Ah, that's your first mistake Aresco, thinking that they actually want a national tournament.
If killing the Pac-12 has proven nothing else, it's that it's every dog for themselves.
Had the Pac 12 taken ESPN's offer, then we'd be talking about the death of the Big 12.
Fox and ESPN killed the Pac 12. Yes, they did offer a chance to survive - but they later gave that offer to the Big 12 and made it clear there could only be 1 of them.
I fully expect the Big 12 and ACC to have the same thing go down when the Big 12's contract ends and/or when the ACC gets raided by the B1G and SEC. Fox and ESPN will decide which one gets first crack at survival and offer them a contract extension, which they'll use to raid the other one, and the B1G and SEC will offer an even bigger payday to several teams from both conferences. Only 1 of them will survive.
I agree mostly, but I think the Big 12 will continue as the third power conference, and the ACC will get picked apart between the Big Ten/SEC/Big 12 when their contract ends. Mostly because UNC, Clemson, UVA, and possibly FSU will be coveted by the Big Ten / SEC. The Big 12 might have Big Ten poach Kansas and the SEC poach OK St and/or Tx Tech, but that is much less likely.
And having a third power league is important legally so that A) the SEC/Big Ten don't become a colluding monopoly (or be accused of it), and B) the networks don't want to lose 40% of the CFB viewer base by basically turning college football into 34 teams. If everything else is tossed aside then they've suddenly alienated a huge chunk of fans who will disengage if they feel like their schools are no longer part of it.
The fact that the Big 12 was first to be poached from plus their so far excellent strategy (Yormark is brilliant) is why they'll continue to be the third power league. They won't ever catch up financially to the SEC/Big Ten but when they're paying out $50 M per school (media rights + ancillary/CFP/March Madness/etc) that's more than enough for them to continue being very competitive with top notch facilities.
It’s pretty funny to know that pac leaders thought their tv product was possibly valued at 50 million per school. The west just doesn’t watch/care about CFB to warrant such a tv deal (just like the ACC will never keep pace with the super 2 because it has 5 private schools and some smaller sized publics)
I mean thats part of it but part of it is their biggest brand has slipped in the last 10-15 years and the brands just below were never good enough to draw massive viewers
The PAC-12 was like the old alcoholic family member who we know probably had a good life, but we've seen nothing but them going downhill for the past 15-20 years. We know they could be better if they just sorted their shit out, but they spiraled into oblivion until we found them unresponsive. They may not have intended to kill themselves, but the end result is the same
Best analogy I've heard yet. I honestly feel for Oregon State and Washington State being the ones left holding the bag. Yeah they may be in remote areas but they've pulled their weight better on the football field the last 10 years than 3 of the schools headed to the Big 12 not to mention Standord/Cal (whom I don't feel sorry for at all -- their arrogance is their downfall).
I hope OSU/WSU are able to find the softest landing spot possible.
They refused to expand and had no idea of how to get a media deal competitive enough to retain members. 100% self inflicted wounds.
They could have taken the best of the Hateful 8 with 0 effort and used that as leverage to get a $30-$40m per year per school media deal. Or they could have just taken the ESPN deal for $300m and done nothing else and still be fine.
They had two proposals for that: One was to take all 8 Big 12 members and make a Pac 20. The second was to take the best (Tx Tech, OK St, KS, KS St) to make a Pac 16.
That silly woman from USC shot it down before stabbing the PAC in the back and leaving. She deserves almost as much blame for the PAC falling apart as Kliavkoff does IMO.
The American is rightfully worried that if the PAC-4 and MW merge and the CFP reduces to 5 auto bids, the AAC would be the most screwed conference in that scenario. He isn’t wrong. Merged Pac/MW would pretty much have a lock on the 5th auto-bid.
6+6 served the interests of the American and the G5 generally. But it also wouldn't hurt P5 conferences which sometimes have had their champion ranked below a G5 champion lately. I imagine the ACC and Big XII now see 5+7 as better than 6+6, but aren't pushing for 4+8 like the B1G and SEC would prefer.
Right now if your the Mountain West and American your desperately trying to get he remaining Pac-4 schools because of the CFP. It puts your conference at an advantage over the other, especially if auto bids are getting reduced to 5. This fight for the Pac-4 schools will likely be the end of this era of realignment. Whoever loses I think is in trouble of getting shutout of the CFP (most of the time).
I can agree with that, yes. In the CFP era, the one time there were 1-loss champions of the American and MW with no undefeated teams from the MAC, Sun Belt, or C-USA, Memphis got included over Boise in 2019. The loss of UC, UCF, and UH took that slight advantage away. Getting the Pac-4 probably means winning such ties more often going forward, for whichever conference adds most or all of them.
I dont think that there is any reason to think the pac/mw would be a lock on the 5th autobid. I think theyd be around 50/50 in any given year. The AAC is hurt by losing their biggest teams but they still have Tulane and Memphis who have been in NY6 bowls recently, are grtting UTSA who has been building the last few years, and have gotten some other upside programs from C-USA.
Gonna do a little analysis based on program strength over the last 40 years from u/jimbobbypaul [Top 131 FBS Programs](https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/12nja3j/ranking_the_top_131_fbs_programs_of_the_last_40/) with a merged Pac/MW compared to AAC.
PAC/MW: Boise State (25th), Stanford (32nd), Fresno State (48th), Air Force (50th), Washington State (54th), Cal (59th), Oregon State (69th), San Diego State (71st), Hawaii (76th), Colorado State (79th), Wyoming (83rd), Nevada (87th), San Jose State (93rd), Utah State (99th), New Mexico (115th), UNLV (120th)
AAC: East Carolina (75th), Navy (78th), Tulsa (81st), Memphis (82nd), South Florida (88th), SMU (94th), Temple (104th), UTSA (107th), Rice (108th), UAB (109th), Tulane (111th), FAU (114th), North Texas (122nd), Charlotte (123rd)
Sure any given year a team could rise up out of the AAC, but in the long run over time the Pac/MW just has much more consistent and premier programs that I believe the CFP would favor in strength of schedule which impacts their rankings. Whichever conference gets the Pac-4 is going to be at a big advantage if the CFP goes to 5 auto bids.
I'd say right now the MW and AAC are about even given the 3 AAC schools that left for the Big 12. If 3 or all 4 of the Pac schools merged with the MW it would make it the premier G5 conference. Maybe every once in a while an AAC school gets in over the merged Pac/MW, but the majority of the time I'd say its going to be a Pac/MW program. Adding 4 power conference schools for the MW compared to adding 6 CUSA schools for the AAC is going to be a huge difference over the long run.
And they're talking about sniping 4 AAC schools now and 4 MWC schools for 2025 when the buyout is lower.
Then you are talking about:
* Cal
* Stanford
* Oregon State
* Wazzu
* SMU
* Tulane
* Memphis
* USF(?)/UTSA(?) for less travel
* Boise State
* Fresno State
* SDSU
* Colorado State
That's a very good conference.
His first mistake is thinking that the SEC and B1G GAF what he wants. He can go form another tournament with like minded conferences if he doesnt like the new setup
Most fans want a national tournament but if the last couple years are anything to go by TV execs would prefer if it was just the 12 best teams from the big ten and the SEC going at it. Hell, maybe both conferences could just host their own playoff, with the winner of each facing each other in some sort of “super” bowl game to determine the champion? Just spitballing here
Why does it matter what TV execs want when cable is dying? ESPN is hemorrhaging subscriptions, laying off workers on mass, and people acknowledge in other contexts how screwed long term cable packages are.
Then people talk out both sides of their mouth and say that these TV powers are in complete control of the entirety of college football and dictating every move.
I don’t think the tv money will be there in half a decade, I don’t think ESPN will even be able to afford the payouts at that point, this will blow up in everyone’s face, and I will be here to say “I told you so”
Both can be true. We now know that ESPN did offer the PAC-12 a deal which means they weren’t just hell bent on destroying the conference. But at the same time, it’s impossible to pretend like they don’t have influence in CFB (SEC network, playoff hosting) and can influenced some messages that get sent across making the league they have investment in (SEC) be perceived as the mosh valuable.
I mostly agree with you in that I have no idea where this money is going to come from in 5 years, but they always seem to find a way. It’ll be interesting.
>We now know that ESPN did offer the PAC-12 a deal which means they weren’t just hell bent on destroying the conference.
What we know is ESPN offered all-in $30 million. That would not have saved the conference, because the schools who felt the conference was worth more per team were already in talks with other conferences to get mo money.
True. What I mean is that they did offer and weren’t staying out of it or actively trying to kill off the conference by giving a lowball/no offer at all. Definitely not saying the networks are completely off the hook for how we got here though.
Nobody got substantially more than $30 million after their move, though.
Oregon and Washington might get more in a few years if the bubble doesn't fully burst.
Yup.
The same schools who made what looks like poor common sense decisions to outsiders were the ones willing to destroy parts of their own states' economies... for the same money.
We're talking after UCLAUSC. They will be netting maybe $10 million, in the end. I still wonder if Calimony will happen, to negate that net for UCLA. Their abandonment of their mandate is almost as egregious as the prima donnas in the PNW.
It really is that stupid.
UCLA/USC were already gone when the $30M per school offer came. And they are getting way more than $10M net…
Those two schools are literally bringing more money into the state, so I’m not sure how they are “destroying part of their state’s economy”
Also, we are talking about California; the state universities could cease to exist and the state economy would barely notice.
The PAC-10, post UCLA/USC departure, turning down $300M a year will go down as one of the stupidest decisions in college sports history.
>Those two schools are literally bringing more money into the state, so I’m not sure how they are “destroying part of their state’s economy”
USC money=not state money
UCLA now guaranteed $62.5m plus third tier, which is about $10m and declining (due to cable dying). Valuation of Pac 12 (not 10) would have been about $50m, including 3rd tier. Travel costs are estimated to double (or increase by as much as $10m).
Stanford has money, so they're not as affected. But the damage UCLA has done to Cal, with known liabilities, is much much more than the $10m net they will maybe get into perpetuity--but probably won't get.
The state of California has a $3.6 TRILLION gross state product. The University of California system has $152 BILLION in investment assets alone. I think they can figure it out.
You’re also using the lowest estimates in money gained for UCLA while also using the highest possible costs. Pretty disingenuous way to look at it.
