Conference Realignment

[Root4GT]

So you think if UGA beats Alabama in the SEC championship but Carson Beck gets injured that UGA would have been left out of the playoffs?

Had he been injured 2 games earlier and UGA’s offense looked like crap against us and the Opponent in the SEC championship game was a two loss team with no significant wins possible but not likely. Beating Bama, they would be in. No one to push out in that scenario assuming FSU QB1 is healthy. Louisville’s loss to UK was huge. Had Alabama lost to Auburn they are out as is Georgia.

 

[RonJohn]

Had Alabama lost to Auburn they are out as is Georgia.

Here is where the rationale fails. Alabama almost lost to Auburn. They didn't look good in that game, but it counts as a win because of the final score. Alabama didn't look good against USF, but it counts as a win because of the final score.

FSU didn't look great in the Louisville game, and it counts as a loss because they didn't look good.

Which is it, does the final score erase all of the subjective bad looks? Do the subjective bad looks count against you? Or, do the subjective bad looks only count if the team isn't named Alabama? If the same rationale is applied equally to all teams, then I wouldn't have as much of a problem. This year's Alabama team was not as good as the Alabama teams from the last several years, but all of their flaws were overlooked.

 

[MWBATL]

SEC apologists don’t want to admit that (SEC/ESPN favoritism) was the reason ‘Bama got in. They invent twisted reasoning to justify this year’s selections (even if said reasoning is inconsistent with prior years).

Follow the money. This CFP is simply as corrupt as so many others. Admit that and I think we can all grumble and move forward.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Here is where the rationale fails. Alabama almost lost to Auburn. They didn't look good in that game, but it counts as a win because of the final score. Alabama didn't look good against USF, but it counts as a win because of the final score.

FSU didn't look great in the Louisville game, and it counts as a loss because they didn't look good.

Which is it, does the final score erase all of the subjective bad looks? Do the subjective bad looks count against you? Or, do the subjective bad looks only count if the team isn't named Alabama? If the same rationale is applied equally to all teams, then I wouldn't have as much of a problem. This year's Alabama team was not as good as the Alabama teams from the last several years, but all of their flaws were overlooked.

You keep nailing it.

Now let’s all say it louder so the people in the back of the room can hear it. Every excuse for excluding undefeated conference champion FSU breaks down if you apply that same standard to the SEC or B1G.

THAT’S WHY THE CONTROVERSY LINGERS. It’s ok to believe FSU should not have been in the playoffs but don’t make up bogus reasons that wouldn’t have been applied to other teams.

 

[tmhunter52]

So, are we going to join the SEC or the Big Ten?

 

[stinger78]

Had he been injured 2 games earlier and UGA’s offense looked like crap against us and the Opponent in the SEC championship game was a two loss team with no significant wins possible but not likely. Beating Bama, they would be in. No one to push out in that scenario assuming FSU QB1 is healthy. Louisville’s loss to UK was huge. Had Alabama lost to Auburn they are out as is Georgia.

You consistently miss that the guy in the ACC CG was the 3rd string t-FR. That’s not by accident as you’re no dummy.
Rodemaker played well in his two starts. He’s not Travis, but he was effective enough to win a tough rivalry game much easier than Alabama did with their starter against two comparable teams.

Enough. You’re vested in your belief and I in mine. Have a good day.

 

[WreckinGT]

Had he been injured 2 games earlier and UGA’s offense looked like crap against us and the Opponent in the SEC championship game was a two loss team with no significant wins possible but not likely. Beating Bama, they would be in. No one to push out in that scenario assuming FSU QB1 is healthy. Louisville’s loss to UK was huge. Had Alabama lost to Auburn they are out as is Georgia.

Tate Rodemaker against Florida with one week of prep: 43.8 QBR
Jalen Milroe against Michigan after a season of playing: 45.1 QBR

You must not think much of Milroe after Monday nights game either.

 

[gtbb]

So, are we going to join the SEC or the Big Ten?

Seems unlikely we'd get into either. I do think we have a case we can make to the B1G, based on our location and academics/AAU status. But even then, it feels like an uphill battle if their focus is TV revenue. The best case would be that the ACC survives, and we stay where we're at. But after what happened to the Pac-12, I'm not feeling too good about the likelihood of that.

 

[Randy Carson]

I've been thinking two leagues with two conferences each. Two for ESPN and two for Fox.

But one league with two superconferences works, too. One for ESPN and one for Fox.

Seems like in that arms race, size of television markets makes a difference.

Merging with the ACC would be a win for the B1G, and the academics overall are a better fit in the B1G than in the SEC.

 

[gtbb]

I've been thinking two leagues with two conferences each. Two for ESPN and two for Fox.

But one league with two superconferences works, too. One for ESPN and one for Fox.

