ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips: "We need to really make a decision this fall."

Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports reports:

https://sports.yahoo.com/what-will-the-c...47166.html

One compromise which I think would be good is make the 5th spot a play-in between the 5th and 6th champions at a bowl site (Sun Bowl) a week before.

This way the 5th and 6th conference champions get to play in a traditional bowl game instead of facing slaughter on the road against a SEC/B1G blueblood. The winner can also say the won a major bowl game, a step on the ladder to a potential Top 10 run next year.

(09-26-2023 10:13 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  One compromise which I think would be good is make the 5th spot a play-in between the 5th and 6th champions at a bowl site (Sun Bowl) a week before.

This way the 5th and 6th conference champions get to play in a traditional bowl game instead of facing slaughter on the road against a SEC/B1G blueblood. The winner can also say the won a major bowl game, a step on the ladder to a potential Top 10 run next year.

Nothing is changing for 2 years because all teams have to agree with the change.

IMHO, the best way forward is to retain the 6+6 format for 2024 and 2025. Beginning in 2026, expand the CFP to 16 teams with a 6+10 format. This should appeal to everyone.

(09-26-2023 10:19 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:13 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  One compromise which I think would be good is make the 5th spot a play-in between the 5th and 6th champions at a bowl site (Sun Bowl) a week before.

This way the 5th and 6th conference champions get to play in a traditional bowl game instead of facing slaughter on the road against a SEC/B1G blueblood. The winner can also say the won a major bowl game, a step on the ladder to a potential Top 10 run next year.

Nothing is changing for 2 years because all teams have to agree with the change.

Yes its solid for 2024 and 2025 that is why I don't see the sense of urgency to make a decision on it this fall for 2026 and beyond.

Play-in bowls with 5th vs. 8th and 6th vs. 7th would be nice. Keep the 6+6 but structure so there are 2 play-in games.

Sun Bowl and Gator Bowl. The 5th place champion goes to the bowl that best fits its geography.

I suspect it remains 6-6 and then becomes 5-7 for the next deal. Sure the SEC would like the top 12, but they are probably the only one.

(09-26-2023 10:19 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:13 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  One compromise which I think would be good is make the 5th spot a play-in between the 5th and 6th champions at a bowl site (Sun Bowl) a week before.

This way the 5th and 6th conference champions get to play in a traditional bowl game instead of facing slaughter on the road against a SEC/B1G blueblood. The winner can also say the won a major bowl game, a step on the ladder to a potential Top 10 run next year.

Nothing is changing for 2 years because all teams have to agree with the change.

? This.

I think after the current deal expires and the unilateral ability of the CFP members to veto any change goes away, we'll probably see the top 5 conference champions assuming the 2Pac merge/assimilate/consciously couple with the MWC. I'm sure the Sun Belt and AAC will raise hell about that, so I guess a compromise could be that up to 6 conference champs can earn autobids if they are ranked in the top 20 of the final CFP rankings. The committee could let in a second G5 chamption to join the B1G, SEC, ACC, Big XII, and highest ranked G5 league in years where they feel there is a deserving school, but also manipulate the rankings to exclude a Sun Belt/MAC/AAC/2PAC-MWC champ when there aren't two clear cut G5 leagues that have worthy champs. The play-in game scenario seems like an absolute no-go given the potential that if there is an upset in the ACC or Big XII CCG then one of those leagues could theoretically be 5th highest ranked champ in a given year; they aren't going to agree to that.

Think it comes down to the Big Ten. The SEC wants to 12 and so does Notre Dame. ACC and Big 12 would probably prefer 5-7. If Big Ten sides with SEC not sure there is stopping it. The Big Ten has always preferred some emphasis on championships, but that might change with the expanded league now though.

I could see a partial middle ground in that if 4 champs qualify, they get the byes, but it is still top 12. Alteratively, maybe an champs inside the top 16 or 20 or so (up to 5 champs) are in, but have too meet that threshold.

If we ever switch to straight up top 12, I would prefer it to drop to 8. 12 was better than 8 because it emphasized conference champions, but if we are getting rid of that, please put more stakes back in the early and mid season.

(09-26-2023 10:27 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I suspect it remains 6-6 and then becomes 5-7 for the next deal. Sure the SEC would like the top 12, but they are probably the only one.

Notre Dame probably would like it as well. But imho, a more important fight for ND would be to eliminate the provision that conference champions are guaranteed the top four seeds. Big Ten and SEC might agree with that provision.

Once again, I think the format discussion is a red herring. Ultimately, neither the Big Ten nor SEC are going to make a huge stink about 5+7 compared to Top 12. (6+6 may be in place for the current contract, but it’s DOA afterwards.)

The *money* share is where the real debate will be. Never take your focus off that here.

(09-26-2023 10:13 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  One compromise which I think would be good is make the 5th spot a play-in between the 5th and 6th champions at a bowl site (Sun Bowl) a week before.

This way the 5th and 6th conference champions get to play in a traditional bowl game instead of facing slaughter on the road against a SEC/B1G blueblood. The winner can also say the won a major bowl game, a step on the ladder to a potential Top 10 run next year.

