(10-24-2023 09:22 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 09:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 08:55 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  Reading the article, I still don't understand why dropping to 9 conferences means dropping the number of conference champions in the CFP from 6 to 5. Taking away access isn't the right answer. I'm 100% with Mike Aresco (AAC commissioner) on this.

Why do we have to (potentially) choose between an undefeated Air Force and an undefeated James Madison, instead of letting them both in?

You don’t have to agree with it or like it, but surely you understand: it’s not about 5 or 6 conference champs, but rather allowing one single champ that’s not from the power leagues. The P5 are now the P4. The P4 and TV networks begrudgingly allowed 1 G5 champ in this new system. There’s zero chance that they allow 2 G5 champs beyond the next 2 years. To anyone that asks whether the TV networks and the casual sports fans that matter would want a 4th SEC or Big Ten team in the playoff over a 2nd G5 team, the answer is unequivocally yes.

There has been talk of expanding the CFP to 16 teams and I think that would be the best way forward for all parties beginning in 2026. With a 16-team field, you could retain six AQs and expand from six to 10 at-large teams.

Have them play-in 12 to 16 at bowl sites.

(10-24-2023 09:57 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  So confused… yes or no… can the committee reject the PAC2 from consideration into the CFP and on what legal grounds if the PAC2 produce a top six conference champion? Still crickets on this issue.

We don't know.

Nobody outside of the commissioner's offices and Bill Hancock knows, nobody has seen the actual wording of the contract. Is there language that implies a definitioon of "conference" that the PAC-2 aren't going to meet? How is the language about who is a Contract Bowl conference phrased, and what is the status of the PAC-12 Rose Bowl contract?

And I'm guessing that the people who have copies of the contract don't know for sure, because the Pac-12 will almost certainly object and take their objections to court.

On what legal grounds? On the grounds that there is no FBS Pac-12 Conference in 2024. (And probably not in 2025). There are two formerly Contract Bowl Conference schools playing an independent schedule, or maybe a Mountain West G5 schedule.

On what legal grounds? On the grounds that the Pac 12 Conference is a signatory to the contract, and the Pac 12 Conference still legally exists under NCAA rules (and under IRS and other business-type rules).

(10-24-2023 09:04 AM)Bogg Wrote:  If they operate as a two-team conference for a year, how does that even work for basketball? Do they play each other twice during the "regular season" as a "double round robin" and then a third time at the end of the year in the "PAC Championship Game" for the autobid?

The Tourney autobid grace period is explicit that it is for conference falling one short (two years grace for a conference falling from 7 or more basketball members to six), so while they could declare the winner of the regular season H/H series the conference champion, there is no ticket to the dance if they then meet in a one game single-elimination conference tournament and crown a conference tournament champ.

(10-24-2023 09:57 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  So confused… yes or no… can the committee reject the PAC2 from consideration into the CFP and on what legal grounds if the PAC2 produce a top six conference champion? Still crickets on this issue.

It would be on the legal grounds tat they are not a top six FBS conference champion if they are not an FBS conference, and even with the grace period, you need eight members to be an FBS conference. The at-large spots would be their sole path.

(10-24-2023 10:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 10:22 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  There is no more Good Will or Good Faith negotiations anymore. It's a fool's game to be relying on moral business practices at this point. You need to get all the terms negotiated in advance, signed sealed and delivered, or it's garbage.

There is nothing to suggest Wazzou and OreSt can't field a Championship game and clinch as a top six champion, given they have a two year waiver.

To get an autobid in the NCAA during the waiver period, you have to have 6 basketball teams instead of the normal 7 and 5 teams in other sports instead of the normal 6.
There is no way they allow a 2 team group to call itself a conference. Absolutely zero chance.

There is no way they refuse to allow a 2 team group to call itself a multisport conference if it is a multisport conference according to the definition of the grace period.

There is also no way that they get an autobid, because the autobid grace period requires 6 schools.

The FBS grace period involves members that fall short of the sports sponsorship numbers to continue to work as one of the eight core members, not falling short of eight core members, so under this arrangement, the CFP is off the hook on the Power Conference payment, because the PAC would not be an FBS conference.

Quote: The games WSU and OSU are playing seem to be solely about residual Pac money and CFP P5 money.

If it's about CFP P5 money, it would have to be a legal case that PAC is a signatory to a contract, not based on its status as an FBS conference, which under this arrangement lapses on August 2, 2024.

