(02-18-2022 01:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  5+1 was proposed and pushed by the PAC, SEC, B12, B10, ND and MWC. Possibly more.

Aresco dug his heels in on 6+6 and that was a non-starter despite his op Ed and interviews. Oh well.

FWIW, the SEC and B12 have voiced support for 6+6, same as Aresco, not 5+1+6. That's the Alliance position, iirc.

And really, this may sound strange but i think the AAC is better off under the current 4 team CFP than 5+1+6.

Imo, the symbolic value of no formal P/G distinction as in the current CFP is more important than the greater access of 5+1+6.

6+6 was a rubber stamped conclusion coming out of committee with all on board. UT, OU and the SEC changed that game as Sanky sat on committee the entire time negotiating the raid of the Big12. In reaction the ACC, Big10 and PAC12 form the alliance stopping the 6+6 for self preservation purposes. I think all conferences are at the mercy of the SEC and Big 10. The next two years will be interesting to watch. It's a cut throat business!

(02-18-2022 11:57 AM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 11:45 AM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 11:32 AM)FonzKnight Wrote:  Trash decision— bad for the game. Sorry guys.

Agreed. If you want more parity in the coming years you need to expand now

Honest question: what makes you think that the powers that run CFB have even the slightest interest in parity?

Oh I'm not surprised and didn't think so but almost every fan out there does.

(02-18-2022 01:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  5+1 was proposed and pushed by the PAC, SEC, B12, B10, ND and MWC. Possibly more.

Aresco dug his heels in on 6+6 and that was a non-starter despite his op Ed and interviews. Oh well.

FWIW, the SEC and B12 have voiced support for 6+6, same as Aresco, not 5+1+6. That's the Alliance position, iirc.

And really, this may sound strange but i think the AAC is better off under the current 4 team CFP than 5+1+6.

Imo, the symbolic value of no formal P/G distinction as in the current CFP is more important than the greater access of 5+1+6.

I get your point but no chance as what's best for college football as a whole is what is best for the American. They can chart their own path if their is a clear path to the playoff. Honestly, who gives a F about your conference outside how it helps your school.

(02-18-2022 12:16 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  I feel a P5 breakaway coming.

Breakaway is now highly probable.

Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

(02-18-2022 12:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  5+1 was proposed and pushed by the PAC, SEC, B12, B10, ND and MWC. Possibly more.

Aresco dug his heels in on 6+6 and that was a non-starter despite his op Ed and interviews. Oh well.

The main roadblock was ACC.

(02-18-2022 02:31 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  5+1 was proposed and pushed by the PAC, SEC, B12, B10, ND and MWC. Possibly more.

Aresco dug his heels in on 6+6 and that was a non-starter despite his op Ed and interviews. Oh well.

The main roadblock was ACC.

The block was the Alliance in response to SEC's raid of OU & UT from the Big 12. Coming out of committee, the reports were they had a deal at 6+6 supported by all 10 conferences plus Notre Dame.

for those thinking that it was aresco's insistance on 5+1 that killed it...

most conference commish have now spoken about this

ALL of them the main talking point has been the number of teams...Aresco didnt even mention the 5+1 vs 6+6 debate, but that 8 teams makes no sense

no one made any direct statements pointing fingers but piecing together all the statements

my guess on what happened:

- the SEC wants 4 or 12... no imbetween.. theyd support 8 if all 8 spots were at large (no one but SEC wants)
- sec commish made a statement today that they are happy if they stay at 4, the record shows it works for them.... the biggest concern for them is as many atlarges as possible (percentage of teams in the playoffs)

- the acc at most would supports 8 teams-- meaning just 3 rounds, and that where they are drawing the line, they dont want a 4 round playoff (12 teams)
- the pac 12 and big 10 will support 8 if their champions are given auto bids

- the sec has absolutely no interest in 8 with autobids, that is techincally 1 less auto bid than they have now, it would drasicatically increase the bids for other conferences but not the SEC, who would likely get the same amounts of bids as now

SEC has made the most statements - and noting they will "rethink playoff expansion and if it should happen at all".. my guess--- its statement that "you will expand on my terms, the status quo works for me"

