(01-11-2022 08:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 08:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 05:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 01:33 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference of these options:
1. Straight 8
2. 6 + 2
3. 5 + 1 + 2
4. Straight 12
5. 6 + 6
6. 5 + 1 + 6

I’d rather ease into it by having 8. I also prefer as many “best” teams as possible versus conference champions. I’m not a fan of 12 because of the bye round. I’m also not sure about adding too many more games. If a school plays at Hawaii and takes advantage of the Hawaii Rule and plays in their CCG and makes the 12-team playoff but not as a top 4 seed and plays in the NCG, they could have an 18-game season. That’s a lot for college.

Then it's right back to relying on "polls". We're going to ask the AP and UPI who can be in the playoffs? No thanks!

The basketball championships started with conference champions only. A lot of deserving teams got left out, but it made Conference Championships as valuable as the National title.
The football championships should grow the same way......conference champions only.

The problem with every conference champs-only proposal is that Notre Dame exists as an independent. The cold hard fact is that ND is more valuable to the system than all of the G5 and probably the next iteration of the Big 12, too. I think this forum perpetually overrates how much leverage that the G5 has and underrate how much leverage ND has with respect to CFP expansion.

The P5 aren’t bothered by ND because they’re a “maker” that makes money for the system. It’s when the “takers” that don’t make money for the system ask for anything that bothers them.

If the Irish choose not to participate.....that's their problem.
A 8 or 12 team championship even without Notre Dame would generate more money than the current system.
It's time for the dog to wag it's tail, not the other way around.

It's a big problem, because it means less money for the SEC, B1G, and also the other P5 conferences. So that proposal is a non-starter.

Never mind the SEC laughing any proposal that limits their bids out of the room.

(01-11-2022 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 12:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Pac says they favor all 6 models. Everyone else opposes at least one.

IMO, the PAC told us nothing new, though it was nice to see it confirmed.

Maybe I missed something, but I was suprised (to the extent that I don't know if I 100% believe the public statement) that the PAC wasn't going to the mat for automatic bids. They're the P5 that's gotten left out of the semifinals most frequently, and the one that I think would have been left out of a straight 12 or 6+6 once or twice.

But I guess 12 (or 8) is much more imporant to the PAC than the autobid. Which makes some sense, the PAC being on the wrong side of "top 6 conference champs" is a once-in-a-generation problem, while the PAC being left out of the top 4 is a pretty frequent problem. PAC might prefer 5+1+6, but anything is better than "4".

5-1-2

conference titles mean something

Still at large opportunities

Puts very little in the hands of the committee

I’d be willing to do 5-1-4, but only if the at-larges were all in the play-in games

(01-11-2022 08:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 12:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Pac says they favor all 6 models. Everyone else opposes at least one.

IMO, the PAC told us nothing new, though it was nice to see it confirmed.

Maybe I missed something, but I was suprised (to the extent that I don't know if I 100% believe the public statement) that the PAC wasn't going to the mat for automatic bids. They're the P5 that's gotten left out of the semifinals most frequently, and the one that I think would have been left out of a straight 12 or 6+6 once or twice.

But I guess 12 (or 8) is much more imporant to the PAC than the autobid. Which makes some sense, the PAC being on the wrong side of "top 6 conference champs" is a once-in-a-generation problem, while the PAC being left out of the top 4 is a pretty frequent problem. PAC might prefer 5+1+6, but anything is better than "4".

My interpretation of what the PAC leader said, and maybe I am wrong, is that the PAC would vote for any of the six proposals.

Meaning, they prefer any of them to the current CFP. Not that they don't have preferences among the six. I'm pretty sure they prefer P5 autobids, they have said so before.

I think he was just saying that the PAC would not stand in the way, would vote for, any of those six proposals if they turn out to get the support of the other conferences.

It was IMO a PR move, and to me a pretty clever one, as it repositions the PAC as non-obstructionist, whereas before, the PAC was being seen by some as having a "let them eat cake" attitude toward the G5.

