(06-02-2022 11:25 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 06:18 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 05:44 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Thinking through an 8 team SEC-only playoffs proposal…the SEC must believe that the Alliance has a chance of expanding the CFP to 8 teams. AFAIK, A5 members have autonomy to change rules so long as 60% of A5 members are in agreement. The combination of the ACC, B1G and PAC represent 41 (of the 65) A5 members…63% of the votes.

So long as the Alliance is proposing a 5-1-2 model, the B12 and G5 will likely be on-board with this model. The 8 team SEC-only playoffs utilizes the same number of maximum games that the Alliance would have to enable…but keeps the money within the SEC family. If the Alliance-led proposal doesn’t have SEC participants, then it likely becomes a 4-1-3 format.

I had a similar thought. Sounds like the SEC knows the 5-1-2 can pass without them. The leverage the SEC has remaining is "what are you going to do if our champion doesn't play?"

I believe the voting structure is that the A5 get double votes, but the non-A5 still have votes; therefore 8of15 votes is a majority, so that is the Alliance+Big 12 or Alliance+2 G5s.

Hey! If you leave the NCAA none of this nonsense matters. You set up as it pleases and profits you. You are trying to frame tomorrow with yesterday's rules. The NCAA is moot. Any new rules hammered out will be by consensus of those schools joining to form a new organization.

Once (if) the SEC leaves the NCAA they ‘win’. They and whoever they bring with them will craft the NFL-lite.

But there are reasons this hasn’t happened. The “threat” is to build their own playoff not to withdraw from the NCAA. Given that, the “best” they can do is a Sugar Bowl SEC Championship while the Alliance can craft their 8-team (6? without the SEC) playoff.

Most likely they work together on rule changes (even if it means the two halves of the bracket have different, inter-locking qualification rules) so their champions can still meet.

I think the most likely scenario is still an expanded playoff given that the SEC is now showing some willingness to compromise. Probably not the 12 team conference nor 5-1-2 but something in the middle such as 4-1-3 with some conditions attached.

Still, I won’t rule out two separate playoffs. If the SEC leaves the NCAA while the Alliance stay, then we will most likley two separate playoffs.

The SEC hasn’t left the NCAA because paying to the players was considered bad. However, the public perception on that has been drastically changed. Now many people think the colleges are exploiting black college athletes.

(06-01-2022 12:31 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 07:04 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 06:33 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 09:26 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  Going back to the Pete Thamel article that triggered this thread, do you think that the SEC will adopt either of Thamel's proposals?

a. Regular season tournament. Let's say teams play 6 conference games to establish seedings. The 6 might include 3 permanent opponents, and the three schools which had not been played most recently (e.g. for Auburn, this might be Vanderbilt, Missouri, and Florida). Then play a full 16-team bracket including losers bracket so that all teams play 3 more games. The two teams that are 3-0 play in the CCG.
b. 8-team 3-round playoff after the regular season?

16 teams seems silly. I'll explore the 8 though. Among other things, 8 would require relocating the Iron Bowl and Egg Bowl to earlier in the season. The SEC-ACC games could actually keep their spot in a certain scenarios.

My first thought is "what playoff could you get if you predetermined all home teams?"

An 8-team playoff with these quarterfinals: #1 and #2 of Grp1 hosting #2 and #1 of Grp2 and the same for Grp3 and Grp4. The semifinals would then feature the winners of the Grp1/Grp2 games hosting the winners of Grp3/Grp4. The Championship would be in Atlanta.

The quarterfinals could be staggered between Thanksgiving weekend and the weekend before to allow the SEC-ACC games to continue in their spot. That'd necessitate EVERY SEC team to have an OOC rival/cupcake game one of those two weekends.

A "group" need not consist of permanent rivals or even teams that have played each other in the 6- or 7-game regular season, though a round-robin would give ALL teams a chance of playing each other prior to the SEC Championship. The #3 team in a group would be plum out of luck... which means pre-determining EVERY home site might not work.

Modifications?

Go to 9 SEC games and guarantee every team only 4 home games. This means you pre-designate 4 of the 16 SEC teams to host games each of the last two weeks and 'surprise' 4 teams with 5th home games each of those weeks too. You probably do qualification for the playoff by Top 8 and run only a minor risk of giving the same team a 5th AND 6th home conference game; seeding trickery (ostensibly to reduce rematches) can minimize this risk.

You could even supplement with NFL neutral sites so that college towns don't have to find the workforce to host a game on 6 days notice. There are plenty of such venues in the SEC footprint.

The reason for 16 is so that every team gets 12 regular season games. Otherwise you get teams with only 9 games. You could have a consolation bracket with the other 8 teams. In as sense it is an extend series of flex games.

If you have pre-arranged hosts, then you lose the reward for being higher seeded. You also have to figure out what to do if two visitors advance or two home teams advance.

I think there are really too many problems with this idea that Pete Thamel suggested. The schools prefer the certainty of scheduled games even if they are buy games against FCS schools. If they could get 9 home games by reducing the conference schedule to four games, they would do it.