Quote: ... they could just bring in the 12 MWC schools to the Pac with an agreement about residual money and still not impact their court position vs. the rest of the Pac 12. ...

If some of the rest of the PAC12 are aiming to get "their" Tourney money when the PAC is dissolved, then this arrangement, by allowing the PAC2 to avoid having to dissolve the PAC, would indeed affect the position of the PAC2 vs the Departing10.

(10-24-2023 10:45 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Someone up-thread mentioned adding yet another round of games (unless they were laughably suggesting a "round of 16"). Add 3 games to Army-Navy weekend. An 8+7. Those games will get minor TV revenue, but they will give the G5 access. Top 4 champs get byes, bottom 6 teams (regardless of if they are a champ) play in these "access" games.

To me, the compromise for the G5 is to keep 6 champs, but the bottom 2 champs play in a play-in game and in exchange, there are 8 or 9 at-large bids where the bottom 2 or 4 at-large play 1 or 2 play-in games to ensure the top 12-13 teams have a shot to make the main field. Then when the 1st round begins after Army-Navy week, it's 5+7 format and the top 4 seeds are the 4 conference champs.

The question is are teams and players willing to risk playing 18 games in a season? I would prefer the play-in teams are non-CCG participants (excluding the bottom 2 champs matchup) to limit the chances of an 18 game season, but that might make things weird with 2 play-in games. I guess my preference is 6+8 for now with the 2 play-in games the bottom 2 champs and bottom 2 non-CCG at-larges, but if there is less concern about 18 game seasons, I'm open to 6+9 with bottom 2 champs and bottom 4 at-larges (regardless of CCGs). I'm also okay with sticking with 12 teams for now just because realignment changed a lot of things from the last 10 years.

(10-24-2023 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 08:55 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  Reading the article, I still don't understand why dropping to 9 conferences means dropping the number of conference champions in the CFP from 6 to 5. Taking away access isn't the right answer. I'm 100% with Mike Aresco (AAC commissioner) on this.

Why do we have to (potentially) choose between an undefeated Air Force and an undefeated James Madison, instead of letting them both in?

Two reasons come to mind. First, IIRC, the basis behind 6+6 was that there was supposed to be one more conference champs bid than there are Power conferences, so as to guarantee access to one, but just one, G-level champ. So if the number of Ps has dropped from five to four, then dropping the number of guaranteed bids for conference champs from six to five would IMO be consistent with that logic.

Also, more access for Gs means less access for others. An undefeated Air Force or James Madison might not be anywhere near as good as an at-large Power conference school.

I have no sympathy for a 2-3 loss SEC or B1G team missing out to a 2nd g5 champ in 24 or 25. If it was for 10-15 years, ok, that could be a problem, but for 2 years? I think we can suck it up that long.

How about a 16 team playoff, 9 conference champions, with a double bye format similar to the ACC, Big Ten and SEC conference basketball tournaments. It gets you to the same 7 at large schools as the 5+7 format.

The first round would feature the 8 lowest seeded schools played at campus sites. It would be played the second weekend of December. It would likely consist of 4-5 G5 conference champions, an occasional low ranked P4 champion, and the 3-4 lowest ranked at large schools. The advantage to the SEC and Big Ten is that their at large members that would not get a home game in the 12 team format would frequently get one under this format.

Winners of the first round games would advance to the second round, played on campus sites. This would replace the scheduled first round on the third weekend of December under the 12 team format.

One issue would be using the weekend currently used by the Army-Navy Game. If this model were adopted, the CFP should consider compensating those schools for doing so.

(10-24-2023 08:23 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports reports:
https://sports.yahoo.com/how-a-new-allia...44854.html

"Any scheduling alliance is likely to feature a compensation package and/or a long-term commitment from Oregon State and Washington State to the Mountain West built around the idea of eventual full membership."

- - - - -

Sounds like the Beavs and Cougs are kicking the can down the road to avoid anchoring themselves to any kind of Pac-2/MWC merger — at least until there is literally no other option.

The B1G, SEC, FOX and ESPN could make life easier for themselves by "facilitating" an OSU-WSU landing spot in the Big XII.

