College Football Playoff expansion delayed as officials fail to form consensus over numerous issues

Donate To GopherHole
Some guy said:
Interesting enough if they do 6 auto bids it will mean Iowa state has an easier path to a playoff appearance than Texas and Oklahoma

auto bids do something I would love…incentivize smaller conferences
Click to expand...
Assuming they are higher ranked than MWC, AAC, and hell even Sun Belt champs! :D
 


Gotcha. Bowslby indicating in the link I posted that he is standing with SEC Sankey in their original proposal that went public this past summer I believe, which is simply the top six ranked conf champions.

You'd think with the Big XII, SEC, and G5 ... that's 7 of the 8 votes they need to pass it. Assuming G5 would rather have that than 5+1. Not sure how ND feels about it, but probably whichever way puts the least pressure on themselves to have to join a conference.
 

I mean don't get me wrong ... if "The Alliance" feels completely bullied in the process .... they certainly could choose to drop out of the playoff.

I think that would cost them and everyone a lot of money, and hopefully it would not come to that.
 

Gophers_4life said:
I mean don't get me wrong ... if "The Alliance" feels completely bullied in the process .... they certainly could choose to drop out of the playoff.

I think that would cost them and everyone a lot of money, and hopefully it would not come to that.
Click to expand...
I think the “alliance” at least the ACC and Big Ten want it to be 8 with 5 or 6 autos

The ACC and Big Ten don’t want a model where it is 2-4 Big Ten/ACC teams.
3 non SEC/ACC/Big Ten conference champs
5-7 SEC teams.

8 would really cap the SEC at 3 playoff teams even without auto bids for the most part.


I think they’re fighting the wrong battle. They need to fight the battle about how teams are selected. They need to change it from “best” subjective to “most deserving” with an objective formula like the hockey pairwise or the basketball NET or RPI
 



Gophers_4life said:
Interesting read: http://theamerican.org/news/2022/2/14/an-open-letter-to-college-football.aspx

Basically is the American Athletic Conf's commissioner laying out the case for the original 12-team expansion proposal that the committee came up with. IE, the 6 highest ranked conf champions version, with no auto-bids.
Click to expand...
I really believe it will land on an 8-team playoff - P5 conference champions and 3 at-large bids. 6 and 12 team add another week of essentially play-in games.
 

PMWinSTP said:
I really believe it will land on an 8-team playoff - P5 conference champions and 3 at-large bids. 6 and 12 team add another week of essentially play-in games.
Click to expand...
I don't think any of the G5 will vote for that. That's 5 out of 11 votes, right there. SEC won't either, they want as many at-large as possible, so 6 of 11.

Don't know what minimum number of votes is needed to approve the next format.
 

The crazy thing will be if The Alliance takes its ball and goes home, forming its own championship structure. Say the Orange and Fiesta bowls feeding into the Rose for the championship. Or something along those lines.

Do they have the gonads to try to do that? Or they could just go back to the old way of bowl games and no playoff (talking about The Alliance, plus say Notre Dame and maybe Mountain West).
 



Gophers_4life said:
The crazy thing will be if The Alliance takes its ball and goes home, forming its own championship structure. Say the Orange and Fiesta bowls feeding into the Rose for the championship. Or something along those lines.

Do they have the gonads to try to do that? Or they could just go back to the old way of bowl games and no playoff (talking about The Alliance, plus say Notre Dame and maybe Mountain West).
Click to expand...
I am actually cheering for this as I would find the football as enjoyable as before and it would be hilarious
 

Some guy said:
I am actually cheering for this as I would find the football as enjoyable as before and it would be hilarious
Click to expand...
I'd prefer it as well, I loved NYD as being the focal point.
 

It is a very rare year in which there are more than four teams that have a chance to win the championship.
I like the current system even if the SEC is likely to win the championship in the foreseeable future.
Demography and geography favor them.
I also like the current bowl system.
 




Unregistered User said:
Click to expand...
Yeah.
honestly the current set up is good for the big ten.
SEC might have overplayed their hand.
Meanwhile between Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas, auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, LSU, A&M

at least one of those mathematically will finish bottom half of the conference every year. Whoops.


Honestly people rip on the Rutgers addition. But sometimes it’s good for the medium fish to have another small fish. Especially if that small fish is in a large media market with a lot of big ten alumni

Might honestly be good for the big ten to go back to 2.
all teams unbeaten:
SEC CHAMP in always
Big ten champ in always

only one unbeaten big ten champ with one loss would only ever get passed by an SEC champ with one loss.

2 is optional for the big ten at this point. Crowds out big 12, pac 12, and ACC.
 

If the SEC, Texas, and OU had waited until after the new expansion was approved, to announce their realignment ... then it might have gone through for 2024.