The consolation bracket goes without saying. Everyone gets their 12 regular season games. I took Thamel’s 16 to mean Alabama plays Vanderbilt in the Sweet Sixteen. I’d rather utilize that game for one more “regular season” matchup.

With pre-arranged hosts, the bracket is built around that hosting schedule. This is similar to the World Cup where #1 and #2 from a group both advance but could only meet again in the Final. As you say, the advantage for a good record is reduced (the best team from one group plays the second best from another, but they both could be very good or both mediocre).

Certainty of home games OR a mostly-normal bracket is the choice for an in-season playoff. If they put forth such a plan I think both are viable scheduling structures and will repeat that augmenting the “mostly-normal” bracket with 1-3 neutral site games would help greatly.

Since you mentioned World Cup, consider this format. We create 4 groups of 4. In this example, I used seeding based on wins over the past 5 years:

Group A: Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Group B: OU, Auburn, Missouri, Arkansas
Group C: Georgia, Texas, Mississippi State. Tennessee
Group D: LSU, Texas A&M, South Carolina, Ole Miss

We could also consider whether schools had played recently, which schools should play 5 home games this year (these schools would be placed in groups A and C, for reasons explained below), and consideration of reversing the home site from the last meeting.

If we added these additional constraints, Alabama, OU, Georgia, and LSU would still be the lead team in a group; Texas A&M, Texas, Auburn, and Florida in the next group, etc.

There are only 24^3 or 13,824 ways the groups can be arrange, so quite amenable to brute force calculation against the constraints. The teams in each group would be scheduled against each other, and have three other conference games scheduled, including any annual games. Ideally, the group games would be weeks 7-9, but this would not be imperative.

The Top 3 teams in each group would advance. They would be paired either A-B and C-D, or A-D and C-B (groups A and C will have five home games).

The schedule would be:

A1-B3
A3-B1
A2-B2

B2-A1
B1-A2
B3-A3

A1-B1
A2-B3
A3-B2

So the teams in Group A and Group B would know their home games in advance, and this would still be true if we paired A-D and C-B.

The game results between A1 and A2, A1 and A3, A2 AND A3 would carry forward. Those against A4 would not, except perhaps as part of a tie-breaker.

The pairing would take into account which teams had the best records after 6 weeks so that the winners of the two second-round groups would play in the CCG,

The fourth place teams would be placed in a consolation group.

A4-B4
C4-D4

D4-A4
B4-C4

A4-C4
B4-D4

This would cause C4 to lose a scheduled home game, and B4 to gain one.

(06-01-2022 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 06:18 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 05:44 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Thinking through an 8 team SEC-only playoffs proposal…the SEC must believe that the Alliance has a chance of expanding the CFP to 8 teams. AFAIK, A5 members have autonomy to change rules so long as 60% of A5 members are in agreement. The combination of the ACC, B1G and PAC represent 41 (of the 65) A5 members…63% of the votes.

So long as the Alliance is proposing a 5-1-2 model, the B12 and G5 will likely be on-board with this model. The 8 team SEC-only playoffs utilizes the same number of maximum games that the Alliance would have to enable…but keeps the money within the SEC family. If the Alliance-led proposal doesn’t have SEC participants, then it likely becomes a 4-1-3 format.

I had a similar thought. Sounds like the SEC knows the 5-1-2 can pass without them. The leverage the SEC has remaining is "what are you going to do if our champion doesn't play?"

I believe the voting structure is that the A5 get double votes, but the non-A5 still have votes; therefore 8of15 votes is a majority, so that is the Alliance+Big 12 or Alliance+2 G5s.

Hey! If you leave the NCAA none of this nonsense matters. You set up as it pleases and profits you. You are trying to frame tomorrow with yesterday's rules. The NCAA is moot. Any new rules hammered out will be by consensus of those schools joining to form a new organization.

Is Sankey acting in good faith as chair of the NCAA Transformation Committee?

(06-03-2022 12:13 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 06:18 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 05:44 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Thinking through an 8 team SEC-only playoffs proposal…the SEC must believe that the Alliance has a chance of expanding the CFP to 8 teams. AFAIK, A5 members have autonomy to change rules so long as 60% of A5 members are in agreement. The combination of the ACC, B1G and PAC represent 41 (of the 65) A5 members…63% of the votes.

So long as the Alliance is proposing a 5-1-2 model, the B12 and G5 will likely be on-board with this model. The 8 team SEC-only playoffs utilizes the same number of maximum games that the Alliance would have to enable…but keeps the money within the SEC family. If the Alliance-led proposal doesn’t have SEC participants, then it likely becomes a 4-1-3 format.

I had a similar thought. Sounds like the SEC knows the 5-1-2 can pass without them. The leverage the SEC has remaining is "what are you going to do if our champion doesn't play?"

I believe the voting structure is that the A5 get double votes, but the non-A5 still have votes; therefore 8of15 votes is a majority, so that is the Alliance+Big 12 or Alliance+2 G5s.

Hey! If you leave the NCAA none of this nonsense matters. You set up as it pleases and profits you. You are trying to frame tomorrow with yesterday's rules. The NCAA is moot. Any new rules hammered out will be by consensus of those schools joining to form a new organization.

