(02-24-2024 12:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The CCG aren't going away- no matter how much you for some God only knows reason wants them to go away.

And the G5- yeah sorry but no way in hell they're getting 2 bids. None. Nada. Even in your stupid idea, there is no way that the MWC and AAC would agree to that stupidity of them sharing one and then the other 3 sharing another. It would be the 2 best G5 which most years would be them. You are taking that stupid Dennis Dodd article way too far.

Okay, I’m an idiot. Dodd is off base with tiered qualification. Dellenger is probably assuming the wrong thing as well. You got the format locked down. Got it, Steve…

(02-24-2024 12:42 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 12:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The CCG aren't going away- no matter how much you for some God only knows reason wants them to go away.

And the G5- yeah sorry but no way in hell they're getting 2 bids. None. Nada. Even in your stupid idea, there is no way that the MWC and AAC would agree to that stupidity of them sharing one and then the other 3 sharing another. It would be the 2 best G5 which most years would be them. You are taking that stupid Dennis Dodd article way too far.

Okay, I’m an idiot. Dodd is off base with tiered qualification. Dellenger is probably assuming the wrong thing as well. You got the format locked down. Got it, Steve…

Dude the tiered thing was about the money. Not the ******* qualification. Reading comprehension is your friend. No one in hell really thinks the G5 is getting 2 teams in any format. Not even the G5 themselves.

(02-24-2024 12:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Dude the tiered thing was about the money. Not the ******* qualification. Reading comprehension is your friend. No one in hell really thinks the G5 is getting 2 teams in any format. Not even the G5 themselves.

Do we know this? The AQ bids and the money are two completely separate things? That’s great logic there.

Again, if the B1G and SEC want 14, the ACC and Big 12 are going to want multiple bids. That may happen, and it damn well influences the distributions.

You can’t marginalize someone’s CCG by making it about seeding and give them nothing back in terms of bids or money. I don’t think that is a mutually exclusive thing.

(02-24-2024 12:58 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 12:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Dude the tiered thing was about the money. Not the ******* qualification. Reading comprehension is your friend. No one in hell really thinks the G5 is getting 2 teams in any format. Not even the G5 themselves.

Do we know this? The AQ bids and the money are two completely separate things? That’s great logic there.

Again, if the B1G and SEC want 14, the ACC and Big 12 are going to want multiple bids. That may happen, and it damn well influences the distributions.

You can’t marginalize someone’s CCG by making it about seeding and give them nothing back in terms of bids or money. I don’t think that is a mutually exclusive thing.

The Big Ten and SEC don't give a damn. ESPN isn't going to allow the ACC or Big 12 to not have the CCG. It's baked into the conference TV deals. I don't see ACC or Big 12 wanting less money.

(02-24-2024 01:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The Big Ten and SEC don't give a damn. ESPN isn't going to allow the ACC or Big 12 to not have the CCG. It's baked into the conference TV deals. I don't see ACC or Big 12 wanting less money.

Well, the ACC and Big 12 won’t vote to approve this. You can be sure of that.

Unless the distribution is 25/25 P2 and 20/20/10 for M2s and G5s, the format is not being extended as 12 or 14.

If it stays 5+7, Big 12 and ACC would accept less revenue. Maybe 30/30 and 15/15/10 or something (or 17.5% for each M2).

(02-24-2024 01:11 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 01:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The Big Ten and SEC don't give a damn. ESPN isn't going to allow the ACC or Big 12 to not have the CCG. It's baked into the conference TV deals. I don't see ACC or Big 12 wanting less money.

Well, the ACC and Big 12 won’t vote to approve this. You can be sure of that.

Unless the distribution is 25/25 P2 and 20/20/10 for M2s and G5s, the format is not being extended as 12 or 14.

If it stays 5+7, Big 12 and ACC would accept less revenue. Maybe 30/30 and 15/15/10 or something (or 17.5% for each M2).

They're only 2 votes. Don't control it by themselves. doesn't have to be unanimous for the new deal.

