round in December... and if you're going to go through the exercise of adding that first round, then you might as well maximize the value of that round by going up to 12.

The "benefit" of the 8-team playoff is that the P5 would presumably *all* automatically get to the quarterfinal rounds without having to go through the potential landmine of the wild card first round. That's likely why the ACC wants it.

So, once you go up to 10 teams, you're still adding that landmine round and it defeats the purpose of what was attractive (from the non-SEC P5 perspective) of an 8-team playoff.

That's why I've never felt that a 6-team playoff would be a compromise between a 4-team playoff or an 8-team playoff or, in this case, a 10-team playoff would be a compromise between an 8-team playoff or 12-team playoff. The number of *rounds* added is what's really material as opposed to the number of teams.

As a new member of the Big 12... UCF approves this plan. It's clearly the only way to determine a National Champion.

8-team playoff each of the P5 Champions receiving automatic bids.

(10-29-2021 01:16 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 01:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 12:52 PM)Crayton Wrote:  https://theathletic.com/news/acc-big-ten...=rss&=1

Who saw this coming. lol

We’ve often confirmed that the ACC and Pac-12 would favor AQ. This article says the Big Ten is “in lockstep” with this idea.

This isn't going to have the votes if they don't have that 6th AQ

Agreed. One way or another there has to be a path for the top G5 team to participate. Either 5-1-2 or 6-6 will work.

The G4 will not have a chance.
It will be a total P4 affair, with the conference championships acting as quarter finals.
The G schools will develop their own championship where they all can make more money.

I keep seeing the "Top 6 conference champs" language being used. Would that be written as strictly the P5 champs + Top G5 champ, or would it be the actual Top 6 conference champs?

I could see a scenario where 2 G5 conference champs could finish ahead of say, a Big 12 champ. Would the Big 12 have to hope for an at-large bid in that scenario?

(10-29-2021 02:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:26 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:22 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:02 PM)Huan Wrote:  5 AQ; 3 at large,
max of two from any conference (i find it highly improbable any conference could end up with qualifying teams after the conference championship; and yes i am aware of how the big 12 almost had 3)

Total nonstarter from the networks. They want the best teams.

That's not really true. The networks want the biggest name brand teams. Rest assured that the networks absolutely, 100% do NOT care about access for the G5. When the networks say they want the "best teams", they mean 4 SEC teams, 4 Big Ten teams, the champs from the other 3 P5 conferences, and Notre Dame.

what is the revenue difference between 2 big named schools playing each other as compared to one big name playing against a g5 champ?

Is this a serious question? Just look at how much the NY6 contract bowls pay for even second tier non-playoff matchups between the power conferences compared to any games involving the G5, much less the TV ratings data. It's not even in the same universe.

Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm personally a firm believer that the top G5 champ should get an auto-bid to a 12-team playoff system regardless of where they might rank overall nationally. IMHO, that makes for a better playoff for the entire college football system. However, we shouldn't pretend that the networks actually want that at all or are looking for a straight 1-to-12 ranking - they'd swap that a low-brand-value team out for a random SEC or Big Ten team in a heartbeat if they had a choice.

since it is about money, including more than one g5 would be a money loser. having two g5 playing each other would be a money loser. with a guaranteed spot for one g5, the g5 should push for 8 spots rather than 12 (the money distribution would be higher). sure the p5 would make more money but actually less than they would in a 12 team format. if the pie remains the same size.

Glad to see that the ACC came to its senses. A 12-team proposal would be bad for the ACC's future...it increases the chances that certain members seek future realignment (a la Texas and OU). This is one area where the ACC and ND have opposing viewpoints. The ACC needs to maintain some semblance of a balanced P5.

I doubt Notre Dame would be in favor of 8-team format. It needs more at-large bids.

(10-29-2021 02:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Possible compromises here:

— 12 team playoff with P5 autobids, one best-of-G autobid, six at large teams chosen by committee or by composite of rankings a la BCS

or

— 12 team playoff with P5 autobids, two best-of-G autobids, five at large teams chosen by committee or by composite of rankings a la BCS

I think that we end up with the bolded with the committee. I know a lot of fans can't stand it (including me), but the powers that be love using a freaking committee.

Of course they do, because then they can just make up whatever criteria they want to pick the teams that make the most $$$. Don't have to have any formula or anything that could be actually measured or has a set criteria, that makes it harder to just force Norte Dame in the thing.