But once that leaked, I think the other conferences were rightly like "hey wait a minute!"
 

Some guy said:
Yeah.
honestly the current set up is good for the big ten.
SEC might have overplayed their hand.
Meanwhile between Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas, auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, LSU, A&M

at least one of those mathematically will finish bottom half of the conference every year. Whoops.


Honestly people rip on the Rutgers addition. But sometimes it’s good for the medium fish to have another small fish. Especially if that small fish is in a large media market with a lot of big ten alumni

Might honestly be good for the big ten to go back to 2.
all teams unbeaten:
SEC CHAMP in always
Big ten champ in always

only one unbeaten big ten champ with one loss would only ever get passed by an SEC champ with one loss.

2 is optional for the big ten at this point. Crowds out big 12, pac 12, and ACC.
Click to expand...
Granted that a decent number of the CFP semi games have been duds, I don't think going back to just having a natty game between the top two is on the table unless there is a major divide between conferences. That cat is out of the bag, over in the next county, and smooshed by a bus.

Of the 9 you list, I have to think more times than not it will be Tenn left on the outside looking in. Were great in the 90's/early 2000's, then they sort've went to sleep. Sort've like a program in the Big Ten ...
 

Gophers_4life said:
Granted that a decent number of the CFP semi games have been duds, I don't think going back to just having a natty game between the top two is on the table unless there is a major divide between conferences. That cat is out of the bag, over in the next county, and smooshed by a bus.

Of the 9 you list, I have to think more times than not it will be Tenn left on the outside looking in. Were great in the 90's/early 2000's, then they sort've went to sleep. Sort've like a program in the Big Ten ...
Click to expand...
Not only is it on the table…if they don’t come to some sort of agreement by 2026 it defaults back to it
 


Sounds like quite a few "sticking points" in the negotiations.

Specifically, the Big Ten wanted the P5 conference winners to receive automatic bids, while others wanted the 6 highest-rated conference champs to be in the playoffs along with the next six highest-ranked teams.

I don't see what the B1G's deal is. the B1G champ is going to be one of the top-rated teams unless every team in the B1G has a bad year and someone wins the Conf with multiple losses.

The Pac-12 wanted a guarantee that their Champion would play in the Rose Bowl (unless they made the CFP...).

And one of the smaller conferences didn't seem to be in favor of any proposals, because they want to address other issues like NIL, the portal, and the overall structure of D1 FB.

So, not a lot of agreement or compromise. And now the negotiations start over, and the SEC is making noise that they might change their position and oppose expansion.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Sounds like quite a few "sticking points" in the negotiations.

Specifically, the Big Ten wanted the P5 conference winners to receive automatic bids, while others wanted the 6 highest-rated conference champs to be in the playoffs along with the next six highest-ranked teams.

I don't see what the B1G's deal is. the B1G champ is going to be one of the top-rated teams unless every team in the B1G has a bad year and someone wins the Conf with multiple losses.

The Pac-12 wanted a guarantee that their Champion would play in the Rose Bowl (unless they made the CFP...).

And one of the smaller conferences didn't seem to be in favor of any proposals, because they want to address other issues like NIL, the portal, and the overall structure of D1 FB.

So, not a lot of agreement or compromise. And now the negotiations start over, and the SEC is making noise that they might change their position and oppose expansion.
Click to expand...
The big ten is in great position at 4
They are in great position at 2

it would be absolutely stupid to sign up for a new plan that doesn’t leave them in as good or better position.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Specifically, the Big Ten wanted the P5 conference winners to receive automatic bids, while others wanted the 6 highest-rated conference champs to be in the playoffs along with the next six highest-ranked teams.

I don't see what the B1G's deal is. the B1G champ is going to be one of the top-rated teams unless every team in the B1G has a bad year and someone wins the Conf with multiple losses.
Click to expand...
To me that seems to be a big part of what is driving the Big 10 looking at ditching the Divisions.
 

I wonder if at least part of the analysis for the Big Ten (and Alliance confs) goes like this:

we get [insert some relatively high percentage, like 90%] of the benefit of playoff expansion that we're going to get, by going to 8. And that eliminates the issues with another round in the bracket (where to play, when to play).

Going to 12 only stands to mostly help the SEC, as those additional 4 are just likely to be SEC at-large teams.


They could do the 6 highest ranked conf champs, which usually will be defacto P5 auto's plus the best G5, perhaps occasionally 4 and 2, and then 2 at-large. The G5 wants this badly. They are 5 of 11 votes.

How many teams in the country, who don't win their conference, are realistic possibilities to win the natty, in a given year? 2 seems reasonable.


The thing is just that, the SEC literally can't afford to do that. They're going to have 16 mouths to feed, and as some guy listed at least 9 of them think very highly of themselves in football. They badly need it to be 6 at-large bids. They might walk away ...
 



