(11-08-2023 11:43 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  If I'm the G5 I'm not playing hardball over the 6+6. I'd rather agree to the 5+7 and have long term access to the CFP than play hardball for 2 years to be completely shut out after 2025.

I could see a compromise. The 5th best champ plays the 6th best champ (winner against the 5th seed) while the 7th best at-large plays the 8th best at-large (winner against the 6th seed). Allows the 6 champs to have a chance on the field, allows another P5 at-large an opportunity, and, for the SEC, most years allows the top 12 overall in the CFP field. Top 4 champs remain with the 1st round bye. I think that satisfies all conferences (even the PAC-2 if they demand a spot for their champ if they survive as a conference). Your main 12 team CFP field results in 5+7. Only drawback is Army-Navy week is needed and if Army or Navy make the CFP as a conference champ, I wouldn't expect one of them to play 2 games in a weekend or day.

(11-08-2023 11:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 10:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Really makes no sense. I mean UCF and others went to the Big 12 and are getting full shares. But SMU doesn't? That makes no sense at all.

Agreed. Seems like a greedy non-sensical argument.

And the cut would be 1/71st. So if a share goes from $5 million to $10 million, that means it would be about $141,000 a school.

Maybe the ACC gets the cut. All ACC schools would be paid full P5 rates except SMU , who would get at a G5 rate. The conference can then distribute to SMU whatever it deems fit.

Houston, UCF and Cincy, we’re lucky, getting in before the new format was settled.

(11-08-2023 01:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  ... I'm not a big antitrust worrier, but I think it's more likely that the Big Ten and SEC cook up a "performance based" formula that gives them the lions share of the money, rather than equal shares for the entire P4.

Something like, top of my head, 1 unit for finishing in the top 25, 25 units for finishing No 1. Or 1-50, or 1-100. Or maybe 50-100 all get 1 unit each, 25-50 all get 2 units each, 24-1 get 2-25 units. Maybe half performance based, half per-conference (with specifications that a conference has to meet all requirements). Maybe 30-70 or 60-40. Whatever makes the math come out to numbers that reflect the balance of power.

Except that University Presidents tend to be risk averse, so nudging it above the flat per-school payout with appearance money seems more likely than making payouts change in any noticeable way if your best school finishes 4th rather than 1st.

Something like, 80% flat per school,

If you mean per FBS school, then I agree. At a much lower number than 80% though.

If you mean per Power Conference school, that's more complicated. It was one thing when there were 5 power conferences, that the CFP could launder through the bowls to create "Contract Bowl Conferences."

Now, if you define four power conferences as equal, what happens to WSU and OSU?
If someone cracks open the ACC Grant of Rights, and the ACC gets Marinatto'd, is the ACC still a power conference when they backfill with USF, Temple etc etc? If the PAC is still a "power conferences" with two members, what happens when they absorb the Mountain West, or backfill with a mix of MWC and AAC teams?

So I don't think you're going to have a Power Conference / G5 setup. There's going to be some sort of sliding scale where Alabama and Ohio State (and Kentucky and Purdue) get more than North Carolina and WEst Virginia, who get more than Temple and Marshall and Boise State.

(11-08-2023 01:07 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 12:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:52 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think they will accept OSU/WSU getting a P5 share for 2 years, just not a P5 conference and no ability to bring in schools to get a P5 share.

Maybe that is the hangup on SMU, how it impacts their arguments vs. the 2Pac's expansion.

I think that’s exactly what’s hanging up a power conference level CFP distribution to SMU.

The B1G, SEC, ACC and Big 12 are probably fine with OSU and WSU continuing to receive power conference level distributions for the final two years of the current CFP contract. However they don’t want to see the Pac inviting new members from the MWC and/or AAC during that period and then pointing to SMU’s situation as a precedent for the new Pac additions to receive power conference level CFP distributions as well.