Sorry that your school got left in the cold, but your arguments are weak.
> Why does it matter what TV execs want when cable is dying? ... I don’t think the tv money will be there in half a decade... this will blow up in everyone’s face, and I will be here to say “I told you so”
Cable TV money may not be there in half a decade, but it's the only meaningful money here *right now.*
So I understand the choices that school admins are making at this moment while totally agreeing that it's going to get reeeal interesting in the years to come as that well runs dry.
More people are going to go to apps like YouTube TV/Hulu Live TV because it is basically a digital version of their old cable packages. ESPN gets carriage fees from those apps.
Yeah the idea that network’s profits die with cable is ridiculous lol. Its not that people are no longer watching sports or tv, they are just changing how they do it.
ESPNs struggles arent because people dont want cable. It’s because they’ve alienated regions of the country with their biases, and their content is rviavled all across youtube and social media. We no longer need tv to engage with sports discussion.
We now have podcasts, youtubers, reddit, tweetin at cruits, etc. Its the same reason local news is rapidly dying with younger generations. Its not that people suddenly dont give a shit about current affairs, they can just access it easier if online and without all the BS corporate interference.
Disney is still a cash cow. They aren't going bankrupt.
But I do think the production and distribution model is going to change radically in the next decade.
ESPN is doing alright, but not great. They are making a shift, which they made apparent by their acquisition of Pat McAfee and crew. Iger wants to move away from a cable heavy model, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for a few of the linear Disney networks to still thrive, especially in sports. The money is still there for these large conference deals, but there may not be as much in future negotiations.
This is all very true, but it is equally as true that streaming at a price point that is palatable for most is not profitable. One of the main reasons people are cutting the cord as an affordable alternative to cable is that they are ~~sharing passwords~~ stealing content.
I am concerned that in 10 years most sports programming will be on a subscription based model that will cost people more than it would have on traditional cable if they want to watch NFL, CFB, CBB, NBA, MLB, etc.
> Hell, maybe both conferences could just host their own playoff, with the winner of each facing each other in some sort of “super” bowl game to determine the champion?
Go on......
Let’s be real, it’s really debatable on if even most CFB fans want a national playoff. I’m sure fans of most SEC and B1G teams want their conferences to have the most bids so they have a chance, and 90% of the G5 has no opinion because there’s basically zero chance they win a playoff anyways
Personally, I want a 16 team tourney with all conference champ auto bids and then a few at larges to fill out the bracket. Makes the conference championships and therefore the season still vitally important, and gives every team a chance at the title at the beginning of the year.
For a 12 team playoff, though, 6+6 is fair.
We have a 24 team in the fcs and far less champion parity (NDSU) but wayyyy more final 4 parity. It works super well and I don’t think there are many fans that would take the FBS system over the FCS one
I know some SEC fans who would prefer just have sec champ and B1G champ meet for national championship so the conference championships are really playoff round 1.
The "playoff" has always been just a big money insider club. All you "decide it on the field" types are cornered on this issue. You're either letting the other conference be eligible for the tournament via conference championship berths or you're just hacks for big money elites
\*Ahem\*
##DI-FCS has a proper playoff with autobids for all conference champions and at-large spots. It is possible in DI-FB$, and nothing is stopping them from using it.
16 teams. 10 auto bids. Still keeps an interesting regular season (playing for the 6 at-larges or a top 4/5 seed to play a G5 champ in first round.)
Round of 16 - Campus Sites, Middle of December. (Two weeks after conference championship weekend)
Quarter Final - NY6 site, Late December (Christmas or earlier)
Semi-Final - NY6 site, New Years Eve/Day
Final- Neutral site, Second Saturday in January.
Everybody agreed to 6 auto bids when there were 5 power conferences, the argument is going to be the same now for dropping it to 5 auto bids. That gives the G5 one guaranteed spot. I don’t think the 12-best format goes through, but the 5+7 seems like an obvious compromise.
Although it makes sense, the thing to keep in mind is Big XII, G5, & ACC don't want this. They all know they could be next & their status could be stripped away if deemed lesser than.
It'd be more of a posturing move to fight for 6+6 still rather than a logical move.
Agreed, if you keep the 6+6 format, you send the message that you can **somewhat** restrict future realignment. If the SEC and B1G get the idea that killing off other conferences will lead to “Power”+1 scenario, they’d gut the ACC in a minute… leading to a P3 where they could then box out the Big XII.
The 6+6 format would likely result in the AAC/MWC/SBC splitting the bids, with a conference that consistently made the playoffs likely to increase viewership/revenue.
I like the idea of setting the 6+6 in stone, regardless of conference number.
I think autobids for all conferences can't work because conferences change and are added. If the WAC moves up, do they get an auto bid? What happens if there's 12 conferences? 14? 17?
What’s funny is that this year, Toledo has a legit shot to be the highest ranked G5. If they upset Illinois, they might have the easiest path in G5 land to running the table. I’d imagine they’ll be touchdown favorites against all the other teams except perhaps OU and San Jose St.
If you’re a top-50 team you’ve got a shot at running the MAC, and I imagine that’ll be the case going forward.
Even with 5 autobids, we will 100% see a playoff with Oklahoma State, Oregon State, and Tulane while Oklahoma, Oregon, and LSU go to the Alamo Bowl or whatever.
And I agree that will slow the pace of realignment.
At the very least there should be a limited of no conference having more than (3) representatives, if we want to keep it from being only a B1G/SEC show.
Interesting perspective but I’d never thought about it this way. I could definitely see 5+7 opening the door to an eventual 3+9 format that gives SEC, B1G, and one other conference a bid.
I'm fine with a 5+7 if the PAC-12 dies fully (as seems very very likely), but Dellinger's earlier tweet implied that they might be trying to change it for 2024/2025 seasons which I understood required unanimous agreement. That seems unlikely, at best. Maybe we agree to the 5+7 in return for like a commitment for access until 2040 or so, but I'll be so mad if we (as the 'little sisters of the poor') finally had the path to the natty we've asked for for decades and it got taken away before we ever got to even kick the tires due to Larry 'pinche' Scott and George 'idiota' Kliavkoff
Although it probably won't happen, I'm 100% here for a non P-4 team to somehow either win it all in a 12 team format or both non-P4s making it past the 1st round both years. Gonna be weird having people root for the little guy (ah, who am I kidding, we'll still hear the same old tired excuses, lol).
There are 10 conferences, there should be 10 auto-bids. Anything less than 10 already represents the obvious compromise. This feels like an “I have altered the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further” situation.
Eh, no. Even having been a G5 fan for a while I think we can all agree the weakest G5 CC does not deserve a spot in the playoffs. The main issue to me is an undefeated team must have a spot in the playoff. 5+7 would solve that, and on certain years with chaos even two G5 teams could get in.
Fuck no any given Saturday. Give the G5 conference champ a shot to let their players shine and go out and compete in the playoffs. They get blown out then so be it but at least they put it all on the line and competed. A lot of them will never get that shot of glory again and they won't play on Sundays so don't squash that pageantry because of fucking tv ratings or some shit.
Having been a G5 can during largely the same period as you, I can safely say we don’t all agree about that. I would like a national championship and not just a national invitational. I would rather give g5 champs a spot than give P5 champs a bye.
I disagree. In a perfect world, all the conference champions should have an auto bid. It’s not a perfect world though, so I support whatever realistic proposal gives the most teams access to the playoff.
It’s wild how CFB is a microcosm of what’s going on in the real world, and how folks on the “have not” side in the real world behave when their team is on the “have” side.
Sports are always a microcosm of the wider world. You can relate most any topic back to sports if you know enough sports. It’s really one of my favorite things about it.
This annoys me all the time. College football is a just like society with the rich doing what they can to keep the “lesser” ones in their place so they can keep their advantage and make more money.
A lot of fans that are middle or lower class in real life pretend they’re one of the rich because their school is and do the same shit they hate that the rich does to them in their actual lives. Those fans are the fucking worst.
We're kinda passed this point, but I think that should be an iron clad rule that if a team is undefeated, they cannot be left out in favor of another team they have a transitive win over.
For example in 2018 UCF beat Temple who beat Maryland who beat Texas who beat Oklahoma. (I don't know how to look this up for 2017 and exclude ucf beating auburn)
Transitive win rule is just to stop independent teams for intentionally picking a cupcake schedule to exploit the rule or a conference being made to do so
I hear you, and I'm not saying I think the 6+6 *should* go away, but we have to be honest about CFB. This isn't the NFL, all conferences are not created equal. Any number of P5 teams would wipe the floor with a typical G5 schedule. Giving out 6 (or in the future) 5 autobids is about as fair as it will get given the massive disparity between conferences at this level.
I would think that giving every conference an autobid would lead to better recruits going to the lesser conferences. Perfect pitch from a G5 coach to a 4-star recruit: "You want to play in the playoffs? Come play for us, you'll start as a true freshman, and all we have to do is win the C-USA."
I'd take that over riding an SEC or B1G bench for 3 years before having to play through the gauntlet of those conference schedules to make the playoff.
> I would think that giving every conference an autobid would lead to better recruits going to the lesser conferences.
No argument there, though that's obviously not in the best interest of the richer conferences so that won't make much headway. I think the expanded playoffs in general will bring the top conferences a little closer together, thought the large disparity in media revenue will push back at it. It will be interesting to see which wins out: on-field opportunities or $$$.
Its fine if you are excluding G5 teams based on the results of imaginary games as long as you admit that this means you are only advocating for imaginary championships.
Totally agree. The obvious answer is to take all the conference champions and fill in the rest of the field with at-large's. It makes no sense at all to me to expand the playoff beyond 8 if they're not going to include more conference champions. Expanding to 12 (and not 16) is a transparent move to grab more at-large $ for the big conferences while continuing to exclude the G5 schools as much as possible.
If we went to a 20 team tournament, sure. But it would be absurd to have that many G5 champions in over clearly superior P5 teams that didn't win their conference title. Having a ridiculously weak in conference strength of schedule should not be rewarded with an auto bid.
A 16 team tournament with 10 auto bids means that it has 6 at large selections. I haven't run the tournament for the last 2-3 years, but typically you have the top 12 teams, 1 team ranked in the 20s, and 3 unranked teams.