(01-11-2022 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 08:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 12:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Pac says they favor all 6 models. Everyone else opposes at least one.

IMO, the PAC told us nothing new, though it was nice to see it confirmed.

Maybe I missed something, but I was suprised (to the extent that I don't know if I 100% believe the public statement) that the PAC wasn't going to the mat for automatic bids. They're the P5 that's gotten left out of the semifinals most frequently, and the one that I think would have been left out of a straight 12 or 6+6 once or twice.

But I guess 12 (or 8) is much more imporant to the PAC than the autobid. Which makes some sense, the PAC being on the wrong side of "top 6 conference champs" is a once-in-a-generation problem, while the PAC being left out of the top 4 is a pretty frequent problem. PAC might prefer 5+1+6, but anything is better than "4".

My interpretation of what the PAC leader said, and maybe I am wrong, is that the PAC would vote for any of the six proposals.

Meaning, they prefer any of them to the current CFP. Not that they don't have preferences among the six. I'm pretty sure they prefer P5 autobids, they have said so before.

I think he was just saying that the PAC would not stand in the way, would vote for, any of those six proposals if they turn out to get the support of the other conferences.

It was IMO a PR move, and to me a pretty clever one, as it repositions the PAC as non-obstructionist, whereas before, the PAC was being seen by some as having a "let them eat cake" attitude toward the G5.

Oh I agree with all of that. But the PAC commissioner has laid down a marker that it's not the PAC that blew up early playoff expansion. Because SOMEBODY clearly did.

Some article said 8 of the 11 agreed, and quoted B1G and ACC as publicly dissenting. The math says that the other dissenter is...Aresco.

The SEC could easily propose a "compromise", 5+5, with or without autobids. I suspect that the marginal revenue from 4 first-round games vs 2 is less substantial than a lot of people think. RutgersSU guy pushes the point too far, but he does have a point that there are a limited number of Saturday TV windows.

Personal opinion here but Mike Aresco is delusional. He talks like he’s for a conference full of 1980’s Miami’s when in reality he’s the commissioner of the 2005-2012 C-USA. He vastly over estimates the quality of his league.

(01-11-2022 10:19 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 08:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 12:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Pac says they favor all 6 models. Everyone else opposes at least one.

IMO, the PAC told us nothing new, though it was nice to see it confirmed.

Maybe I missed something, but I was suprised (to the extent that I don't know if I 100% believe the public statement) that the PAC wasn't going to the mat for automatic bids. They're the P5 that's gotten left out of the semifinals most frequently, and the one that I think would have been left out of a straight 12 or 6+6 once or twice.

But I guess 12 (or 8) is much more imporant to the PAC than the autobid. Which makes some sense, the PAC being on the wrong side of "top 6 conference champs" is a once-in-a-generation problem, while the PAC being left out of the top 4 is a pretty frequent problem. PAC might prefer 5+1+6, but anything is better than "4".

My interpretation of what the PAC leader said, and maybe I am wrong, is that the PAC would vote for any of the six proposals.

Meaning, they prefer any of them to the current CFP. Not that they don't have preferences among the six. I'm pretty sure they prefer P5 autobids, they have said so before.

I think he was just saying that the PAC would not stand in the way, would vote for, any of those six proposals if they turn out to get the support of the other conferences.

It was IMO a PR move, and to me a pretty clever one, as it repositions the PAC as non-obstructionist, whereas before, the PAC was being seen by some as having a "let them eat cake" attitude toward the G5.

Oh I agree with all of that. But the PAC commissioner has laid down a marker that it's not the PAC that blew up early playoff expansion. Because SOMEBODY clearly did.

Some article said 8 of the 11 agreed, and quoted B1G and ACC as publicly dissenting. The math says that the other dissenter is...Aresco.