Seems like in that arms race, size of television markets makes a difference.

Merging with the ACC would be a win for the B1G, and the academics overall are a better fit in the B1G than in the SEC.

For the B1G, Tech's location in Atlanta would help that conference recruit down South. Their programs would be able to come down here and play, and sell that to local recruits. Seems like a selling point for a merger or for our invitation to the B1G. Probably a minor item though, compared to TV revenue.

 

[billga99]

For the B1G, Tech's location in Atlanta would help that conference recruit down South. Their programs would be able to come down here and play, and sell that to local recruits. Seems like a selling point for a merger or for our invitation to the B1G. Probably a minor item though, compared to TV revenue.

The Big 10 would get several TV marketplaces if they merged with ACC - https://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets. Based on this list, you picked up 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th (though MD already helps this), 13th, 16th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 27th, 30th. 5 of top 10, 8 of top 20 and 12 of top 30. Interesting enough Big Ten footprint today includes 3 of top 10, 7 of top 20, and 9 of top 30. If you eliminate double counting of DC, that would give the Big Ten/ACC 20 of the top 30 markets. That plus the alignment of the academics makes this very reasonable. Also this combo would control the East Coast, West Coast, Midwest, and be a major player in SE and Dallas. It would truly be a nationwide conference and really box in the SEC. Even if the SEC merged with the Big 12, they would be a SE/SW conference and they would not be in the 9 largest marketplaces.

 

[Root4GT]

Tate Rodemaker against Florida with one week of prep: 43.8 QBR
Jalen Milroe against Michigan after a season of playing: 45.1 QBR

You must not think much of Milroe after Monday nights game either.

I think Michigan has had the best defense all year. Milroe was inconsistent often this year. He was benched early in the year and replaced for at least one game. He had some moments of really good play. He is not in Travis or Penix class currently. Great athlete so you get high highs and some low lows with him, Rodemaker is an unknown for the most part that played mediocre against a team with a losing record. I think Michigan's defense would have destroyed him. They sacked Milroe 6 times and he is extremely mobile. Rodemaker is no where nearly as mobile. It would have been a sack fest!

 

[WraleighWreck]

Ohio state already has 6 players on roster from metro Atlanta. They can pull kids from anywhere. I assume same is true for UM and PSU for that matter. Even minnesota has a handful of Georgia kids on roster. I doubt tech being in B1G would make much difference in pulling kids away from Ugag, bama, etc.

 

[ThatGuy]

Byes seem to be an acceptable practice in the NFL. I also think a #1 vs #16 (crappy G5 conference winner) would be similar to a scrimmage; not a bye, but not a compelling matchup either. I think the 12 team playoff is really good in that respect because i think a #5 vs #12 would actually be a good game.

True. But in the NFL, they have a scoring mechanism that allows the teams to decide who plays in the playoffs based on wins on the field. And they can do that, largely because of the limited number of teams.

The CFP attempted to solve that via an invitation by committee - that's expected to continue in the new 12-team era. But as @RonJohn so succinctly, pointed out, that always leaves room for bias:

Here is where the rationale fails. Alabama almost lost to Auburn. They didn't look good in that game, but it counts as a win because of the final score. Alabama didn't look good against USF, but it counts as a win because of the final score.

FSU didn't look great in the Louisville game, and it counts as a loss because they didn't look good.

Which is it, does the final score erase all of the subjective bad looks? Do the subjective bad looks count against you? Or, do the subjective bad looks only count if the team isn't named Alabama? If the same rationale is applied equally to all teams, then I wouldn't have as much of a problem. This year's Alabama team was not as good as the Alabama teams from the last several years, but all of their flaws were overlooked.

IMO, bringing all the champions in allows for us to get the closest to what the NFL has - a mix of teams who are subjectively chosen by a bunch of people in a room, and teams that have earned their way in, playing it out on the field. And then we let them ALL play it out on the field.

As for your argument about a #1 vs. #16 not being compelling, I kinda see it, and kinda don't. On the contrary side, if rankings determined everything, Tech wouldn't have beaten Miami. Or North Carolina. Or Pitt. The list goes on.

In 2014, we were ranked #12 going into the Orange Bowl. We played the #3 Florida State team to the wire in the ACCCG. There's not a lot of difference between #12 and #16, and I'm confident our team could have beaten the #1 team that year.

 

[WreckinGT]

I think Michigan has had the best defense all year. Milroe was inconsistent often this year. He was benched early in the year and replaced for at least one game. He had some moments of really good play. He is not in Travis or Penix class currently. Great athlete so you get high highs and some low lows with him, Rodemaker is an unknown for the most part that played mediocre against a team with a losing record. I think Michigan's defense would have destroyed him. They sacked Milroe 6 times and he is extremely mobile. Rodemaker is no where nearly as mobile. It would have been a sack fest!

