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

[CEB]

The latest proposal for a 14 team playoff includes 11 auto bids:
3 SEC
3 B1G
2 ACC
2 BigXII
1 G5
3 at large

initially, I thought this didn’t look too bad… As I give it a little more thought, I see what they’ve actually done. The addition of two teams adds two more teams from the SEC and BIG. Also, a 14 team bracket allows a bye to only the top two seeds. Those will almost assuredly be the SEC and BIG champions. They have slipped in two more of their teams and taken away the bye that would’ve been afforded to the ACC and B12 (or possibly G5) conf. champions.
I would rather see them go ahead with 16 teams using this set up and take five at large, just so there is not the additional benefit of a bye for SEC and BIG champ.
Say what you will about the 1 vs 16 and the 2 vs 15, but I would rather see them play a game.

 

[stinger78]

Any plan that promotes a fixed, uneven slot distribution simply is ultimately seeking to institutionalize the pecking order through uneven success probabilities and media distributions.

 

[RamblinRed]

initially, I thought this didn’t look too bad… As I give it a little more thought, I see what they’ve actually done. The addition of two teams adds two more teams from the SEC and BIG. Also, a 14 team bracket allows a bye to only the top two seeds. Those will almost assuredly be the SEC and BIG champions. They have slipped in two more of their teams and taken away the bye that would’ve been afforded to the ACC and B12 (or possibly G5) conf. champions.
I would rather see them go ahead with 16 teams using this set up and take five at large, just so there is not the additional benefit of a bye for SEC and BIG champ.
Say what you will about the 1 vs 16 and the 2 vs 15, but I would rather see them play a game.

While i'm not thrilled with this, it would have worked in the ACC's favor last year.
If you apply this proposal to how the CFP rankings played out last year you would have the following teams getting in
B1G - Mich, Wash, Ohio St, OR, Penn St
SEC - TX, AL, UGA, Missou
ACC - FSU, L'ville
B12 - AZ, Ok St
G5 - Liberty

Under the 5+7 model they have for the next couple of years the participants would have been
B1G - Mich, Wash, Ohio St, OR, Penn St
SEC - TX, AL, UGA, Missou
ACC - FSU
B12 - AZ
G5 - Liberty

 

[CEB]

Any plan that promotes a fixed, uneven slot distribution simply is ultimately seeking to institutionalize the pecking order through uneven success probabilities and media distributions.

Fight the good fight sir!

 

[RamblinRed]

ACC has added Dr. Pepper and Crush as official sponsors of the conference.

Disney and ACC “Crush” a New Collaboration – Dr Pepper Named an Official Conference Sponsor

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (TheACC.com) – Dr Pepper is the newest official sponsor of the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) as part of a new multi-year agreement with the ACC and Disney Advertising. Through 2026, Dr Pepper will introduce several new sponsorship elements as the brand returns as an official...

theacc.com

Dr Pepper is the newest official sponsor of the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) as part of a new multi-year agreement with the ACC and Disney Advertising. Through 2026, Dr Pepper will introduce several new sponsorship elements as the brand returns as an official ACC sponsor for the first time since 2019, having served as a media sponsor for the last four years. As the exclusive carbonated soft drink sponsor of the ACC, Dr Pepper and its sister brand, Crush, will be featured across ACC signage and branding at championship events.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I'd be fine with this if there was 1 at large, but we don't need 4 or 5 SEC or B1G teams in the playoff, that's ridiculous.

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.

 

[CEB]

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.

Noble cause, for sure. God speed!

While i'm not thrilled with this, it would have worked in the ACC's favor last year.
If you apply this proposal to how the CFP rankings played out last year you would have the following teams getting in
B1G - Mich, Wash, Ohio St, OR, Penn St
SEC - TX, AL, UGA, Missou
ACC - FSU, L'ville
B12 - AZ, Ok St
G5 - Liberty

Under the 5+7 model they have for the next couple of years the participants would have been
B1G - Mich, Wash, Ohio St, OR, Penn St
SEC - TX, AL, UGA, Missou
ACC - FSU
B12 - AZ
G5 - Liberty

To your point, it may work to ACC advantage most years. There haven’t been many years recently where two teams deserved a spot in the top 12.
So essentially, we are giving away a bye for our champion in favor of getting a second team in the mix. From a financial perspective, it makes sense.
As others have said; even though it’s hard to imagine a scenario where the expanded BIG and SEC don’t have 6 top ten teams, it’s plausible. I wouldn’t want to concede the inequity in structure, even though it will bear out that way in practicality.
I guess we can all take heart in the fact that whatever they decide won’t last very long before they expand or restructure again (not that I expect any future models to remedy inequity).

