Even at this point, why not let the 12th seed to determined on the field? 6th best champ vs. 7th best at-large, winner is the 12th seed, puts the debate to rest, nets everyone a little extra money.

(09-26-2023 09:03 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:05 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  6+6 is huge for '24, especially for the PAC/MWC. I suspect we could end up with a completely different format after '26 though. They want to trial run this thing.

I know I've beat this drum a lot, but I'll still beat it. I still think we should end up with a 5+10 (4+6) format where we have the top 5 champs + top 4 CCG losers + 6 at-large. Adds an additional round and layer of the CFP without the risk of team playing 18 games in a season (excludes teams playing @ Hawaii, but will already be the case with 6+6) since the top 4 champs get a double bye to the quarterfinals, the 5th champ (persumably G5 champ) and 4 CCG losers (5-9 seeds) get a single bye since they played in a CCG, and the top 6 at-large play a play-in game (10-15 seeds) while leaving a standalone slot for Army-Navy, who likely only makes the CFP as a G5 champion.

To me, it just makes way too much sense for all parties involved. I don't mind staying at 6+6 for a year or 2 to playout the current contract, but I think the P4 will want to trade in 1 autobid for at least 4 at-large spots in 2026. This format keeps CCGs relevant and adds incentive for conference semis for the top 4, if they desire (I think we can learn more after 2024). It avoids cannibalizing playoff games and expanding the season beyond what 6+6 will do. G5 still gets a spot and maybe a home game. ND still has 6 at-larges with a strong shot at a home game, and in the event ND is ranked top while seeded 10th, it keep ND from meeting the other top 2 ranked team before the championship game (a neat, unintended consequence of this format).

Once again, I think people are concentrating too much on the playoff field itself and not enough on the impact on the regular season and CCGs.

To me, just allowing the CCG losers to get into the playoff automatically (effectively an automatic mulligan for everyone) devalues the CCGs way too much. Sure, there are going to be a lot of years where many or even all of the P4 CCG losers are likely to get in as at-larges, but not having a *guaranteed* safety net is a huge deal in how a viewer watches that game.

We’re also getting into hypotheticals that get talked a lot on message boards (such as the concept of conference semifinals) that haven’t gotten any traction in the “real world” at all. Personally, I’d love to see conference semifinals, but I’ve never seen a single person in the powers that be ever suggest that it’s a possibility.

IMHO, the 6+6 (or future 5+7) format is clear, concise, provides logical incentives (e.g. a bye for the top 4 conference champs that inherently needed to win an additional high stakes CCG), fits into the available TV windows (a major practical issue due to NFL conflicts and how TV networks *don’t* want playoff games during Christmas week), and can be explained to a third grader.

Like I’ve said, the format is the easiest part of all of this to resolve. Instead, the real fight is about the money. The Big Ten and SEC are going to be coming for more of the G5’s share (and they’re going to do it on the NCAA Tournament side, too).

(09-25-2023 05:39 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  Top 6 Conference champions based on next year's alignment and this year's rankings (so far..)
1. Georgia (SEC)
2. Michigan (Big 10)
3. Florida State (ACC)
4. Utah (Big 12)
5. Washington State (MWC?) if indy replace with Fresno State
6. Fresno State or Tulane (AAC)

At this point, I don't see much use in comparing apples to oranges. PAC is still playing PAC schools instead of future conference opponents. Let's wait until 2024 and we should get a clearer idea. 5 champs will probably be the way to go, but let's verify before changes are made for 2026.

(09-26-2023 09:18 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  Even at this point, why not let the 12th seed to determined on the field? 6th best champ vs. 7th best at-large, winner is the 12th seed, puts the debate to rest, nets everyone a little extra money.

It wouldn’t shock me if we end up with play-in games of this nature in the future, although it would almost certainly be the 5th and 6th conference champs (essentially the G5 championship) involved in at least one of them. The TV networks don’t want more than one G5 team included in the primary field. Maybe another play-in game would involve the next highest-ranked at-large teams.