The SEC could easily propose a "compromise", 5+5, with or without autobids. I suspect that the marginal revenue from 4 first-round games vs 2 is less substantial than a lot of people think. RutgersSU guy pushes the point too far, but he does have a point that there are a limited number of Saturday TV windows.

The thing is that the vote was regarding the 6+6 proposal, which AAC and Aresco are clearly in favor of here. The SEC, Big 12 and ND are all in favor of that proposal and, presumably, all of the G5. If the Pac-12 is telling the truth in its statement that it was supportive, as well, that truly just leaves the Big Ten and ACC. I believe that the article that you're referring to is from SI where they said "at least two and maybe three commissioners" opposed 6+6. It also refers to 9 university president committee members supporting 6+6, which also just leaves 2 dissenters.

If it's really that stark of a difference where it's a 9-2 vote, I think the Big Ten can eventually be moved on this because (a) they don't have an issue with the 12-team size itself and (b) the quid pro quo that can be offered to the Big Ten is some type of satisfactory outcome regarding the Rose Bowl (whatever that might mean to the Big Ten). A horse trade with the Big Ten of moving off of P5 auto-bids in exchange for an acceptable Rose Bowl situation is something that at least seems practical and tangible on paper.

I'm not sure where the heck the ACC is coming from, though, which means that it's difficult for me to see what can be offered to them to move off of their position.

(01-11-2022 08:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 01:26 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  What about 7+5, or 6+1+5?

Would SEC veto that one for not enough at larges?

Yes, the SEC would veto that proposal. Frankly, the rest of the P5 and ND would veto it, too. The P5 auto-bids discussion certainly isn’t about providing access to more G5 teams. In fact, it’s quite the opposite - the point is that they *never* want to see more than one G5 champ in this system.

Right it’s pretty much restraint of trade. The 6 + 6 model is the correct one. It was already agreed upon once then leagues got cold feet.

https://sports.yahoo.com/cfp-expansion-t...25811.html

Anyone else think the PAC-12 doth protest too much??

(01-11-2022 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 10:19 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 08:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the PAC told us nothing new, though it was nice to see it confirmed.

Maybe I missed something, but I was suprised (to the extent that I don't know if I 100% believe the public statement) that the PAC wasn't going to the mat for automatic bids. They're the P5 that's gotten left out of the semifinals most frequently, and the one that I think would have been left out of a straight 12 or 6+6 once or twice.

But I guess 12 (or 8) is much more imporant to the PAC than the autobid. Which makes some sense, the PAC being on the wrong side of "top 6 conference champs" is a once-in-a-generation problem, while the PAC being left out of the top 4 is a pretty frequent problem. PAC might prefer 5+1+6, but anything is better than "4".

My interpretation of what the PAC leader said, and maybe I am wrong, is that the PAC would vote for any of the six proposals.

Meaning, they prefer any of them to the current CFP. Not that they don't have preferences among the six. I'm pretty sure they prefer P5 autobids, they have said so before.

I think he was just saying that the PAC would not stand in the way, would vote for, any of those six proposals if they turn out to get the support of the other conferences.

It was IMO a PR move, and to me a pretty clever one, as it repositions the PAC as non-obstructionist, whereas before, the PAC was being seen by some as having a "let them eat cake" attitude toward the G5.

Oh I agree with all of that. But the PAC commissioner has laid down a marker that it's not the PAC that blew up early playoff expansion. Because SOMEBODY clearly did.

Some article said 8 of the 11 agreed, and quoted B1G and ACC as publicly dissenting. The math says that the other dissenter is...Aresco.

The SEC could easily propose a "compromise", 5+5, with or without autobids. I suspect that the marginal revenue from 4 first-round games vs 2 is less substantial than a lot of people think. RutgersSU guy pushes the point too far, but he does have a point that there are a limited number of Saturday TV windows.

