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

[Some guy]

To me that seems to be a big part of what is driving the Big 10 looking at ditching the Divisions.

In an 8 team playoff with 6 auto bids to the highest rated conference champs, divisions could be hurtful to the league for sure. That’s a scenario where I could see them going away

12 I don’t think it matters as much because even at 12 if a 20th ranked team wins the conference the league probably still gets 1-3 at large bids. 8 there just aren’t very many at large bids to be had (which I prefer)

best playoff is still 12 with auto bids for any conference champ in the top 25 (up to 10) of a formulaic (not committee) ranking and then at large fill the rest

 

[Gophers_4life]

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.

I think that was just a thing for the covid season, due to that special circumstance.

ND plays 5 ACC teams per year, and has a tie-in with the Orange Bowl (and perhaps some other bowls that the ACC usually goes to), but that's it.


If there was a situation where the top 6 conf champions got in, the two highest ranked at-large, and there was still a top 5 ranked team left out, yeah that would be tough. But that team would not have won its conference or would have been an independent.

 

[btowngopher]

I know it’s not a popular opinion, but I liked college football more when there was no playoff, or at most just two teams. It made every week more interesting, non conference games were more interesting, the bowls were more interesting, college football was more unique and interesting. I really don’t need more NFL, which I rarely watch, and only really find interesting when involved in fantasy football.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I know it’s not a popular opinion, but I liked college football more when there was no playoff, or at most just two teams. It made every week more interesting, non conference games were more interesting, the bowls were more interesting, college football was more unique and interesting. I really don’t need more NFL, which I rarely watch, and only really find interesting when involved in fantasy football.

The Bowl Alliance, which then morphed into the BCS, which then morphed into the CFP, all happened because there kept being situations where multiple teams had legitimate cases to be voted as the #1 team in the nation. Too many teams, that don't mix it up enough, will do that.

That's how we got where we are, and the TV ratings and money just keep going up and up. I think that the cat is out of the bag and down the road.

 

[Plato]

I happened by chance to read Finebaum's rage and rant about the CFP not expanding to more than four teams.
ESPN owns the SEC TV App and were part of the push to move TX and OK into the SEC to get more TV sets carrying the SEC App.
ESPN's idea was to increase viewers on their network in the fall since views of the CFP were not increasing but dropping. By expanding the CFP to at least 12 teams, in which the SEC would have about four teams in the CFP, they hoped the number of viewers would increase.
I would hope that the power ESPN was trying to exert for their benefit alone finally sunk in and since the vote to expand had to be unanimous, the vote failed.
The ACC was the most vocal in opposing the expansion.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I happened by chance to read Finebaum's rage and rant about the CFP not expanding to more than four teams.
ESPN owns the SEC TV App and were part of the push to move TX and OK into the SEC to get more TV sets carrying the SEC App.
ESPN's idea was to increase viewers on their network in the fall since views of the CFP were not increasing but dropping. By expanding the CFP to at least 12 teams, in which the SEC would have about four teams in the CFP, they hoped the number of viewers would increase.
I would hope that the power ESPN was trying to exert for their benefit alone finally sunk in and since the vote to expand had to be unanimous, the vote failed.
The ACC was the most vocal in opposing the expansion.

Right, the other P5 than the SEC have realized that every team past 8 mostly only does two things:
1) adds another round to the bracket, which exponentially increases the logistics challenges and some challenge by presidents for athletes playing more games and in December close to finals
2) mostly likely just gives more at-large bids to SEC teams.

 

[Some guy]

I know it’s not a popular opinion, but I liked college football more when there was no playoff, or at most just two teams. It made every week more interesting, non conference games were more interesting, the bowls were more interesting, college football was more unique and interesting. I really don’t need more NFL, which I rarely watch, and only really find interesting when involved in fantasy football.

I would be okay with that. I prefer it to 4 at larges. I would prefer it to 8 or 10 at larges.

I would most prefer and objective not subjective way of any team getting in the playoff. But not sure that’s happening. What makes college football great is that there are a ton of measures of success short of a national championship. More at large bids changes that.

 

[Goldmember]

People don’t get it. They get all excited about the 5/11 seats (and “votes”) the G5 has on the committee. But the contract requires unanimous votes to do anything. So the G5’s seats on the committee are basically figureheads. They have no power, and probably have minuscule in

The cumulative size of the G5’s 60-70 programs is roughly equivalent to one division of the ACC.