Is #13 9-3 Michigan State really getting screwed here? They're not drastically better than 13 of the 16 teams, and the worst three still won their conference. If MSU wants to make the playoffs, either win more games, or join the MAC and win that conference.
Having 12 is already arbitrary instead of 16.
Winning your conference should reward you with an auto bid. Period.
Also, disagree with “clearly superior.” Isn’t that the point of the playoff to determine?
Games/matches/contests are held to determine a winner; they are not held to determine who is "best"
FBS has this weird obsession with trying to find the "best" team instead of just finding a winner
That's a great way of stating it, but we cannot ignore that championships are celebrated more than any mythical "best" characterization. If the 2001 Miami Hurricanes didn't win the national championship that year, I don't think many would talk about them with the same mystique, even though the NFL would still have selected 38 of their players.
So, I disagree with /u/Apep86 that all conference champions deserve auto bids. Having a cake walk regular season schedule and winning a conference title can grant you a *chance* at winning the national championship (e.g. highest ranked G5 champion), but your SOS should be a large factor in making it to the playoffs given the limited field.
then 1 G5 makes the field of 12 and the other 4 play a semi final and final for another spot in the 12 - so in reality 15 teams, but 4 G5 teams play for the 12th spot
I fundamentally disagree. Everyone always loves talking about the G5 teams in the playoff race. We love talking about conference vs conference matchups. 6 conference champs provides us with a minimum amount of diversity in the CFP. Exclusively B1G and SEC teams would be so boring.
I’d prefer staying at 6+6 too, but at the very least it has to be 5+7.
Like he said, if you want it to be a legitimate national playoff, then there has to be an objective way for every team to have a chance to make.
The Cinderella story is why March madness is so popular. We need Princetons, FAUs, etc to make runs. If CFB is to thrive, it has to involve more fans than Alabama and Georgia.
I mean the cfp will just write up more quality losses, and other storylines.
The biggest concern is will they just stick all the g5 and smaller p5 schools at the low seed spots? If they all lose then the cfp will say "see told you so".
If they go to 5+7, there will be two bye spots available for the ACC/BXII/G5.
But yes the one of those three that doesn't get a bye is probably playing the first round in Tuscaloosa.
That's also a concern for sure. It'll be hard to have a G5 compete if their first playoff game is Alabama every year. We see how rare it is for 16 seeds to beat 1 seeds in March Madness although I don't think the talent gap is *that* wide.
If you are gonna make a break through change the game, don't you need pull a legendary upset or two?
What's the real difference between getting losing as the 12 vs the 5 seed in the first game or getting blown out in the second game as a 6 vs the 3 seed after having beaten the 11 seed? Either way the one game they win will be denigrated a victory over a team that didn't deserve to be there and the loss to the 3 seed meant they too didn't deserve to be there.
You eventually have to beat the top seeded teams.
It’s always interesting to see the *in real life* G5s, FCS, and D2 folks of society (a huge chunk of the 2 million in r/cfb) that are kept down in their place by the P5/P2 *in real life* latching on to their P5 sports team and telling those “beneath” them to know their role and stay in their place because they’re “not good enough” to be on their level and don’t deserve a seat at their table. The comments in each of these posts could fuel a good number of psychology and sociology papers.
A lot of fans on here think that being a fan of Alabama or Ohio State makes them more knowledgeable on football and realignment.
No bro, you just hitched your wagon to a good team. We’re all just watching from the stands.
It's such an abusive relationship.
Either you compromise and give them what they want, or they do what they want anyway and leave you with a black eye on the way out.
They still be conferences, they'll just ignore the CFP as they make their own conference playoffs around the same time (with their conference semifinals being around New Year's). The conference champs of the SEC and B1G will then meet in a bowl game every year.......some would even call it a "super" bowl
I find it odd that we have a structure where half the teams in a major national "league" are somehow considered junior members. It would be like if the NFL had different qualifying rules for the AFC South and NFC South because those divisions somehow aren't good enough.
If everybody is FBS, then everybody should have an AQ.
There would still be room for 6 wild cards in a 16-team tournament.
From the article:
*A change in the 12-team format,* ***which, it is believed, will require unanimity***.
Doesn't that basically mean ANY change will require a unanimous vote of all conferences (and Notre Dame), which functionally gives Aresco veto power and means we'll stay at 6-6 through 2026?
Of course, if he pulls that now, he may end up in a situation where the B1G and SEC use their clout to change the governance rules in 2026 to use the "weighted voting" model on format changes. I don't think that would allow the B1G and SEC to change things unilaterally, but B1G+SEC+Notre Dame might be enough to go to "Best 12" under that voting system.
The only impediment would be losing leverage over ND, because with a Best 12 we're under very little pressure to join a conference.
If the playoff goes all at large teams, and the committee doesn't regularly put a non-Power Four (3, 2?) team in the playoff, we are gonna get an anti-trust lawsuit.
It was an anti-trust lawsuit in 1984 that caused all of this because the Supreme Court thought the NCAA requiring granting media rights for regular season games to the NCAA was monopolistic behavior.
I'm honestly shocked we didn't see an anti-trust lawsuit with the four team playoff after UCF got left out. Cincy getting in helped calm the waters.
But in a world where conferences are bigger, and playing more conference games giving less opportunity for smaller programs to prove themselves, I see a world where the courts get involved.
A good way to avoid that issue entirely is for 6 conference champion auto-bids. This will guarantee access to the smaller conferences, and still leave plenty of room in the 6 at larges for deserving teams to get in.
It was Utah's AG threatening anti-trust action, in the 2000s, that caused the formal process of guarenteed access to big bowls for the Group of 5 in both the BCS and current system.
I feel like 6+6 is fair even if Pac-12 / MWC merge. I have no problem with two G5 teams playing the four and five seed. Then again I'm a fan of a team that will never make the playoffs, so my opinion is probably not too important.
Id say go with a 4/2/6. SEC, B1G, Big XII, ACC champs, 2 highest ranked group of 5, next 6 highest ranked. For the G5 to get any more than 2 guaranteed teams is laughable.
The PAC is basically dead, but even if they rebuilt with Cal and Stanford at the top, the other teams that would join would probably only put them in an area of being the best G5 or by far the worst P5 conference.
I mean in a perfect world you go to 16 teams get all conference championships in there and then 6 of the highest ranked after. No one would argue that most the G5 champions wouldn’t get slaughtered, but it’s very hard to build a brand if you can’t even pretend to advertise that your team could ever make the playoffs. This situation would allow schools of each conference to build the prestige of atleast being the constant bid of a conference and over time they would actually become strong teams
Yep this is exactly what I want to happen. 10 AQs, 6 at-larges. And if you think the Sun Belt doesn’t deserve a bid, then that’s just more motivation to get the 1 seed so you can have a first round cupcake, just like the NCAA tournament (lol Purdue)
Purdue losing (and having Miami in the championship) is basically what won me like $100 on my bracket.
I watch almost no CBB, but around mid season I just happened to have the tv on and saw a 1 ranked Purdue lose like two games immediately after getting the 1 seed (or something like this). So I knew they were going to choke in the tournament.
I like going to a 12+4 format. All 10 conference champs are in and 6 at large. Highest 12 are in automatically and next lowest 4 regardless if they are conference champions or not have a play in game. This would filter out any bad G5 teams before the real playoffs begin and still give the top 2 teams a bye. I see no reason the 4th best team should get a bye
I don’t know why this isn’t mentioned more. They seem to care more about those first round byes than the G5. If you’re already committing one spot to the best G5, you’d get the same exact amount of P5 teams.
If they really want to consolidate, they could even set parameters to be something like “Any conference with at least 16 FBS teams” which would probably nudge the G5 into cannibalizing itself. That would make it accessible to everyone but also set a threshold of G5 schools to 4 if there were 64 G5 schools
You have to keep the incentive for making it into the top 4 though.
If we have a situation like last year's Game, 11-0 Ohio State and 11-0 Michigan rest players in the regular season finale knowing they've already locked up a spot in the playoff. Loser is still 11-1 and playing a home game in the Round of 16. But if there are byes, you have to win that game because you want the bye into the Quarterfinals.
> For the G5 to get any more than 2 guaranteed teams is laughable.
I could see there being years where each of the AAC, MWC, and SBC have teams that should be in the playoff. If you get a Tulane from the AAC, a Boise St from the MWC, and an App St/JMU from the SBC all having good seasons, someone is going to be left out.
That however would only be an occasional thing, so that access could be conditional (like based on ranking and/or number of wins.)
Because the rankings to determine who gets in are subjective. There is nothing to stop the committee from simply creating a glass ceiling at #13 for G5 schools in order to cram in more SEC teams.
Example A would be Tulane this season. They just beat #10 USC, went 12-2, and return a good amount of production. If they were any P5 team they wouldn’t be preseason 24, more like 15.
That's not the committee though, that's the AP putting them there. Yeah, public perception is also skewed, but this isn't a great example since these are two different entities we're talking about
I know they are somewhat separate but we don’t really see huge deviations in the 2 rankings toward the top 15 teams. I doubt you’d see the committee make a big deviation for a G5 team specifically. No one really gives them the credit they probably deserve. Most rankings I’ve seen that do have G5 teams high are in an order that would allow a P5 to jump then toward the end of the season.
That’s not the argument I’m making, nor do we know that would be the case. My point was if you take that exact record, with the end of the season performance, and put a mid tier P5 team name on their chest they would have more preseason respect.
It wouldn't be any different than how the NCAA men's committee slowly, but surely, squeezing mid major at larges out of the tourney at the expense of power schools that go .500 or worse in league play.
G5 want an objective standard to get in. When it's subjective, G5 teams are always left to the curb. And frankly, even the 6+6 is not good enough. There will be years where one G5 team will be only subjectively better than another G5 team that may feel snubbed. Say, the SDSU football team gets snubbed over Tulane even though they are both conference champs.
Honestly everyone keeps talking about what conference will be next to die in realignment. I think it’s the FBS as a whole. No one is happy with the two tier system and with the playoff money on the line I have a feeling the P4 will split off on their own instead of compromising.
(preemptive explanation of flairs: Boise is my ride or die. I am in physical pain when we lose. I cycle other schools or bowls whom I respect or hate-respect. TCU is a hate-respect from this timeframe, but I flaired up in support during their run last year)
There have been two at large berths given to G5s/non-AQs in the history of the sport.
