(11-12-2021 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco has come out foursquare against the Alliance proposal for P5 autobids plus a single bid for the G5 in an expanded 12-team playoff.

I say KUDOS to Aresco!

Yes, 5+1 does give the G5 what it wants in a technical sense, a guaranteed playoff spot. But IMO at a large ideological/symbolic cost. It validates the Little 12 that took three AAC teams as a Power conference, and it formally divides the P5 and G5 in the playoffs. We should have the same thing with Top 6, where there is no distinction between P and G.

Good on Aresco.

Credit to "Kit-Kat" on the realignment board:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...ar-AAQDza4

I can see this 5+1 model as being pushed aggressively by the Alliance conferences. If it passes I think it also saves the Big 12 from getting poached further by the PAC 12 and ACC which both really want to avoid doing.

Without the protection of auto bids, the PAC-12 and ACC run the very possible risk of not having their conference champions land in the Top 6 during at least some seasons. These conferences do not want to dilute their academic brands by taking in the best performing football programs from other conferences that do not put as much emphasis on academics and research but they would be forced to if their ability to qualify for the CFP is at risk. I don’t see how they allow this to happen. I think that some form of the 5+1 model, 5+2, or even possibly, a 4+2 arrangement without the Big 12 included will likely be what is settled on.

(11-14-2021 02:56 PM)XYZ Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco has come out foursquare against the Alliance proposal for P5 autobids plus a single bid for the G5 in an expanded 12-team playoff.

I say KUDOS to Aresco!

Yes, 5+1 does give the G5 what it wants in a technical sense, a guaranteed playoff spot. But IMO at a large ideological/symbolic cost. It validates the Little 12 that took three AAC teams as a Power conference, and it formally divides the P5 and G5 in the playoffs. We should have the same thing with Top 6, where there is no distinction between P and G.

Good on Aresco.

Credit to "Kit-Kat" on the realignment board:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...ar-AAQDza4

I can see this 5+1 model as being pushed aggressively by the Alliance conferences. If it passes I think it also saves the Big 12 from getting poached further by the PAC 12 and ACC which both really want to avoid doing.

Without the protection of auto bids, the PAC-12 and ACC run the very possible risk of not having their conference champions land in the Top 6 during at least some seasons. These conferences do not want to dilute their academic brands by taking in the best performing football programs from other conferences that do not put as much emphasis on academics and research but they would be forced to if their ability to qualify for the CFP is at risk. I don’t see how they allow this to happen. I think that some form of the 5+1 model, 5+2, or even possibly, a 4+2 arrangement without the Big 12 included will likely be what is settled on.

The new Big12 with 5 teams ranked in the top 25 is stronger than PAC or ACC. That 4-2 scenario might work if the conference excluded was the PAC or the ACC, but strangely I don’t see either conference going for it.

(11-14-2021 04:02 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 02:56 PM)XYZ Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco has come out foursquare against the Alliance proposal for P5 autobids plus a single bid for the G5 in an expanded 12-team playoff.

I say KUDOS to Aresco!

Yes, 5+1 does give the G5 what it wants in a technical sense, a guaranteed playoff spot. But IMO at a large ideological/symbolic cost. It validates the Little 12 that took three AAC teams as a Power conference, and it formally divides the P5 and G5 in the playoffs. We should have the same thing with Top 6, where there is no distinction between P and G.

Good on Aresco.

Credit to "Kit-Kat" on the realignment board:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...ar-AAQDza4

I can see this 5+1 model as being pushed aggressively by the Alliance conferences. If it passes I think it also saves the Big 12 from getting poached further by the PAC 12 and ACC which both really want to avoid doing.

Without the protection of auto bids, the PAC-12 and ACC run the very possible risk of not having their conference champions land in the Top 6 during at least some seasons. These conferences do not want to dilute their academic brands by taking in the best performing football programs from other conferences that do not put as much emphasis on academics and research but they would be forced to if their ability to qualify for the CFP is at risk. I don’t see how they allow this to happen. I think that some form of the 5+1 model, 5+2, or even possibly, a 4+2 arrangement without the Big 12 included will likely be what is settled on.