The thing is that the vote was regarding the 6+6 proposal, which AAC and Aresco are clearly in favor of here. The SEC, Big 12 and ND are all in favor of that proposal and, presumably, all of the G5. If the Pac-12 is telling the truth in its statement that it was supportive, as well, that truly just leaves the Big Ten and ACC. I believe that the article that you're referring to is from SI where they said "at least two and maybe three commissioners" opposed 6+6. It also refers to 9 university president committee members supporting 6+6, which also just leaves 2 dissenters.

If it's really that stark of a difference where it's a 9-2 vote, I think the Big Ten can eventually be moved on this because (a) they don't have an issue with the 12-team size itself and (b) the quid pro quo that can be offered to the Big Ten is some type of satisfactory outcome regarding the Rose Bowl (whatever that might mean to the Big Ten). A horse trade with the Big Ten of moving off of P5 auto-bids in exchange for an acceptable Rose Bowl situation is something that at least seems practical and tangible on paper.

I'm not sure where the heck the ACC is coming from, though, which means that it's difficult for me to see what can be offered to them to move off of their position.

Yeah the G5 is United behind the 6 + 6 model the other dissenting voice is not Aresco. Sankey basically blamed the Alliance and called out the PAC.

https://sports.yahoo.com/cfp-expansion-t...25811.html

The PAC’s memo is just trying to save face.

(01-11-2022 10:49 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 10:19 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 08:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Maybe I missed something, but I was suprised (to the extent that I don't know if I 100% believe the public statement) that the PAC wasn't going to the mat for automatic bids. They're the P5 that's gotten left out of the semifinals most frequently, and the one that I think would have been left out of a straight 12 or 6+6 once or twice.

But I guess 12 (or 8) is much more imporant to the PAC than the autobid. Which makes some sense, the PAC being on the wrong side of "top 6 conference champs" is a once-in-a-generation problem, while the PAC being left out of the top 4 is a pretty frequent problem. PAC might prefer 5+1+6, but anything is better than "4".

My interpretation of what the PAC leader said, and maybe I am wrong, is that the PAC would vote for any of the six proposals.

Meaning, they prefer any of them to the current CFP. Not that they don't have preferences among the six. I'm pretty sure they prefer P5 autobids, they have said so before.

I think he was just saying that the PAC would not stand in the way, would vote for, any of those six proposals if they turn out to get the support of the other conferences.

It was IMO a PR move, and to me a pretty clever one, as it repositions the PAC as non-obstructionist, whereas before, the PAC was being seen by some as having a "let them eat cake" attitude toward the G5.

Oh I agree with all of that. But the PAC commissioner has laid down a marker that it's not the PAC that blew up early playoff expansion. Because SOMEBODY clearly did.

Some article said 8 of the 11 agreed, and quoted B1G and ACC as publicly dissenting. The math says that the other dissenter is...Aresco.

The SEC could easily propose a "compromise", 5+5, with or without autobids. I suspect that the marginal revenue from 4 first-round games vs 2 is less substantial than a lot of people think. RutgersSU guy pushes the point too far, but he does have a point that there are a limited number of Saturday TV windows.

The thing is that the vote was regarding the 6+6 proposal, which AAC and Aresco are clearly in favor of here. The SEC, Big 12 and ND are all in favor of that proposal and, presumably, all of the G5. If the Pac-12 is telling the truth in its statement that it was supportive, as well, that truly just leaves the Big Ten and ACC. I believe that the article that you're referring to is from SI where they said "at least two and maybe three commissioners" opposed 6+6. It also refers to 9 university president committee members supporting 6+6, which also just leaves 2 dissenters.

If it's really that stark of a difference where it's a 9-2 vote, I think the Big Ten can eventually be moved on this because (a) they don't have an issue with the 12-team size itself and (b) the quid pro quo that can be offered to the Big Ten is some type of satisfactory outcome regarding the Rose Bowl (whatever that might mean to the Big Ten). A horse trade with the Big Ten of moving off of P5 auto-bids in exchange for an acceptable Rose Bowl situation is something that at least seems practical and tangible on paper.