My preference is Straight 12. Autobids allow for the unlikely possibility of 6, 7, or 8 win teams qualifying.

Today's Rankings

Cotton Bowl: #3 Texas vs (#11 Notre Dame @ #6 Penn St)
Orange Bowl: #1 Georgia vs (#9 Oregon @ #8 USC)
Rose Bowl: #2 Michigan vs (#10 Utah @ #7 Washington)
Sugar Bowl: #4 Ohio St vs (#12 Alabama @ #5 Florida St)

(09-25-2023 06:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Aresco is such a pain in the rear. He still acts like he’s running a league that’s nipping at the heels of the P5——the AAC isn’t even the clear cut best G-league this year.

According to Sagarin, it's SBC East, MWC, AAC, MAC West, SBC West, MAC East and CUSA.

Why does everybody separate the SBC East and SBC west? They're ONE conference and share a bid so there's no point in trying to separate them.

(09-26-2023 09:36 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference is Straight 12. Autobids allow for the unlikely possibility of 6, 7, or 8 win teams qualifying.

I will never understand this viewpoint.

Every other sport allocates spots to their championship based on an actual achievement on the field as opposed to a hotel conference room in Dallas.

Does this mean that every conference champ should get into the playoff? Absolutely not. I believe that a certain number of subjective at-large spots is good for the playoff, but the problem up to this point is that it has been ALL 100% subjective fields. We’re now going to 50/50 objective/subjective in the beginning and going to 42/58 if/when there’s a 5+7 format. That fear of a 6-win team making to the playoff is both (a) unrealistic and (b) even if it happens, who cares (just as we don’t care after 48 hours when some random basketball team with a losing record wins a conference tourney and gets tk to the NCAA Tournament)?

A playoff format isn’t going to cover every single variable to give a perfect field every single year. If that’s what people demand, then that isn’t going to occur no matter what format is chosen. We obsess waaaaay too much about the exceptions. Instead, a playoff format should reasonably encompass the teams that could win the championship - the fact that it might contain a couple of teams that have little chance of winning the championship is much less bothersome than a system like the current one that often shuts out legit championship contenders. It should also have clear objective parameters, balance interest in the regular season with the playoff itself, and be TV-friendly.

The fact that somehow the SEC and MWC (among others) were able to agree upon this 12-team playoff format is a monumental achievement. This is the one good thing that the powers that be have done for the sport.

(09-26-2023 09:52 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 09:36 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference is Straight 12. Autobids allow for the unlikely possibility of 6, 7, or 8 win teams qualifying.

I will never understand this viewpoint.

Every other sport allocates spots to their championship based on an actual achievement on the field as opposed to a hotel conference room in Dallas.

Does this mean that every conference champ should get into the playoff? Absolutely not. I believe that a certain number of subjective at-large spots is good for the playoff, but the problem up to this point is that it has been ALL 100% subjective fields. We’re now going to 50/50 objective/subjective in the beginning and going to 42/58 if/when there’s a 5+7 format. That fear of a 6-win team making to the playoff is both (a) unrealistic and (b) even if it happens, who cares (just as we don’t care after 48 hours when some random basketball team with a losing record wins a conference tourney and gets tk to the NCAA Tournament)?

A playoff format isn’t going to cover every single variable to give a perfect field every single year. If that’s what people demand, then that isn’t going to occur no matter what format is chosen. We obsess waaaaay too much about the exceptions. Instead, a playoff format should reasonably encompass the teams that could win the championship - the fact that it might contain a couple of teams that have little chance of winning the championship is much less bothersome than a system like the current one that often shuts out legit championship contenders. It should also have clear objective parameters, balance interest in the regular season with the playoff itself, and be TV-friendly.