 

[roadkill]

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.

This was also my immediate reaction.

Then I realized that not only would it have helped the ACC last season, but when was the last time the ACC had two top-tier teams, let alone three? I realize that football fortunes wax and wane among teams, but if there has been one constant, it's that the ACC will have a handful of good teams but only one or two great ones.

 

[L41k18]

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.

I'm pretty sure the plan would be for 7 years, not forever. It might be less than 7.
The first one was 10 of course.

 

[L41k18]

Noble cause, for sure. God speed!


To your point, it may work to ACC advantage most years. There haven’t been many years recently where two teams deserved a spot in the top 12.
So essentially, we are giving away a bye for our champion in favor of getting a second team in the mix. From a financial perspective, it makes sense.
As others have said; even though it’s hard to imagine a scenario where the expanded BIG and SEC don’t have 6 top ten teams, it’s plausible. I wouldn’t want to concede the inequity in structure, even though it will bear out that way in practicality.
I guess we can all take heart in the fact that whatever they decide won’t last very long before they expand or restructure again (not that I expect any future models to remedy inequity).

Yes. Those crying about the ACC not being treated fairly with 2 guaranteed slots out of the 14 need to look at the ACC's football performance over the past, oh, 70 years since the ACC was formed. How many of those years did the ACC have more than 2 teams ranked in the top 14 going into the bowls/postseason? Not very many.

As I recall the doomsayers in this thread were convinced the ACC would only get 1 team in the new expanded playoff. They should be giddy with a guarantee of 2.

 

[stinger78]

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.

Exactly. Your first sentence is what I was trying to say. There may be year to year inequities, in fact, there always are. What this does, though, is to etch the current scenario in stone. I continue to fail to understand, in a limited playoff, why anything other than a conference champ is needed. If you want 8 teams, make it the five P5 champs, the top three G5 champs or independent. This presumes the PAC will at some point resurrect.

 

[roadkill]

Exactly. Your first sentence is what I was trying to say. There may be year to year inequities, in fact, there always are. What this does, though, is to etch the current scenario in stone. I continue to fail to understand, in a limited playoff, why anything other than a conference champ is needed. If you want 8 teams, make it the five P5 champs, the top three G5 champs or independent. This presumes the PAC will at some point resurrect.

Despite appearances, the CFP's primary purpose isn't about crowning a national champion via elimination play. It's about maximizing revenue. It will continue to expand until it is the primary source of revenue for college football. It already pays out more than any single conference media deal.

 

[Root4GT]

Exactly. Your first sentence is what I was trying to say. There may be year to year inequities, in fact, there always are. What this does, though, is to etch the current scenario in stone. I continue to fail to understand, in a limited playoff, why anything other than a conference champ is needed. If you want 8 teams, make it the five P5 champs, the top three G5 champs or independent. This presumes the PAC will at some point resurrect.

Tulane, Boise State, Miami Ohio, Liberty and Troy 100% agree with you. Of course no one else on the planet thinks this is a reasonable setup!

 

[CEB]

Despite appearances THE NARRATIVE, the CFP's primary purpose isn't about crowning a national champion via elimination play. It's about maximizing revenue. It will continue to expand until it is the primary source of revenue for college football. It already pays out more than any single conference media deal.

Other than that….

 

[billga99]

Noble cause, for sure. God speed!


To your point, it may work to ACC advantage most years. There haven’t been many years recently where two teams deserved a spot in the top 12.
So essentially, we are giving away a bye for our champion in favor of getting a second team in the mix. From a financial perspective, it makes sense.
As others have said; even though it’s hard to imagine a scenario where the expanded BIG and SEC don’t have 6 top ten teams, it’s plausible. I wouldn’t want to concede the inequity in structure, even though it will bear out that way in practicality.
I guess we can all take heart in the fact that whatever they decide won’t last very long before they expand or restructure again (not that I expect any future models to remedy inequity).

It guarantees the Power 4 will get 10 of the 16 slots and keeps the ACC above all of the non Power 4 conferences. The reality is since the Big Ten and SEC are already meeting, if they don't get an advantage they will just split off and run their own playoff. They could still do that but this would likely keep them in the fold for a few more years. If they don't get an advantage, I could see them creating a 8, 12 or 16 team playoff between just their 2 conferences.

 

[CEB]

It guarantees the Power 4 will get 10 of the 16 slots and keeps the ACC above all of the non Power 4 conferences. The reality is since the Big Ten and SEC are already meeting, if they don't get an advantage they will just split off and run their own playoff. They could still do that but this would likely keep them in the fold for a few more years. If they don't get an advantage, I could see them creating a 8, 12 or 16 team playoff between just their 2 conferences.