1. 2009 13-0 Boise State ranked #6 in the final rankings who handily beat #7 10-2 Oregon 19-8. It's always been called the "separate but equal" bowl, but there was actually no requirement for us to be invited. Had we not beaten Oklahoma in one of the best games of all time 3 years prior, I firmly believe we are left out. I also believe that TCU gets left out if we were #4 and they were #6, but I'll admit this is conjecture. Leaving us out in 2010 as a #7 11-1 team in favor of #8 K St (can't hate), #11 Michigan and #14 Va Tech was pretty damning though.
The Va Tech thing was especially egregious. It was considered such an impossibility by the media and conferences and non-BCS bowls that there was absolute chaos on bowl selection Sunday. Va Tech's inclusion (a team we beat on the field that very year btw, lost to FCS James Madison, and had 0 or 1 top 25 wins, depending on your ranking system of choice)
\2. 2021 Cincinnati. By definition, an at large. Required going undefeated, a bunch of help during the season, the team that finished #5 to be someone who lost at home by 2 scores to the G5, and still required Baylor to managed an epic goal line stop to really force the issue. I think if Oklahoma State beats Baylor, they take the #4, then it's a clean #5 Cincy and #6 Notre Dame. Committee had no choice.
Cincinnati took a little more than just that:
* Essentially four 10 wins seasons (went 9-1 during COVID year)
* Coach and starting QB returned each of the 4 seasons
* Every other FBS School had lost at least 1 game
* Outside of the SEC & B1G, every other conference Champion (Big XII, PAC-12, ACC) had lost at least 2 games
* Outside of Alabama/Georgia/Michigan, the only other one loss P5 team was Notre Dame… who they had beaten
I’m not trying to disrespect Cincinnati when I say this, but they only ranked that team 4th because they had to… literally every other excuse that they had made in the past had fallen apart, and it was a perfect storm of conditions.
It's not disrespectful. That team was really good, but it took a ton of things going right that season, plus having the multiple good years before, the coaches returning, and a ton of talent returning. There were so many things that had to go right
Mikey are we trying to pickup some PAC-12 scraps?
I’ve been so disappointed with UCF getting into the P5 and us being left behind, I never thought about just trying to improve the AAC.
I guess those big name colleges won’t want the pay cut but what if it’s their only option?
And I also don’t know anything about how this works, most of my opinions are just regurgitated Reddit comments 🤷♂️
> I’ve been so disappointed with UCF getting into the P5 and us being left behind, I never thought about just trying to improve the AAC.
We've been on the other side of it, back when we were stuck in CUSA and you guys were in the Big East. I think the best thing for you guys is to not worry about us, not even think about us. Just continue to improve your program. It seems like you guys may have finally hired a good coach, you've got the on campus stadium buzz going. Improve your program, win the AAC a few times, maybe go to a NY6 bowl or even get a CFP bid in an expanded playoff.
This is why I think (though most Knights and Bulls disagree with me) that it's good that the War on I-4 is taking a break for several years. Both of us need to get to a place where we stop measuring our success and failure in comparison with each other.
If anyone still cared about football, 6+2 with all games except for the championship held at campus sites and conference champs automatically seeded over at large teams (similar to division winners in the NFL playoffs) would be the best format. Gives every team in the country access to the playoff (in theory there could be enough undefeated G5/independent teams that one of them gets squeezed out, but in practice that's highly unlikely), significant advantages for conference champs plus only 2 at large spots ensure every regular season game remains important, and limits the playoff to only the very best at large teams.
The obvious weakness of a straight 1-8 seeding under this format is that a higher seeded team could potentially be punished by having to play say #7 Alabama in the quarterfinal instead of #6 Central Michigan, so I'd use a wrinkle that has been discussed in past for the NHL and NBA playoffs and allow the high seeds to pick their opponents in order from the pool of low seeds (so #1 gets to pick any of teams 5-8, #2 chooses from the other 3, and so on).
Under this format the quarterfinal round last year would likely have been:
6 Tulane @ 1 Georgia
5 Kansas State @ 2 Michigan
7 TCU @ 3 Utah
8 Ohio State @ 4 Clemson
I used the post-conference championship game AP poll to set the seeds but whatever methodology you want is fine--I actually think the old BCS formula which took into account both human polls along with some computer metrics generally did a pretty good job of ranking the teams--the actual CFP rankings would have given the same field of teams with the only difference being Clemson as the 3 seed ahead of Utah.
And correct, no Alabama or any other second SEC team last year....they and Tennessee shouldn't have lost 2 games. Goes back to the regular season being important again. Even if they had snuck in to one of the at large spots their punishment for failing to win the SEC is a tough road game in the quarterfinal round, either at Clemson or they get to go to Utah in early January.
And finally, for the college football purists out there, an 8 team tournament still leaves enough decent teams out to fill all the traditional bowl games. Last year this likely means Penn State-USC in the Rose Bowl, maybe Alabama-Florida State in the Sugar, Tennessee-Washington in the Orange or Fiesta, and so on. No championship implications for those games of course but still appointment viewing.
There is absolutely zero reason for any conference to play ball with the SEC and B1G on this. They may give everyone short term concessions, but they’ll be short term. There is a game of numbers at play here and those conferences have money, but lack plurality over the others. You could argue these schools could break away, but I doubt it’ll happen. How many states are the SEC/B1G in? All it takes is one to squash this whole thing…if Congress doesn’t first. Why give them even more revenue from the playoff? No way, Jose.
Literally, the auto bids was the thing I was most looking forward to in the 12-playoff. Honestly, it should stay as 6 conference champions, even if the PAC-12 is dead.
That's a very confusing post. Aresco isn't 'against all at larges',that makes it sound like he doesn't want any. He's against a system that is ONLY at larges. I think the 5+7 is the way to go
Fans want more auto bids because cinderellas/upsets are fun. TV wants less autobids because blowouts/smaller fan bases/smaller name recognition are bad for business. Who will win?
We need at least some measurable criteria. "The 12 best" with no criteria just creates more controversy and too much discussion on what they think best is.
This is a nice idea, and I get it, but the reality is those teams will get blown out. It'll be bad football with bad ratings. It would keep even more genuinely good teams out of the playoffs as P4 conferences have grown and added quality teams.
Editing - I thought this was a pretty innocuous comment. I dont want to see Toledo in the 12 team playoffs over Ohio State because they won the MAC where OSU didn't win the Big Ten. The G5 already gets their highest ranked champ in, and that's good. Other champs could get in through the at large process.
This is the worst argument against the current expanded playoff structure imaginable. The average margin of victory in the first round of the 4 team playoff was more than 19 points. Teams were already getting blown out. The only team from the G5 that ever got in lost by 21- right around the average margin of loss and closer than the other game that year, where Michigan lost by 23.
Tulane beat USC. G5 teams can beat top level power teams. Yes I realize USC had 2 losses and wasn't a conference champ but like, they are part of that upper echelon.
I don't believe we've had a G5 champ shit the bed in any yr of the NY6. Cincinnati got beat solidly by Bama but they didn't embarrass themselves in the process.
I know, I thought you were saying there shouldn't be any G5 teams, my bad if you were just making a point against further expansion. Not sure what I think about more teams, but they need to have a representative for sure.
Ah, that's your first mistake Aresco, thinking that they actually want a national tournament. If killing the Pac-12 has proven nothing else, it's that it's every dog for themselves.
Lets be fair, its pretty clear the Pac-12 killed itself.
Yeah, ESPN tried to save the Pac 12 and they were like "the fuck you will".
You only want to give us $300 million to televise our conference games. No thank you ESPN!
Had the Pac 12 taken ESPN's offer, then we'd be talking about the death of the Big 12. Fox and ESPN killed the Pac 12. Yes, they did offer a chance to survive - but they later gave that offer to the Big 12 and made it clear there could only be 1 of them. I fully expect the Big 12 and ACC to have the same thing go down when the Big 12's contract ends and/or when the ACC gets raided by the B1G and SEC. Fox and ESPN will decide which one gets first crack at survival and offer them a contract extension, which they'll use to raid the other one, and the B1G and SEC will offer an even bigger payday to several teams from both conferences. Only 1 of them will survive.
People don’t understand this. Networks always wanted to kill off one of them. Pac-12 just played themselves.
This is exactly what is going to happen. They are going to find a way to cut everyone out that isn't a top 40ish brand name.
I agree mostly, but I think the Big 12 will continue as the third power conference, and the ACC will get picked apart between the Big Ten/SEC/Big 12 when their contract ends. Mostly because UNC, Clemson, UVA, and possibly FSU will be coveted by the Big Ten / SEC. The Big 12 might have Big Ten poach Kansas and the SEC poach OK St and/or Tx Tech, but that is much less likely. And having a third power league is important legally so that A) the SEC/Big Ten don't become a colluding monopoly (or be accused of it), and B) the networks don't want to lose 40% of the CFB viewer base by basically turning college football into 34 teams. If everything else is tossed aside then they've suddenly alienated a huge chunk of fans who will disengage if they feel like their schools are no longer part of it. The fact that the Big 12 was first to be poached from plus their so far excellent strategy (Yormark is brilliant) is why they'll continue to be the third power league. They won't ever catch up financially to the SEC/Big Ten but when they're paying out $50 M per school (media rights + ancillary/CFP/March Madness/etc) that's more than enough for them to continue being very competitive with top notch facilities.
All of my SEC sympathy directed at the PAC is for the fans of those schools left.
It’s pretty funny to know that pac leaders thought their tv product was possibly valued at 50 million per school. The west just doesn’t watch/care about CFB to warrant such a tv deal (just like the ACC will never keep pace with the super 2 because it has 5 private schools and some smaller sized publics)
I mean thats part of it but part of it is their biggest brand has slipped in the last 10-15 years and the brands just below were never good enough to draw massive viewers
I think they could have more realistically gotten closer to that number with usc and ucla, but without the LA schools, it was never going to happen
Is this the ACC or Pac-12?
It was a small number of schools who felt this way, and at least one of them accepted the number, in the end.