The way out of the conundrum is to either immediately strip the Pac of its status as a power conference in the eyes of the CFP, with an exemption grandfathering OSU’s and WSU’s current distributions, OR leave the Pac’s power conference status alone for the remainder of the contract period but establish a rule that says any more G5 move-ups to a power conference during that time will not receive power conference level distributions (sorry SMU).

Unless and until there’s an agreement on the first option, the second option will be on the table.

Something tells me that will be written into the next CFP agreement. There will be specific schools named to receive the "P4 share", anyone moving up will have to wait until the next CFP, assuming that their Conference is part of the P5/4/3/2/1 at that time.

I'm not a big antitrust worrier, but I think it's more likely that the Big Ten and SEC cook up a "performance based" formula that gives them the lions share of the money, rather than equal shares for the entire P4.

Something like, top of my head, 1 unit for finishing in the top 25, 25 units for finishing No 1. Or 1-50, or 1-100. Or maybe 50-100 all get 1 unit each, 25-50 all get 2 units each, 24-1 get 2-25 units. Maybe half performance based, half per-conference (with specifications that a conference has to meet all requirements). Maybe 30-70 or 60-40. Whatever makes the math come out to numbers that reflect the balance of power.

I don't think that even a combined Petitti/Sankey plan would fly without support from the rest of the P4. They have too much money at stake, with the g5 no doubt clamoring for an ever-greater share in the next round. When/if we drop down to 3 "P" Conferences, sure, 2/3 of them might be able to ram something down the 3rd Conference's throat, but not yet.

They can easily pay off the G5 to side with them, I think. The key is getting a Big Ten SEC agreement. IF the two big dogs agree, everyone else falls in line unless the agreement is completely ruinous to them.

(11-08-2023 11:43 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  If I'm the G5 I'm not playing hardball over the 6+6. I'd rather agree to the 5+7 and have long term access to the CFP than play hardball for 2 years to be completely shut out after 2025.

I know that isn't about SMU and revenue but something in there that jumped out to me while reading.

I agree.

IMO, the G5 really has no leverage. Yes, they can hold their ground and have their way for the next two years, but those two years are going to come and go quickly, and if they have pissed off the SEC and B1G, they could well pay for that for many many more years thereafter in the form of a permanent deal that is much less friendly to them.

If I was a G5 commissioner, I would have a humble posture in these CFP meetings. That IMO is the best way to get the best deal possible in the long run.

(11-08-2023 02:58 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:43 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  If I'm the G5 I'm not playing hardball over the 6+6. I'd rather agree to the 5+7 and have long term access to the CFP than play hardball for 2 years to be completely shut out after 2025.

I could see a compromise. The 5th best champ plays the 6th best champ (winner against the 5th seed) while the 7th best at-large plays the 8th best at-large (winner against the 6th seed). Allows the 6 champs to have a chance on the field, allows another P5 at-large an opportunity, and, for the SEC, most years allows the top 12 overall in the CFP field. Top 4 champs remain with the 1st round bye. I think that satisfies all conferences (even the PAC-2 if they demand a spot for their champ if they survive as a conference). Your main 12 team CFP field results in 5+7. Only drawback is Army-Navy week is needed and if Army or Navy make the CFP as a conference champ, I wouldn't expect one of them to play 2 games in a weekend or day.

So… a 14-team playoff? I think you’d just put the 4 lowest seeds in the first round. If you had 6 champs all in the Top 10, you don’t want to push two of them into some qualifier.

If teams are playing an EXTRA extra game you probably don’t want those to be the same teams that just played a conference championship game if you can help it.

6+8? 2 qualifier games hosted by the best teams not in a CCG and not in the, say, pre-CCG Top 6. If you play the qualifiers sandwiching Army-Navy, the host teams will still have 2 weeks to ready logistics. G5 conferences that crown champions Thanksgiving weekend would also be considered for hosting these games.

(11-08-2023 05:03 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 02:58 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:43 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  If I'm the G5 I'm not playing hardball over the 6+6. I'd rather agree to the 5+7 and have long term access to the CFP than play hardball for 2 years to be completely shut out after 2025.

I could see a compromise. The 5th best champ plays the 6th best champ (winner against the 5th seed) while the 7th best at-large plays the 8th best at-large (winner against the 6th seed). Allows the 6 champs to have a chance on the field, allows another P5 at-large an opportunity, and, for the SEC, most years allows the top 12 overall in the CFP field. Top 4 champs remain with the 1st round bye. I think that satisfies all conferences (even the PAC-2 if they demand a spot for their champ if they survive as a conference). Your main 12 team CFP field results in 5+7. Only drawback is Army-Navy week is needed and if Army or Navy make the CFP as a conference champ, I wouldn't expect one of them to play 2 games in a weekend or day.

So… a 14-team playoff? I think you’d just put the 4 lowest seeds in the first round. If you had 6 champs all in the Top 10, you don’t want to push two of them into some qualifier.

If teams are playing an EXTRA extra game you probably don’t want those to be the same teams that just played a conference championship game if you can help it.

6+8? 2 qualifier games hosted by the best teams not in a CCG and not in the, say, pre-CCG Top 6. If you play the qualifiers sandwiching Army-Navy, the host teams will still have 2 weeks to ready logistics. G5 conferences that crown champions Thanksgiving weekend would also be considered for hosting these games.

Right. I don't think they will go out of their way to have an extra game for a CCG participant, even if it is a G5 team. If they expand to 14, most likely they limit byes to 2. And I don't see the P4 anxious for that. They want the bye and they want guaranteed NYD slots.

-12 team CFP with play-in bowls for the 5th-8th and 6th-7th ranked conference champs. Sun Bowl and Gator Bowl with 5th place champ in geographic best selection.

(11-08-2023 03:34 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 10:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Really makes no sense. I mean UCF and others went to the Big 12 and are getting full shares. But SMU doesn't? That makes no sense at all.

Agreed. Seems like a greedy non-sensical argument.

And the cut would be 1/71st. So if a share goes from $5 million to $10 million, that means it would be about $141,000 a school.

Maybe the ACC gets the cut. All ACC schools would be paid full P5 rates except SMU , who would get at a G5 rate. The conference can then distribute to SMU whatever it deems fit.

Houston, UCF and Cincy, we’re lucky, getting in before the new format was settled.

yup

(11-08-2023 10:41 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 10:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Really makes no sense. I mean UCF and others went to the Big 12 and are getting full shares. But SMU doesn't? That makes no sense at all.

Its because they just changed the rule earlier this year. UCF/UH/Cincy/BYU were already apart of the last discussion.

I think the obvious solution is to say that the Pac-2 is no longer a P5. Oregon State and Washington State lose their share and SMU gets a share.

We live in a P4 world starting next year.

Agree. That is the simplest solution. Or say WSU and OSU get a half share and SMU a full share, or all three a 2/3rds share this cycle.

SMU is getting no TV revenue for like 10 years.

They raised hundreds of millions within a few days after getting the ACC invite.

Do they really care if they don't get any CFP money? Seems like they would accept the decision and move on.

(11-08-2023 09:39 PM)WAChsenburggemeinde Wrote:  SMU is getting no TV revenue for like 10 years.

They raised hundreds of millions within a few days after getting the ACC invite.

Do they really care if they don't get any CFP money? Seems like they would accept the decision and move on.

Well they would have lots of money to pay lawyers to sue.

(11-08-2023 09:39 PM)WAChsenburggemeinde Wrote:  SMU is getting no TV revenue for like 10 years.

They raised hundreds of millions within a few days after getting the ACC invite.

Do they really care if they don't get any CFP money? Seems like they would accept the decision and move on.

Do we really know that they raised all that money or was that smoke and mirrors? I think they were banking on the gap being closed or even getting more money from a P5 CFP distribution compared to their overall pay in the G5 American Athletic Conference. Having pledges for money is not money in the bank.