Gophers_4life said:
They could do the 6 highest ranked conf champs, which usually will be defacto P5 auto's plus the best G5, perhaps occasionally 4 and 2, and then 2 at-large. The G5 wants this badly. They are 5 of 11 votes.
Click to expand...
With this committee effectively dissolved the G5 has literally zero votes.

This news is bad for the SEC. But it’s even worse for the G5 conferences. There is no way they will have a seat at the table the next time discussions happen. They’ll have to take whatever they’re offered, or go form their own playoff (which actually makes a lot more sense from both a parity of revenue and competitive perspective).
 

Gophers_4life said:
I wonder if at least part of the analysis for the Big Ten (and Alliance confs) goes like this:

we get [insert some relatively high percentage, like 90%] of the benefit of playoff expansion that we're going to get, by going to 8. And that eliminates the issues with another round in the bracket (where to play, when to play).

Going to 12 only stands to mostly help the SEC, as those additional 4 are just likely to be SEC at-large teams.


They could do the 6 highest ranked conf champs, which usually will be defacto P5 auto's plus the best G5, perhaps occasionally 4 and 2, and then 2 at-large. The G5 wants this badly. They are 5 of 11 votes.

How many teams in the country, who don't win their conference, are realistic possibilities to win the natty, in a given year? 2 seems reasonable.


The thing is just that, the SEC literally can't afford to do that. They're going to have 16 mouths to feed, and as some guy listed at least 9 of them think very highly of themselves in football. They badly need it to be 6 at-large bids. They might walk away ...
Click to expand...
Would Iowa have been considered Top 6 Conf Champ this year? I suppose, but probably no higher than 5, behind Alabama, Cincinnati, Utah & Baylor. If ND would have been considered as "auto" based on their ranking, then it's Iowa and Pittsburgh fighting for the 6th spot.

Probably would have got in comfortably based on the strength of the hypothetical win over Michigan.

Had Minnesota got in the Big 10 Title game at 8-4 then sprung the upset in Indy, then it seems it would have been pretty dicey to be considered as a Top 6 champ.
 

Goldmember said:
With this committee effectively dissolved the G5 has literally zero votes.

This news is bad for the SEC. But it’s even worse for the G5 conferences. There is no way they will have a seat at the table the next time discussions happen. They’ll have to take whatever they’re offered, or go form their own playoff (which actually makes a lot more sense from both a parity of revenue and competitive perspective).
Click to expand...
The G5 own 5/11th of the CFP. They aren't going anywhere.

This was just to see if the current contract could be modified for the last two season. The main issue is that to modify the current contract, the votes had to be unanimous. 1 out of 11 could veto anything.

When they do the new contract for 2026 going forward, it won't have to be unanimous.
 

Ope3 said:
Would Iowa have been considered Top 6 Conf Champ this year? I suppose, but probably no higher than 5, behind Alabama, Cincinnati, Utah & Baylor. If ND would have been considered as "auto" based on their ranking, then it's Iowa and Pittsburgh fighting for the 6th spot.

Probably would have got in comfortably based on the strength of the hypothetical win over Michigan.

Had Minnesota got in the Big 10 Title game at 8-4 then sprung the upset in Indy, then it seems it would have been pretty dicey to be considered as a Top 6 champ.
Click to expand...
Notre Dame and any other independent can't qualify as a conference champion. They aren't in a conference.

They accept this as the price they have to pay to stay independent, and also not have to play a 13th game (conf championship game).


The Mountain West and American Athletic (even in the latest, more depleted version) champ should usually be in the top 25, maybe better if undefeated with a P5 win or two.

Pulling a Cincy will be a tall order, now especially that those top 4 programs are off to the Big XII (Cincy, Central Florida, Houston, BYU).

The top remaining now are probably programs like San Diego St, Fresno St, Boise St, Colorado St (on paper, not great lately), Memphis, SMU, maybe a couple others.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Notre Dame and any other independent can't qualify as a conference champion. They aren't in a conference.

They accept this as the price they have to pay to stay independent, and also not have to play a 13th game (conf championship game).
Click to expand...
I thought there was some proposal of somehow ND getting the ACCs bid if there was a situation like this year when that conference was down. Probably not serious, or just some sports talk chatter, or I could be dreaming up the whole thing.

My impression was that it wasn't necessarily to reward ND with an Autobid, but to free up an At Large if they were Top 5 or whatever.
 
Last edited:

short ornery norwegian said:
Specifically, the Big Ten wanted the P5 conference winners to receive automatic bids, while others wanted the 6 highest-rated conference champs to be in the playoffs along with the next six highest-ranked teams.

I don't see what the B1G's deal is.
Click to expand...
Maybe they deemed their solution “more fair” and advocated for their view.

I know…weird flex.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom