ESPN: Greg Sankey says SEC, Big Ten still differ on best CFP model

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
63,194
Reaction score
20,933
Points
113
Per ESPN:

As the clock ticks on a Dec. 1 deadline to determine a format for the College Football Playoff in 2026 and beyond, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey reiterated the possibility it could stay at 12 teams if his league and the Big Ten can't agree on what model would be best.

Sankey said he and Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti spoke four out of five days last week and acknowledged the SEC's "different view" coming out of its spring meetings in Destin, Florida. While the Big Ten has favored a model that rewards conferences with guaranteed spots and play-in games to determine them, the SEC coaches most recently said they would now prefer a 16-team format that includes the five highest-ranked conference champions and 11 at-large bids.

"The Big Ten has a different view," Sankey said following his opening remarks on the first day of SEC media days at the College Football Hall of Fame. "That's fine. We have a 12-team playoff, five conference champions. That can stay if we can't agree."

Before agreeing to a new media rights deal with ESPN in March 2024, the nine FBS commissioners and Notre Dame leadership had to first sign a memorandum of understanding that outlined in broad terms what the next contract would look like. Sankey said the document gives the Big Ten and the SEC the bulk of control over the playoff's future format. It's an agreement some have privately questioned, but Sankey emphasized the role the Big Ten and SEC have in the room.

"Unless you're going to tear up the MOU -- which maybe other people want to do because of their concerns about the decision-making authority," Sankey said, "but very clearly in that memorandum of understanding is [the authority] granted to the combination of the SEC and Big Ten ultimately we have to use that authority with great wisdom and discretion."

That doesn't mean they will agree.

"I think there's this notion that there has to be some magic moment, and something has to happen with expansion, and it has to be forced," Sankey said. "When you're given authority, you want to be responsible using that authority. I think both of us are prepared to do so. ... We don't need unanimity, and ultimately, if not, there's a level of authority granted to the Big Ten and SEC together. But there's a lot to that. It's not you just show up and pound your fist and something happens. I hope that type of narrative can be reduced, but we'll keep talking."

The SEC will also continue to keep talking about its 2026 schedule, and whether to move from eight to nine league games -- also a key component in the CFP discussions, as multiple sources in the Big Ten have said they wouldn't consider a 5+11 model unless the SEC and the ACC both move to nine league games. Sankey said every team in the SEC played at least nine games against Power opponents, and several played 10 of their 12 games against Power opponents. And the same will be true this fall.

"I don't believe there's anyone looking to swap their conference schedule and its opponents with the opponents played by the Southeastern Conference teams in our conference schedule, be it eight or nine," Sankey said. "There is a rigor here that is unique."


Go Gophers!!
 

This isn’t new
The big ten wants more tough games, objective criteria for more spots. This will allow them to make the schedule even tougher ($) without harming themselves in terms of bids

The SEC wants a cupcake schedule and all based on ranking knowing how their cupcake schedules will get more teams in. The current model benefits them as everyone assumes the SEC is always better in a mental tie breaker


Sounds like it’ll stay as is
 

The reason I like the 4-4-2-2... whatever is simply this: it minimizes the role of the selection committee.

I don't like the idea of them getting to pick 11 teams out of 16.

Disagree? Don't care about that?


People have tried analyzing the difference systems via past rankings, but to me that isn't quite valid because I don't believe the committee would vote exactly the same if they knew the end of the day system was different.
 

The reason I like the 4-4-2-2... whatever is simply this: it minimizes the role of the selection committee.

I don't like the idea of them getting to pick 11 teams out of 16.

Disagree? Don't care about that?


People have tried analyzing the difference systems via past rankings, but to me that isn't quite valid because I don't believe the committee would vote exactly the same if they knew the end of the day system was different.
I agree. I don't trust the committee. The 4-4-2-2-(1?) is based more on revenue the conferences bring in and at least that is fairly easily quantitative. How big is your TV contract because that's the biggest driver of revenue. If the ACC or Big 12 figure out a way to bring more money to the table, they get more automatic bids. If the B1G or SEC fall off, they get less. This is a business that's about making money whether we like it or not, may as well act like one. Money talks, baloney walks. Then we don't have to argue about whether the SEC should have eight conference games or nine. Figure out how to maximize TV revenue in you own way and give the fans of your conference what they want. Seems less complicated to me.
 

I hope viewership continues to drop and they go with something else completely. I have zero interest in a college football post season tournament in January, especially when a far better one is shaping up in the exact same sport.
 



The reason I like the 4-4-2-2... whatever is simply this: it minimizes the role of the selection committee.

I don't like the idea of them getting to pick 11 teams out of 16.

Disagree? Don't care about that?


People have tried analyzing the difference systems via past rankings, but to me that isn't quite valid because I don't believe the committee would vote exactly the same if they knew the end of the day system was different.
Spot on.
I have no issue with expansion of the tourney. I have issue with the expansion of at large bids.
 

Top 16 from final cfp poll, no byes. Higher seeds get home games first two rounds.
I do think we will see the first two rounds go to all home sites (with the caveat that the home team is allowed to move to the game to a neutral site if they would like to do that for whatever reason, say they want a bigger stadium)

Would like one semi-final to be permanently the Rose Bowl on Jan 1. That would require the first round to be played a week earlier than it currently is, I believe, meaning we would need the current "Week 0" to officially become the start of the regular season.
 

I do think we will see the first two rounds go to all home sites (with the caveat that the home team is allowed to move to the game to a neutral site if they would like to do that for whatever reason, say they want a bigger stadium)

Would like one semi-final to be permanently the Rose Bowl on Jan 1. That would require the first round to be played a week earlier than it currently is, I believe, meaning we would need the current "Week 0" to officially become the start of the regular season.
Agree with this.
This also would make thanksgiving weekend conference championship weekend. Not sure if that would help or not.
But I agree this is the way and posted in another thread.

A great 16 team playoff would be an objective formula picks the top 25
All conference champions in that top 25 get automatic bids. Some years this could be 7 some years this could be 4.
The other bids and seeding are chosen from this top 25 by that committee
 



I like the B1G model MUCH more because it minimizes the BS early season polling that annually artificially rewards SEC teams and guarantees they will reach the end of the season with a bunch of highly ranked teams. They can't lose. Even when they do eventually lose conference games (like everyone else), their inflated rankings make the losses "good losses". Its the same reason why they won't play 9 conf games and schedule cupcakes in November.

The B1G model doesn't penalize teams for having tough high profile non conference games (which is something most people like to see) and it doesn't allow humans to bias the SEC preseason rankings (which should be meaningless) into post season reservations.
 

Agree with this.
This also would make thanksgiving weekend conference championship weekend. Not sure if that would help or not.
But I agree this is the way and posted in another thread.

A great 16 team playoff would be an objective formula picks the top 25
All conference champions in that top 25 get automatic bids. Some years this could be 7 some years this could be 4.
The other bids and seeding are chosen from this top 25 by that committee
I suppose you're correct that the seeding will still come down to the final rankings. Can't get around that
 

Spot on.
I have no issue with expansion of the tourney. I have issue with the expansion of at large bids.
I agree with this as well. The more expansion bids = the more controvrsey.

The more automatic bids the more importance it is in the regular season.

I think 12 is a great number. They need to adjust the calendar. The teams that didn't earn a bye still got a 3 week break before their first game. That is just too much.

The first week of the playoffs should be the weekend of the traditional Army/Navy game & Heisman Trophy.
 

I agree with this as well. The more expansion bids = the more controvrsey.

The more automatic bids the more importance it is in the regular season.

I think 12 is a great number. They need to adjust the calendar. The teams that didn't earn a bye still got a 3 week break before their first game. That is just too much.

The first week of the playoffs should be the weekend of the traditional Army/Navy game & Heisman Trophy.

I was a huge proponent of 12 because I thought there would be 7 autobids. Power 5 plus 2 G5 champs.

If I had known it’d be 5, they should’ve done 8 team playoff.
Needs to be more automatic ways in than subjective ways in.

So if they go 16 I hope at least 9 of the bids are preconceived



I actually think the best model is something along the lines of how they determine champions league bids in European soccer.


“Championship weekend” becomes “play in weekend”


What this means for example (actual determined bids to be used later)

16 bids.
Big ten 4 (or 5)
SEC 4 (or 5)
Big 12 2 (or 3)
ACC 1 (or 2 or 3)

6 play in bids for:
Big ten 5
SEC 5
ACC 2
ACC 3
big 12 3
5 more conference champs


These are drawn
For example:
So play in weekend is:
SEC 5 vs Big 10 5
Big 12 3 vs MAC champ
ACC 2 vs Sun Belt champ
Mountain west champ vs American champ
Conf USA champ vs ACC 3


Formula on who gets what kind of bid is predetermined and is based on league strength over 5 years of non conference, bowls, and playoff results. Recalculated every year.


So going into the year a team like the gophers would know;
Top 4 go to 16 team playoff.
5 goes to play in weekend.
6-18 are out



Conferences can bring back co-champions but need a tiebreaker process for who gets what number bid for the league. This would incentivize leagues to build balanced schedules so that the best teams finish in their bid spots. Sending your 7th best team instead of your 4th because of imbalanced schedules would hurt next years coefficient
 
Last edited:






Top Bottom