Surprised no one is talking about this, kinda long (24.5 minutes + Ads) so took notes for those who don't have time to listen, but definitely should listen (especially if I missed something or noted it differently than it should)





-Internal deadline set on 2026 CFP/ESPN bid for end of the week by CFP commissioners
-B1G/SEC vs. ACC/B12 fight with G5 in middle happy to be included
-4 B1G/SEC bids and automatic byes for B1G/SEC shot down by ACC/B12

-Focusing on revenue distribution model first (this week), then media deal with ESPN
-CFP format decision could be weeks away

-Discusses how ACC instability is the reason Yormark pushing for 2028 look-in in 2026 CFP
-Discusses why we won't have equal financial distribution models in college sports like NFL

-From B1G, pushing for multiple bids to remove subjectivity from committee
-From B1G and SEC, add value for their regular season by dropping FCS games and G5 games, play more big games against bigger brands, not risk/cost one's season having more losses by having multiple CFP bids

-Not sure why CFP hasn't chose to have more money distribution based on performance as opposed to conferences (100 mil of 1.3 bil based on performance)

-3/3/2/2/1+3, 2/2/1/1/1+7, and 5+9 CFP formats being discussed, but CCGs almost assured will not exist in 1st model in their current form
-CCGs probably will be reevaluated in latter 2 formats
-B1G and SEC would work hard to kept some version of CCGs because of how much it's worth to them
-3rd model (5+9) more likely to keep CCGs around for a little bit longer, but 1st 2 models would have hard time keeping CCGs around any longer

-Hard to see B1G/SEC split to form their own CFP (guessing an 8 team B1G/SEC CFP would be close to 1.3 bil of 12-14 team FBS playoff)
-34 Teams not enough for B1G/SEC breakaway/playoff
-Thinks ESPN with Stakes in ACC, B12, and 4 of the 5 G5 conferences would push back heavily on B1G/SEC only playoff

-Feels like we're getting close in financial gap would impact competition on field (definitely G5 vs. P4, and then later on M2 vs. P2), kept mentioning next generation
-Top G5 joining P4 and top ACC/B12 joining B1G/SEC
-Gap in finances why some talking about G5 playoff if unable to compete
-Annual gaps between B1G/SEC and ACC/B12 (potentially 50+ mil/year just in FB) could eventually lead to no competition

-If PAC still in existence (PAC-10), similar conversations in CFP, revenue distribution likely happening, but not as extreme (a little smaller gaps)

Ross added in his podcast that he doesn't expect the financial distribution model to drastically change from the current proposal.

Talked about how he heard discussions of the performance base distribution increasing to as high as $400 mil from the $100 mil, but doesn't know what happened. 1st 2 rounds would be $3 mil, semis and championship would be $5 mil with the $100 mil performance base distribution. Also asked why it wouldn't be completely performance based distribution and got complete shut down.

Financial distribution model based on future realignment CFP bids during the 4 team CFP era as a starting point.

I like the 3/3/2/2/1 because it guarantees the non-P2 have at least 5 teams out of 14 in the playoff. While its preferrential to the ACC to have 2 automatic bids it does make it feel more like a playoff than a 5+9 where non-P2 only have 3 bids. On a good year the non-P2 could pick up 6 or 7 bids out of 14.

It will be P2 and then "mid major" representation in the playoff.

The current NCAA tournament kind of follows the same flow..

P6: 6
MM: 26
At Large: 36

The non-P6 are only guaranteed 26 of 68 bids (38%) in the NCAAT.

The non-P2 would be guarenteed 5 of 14 bids (36%) in CFP.

Deal will not get done. Big and SEC will do own playoff. Until the big poaches everyone.

(03-12-2024 05:46 AM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Deal will not get done. Big and SEC will do own playoff. Until the big poaches everyone.

If the commissioners don't get it done, the presidents will step in as they did with the 12 team playoff.

I like the auto spots but don't need auto byes since they'll likely earn them anyway.

People can’t reconcile how multiple AQ bids effectively obsoletes CCGs. Basic logic… but let’s see what happens. My guess is the revenue split will make up the difference for a multi AQ format.