The fact that somehow the SEC and MWC (among others) were able to agree upon this 12-team playoff format is a monumental achievement. This is the one good thing that the powers that be have done for the sport.

To qualify my position, I would be in favor of a Straight 12 if the ranking system was objective. I just have never been a fan of autobids. I strongly prefer the Euro model of:
1) pro/rel
2) objective rankings where top # go to Champions League

It’s not possible for football because you can’t do a full, double round-robin but as close as we can get to that would be my position.

Pro / Rel is NEVER going to happen. I wish people would stop bringing it up. Euro soccer and NCAA football is an apples and oranges comparison.

(09-26-2023 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

Only reason to give it up is a larger % payout in the next deal. 5-7 is all but guaranteed to happen, only the SEC really wants top 12 and the G5 does have enough leverage to prevent some sort of 4-8 format. It's really just going to be about the financial split, and the only way if I'm the G5 leagues I give up 2 years of 6-6 is for a real win on the financial split. Obviously not like making them equal win but I believe the P5 currently splits like 80% of the money and instead of it being the P4 getting 80% it's something like the P4 getting 70% and the G5/G6 getting 30%. That would probably be worth going to 5-7 early.

(09-26-2023 09:40 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 06:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Aresco is such a pain in the rear. He still acts like he’s running a league that’s nipping at the heels of the P5——the AAC isn’t even the clear cut best G-league this year.

According to Sagarin, it's SBC East, MWC, AAC, MAC West, SBC West, MAC East and CUSA.

Why does everybody separate the SBC East and SBC west?

Everyone that cites Sagarin's numbers would be doing that because that's how Sagarin does it.

Quote: They're ONE conference and share a bid so there's no point in trying to separate them.

For the conferences that pit divisional champs, they are one conference, but there are two distinct paths to the CCG to claim the conference crown. So, for instance, a school being undefeated after playing all other SBC East schools tells you more about their strength than a school being undefeated after playing all other SBC West schools. Ditto SEC / Big Ten East and West through to MAC West and East.

(09-26-2023 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

Only reason to give it up is a larger % payout in the next deal. 5-7 is all but guaranteed to happen, only the SEC really wants top 12 and the G5 does have enough leverage to prevent some sort of 4-8 format. It's really just going to be about the financial split, and the only way if I'm the G5 leagues I give up 2 years of 6-6 is for a real win on the financial split. Obviously not like making them equal win but I believe the P5 currently splits like 80% of the money and instead of it being the P4 getting 80% it's something like the P4 getting 70% and the G5/G6 getting 30%. That would probably be worth going to 5-7 early.

And that’s why I think we’ll see 6+6 for the next 2 years and then the Big Ten and SEC will put the hammer down in the next contract. My educated belief is that the Big Ten and SEC care waaaaaaaay more about making that revenue split even *more* in their favor (such as 85/15 for the P5/G5/6 split) than the playoff format. The token G5 spot isn’t a big deal to the P2. However, the P2 getting even more of the money is a *very* big deal to them.

(09-26-2023 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

Only reason to give it up is a larger % payout in the next deal. 5-7 is all but guaranteed to happen, only the SEC really wants top 12 and the G5 does have enough leverage to prevent some sort of 4-8 format. It's really just going to be about the financial split, and the only way if I'm the G5 leagues I give up 2 years of 6-6 is for a real win on the financial split. Obviously not like making them equal win but I believe the P5 currently splits like 80% of the money and instead of it being the P4 getting 80% it's something like the P4 getting 70% and the G5/G6 getting 30%. That would probably be worth going to 5-7 early.

And that’s why I think we’ll see 6+6 for the next 2 years and then the Big Ten and SEC will put the hammer down in the next contract. My educated belief is that the Big Ten and SEC care waaaaaaaay more about making that revenue split even *more* in their favor (such as 85/15 for the P5/G5/6 split) than the playoff format. The token G5 spot isn’t a big deal to the P2. However, the P2 getting even more of the money is a *very* big deal to them.