I'm not sure where the heck the ACC is coming from, though, which means that it's difficult for me to see what can be offered to them to move off of their position.

Yeah the G5 is United behind the 6 + 6 model the other dissenting voice is not Aresco. Sankey basically blamed the Alliance and called out the PAC.

https://sports.yahoo.com/cfp-expansion-t...25811.html

The PAC’s memo is just trying to save face.

G5 is united behind 6+6--they'd all PREFER 6+6. But is it something they'd blow up playoff expansion over?

Nobody except Aresco was talking like that.

But I have this twisted--I somehow was assuming they were voting on 5+1+6, when Frank says they were voting on 6+6.

Preference ranking:
1) 5-1-2
2) 6-2
3) current 4
4) Straight 8
5) 5-1-6
6) 6-6
7) Straight 12

Until there is some reasonable path to adequately share rewards with athletes, IMO it’s not right to maximize revenue. It would be OK to expand the playoffs in order to increase inclusivity…but that option should have constraints. The current 4 team set-up is actually pretty good at determining a champion.

How does Phillips working for the BIG to retain Rose Bowl sit with the ACC schools?



That said, he’s correct that waiting for the pending changes to occur prudent…although not good for the ACC

A note on the 8-team playoffs with Champ spots. This year, the last at large spot would go to either #5 Notre Dame or #6 Ohio State, as determined by Committee. Better would be for those two teams (the top 2 teams not in a CCG) to have played each other the first weekend of December to determine a spot, as determined on the field. This keeps the stakes in games like UM-OSU fair, "expands" the post-season, and gives ND their desired home game (while forcing them to play 13 like every one else).

Some expansion implications I have drawn from this year's CFP results:

Stock Up

The competitive case for staying at 4 teams. IMO, it is hard to make the competitive case that we need more teams in the playoff, that the current CFP does a poor job of finding the 'real' best team because worthy titlists are excluded. This was once again a year of lopsided semis.

The concept of At-Large (not conference champs) teams in the playoffs. In the CFP era, three conference teams that did not win their conference title have made the playoffs. Those teams are a collective 4-1 and have won two CFP titles. And the one team that lost was really a quasi-conference team, 2020 Notre Dame.

Stock Down

The notion that without G5 in the playoffs, we're missing something competitively. Cincy was easily the most-accomplished G5 team of the CFP era, and yet were manhandled in the semis. Not a good argument that we have to have the G5 in for the playoffs to determine the 'true' champion.

(01-11-2022 11:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Preference ranking:
1) 5-1-2
2) 6-2
3) current 4
4) Straight 8
5) 5-1-6
6) 6-6
7) Straight 12

Until there is some reasonable path to adequately share rewards with athletes, IMO it’s not right to maximize revenue. It would be OK to expand the playoffs in order to increase inclusivity…but that option should have constraints. The current 4 team set-up is actually pretty good at determining a champion.

I think this is mine too. "Straight" playoffs miss out on an opportunity to take subjectivity away from the polls/rankings.

I vote for 5+1+2 as well. I agree it allows teams to earn their way in by winning their conference, it gives the G5 a spot, and it provides a few extra spots for teams who had a great season but maybe got upset in one game. No model is going to be perfect for everyone but I feel like it’s the best compromise.

The best thing the sec could do is try to get a 2 game 4 team playoff within its conference for its conference title game and keep the playoffs at 4 teams.

(01-11-2022 11:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some expansion implications I have drawn from this year's CFP results:

Stock Up

The competitive case for staying at 4 teams. IMO, it is hard to make the competitive case that we need more teams in the playoff, that the current CFP does a poor job of finding the 'real' best team because worthy titlists are excluded. This was once again a year of lopsided semis.

The concept of At-Large (not conference champs) teams in the playoffs. In the CFP era, three conference teams that did not win their conference title have made the playoffs. Those teams are a collective 4-1 and have won two CFP titles. And the one team that lost was really a quasi-conference team, 2020 Notre Dame.