Is Sankey acting in good faith as chair of the NCAA Transformation Committee?

Every commissioner on the committee, and Swarbrick, wears several hats. Each role has particular responsibilities. Since conference membership applications are given and subsequent information subject to NDA's, and since Sankey was tasked with finding an acceptable format for playoff expansion, which he did. I'd say he fulfilled the role each hat he wore assigned him, and did it legally. Had he recused himself over OU and UT he would only would have raised suspicions and explanation would have been a violation of his NDA. Since the SEC pays him his first obligation was to it. And his time on the commission predated OU and UT application and he presented a plan which was well received and heralded, until the Chronicle story broke. Sankey fulfilled each function in the proper priority. The other commissioners knew this. So the answer is yes. He acted in good faith in his role as SEC commissioner. And he acted in good faith on the Transformation Committe.

(06-02-2022 11:13 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  SEC is desperately trying to prevent AQers because it will send top talent away from them, the NIL has been a gut punch to their recruiting monopoly

(06-02-2022 12:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  What the SEC is proposing will destabilize other conferences. If you know that the ACC, PAC and/or B1G are doomed, then accelerating their demise may be the strategy. On the other hand, the B1G will still argue that it has a more profitable/equitable/viable business model than the SEC. The ACC and PAC don’t have sufficient brands to keep-up financially with the P2…but their members will likely stick together for at least the next decade.

The SEC going it alone should have no real impact on other conferences if the Alliance's postseason and/or general business model is so thoroughly solid. Either the SEC going rogue is a catalyst for wide scale transformation or it's just one of many viable paths, but it can't be both.

(06-02-2022 12:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  With regards to ESPN, they’re a corporate entity that hedges their bets. If the SEC wants their own invitational, they’ll invest like a good venture capitalist (e.g., LHN). If the Alliance fully commits to a different course, ESPN will invest in that too. There are lots of viable paths for collegiate athletics and ESPN has made investments in many different initiatives. ESPN is committed to the ACC. The ACC can create value separate from the SEC (although there are synergies for ESPN if they work together).

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the LHN will soon be going away and it's literally because Texas is joining the SEC.

(06-03-2022 04:10 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-02-2022 12:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  What the SEC is proposing will destabilize other conferences. If you know that the ACC, PAC and/or B1G are doomed, then accelerating their demise may be the strategy. On the other hand, the B1G will still argue that it has a more profitable/equitable/viable business model than the SEC. The ACC and PAC don’t have sufficient brands to keep-up financially with the P2…but their members will likely stick together for at least the next decade.

The SEC going it alone should have no real impact on other conferences if the Alliance's postseason and/or general business model is so thoroughly solid. Either the SEC going rogue is a catalyst for wide scale transformation or it's just one of many viable paths, but it can't be both.

(06-02-2022 12:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  With regards to ESPN, they’re a corporate entity that hedges their bets. If the SEC wants their own invitational, they’ll invest like a good venture capitalist (e.g., LHN). If the Alliance fully commits to a different course, ESPN will invest in that too. There are lots of viable paths for collegiate athletics and ESPN has made investments in many different initiatives. ESPN is committed to the ACC. The ACC can create value separate from the SEC (although there are synergies for ESPN if they work together).

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the LHN will soon be going away and it's literally because Texas is joining the SEC.

Agree with the comment about the LHN. I don’t know whether the LHN, as a stand-alone venture, will ever be profitable for ESPN. But the LHN kept UT-Austin aligned with the ESPN family (and away from the media-independent PAC). UT-Austin and OU moving to the SEC (after ESPN gained all media rights for SEC football) is a huge win for ESPN. The value of the LHN was in dramatically de-risking the chances that ESPN would ever lose access to the Longhorns brand.

Don’t agree on the SEC go-it-alone comments. IMO, the future is a journey that is not pre-ordained. The SEC currently has the most resources and best chances of success. While the Alliance is currently a completely reactive facade…it doesn’t have a forward-looking plan. The Alliance doesn’t yet, and may never get, a common vision. My point is merely that the SEC (even with a dysfunctional Alliance) will be better-off collaborating with its competitors on a playoff format.

All this politics about the post season structure is one of the many reasons why the NFL > College Football and it not even close ...

Alright SEC, game the system!

East Champ to the Orange, vs. the ACC Champ
West Champ to the Sugar, vs. the Big 12 Champ
best team not in the SECCG to the Peach, vs. Big Ten #2
other #2 team to the Cotton, vs. best ACC/ND/P12/B12 #2

As a note, these "East" and "West" divisions are mostly for bowl placement. No round-robin is being played in these divisions and both CCG teams may be from the same division. The Cotton may actually get the SEC Champ if the #2 team from a division wins the SECCG. This means bowl assignments are actually determined prior to the CCG, which may reduce the "consolation" feel for the loser.

This nets the SEC a third of the NY6 and a majority of the post-season money. This would be true regardless of if the NY6 is capped by 1 National Championship, by a Football Final Four, or by nothing.