The new Big12 with 5 teams ranked in the top 25 is stronger than PAC or ACC. That 4-2 scenario might work if the conference excluded was the PAC or the ACC, but strangely I don’t see either conference going for it.

To me, it's wrong to look at the ranking of team X while in conference Z and extrapolate that to new Conference Y, especially when you are talking G5 to P5 conferences.

Despite all the talk about how SOS impacts rankings, nothing is more important than wins. Houston is ranked in the AP and Coaches polls because they have a big pile of wins, despite the fact that they garnered them vs very bad competition. If they had played in the actual Big 12 this year, they might have 4-5 more losses, and not be anywhere near the rankings.

That said, I do think the L12 will be a very competitive football conference, and put up P-level performance. It likely would have done that if it could have stayed at 8 and not added UCF, Cincy or Houston at all. They play good football in that league beyond just Texas and OU.

(11-14-2021 02:56 PM)XYZ Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco has come out foursquare against the Alliance proposal for P5 autobids plus a single bid for the G5 in an expanded 12-team playoff.

I say KUDOS to Aresco!

Yes, 5+1 does give the G5 what it wants in a technical sense, a guaranteed playoff spot. But IMO at a large ideological/symbolic cost. It validates the Little 12 that took three AAC teams as a Power conference, and it formally divides the P5 and G5 in the playoffs. We should have the same thing with Top 6, where there is no distinction between P and G.

Good on Aresco.

Credit to "Kit-Kat" on the realignment board:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...ar-AAQDza4

I can see this 5+1 model as being pushed aggressively by the Alliance conferences. If it passes I think it also saves the Big 12 from getting poached further by the PAC 12 and ACC which both really want to avoid doing.

Without the protection of auto bids, the PAC-12 and ACC run the very possible risk of not having their conference champions land in the Top 6 during at least some seasons. These conferences do not want to dilute their academic brands by taking in the best performing football programs from other conferences that do not put as much emphasis on academics and research but they would be forced to if their ability to qualify for the CFP is at risk. I don’t see how they allow this to happen. I think that some form of the 5+1 model, 5+2, or even possibly, a 4+2 arrangement without the Big 12 included will likely be what is settled on.

No question, the 5+1 model provides a big security blanket for the PAC and ACC, and it provides legitimacy for the L12 as a Power conference.

But IMO it is bad for the AAC, which is why I am glad Aresco is opposing it.

(11-14-2021 04:02 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 02:56 PM)XYZ Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco has come out foursquare against the Alliance proposal for P5 autobids plus a single bid for the G5 in an expanded 12-team playoff.

I say KUDOS to Aresco!

Yes, 5+1 does give the G5 what it wants in a technical sense, a guaranteed playoff spot. But IMO at a large ideological/symbolic cost. It validates the Little 12 that took three AAC teams as a Power conference, and it formally divides the P5 and G5 in the playoffs. We should have the same thing with Top 6, where there is no distinction between P and G.

Good on Aresco.

Credit to "Kit-Kat" on the realignment board:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...ar-AAQDza4

I can see this 5+1 model as being pushed aggressively by the Alliance conferences. If it passes I think it also saves the Big 12 from getting poached further by the PAC 12 and ACC which both really want to avoid doing.

Without the protection of auto bids, the PAC-12 and ACC run the very possible risk of not having their conference champions land in the Top 6 during at least some seasons. These conferences do not want to dilute their academic brands by taking in the best performing football programs from other conferences that do not put as much emphasis on academics and research but they would be forced to if their ability to qualify for the CFP is at risk. I don’t see how they allow this to happen. I think that some form of the 5+1 model, 5+2, or even possibly, a 4+2 arrangement without the Big 12 included will likely be what is settled on.

The new Big12 with 5 teams ranked in the top 25 is stronger than PAC or ACC. That 4-2 scenario might work if the conference excluded was the PAC or the ACC, but strangely I don’t see either conference going for it.

I agree with you as far as on the field performance but that is my point. The ACC and PAC 12 will still have more power than the Big 12 especially being part of the alliance. They will want to protect themselves from this being all about on field performance. 5+1 is the most likely compromise.

The MWC has also been stronger than the PAC-12 lately on the field.

