Ya, while I’d be in favor of a mechanism that re-evaluates which conferences get the “auto-bids” that process will in fact be based on which conferences the big bowls contract with. MAYBE the Rose doesn’t renew with the Pac-12 or the Orange with the ACC?? Do those bowls benefit from those contracts?

(03-30-2021 12:55 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 11:52 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  I think going to 8 pretty much ends realignment. If you're going to guarantee a playoff spot for the 5 Conf Champs and 3 at-large, there is no reason for most of the P5 to change.

One thing that could make it a little intersting is if the setup is the top 6 conference champs and 2 at large.

Now in most years that means 5 P5 champs and 1 G5 champ. But every now and then it could mean 4 P5 and 2 G5 champs. Of course if the P5 conferences still get paid the same, maybe they won't care.

But as that waters down the media value of the P5 CCG, it is less likely to be top 6 conference champs. Guaranteed play-in game has more media value in a long term contract than "in most circumstances a play in game".

If they feel they have to offer something better than at-large access in order to squelch anti-trust challenges, one spot allocated for best of Go5 and Independents would be the one that would make media partners happiest, and there is at least a courtroom argument for it giving a spot for every school to aim for that doesn't have a P5 spot to aim for.