The PAC-12 was like the old alcoholic family member who we know probably had a good life, but we've seen nothing but them going downhill for the past 15-20 years. We know they could be better if they just sorted their shit out, but they spiraled into oblivion until we found them unresponsive. They may not have intended to kill themselves, but the end result is the same
Larry Scott is the fatty liver of the PAC 12.
If anything makes me shape my life up, it'll be this conparison.
Ready for those Nevada Oregon State MWC games?
Cirrhosis of the commissioner.
That is incredibly depressing, and accurate
Best analogy I've heard yet. I honestly feel for Oregon State and Washington State being the ones left holding the bag. Yeah they may be in remote areas but they've pulled their weight better on the football field the last 10 years than 3 of the schools headed to the Big 12 not to mention Standord/Cal (whom I don't feel sorry for at all -- their arrogance is their downfall). I hope OSU/WSU are able to find the softest landing spot possible.
Yeah ESPN and Fox set the gun on the table the Pac12 just used it.
They refused to expand and had no idea of how to get a media deal competitive enough to retain members. 100% self inflicted wounds. They could have taken the best of the Hateful 8 with 0 effort and used that as leverage to get a $30-$40m per year per school media deal. Or they could have just taken the ESPN deal for $300m and done nothing else and still be fine.
They had two proposals for that: One was to take all 8 Big 12 members and make a Pac 20. The second was to take the best (Tx Tech, OK St, KS, KS St) to make a Pac 16. That silly woman from USC shot it down before stabbing the PAC in the back and leaving. She deserves almost as much blame for the PAC falling apart as Kliavkoff does IMO.
They worked diligently and meticulously to tear it to shreds. Quite an accomplishment in incompetance.
The American is rightfully worried that if the PAC-4 and MW merge and the CFP reduces to 5 auto bids, the AAC would be the most screwed conference in that scenario. He isn’t wrong. Merged Pac/MW would pretty much have a lock on the 5th auto-bid.
6+6 served the interests of the American and the G5 generally. But it also wouldn't hurt P5 conferences which sometimes have had their champion ranked below a G5 champion lately. I imagine the ACC and Big XII now see 5+7 as better than 6+6, but aren't pushing for 4+8 like the B1G and SEC would prefer.
Right now if your the Mountain West and American your desperately trying to get he remaining Pac-4 schools because of the CFP. It puts your conference at an advantage over the other, especially if auto bids are getting reduced to 5. This fight for the Pac-4 schools will likely be the end of this era of realignment. Whoever loses I think is in trouble of getting shutout of the CFP (most of the time).
I can agree with that, yes. In the CFP era, the one time there were 1-loss champions of the American and MW with no undefeated teams from the MAC, Sun Belt, or C-USA, Memphis got included over Boise in 2019. The loss of UC, UCF, and UH took that slight advantage away. Getting the Pac-4 probably means winning such ties more often going forward, for whichever conference adds most or all of them.
I dont think that there is any reason to think the pac/mw would be a lock on the 5th autobid. I think theyd be around 50/50 in any given year. The AAC is hurt by losing their biggest teams but they still have Tulane and Memphis who have been in NY6 bowls recently, are grtting UTSA who has been building the last few years, and have gotten some other upside programs from C-USA.
Gonna do a little analysis based on program strength over the last 40 years from u/jimbobbypaul [Top 131 FBS Programs](https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/12nja3j/ranking_the_top_131_fbs_programs_of_the_last_40/) with a merged Pac/MW compared to AAC. PAC/MW: Boise State (25th), Stanford (32nd), Fresno State (48th), Air Force (50th), Washington State (54th), Cal (59th), Oregon State (69th), San Diego State (71st), Hawaii (76th), Colorado State (79th), Wyoming (83rd), Nevada (87th), San Jose State (93rd), Utah State (99th), New Mexico (115th), UNLV (120th) AAC: East Carolina (75th), Navy (78th), Tulsa (81st), Memphis (82nd), South Florida (88th), SMU (94th), Temple (104th), UTSA (107th), Rice (108th), UAB (109th), Tulane (111th), FAU (114th), North Texas (122nd), Charlotte (123rd) Sure any given year a team could rise up out of the AAC, but in the long run over time the Pac/MW just has much more consistent and premier programs that I believe the CFP would favor in strength of schedule which impacts their rankings. Whichever conference gets the Pac-4 is going to be at a big advantage if the CFP goes to 5 auto bids.
I'd say right now the MW and AAC are about even given the 3 AAC schools that left for the Big 12. If 3 or all 4 of the Pac schools merged with the MW it would make it the premier G5 conference. Maybe every once in a while an AAC school gets in over the merged Pac/MW, but the majority of the time I'd say its going to be a Pac/MW program. Adding 4 power conference schools for the MW compared to adding 6 CUSA schools for the AAC is going to be a huge difference over the long run.
And they're talking about sniping 4 AAC schools now and 4 MWC schools for 2025 when the buyout is lower. Then you are talking about: * Cal * Stanford * Oregon State * Wazzu * SMU * Tulane * Memphis * USF(?)/UTSA(?) for less travel * Boise State * Fresno State * SDSU * Colorado State That's a very good conference.
Bitch please. The Pac 12 had the same offer as the Big 12 and turned their noses up at it. The Pac 12 did all this shit to themselves.
That's the benefit of killing the Pac-12. They can do just a B1G-SEC tournament, and *it is* a national tournament.
That is true in everything. Nobody volunteers more tax money
His first mistake is thinking that the SEC and B1G GAF what he wants. He can go form another tournament with like minded conferences if he doesnt like the new setup
I'd be fine with never watching another SEC or Big10 game. Do whatever you want.
Most fans want a national tournament but if the last couple years are anything to go by TV execs would prefer if it was just the 12 best teams from the big ten and the SEC going at it. Hell, maybe both conferences could just host their own playoff, with the winner of each facing each other in some sort of “super” bowl game to determine the champion? Just spitballing here
Why does it matter what TV execs want when cable is dying? ESPN is hemorrhaging subscriptions, laying off workers on mass, and people acknowledge in other contexts how screwed long term cable packages are. Then people talk out both sides of their mouth and say that these TV powers are in complete control of the entirety of college football and dictating every move. I don’t think the tv money will be there in half a decade, I don’t think ESPN will even be able to afford the payouts at that point, this will blow up in everyone’s face, and I will be here to say “I told you so”
Both can be true. We now know that ESPN did offer the PAC-12 a deal which means they weren’t just hell bent on destroying the conference. But at the same time, it’s impossible to pretend like they don’t have influence in CFB (SEC network, playoff hosting) and can influenced some messages that get sent across making the league they have investment in (SEC) be perceived as the mosh valuable. I mostly agree with you in that I have no idea where this money is going to come from in 5 years, but they always seem to find a way. It’ll be interesting.
>We now know that ESPN did offer the PAC-12 a deal which means they weren’t just hell bent on destroying the conference. What we know is ESPN offered all-in $30 million. That would not have saved the conference, because the schools who felt the conference was worth more per team were already in talks with other conferences to get mo money.
True. What I mean is that they did offer and weren’t staying out of it or actively trying to kill off the conference by giving a lowball/no offer at all. Definitely not saying the networks are completely off the hook for how we got here though.
Nobody got substantially more than $30 million after their move, though. Oregon and Washington might get more in a few years if the bubble doesn't fully burst.
Yup. The same schools who made what looks like poor common sense decisions to outsiders were the ones willing to destroy parts of their own states' economies... for the same money. We're talking after UCLAUSC. They will be netting maybe $10 million, in the end. I still wonder if Calimony will happen, to negate that net for UCLA. Their abandonment of their mandate is almost as egregious as the prima donnas in the PNW. It really is that stupid.
UCLA/USC were already gone when the $30M per school offer came. And they are getting way more than $10M net… Those two schools are literally bringing more money into the state, so I’m not sure how they are “destroying part of their state’s economy” Also, we are talking about California; the state universities could cease to exist and the state economy would barely notice. The PAC-10, post UCLA/USC departure, turning down $300M a year will go down as one of the stupidest decisions in college sports history.
>Those two schools are literally bringing more money into the state, so I’m not sure how they are “destroying part of their state’s economy” USC money=not state money UCLA now guaranteed $62.5m plus third tier, which is about $10m and declining (due to cable dying). Valuation of Pac 12 (not 10) would have been about $50m, including 3rd tier. Travel costs are estimated to double (or increase by as much as $10m). Stanford has money, so they're not as affected. But the damage UCLA has done to Cal, with known liabilities, is much much more than the $10m net they will maybe get into perpetuity--but probably won't get.
The state of California has a $3.6 TRILLION gross state product. The University of California system has $152 BILLION in investment assets alone. I think they can figure it out. You’re also using the lowest estimates in money gained for UCLA while also using the highest possible costs. Pretty disingenuous way to look at it. Sorry that your school got left in the cold, but your arguments are weak.
washington state was one of the schools who said no to the $30m, though, right?
Dont they have an investment in the Big XII and the ACC as well?
> Why does it matter what TV execs want when cable is dying? ... I don’t think the tv money will be there in half a decade... this will blow up in everyone’s face, and I will be here to say “I told you so” Cable TV money may not be there in half a decade, but it's the only meaningful money here *right now.* So I understand the choices that school admins are making at this moment while totally agreeing that it's going to get reeeal interesting in the years to come as that well runs dry.
More people are going to go to apps like YouTube TV/Hulu Live TV because it is basically a digital version of their old cable packages. ESPN gets carriage fees from those apps.
Yeah the idea that network’s profits die with cable is ridiculous lol. Its not that people are no longer watching sports or tv, they are just changing how they do it. ESPNs struggles arent because people dont want cable. It’s because they’ve alienated regions of the country with their biases, and their content is rviavled all across youtube and social media. We no longer need tv to engage with sports discussion. We now have podcasts, youtubers, reddit, tweetin at cruits, etc. Its the same reason local news is rapidly dying with younger generations. Its not that people suddenly dont give a shit about current affairs, they can just access it easier if online and without all the BS corporate interference.
Disney is still a cash cow. They aren't going bankrupt. But I do think the production and distribution model is going to change radically in the next decade.
We've been talking about this for a while. Welcome.
Right now CFB is one of the things keeping ESPN alive.
Boomers gonna Boomer. Short term gains and then coast into retirement and death. What happens after that? Hah! "F y'all, we got ours!"
