Article CFP unanimously approves 5+7 model for new 12-team playoff

[stinger78]

What we need to the Big 10 and the SEC to start disagreeing what each other and start fighting

Disagree. We need them to fall in love and make their own CFB division. Two ticks, no dog.

 

[Richard7125]

The immediate problem is that it codifies inequities. What happens in a year in which there are 3 good ACC teams and only 2 in the B1G or SEC? This assumes that strength of conferences will never go through up and down cycles or that the status quo will remain forever.

It would look better if the SEC, Big10, ACC, Big12 each got 2 automatic bids. (1) auto bid for G5 and (5) at large bids. The reality is the SEC and Big10 would probably get the same number of teams into the playoffs, but it would make people int he ACC and Big12 feel better. It would make ND feel better too.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It would look better if the SEC, Big10, ACC, Big12 each got 2 automatic bids. (1) auto bid for G5 and (5) at large bids. The reality is the SEC and Big10 would probably get the same number of teams into the playoffs, but it would make people int he ACC and Big12 feel better. It would make ND feel better too.

Correct.

I have no problem with 3 or more SEC teams EARNING their way into the playoffs but I want it to be based on record and on the field results not because the format is already stacked in their favor.

 

[stinger78]

Correct.

I have no problem with 3 or more SEC teams EARNING their way into the playoffs but I want it to be based on record and on the field results not because the format is already stacked in their favor.

Can I get an AMEN!

 

[LT 1967]

I noticed this short article in the AJC yesterday concerning the CFP discussions. See the attached.

Notice the last paragraph concerning the B1G and SEC initiating the discussions at 4 teams each for both the B1G and SEC.

Assuming 3 at large and 1 for G5, that would leave only 1 each for the ACC and Big 12. Still assuming a total of 14 teams.

Hopefully, this is an indication that Jim Phillips (ACC) and Brett Yormark (Big 12) are fighting hard for an equitable system if they establish a set
number for each conference. Obviously, a 4-4-1-1-1-3 would really make the ACC look more like a G5 conference.

After reading this article, I agree with those who believe any number less than the B1G and SEC receive will definitely harm the perception of the ACC.

The last part of this article brought home to me that the ACC is really in a fight to be perceived as a top-level conference.

 

[Southern psu fan]

I noticed this short article in the AJC yesterday concerning the CFP discussions. See the attached.

Notice the last paragraph concerning the B1G and SEC initiating the discussions at 4 teams each for both the B1G and SEC.

Assuming 3 at large and 1 for G5, that would leave only 1 each for the ACC and Big 12. Still assuming a total of 14 teams.

Hopefully, this is an indication that Jim Phillips (ACC) and Brett Yormark (Big 12) are fighting hard for an equitable system if they establish a set
number for each conference. Obviously, a 4-4-1-1-1-3 would really make the ACC look more like a G5 conference.

After reading this article, I agree with those who believe any number less than the B1G and SEC receive will definitely harm the perception of the ACC.

The last part of this article brought home to me that the ACC is really in a fight to be perceived as a top-level conference.

Paul Finebaum was complaining about the SEC and big 10 rigging the playoffs to get automatic byes and if I heard him right automatic bids regardless of records. I caught the tail end of the conversation with him and sports illustrated Pat Forde and both of ‘em weren’t happy with the SEC or Big 10 and what both conferences is up to. It is bs if it’s what they’re doing. It may end up just big 10 and SEC teams that get in the playoffs.

 

[stinger78]

I noticed this short article in the AJC yesterday concerning the CFP discussions. See the attached.

Notice the last paragraph concerning the B1G and SEC initiating the discussions at 4 teams each for both the B1G and SEC.

Assuming 3 at large and 1 for G5, that would leave only 1 each for the ACC and Big 12. Still assuming a total of 14 teams.

Hopefully, this is an indication that Jim Phillips (ACC) and Brett Yormark (Big 12) are fighting hard for an equitable system if they establish a set
number for each conference. Obviously, a 4-4-1-1-1-3 would really make the ACC look more like a G5 conference.

After reading this article, I agree with those who believe any number less than the B1G and SEC receive will definitely harm the perception of the ACC.

The last part of this article brought home to me that the ACC is really in a fight to be perceived as a top-level conference.

Welcome home.

 

[billga99]

I noticed this short article in the AJC yesterday concerning the CFP discussions. See the attached.

Notice the last paragraph concerning the B1G and SEC initiating the discussions at 4 teams each for both the B1G and SEC.

Assuming 3 at large and 1 for G5, that would leave only 1 each for the ACC and Big 12. Still assuming a total of 14 teams.

Hopefully, this is an indication that Jim Phillips (ACC) and Brett Yormark (Big 12) are fighting hard for an equitable system if they establish a set
number for each conference. Obviously, a 4-4-1-1-1-3 would really make the ACC look more like a G5 conference.