(02-24-2024 11:05 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 11:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 11:51 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The "Perfect" 16-team playoff:

1. SEC Champion
2. Big Ten Champion
3. ACC Champion
4. Big 12 Champion
5. Sun Belt Champion
6. Mountain West Champion
7. AAC Champion
8. Conference USA Champion
9. MAC Champion
10. At-large #1
11. At-large #2
12. At-large #3
13. At-large #4
14. At-large #5
15. At-large #6
16. At-large #7

Pac-2 isn't eligible for a champion auto-bid, because they don't meet the minimum required member number.


"But then P5s can drop to a G5 conference for an easier path to the playoffs"

No P5 would choose to go from earning $50M/year to earning $2M/per year just to miss the playoffs because they have 2 conference losses to Appalachian State and James Madison.

DOA. G5 lucky to get 1 spot. don't like it drop to FCS and stop being leaches.

I could say the same thing about the entire ACC and Big 12, especially with the discussion of at least 8 of a 14-team playoff coming from the SEC and Big Ten. Maybe the ACC and Big 12 should just "drop to FCS" and stop trying to compete with the SEC and Big Ten if this is the future?

No, I'd rather every team in the division have a path to a championship, just like every other division of every other major pro and college sport in America.

And until then, this "playoff" is just an invitational based on money. It's no different than the bowls.

(02-24-2024 03:05 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 11:05 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 11:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 11:51 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The "Perfect" 16-team playoff:

1. SEC Champion
2. Big Ten Champion
3. ACC Champion
4. Big 12 Champion
5. Sun Belt Champion
6. Mountain West Champion
7. AAC Champion
8. Conference USA Champion
9. MAC Champion
10. At-large #1
11. At-large #2
12. At-large #3
13. At-large #4
14. At-large #5
15. At-large #6
16. At-large #7

Pac-2 isn't eligible for a champion auto-bid, because they don't meet the minimum required member number.


"But then P5s can drop to a G5 conference for an easier path to the playoffs"

No P5 would choose to go from earning $50M/year to earning $2M/per year just to miss the playoffs because they have 2 conference losses to Appalachian State and James Madison.

DOA. G5 lucky to get 1 spot. don't like it drop to FCS and stop being leaches.

I could say the same thing about the entire ACC and Big 12, especially with the discussion of at least 8 of a 14-team playoff coming from the SEC and Big Ten. Maybe the ACC and Big 12 should just "drop to FCS" and stop trying to compete with the SEC and Big Ten if this is the future?

No, I'd rather every team in the division have a path to a championship, just like every other division of every other major pro and college sport in America.

And until then, this "playoff" is just an invitational based on money. It's no different than the bowls.

that most fans will recognize as being the true champion. No matter what G5 fanboys want to say. No one is gonna say because Miami of Ohio isn't in the playoffs that they should have been the champions.

Why not just do a 6+10. The G5 gets 1 expanded spot. Even get auto bids based on whatever metric. Something like…

G5 (2)
SEC (3)
B1G (3)
XII (2)
ACC (2)
+ 4 at-large not assigned that ND + the other leagues can fight over each season aka “extra spots for the B1G and SEC”

(02-24-2024 06:04 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  Why not just do a 6+10. The G5 gets 1 expanded spot. Even get auto bids based on whatever metric. Something like…

G5 (2)
SEC (3)
B1G (3)
XII (2)
ACC (2)
+ 4 at-large not assigned that ND + the other leagues can fight over each season aka “extra spots for the B1G and SEC”

That’s what it should be, but it distributes the value too broadly according to the P2 guys. Really that simple.

(02-24-2024 03:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 03:05 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 11:05 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 11:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 11:51 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The "Perfect" 16-team playoff:

1. SEC Champion
2. Big Ten Champion
3. ACC Champion
4. Big 12 Champion
5. Sun Belt Champion
6. Mountain West Champion
7. AAC Champion
8. Conference USA Champion
9. MAC Champion
10. At-large #1
11. At-large #2
12. At-large #3
13. At-large #4
14. At-large #5
15. At-large #6
16. At-large #7

Pac-2 isn't eligible for a champion auto-bid, because they don't meet the minimum required member number.