They just don’t matter much to any practical business discussion of college football. And they are losing three of their five most valuable and winning franchises in a couple of years.

As the current CFP contract expires, what the “G5 wants” will not even register. At all.

 

[Gophers_4life]

But the contract requires unanimous votes to do anything.

That's only to change an in-place contract.

There is no unanimous requirement for putting the next contract in place.

 

[Some guy]

People don’t get it. They get all excited about the 5/11 seats (and “votes”) the G5 has on the committee. But the contract requires unanimous votes to do anything. So the G5’s seats on the committee are basically figureheads. They have no power, and probably have minuscule in

The cumulative size of the G5’s 60-70 programs is roughly equivalent to one division of the ACC.

They just don’t matter much to any practical business discussion of college football. And they are losing three of their five most valuable and winning franchises in a couple of years.

As the current CFP contract expires, what the “G5 wants” will not even register. At all.

Who is making the argument that they will have power?

 

[Gophers_4life]

I probably have, more than anyone. And I stand by it.

The G5 is 5 votes out of 11.

Say it takes 8 yes votes to put a new structure in place starting in 2026.

5 votes is pretty powerful. Say that SEC, Notre Dame, and Big 12 were aligned. Then you have the Big Ten, PAC 12, and ACC aligned.

Whoever gets the G5 on their side, wins.


I would think the G5 more than anything just cares about it being the six highest ranked conf champions, as opposed to P5 auto-bids + the remaining highest ranked conf champ.

That, on paper, can be done with either an 8 or 12 team bracket. So, 2 at-large or 6 at-large.

You can certainly put arguments as to which is better overall and which is better for the Big Ten.

 

[Ope3]

I wonder if waiting to pick the playoff (either 4 or 2 teams) until after the NYD Bowls is viable. Would prop up the interest in a lot of inventory, maybe stem the tide in opt-outs.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Below are a couple Tweets, but he has more on his page from Keenum, if you go to his Twitter page.

 

[Gophers_4life]

So it has to be 3 out of 5 P5 that vote yes, and the Alliance are thus able to block it. Sorry if someone said that and I said that was incorrect, I was wrong if so.

But the total votes also do matter.


This thing really could be stuck. I do think the "worst case" is to just stay at the current system. I don't think they'll go back to the previous BCS system. At that point, I think the Big Ten and PAC (and maybe ACC) would just walk away and go back to the Rose Bowl.


If we get to that level though ..... I'm afraid we could see the nuclear option. Either the SEC itself, or say the top 10 valuable brands from the SEC (including Texas and OU) reach out to form a "Super League" with the following: Washington, Oregon, USC, Arizona State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, Notre Dame, Clemson, Florida St, Miami , that then has its own playoff and is the new defacto D1 of college football.

 

[Some guy]

So it has to be 3 out of 5 P5 that vote yes, and the Alliance are thus able to block it. Sorry if someone said that and I said that was incorrect, I was wrong if so.

But the total votes also do matter.


This thing really could be stuck. I do think the "worst case" is to just stay at the current system. I don't think they'll go back to the previous BCS system. At that point, I think the Big Ten and PAC (and maybe ACC) would just walk away and go back to the Rose Bowl.


If we get to that level though ..... I'm afraid we could see the nuclear option. Either the SEC itself, or say the top 10 valuable brands from the SEC (including Texas and OU) reach out to form a "Super League" with the following: Washington, Oregon, USC, Arizona State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, Notre Dame, Clemson, Florida St, Miami , that then has its own playoff and is the new defacto D1 of college football.

Yeah the alliance is a voting bloc by another name. Especially since they apparently aren’t going to schedule each other

 

[short ornery norwegian]

as some have speculated, the three "Alliance" conferences seem to be teaming up to try and block/diminish the SEC's influence in college FB.

in other words, it's the Alliance conferences and Fox in a battle of wills against the SEC and ESPN.

And, with the 3 out of 5 rule, theoretically, the 3 Alliance Conferences could pass their own playoff proposal if they stick together.

that gives them bargaining power. they can block any proposal they don't like and force the SEC to make concessions.

In the end, they will approve some type of expanded playoff. the Money at stake is too big to walk away from.

 

[hungan1]

I liked the simplicity of old. The Rose Bowl was sacred to the Big 10 and the Pac 10.

Change is a hard pill to swallow. But, Baby Boomers are taking a lot of happy pills already.

