I hope Clemson et all don't do so well and the ACC doesn't make the playoff the next 4 years. And at same time hope the last 3 times with Orange Bowl the SEC or Big Ten get all 3 spots and not Notre Dame.

So dumb. So so so so so dumb.

(01-14-2022 11:40 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

I hope Clemson et all don't do so well and the ACC doesn't make the playoff the next 4 years. And at same time hope the last 3 times with Orange Bowl the SEC or Big Ten get all 3 spots and not Notre Dame.

I hope so too! For me, seeing the ACC blamed for why we can't have nice things is even better than playoff expansion.

Cheers to 10 years of an ACC unrepresented CFP.

My guess is that the ACC is absolutely committed to getting automatic qualification for its champion as part of any expansion, and will oppose expansion without it.

LOL at the "The membership of the ACC is very much aligned in its position that now is not the time to expand the College Football Playoff."

Ol' Jim knows where his bread is buttered and by God he can also count votes from UNC, UVA and Duke and their second-class tagalongs.

No way Clemson and FSU are for this foot-dragging maneuver (and I'm optimistic Miami's feckless administration has finally woken up to the value of football as well). Would love to hear what posters who follow NC State and Va Tech have to say about how the ACC office goes about wielding power and their in-state rivals role in those matters.

Say this: Phillips getting on the wrong side of Sankey and the SEC won't turn out any better for his league then the ACC's massive $30M per school media rights hole.

(01-14-2022 11:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My guess is that the ACC is absolutely committed to getting automatic qualification for its champion as part of any expansion, and will oppose expansion without it.

If anything I think this would strengthen the resolve of the others to go with 6-6 at the end of the contract and force the ACC's hand.

If the Big 10 can be pacified and it is 9 v 1 the ACC will have no choice but to join in as they are not strong enough to hold up expansion reform on their own.

(01-14-2022 11:55 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  LOL at the "The membership of the ACC is very much aligned in its position that now is not the time to expand the College Football Playoff."

Yes, that is typical ACC speak for the TarHoo Devils have assembled in their Ivory Towers and decided this. When you complain they just hand you another mimeographed copy of the GoR.

(01-14-2022 11:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My guess is that the ACC is absolutely committed to getting automatic qualification for its champion as part of any expansion, and will oppose expansion without it.

If anything I think this would strengthen the resolve of the others to go with 6-6 at the end of the contract and force the ACC's hand.

If the Big 10 can be pacified and it is 9 v 1 the ACC will have no choice but to join in as they are not strong enough to hold up expansion reform on their own.

That’s not how an alliance works. And I think the Big Ten and PAC knew that about the ACC when they all got in bed together. The other two can just simply shift some blame away from them on this front.

And I suspect, more now that we see where the differences are even between the PAC and ACC, that this “alliance” has little hinging them together. The common thread is just none of the three want a new model at this time proposed by others without them at the start.

The part that may really infuriate me is if we still get 6/6 or 5/1/6 out of this but it comes down the line and done “the right way” with those blockheads in the room. That this will all have been done due to being upset about procedure. Aggrieved by the appearance and optics of what was previously attempted.

Time to start the Metro Conference

(01-14-2022 11:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My guess is that the ACC is absolutely committed to getting automatic qualification for its champion as part of any expansion, and will oppose expansion without it.

What Phillips or any other P5 commissioner says at this point in the negotiations should be taken with a big grain of salt. At the end of the day I think the ACC, PAC and Big 12 will all settle for a model that gives their champion automatic qualification. All three could be vulnerable at some point to missing out in a 6-6 model. Phillips wants to make sure he has the votes of the other two.

He does realize that if the 4 team playoff would have been in place in the BCS era, his conference would have endured something like a 10 year playoff drought?

lol-

(01-14-2022 11:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My guess is that the ACC is absolutely committed to getting automatic qualification for its champion as part of any expansion, and will oppose expansion without it.

If anything I think this would strengthen the resolve of the others to go with 6-6 at the end of the contract and force the ACC's hand.

That's right because it doesn't have to be unanimous for 2026-7 so the majority can rule.