Alabama is ranked 125th in sacks allowed per game. While Michigan does have a great defense, the main cause of Alabama's sack problems is that Milroe holds the ball for far too long. I don't know how often Rodemaker would get sacked. That depends on alot of factors. I honestly don't think he would have done much worse than Milroe did though.

 

[JacketOff]

As for your argument about a #1 vs. #16 not being compelling, I kinda see it, and kinda don't. On the contrary side, if rankings determined everything, Tech wouldn't have beaten Miami. Or North Carolina. Or Pitt. The list goes on.

In 2014, we were ranked #12 going into the Orange Bowl. We played the #3 Florida State team to the wire in the ACCCG. There's not a lot of difference between #12 and #16, and I'm confident our team could have beaten the #1 team that year.

Here are the most recent #1 ranked teams in the CFP to lose and who they lost to:
2023 UGA lost to #8 Alabama
2022 Tennessee lost to #3 Georgia
2021 UGA lost to #3 Alabama
2017 Clemson lost to #4 Alabama
2017 Alabama lost to #6 Auburn
2016 Alabama lost to #2 Clemson
2015 Clemson lost to #2 Alabama
2014 Alabama lost to #4 Ohio State
2014 Mississippi State lost to #5 Alabama

So in the 10 year history of the CFP, the #1 ranked team has only lost 9 times. In 3 seasons the #1 team never lost at all. The lowest ranked team to ever beat the #1 CFP team is this year’s Alabama that was ranked 8th. 2 of the 9 losses came in conference championship games, and 4 others happened either in the CFP semifinals or the National Championship game. That means the #1 team has only lost 3 regular season games ever in the CFP era, with the lowest ranked loss coming from #6 Auburn over Alabama in the Iron Bowl. 6 of the losses have come from teams also ranked in the top 4.

There is usually a huge difference between #1 and #6, an even larger gap to #12, and #16 rarely belongs on the same field as #1. Sure some upsets might happen in the 12-team era, but it’s largely going to be the usual suspects playing rematches for the 2nd and 3rd times in a season with a lot of blowouts. The original playoff should’ve been the bowl tie-ins. If they weren’t going to do that it should’ve been 8 teams. All 5 P5 champs, a G5 champ, and 2 at-large. Would’ve been way more balanced

 

[Northeast Stinger]

So, will the Washington coaches take their team to see “The Boys in the Boat” before the championship game?

 

[ibeattetris]

As for your argument about a #1 vs. #16 not being compelling,

I will never understand this argument from people. NCAA Basketball tournament is MASSIVE and the the 16 seeds have legitimately <0.001% chance of ever winning the whole thing and are only even in the tourney to begin with because they won their small conferences (usually). The tourney continues to be a huge success despite these teams being included.

 

[RamblinRed]

Don't know if this has been reported in this thread (was out of town and not interested in going back through 30 pages), but in case it hasn't here are the basic outlines of the final PAC settlement between the 10 departing and the 2 remaining.

$255 million reasons for a Merry WSU-OSU Christmas. Let's put new war chest into perspective

Averaged over three years, Cougs and Beavs will realize more revenue than UW, Oregon, Stanford and Cal in their new conferences

247sports.com

Original report if from a reporter in OR.

 

[Richard7125]

True. But in the NFL, they have a scoring mechanism that allows the teams to decide who plays in the playoffs based on wins on the field. And they can do that, largely because of the limited number of teams.

The CFP attempted to solve that via an invitation by committee - that's expected to continue in the new 12-team era. But as @RonJohn so succinctly, pointed out, that always leaves room for bias:



IMO, bringing all the champions in allows for us to get the closest to what the NFL has - a mix of teams who are subjectively chosen by a bunch of people in a room, and teams that have earned their way in, playing it out on the field. And then we let them ALL play it out on the field.

As for your argument about a #1 vs. #16 not being compelling, I kinda see it, and kinda don't. On the contrary side, if rankings determined everything, Tech wouldn't have beaten Miami. Or North Carolina. Or Pitt. The list goes on.

In 2014, we were ranked #12 going into the Orange Bowl. We played the #3 Florida State team to the wire in the ACCCG. There's not a lot of difference between #12 and #16, and I'm confident our team could have beaten the #1 team that year.

One of the talking point this year of the committee was trying to avoid another UGA v TCU blowout. If you have 1v16, 2v15, 3v14, and 4v13, you're going to get a lot of blowouts.

I think most would agree you typically have 1 to 3 really good teams, then you have the next batch 4 to 7/8. No one really thinks teams 9 and above are in the same class. However, by including 9 through 12, you can have 4 weeks of college football. 4 games, 4 games, 2 games, 1 game.