"But then P5s can drop to a G5 conference for an easier path to the playoffs"

No P5 would choose to go from earning $50M/year to earning $2M/per year just to miss the playoffs because they have 2 conference losses to Appalachian State and James Madison.

DOA. G5 lucky to get 1 spot. don't like it drop to FCS and stop being leaches.

I could say the same thing about the entire ACC and Big 12, especially with the discussion of at least 8 of a 14-team playoff coming from the SEC and Big Ten. Maybe the ACC and Big 12 should just "drop to FCS" and stop trying to compete with the SEC and Big Ten if this is the future?

No, I'd rather every team in the division have a path to a championship, just like every other division of every other major pro and college sport in America.

And until then, this "playoff" is just an invitational based on money. It's no different than the bowls.

that most fans will recognize as being the true champion. No matter what G5 fanboys want to say. No one is gonna say because Miami of Ohio isn't in the playoffs that they should have been the champions.

Of course they will, because it's still the same trick being played and there's a sucker born every minute.

(02-24-2024 03:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 03:05 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 11:05 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 11:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 11:51 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The "Perfect" 16-team playoff:

1. SEC Champion
2. Big Ten Champion
3. ACC Champion
4. Big 12 Champion
5. Sun Belt Champion
6. Mountain West Champion
7. AAC Champion
8. Conference USA Champion
9. MAC Champion
10. At-large #1
11. At-large #2
12. At-large #3
13. At-large #4
14. At-large #5
15. At-large #6
16. At-large #7

Pac-2 isn't eligible for a champion auto-bid, because they don't meet the minimum required member number.


"But then P5s can drop to a G5 conference for an easier path to the playoffs"

No P5 would choose to go from earning $50M/year to earning $2M/per year just to miss the playoffs because they have 2 conference losses to Appalachian State and James Madison.

DOA. G5 lucky to get 1 spot. don't like it drop to FCS and stop being leaches.

I could say the same thing about the entire ACC and Big 12, especially with the discussion of at least 8 of a 14-team playoff coming from the SEC and Big Ten. Maybe the ACC and Big 12 should just "drop to FCS" and stop trying to compete with the SEC and Big Ten if this is the future?

No, I'd rather every team in the division have a path to a championship, just like every other division of every other major pro and college sport in America.

And until then, this "playoff" is just an invitational based on money. It's no different than the bowls.

that most fans will recognize as being the true champion. No matter what G5 fanboys want to say. No one is gonna say because Miami of Ohio isn't in the playoffs that they should have been the champions.

That's just a lazy take, because most fans would recognize the champion as whoever the TV tells them the champion is, no matter the format. P5 vs. G5 doesn't have anything to do with that.

(02-24-2024 07:22 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 06:57 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 04:20 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  16 team tournament, 6+10 with first round at bowl sites.

#1 vs. (#8 vs. (#9 vs. #16))
#2 vs. (#7 vs. (#10 vs. #15))
#3 vs. (#6 vs. (#11 vs. #14))
#4 vs. (#5 vs. (#12 vs. #13))

Definitely a viable way to do a 16-team tournament and one that has hit these boards a bit the last few years. Some (potential) deficiencies now that we’ve gone to a defacto P4:

Other will say the byes belong only to Champs, but this opens the door to 3-loss Champs getting byes to the #4 seed, devaluing the regular season. If the byes are not restricted to champs. You have potential where the SEC or B1G championship game has no stakes as both winner and loser will maintain a Top 4 ranking.

3 Champs splits the difference. No losers get the bye and the Big 12 can’t have 2 3-loss teams ranked in the teens and expect their CCG winner to get a bye.

8 Play-In teams is quite a bit and a number of CCG winners and/or losers will have to play in this round. This increases the number of possible games (and number of games on consecutive weekends) by 1 more. Not insurmountable, but one of the qualms coaches had with the initial 12-team proposal and why they mandated a 12-day break before a team’s first round.

The “Perfect” playoff adds no additional games and preserves the 12-day break.