But everyone's going to know that it's a lie. If #16 Tulane beat #24 Troy last year in the Formerly-Known-As-The-Cotton Bowl at JerryWorld, nobody cares. A barely-top-25 G5 champ beat another barely-top-25 G5 champ.

I like the idea of the 5 most highly rated conference champions being guaranteed a slot, but adding a 6th conference champion if they meet some minimum requirement. Top 20 or 25 of the CFP ratings makes sense. However, I agree that the CFP committee could monkey around to exclude such a school. I might say either the top 25 of the CFP ratings, the Top 20 of the AP Poll, the Top 20 of the Coaches' Poll, or the Top 20 of a well recognized computer model selected in advance for this purpose. That would prevent the CFP committee from playing games.

(09-26-2023 10:54 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:27 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I suspect it remains 6-6 and then becomes 5-7 for the next deal. Sure the SEC would like the top 12, but they are probably the only one.

Notre Dame probably would like it as well. But imho, a more important fight for ND would be to eliminate the provision that conference champions are guaranteed the top four seeds. Big Ten and SEC might agree with that provision.

No, I don’t think the Big Ten will agree to that. I still don’t think a lot of people understand just how much more the Big Ten cares about conference championships specifically compared to the SEC (who seems to just think it’s an irrelevant point in the seeding exercise). The B1G and SEC are not one and the same on the “Top 12” format.

(09-26-2023 10:51 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Think it comes down to the Big Ten. The SEC wants to 12 and so does Notre Dame. ACC and Big 12 would probably prefer 5-7. If Big Ten sides with SEC not sure there is stopping it. The Big Ten has always preferred some emphasis on championships, but that might change with the expanded league now though.

I could see a partial middle ground in that if 4 champs qualify, they get the byes, but it is still top 12. Alteratively, maybe an champs inside the top 16 or 20 or so (up to 5 champs) are in, but have too meet that threshold.

If we ever switch to straight up top 12, I would prefer it to drop to 8. 12 was better than 8 because it emphasized conference champions, but if we are getting rid of that, please put more stakes back in the early and mid season.

The entire purpose of playoff expansion is maximizing TV money.

More playoff games = more playoff money

There is no downsizing of any playoff system in American sports (college or pro).

(09-26-2023 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  I like the idea of the 5 most highly rated conference champions being guaranteed a slot, but adding a 6th conference champion if they meet some minimum requirement. Top 20 or 25 of the CFP ratings makes sense. However, I agree that the CFP committee could monkey around to exclude such a school. I might say either the top 25 of the CFP ratings, the Top 20 of the AP Poll, the Top 20 of the Coaches' Poll, or the Top 20 of a well recognized computer model selected in advance for this purpose. That would prevent the CFP committee from playing games.

yes, you could change it to say the top 6 conference champions, but they must be ranked in the top 25. If #5 isnt ranked in the top 25, they wouldnt get in either.

Lets say many of the P5 schools go with 2 or more loses and an undefeated Liberty, Fresno State and Marshall enters into the top 10? How are they going to do that? Include three G5 in the playoffs?

(09-26-2023 10:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:51 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Think it comes down to the Big Ten. The SEC wants to 12 and so does Notre Dame. ACC and Big 12 would probably prefer 5-7. If Big Ten sides with SEC not sure there is stopping it. The Big Ten has always preferred some emphasis on championships, but that might change with the expanded league now though.

I could see a partial middle ground in that if 4 champs qualify, they get the byes, but it is still top 12. Alteratively, maybe an champs inside the top 16 or 20 or so (up to 5 champs) are in, but have too meet that threshold.

If we ever switch to straight up top 12, I would prefer it to drop to 8. 12 was better than 8 because it emphasized conference champions, but if we are getting rid of that, please put more stakes back in the early and mid season.

The entire purpose of playoff expansion is maximizing TV money.

More playoff games = more playoff money

There is no downsizing of any playoff system in American sports (college or pro).

Yep, there's a better chance they raise the number to 16 for the next deal than there is dropping it to 8.

(09-26-2023 11:13 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Lets say many of the P5 schools go with 2 or more loses and an undefeated Liberty, Fresno State and Marshall enters into the top 10? How are they going to do that? Include three G5 in the playoffs?

The top G5 champ would automatically get in and then the others would get in as at-larges.

Top 4 conference champions (SEC, B1G, ACC, XII) will get first round byes, play in 2nd round Bowls. Note, if the G5 access school is a higher ranked conference champion than any the 4 autonomous conference champions they would get that slot. This could actually happen if a 15th or so ranked power conference school defeat the favorite top 10 ranked school in the CCG.

The 4 highest ranked of the remaining 8, including the G5 access school, will host the other 4 schools. 7 of those 8 are at-large.

Essentially it's a 5-7 model, with a better shot for the G5 champion to make the top 4 because they only need one "right" upset to make the top 4 instead of probably two such upsets in the 6-6 model.

This is the obvious solution, to simply not recognize the Pac-12 if rebuilt as constituting an autonomous conference because it does not have 6+ (a majority) of carry over autonomous schools.

Whatever happens, I'm sure it will be to the benefit of the SEC, B10 and ESPN... and to the detriment of everyone else.