After reading this article, I agree with those who believe any number less than the B1G and SEC receive will definitely harm the perception of the ACC.

The last part of this article brought home to me that the ACC is really in a fight to be perceived as a top-level conference.

I completely agree. I am not wild about 3-3-2-2 but I think that is least has some merit based on the past several years. No way I would ever think the ACC and Big 12 should agree to 4 each for the SEC and Big Ten. At some point, the risk of continually giving in is higher than the risk to tell both conferences to stuff it. Yes they have the highest exposure. But if they split off and the other 8 conferences refuse to schedule them and have their own playoffs, there are other networks and streaming services besides Fox and ESPN.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Paul Finebaum was complaining about the SEC and big 10 rigging the playoffs to get automatic byes and if I heard him right automatic bids regardless of records. I caught the tail end of the conversation with him and sports illustrated Pat Forde and both of ‘em weren’t happy with the SEC or Big 10 and what both conferences is up to. It is bs if it’s what they’re doing. It may end up just big 10 and SEC teams that get in the playoffs.

”if it’s what they are doing“ - how anyone today can use the word “if” just shows how deeply they have distorted the sport when even fans of teams in the ACC can say “if”.

And to the earlier poster - of course the SEC and BIG would set the starting point of negotiations at 4. When the ACC actually votes “yes” to the 3-3-2-2 for the P4, I’m sure Sankey and Petitti will have a nice steak dinner laughing their backside off.

 

[stinger78]

I completely agree. I am not wild about 3-3-2-2 but I think that is least has some merit based on the past several years. No way I would ever think the ACC and Big 12 should agree to 4 each for the SEC and Big Ten. At some point, the risk of continually giving in is higher than the risk to tell both conferences to stuff it. Yes they have the highest exposure. But if they split off and the other 8 conferences refuse to schedule them and have their own playoffs, there are other networks and streaming services besides Fox and ESPN.

Yes. Let’s get out of the rat race to fund those clowns. Secede, refuse to schedule them and start a new division. Let’s be proactive.

 

[Southern psu fan]

Like I said folks, I heard the tail end of the conversation but I believe I also heard Paul and Pat say something about another division of football besides the big 10 and SEC. I was working and had the show on and I wasn’t paying 100% attention until it hit me on what they were talking about. They want to keep teams like Cincinnati out. Wherever Ga Tech goes, ole southern goes! Its the Ga Tech brand that I love

 

[roadkill]

”if it’s what they are doing“ - how anyone today can use the word “if” just shows how deeply they have distorted the sport when even fans of teams in the ACC can say “if”.

And to the earlier poster - of course the SEC and BIG would set the starting point of negotiations at 4. When the ACC actually votes “yes” to the 3-3-2-2 for the P4, I’m sure Sankey and Petitti will have a nice steak dinner laughing their backside off.

I thought the same thing when I saw the reference to the 4-4 AQ model. Always start negotiating by asking for more than you expect to get, then "compromise" at a position that is still very favorable.

 

[CEB]

Paul Finebaum was complaining about the SEC and big 10 rigging the playoffs to get automatic byes and if I heard him right automatic bids regardless of records. I caught the tail end of the conversation with him and sports illustrated Pat Forde and both of ‘em weren’t happy with the SEC or Big 10 and what both conferences is up to. It is bs if it’s what they’re doing. It may end up just big 10 and SEC teams that get in the playoffs.

Complaining about the SEC and BIG rigging the playoffs or complaining that they weren’t SUCCESSFUL in ruining the playoffs?
In my estimation, Finebaum would not be satisfied with fewer than 10 SEC automatic qualifiers.

 

[CEB]

Complaining about the SEC and BIG rigging the playoffs or complaining that they weren’t SUCCESSFUL in ruining the playoffs?
In my estimation, Finebaum would not be satisfied with fewer than 10 SEC automatic qualifiers.

Just noticed… I meant to type “rigging” twice. Freudian slip

 

[Richard7125]

The more I think about it, the SEC and Big10 would prefer more “at large” bids than auto bids. We have a 5+7 in the current 12 team playoff. That guarantees 1 team from the ACC and 1 team from the Big12. In a 14 team playoff, if they did a 3,3,2,2,1 plus 3 at large, you are guaranteeing 2 ACC and 2 Big12 teams. So, in essence going from 12 teams to 14 teams, you are guaranteeing the two extra spots go to the ACC and Big12. That doesn’t make sense.

I think the SEC/Big10 are finessing this a little knowing the other conferences won’t like “codifying the inequities” with more guaranteed spots for the SEC/Big10 and will settle on a 5+9 model instead. History has shown both the SEC/Big10 will get the bulk of the spots if all of them were at-large.