---- aac/g5 don't support 8 because the only model to pass with 8 is auto bids

---- the big 12 who honestly shouldnt have a strong opinion either way, has made it clear they intend to stand by the 12 team model no matter what

(02-18-2022 03:10 PM)pesik Wrote:  for those thinking that it was aresco's insistance on 5+1 that killed it...

most conference commish have now spoken about this

ALL of them the main talking point has been the number of teams...Aresco didnt even mention the 5+1 vs 6+6 debate, but that 8 teams makes no sense

no one made any direct statements pointing fingers but piecing together all the statements

my guess on what happened:

- the SEC wants 4 or 12... no imbetween.. theyd support 8 is all 8 spots were at large (no one but SEC wants)
- sec commish made a statement today that they are happy if they stay at 4, the record shows it works for them.... the biggest concern for them is as many atlarges as possible (percentage of teams in the playoffs)

- the acc at most would supports 8 teams-- meaning just 3 rounds, and that where they are drawing the line, they dont want a 4 round playoff (12 teams)
- the pac 12 and big 10 will support 8 if their champions are given auto bids

- the sec has absolutely no interest in 8 with autobids, that is techincally 1 less auto bid than they have now, it would drasicatically increase the bids for other conferences but not the SEC, who would likely get the same amounts of bids as now

SEC has made the most statements - and noting they will "rethink playoff expansion and if it should happen at all".. my guess--- its statement that "you will expand on my terms, the status quo works for me"

---- aac/g5 don't support 8 because the only model to pass with 8 is auto bids

---- the big 12 who honestly shouldnt have a strong opinion either way, has made it clear they intend to stand by the 12 team model no matter what

New Big XII Motto- A conference of the people! Haha jk

...the 'health' issue has always been a 'diversion' to me - well, obviously health of athletes should be of great concern in a GENERAL sense, but in terms of an expanded playoff... somebody better open up an investigation on the FCS, who have been conducting a 3-4 game playoff for decades now... If programs on shoe-string budgets can do it, programs with waterfalls in locker rooms and Michelin-rated Chefs can as well... just my take...

(02-18-2022 01:46 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 01:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  5+1 was proposed and pushed by the PAC, SEC, B12, B10, ND and MWC. Possibly more.

Aresco dug his heels in on 6+6 and that was a non-starter despite his op Ed and interviews. Oh well.

FWIW, the SEC and B12 have voiced support for 6+6, same as Aresco, not 5+1+6. That's the Alliance position, iirc.

And really, this may sound strange but i think the AAC is better off under the current 4 team CFP than 5+1+6.

Imo, the symbolic value of no formal P/G distinction as in the current CFP is more important than the greater access of 5+1+6.

I get your point but no chance as what's best for college football as a whole is what is best for the American. They can chart their own path if their is a clear path to the playoff. Honestly, who gives a F about your conference outside how it helps your school.

I agree with that last statement. But sometimes, what's good for your conference is good for your school. I don't want USF to be -formally- stigmatized as being in a lesser playoff-access category.

(02-18-2022 02:31 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  5+1 was proposed and pushed by the PAC, SEC, B12, B10, ND and MWC. Possibly more.

Aresco dug his heels in on 6+6 and that was a non-starter despite his op Ed and interviews. Oh well.

The main roadblock was ACC.

Yes, it's hard to blame Aresco when by all accounts at least 7 of the 10 conferences - the SEC, B12 and entire G5 - wanted 6+6. And probably 8 of 11, because I think Notre Dame favored 6+6 as well.

By all accounts I've read, Aresco was with the majority. He wasn't a lone holdout gumming up the works.

I didn't think it possible, but I think the ACC has just wrestled the title of "biggest condescending A-hole" away from the B1G.

(02-18-2022 06:08 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I didn't think it possible, but I think the ACC has just wrestled the title of "biggest condescending A-hole" away from the B1G.

ACC needs to open up their deal with ESPN and they have no chips to do it. So maybe if ESPN wants the playoffs to expand now so they can keep that contract, ACC found a chip they can use.