Stock Down

The notion that without G5 in the playoffs, we're missing something competitively. Cincy was easily the most-accomplished G5 team of the CFP era, and yet were manhandled in the semis. Not a good argument that we have to have the G5 in for the playoffs to determine the 'true' champion.

Yes and the G5 were manhandled the same as the other P5 who played Alabama and Georgia. Perhaps your highly biased point should include the Big as well

What it should say

Stock up

Given Cinci’s performance in the Semi and the MWC’s performance against the PAC, we clearly need a first round of 8 to see who deserves to get their ass kicked by Alabama and Georgia

(01-11-2022 08:52 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 05:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 01:33 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference of these options:
1. Straight 8
2. 6 + 2
3. 5 + 1 + 2
4. Straight 12
5. 6 + 6
6. 5 + 1 + 6

I’d rather ease into it by having 8. I also prefer as many “best” teams as possible versus conference champions. I’m not a fan of 12 because of the bye round. I’m also not sure about adding too many more games. If a school plays at Hawaii and takes advantage of the Hawaii Rule and plays in their CCG and makes the 12-team playoff but not as a top 4 seed and plays in the NCG, they could have an 18-game season. That’s a lot for college.

Then it's right back to relying on "polls". We're going to ask the AP and UPI who can be in the playoffs? No thanks!

The basketball championships started with conference champions only. A lot of deserving teams got left out, but it made Conference Championships as valuable as the National title.
The football championships should grow the same way......conference champions only.

I’m sorry AFC North. The Bengals just aren’t a big brand and starting the season unranked they just didn’t climb the polls enough. So the AFC North will not be represented in the playoffs this year. Instead, the Patriots have been selected. We know you both have a 10-7 record, but their strength of schedule …or FPI… or some ****. Anyway, better luck next year.

No where but CFB do people think this is a good idea.

CFB will never be like the NFL. It shouldnt aspire to be like it. They have a salary cap. They hold a draft for talent every year. The worst teams get rewarded with top picks.

The p5 and G5 arent equals. Stop hoping for playoff access for all conferences. It wont ever happen under the current setup.

(01-11-2022 10:49 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 10:19 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 08:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Maybe I missed something, but I was suprised (to the extent that I don't know if I 100% believe the public statement) that the PAC wasn't going to the mat for automatic bids. They're the P5 that's gotten left out of the semifinals most frequently, and the one that I think would have been left out of a straight 12 or 6+6 once or twice.

But I guess 12 (or 8) is much more imporant to the PAC than the autobid. Which makes some sense, the PAC being on the wrong side of "top 6 conference champs" is a once-in-a-generation problem, while the PAC being left out of the top 4 is a pretty frequent problem. PAC might prefer 5+1+6, but anything is better than "4".

My interpretation of what the PAC leader said, and maybe I am wrong, is that the PAC would vote for any of the six proposals.

Meaning, they prefer any of them to the current CFP. Not that they don't have preferences among the six. I'm pretty sure they prefer P5 autobids, they have said so before.

I think he was just saying that the PAC would not stand in the way, would vote for, any of those six proposals if they turn out to get the support of the other conferences.

It was IMO a PR move, and to me a pretty clever one, as it repositions the PAC as non-obstructionist, whereas before, the PAC was being seen by some as having a "let them eat cake" attitude toward the G5.

Oh I agree with all of that. But the PAC commissioner has laid down a marker that it's not the PAC that blew up early playoff expansion. Because SOMEBODY clearly did.

Some article said 8 of the 11 agreed, and quoted B1G and ACC as publicly dissenting. The math says that the other dissenter is...Aresco.

The SEC could easily propose a "compromise", 5+5, with or without autobids. I suspect that the marginal revenue from 4 first-round games vs 2 is less substantial than a lot of people think. RutgersSU guy pushes the point too far, but he does have a point that there are a limited number of Saturday TV windows.