(11-08-2023 05:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 05:03 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 02:58 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 11:43 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  If I'm the G5 I'm not playing hardball over the 6+6. I'd rather agree to the 5+7 and have long term access to the CFP than play hardball for 2 years to be completely shut out after 2025.

I could see a compromise. The 5th best champ plays the 6th best champ (winner against the 5th seed) while the 7th best at-large plays the 8th best at-large (winner against the 6th seed). Allows the 6 champs to have a chance on the field, allows another P5 at-large an opportunity, and, for the SEC, most years allows the top 12 overall in the CFP field. Top 4 champs remain with the 1st round bye. I think that satisfies all conferences (even the PAC-2 if they demand a spot for their champ if they survive as a conference). Your main 12 team CFP field results in 5+7. Only drawback is Army-Navy week is needed and if Army or Navy make the CFP as a conference champ, I wouldn't expect one of them to play 2 games in a weekend or day.

So… a 14-team playoff? I think you’d just put the 4 lowest seeds in the first round. If you had 6 champs all in the Top 10, you don’t want to push two of them into some qualifier.

If teams are playing an EXTRA extra game you probably don’t want those to be the same teams that just played a conference championship game if you can help it.

6+8? 2 qualifier games hosted by the best teams not in a CCG and not in the, say, pre-CCG Top 6. If you play the qualifiers sandwiching Army-Navy, the host teams will still have 2 weeks to ready logistics. G5 conferences that crown champions Thanksgiving weekend would also be considered for hosting these games.

Right. I don't think they will go out of their way to have an extra game for a CCG participant, even if it is a G5 team. If they expand to 14, most likely they limit byes to 2. And I don't see the P4 anxious for that. They want the bye and they want guaranteed NYD slots.

Before realignment, I'd agree with you both saying that the bottom 4 at-large not participating in a CCG should be in the 2 play-in games, but logistics was the reason I heard most for not doing this even if both those games were neutral site. Another was it broke the KISS rule. Last season would've been Washington-Penn St. and Florida St.-Tennessee (Alabama most likely had the SEC been divisionless) in the 2 play-in games. As it stands right now, this year would be Oregon St.-Penn St. and Tennessee-Ole Miss (obviously season's not done).

Now that realignment occurred and likely ended the PAC-12, the P4 don't want 2 G5 teams in the main field so if the G5 wanted a chance at 2 champs having a shot at the CFP on the field, a play-in. Yes, it's an extra game to play, but if we truly believe the G5 doesn't have a shot unless they're a top 4 champ, why not allow them the opportunity of more exposure if they're going to lose in a game or 2 (1st round or quarterfinals). I agree the 1 week turnaround would be tough though on the 2 G5 champs partcipating in the play-in, but I don't think the G5 moves their championships to Thanksgiving weekend.

I think you could still do the bottom 4 at-large not playing in CCGs regardless of if the G5 do a play-in game, but it'll either be 5+9 (w/o G5 play-in) or 6+9 (w/ G5 play-in) format, not the 6+8 format unless it's the format I initially suggested. My question though is would the G5 want to give the P4 more power by getting more at-large spots unless they got something guaranteed in return?

(11-08-2023 03:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 01:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  ... Except that University Presidents tend to be risk averse, so nudging it above the flat per-school payout with appearance money seems more likely than making payouts change in any noticeable way if your best school finishes 4th rather than 1st.

Something like, 80% flat per school

If you mean per FBS school, then I agree. At a much lower number than 80% though.

If you mean per Power Conference school, that's more complicated. It was one thing when there were 5 power conferences, that the CFP could launder through the bowls to create "Contract Bowl Conferences."

Under the last two years of the current contract, if the contract conferences sign agreements with the contract bowls to release them from their participation requirements to allow the bowls to directly participate in the CFP12 ... they are still under contract with those bowls, so it doesn't directly change status. If the additional payment to the P4 conferences is more than what they would have made from the NY6 bowl exhibition games, that'd be the reason the P4 signs that contract.