Maybe it'll happen once FSU and Clemson shift from threatening to leave the ACC to making official move(s) toward a departure

(10-24-2023 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 10:23 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 10:11 AM)clunk Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 09:57 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  So confused… yes or no… can the committee reject the PAC2 from consideration into the CFP and on what legal grounds if the PAC2 produce a top six conference champion? Still crickets on this issue.

We don't even know what the PAC is going to look like next year. The CFP is smart not to publicly speculate on various scenarios.
My guess is the 2PAC makes it easy on them by not getting bowl eligible after everyone hits the portal.

I'm not sure the CFP would want to reject a PAC2 champ if it were a top six champ. Oregon State may be preferable to JMU or Liberty.

The bigger question (which the CFP rightly will not touch with a 10-foot pole until this is resolved) is what happens to the money. The CFP will offer OSU/WSU their cut of the previous Pac-12 payout, but OSU/WSU may be entitled to the whole thing via their Rose Bowl contract.

People keep missing this. They have ALREADY agreed to split the P5 money by member, not by conference. So if you have 70 P5 schools, the Big 10 gets 18/70ths, the ACC 17/70ths, the Big 10 and SEC 16/70ths, Notre Dame 1/70th and the 2 Pac 2/70ths.

How confirmed is that though? We know it was being kicked around. Was there a tenative agreement (that may have been blown up by later developments), or a signed agreement that would still hold?

http://Dennis Dodds Aug 2023, $80M per power 5Dennis Dodds, August 2023. No change yet, under discussion

Obviously, the appetite of the SEC and Big Ten for a fight over this money depends on how much of this money you're fighting over. Is it $80M per conference or is it about $12M ($80M*5 / 70 schools, times 2 shares for WSU and OSU? Or is it some more complicated formula based on a "split the baby" compromise when basically nobody saw this coming.)

(10-24-2023 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 08:55 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  Reading the article, I still don't understand why dropping to 9 conferences means dropping the number of conference champions in the CFP from 6 to 5. Taking away access isn't the right answer. I'm 100% with Mike Aresco (AAC commissioner) on this.

Why do we have to (potentially) choose between an undefeated Air Force and an undefeated James Madison, instead of letting them both in?

Two reasons come to mind. First, IIRC, the basis behind 6+6 was that there was supposed to be one more conference champs bid than there are Power conferences, so as to guarantee access to one, but just one, G-level champ. So if the number of Ps has dropped from five to four, then dropping the number of guaranteed bids for conference champs from six to five would IMO be consistent with that logic.

Also, more access for Gs means less access for others. An undefeated Air Force or James Madison might not be anywhere near as good as an at-large Power conference school.

Braddock's manager in Cinderella Man trying to talk the boss into giving Braddock a spot in the heavyweight challenger tournament:

Quote: Come on, don't be foolish. We both know the name of this game. And it sure as hell ain't "pugilism."

The reason for the Go5 access all along, from the ranking-threshold access in the second version of the BCS to the "higher than the lowest ranked AQ conference at the end of the BCS to the Access Bowl sport in the CFP, is it provides a protection against restraint of trade challenges by keeping those in the strongest position to have standing to sue on side. The more money is changing hands, the more you are willing to pay for insurance, and the CFP12 6+6 system paid the most for insurance of them all, giving all FBS conference members a pro forma path to the championship as conference champion, and not just the Contract Bowl members.

It's not the numbers that does that, it's the allocation to FBS conference rankings based on committee ranking of the conference champions.

The numbers are there to avoid the risk of one of the Power Conference champions being left out. They were willing to pay one at-large CFP spot to insure against that risk. They were not willing to pay two at-large spots to insure against that risk -- or else it would have started out as 7+5. They are still willing to pay one at-large CFP spot to insure against that risk, but now it's the risk of one of the top four being ranked in fifth place.

(10-24-2023 12:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 08:55 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  Reading the article, I still don't understand why dropping to 9 conferences means dropping the number of conference champions in the CFP from 6 to 5. Taking away access isn't the right answer. I'm 100% with Mike Aresco (AAC commissioner) on this.

Why do we have to (potentially) choose between an undefeated Air Force and an undefeated James Madison, instead of letting them both in?

Two reasons come to mind. First, IIRC, the basis behind 6+6 was that there was supposed to be one more conference champs bid than there are Power conferences, so as to guarantee access to one, but just one, G-level champ. So if the number of Ps has dropped from five to four, then dropping the number of guaranteed bids for conference champs from six to five would IMO be consistent with that logic.