(11-14-2021 04:28 PM)XYZ Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 04:02 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 02:56 PM)XYZ Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco has come out foursquare against the Alliance proposal for P5 autobids plus a single bid for the G5 in an expanded 12-team playoff.

I say KUDOS to Aresco!

Yes, 5+1 does give the G5 what it wants in a technical sense, a guaranteed playoff spot. But IMO at a large ideological/symbolic cost. It validates the Little 12 that took three AAC teams as a Power conference, and it formally divides the P5 and G5 in the playoffs. We should have the same thing with Top 6, where there is no distinction between P and G.

Good on Aresco.

Credit to "Kit-Kat" on the realignment board:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...ar-AAQDza4

I can see this 5+1 model as being pushed aggressively by the Alliance conferences. If it passes I think it also saves the Big 12 from getting poached further by the PAC 12 and ACC which both really want to avoid doing.

Without the protection of auto bids, the PAC-12 and ACC run the very possible risk of not having their conference champions land in the Top 6 during at least some seasons. These conferences do not want to dilute their academic brands by taking in the best performing football programs from other conferences that do not put as much emphasis on academics and research but they would be forced to if their ability to qualify for the CFP is at risk. I don’t see how they allow this to happen. I think that some form of the 5+1 model, 5+2, or even possibly, a 4+2 arrangement without the Big 12 included will likely be what is settled on.

The new Big12 with 5 teams ranked in the top 25 is stronger than PAC or ACC. That 4-2 scenario might work if the conference excluded was the PAC or the ACC, but strangely I don’t see either conference going for it.

I agree with you as far as on the field performance but that is my point. The ACC and PAC 12 will still have more power than the Big 12 especially being part of the alliance. They will want to protect themselves from this being all about on field performance. The MWC has also been stronger than the PAC-12 lately on the field.

Well it’s just been announced that the SEC and Big 12 may be forming their own alliance as an agreement to let OU and UT leave early. So the PAC may be the one on the chopping block here if they aren’t careful.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

(11-14-2021 04:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 04:02 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 02:56 PM)XYZ Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco has come out foursquare against the Alliance proposal for P5 autobids plus a single bid for the G5 in an expanded 12-team playoff.

I say KUDOS to Aresco!

Yes, 5+1 does give the G5 what it wants in a technical sense, a guaranteed playoff spot. But IMO at a large ideological/symbolic cost. It validates the Little 12 that took three AAC teams as a Power conference, and it formally divides the P5 and G5 in the playoffs. We should have the same thing with Top 6, where there is no distinction between P and G.

Good on Aresco.

Credit to "Kit-Kat" on the realignment board:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...ar-AAQDza4

I can see this 5+1 model as being pushed aggressively by the Alliance conferences. If it passes I think it also saves the Big 12 from getting poached further by the PAC 12 and ACC which both really want to avoid doing.

Without the protection of auto bids, the PAC-12 and ACC run the very possible risk of not having their conference champions land in the Top 6 during at least some seasons. These conferences do not want to dilute their academic brands by taking in the best performing football programs from other conferences that do not put as much emphasis on academics and research but they would be forced to if their ability to qualify for the CFP is at risk. I don’t see how they allow this to happen. I think that some form of the 5+1 model, 5+2, or even possibly, a 4+2 arrangement without the Big 12 included will likely be what is settled on.

The new Big12 with 5 teams ranked in the top 25 is stronger than PAC or ACC. That 4-2 scenario might work if the conference excluded was the PAC or the ACC, but strangely I don’t see either conference going for it.

To me, it's wrong to look at the ranking of team X while in conference Z and extrapolate that to new Conference Y, especially when you are talking G5 to P5 conferences.

Despite all the talk about how SOS impacts rankings, nothing is more important than wins. Houston is ranked in the AP and Coaches polls because they have a big pile of wins, despite the fact that they garnered them vs very bad competition. If they had played in the actual Big 12 this year, they might have 4-5 more losses, and not be anywhere near the rankings.