The way to deny the PAC2 a per school P4 share under that approach is to break the Rose Bowl contract, which means a court case as the PAC2 defends, which means a delay, when the CFP LLC can ill afford delay. They may well fight it out for a full current P5 share, but for two school shares under the arrangement passed by the CFP board, it seems like they'd just pay that out to avoid the delay.

Quote: Now, if you define four power conferences as equal, what happens to WSU and OSU?

As I said, the direct way is to give conferences that host a QF the right to designate the QF bowl they play in, from highest seeded to lowest seeded, so then the agreement to commit to designate the bowl is something the conferences have for sale, so there is a market test, so legally the same theory of a cover is used, even if not the same exact market test.

Quote: If someone cracks open the ACC Grant of Rights, and the ACC gets Marinatto'd, is the ACC still a power conference when they backfill with USF, Temple etc etc? If the PAC is still a "power conferences" with two members, what happens when they absorb the Mountain West, or backfill with a mix of MWC and AAC teams?

Over the longer term, pay them until the current contract round expires, and then in the new round, they are a Power conference if they get treated as a Power conference by the participating bowls.

The SMC issue is exactly whether it would allow the PAC2 to invite Go5 schools up while receiving the legacy payment before getting the drop at the end of the current contract cycle.

Quote: So I don't think you're going to have a Power Conference / G5 setup. There's going to be some sort of sliding scale where Alabama and Ohio State (and Kentucky and Purdue) get more than North Carolina and WEst Virginia, who get more than Temple and Marshall and Boise State.

The thing is, I don't think those are necessarily rhetorical questions without likely answers, I think they could prove to be questions that guide the design of a new "Affiliate Conference" status. ... Indeed, if the SMU issue is a problem because of the precedent for paying pro-rata Power Conference rate for backfills for a conference that won't maintain conference rate, then disallowing SMU would be just for the remainder of the current contract term, and when the ACC maintains it's "Affiliate Conference" status with SMU as a member, it would get the full share for SMU.

(11-09-2023 07:03 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 03:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 01:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  ... Except that University Presidents tend to be risk averse, so nudging it above the flat per-school payout with appearance money seems more likely than making payouts change in any noticeable way if your best school finishes 4th rather than 1st.

Something like, 80% flat per school

If you mean per FBS school, then I agree. At a much lower number than 80% though.

If you mean per Power Conference school, that's more complicated. It was one thing when there were 5 power conferences, that the CFP could launder through the bowls to create "Contract Bowl Conferences."

Under the last two years of the current contract, if the contract conferences sign agreements with the contract bowls to release them from their participation requirements to allow the bowls to directly participate in the CFP12 ... they are still under contract with those bowls, so it doesn't directly change status. If the additional payment to the P4 conferences is more than what they would have made from the NY6 bowl exhibition games, that'd be the reason the P4 signs that contract.

Agreed, I'm talking about the post-2025 future. I think that SMU getting a power-conference share is mostly a post-2025 issue, actually. I expect there to be a shift from a formula of equality among the two classes (P5, G5) to a more sliding scale where Big Ten and SEC get the lions share, ACC and Big 12 get some, and the G5 continues to get their share of the scraps.

In that setup, what WSU and OSU get is entirely up to the formula.

Quote:Over the longer term, pay them until the current contract round expires, and then in the new round, they are a Power conference if they get treated as a Power conference by the participating bowls.

The current contract runs two more years. The new round is upon us.

EDIT: After the events of the last two years, I think the CFP will build itself with the idea that unlikely unexpected things could happen -- PAC-Mountain West merger, ACC implosion. So The Powers That Be will want a funding formula that mostly automatically adjusts to shifts in the landscape. IMO.