 

[Gophers_4life]

In the end, they will approve some type of expanded playoff. the Money at stake is too big to walk away from.

Most likely correct.

The Ivy League were powerhouses in major college football several decades ago, and now they are less relevant than the Dakota schools in FCS. They chose to deemphasize/go away the monetary aspect of it.

No one wants that type of ultimate fate for the Big Ten.

 

[gophernut1]

ESPN and the SEC killed the 12 team playoff and them marketing as if they didn't is a lie. ESPN has the CFP under contract and wasn't going to negotiate against themselves, so just said there would be more money but no hard numbers. Than made it where conference champions and top six teams would get in. With the overwhelming media bias towards the SEC (understandably so), this would mean at least 4 SEC teams in the playoffs. When ESPN and SEC have the most to gain it is understandable how the B1G, ACC and Pac12 voted against it.

 

[Some guy]

ESPN and the SEC killed the 12 team playoff and them marketing as if they didn't is a lie. ESPN has the CFP under contract and wasn't going to negotiate against themselves, so just said there would be more money but no hard numbers. Than made it where conference champions and top six teams would get in. With the overwhelming media bias towards the SEC (understandably so), this would mean at least 4 SEC teams in the playoffs. When ESPN and SEC have the most to gain it is understandable how the B1G, ACC and Pac12 voted against it.

Nobody in the Big 10, ACC, or Pac 12 should sign up for a playoff without objective criteria for getting in

 

[Plato]

So it has to be 3 out of 5 P5 that vote yes, and the Alliance are thus able to block it. Sorry if someone said that and I said that was incorrect, I was wrong if so.

But the total votes also do matter.


This thing really could be stuck. I do think the "worst case" is to just stay at the current system. I don't think they'll go back to the previous BCS system. At that point, I think the Big Ten and PAC (and maybe ACC) would just walk away and go back to the Rose Bowl.


If we get to that level though ..... I'm afraid we could see the nuclear option. Either the SEC itself, or say the top 10 valuable brands from the SEC (including Texas and OU) reach out to form a "Super League" with the following: Washington, Oregon, USC, Arizona State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, Notre Dame, Clemson, Florida St, Miami , that then has its own playoff and is the new defacto D1 of college football.

Washington, AZST, NE, FSU and Miami are no longer "Valuable Brands" except in an antique store.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Washington, AZST, NE, FSU and Miami are no longer "Valuable Brands" except in an antique store.

While I agree in most senses, unfortunately they're still name brands (maybe not the first two as much) to national college football TV ratings.

Neb vs Penn St is still a name brand matchup, in that sense, while Minnesota vs Michigan St is not.

 

[Some guy]

While I agree in most senses, unfortunately they're still name brands (maybe not the first two as much) to national college football TV ratings.

Neb vs Penn St is still a name brand matchup, in that sense, while Minnesota vs Michigan St is not.

I don’t think that a Penn state Nebraska game automatically pulls a higher rating than a Minnesota Michigan state game
A lot depends on circumstance of the game and season

 

[Gophers_4life]

So something like this for example:

Super League West
Wash Oregon Stanford USC AZ St Colorado Neb OU KU Mizzou Kentucky ND Mich OSU PSU

Super League East
Texas TA&M LSU Ark Tenn Bama Auburn Florida Georgia Clemson UNC Virginia Maryland Miami FSU


That's 30 programs which capture a big chunk of major CFB fanbase and markets, schools that mostly pull in good crowds, spend a lot and care a lot about their FB programs, and do a good amount of winning. A few are more "legacy" type programs, in that sense. And some more solid bball schools thrown in for good measure.

If it was just a special one-off thing for football only, then yeah you could probably look at getting rid of or replacing programs like KU, Mizzou, Kentucky, UNC, Virginia, Maryland. In that case maybe Iowa, Wisc, Mich St creep in along with programs like South Carolina, Miss, Miss St, Iowa St, etc.

But one point is to avoid smaller markets and avoid duplication in states/markets.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I don’t think that a Penn state Nebraska game automatically pulls a higher rating than a Minnesota Michigan state game
A lot depends on circumstance of the game and season

Talking casual national CFB fans, looking for a game to watch in some time slot, you have PSU Neb on ESPN and Minn MSU right next to it on ESPN2, which are they going to choose? Which one is a bar in Atlanta going to put on the TV?