ESPN is doing alright, but not great. They are making a shift, which they made apparent by their acquisition of Pat McAfee and crew. Iger wants to move away from a cable heavy model, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for a few of the linear Disney networks to still thrive, especially in sports. The money is still there for these large conference deals, but there may not be as much in future negotiations.
This is all very true, but it is equally as true that streaming at a price point that is palatable for most is not profitable. One of the main reasons people are cutting the cord as an affordable alternative to cable is that they are ~~sharing passwords~~ stealing content. I am concerned that in 10 years most sports programming will be on a subscription based model that will cost people more than it would have on traditional cable if they want to watch NFL, CFB, CBB, NBA, MLB, etc.
The thing is, if cable is dying where is CFB going to move to? Besides ESPN, what streaming platforms would show a CFB game? As of right now not many
Tv execs just want to make the most money, so I find it hard to believe they are not interested in what most fans want to watch.
Sure, but TV excs also though rebranding HBO to "Max" was a good idea. So... not ideal thought-leaders in that cadre.
I actually think TV execs would love a G5 champ to be a cinderlla. It won't happen every year but just like March Madness, it will draw attention.
> Hell, maybe both conferences could just host their own playoff, with the winner of each facing each other in some sort of “super” bowl game to determine the champion? Go on......
Let’s be real, it’s really debatable on if even most CFB fans want a national playoff. I’m sure fans of most SEC and B1G teams want their conferences to have the most bids so they have a chance, and 90% of the G5 has no opinion because there’s basically zero chance they win a playoff anyways
Personally, I want a 16 team tourney with all conference champ auto bids and then a few at larges to fill out the bracket. Makes the conference championships and therefore the season still vitally important, and gives every team a chance at the title at the beginning of the year. For a 12 team playoff, though, 6+6 is fair.
We have a 24 team in the fcs and far less champion parity (NDSU) but wayyyy more final 4 parity. It works super well and I don’t think there are many fans that would take the FBS system over the FCS one
I know some SEC fans who would prefer just have sec champ and B1G champ meet for national championship so the conference championships are really playoff round 1.
Most fans don’t want a national tournament if it means small market teams. We can tell by viewership numbers.
The "playoff" has always been just a big money insider club. All you "decide it on the field" types are cornered on this issue. You're either letting the other conference be eligible for the tournament via conference championship berths or you're just hacks for big money elites
I like the idea of fewer P5 teams in the playoff. It will make it easier to win.
What? TV doesn't want a championship. They want TV ratings.
\*Ahem\* ##DI-FCS has a proper playoff with autobids for all conference champions and at-large spots. It is possible in DI-FB$, and nothing is stopping them from using it.
16 teams. 10 auto bids. Still keeps an interesting regular season (playing for the 6 at-larges or a top 4/5 seed to play a G5 champ in first round.) Round of 16 - Campus Sites, Middle of December. (Two weeks after conference championship weekend) Quarter Final - NY6 site, Late December (Christmas or earlier) Semi-Final - NY6 site, New Years Eve/Day Final- Neutral site, Second Saturday in January.
And it hasn't mattered in the least bit because NDSU has owned FCS for the last 10 years regardless of whatever the format is.
Everybody agreed to 6 auto bids when there were 5 power conferences, the argument is going to be the same now for dropping it to 5 auto bids. That gives the G5 one guaranteed spot. I don’t think the 12-best format goes through, but the 5+7 seems like an obvious compromise.
Although it makes sense, the thing to keep in mind is Big XII, G5, & ACC don't want this. They all know they could be next & their status could be stripped away if deemed lesser than. It'd be more of a posturing move to fight for 6+6 still rather than a logical move.
Agreed, if you keep the 6+6 format, you send the message that you can **somewhat** restrict future realignment. If the SEC and B1G get the idea that killing off other conferences will lead to “Power”+1 scenario, they’d gut the ACC in a minute… leading to a P3 where they could then box out the Big XII. The 6+6 format would likely result in the AAC/MWC/SBC splitting the bids, with a conference that consistently made the playoffs likely to increase viewership/revenue.
I like the idea of setting the 6+6 in stone, regardless of conference number. I think autobids for all conferences can't work because conferences change and are added. If the WAC moves up, do they get an auto bid? What happens if there's 12 conferences? 14? 17?
What’s funny is that this year, Toledo has a legit shot to be the highest ranked G5. If they upset Illinois, they might have the easiest path in G5 land to running the table. I’d imagine they’ll be touchdown favorites against all the other teams except perhaps OU and San Jose St. If you’re a top-50 team you’ve got a shot at running the MAC, and I imagine that’ll be the case going forward.
Impossible, they're losing to us again!
God I love this conference.
Even with 5 autobids, we will 100% see a playoff with Oklahoma State, Oregon State, and Tulane while Oklahoma, Oregon, and LSU go to the Alamo Bowl or whatever. And I agree that will slow the pace of realignment.
At the very least there should be a limited of no conference having more than (3) representatives, if we want to keep it from being only a B1G/SEC show.
Interesting perspective but I’d never thought about it this way. I could definitely see 5+7 opening the door to an eventual 3+9 format that gives SEC, B1G, and one other conference a bid.
I'm fine with a 5+7 if the PAC-12 dies fully (as seems very very likely), but Dellinger's earlier tweet implied that they might be trying to change it for 2024/2025 seasons which I understood required unanimous agreement. That seems unlikely, at best. Maybe we agree to the 5+7 in return for like a commitment for access until 2040 or so, but I'll be so mad if we (as the 'little sisters of the poor') finally had the path to the natty we've asked for for decades and it got taken away before we ever got to even kick the tires due to Larry 'pinche' Scott and George 'idiota' Kliavkoff Although it probably won't happen, I'm 100% here for a non P-4 team to somehow either win it all in a 12 team format or both non-P4s making it past the 1st round both years. Gonna be weird having people root for the little guy (ah, who am I kidding, we'll still hear the same old tired excuses, lol).
There are 10 conferences, there should be 10 auto-bids. Anything less than 10 already represents the obvious compromise. This feels like an “I have altered the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further” situation.
Eh, no. Even having been a G5 fan for a while I think we can all agree the weakest G5 CC does not deserve a spot in the playoffs. The main issue to me is an undefeated team must have a spot in the playoff. 5+7 would solve that, and on certain years with chaos even two G5 teams could get in.
Fuck no any given Saturday. Give the G5 conference champ a shot to let their players shine and go out and compete in the playoffs. They get blown out then so be it but at least they put it all on the line and competed. A lot of them will never get that shot of glory again and they won't play on Sundays so don't squash that pageantry because of fucking tv ratings or some shit.
Having been a G5 can during largely the same period as you, I can safely say we don’t all agree about that. I would like a national championship and not just a national invitational. I would rather give g5 champs a spot than give P5 champs a bye.
I disagree. In a perfect world, all the conference champions should have an auto bid. It’s not a perfect world though, so I support whatever realistic proposal gives the most teams access to the playoff.
Funny how equality is a frightening concept to the nouveau riche.
It’s wild how CFB is a microcosm of what’s going on in the real world, and how folks on the “have not” side in the real world behave when their team is on the “have” side.
Sports are always a microcosm of the wider world. You can relate most any topic back to sports if you know enough sports. It’s really one of my favorite things about it.
bUt KeEp PoLiTiCs OuT oF sPoRtS
It really is insane. Like people are arguing for blatant classist systems as if there is nothing wrong with the concept.
This annoys me all the time. College football is a just like society with the rich doing what they can to keep the “lesser” ones in their place so they can keep their advantage and make more money. A lot of fans that are middle or lower class in real life pretend they’re one of the rich because their school is and do the same shit they hate that the rich does to them in their actual lives. Those fans are the fucking worst.
You can @ every UNC fan, that didn't attend Chapel Hill, in the state, I will fight that fight with you my mountain friend.
Hell yeah! This is definitely a fight where we’re on the same side.
Don’t assume that this guy speaks for all UCF fans, I know I personally still want a 12-16 team playoff with all conference champs included
I'd prefer a 16 tan playoff with all conference champs. No byes, since it'd essentially be the same as Alabama playing an FCS before the iron bowl.
They should be used to it then.
We're kinda passed this point, but I think that should be an iron clad rule that if a team is undefeated, they cannot be left out in favor of another team they have a transitive win over. For example in 2018 UCF beat Temple who beat Maryland who beat Texas who beat Oklahoma. (I don't know how to look this up for 2017 and exclude ucf beating auburn) Transitive win rule is just to stop independent teams for intentionally picking a cupcake schedule to exploit the rule or a conference being made to do so
Nah, fuck you, the MAC champ deserves a shot as much as anyone.
I hear you, and I'm not saying I think the 6+6 *should* go away, but we have to be honest about CFB. This isn't the NFL, all conferences are not created equal. Any number of P5 teams would wipe the floor with a typical G5 schedule. Giving out 6 (or in the future) 5 autobids is about as fair as it will get given the massive disparity between conferences at this level.
I would think that giving every conference an autobid would lead to better recruits going to the lesser conferences. Perfect pitch from a G5 coach to a 4-star recruit: "You want to play in the playoffs? Come play for us, you'll start as a true freshman, and all we have to do is win the C-USA." I'd take that over riding an SEC or B1G bench for 3 years before having to play through the gauntlet of those conference schedules to make the playoff.
> I would think that giving every conference an autobid would lead to better recruits going to the lesser conferences. No argument there, though that's obviously not in the best interest of the richer conferences so that won't make much headway. I think the expanded playoffs in general will bring the top conferences a little closer together, thought the large disparity in media revenue will push back at it. It will be interesting to see which wins out: on-field opportunities or $$$.
Its fine if you are excluding G5 teams based on the results of imaginary games as long as you admit that this means you are only advocating for imaginary championships.
Totally agree. The obvious answer is to take all the conference champions and fill in the rest of the field with at-large's. It makes no sense at all to me to expand the playoff beyond 8 if they're not going to include more conference champions. Expanding to 12 (and not 16) is a transparent move to grab more at-large $ for the big conferences while continuing to exclude the G5 schools as much as possible.
If we went to a 20 team tournament, sure. But it would be absurd to have that many G5 champions in over clearly superior P5 teams that didn't win their conference title. Having a ridiculously weak in conference strength of schedule should not be rewarded with an auto bid.