(10-29-2021 02:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 01:16 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 01:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 12:52 PM)Crayton Wrote:  https://theathletic.com/news/acc-big-ten...=rss&=1

Who saw this coming. lol

We’ve often confirmed that the ACC and Pac-12 would favor AQ. This article says the Big Ten is “in lockstep” with this idea.

This isn't going to have the votes if they don't have that 6th AQ

Agreed. One way or another there has to be a path for the top G5 team to participate. Either 5-1-2 or 6-6 will work.

The G4 will not have a chance.
It will be a total P4 affair, with the conference championships acting as quarter finals.
The G schools will develop their own championship where they all can make more money.

Thanks for the suggestion academic fraudster.

(10-29-2021 02:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  Now that the 6+6 has been proposed, I think it will be almost impossible for the alliance to insist on guaranteed slots instead of the 6 highest.

I don't know if the guaranteed slots for the P5 would be a hang-up. I could definitely see the Big 12 thinking a lot differently about getting a guaranteed slot today than they did when they worked on the initial proposal with the SEC (and then got knifed in the back when they lured UT and OU). If anything, the Big 12 would benefit the most from a guaranteed P5 champ slot since that would ensure that they'll continue to be structurally treated as a power conference.

That being said, I think the horse is out of the barn about 12 teams overall. I honestly don't understand why the Big Ten would be opposed to it. One of my big general annoyances is that what's good for the SEC is almost always good for the Big Ten, yet the media narrative tries to position them against each other.

The SEC didn't lure Texas and Oklahoma anymore than the Big 10, PAC 12, or ACC did. They applied. And anyone with any sense would realize that a few years back when the B12 had a litany of G5's vetted by a Chicago firm that Oklahoma and Texas were planning for a move, just one they hadn't yet decided with regard to destination.

Do you really believe any CFP expansion committee would not include the commissioner of the SEC within it? Bowlsby also serving was merely an inconvenient, but equally understandable, choice. Both he and Sankey had seniority and experience.

It's time you own up to not being the Horns' first choice and hiding behind academics as an excuse on Oklahoma. Nebraska's situation with AAU was well known at the time of their admission. The Big 10 simply wasn't chosen. It seems to me that preserving the Texas business model, which includes geography, and rivals who are close in proximity, won out. There's no shame in that, or glory, for anyone. It's just good business.

This CFP expansion talk is nothing but a smoke screen for all of the changes which are happening, and will continue to happen over the next 2 years while SCOTUS finishes another key ruling and while the Big 10 and PAC 12 work out new contracts. And depending upon court rulings the practicality of even remaining a part of the NCAA remains to be determined.

Right now contentiousness over any CFP arrangement is a foolish waste of time. We don't even know how many P or G conferences we will have when the dust settles.

When you know what you have, then you may reasonably construct a format to meet the needs. Arguing format now is a classic cart before the horse endeavor.

So your "Etu Brute?" remark and all of the handwringing and blaming is just histrionics and base theater.

Time, a settled landscape, and reason will determine this matter.

When there was 128 fbs schools there could've been 8 16 team conferences. The conferences would've had 2 divisions of 8 teams. Those 8 team divisions could've played a round robin and the winner then could've played in a conference championship. Those 8 conference champs could've played in bowl games. Those 4 bowl winners could've played in another round of bowl games. Then those two could've played for a title. Or we could've left things alone.

(10-29-2021 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 02:02 PM)Huan Wrote:  5 AQ; 3 at large,
max of two from any conference (i find it highly improbable any conference could end up with qualifying teams after the conference championship; and yes i am aware of how the big 12 almost had 3)

Total nonstarter from the networks. They want the best teams.

No they don't. They want the best ratings. Subtle but important difference.

IMO, fewer than 4 at-large bids is not realistic. Nor do I think auto-bids for specific conferences (as opposed to the top N conference champions) will fly. I do like an 8 team format, but mainly because I don't want any first-round byes and I prefer 3 rounds instead of 4.

I think a viable solution is 4 champs + 4 at-large. Potentially that increases the field for the SEC and B1G by one each, keeps really weak conference champs out, and doesn't decrease the number of at-large (in fact, it functionally increases at-larges since the top 4 conference champs won't be eating up at-large bids).

8 teams, 3 rounds, 4+4 format -- make it happen!