The thing is that the vote was regarding the 6+6 proposal, which AAC and Aresco are clearly in favor of here. The SEC, Big 12 and ND are all in favor of that proposal and, presumably, all of the G5. If the Pac-12 is telling the truth in its statement that it was supportive, as well, that truly just leaves the Big Ten and ACC. I believe that the article that you're referring to is from SI where they said "at least two and maybe three commissioners" opposed 6+6. It also refers to 9 university president committee members supporting 6+6, which also just leaves 2 dissenters.

If it's really that stark of a difference where it's a 9-2 vote, I think the Big Ten can eventually be moved on this because (a) they don't have an issue with the 12-team size itself and (b) the quid pro quo that can be offered to the Big Ten is some type of satisfactory outcome regarding the Rose Bowl (whatever that might mean to the Big Ten). A horse trade with the Big Ten of moving off of P5 auto-bids in exchange for an acceptable Rose Bowl situation is something that at least seems practical and tangible on paper.

I'm not sure where the heck the ACC is coming from, though, which means that it's difficult for me to see what can be offered to them to move off of their position.

Yeah the G5 is United behind the 6 + 6 model the other dissenting voice is not Aresco. Sankey basically blamed the Alliance and called out the PAC.

https://sports.yahoo.com/cfp-expansion-t...25811.html

The PAC’s memo is just trying to save face.

I found this paragraph in Thamel's article very interesting:

Quote:The Pac-12’s George Kliavkoff has been vocal about revenue distribution, a difficult subject to tackle when the revenue numbers haven’t been set. He has also been vocal about the Rose Bowl, trying to position the game to double-host on years when the venue is a semifinal — meaning that there’d be a traditional Pac-12/Big Ten Rose Bowl on New Year’s Day and a playoff game in the stadium the next week. This would feature a watered-down matchup and hijack the day’s television windows by leaving the traditional Rose Bowl time slot, a generations long obstacle in these talks.

Call me crazy, but this is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of a Rose Bowl horse trade that could satisfy the Big Ten.

Of course, the thing is that Kliavkoff and Warren have to sell it in a way that isn't just about the Rose Bowl getting "special treatment" compared to everyone else. That reflexively offends anyone that isn't the Big Ten or Pac-12. Instead, the proposal should be to apply the double-hosting concept for all of the NY6 bowls with whatever contract tie-ins that they want.

Under this model, in a 3-year rotation, the non-playoff Big Ten/Pac-12 Rose Bowl would get its traditional NYD time slot in year 1, a non-playoff SEC/Big 12 Sugar Bowl would get the early NYD time slot in year 2, and the non-playoff ACC/B1G/SEC/ND Orange Bowl get the early NYD time slot in year 3.

In non-playoff years, the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls could either have their own tie-ins, take the best available non-playoff/contract bowl teams and/or be a guaranteed place to send any P5 champ that somehow doesn't make the playoff.

One benefit of separating the semifinals from the bowls is that they can be put up for bid for different locations (e.g. Tampa, Indianapolis, Houston, Las Vegas, etc.), which could potentially garner more revenue for the system. On the flip side, it opens up the NY6 bowl sites as potential national championship game venues (as with today's system) if they aren't hosting earlier round playoff games *every* year.

This allows each P5 conference to have its non-playoff contract bowl on NYD once every 3 years (not just the Rose Bowl). It preserves the P5/G5 line of demarcation that the ACC and Big Ten appear to want, but it's within the bowl system as opposed to the playoff (just as it is today).

I don't know if the above proposal will be adopted, but these are the types of things that the commissioners and presidents should be thinking about here. You have to address the concerns of those that have legitimately valuable positions (such as the Big Ten/Pac-12/Rose Bowl) in a way that also provides value to the other parties. Ignoring the concerns of those that have legitimately valuable positions or, on the flip side, trying to keep legitimately valuable positions without offering something in return are what creates gridlock.