Yeah sure in all practicality at home they'll probably flip back and forth between the two, as I would, but anyway.

 

[PMWinSTP]

So something like this for example:

Super League West
Wash Oregon Stanford USC AZ St Colorado Neb OU KU Mizzou Kentucky ND Mich OSU PSU

Super League East
Texas TA&M LSU Ark Tenn Bama Auburn Florida Georgia Clemson UNC Virginia Maryland Miami FSU


That's 30 programs which capture a big chunk of major CFB fanbase and markets, schools that mostly pull in good crowds, spend a lot and care a lot about their FB programs, and do a good amount of winning. A few are more "legacy" type programs, in that sense. And some more solid bball schools thrown in for good measure.

If it was just a special one-off thing for football only, then yeah you could probably look at getting rid of or replacing programs like KU, Mizzou, Kentucky, UNC, Virginia, Maryland. In that case maybe Iowa, Wisc, Mich St creep in along with programs like South Carolina, Miss, Miss St, Iowa St, etc.

But one point is to avoid smaller markets and avoid duplication in states/markets.

I don't see P5 conferences changing more any time soon. I still believe they will agree on 8 playoff teams with P5 champions and three at large bids, with a clause for the Irish.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I don't see P5 conferences changing more any time soon. I still believe they will agree on 8 playoff teams with P5 champions and three at large bids, with a clause for the Irish.

Fair enough! I don't think G5 will vote for any scenario that doesn't include the guaranteed bids being the highest six ranked conf champs. Nor does it appear Alliance will go without auto bids for P5.

I guess we'll see who blinks first.

Notre Dame only stands to gain from proposals with more at-large, so guessing they just prefer 12 to 8. SEC obviously needs as many at-large possible to feed mouths.

No idea why Big XII is aligned with SEC. They stand to gain more being aligned with Alliance.

 

[Goldmember]

No idea why Big XII is aligned with SEC. They stand to gain more being aligned with Alliance.

The Big XII’s interests are most closely aligned with the G5 at this point. And the G5 happens to have wanted the same thing as the SEC this time around.

Automatic bids will likely be part of the next playoff format, and no one is going to be fighting alongside the Big XII to make sure they get one.

The Big XII is still in a really bad spot. Adding Cincy, UCF, BYU and Houston in place of two of the ten most valuable brands in college sports will definitely not make them whole.

They may still have some teams that are competitive, but they will be playing on a much smaller stage and will quickly fall farther behind in resources.

 

[Gophers_4life]

The Big XII’s interests are most closely aligned with the G5 at this point. And the G5 happens to have wanted the same thing as the SEC this time around.

Automatic bids will likely be part of the next playoff format, and no one is going to be fighting alongside the Big XII to make sure they get one.

The Big XII is still in a really bad spot. Adding Cincy, UCF, BYU and Houston in place of two of the ten most valuable brands in college sports will definitely not make them whole.

They may still have some teams that are competitive, but they will be playing on a much smaller stage and will quickly fall farther behind in resources.

Bolded: but this is the biggest point of disagreement between the Alliance and the G5.

All it would take in the Big Ten, ACC, and PAC is for an upset to happen in the conf championship game, and they could be in trouble. The Big XII is exactly in that same spot, quite frankly. The SEC probably is less likely to have to worry about that.

The SEC and Notre Dame just want to maximize at-large bids. So for them, it's more about 12 over 8. Perhaps the Big XII sees that as its best option as well.


For the Big XII, like you talk about, even with 12, if it's the 6 highest ranked conf champs ... they might be sweating it out in more years than not. MW champ has a good chance. The AAC is now depleted but still has programs like Memphis, SMU, and South Florida who take offense to being considered "inferior" to the likes of Cincy, Houston, TCU, and Central Florida, and will be motivated to show otherwise.

Even programs in the Sun Belt and MAC, if they have great, undefeated seasons can easily get up in the top 25.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Fair enough! I don't think G5 will vote for any scenario that doesn't include the guaranteed bids being the highest six ranked conf champs. Nor does it appear Alliance will go without auto bids for P5.

I guess we'll see who blinks first.

Notre Dame only stands to gain from proposals with more at-large, so guessing they just prefer 12 to 8. SEC obviously needs as many at-large possible to feed mouths.

No idea why Big XII is aligned with SEC. They stand to gain more being aligned with Alliance.

Does the Alliance need to blink, it holds the needed votes.