That said, I do think the L12 will be a very competitive football conference, and put up P-level performance. It likely would have done that if it could have stayed at 8 and not added UCF, Cincy or Houston at all. They play good football in that league beyond just Texas and OU.

the counter to that is the same counter i use to people touting the SEC..
if houston was in the big 12, Houston likely as a ton more touted recruits

if "so and so" team played in the SEC theyd be getting the SEC name to recruit with

you cant complain about your negatives (harder schedules) and pretend their arent any counteractive positives (recruiting).. that's why i think the sos argument is silly.. every g5 would trade shoes with those p5 and their harder schedules ina seconf

and to yor point texas and ou arent even noteable basketball teams in the big 12.. bill self noted this when adked about the new big 12.. that by almost every used computer metric the big 12 (with the new members) would be the #1 basketball league in the nation

(11-13-2021 07:05 AM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  This seems like a very fair and rational approach.

But this is FBS college football though, being fair and rational doesn’t work here.

Fair and rational has nothing to do with insuring that the P5 has the inside track to the playoff and gets much more of the money generated.

(11-14-2021 04:38 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 04:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 04:02 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 02:56 PM)XYZ Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco has come out foursquare against the Alliance proposal for P5 autobids plus a single bid for the G5 in an expanded 12-team playoff.

I say KUDOS to Aresco!

Yes, 5+1 does give the G5 what it wants in a technical sense, a guaranteed playoff spot. But IMO at a large ideological/symbolic cost. It validates the Little 12 that took three AAC teams as a Power conference, and it formally divides the P5 and G5 in the playoffs. We should have the same thing with Top 6, where there is no distinction between P and G.

Good on Aresco.

Credit to "Kit-Kat" on the realignment board:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...ar-AAQDza4

I can see this 5+1 model as being pushed aggressively by the Alliance conferences. If it passes I think it also saves the Big 12 from getting poached further by the PAC 12 and ACC which both really want to avoid doing.

Without the protection of auto bids, the PAC-12 and ACC run the very possible risk of not having their conference champions land in the Top 6 during at least some seasons. These conferences do not want to dilute their academic brands by taking in the best performing football programs from other conferences that do not put as much emphasis on academics and research but they would be forced to if their ability to qualify for the CFP is at risk. I don’t see how they allow this to happen. I think that some form of the 5+1 model, 5+2, or even possibly, a 4+2 arrangement without the Big 12 included will likely be what is settled on.

The new Big12 with 5 teams ranked in the top 25 is stronger than PAC or ACC. That 4-2 scenario might work if the conference excluded was the PAC or the ACC, but strangely I don’t see either conference going for it.

To me, it's wrong to look at the ranking of team X while in conference Z and extrapolate that to new Conference Y, especially when you are talking G5 to P5 conferences.

Despite all the talk about how SOS impacts rankings, nothing is more important than wins. Houston is ranked in the AP and Coaches polls because they have a big pile of wins, despite the fact that they garnered them vs very bad competition. If they had played in the actual Big 12 this year, they might have 4-5 more losses, and not be anywhere near the rankings.

That said, I do think the L12 will be a very competitive football conference, and put up P-level performance. It likely would have done that if it could have stayed at 8 and not added UCF, Cincy or Houston at all. They play good football in that league beyond just Texas and OU.

the counter to that is the same counter i use to people touting the SEC..
if houston was in the big 12, Houston likely as a ton more touted recruits

if "so and so" team played in the SEC theyd be getting the SEC name to recruit with

you cant complain about your negatives (harder schedules) and pretend their arent any counteractive positives (recruiting).. that's why i think the sos argument is silly.. every g5 would trade shoes with those p5 and their harder schedules ina seconf

and to yor point texas and ou arent even noteable basketball teams in the big 12.. bill self noted this when adked about the new big 12.. that by almost every used computer metric the big 12 (with the new members) would be the #1 basketball league in the nation

First, I've never made any comments about how the TX/OU situation affects hoops. IMO hoops are irrelevant to conference power. I am sure the L12 will be just fine as a hoops conference, heck even better with Houston and Cincy.