I agree that the ACC should be thrilled at this point to be guaranteed 2 spots, but I also understand that giving another conference 3 spots cements a heirarchy that we’re hoping to shake up.
I don’t think the SEC / BIG has quite that much pull YET. I think there is more money in a playoff with the appearance of including all of college football for the near future. Once whatever shakes out of the ACC is settled, I can see the next push moving toward a split and separate playoff, but I don’t see that being feasible for decades.

 

[stinger78]

It guarantees the Power 4 will get 10 of the 16 slots and keeps the ACC above all of the non Power 4 conferences. The reality is since the Big Ten and SEC are already meeting, if they don't get an advantage they will just split off and run their own playoff. They could still do that but this would likely keep them in the fold for a few more years. If they don't get an advantage, I could see them creating a 8, 12 or 16 team playoff between just their 2 conferences.

Dear Lord, please make this so!

 

[GTrob21]

I am actually for this. Make no mistake this is the BIG and the SEC taking their LARGE piece of the pie and leaving scraps for the rest of us, but after thinking about it, and considering the alternative, it's the best solution. After looking at the last 10 years Typically both the SEC and BIG will get 4 in, Notre Dame would get it, and it would have gotten the ACC an extra playoff spot at least 4 more times.

I guess that after the financials are released, the BIG and SEC will at least double what the other conferences will make from the playoffs. I think they will make 60-65% more but at least double. This sucks for the ACC conference payout, but with our ACCN, and unequal revenue distribution our lower ACC payout teams should make what the highest B12 teams make, and our bigger brands will be within 15-20 Million of the SEC and BIG.

It's the best solution for the ACC, because the alternative is a true breakaway of just the SEC and B1G. FSU needs to think hard, if it's worth it to have 15 - 25 million more a year, and very few playoff appearances from being in the SEC, or almost continual playoff appearances in the ACC.

For me, I would take the marketing and branding of going to the playoffs over 30 million any day of the year.


So selfishly, I hope FSU leaves if this is adopted, it would make the pathway for Georgia Tech to become relevant much easier.

 

[roadkill]

To see if the 14-team format with a 2-team ACC “floor” would have helped the ACC in past years, I went back to 2010 (14 seasons) to gather some stats for the ACC and ND. Key findings:

Multiple great teams?: The ACC never had more than 1 team ranked in the top 10 going into the playoffs, except for the 2017 season when Miami was ranked 10th. Confirms my suspicions.

Better than the upcoming 12-team format?: Just based on ranking and compared to a 12-team playoff, a 14-team playoff would have been additive to the ACC in 5 of the 14 seasons. This is due to the ACC frequently having its second-best team ranked in the low teens. But only in 2 seasons would the ACC have more than 2 teams qualify by ranking alone – the 2015 and 2016 seasons would have seen 3 teams each. And just barely, with ranks 13 and 14. So, yes, 14 is better than 12 for the ACC, but not by a lot.

Would the 2-team minimum have helped the ACC?: Only the period 2012-2017 (6 seasons) would have seen the ACC get more than 1 team into a 14-team playoff by rank alone. So, a guarantee of 2 would have been additive in 8 of the 14 seasons. That’s significant.

How does this impact Notre Dame?: ND would have qualified for a 14-team playoff 6 times by ranking - a bit over 40% of the time. Had they been in the ACC, they would have picked up one extra playoff spot in 2019 as the second auto-qualifier. I thought the proposed format might be an inducement for them to join the conference, but history doesn’t offer a compelling reason.

Yes, the SEC and B1G would probably each get 4 or more teams into the playoffs every year under the proposed format. But the net of all this is that the 2-team minimum is a good deal for the ACC based on history – I hope they take it.

 

[dmurdock]

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.

Yes, this codifies what we all already know. It used to be the P5+G5, without much differentiation between the 5 P5 conferences or the 5 G5 conferences, but there was a large difference between P5 and G5. Now, with the new TV contracts there are 3 distinct levels - (1) the SEC & B1G, (2) the ACC & Big12, and (3) the G5+Pac2. So yes, this codifies this with 3 P2, 2 M2 (Mid 2??), and 1 G5. In my opinion, the two extra teams actually guarantee the ACC and Big12 their 2nd team a spot when in most years that likely wouldn't happen in the 5+7 format.

As for the years when the ACC is good, the ACC will claim one or more of the 3 at-large bids. But with sEcSPN controlling the narrative, I doubt there will be many years where the ACC has 3 teams in the top 13 in the nation (assuming G5 is not in top 14). I also don't think there will be many years where the ACC will have 2 teams in the top 11 if we were to stay with the 5+7 model.

I would give up the bye for a guaranteed second team in the CFP.