I'm sure that's what they'll want to do and it will be interesting to see how that goes. They certainly are the 2 most powerful conferences, but they probably also want a larger split than the other P leagues so the voting on that is going to be interesting.

I think keep the PAC merger with the MWC as a Power conference which would give the west coast more rep at the big boys' table.

Then bring up one the FCS conferences as a G5, and graduate a D2 conference to replace the FCS conference.

I've said this before, but on a lot of issues the ACC and Big 12 are going to be a different voting bloc on a number of issues than the SEC And B1G, and this is going to be one of them.

In the 12-team format only 2 teams get first-round byes. The ACC and Big 12 know they aren't getting those slots often so they don't care if that first-round bye goes away.

I could see the G5 putting up a format with 16 teams and anywhere from 6 to 8 automatic bids and the middle 2 conferences will go along with it because from their point of view what's the difference between 12 and 16? Plus, more teams means the CFP pot gets bigger and no one outside the P2 is going to oppose that.

The P2 can pitch fits if they want but the next playoff format after the 6-6 isn't going to be what they prefer.

(09-26-2023 11:24 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I've said this before, but on a lot of issues the ACC and Big 12 are going to be a different voting bloc on a number of issues than the SEC And B1G, and this is going to be one of them.

In the 12-team format only 2 teams get first-round byes. The ACC and Big 12 know they aren't getting those slots often so they don't care if that first-round bye goes away.

I could see the G5 putting up a format with 16 teams and anywhere from 6 to 8 automatic bids and the middle 2 conferences will go along with it because from their point of view what's the difference between 12 and 16? Plus, more teams means the CFP pot gets bigger and no one outside the P2 is going to oppose that.

The P2 can pitch fits if they want but the next playoff format after the 6-6 isn't going to be what they prefer.

???

The 5-7 format effectively guarantees the Big 12 and ACC champs will get first round byes for the top 4 champs. Those leagues are going to care about the bye even more than the Big Ten and SEC since that is a huge separator between the “M2” and G5.

You’re seriously misunderstanding the leverage here. The Big Ten and SEC have the lion’s share of the power and they’ll get the ACC, Big 12, and Notre Dame aligned.

(09-26-2023 09:18 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  Even at this point, why not let the 12th seed to determined on the field? 6th best champ vs. 7th best at-large, winner is the 12th seed, puts the debate to rest, nets everyone a little extra money.

Because the #12 seed is needed to be playing in the first round game at the top at-large school, 20/21 of December in 2024.

(09-26-2023 11:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

Only reason to give it up is a larger % payout in the next deal. 5-7 is all but guaranteed to happen, only the SEC really wants top 12 and the G5 does have enough leverage to prevent some sort of 4-8 format. It's really just going to be about the financial split, and the only way if I'm the G5 leagues I give up 2 years of 6-6 is for a real win on the financial split. Obviously not like making them equal win but I believe the P5 currently splits like 80% of the money and instead of it being the P4 getting 80% it's something like the P4 getting 70% and the G5/G6 getting 30%. That would probably be worth going to 5-7 early.

And that’s why I think we’ll see 6+6 for the next 2 years and then the Big Ten and SEC will put the hammer down in the next contract. My educated belief is that the Big Ten and SEC care waaaaaaaay more about making that revenue split even *more* in their favor (such as 85/15 for the P5/G5/6 split) than the playoff format. The token G5 spot isn’t a big deal to the P2. However, the P2 getting even more of the money is a *very* big deal to them.

I'm sure that's what they'll want to do and it will be interesting to see how that goes. They certainly are the 2 most powerful conferences, but they probably also want a larger split than the other P leagues so the voting on that is going to be interesting.

About the bolded, this is what I have been thinking. IMO the SEC and B1G likely care more about getting more $$$ out of the P-percentage than getting more away from the G-percentage.

