(12-10-2021 06:22 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: (12-10-2021 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote: About the bold, I think there is one other reason the SEC wants no P5 autobids. IMO, in a broader sense, the SEC sees itself has having moved ahead of the PAC, Big 12 and ACC. P5 autobids would kind of throw these conferences, insecure in their "P" status, a life-line in that regard by solidifying their status. This will help them with recruiting and TV, leveling out the SEC advantage.
IMO, the SEC has no interest in helping the PAC, Big 12 and ACC shore themselves up. It's worked hard to move ahead of them.
IMO the SEC likes insecurity and instability in the PAC, B12 and ACC. It has symbolic value that translates in to tangibles like more money, better recruiting, etc.
Heck, that's likely what landed them the massive prizes of Texas and Oklahoma.
Any playoff expansion will be good for the Pac-12. 6+6, 5+1+2, or 5+1+6 will all work, the latter two give the Pac-12 100% certainty. The Alliance would be happy with the 5+1+2 model, as I suspect the Big 12 would as well. I don't care what Bowlsby says publicly, he needs the Big 12 to be considered a power conference in the next contract and the auto-bid helps. This is a negotiation and the SEC is one FBS conference vote in the process. They are not the deciding vote.
As for recruiting in the west, the USC hiring of Lincoln Riley has already made a huge difference in recruiting out west. The playoff expansion will help that further. As I have said before, the Pac-12 needs to put a wall around the west for football recruiting. Players like Bryce Young, Matt Corral, C.J Stroud, Chris Olave, Najee Harris, and Bijan Robinson should never have a reason to leave the region. I think the Pac-12 under new leadership is finally starting to do that. The instablity in the Pac-12 is not permanent. Nothing in college football lasts forever.
As for the SEC landing Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC was the best regional fit for them. I had no problem with them leaving for the SEC. But I also thought it was a good idea to form an Alliance and put a check on the SEC and ESPN, because there is a trust issue at this point in time. The Alliance can tell the SEC, you want OU and UT, we want a 5+1+2. If that does not work for your new 16 team conference, then we want a 5+1+6, and we might want to add a few more conditions to that. The SEC is not in control of this and they are going to end up compromising.
1. Where's the trust issue? Is it you don't trust the SEC, or that the SEC doesn't trust the alliance?
2. We are headed for pay for play. There will be a breakaway and OU and UT knew that when they announced their move. There is no leverage held by the alliance (which has as one of its stated goals the maintaining of the student athlete classification) in this new entity where brand power is what will matter most. Nobody is going to care about your past history or relationships. Your top schools will either join or they won't. Ditto for the B1G. What's more is the valuable brands of the ACC will likely be amenable to ESPN when it comes to the issue of pay for play as UNC's Cunningham has indicated.
So you are kidding yourself to believe the SEC compromises on anything which is not in their self interest. We are moving into an entirely new paradigm and while these discussions about an expanded playoff are good message board fodder they are wholly irrelevant until we know who will, and who won't be, paying players and only then will a structure for playoffs be determined.
Schools will opt out of a pay for play model and schools will opt in and we are headed for two separate and distinct models each with its own championship.
Any decisions made now would only create needless work should the SCOTUS rule next Summer in favor of pay for play, which is what is expected to happen.
I see most of the threads on this board at the present to be a form of denial as to what is coming.
But the SEC isn't likely to do anything until the larger context of the sport is determined, and then they will act in their own behalf, as all conferences should do.
EDIT:
What the heck let's clear the air on all of this. Every AD and President at a P5 or G5 school knew where the Alston case was taking the sport. What most thought was that all of the other presidents and ADs would be against professionalizing the sport. What upset Warren and Phillips and caught Kliavkoff off base was Texas's and Oklahoma's decision to toss in with the SEC. Many (not all SEC schools) had agreed to get behind the change and move on instead of fighting it. Maybe this was because of the bagman image which was unjust in that special benefits as enticements existed pretty much everywhere in college ball (which is something I knew firsthand from following up allegations for over a decade, just not for the NCAA). Or, maybe the SEC didn't want to be on the wrong side of what is best for African American athletes, as it would be a bad look for Southern schools, but whatever the reason the leadership decided early to move on with the change and the top brands of the B12 agreed.
So, the Alliance formed as much over their internal division over pay for play as over reaction to the SEC's additions. So, all of this "division" is not over playoff models, but over the frustration that a United Front against pay for play won't be forthcoming as a hope of resisting the loss of amateurism. Complicating it further are a myriad of ambivalent feelings over the NCAA.
I don't see, or hear about, animus for the other conferences over these issues. It's more of an attitude of why each conference has taken the stance it has and each for reasons of their own. It's mostly the message board fan crowds who look to ascribe nefarious motives and stir rancor and work their pet theories into all of this, while AD's, Presidents and Commissioners are all on wait and see mode.
This is why the playoff discussion is just a distraction.
If pay for play is struck down you will see compromise to expand the playoffs.
If it passes you will see a period of offseason mayhem while each conference is likely to have those going all in and others opting out. We'll likely wind up with 2 wholly separate divisions with the continued amateur play only existing because pay for play is a choice.
Most people feel that what has a very high probability of passing is the latter, not the former.
The SEC has 13 members likely on board with pay for play and one likely not. Plus OU and UT in favor. How do the ACC, Big Ten, and PAC 12 schools stand? We'll see.
The new Big 12 might likely be a yes as well.
So, until these matters are settled the real form of the CFP simply can't be determined but squabbling over it is great cover for much more dire internal struggles over the direction of college football. And the enemy here is not the Alliance vs the SEC. Those only represent different hopes for the future with the Alliance hoping just for NIL and the SEC preparing for pay for play as well. The SCOTUS cases are the only determinant, and everyone is waiting to see which way it goes.
/
McMurphy: P5 Autobids The Remaining CFP Expansion Issue