I do like revisiting the idea of campus vs. bowl sites. I suspect that conversation isn’t done yet.

You could maybe get away with this with 15 teams where the top 4 CCG winners get the double bye, the CCG losers and 5th best champ get a single bye, and have 3 play-in games Army-Navy week featuring 6 teams who were off CCG Weekend thus preserving Army-Navy and the 12 day break. The concern, however, is will the ACC/B12 CCG participants be all top 9-12, that remains to be seen with the future realignment, and the B1G/SEC aren't waiting around to find out with their 14 team CFP proposal.

That was one of the concerns that led me to simply picking the play-in teams after the CCG results. The best non-CCG teams would get a bye, and the lower 6 would have to play on 1 week's notice (though they'd have a pretty good idea they were going to compete).

An alternative is to set a Top 8 threshold, pre-CCGs. non-CCG teams in the Top 8 get a bye, the next 3 non-CCG teams host the 3 play-ins, and after the CCGs, the final 3 teams are chosen (poorly ranked M2 losers might fall to here). But at least this way play-in hosts have a second week to prep their facilities.

(02-24-2024 01:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 01:11 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 01:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The Big Ten and SEC don't give a damn. ESPN isn't going to allow the ACC or Big 12 to not have the CCG. It's baked into the conference TV deals. I don't see ACC or Big 12 wanting less money.

Well, the ACC and Big 12 won’t vote to approve this. You can be sure of that.

Unless the distribution is 25/25 P2 and 20/20/10 for M2s and G5s, the format is not being extended as 12 or 14.

If it stays 5+7, Big 12 and ACC would accept less revenue. Maybe 30/30 and 15/15/10 or something (or 17.5% for each M2).

They're only 2 votes. Don't control it by themselves. doesn't have to be unanimous for the new deal.

The politics is an interesting angle. The M2 don't control it themselves, but neither do the P2. How do you get the G5 vote? That guaranteed 2nd G spot is enticing. But the M2 can put forward plan with 2 G spots 'and' a play-in round that preserves at least a third Champion's bye to the NYD round (ie. the "Perfect" Playoff).

The P2 are painting themselves into a corner trying to keep 2 byes without a play-in round. The only real way to add value from there is to add a play-in round and access Army-Navy weekend. You can do that without tossing that 3rd NYD bye into the wastebin.

(02-24-2024 12:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 12:42 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 12:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The CCG aren't going away- no matter how much you for some God only knows reason wants them to go away.

And the G5- yeah sorry but no way in hell they're getting 2 bids. None. Nada. Even in your stupid idea, there is no way that the MWC and AAC would agree to that stupidity of them sharing one and then the other 3 sharing another. It would be the 2 best G5 which most years would be them. You are taking that stupid Dennis Dodd article way too far.

Okay, I’m an idiot. Dodd is off base with tiered qualification. Dellenger is probably assuming the wrong thing as well. You got the format locked down. Got it, Steve…

Dude the tiered thing was about the money. Not the ******* qualification. Reading comprehension is your friend. No one in hell really thinks the G5 is getting 2 teams in any format. Not even the G5 themselves.

It was a recommendation on how to do the money from Dodd....

Sun Belt is a better fit but it won’t happen. The AAC might happen. If the conference loses a couple from Memphis, South Florida, Tulane, etc. (especially Tulane), I could see backfills like Louisiana Tech, Middle Tennessee St, Western Kentucky, or Florida International.

(02-22-2024 08:00 PM)clunk Wrote:  The purpose of a playoff is to find the best team. In a 16 team bracket that means EVERY FBS conference champ gets an autobid. Anything else isn't a true playoff.
Case in point, both Sagarin and Massey have FCS South Dakota State above any G5 team. In theory that means a 5+7 this year shouldn't have a G5. Is that accurate? We'll never know.

I completely disagree with your premise. The purpose of a playoff is to provide the most attractive (that is to say, most lucrative) entertainment. The NCAAT, which so many assert is the perfect format for college hoops, is often won by a team many would consider was not the "best" team in the country. The Stanley Cup produces surprise winners more often than not. But their formats are exciting, and draw lots of eyeballs.