Second, I don't see the connection between the good point you make about recruiting (Houston's should improve as part of Big 12) and SOS. A team's SOS is what it is, intent and wishing have nothing to do with it. At USF, we could wish all day that we played a schedule with LSU, Alabama, Ohio State and Georgia on it, but the fact is we don't, so our schedule has to be judged based on who we did play. So when I say that Cincy does not deserve the playoffs because their schedule is too soft, I'm not saying that Cincy is to blame for their soft schedule. Blame has nothing to do with it, if your schedule is soft it is soft, and you shouldn't get much credit for wins against it, no matter whose fault it is or isn't.

As for Houston, yes, in the future if they recruit better as part of the B12 they will be better. My point was, you can't IMO talk about *this* year's Houston team being ranked and extrapolate to the B12, because IMO, had this Houston team, the actual team, played in the B12, chances are it would not be ranked. They are ranked because they've piled up 9 wins against bad teams.

(11-14-2021 04:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 04:38 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 04:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 04:02 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 02:56 PM)XYZ Wrote:  I can see this 5+1 model as being pushed aggressively by the Alliance conferences. If it passes I think it also saves the Big 12 from getting poached further by the PAC 12 and ACC which both really want to avoid doing.

Without the protection of auto bids, the PAC-12 and ACC run the very possible risk of not having their conference champions land in the Top 6 during at least some seasons. These conferences do not want to dilute their academic brands by taking in the best performing football programs from other conferences that do not put as much emphasis on academics and research but they would be forced to if their ability to qualify for the CFP is at risk. I don’t see how they allow this to happen. I think that some form of the 5+1 model, 5+2, or even possibly, a 4+2 arrangement without the Big 12 included will likely be what is settled on.

The new Big12 with 5 teams ranked in the top 25 is stronger than PAC or ACC. That 4-2 scenario might work if the conference excluded was the PAC or the ACC, but strangely I don’t see either conference going for it.

To me, it's wrong to look at the ranking of team X while in conference Z and extrapolate that to new Conference Y, especially when you are talking G5 to P5 conferences.

Despite all the talk about how SOS impacts rankings, nothing is more important than wins. Houston is ranked in the AP and Coaches polls because they have a big pile of wins, despite the fact that they garnered them vs very bad competition. If they had played in the actual Big 12 this year, they might have 4-5 more losses, and not be anywhere near the rankings.

That said, I do think the L12 will be a very competitive football conference, and put up P-level performance. It likely would have done that if it could have stayed at 8 and not added UCF, Cincy or Houston at all. They play good football in that league beyond just Texas and OU.

the counter to that is the same counter i use to people touting the SEC..
if houston was in the big 12, Houston likely as a ton more touted recruits

if "so and so" team played in the SEC theyd be getting the SEC name to recruit with

you cant complain about your negatives (harder schedules) and pretend their arent any counteractive positives (recruiting).. that's why i think the sos argument is silly.. every g5 would trade shoes with those p5 and their harder schedules ina seconf

and to yor point texas and ou arent even noteable basketball teams in the big 12.. bill self noted this when adked about the new big 12.. that by almost every used computer metric the big 12 (with the new members) would be the #1 basketball league in the nation

First, I've never made any comments about how the TX/OU situation affects hoops. IMO hoops are irrelevant to conference power. I am sure the L12 will be just fine as a hoops conference, heck even better with Houston and Cincy.

Second, I don't see the connection between the good point you make about recruiting (Houston's should improve as part of Big 12) and SOS. A team's SOS is what it is, intent and wishing have nothing to do with it. At USF, we could wish all day that we played a schedule with LSU, Alabama, Ohio State and Georgia on it, but the fact is we don't, so our schedule has to be judged based on who we did play. So when I say that Cincy does not deserve the playoffs because their schedule is too soft, I'm not saying that Cincy is to blame for their soft schedule. Blame has nothing to do with it, if your schedule is soft it is soft, and you shouldn't get much credit for wins against it, no matter whose fault it is or isn't.