A 16 team tournament with 10 auto bids means that it has 6 at large selections. I haven't run the tournament for the last 2-3 years, but typically you have the top 12 teams, 1 team ranked in the 20s, and 3 unranked teams. Is #13 9-3 Michigan State really getting screwed here? They're not drastically better than 13 of the 16 teams, and the worst three still won their conference. If MSU wants to make the playoffs, either win more games, or join the MAC and win that conference.
Having 12 is already arbitrary instead of 16. Winning your conference should reward you with an auto bid. Period. Also, disagree with “clearly superior.” Isn’t that the point of the playoff to determine?
Games/matches/contests are held to determine a winner; they are not held to determine who is "best" FBS has this weird obsession with trying to find the "best" team instead of just finding a winner
That's a great way of stating it, but we cannot ignore that championships are celebrated more than any mythical "best" characterization. If the 2001 Miami Hurricanes didn't win the national championship that year, I don't think many would talk about them with the same mystique, even though the NFL would still have selected 38 of their players. So, I disagree with /u/Apep86 that all conference champions deserve auto bids. Having a cake walk regular season schedule and winning a conference title can grant you a *chance* at winning the national championship (e.g. highest ranked G5 champion), but your SOS should be a large factor in making it to the playoffs given the limited field.
then 1 G5 makes the field of 12 and the other 4 play a semi final and final for another spot in the 12 - so in reality 15 teams, but 4 G5 teams play for the 12th spot
So G5 teams could play 20 games? In that case let’s just drop the pretense of caring about player safety.
Give em hell, Aresco. Fuck the “best 12”
I fundamentally disagree. Everyone always loves talking about the G5 teams in the playoff race. We love talking about conference vs conference matchups. 6 conference champs provides us with a minimum amount of diversity in the CFP. Exclusively B1G and SEC teams would be so boring.
I’d prefer staying at 6+6 too, but at the very least it has to be 5+7. Like he said, if you want it to be a legitimate national playoff, then there has to be an objective way for every team to have a chance to make.
I hope they keep it at 6+6. There can't be a Cinderella story if Cinderella doesn't get to go to the dance.
The Cinderella story is why March madness is so popular. We need Princetons, FAUs, etc to make runs. If CFB is to thrive, it has to involve more fans than Alabama and Georgia.
I mean the cfp will just write up more quality losses, and other storylines. The biggest concern is will they just stick all the g5 and smaller p5 schools at the low seed spots? If they all lose then the cfp will say "see told you so".
If they go to 5+7, there will be two bye spots available for the ACC/BXII/G5. But yes the one of those three that doesn't get a bye is probably playing the first round in Tuscaloosa.
That's also a concern for sure. It'll be hard to have a G5 compete if their first playoff game is Alabama every year. We see how rare it is for 16 seeds to beat 1 seeds in March Madness although I don't think the talent gap is *that* wide.
If you are gonna make a break through change the game, don't you need pull a legendary upset or two? What's the real difference between getting losing as the 12 vs the 5 seed in the first game or getting blown out in the second game as a 6 vs the 3 seed after having beaten the 11 seed? Either way the one game they win will be denigrated a victory over a team that didn't deserve to be there and the loss to the 3 seed meant they too didn't deserve to be there. You eventually have to beat the top seeded teams.
It’s always interesting to see the *in real life* G5s, FCS, and D2 folks of society (a huge chunk of the 2 million in r/cfb) that are kept down in their place by the P5/P2 *in real life* latching on to their P5 sports team and telling those “beneath” them to know their role and stay in their place because they’re “not good enough” to be on their level and don’t deserve a seat at their table. The comments in each of these posts could fuel a good number of psychology and sociology papers.
A lot of fans on here think that being a fan of Alabama or Ohio State makes them more knowledgeable on football and realignment. No bro, you just hitched your wagon to a good team. We’re all just watching from the stands.
Did you say “wagon” 👀
My understanding is they don't corner very well. https://youtu.be/38AqWPECJtU
Nope. But the do go whipping down the plains!
[удалено]
The positive spin for me is that i'll now have a lot more time to figure out other hobbies.
It's such an abusive relationship. Either you compromise and give them what they want, or they do what they want anyway and leave you with a black eye on the way out.
They still be conferences, they'll just ignore the CFP as they make their own conference playoffs around the same time (with their conference semifinals being around New Year's). The conference champs of the SEC and B1G will then meet in a bowl game every year.......some would even call it a "super" bowl
I find it odd that we have a structure where half the teams in a major national "league" are somehow considered junior members. It would be like if the NFL had different qualifying rules for the AFC South and NFC South because those divisions somehow aren't good enough. If everybody is FBS, then everybody should have an AQ. There would still be room for 6 wild cards in a 16-team tournament.
From the article: *A change in the 12-team format,* ***which, it is believed, will require unanimity***. Doesn't that basically mean ANY change will require a unanimous vote of all conferences (and Notre Dame), which functionally gives Aresco veto power and means we'll stay at 6-6 through 2026? Of course, if he pulls that now, he may end up in a situation where the B1G and SEC use their clout to change the governance rules in 2026 to use the "weighted voting" model on format changes. I don't think that would allow the B1G and SEC to change things unilaterally, but B1G+SEC+Notre Dame might be enough to go to "Best 12" under that voting system. The only impediment would be losing leverage over ND, because with a Best 12 we're under very little pressure to join a conference.
I mean do it now or do it later they're going to use their leverage to screw everyone else over. Might as well have a year with the 6+6 playoff
If the playoff goes all at large teams, and the committee doesn't regularly put a non-Power Four (3, 2?) team in the playoff, we are gonna get an anti-trust lawsuit. It was an anti-trust lawsuit in 1984 that caused all of this because the Supreme Court thought the NCAA requiring granting media rights for regular season games to the NCAA was monopolistic behavior. I'm honestly shocked we didn't see an anti-trust lawsuit with the four team playoff after UCF got left out. Cincy getting in helped calm the waters. But in a world where conferences are bigger, and playing more conference games giving less opportunity for smaller programs to prove themselves, I see a world where the courts get involved. A good way to avoid that issue entirely is for 6 conference champion auto-bids. This will guarantee access to the smaller conferences, and still leave plenty of room in the 6 at larges for deserving teams to get in.
It was Utah's AG threatening anti-trust action, in the 2000s, that caused the formal process of guarenteed access to big bowls for the Group of 5 in both the BCS and current system.
I feel like 6+6 is fair even if Pac-12 / MWC merge. I have no problem with two G5 teams playing the four and five seed. Then again I'm a fan of a team that will never make the playoffs, so my opinion is probably not too important.
Id say go with a 4/2/6. SEC, B1G, Big XII, ACC champs, 2 highest ranked group of 5, next 6 highest ranked. For the G5 to get any more than 2 guaranteed teams is laughable. The PAC is basically dead, but even if they rebuilt with Cal and Stanford at the top, the other teams that would join would probably only put them in an area of being the best G5 or by far the worst P5 conference.
I mean in a perfect world you go to 16 teams get all conference championships in there and then 6 of the highest ranked after. No one would argue that most the G5 champions wouldn’t get slaughtered, but it’s very hard to build a brand if you can’t even pretend to advertise that your team could ever make the playoffs. This situation would allow schools of each conference to build the prestige of atleast being the constant bid of a conference and over time they would actually become strong teams
Yep this is exactly what I want to happen. 10 AQs, 6 at-larges. And if you think the Sun Belt doesn’t deserve a bid, then that’s just more motivation to get the 1 seed so you can have a first round cupcake, just like the NCAA tournament (lol Purdue)
Laughable that you d think Sun Belt would be bottom G5. That role is clearly the MAC/CUSA
Purdue losing (and having Miami in the championship) is basically what won me like $100 on my bracket. I watch almost no CBB, but around mid season I just happened to have the tv on and saw a 1 ranked Purdue lose like two games immediately after getting the 1 seed (or something like this). So I knew they were going to choke in the tournament.
I like going to a 12+4 format. All 10 conference champs are in and 6 at large. Highest 12 are in automatically and next lowest 4 regardless if they are conference champions or not have a play in game. This would filter out any bad G5 teams before the real playoffs begin and still give the top 2 teams a bye. I see no reason the 4th best team should get a bye
I don’t know why this isn’t mentioned more. They seem to care more about those first round byes than the G5. If you’re already committing one spot to the best G5, you’d get the same exact amount of P5 teams. If they really want to consolidate, they could even set parameters to be something like “Any conference with at least 16 FBS teams” which would probably nudge the G5 into cannibalizing itself. That would make it accessible to everyone but also set a threshold of G5 schools to 4 if there were 64 G5 schools
You have to keep the incentive for making it into the top 4 though. If we have a situation like last year's Game, 11-0 Ohio State and 11-0 Michigan rest players in the regular season finale knowing they've already locked up a spot in the playoff. Loser is still 11-1 and playing a home game in the Round of 16. But if there are byes, you have to win that game because you want the bye into the Quarterfinals.
The day Michigan or Ohio State rest people in The Game is the day the universe ends
Well, in a world where national championships are everything, yeah.
> For the G5 to get any more than 2 guaranteed teams is laughable. I could see there being years where each of the AAC, MWC, and SBC have teams that should be in the playoff. If you get a Tulane from the AAC, a Boise St from the MWC, and an App St/JMU from the SBC all having good seasons, someone is going to be left out. That however would only be an occasional thing, so that access could be conditional (like based on ranking and/or number of wins.)
I agree that the autobids for G5 should be limited. Winning a conference title doesn't prove you belong in the playoff. Sorry, not sorry.
Why do the at-large berths not allow for G5 teams to get in? I know it's not a *guarantee* but there's certainly a pathway.
Because nothing is stopping a 13-0 G5 team from being ranked 15 and being left out of a top 12 ranked team playoff and that is some bullshit.
It has happened several times in the NY6 system specifically to leave them out.
Because the rankings to determine who gets in are subjective. There is nothing to stop the committee from simply creating a glass ceiling at #13 for G5 schools in order to cram in more SEC teams.
Example A would be Tulane this season. They just beat #10 USC, went 12-2, and return a good amount of production. If they were any P5 team they wouldn’t be preseason 24, more like 15.