All you can ever say is that the winner was the best on that given day. That's what tournaments are all about. The definition of a champion has never been the "best", it is merely the winner of a tournament. The regular season champion could be the winner of the round robin tournament, or some approximation of that. For NCAAT purposes, the conference champion is the winner of a post season conference tournament. How often are those two different teams?

So, who is to say what the most attractive entertainment is? At the end of the day, whoever is paying for it gets the most say or influence in the selection process. That's just the way it is. I understand why fans of schools that are likely to be left out want it to be otherwise. But that isn't going to change anything.

(02-26-2024 08:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-22-2024 08:00 PM)clunk Wrote:  The purpose of a playoff is to find the best team. In a 16 team bracket that means EVERY FBS conference champ gets an autobid. Anything else isn't a true playoff.
Case in point, both Sagarin and Massey have FCS South Dakota State above any G5 team. In theory that means a 5+7 this year shouldn't have a G5. Is that accurate? We'll never know.

I completely disagree with your premise. The purpose of a playoff is to provide the most attractive (that is to say, most lucrative) entertainment. The NCAAT, which so many assert is the perfect format for college hoops, is often won by a team many would consider was not the "best" team in the country. The Stanley Cup produces surprise winners more often than not. But their formats are exciting, and draw lots of eyeballs.

All you can ever say is that the winner was the best on that given day. That's what tournaments are all about. The definition of a champion has never been the "best", it is merely the winner of a tournament. The regular season champion could be the winner of the round robin tournament, or some approximation of that. For NCAAT purposes, the conference champion is the winner of a post season conference tournament. How often are those two different teams?

So, who is to say what the most attractive entertainment is? At the end of the day, whoever is paying for it gets the most say or influence in the selection process. That's just the way it is. I understand why fans of schools that are likely to be left out want it to be otherwise. But that isn't going to change anything.

Agreed that a tournament ultimately needs to serve entertainment needs. Now, I do think the general public needs to believe that the tournament is legitimate at some level. If it’s *too* prescribed, then the general public will have issues with it. I also think that people look at basketball and football differently. You can have 64-plus teams play an entire tournament over the course of 3 weekends and the field is large enough where the inclusion of smaller conferences and schools isn’t taking *away* any power conference teams that really worth anything. I’m hardly a small conference populist, but the fact that the 10th place Big Ten champ might get left out so that the SWAC champ gets in doesn’t give me heartburn because every realistic national championship (or even Final Four) team is in the field.

In contrast, in a 12 or even 14 team playoff for football, the general public actually really would rather see a 3 or 4 loss Big Ten or SEC over the top G5 champ. Where the basketball tournament is large enough to allow for populism, the nature of football means that it’s going to be more elitist… and it *should* be because we can’t realistically have an FBS playoff with more than 16 teams. (An FCS-style playoff would require eliminating a regular season game and/or conference championship games, which would be total non-starters.)

At the same time, the G5 simply have zero leverage here. ZERO. Big Ten and SEC are on Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back mode: if the G5 need to pray that the P2 don’t alter the current deal any further, much less attempt to ask for more. The P2 still need the ACC and Big 12 at some level, but they truly and legitimately don’t need the G5 at all. The G5 need to understand that they are complete financial subsidy cases for the playoff and there’s no leverage here at them at all. A G5-only playoff is also completely worthless from a TV perspective, so either the G5 need to fight just to *keep* what they have now (much less ask for me) or expect to simply be completely crushed. For those G5 fans that think that it can’t get worse, they’re unfortunately sorely mistaken. It can get a LOT worse because the free market actually is incentivizing it to get MUCH worse.

(02-25-2024 11:42 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 01:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 01:11 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 01:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The Big Ten and SEC don't give a damn. ESPN isn't going to allow the ACC or Big 12 to not have the CCG. It's baked into the conference TV deals. I don't see ACC or Big 12 wanting less money.

Well, the ACC and Big 12 won’t vote to approve this. You can be sure of that.