As for Houston, yes, in the future if they recruit better as part of the B12 they will be better. My point was, you can't IMO talk about *this* year's Houston team being ranked and extrapolate to the B12, because IMO, had this Houston team, the actual team, played in the B12, chances are it would not be ranked. They are ranked because they've piled up 9 wins against bad teams.

the big east is viewed as a power conference, and doesnt play basketball...basketball has less power, to act like it doesn't impact is not true, the idea that the top basketball conference in the nation wouldn't be viewed as a power conference in regards to perception isnt reality.. "power" is a perception term.. the ncaa tournament is the biggest event in ALL of college

and my point about sos/recruiting.... conference comes with strengths and negatives that are tied together no matter what .. no matter who you are being in the sec you will be able to recruit, you will also get harder schedules = tied together

you cant only highlight your challenges from a conference and pretend there isnt an insane benefit

let me use and racing analogy.. your school is represented by the driver (not the car)...trying to decide who should be in the title race ... there are 4 race tracks with 12 racers each, the quality of your car is decided by the track you are forced into (not your choice)..no matter who you are you are getting an elite car if you are in track #1 and each track after that has subsequently worse cars ..

in track 3 a racer has won every race he has ever been in, against cars of the exact same quality and limitations...you are saying he doesn't deserve to ever be in the title convo because his car is not elite (something that he had no ability to choose).. or stating that the 5th place racer in track one is better simply because he was given a better car from the start...that is the logic you are using to justify and it makes no sense

in the SEC you get tons of money and elite recruits your payment for that will be playing other SEC teams.. you don't get to complain about SEC sos, unless you are willing to give up the recruiting boost and the money

Houston and Cincy have no money and no recruits, and thus play similar teams of similar limitation (something they did not choose) and should be rewarded for it setting themselves above it..

or admit the system is rigged, and it's a good ole boys club .. you can only play the schedule you are given that you cant freely switch
this concept is understood by every human and computer poll in history accept the committee

(11-14-2021 04:44 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 07:05 AM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  This seems like a very fair and rational approach.

But this is FBS college football though, being fair and rational doesn’t work here.

Fair and rational has nothing to do with insuring that the P5 has the inside track to the playoff and gets much more of the money generated.

Fair because the P5 generates much more fan interest and hence much more of the money?

(11-14-2021 04:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 04:02 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 02:56 PM)XYZ Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco has come out foursquare against the Alliance proposal for P5 autobids plus a single bid for the G5 in an expanded 12-team playoff.

I say KUDOS to Aresco!

Yes, 5+1 does give the G5 what it wants in a technical sense, a guaranteed playoff spot. But IMO at a large ideological/symbolic cost. It validates the Little 12 that took three AAC teams as a Power conference, and it formally divides the P5 and G5 in the playoffs. We should have the same thing with Top 6, where there is no distinction between P and G.

Good on Aresco.

Credit to "Kit-Kat" on the realignment board:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...ar-AAQDza4

I can see this 5+1 model as being pushed aggressively by the Alliance conferences. If it passes I think it also saves the Big 12 from getting poached further by the PAC 12 and ACC which both really want to avoid doing.

Without the protection of auto bids, the PAC-12 and ACC run the very possible risk of not having their conference champions land in the Top 6 during at least some seasons. These conferences do not want to dilute their academic brands by taking in the best performing football programs from other conferences that do not put as much emphasis on academics and research but they would be forced to if their ability to qualify for the CFP is at risk. I don’t see how they allow this to happen. I think that some form of the 5+1 model, 5+2, or even possibly, a 4+2 arrangement without the Big 12 included will likely be what is settled on.

The new Big12 with 5 teams ranked in the top 25 is stronger than PAC or ACC. That 4-2 scenario might work if the conference excluded was the PAC or the ACC, but strangely I don’t see either conference going for it.

To me, it's wrong to look at the ranking of team X while in conference Z and extrapolate that to new Conference Y, especially when you are talking G5 to P5 conferences.

Despite all the talk about how SOS impacts rankings, nothing is more important than wins. Houston is ranked in the AP and Coaches polls because they have a big pile of wins, despite the fact that they garnered them vs very bad competition. If they had played in the actual Big 12 this year, they might have 4-5 more losses, and not be anywhere near the rankings.

That said, I do think the L12 will be a very competitive football conference, and put up P-level performance. It likely would have done that if it could have stayed at 8 and not added UCF, Cincy or Houston at all. They play good football in that league beyond just Texas and OU.