Also, more access for Gs means less access for others. An undefeated Air Force or James Madison might not be anywhere near as good as an at-large Power conference school.

Braddock's manager in Cinderella Man trying to talk the boss into giving Braddock a spot in the heavyweight challenger tournament:

Quote: Come on, don't be foolish. We both know the name of this game. And it sure as hell ain't "pugilism."

The reason for the Go5 access all along, from the ranking-threshold access in the second version of the BCS to the "higher than the lowest ranked AQ conference at the end of the BCS to the Access Bowl sport in the CFP, is it provides a protection against restraint of trade challenges by keeping those in the strongest position to have standing to sue on side. The more money is changing hands, the more you are willing to pay for insurance, and the CFP12 6+6 system paid the most for insurance of them all, giving all FBS conference members a pro forma path to the championship as conference champion, and not just the Contract Bowl members.

It's not the numbers that does that, it's the allocation to FBS conference rankings based on committee ranking of the conference champions.

The numbers are there to avoid the risk of one of the Power Conference champions being left out. They were willing to pay one at-large CFP spot to insure against that risk. They were not willing to pay two at-large spots to insure against that risk -- or else it would have started out as 7+5. They are still willing to pay one at-large CFP spot to insure against that risk, but now it's the risk of one of the top four being ranked in fifth place.

Looking at you, #13 Utah, hypothetical future Big 12 champ, being ranked below #11 ORegon STate, hypothetical future Pac 14 / Mountain West champ.

(10-24-2023 12:12 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Sounds like the Beavs and Cougs are kicking the can down the road to avoid anchoring themselves to any kind of Pac-2/MWC merger — at least until there is literally no other optio.

The B1G, SEC, FOX and ESPN could make life easier for themselves by "facilitating" an OSU-WSU landing spot in the Big XII.

Maybe it'll happen once FSU and Clemson shift from threatening to leave the ACC to making official move(s) toward a departure

Why does the Big 12 need to be the one to accommodate them though? Because they are land grants? It's clear they are not wanted. Why shouldn't the B1G accommodate them for that matter, even if just for Olympic sports?

No one is willing to take them. But we have this two year albatross over our heads with no imminent solution. A settlement has to be reached at some point. The P5s or the former Pac12 teams are going to have to pony something up if they want to block the Pac2's access outright.

There have been a lot of rumors flung out by the Big 12 Anons recently on various YouTube shows, but the bottom line is Wazzou/OreSt have struck blood first with the injunction last month, so there appears to be some merit to the PAC2's standing.

There’s little reason to argue about this. It’s all straight-forward.

For the next 2 years, it will be 6+6 because the G5 have short-term contractual leverage where it takes a unanimous vote to change the format. There’s little incentive for the G5 to change the format during that time.

After that, though, the G5 have zero long-term real life free market leverage. The TV networks would pay the same amount for a playoff without the G5 included at all and would actually rather have any random P4/ND at-large team included instead of the G5 champ. So, it’s 5+7 or nothing for the G5. That’s the reality. The G5 complaining about competitive equity isn’t going to fly when financial equity says that the G5 shouldn’t be getting much or any playoff access at all (as what the networks cars about are the P4 and Notre Dame). The Big Ten and SEC would go to a straight Top 12 and cut out any spots for the G5 entirely if the G5 starts thinking that they can ask for anything more than a 5+7. That’s the reality. Note that I personally think there ought to be a 5+7 format because I’m a believer in rewarding conference champs, but there is no realistic universe that we have a system that guarantees 2 G5 champs in the playoff beyond the next 2 years. Anyone thinking otherwise isn’t facing reality.

(10-24-2023 12:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There’s little reason to argue about this. It’s all straight-forward.

For the next 2 years, it will be 6+6 because the G5 have short-term contractual leverage where it takes a unanimous vote to change the format. There’s little incentive for the G5 to change the format during that time.

After that, though, the G5 have zero long-term real life free market leverage. The TV networks would pay the same amount for a playoff without the G5 included at all and would actually rather have any random P4/ND at-large team included instead of the G5 champ. So, it’s 5+7 or nothing for the G5. That’s the reality. The G5 complaining about competitive equity isn’t going to fly when financial equity says that the G5 shouldn’t be getting much or any playoff access at all (as what the networks cars about are the P4 and Notre Dame). The Big Ten and SEC would go to a straight Top 12 and cut out any spots for the G5 entirely if the G5 starts thinking that they can ask for anything more than a 5+7. That’s the reality. Note that I personally think there ought to be a 5+7 format because I’m a believer in rewarding conference champs, but there is no realistic universe that we have a system that guarantees 2 G5 champs in the playoff beyond the next 2 years. Anyone thinking otherwise isn’t facing reality.