(11-09-2023 10:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-09-2023 07:03 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 03:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 01:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  ... Except that University Presidents tend to be risk averse, so nudging it above the flat per-school payout with appearance money seems more likely than making payouts change in any noticeable way if your best school finishes 4th rather than 1st.

Something like, 80% flat per school

If you mean per FBS school, then I agree. At a much lower number than 80% though.

If you mean per Power Conference school, that's more complicated. It was one thing when there were 5 power conferences, that the CFP could launder through the bowls to create "Contract Bowl Conferences."

Under the last two years of the current contract, if the contract conferences sign agreements with the contract bowls to release them from their participation requirements to allow the bowls to directly participate in the CFP12 ... they are still under contract with those bowls, so it doesn't directly change status. If the additional payment to the P4 conferences is more than what they would have made from the NY6 bowl exhibition games, that'd be the reason the P4 signs that contract.

Agreed, I'm talking about the post-2025 future. I think that SMU getting a power-conference share is mostly a post-2025 issue, actually. I expect there to be a shift from a formula of equality among the two classes (P5, G5) to a more sliding scale where Big Ten and SEC get the lions share, ACC and Big 12 get some, and the G5 continues to get their share of the scraps.

In that setup, what WSU and OSU get is entirely up to the formula.

Quote:Over the longer term, pay them until the current contract round expires, and then in the new round, they are a Power conference if they get treated as a Power conference by the participating bowls.

The current contract runs two more years. The new round is upon us.

Y'all are way over-thinking this. The P4 will provide some higher % for participation than now, but the base will be equal per member between the P4. They are still a club. And the SEC, at least, still has a sense of fairness. Big 12 and ACC aren't just going to hand the SEC and Big 10 all the money.

SMU will get a full power share in the new contract. WSU and OSU will not (assuming none of the P4 pick them up).

They will probably write something in to the contract about how promotions get paid during the contract. I'm sure it will be better than a G5 share. Otherwise it motivates the Big 10 and SEC to strip the ACC and Big 12. But it probably won't be a full power share.

The only issue is what happens over the next two years for SMU, OSU and WSU. The logical thing is to pay all 3 power shares.

(11-08-2023 10:41 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(11-08-2023 10:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Really makes no sense. I mean UCF and others went to the Big 12 and are getting full shares. But SMU doesn't? That makes no sense at all.

Its because they just changed the rule earlier this year. UCF/UH/Cincy/BYU were already apart of the last discussion.

I think the obvious solution is to say that the Pac-2 is no longer a P5. Oregon State and Washington State lose their share and SMU gets a share.

We live in a P4 world starting next year.

Regarding the bolded, the article states that the rule that changed this year was that CFP distributions to power conferences would change from “per conference” (each power conference receives the same share) to “per members in each power conference” (each team in a power conference is allocated an equal share). Seems like a formality that CFP leaders need to confirm that SMU will be a member of the ACC next year.

With regards to a P4 world starting next year, it would be a mistake to take away expected revenue from OSU and WSU before 2026. CFP leaders would be better-off guaranteeing the PAC-2 with power level payouts for two more years (in exchange for a commitment that they not seek additional power level payouts if the PAC rebuilds with G5 programs).

Aresco’s proposal on 6+6 versus 5+7 is interesting. He’d be willing to move to 5+7 in 2024, in exchange for a guarantee that a G5 champ gets included indefinitely in the CFP. Aresco wants leverage for the next round of CFP discussions. He’s worried about future exclusion.

(11-09-2023 11:21 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Aresco’s proposal on 6+6 versus 5+7 is interesting. He’d be willing to move to 5+7 in 2024, in exchange for a guarantee that a G5 champ gets included indefinitely in the CFP. Aresco wants leverage for the next round of CFP discussions. He’s worried about future exclusion.

That’s really the only reason for any G5 league to agree to an early move to 5+7. They need that enshrined for the *next* CFP contract. Just giving it up for the next 2 years unilaterally without a future guarantee that 5+7 will also be the setup in the future doesn’t make sense.