 

[stinger78]

The more I think about it, the SEC and Big10 would prefer more “at large” bids than auto bids. We have a 5+7 in the current 12 team playoff. That guarantees 1 team from the ACC and 1 team from the Big12. In a 14 team playoff, if they did a 3,3,2,2,1 plus 3 at large, you are guaranteeing 2 ACC and 2 Big12 teams. So, in essence going from 12 teams to 14 teams, you are guaranteeing the two extra spots go to the ACC and Big12. That doesn’t make sense.

I think the SEC/Big10 are finessing this a little knowing the other conferences won’t like “codifying the inequities” with more guaranteed spots for the SEC/Big10 and will settle on a 5+9 model instead. History has shown both the SEC/Big10 will get the bulk of the spots if all of them were at-large.

The larger the playoff, the larger the number of SECheat/B1G teams. The only thing defeating that is more G5 auto bids.

This is why I like an 8-team CFP with only seven conference champs: ACC, B1G, B12, SECheat, plus top 3 G5 champs and top indy, with the P12 considered a G5 for the present.

The SECheat/B1G cartel will never allow this as they’ve now engorged themselves with the most teams they can get based on the premise of maximizing conference payout. They are committed either to a large playoff with multiple of their teams involved, or a premier league among themselves. All for money.

 

[Southern psu fan]

The larger the playoff, the larger the number of SECheat/B1G teams. The only thing defeating that is more G5 auto bids.

This is why I like an 8-team CFP with only seven conference champs: ACC, B1G, B12, SECheat, plus top 3 G5 champs and top indy, with the P12 considered a G5 for the present.

The SECheat/B1G cartel will never allow this as they’ve now engorged themselves with the most teams they can get based on the premise of maximizing conference payout. They are committed either to a large playoff with multiple of their teams involved, or a premier league among themselves. All for money.

Now that we have 4 P4 conferences I wish it was left at 4 taking conference champs only teams know what has to be done and it forces ND to get in a conference or they get left out. That would be a killer system imo lol

 

[stinger78]

Now that we have 4 P4 conferences I wish it was left at 4 taking conference champs only teams know what has to be done and it forces ND to get in a conference or they get left out. That would be a killer system imo lol

Yes, but that wouldn’t involve any G5 conferences. So unless they form their own playoff, they have no seat at all. That’s one way of settling it, though. Another is the 8-team format I outlined above.

Neither will happen, though, as they’re already at 12 teams. It will never get smaller. So the task is to limit the dominant number of SECheat/B1G teams where win or lose they make out like bandits… which is pretty much what they are.

 

[CEB]

The more I think about it, the SEC and Big10 would prefer more “at large” bids than auto bids. We have a 5+7 in the current 12 team playoff. That guarantees 1 team from the ACC and 1 team from the Big12. In a 14 team playoff, if they did a 3,3,2,2,1 plus 3 at large, you are guaranteeing 2 ACC and 2 Big12 teams. So, in essence going from 12 teams to 14 teams, you are guaranteeing the two extra spots go to the ACC and Big12. That doesn’t make sense.

I think the SEC/Big10 are finessing this a little knowing the other conferences won’t like “codifying the inequities” with more guaranteed spots for the SEC/Big10 and will settle on a 5+9 model instead. History has shown both the SEC/Big10 will get the bulk of the spots if all of them were at-large.

I’m not so sure on that… at least not yet.
SEC may want all at large, but I suspect the BIG is fine with a lot of AQs. The fewer at large spots available, the less likely ND gets a seat at the table. I think the Irish would reassess quickly if they are watching lesser ACC/B12/G5 AQs in the CFP over a 12-14 ranked ND team.

Right now, the best / most lucrative model for the BIG & SEC is an inclusive playoff structure that retains fans from all schools. Having more AQs does that and squeezes ND while they circle the ACC like vultures. Once ND joins up and the ACC reshuffling happens, there will be a new CFP and the number of AQs will all get retraded, so it’s a small, temporary concession in the grand scheme.

The next rendition after they’ve gobbled up the ACC and ND will be full of at large teams and will feature 11-12 (if not 14) BIG/ SEC teams annually.

 

[Richard7125]

I’m not so sure on that… at least not yet.
SEC may want all at large, but I suspect the BIG is fine with a lot of AQs. The fewer at large spots available, the less likely ND gets a seat at the table. I think the Irish would reassess quickly if they are watching lesser ACC/B12/G5 AQs in the CFP over a 12-14 ranked ND team.

Right now, the best / most lucrative model for the BIG & SEC is an inclusive playoff structure that retains fans from all schools. Having more AQs does that and squeezes ND while they circle the ACC like vultures. Once ND joins up and the ACC reshuffling happens, there will be a new CFP and the number of AQs will all get retraded, so it’s a small, temporary concession in the grand scheme.

The next rendition after they’ve gobbled up the ACC and ND will be full of at large teams and will feature 11-12 (if not 14) BIG/ SEC teams annually.

Maybe. This could be one of the few points of contention between SEC and Big10 - AQs vs At Large. Who knows. I still don't think the SEC or Big10 want to add more teams.