Tacit in your post is the realization that the Big 12 conference schedule would equate to 4-5 more losses per year than an AAC schedule.

(11-14-2021 04:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 04:02 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 02:56 PM)XYZ Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco has come out foursquare against the Alliance proposal for P5 autobids plus a single bid for the G5 in an expanded 12-team playoff.

I say KUDOS to Aresco!

Yes, 5+1 does give the G5 what it wants in a technical sense, a guaranteed playoff spot. But IMO at a large ideological/symbolic cost. It validates the Little 12 that took three AAC teams as a Power conference, and it formally divides the P5 and G5 in the playoffs. We should have the same thing with Top 6, where there is no distinction between P and G.

Good on Aresco.

Credit to "Kit-Kat" on the realignment board:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...ar-AAQDza4

I can see this 5+1 model as being pushed aggressively by the Alliance conferences. If it passes I think it also saves the Big 12 from getting poached further by the PAC 12 and ACC which both really want to avoid doing.

Without the protection of auto bids, the PAC-12 and ACC run the very possible risk of not having their conference champions land in the Top 6 during at least some seasons. These conferences do not want to dilute their academic brands by taking in the best performing football programs from other conferences that do not put as much emphasis on academics and research but they would be forced to if their ability to qualify for the CFP is at risk. I don’t see how they allow this to happen. I think that some form of the 5+1 model, 5+2, or even possibly, a 4+2 arrangement without the Big 12 included will likely be what is settled on.

The new Big12 with 5 teams ranked in the top 25 is stronger than PAC or ACC. That 4-2 scenario might work if the conference excluded was the PAC or the ACC, but strangely I don’t see either conference going for it.

To me, it's wrong to look at the ranking of team X while in conference Z and extrapolate that to new Conference Y, especially when you are talking G5 to P5 conferences.

Despite all the talk about how SOS impacts rankings, nothing is more important than wins. Houston is ranked in the AP and Coaches polls because they have a big pile of wins, despite the fact that they garnered them vs very bad competition. If they had played in the actual Big 12 this year, they might have 4-5 more losses, and not be anywhere near the rankings.

That said, I do think the L12 will be a very competitive football conference, and put up P-level performance. It likely would have done that if it could have stayed at 8 and not added UCF, Cincy or Houston at all. They play good football in that league beyond just Texas and OU.

How many spots did Baylor fall for losing to a 3-6 TCU team the week after they fired their coach? Big 12 teams don't get punished for losing. UH could pretty easily be 7-3 on a Big 12 schedule and if they were they be ranked rn.

It is just plain wrong to have automatic bids. With all of the inherent advantages already, its pathetic that these conferences need protecting. While it will admittedly help UC/B12, I just hate it. Play the games and win. If USC and the PAC are scared of AAC, MWC and Sunbelt teams taking your spot...then you are NOT a power conference!

(11-14-2021 02:30 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  The ruling (Alsten Case) in essence eliminates "P5" and creates a "P10", and if the CFP is assuming the responsibility of the NCAA in regards to FBS level football, then the same "That means most any rule passed by the NCAA (or by any other group of conferences acting in collusion) that seeks to limit athlete compensation is an anti-trust violation" also applies to the CFP.

Since the SEC, AAC+, and the BIG XII are not part of the alliance, make a counteroffer, decide before the end of December by choosing...

1. 10 FBS Conference champs + 2 at-large (NO AQ)... or

2. Top 8 FBS Conference champs + 4 at-large (NO AQ)... or

3. Top 6 FBS Conference champs + 6 at-large (NO AQ)

Very well stated.

Those are three viable options, all of which should appeal to some extent to most fans and most leagues.

I would have been happy with 6+6 because everyone has a chance.

But if some leagues that are used to getting special treatment don’t think they can make the playoffs under that system, I’m even happier with 8+4.

(11-14-2021 07:17 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  It is just plain wrong to have automatic bids. With all of the inherent advantages already, its pathetic that these conferences need protecting. While it will admittedly help UC/B12, I just hate it. Play the games and win. If USC and the PAC are scared of AAC, MWC and Sunbelt teams taking your spot...then you are NOT a power conference!