So you're dismissing the scenario where a bargain is struck, G5 agrees to 5-7 for the next two years in return for the P4 agreeing in writing to 5+7 in the new CFP?

You know what would be really interesting? If 6+6 stays for 24-25 and both those 2 G5 teams *win* in either year. Not likely, but possible. Good argument to keep them in after that.

Long term answer with 9 conferences would be a 16 team playoff. Top 8 conference champs with 8 At Large bids.

In the spirit of compromise, we could go to the Top 6 conference champs with 10 At Large bids which is probably the most fair at this point in time.

(10-24-2023 09:16 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 09:04 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 08:55 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  Reading the article, I still don't understand why dropping to 9 conferences means dropping the number of conference champions in the CFP from 6 to 5. Taking away access isn't the right answer. I'm 100% with Mike Aresco (AAC commissioner) on this.

Why do we have to (potentially) choose between an undefeated Air Force and an undefeated James Madison, instead of letting them both in?

Two reasons come to mind. First, IIRC, the basis behind 6+6 was that there was supposed to be one more conference champs bid than there are Power conferences, so as to guarantee access to one, but just one, G-level champ. So if the number of Ps has dropped from five to four, then dropping the number of guaranteed bids for conference champs from six to five would IMO be consistent with that logic.

Also, more access for Gs means less access for others. An undefeated Air Force or James Madison might not be anywhere near as good as an at-large Power conference school.

If a team gets left out of the CFP at-large bids, it's their own fault. They should've won their conference. I can already see fans whining over the committee "getting it wrong" when it comes to at-large bids, but too bad: if you wanted in, you should've won your conference.

In this example, JMU/Air Force shouldn't be punished as a result of big brands losing big games.

IMO, JMU/Air Force shouldn't be rewarded for winning soft conferences filled with bad to mediocre teams.

If I had my way, the new system would be "straight 12", as IMO winning a conference doesn't tell us much about how worthy a school is for a national playoff. It would be if the conferences were structurally equal, like in pro leagues, but I do not think they are. So to me I am not impressed by say a MAC school, a school that won its conference by beating Eastern Michigan, Buffalo, Toledo, etc. to tell any SEC team that it should have won its conference. Ditto for the winner of any G5 conference.

That said, given the political reality of auto-bids, I want as few as possible, meaning one more than the number of "P" conferences.

Just MO.

And how are JMU/Air Force supposed to change that? They can't simply win their way into P4 conference membership.

If we had pro/rel based on on-field success, I'd agree with you, but under the system you propose, JMU could win 50 straight games and still not get in.

AFA has had their chances but preferred to remain in the g5. Not faulting them for it, but they clearly think they don’t belong in the Top Tier.

(10-24-2023 09:30 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 09:16 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, JMU/Air Force shouldn't be rewarded for winning soft conferences filled with bad to mediocre teams.

If I had my way, the new system would be "straight 12", as IMO winning a conference doesn't tell us much about how worthy a school is for a national playoff. It would be if the conferences were structurally equal, like in pro leagues, but I do not think they are. So to me I am not impressed by say a MAC school, a school that won its conference by beating Eastern Michigan, Buffalo, Toledo, etc. to tell any SEC team that it should have won its conference. Ditto for the winner of any G5 conference.

That said, given the political reality of auto-bids, I want as few as possible, meaning one more than the number of "P" conferences.

Just MO.

And how are JMU/Air Force supposed to change that? They can't simply win their way into P4 conference membership.

If we had pro/rel based on on-field success, I'd agree with you, but under the system you propose, JMU could win 50 straight games and still not get in.

I admit they can't change it. But IMO, just because you can't change something doesn't mean you deserve to be treated as if you accomplished something more.

In this case, JMU and AFA cannot help that they are in the MW and SB, and that they played soft schedules. But IMO that doesn't mean the system should treat them as if they did win a Power-level conference vs good teams.

Just MO.