(02-18-2022 01:37 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 01:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  5+1 was proposed and pushed by the PAC, SEC, B12, B10, ND and MWC. Possibly more.

Aresco dug his heels in on 6+6 and that was a non-starter despite his op Ed and interviews. Oh well.

FWIW, the SEC and B12 have voiced support for 6+6, same as Aresco, not 5+1+6. That's the Alliance position, iirc.

And really, this may sound strange but i think the AAC is better off under the current 4 team CFP than 5+1+6.

Imo, the symbolic value of no formal P/G distinction as in the current CFP is more important than the greater access of 5+1+6.

6+6 was a rubber stamped conclusion coming out of committee with all on board. UT, OU and the SEC changed that game as Sanky sat on committee the entire time negotiating the raid of the Big12. In reaction the ACC, Big10 and PAC12 form the alliance stopping the 6+6 for self preservation purposes. I think all conferences are at the mercy of the SEC and Big 10. The next two years will be interesting to watch. It's a cut throat business!

Seriously.
The commissioners of the SEC, B12, and mwc, plus the ND AD CAME UP WITH 6+6. None of them proposed nor pushed 5+1+6.

The PAC12 on 10 January released a statement saying

Quote:The Pac-12 is strongly in favor of CFP expansion, and we support all of the six most-discussed expansion models that would allow for expansion to occur in time for the final two years of the current CFP agreement.
...
every conference other than the Pac-12 has indicated that they would be against at least one of the proposed models....

https://pac-12.com/article/2022/01/10/pa...an-10-2022

So the PAC12 was neither proposing nor pushing 5+1+6.

rath is 1 for 6 on those he listed.
As far as "possibly more" Gill of the Sun Belt did offer tepid support of Aresco's "no 5+1" position saying something along the lines of "Nothing has changed from what we said in favor of the original 6+6 proposal - earned not given."

Warren of the Big12 has talked 5+1...
But anyone who has been following the situation has seen that the ACC basically put the brakes on the current expansion talks. Raised valid issues but I for one liked the way Aresco addressed that -- those issues are still going to be there when we have to figure out what happens after year 12 of the current construct.

According to reports now on Twitter. Three conferences voted NO to expand in 2024 to 12. Surprise, it was the Alliance, BIG,PAC and ACC. This is all about ESPN.

(02-18-2022 06:16 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  According to reports now on Twitter. Three conferences voted NO to expand in 2024 to 12. Surprise, it was the Alliance, BIG,PAC and ACC. This is all about ESPN.

yeah they are confirming it was the alliance against expansion

(02-18-2022 05:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 02:31 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  5+1 was proposed and pushed by the PAC, SEC, B12, B10, ND and MWC. Possibly more.

Aresco dug his heels in on 6+6 and that was a non-starter despite his op Ed and interviews. Oh well.

The main roadblock was ACC.

Yes, it's hard to blame Aresco when by all accounts at least 7 of the 10 conferences - the SEC, B12 and entire G5 - wanted 6+6. And probably 8 of 11, because I think Notre Dame favored 6+6 as well.

By all accounts I've read, Aresco was with the majority. He wasn't a lone holdout gumming up the works.

Notre Dame's prospective will be interesting going forward. They support 6+6 and are tied down to the ACC GOR. The ACC has a crappy deal and the Big TEN is going to make mega bucks. That and missing CFP revenue with limited playoff access is going to be a point of contention while their neighbors pass by waving on the way to the bank.

Don’t blame Aresco for this. It’s a Turf war between the Alliance and the SEC and ESPN . The Alliance is determined to deny ESPN ( SEC ) the next playoff contract.

(02-18-2022 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Credit to "Stever20" on the Realignment board for this.

There will be no early deal to expand the playoff, the current CFP will fulfill its 12-year deal through 2025.

Apparently, there was a videoconference this Wednesday among the 11 parties to the deal (10 FBS commissioners and ND) and it was determined that no deal on expansion could be reached.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...025-season

#ShockedNotShocked

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Disney has huge legal problems and receiving more every day it seems, so in 2025 Disney might be broken up into pieces and sold off like espn, how would this affect college sports ?