For example, here's the current Conference Rankings computed by the Colley Matrix
https://www.colleyrankings.com/curconf.html

1 SEC
2 Big 10
3 Big 12
4 ACC
5 MWC
6 American
7 S Belt
8 Ind FBS
9 Pac-12
10 MAC
11 CUSA
12 FCS

(11-14-2021 07:17 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  It is just plain wrong to have automatic bids. With all of the inherent advantages already, its pathetic that these conferences need protecting. While it will admittedly help UC/B12, I just hate it. Play the games and win. If USC and the PAC are scared of AAC, MWC and Sunbelt teams taking your spot...then you are NOT a power conference!

I think auto-bids do have their advantages, mainly in preserving interest/importance in conference championships.

The NFL uses a similar model with a lot of success. The only reason anyone watches the 7-8 Giants vs. the 7-8 Eagles in week 17 is because there is a divisional playoff spot on the line.

That said, college football is being stupid with it. You can't give all 10 conferences a bid? Fine, then go top 6. Giving 5 specific conferences automatic bids just because of namesake, no matter what happens on the field, is stupid and anti-competitive.

(11-15-2021 08:47 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(11-14-2021 07:17 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  It is just plain wrong to have automatic bids. With all of the inherent advantages already, its pathetic that these conferences need protecting. While it will admittedly help UC/B12, I just hate it. Play the games and win. If USC and the PAC are scared of AAC, MWC and Sunbelt teams taking your spot...then you are NOT a power conference!

I think auto-bids do have their advantages, mainly in preserving interest/importance in conference championships.

The NFL uses a similar model with a lot of success. The only reason anyone watches the 7-8 Giants vs. the 7-8 Eagles in week 17 is because there is a divisional playoff spot on the line.

That said, college football is being stupid with it. You can't give all 10 conferences a bid? Fine, then go top 6. Giving 5 specific conferences automatic bids just because of namesake, no matter what happens on the field, is stupid and anti-competitive.

The SEC championship game doesn't matter. Both teams will likely always make the 12-team format. They kind of already do with the 4-team format.

Conference Champions will only matter for the Alliance and the Big 12.

The G5 spot will eventually expand if more quality G5 team emerge. Its rare that 2 G5 conference produce Top10 teams. If it happens enough times than that will force the playoff to expand or create some kind of play in game.

I don't think the current proposal is perfect but its a step in the right direction. Its up to the G5 to prove the system is still broken by creating Top10 teams that get left out. Claim a National Title after an undefeated season or something to grab headlines. Continue to push the issue.

I haven't seen any commissioners come out in support of Aresco's defiance. So I assume this format will pass. I doubt the Thompson and MacLeod are friends with Aresco with realignment being so recent.

The 6 conference champions and 6 at large will eventually be adopted, it gives the most access and money to the Power leagues and throws a crumb to the others by opening 1 slot in playoffs for them.

The big fight really is from the ACC,PAC and Big12 to make sure their champion gets an automatic spot regardless of whether theirs is a top 6 champion. It really is a chicken sheet argument because reality is that in pretty much 99% of years if not higher their champ will be in top 6.

I applaud Aresco for fighting the writing into that next contract of the Separation of Power champs and non power champs

(11-15-2021 11:08 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  The 6 conference champions and 6 at large will eventually be adopted, it gives the most access and money to the Power leagues and throws a crumb to the others by opening 1 slot in playoffs for them.

The big fight really is from the ACC,PAC and Big12 to make sure their champion gets an automatic spot regardless of whether theirs is a top 6 champion. It really is a chicken sheet argument because reality is that in pretty much 99% of years if not higher their champ will be in top 6.

I applaud Aresco for fighting the writing into that next contract of the Separation of Power champs and non power champs

He has 0 allies in this fight. Not a single commissioner has supported his statement.

Yahoo sports even suggested the AAC get left out if they want to oppose.

Quote:At this point, the AAC has little to lean on. If the rest of college football said, “Fine, you oppose the plan, then go pound sand. We’ll carry on without the AAC,” almost no fans or television executives would care or even notice.

https://sports.yahoo.com/whos-the-commis...36356.html