Two scenarios:

I. PAC reconstitutes, MW remains, so we now have a P4/G6.

P-share is currently 80%, G-share is 20%. With this scenario, I think the SEC and B1G would push for something like ....

G6 .... 23% (slight boost because there is one more G mouth to feed).

P4 ..... SEC and B1G ..... 25% each.

ACC and Big 12 ............ 13.5% each.


II. PAC absorbs the MW or MW absorbs OS and WS, so we have a P4 and G5 ...

G5 ..... 20% each like now

P4 ...... SEC and B1G ..... 26% each

ACC and Big 12 ............. 14% each


Something like that. But in each case, the Gs are relatively unscathed, it is the ACC and B12 who lose big percentages.

Just MO.

(09-26-2023 11:24 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I've said this before, but on a lot of issues the ACC and Big 12 are going to be a different voting bloc on a number of issues than the SEC And B1G, and this is going to be one of them.

In the 12-team format only 2 teams get first-round byes. The ACC and Big 12 know they aren't getting those slots often so they don't care if that first-round bye goes away.

I could see the G5 putting up a format with 16 teams and anywhere from 6 to 8 automatic bids and the middle 2 conferences will go along with it because from their point of view what's the difference between 12 and 16? Plus, more teams means the CFP pot gets bigger and no one outside the P2 is going to oppose that.

The P2 can pitch fits if they want but the next playoff format after the 6-6 isn't going to be what they prefer.

?????

(09-26-2023 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

Only reason to give it up is a larger % payout in the next deal. 5-7 is all but guaranteed to happen, only the SEC really wants top 12 and the G5 does have enough leverage to prevent some sort of 4-8 format. It's really just going to be about the financial split, and the only way if I'm the G5 leagues I give up 2 years of 6-6 is for a real win on the financial split. Obviously not like making them equal win but I believe the P5 currently splits like 80% of the money and instead of it being the P4 getting 80% it's something like the P4 getting 70% and the G5/G6 getting 30%. That would probably be worth going to 5-7 early.

And that’s why I think we’ll see 6+6 for the next 2 years and then the Big Ten and SEC will put the hammer down in the next contract. My educated belief is that the Big Ten and SEC care waaaaaaaay more about making that revenue split even *more* in their favor (such as 85/15 for the P5/G5/6 split) than the playoff format. The token G5 spot isn’t a big deal to the P2. However, the P2 getting even more of the money is a *very* big deal to them.

I'm sure that's what they'll want to do and it will be interesting to see how that goes. They certainly are the 2 most powerful conferences, but they probably also want a larger split than the other P leagues so the voting on that is going to be interesting.

About the bolded, this is what I have been thinking. IMO the SEC and B1G likely care more about getting more $$$ out of the P-share than getting more away from the Gs.

Two scenarios:

I. PAC reconstitutes, MW remains, so we now have a P4/G6.

P-share is currently 80%, G-share is 20%. With this scenario, I think the SEC and B1G would push for something like ....

G6 .... 23% (slight boost because there is one more G mouth to feed).

P4 ..... SEC and B1G ..... 25% each.

ACC and Big 12 ............ 13.5% each.


II. PAC absorbs the MW or MW absorbs OS and WS, so we have a P4 and G5 ...

G5 ..... 20% each like now

P4 ...... SEC and B1G ..... 26% each

ACC and Big 12 ............. 14% each


Something like that. But in each case, the Gs are relatively unscathed, it is the ACC and B12 who lose big percentages.

Just MO.

I think that’s wishful thinking from the G5. The P2 knows that they can basically take whatever they want from the G5 by getting all of the P4 plus ND to band together with their supermajority power. The Big Ten and SeC aren’t really bothered by the Big 12 and ACC making similar money… and even if they were bothered by it in reality, it’s still simply the path of least resistance that they can use the P4 plus ND supermajority power to impose whatever they want on the G5 than try to fight those within the supermajority club.