All you can do is play the hands you're dealt. If you win them all, and still aren't allowed to win the tournament, it's not a fair system. The players don't decide conference alignment, but they decide who wins on the field.

Given where we're at right now, I feel it's very possible we end seasons with 2+ undefeated G5s in the near future. "The eye test" is a terrible way to tell (at least) one of them "yeah, you won every game, but you aren't good enough."

The players decide where to play. If they end up at a g5, there’s a reason for that and they know their playoff odds are long.

They need to reject the Pac 2 - they can form an alliance and partner as they please with whoever but they can only be in the playoff if they are a Top 12 team legitimately.

(10-24-2023 12:21 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 10:23 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 10:11 AM)clunk Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 09:57 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  So confused… yes or no… can the committee reject the PAC2 from consideration into the CFP and on what legal grounds if the PAC2 produce a top six conference champion? Still crickets on this issue.

We don't even know what the PAC is going to look like next year. The CFP is smart not to publicly speculate on various scenarios.
My guess is the 2PAC makes it easy on them by not getting bowl eligible after everyone hits the portal.

I'm not sure the CFP would want to reject a PAC2 champ if it were a top six champ. Oregon State may be preferable to JMU or Liberty.

The bigger question (which the CFP rightly will not touch with a 10-foot pole until this is resolved) is what happens to the money. The CFP will offer OSU/WSU their cut of the previous Pac-12 payout, but OSU/WSU may be entitled to the whole thing via their Rose Bowl contract.

People keep missing this. They have ALREADY agreed to split the P5 money by member, not by conference. So if you have 70 P5 schools, the Big 10 gets 18/70ths, the ACC 17/70ths, the Big 10 and SEC 16/70ths, Notre Dame 1/70th and the 2 Pac 2/70ths.

How confirmed is that though? We know it was being kicked around. Was there a tenative agreement (that may have been blown up by later developments), or a signed agreement that would still hold?

http://Dennis Dodds Aug 2023, $80M per power 5Dennis Dodds, August 2023. No change yet, under discussion

Obviously, the appetite of the SEC and Big Ten for a fight over this money depends on how much of this money you're fighting over. Is it $80M per conference or is it about $12M ($80M*5 / 70 schools, times 2 shares for WSU and OSU? Or is it some more complicated formula based on a "split the baby" compromise when basically nobody saw this coming.)

Yes. It was agreed to last November. I've linked it several times on this board. There have been other articles that refer to it.

(10-24-2023 02:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 12:21 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 10:23 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(10-24-2023 10:11 AM)clunk Wrote:  We don't even know what the PAC is going to look like next year. The CFP is smart not to publicly speculate on various scenarios.
My guess is the 2PAC makes it easy on them by not getting bowl eligible after everyone hits the portal.

I'm not sure the CFP would want to reject a PAC2 champ if it were a top six champ. Oregon State may be preferable to JMU or Liberty.

The bigger question (which the CFP rightly will not touch with a 10-foot pole until this is resolved) is what happens to the money. The CFP will offer OSU/WSU their cut of the previous Pac-12 payout, but OSU/WSU may be entitled to the whole thing via their Rose Bowl contract.

People keep missing this. They have ALREADY agreed to split the P5 money by member, not by conference. So if you have 70 P5 schools, the Big 10 gets 18/70ths, the ACC 17/70ths, the Big 10 and SEC 16/70ths, Notre Dame 1/70th and the 2 Pac 2/70ths.

How confirmed is that though? We know it was being kicked around. Was there a tenative agreement (that may have been blown up by later developments), or a signed agreement that would still hold?

http://Dennis Dodds Aug 2023, $80M per power 5Dennis Dodds, August 2023. No change yet, under discussion

Obviously, the appetite of the SEC and Big Ten for a fight over this money depends on how much of this money you're fighting over. Is it $80M per conference or is it about $12M ($80M*5 / 70 schools, times 2 shares for WSU and OSU? Or is it some more complicated formula based on a "split the baby" compromise when basically nobody saw this coming.)

Yes. It was agreed to last November. I've linked it several times on this board. There have been other articles that refer to it.

Looks like The Athletic had the scoop:

The compromise agreed upon Wednesday reduces disparity and allows the focus to be on per-school payouts instead of per-league payouts that then get sliced different ways based on varying membership size. Payouts to the Group of 5 leagues remain unchanged.

That's consistent with per-power-5-school, but doesn't specify it.
That may be the best we can do.