Unless the distribution is 25/25 P2 and 20/20/10 for M2s and G5s, the format is not being extended as 12 or 14.

If it stays 5+7, Big 12 and ACC would accept less revenue. Maybe 30/30 and 15/15/10 or something (or 17.5% for each M2).

They're only 2 votes. Don't control it by themselves. doesn't have to be unanimous for the new deal.

The politics is an interesting angle. The M2 don't control it themselves, but neither do the P2. How do you get the G5 vote? That guaranteed 2nd G spot is enticing. But the M2 can put forward plan with 2 G spots 'and' a play-in round that preserves at least a third Champion's bye to the NYD round (ie. the "Perfect" Playoff).

The P2 are painting themselves into a corner trying to keep 2 byes without a play-in round. The only real way to add value from there is to add a play-in round and access Army-Navy weekend. You can do that without tossing that 3rd NYD bye into the wastebin.

I’m generally in agreement here. Even beyond the votes, I really don’t think at least the Big Ten wants to go to where only the top 2 champs get byes because there’s just too much risk in a given year of losing that spot to a hot Big 12 or ACC champ (regardless of how strong the Big Ten might be in a given season). That bye to the quarterfinal that is virtually guaranteed if it’s for the top 4 conference champs suddenly becomes at risk if it’s just for the top 2 conference champs (and I don’t think that anything the P2 are doing is about introducing more risk). That effectively guaranteed quarterfinal spot, e.g. ensuring that the Big Ten champ is playing in a quarterfinal Rose Bowl on NYD *every* year, not merely most years, is worth more than the chance at an extra at-large bid if they have to choose. The thing with the play-in round is that you *don’t* have to choose.

(02-26-2024 09:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 11:42 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 01:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 01:11 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 01:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The Big Ten and SEC don't give a damn. ESPN isn't going to allow the ACC or Big 12 to not have the CCG. It's baked into the conference TV deals. I don't see ACC or Big 12 wanting less money.

Well, the ACC and Big 12 won’t vote to approve this. You can be sure of that.

Unless the distribution is 25/25 P2 and 20/20/10 for M2s and G5s, the format is not being extended as 12 or 14.

If it stays 5+7, Big 12 and ACC would accept less revenue. Maybe 30/30 and 15/15/10 or something (or 17.5% for each M2).

They're only 2 votes. Don't control it by themselves. doesn't have to be unanimous for the new deal.

The politics is an interesting angle. The M2 don't control it themselves, but neither do the P2. How do you get the G5 vote? That guaranteed 2nd G spot is enticing. But the M2 can put forward plan with 2 G spots 'and' a play-in round that preserves at least a third Champion's bye to the NYD round (ie. the "Perfect" Playoff).

The P2 are painting themselves into a corner trying to keep 2 byes without a play-in round. The only real way to add value from there is to add a play-in round and access Army-Navy weekend. You can do that without tossing that 3rd NYD bye into the wastebin.

I’m generally in agreement here. Even beyond the votes, I really don’t think at least the Big Ten wants to go to where only the top 2 champs get byes because there’s just too much risk in a given year of losing that spot to a hot Big 12 or ACC champ (regardless of how strong the Big Ten might be in a given season). That bye to the quarterfinal that is virtually guaranteed if it’s for the top 4 conference champs suddenly becomes at risk if it’s just for the top 2 conference champs (and I don’t think that anything the P2 are doing is about introducing more risk). That effectively guaranteed quarterfinal spot, e.g. ensuring that the Big Ten champ is playing in a quarterfinal Rose Bowl on NYD *every* year, not merely most years, is worth more than the chance at an extra at-large bid if they have to choose. The thing with the play-in round is that you *don’t* have to choose.

The schedule just released for the 5+7 model could have been written by the B1G. That NYD Rose Bowl is baked in (with a late afternoon start time), even at the expense of pushing the Orange Bowl (formerly the ACC's contract bowl) to the semifinal round a week later. The SEC's Sugar Bowl is also on NYD, in the evening. Clear where the power lies.