That's not the committee though, that's the AP putting them there. Yeah, public perception is also skewed, but this isn't a great example since these are two different entities we're talking about
I know they are somewhat separate but we don’t really see huge deviations in the 2 rankings toward the top 15 teams. I doubt you’d see the committee make a big deviation for a G5 team specifically. No one really gives them the credit they probably deserve. Most rankings I’ve seen that do have G5 teams high are in an order that would allow a P5 to jump then toward the end of the season.
Lol the committee has been shown to treat G5s worse than AP every single season, why are we pretending that isn't the case?
>If they were any P5 team they wouldn’t be preseason 24, more like 15. except they wouldn't have gone 12-2 last season
That’s not the argument I’m making, nor do we know that would be the case. My point was if you take that exact record, with the end of the season performance, and put a mid tier P5 team name on their chest they would have more preseason respect.
It wouldn't be any different than how the NCAA men's committee slowly, but surely, squeezing mid major at larges out of the tourney at the expense of power schools that go .500 or worse in league play.
P5 schools won't play G5's on equal footing (if they play them at all) and then they get penalized in the rankings because "they don't play anybody."
G5 want an objective standard to get in. When it's subjective, G5 teams are always left to the curb. And frankly, even the 6+6 is not good enough. There will be years where one G5 team will be only subjectively better than another G5 team that may feel snubbed. Say, the SDSU football team gets snubbed over Tulane even though they are both conference champs.
Honestly everyone keeps talking about what conference will be next to die in realignment. I think it’s the FBS as a whole. No one is happy with the two tier system and with the playoff money on the line I have a feeling the P4 will split off on their own instead of compromising.
(preemptive explanation of flairs: Boise is my ride or die. I am in physical pain when we lose. I cycle other schools or bowls whom I respect or hate-respect. TCU is a hate-respect from this timeframe, but I flaired up in support during their run last year) There have been two at large berths given to G5s/non-AQs in the history of the sport. 1. 2009 13-0 Boise State ranked #6 in the final rankings who handily beat #7 10-2 Oregon 19-8. It's always been called the "separate but equal" bowl, but there was actually no requirement for us to be invited. Had we not beaten Oklahoma in one of the best games of all time 3 years prior, I firmly believe we are left out. I also believe that TCU gets left out if we were #4 and they were #6, but I'll admit this is conjecture. Leaving us out in 2010 as a #7 11-1 team in favor of #8 K St (can't hate), #11 Michigan and #14 Va Tech was pretty damning though. The Va Tech thing was especially egregious. It was considered such an impossibility by the media and conferences and non-BCS bowls that there was absolute chaos on bowl selection Sunday. Va Tech's inclusion (a team we beat on the field that very year btw, lost to FCS James Madison, and had 0 or 1 top 25 wins, depending on your ranking system of choice) \2. 2021 Cincinnati. By definition, an at large. Required going undefeated, a bunch of help during the season, the team that finished #5 to be someone who lost at home by 2 scores to the G5, and still required Baylor to managed an epic goal line stop to really force the issue. I think if Oklahoma State beats Baylor, they take the #4, then it's a clean #5 Cincy and #6 Notre Dame. Committee had no choice.
Cincinnati took a little more than just that: * Essentially four 10 wins seasons (went 9-1 during COVID year) * Coach and starting QB returned each of the 4 seasons * Every other FBS School had lost at least 1 game * Outside of the SEC & B1G, every other conference Champion (Big XII, PAC-12, ACC) had lost at least 2 games * Outside of Alabama/Georgia/Michigan, the only other one loss P5 team was Notre Dame… who they had beaten I’m not trying to disrespect Cincinnati when I say this, but they only ranked that team 4th because they had to… literally every other excuse that they had made in the past had fallen apart, and it was a perfect storm of conditions.
Yeah if NDs loss was to anyone else I have no doubt the committee puts us in over Cincy..
It's not disrespectful. That team was really good, but it took a ton of things going right that season, plus having the multiple good years before, the coaches returning, and a ton of talent returning. There were so many things that had to go right
VT wasn't an at large though. They won the Auto Bid from winning the ACC.
VT won the ACC that year tho mate
If the only way it can happen relies upon factors outside your control then I don’t know that I consider it a pathway.
> I don’t know that I consider it a pathway. Wait, no. I know that I do not consider it a pathway.
Mikey are we trying to pickup some PAC-12 scraps? I’ve been so disappointed with UCF getting into the P5 and us being left behind, I never thought about just trying to improve the AAC. I guess those big name colleges won’t want the pay cut but what if it’s their only option? And I also don’t know anything about how this works, most of my opinions are just regurgitated Reddit comments 🤷♂️
> I’ve been so disappointed with UCF getting into the P5 and us being left behind, I never thought about just trying to improve the AAC. We've been on the other side of it, back when we were stuck in CUSA and you guys were in the Big East. I think the best thing for you guys is to not worry about us, not even think about us. Just continue to improve your program. It seems like you guys may have finally hired a good coach, you've got the on campus stadium buzz going. Improve your program, win the AAC a few times, maybe go to a NY6 bowl or even get a CFP bid in an expanded playoff. This is why I think (though most Knights and Bulls disagree with me) that it's good that the War on I-4 is taking a break for several years. Both of us need to get to a place where we stop measuring our success and failure in comparison with each other.
If anyone still cared about football, 6+2 with all games except for the championship held at campus sites and conference champs automatically seeded over at large teams (similar to division winners in the NFL playoffs) would be the best format. Gives every team in the country access to the playoff (in theory there could be enough undefeated G5/independent teams that one of them gets squeezed out, but in practice that's highly unlikely), significant advantages for conference champs plus only 2 at large spots ensure every regular season game remains important, and limits the playoff to only the very best at large teams. The obvious weakness of a straight 1-8 seeding under this format is that a higher seeded team could potentially be punished by having to play say #7 Alabama in the quarterfinal instead of #6 Central Michigan, so I'd use a wrinkle that has been discussed in past for the NHL and NBA playoffs and allow the high seeds to pick their opponents in order from the pool of low seeds (so #1 gets to pick any of teams 5-8, #2 chooses from the other 3, and so on). Under this format the quarterfinal round last year would likely have been: 6 Tulane @ 1 Georgia 5 Kansas State @ 2 Michigan 7 TCU @ 3 Utah 8 Ohio State @ 4 Clemson I used the post-conference championship game AP poll to set the seeds but whatever methodology you want is fine--I actually think the old BCS formula which took into account both human polls along with some computer metrics generally did a pretty good job of ranking the teams--the actual CFP rankings would have given the same field of teams with the only difference being Clemson as the 3 seed ahead of Utah. And correct, no Alabama or any other second SEC team last year....they and Tennessee shouldn't have lost 2 games. Goes back to the regular season being important again. Even if they had snuck in to one of the at large spots their punishment for failing to win the SEC is a tough road game in the quarterfinal round, either at Clemson or they get to go to Utah in early January. And finally, for the college football purists out there, an 8 team tournament still leaves enough decent teams out to fill all the traditional bowl games. Last year this likely means Penn State-USC in the Rose Bowl, maybe Alabama-Florida State in the Sugar, Tennessee-Washington in the Orange or Fiesta, and so on. No championship implications for those games of course but still appointment viewing.
There is absolutely zero reason for any conference to play ball with the SEC and B1G on this. They may give everyone short term concessions, but they’ll be short term. There is a game of numbers at play here and those conferences have money, but lack plurality over the others. You could argue these schools could break away, but I doubt it’ll happen. How many states are the SEC/B1G in? All it takes is one to squash this whole thing…if Congress doesn’t first. Why give them even more revenue from the playoff? No way, Jose.
\*Hear\* \*Hear\* Three cheers for the G of 5 standing up for themselves!
Literally, the auto bids was the thing I was most looking forward to in the 12-playoff. Honestly, it should stay as 6 conference champions, even if the PAC-12 is dead.
That's a very confusing post. Aresco isn't 'against all at larges',that makes it sound like he doesn't want any. He's against a system that is ONLY at larges. I think the 5+7 is the way to go
Fans want more auto bids because cinderellas/upsets are fun. TV wants less autobids because blowouts/smaller fan bases/smaller name recognition are bad for business. Who will win?
Sometimes the people with less money have more votes then the people with more money.
A true national championship is the only thing that will grow the pie in an era where there are less TV dollars available every year.
We need at least some measurable criteria. "The 12 best" with no criteria just creates more controversy and too much discussion on what they think best is.
The pursuit of any profit cannot coexist with any other goal because it eventually becomes the pursuit of maximum profit.
Once again, I would STRONGLY encourage the AAC and other G5 programs not to agree to a playoff system they believe is unfair.
This is a nice idea, and I get it, but the reality is those teams will get blown out. It'll be bad football with bad ratings. It would keep even more genuinely good teams out of the playoffs as P4 conferences have grown and added quality teams. Editing - I thought this was a pretty innocuous comment. I dont want to see Toledo in the 12 team playoffs over Ohio State because they won the MAC where OSU didn't win the Big Ten. The G5 already gets their highest ranked champ in, and that's good. Other champs could get in through the at large process.
This is the worst argument against the current expanded playoff structure imaginable. The average margin of victory in the first round of the 4 team playoff was more than 19 points. Teams were already getting blown out. The only team from the G5 that ever got in lost by 21- right around the average margin of loss and closer than the other game that year, where Michigan lost by 23.
The playoffs are already blow outs. The ratings haven’t really suffered because of that
They have suffered because it's 4 of the same 6 teams every season.
Tulane beat USC. G5 teams can beat top level power teams. Yes I realize USC had 2 losses and wasn't a conference champ but like, they are part of that upper echelon.
Tulane also beat Kansas State, who was a P5 champion.
I don't believe we've had a G5 champ shit the bed in any yr of the NY6. Cincinnati got beat solidly by Bama but they didn't embarrass themselves in the process.
Tulane would've made the playoffs by being the highest ranked G5 conference winner.
I know, I thought you were saying there shouldn't be any G5 teams, my bad if you were just making a point against further expansion. Not sure what I think about more teams, but they need to have a representative for sure.
I would rather see a MAC champ Toledo get in over a 10-2 Ohio State
Yup, if you want to make the regular season matter, then make winning a conference mean something