Here is the link:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...alignment/

Looks like for 2024 only.

Top 6 Conference champions based on next year's alignment and this year's rankings (so far..)
1. Georgia (SEC)
2. Michigan (Big 10)
3. Florida State (ACC)
4. Utah (Big 12)
5. Washington State (MWC?) if indy replace with Fresno State
6. Fresno State or Tulane (AAC)

So assuming that Wash St, Ore St and MWC do some kind of merger, then you will probably see 4 P4 champions and 2 G5 conference champions get automatic berths in 2024.

Wouldn't it be funny if Wash St or Ore St make the playoffs in 2024 because one of them is the MWC/PAC champion.

(09-25-2023 05:36 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Looks like for 2024 only.

OP is drawing incorrect determination. All this says is no decisions will be made until 2024.

EDIT--Thought this was the same Dodd article as in the other thread. And what he said there was simply they weren't ready to make a decision.
This is a difference article.

Aresco is such a pain in the rear. He still acts like he’s running a league that’s nipping at the heels of the P5——the AAC isn’t even the clear cut best G-league this year.

(09-25-2023 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Aresco is such a pain in the rear. He still acts like he’s running a league that’s nipping at the heels of the P5——the AAC isn’t even the clear cut best G-league this year.

According to Sagarin, it's SBC East, MWC, AAC, MAC West, SBC West, MAC East and CUSA.

(09-25-2023 06:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Aresco is such a pain in the rear. He still acts like he’s running a league that’s nipping at the heels of the P5——the AAC isn’t even the clear cut best G-league this year.

According to Sagarin, it's SBC East, MWC, AAC, MAC West, SBC West, MAC East and CUSA.

When you combine the divisions:
Central Mean its MWC, then Sun Belt, then AAC, then MAC, CUSA last
Simple average its MWC, then AAC, then Sun Belt, then MAC, CUSA last

Has MWC, AAC and SB very close. Of course, I don't know if last year is still in these numbers. At some point he dumps lasts year's data.

(09-25-2023 07:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 06:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Aresco is such a pain in the rear. He still acts like he’s running a league that’s nipping at the heels of the P5——the AAC isn’t even the clear cut best G-league this year.

According to Sagarin, it's SBC East, MWC, AAC, MAC West, SBC West, MAC East and CUSA.

When you combine the divisions:
Central Mean its MWC, then Sun Belt, then AAC, then MAC, CUSA last
Simple average its MWC, then AAC, then Sun Belt, then MAC, CUSA last

Has MWC, AAC and SB very close. Of course, I don't know if last year is still in these numbers. At some point he dumps lasts year's data.

Which only supports my point—the AAC isn’t even the best G5.

(09-25-2023 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Aresco is such a pain in the rear. He still acts like he’s running a league that’s nipping at the heels of the P5——the AAC isn’t even the clear cut best G-league this year.

he's doing his job...

(09-25-2023 05:46 PM)goofus Wrote:  So assuming that Wash St, Ore St and MWC do some kind of merger, then you will probably see 4 P4 champions and 2 G5 conference champions get automatic berths in 2024.

Wouldn't it be funny if Wash St or Ore St make the playoffs in 2024 because one of them is the MWC/PAC champion.

Heh, one of them could very well make the Playoff this season.

(09-25-2023 10:38 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Aresco is such a pain in the rear. He still acts like he’s running a league that’s nipping at the heels of the P5——the AAC isn’t even the clear cut best G-league this year.

he's doing his job...

Yep. What’s he gonna do, just roll over and let the Conference die? Only Kliavkoff is allowed to do that bc the Pac schools will never split up.

6+6 is huge for '24, especially for the PAC/MWC. I suspect we could end up with a completely different format after '26 though. They want to trial run this thing.

Should be a 10+2 format but 6+6 is better than 5+7 for sure.

(09-26-2023 07:07 AM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  Should be a 10+2 format but 6+6 is better than 5+7 for sure.

Also could provide juice for Nevarez to just consummate the merger with maybe some performance based incentives to get the PAC2 to sign on.

The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

(09-26-2023 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

Yes perhaps it would be good to bargain for 5+7 long term in exchange for early modification

I think there will be a strong faction pushing for top 12

(09-26-2023 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

The uncertainty within the PAC2 may also be the problem. You can’t get unanimous consent without the PAC2. The PAC is in the middle of a governance struggle and potential litigation. No way does the CFP want to get embroiled in a potential black-hole…the CFP may just be providing time for the PAC2 to address their issues.

(09-26-2023 08:02 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

Yes perhaps it would be good to bargain for 5+7 long term in exchange for early modification

I think there will be a strong faction pushing for top 12

Honestly, I think it would just be the SEC there and it’s more that Sankey is just using the format issue as leverage for what they really care about: getting even a larger share of the revenue than before. The Big Ten has always put a lot more weight on conference championships. Also, the value of the P4 CCGs goes up a lot when there’s a top 4 conference champ bye at stake, which is a point that a lot of people miss when they’re so focused on the playoff format itself.

Ross Dellenger pointed this out on his podcast a couple of weeks ago: the 5+7 format at least beyond 2025 seems pretty settled. The format discussion is a red herring for fans to debate. Instead, the SEC and Big Ten care MUCH more about getting a larger share of the money compared to a token playoff spot for the G5.

(09-26-2023 07:05 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  6+6 is huge for '24, especially for the PAC/MWC. I suspect we could end up with a completely different format after '26 though. They want to trial run this thing.

I know I've beat this drum a lot, but I'll still beat it. I still think we should end up with a 5+10 (4+6) format where we have the top 5 champs + top 4 CCG losers + 6 at-large. Adds an additional round and layer of the CFP without the risk of team playing 18 games in a season (excludes teams playing @ Hawaii, but will already be the case with 6+6) since the top 4 champs get a double bye to the quarterfinals, the 5th champ (persumably G5 champ) and 4 CCG losers (5-9 seeds) get a single bye since they played in a CCG, and the top 6 at-large play a play-in game (10-15 seeds) while leaving a standalone slot for Army-Navy, who likely only makes the CFP as a G5 champion.

To me, it just makes way too much sense for all parties involved. I don't mind staying at 6+6 for a year or 2 to playout the current contract, but I think the P4 will want to trade in 1 autobid for at least 4 at-large spots in 2026. This format keeps CCGs relevant and adds incentive for conference semis for the top 4, if they desire (I think we can learn more after 2024). It avoids cannibalizing playoff games and expanding the season beyond what 6+6 will do. G5 still gets a spot and maybe a home game. ND still has 6 at-larges with a strong shot at a home game, and in the event ND is ranked top while seeded 10th, it keep ND from meeting the other top 2 ranked team before the championship game (a neat, unintended consequence of this format).