I had thought double hosting the Rose (B1G/PAC) and Orange (ACC/SEC) would protect P4 champs and also add attractive side inventory to a 6+6 model. However the ACC has just decided to give up.

5-1-2

(01-14-2022 12:14 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  5-1-2

Autobids for the SEC, XII, MAC, MWC and AAC

(01-14-2022 11:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My guess is that the ACC is absolutely committed to getting automatic qualification for its champion as part of any expansion, and will oppose expansion without it.

ACC also wants no more than 8 teams. Multiple ACC coaches/administrators expressed concerns about season length with 12. They're first choice (after sticking with 4) would be 5+3 with assurances of a 6th champ getting in with a certain rank.

The "at this time" phrase may also refer to not wanting to re-up with ESPN and letting the expanded playoff go to market.

(01-14-2022 12:04 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My guess is that the ACC is absolutely committed to getting automatic qualification for its champion as part of any expansion, and will oppose expansion without it.

If anything I think this would strengthen the resolve of the others to go with 6-6 at the end of the contract and force the ACC's hand.

If the Big 10 can be pacified and it is 9 v 1 the ACC will have no choice but to join in as they are not strong enough to hold up expansion reform on their own.

That’s not how an alliance works. And I think the Big Ten and PAC knew that about the ACC when they all got in bed together. The other two can just simply shift some blame away from them on this front.

And I suspect, more now that we see where the differences are even between the PAC and ACC, that this “alliance” has little hinging them together. The common thread is just none of the three want a new model at this time proposed by others without them at the start.

The part that may really infuriate me is if we still get 6/6 or 5/1/6 out of this but it comes down the line and done “the right way” with those blockheads in the room. That this will all have been done due to being upset about procedure. Aggrieved by the appearance and optics of what was previously attempted.

On this point, we agree.

When we examine all of the interests of the parties that matter (the P5 plus Notre Dame), it's pretty clear to me that we're going to end up with some form of a 12-team playoff when there's expansion. No one other than the SEC and ND want a "straight 8" playoff, while the SEC and ND won't agree to any type of conference champ auto-bids in an 8-team playoff. Everyone that keeps saying a smaller number of teams in the playoff is a "compromise" is totally missing the point that the *composition* of the field is really what matters... and 12 teams is the only size of a playoff that can accommodate everyone's interests (outside of the delusional interest of the ACC thinking that they can force ND to join as a full member).

As a result, it's asinine to me that the powers that be would fail to pass a 12-team playoff for 2024-25 when it's almost a certainty that's where they'll end up in 2026, anyway. While the need for unanimity goes away in 2026, it still doesn't change the core issues that the SEC and ND have compared to the rest of the P5.

(01-14-2022 12:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My guess is that the ACC is absolutely committed to getting automatic qualification for its champion as part of any expansion, and will oppose expansion without it.

What Phillips or any other P5 commissioner says at this point in the negotiations should be taken with a big grain of salt. At the end of the day I think the ACC, PAC and Big 12 will all settle for a model that gives their champion automatic qualification. All three could be vulnerable at some point to missing out in a 6-6 model. Phillips wants to make sure he has the votes of the other two.

Auto-bids in the basketball tournament (and every tournament) are for the benefit of conferences whose teams wouldn't qualify otherwise - so that "everybody gets to wet their beak." (The most powerful conferences have them too, but they don't need them.)

Why is the thinking so backwards in football? If a P5 team can't make the top SIX .... do they really get to demand a spot in a playoff that is supposed to determine the BEST TEAM?

The ACC hired a B1G guy to be their new commissioner. One of his first orders of business was to become part of an alliance with the B1G and Pac. The goal of the B1G and Pac is to 1) wrest some control of the CFP from the SEC, and 2) delay the new TV contract so that it will be opened for bidding by multiple media partners, taking part or all of it from SEC partner ESPN.

The Alliance is still upset that they weren't consulted when Sankey, Bowlsby, and friends negotiated the new CFP model.

The SEC will be fine no matter what the CFP setup is. However, all of the conferences are leaving money on the table in the short term.