My big takeaway is that the B1G really wants those auto bids because they are afraid of subjectivity going head to head against the SEC with more at large bids........
I find it funny that just like the ACC/Big 12 are hypocrites with their arguments against the new potential system, they were perfectly fine when it was used against the G5. Similar situation with the B1G, they are not fine with subjectivity against the SEC, but yet that was the complaint of the G5 for eons, and more recently FSU when they were left out of the playoffs.

Funny how they all have rules for thee, but not for me.

It seems clear Frank was right. The SEC and Big 10 prefer financial guarantees rather than performance based metrics. In addition, they seem to fear any sort of committee or computer metric will value straight wins and losses over factors like strength of record. And with the new additions, the SEC and Big 10 will beat up on each other more. But extra autobids to reduce subjectivity means less value in CCGs.

One comment was that they are looking at the CFP period rather than the whole CFP/BCS period for performance. The CFP period better reflects the present because the Big East wasn't around as a power conference. On the other hand, 10 years is a short time period and so is more variable than a 26 year period. It doesn't reflect the ups and downs of programs. For example, Texas had the 2nd best winning % after Boise from 2000 to 2009, but was very mediocre from 2010 to 2022. USC was pretty similar. Clemson was mediocre from 2000-2009 with only one season less than 4 losses, but very strong in the teens.

(03-12-2024 10:48 AM)otown Wrote:  My big takeaway is that the B1G really wants those auto bids because they are afraid of subjectivity going head to head against the SEC with more at large bids........
I find it funny that just like the ACC/Big 12 are hypocrites with their arguments against the new potential system, they were perfectly fine when it was used against the G5. Similar situation with the B1G, they are not fine with subjectivity against the SEC, but yet that was the complaint of the G5 for eons, and more recently FSU when they were left out of the playoffs.

Funny how they all have rules for thee, but not for me.

I don't agree with this at all. There is a distinct problem of giving the B1G/SEC structural advantages that are then codified versus them receiving "de facto" advantages.

Right now the CFP is four at-large teams. They have all kinds of criteria that they ignore, but in theory the MAC is as eligible as the SEC in terms of the CFP. The NY6 games had contracted appearances with the G5 receiving an at-large. Whether that conveys a structural advantage or is merely a concession to the open CFP is for you to decide.

The expanded CFP doesn't currently name any conference but instead relies on "Top 5" conference champions. We know who those teams will likely be, but we don't KNOW who they will be. This distinction is critical to understanding how the lower FBS conferences are able to market themselves and have competitive access to the post season. They aren't by rule disqualified even if we know that they will never make the four team playoff. This leaves open the door for possibility and the occasional Utah, TCU, Boise State, UCF, and Cincy.

When you look at the CFP era under a 5-7 or 5-9 model, the Big 10 does better than over the whole CFP/BCS period as they were pretty mediocre from 2000-2009. It was mostly Ohio St. and the 11 dwarves. USC and Oregon did have a relatively good period.

Number of bids in 5-7 (5-9)
Big Ten 37 (42)
SEC 35 (42)
Big 12 19 (22)
ACC 15 (20)
ND 4 (4)
Other 10 (10)

Over the CFP era, the Big 10 varied from 2 to 6 in a 12 team playoff, the SEC from 2 to 5, Big 12 from 1 to 4 and ACC from 1 to 4.

I haven't listened yet, but a 2/2/1/1/1 makes more sense to give the conferences value back.

As someone brought up a couple weeks back:

4@1 + 3@2 P2 QF play-ins (4 slots)
Big 12 CCG (1 slot)
ACC CCG (1 slot)
G5 CCGs (1 slot)

That gives you seven slots. Make the final slot a play-in game on the third Friday that includes highest remaining seeds and ND. No NFL conflicts. CCGs are incorporated into the playoffs. 1 seed losers have another shot to play themselves back in the third Friday.

It's pretty obvious what is going on at this point. The SEC/Big 10 are approaching the end game and the compromises will just force FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc to choose their path sooner than they'd probably like. The thinking here seems to be that FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc moving is a side effect. In reality that's the entire objective.

(03-12-2024 05:46 AM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Deal will not get done. Big and SEC will do own playoff. Until the big poaches everyone.

If I were the G5, I would join forces with the Big 12 and ACC to fight against the P2. The Big 12 and ACC will give them carrots. Does anybody really cares about watching a game that have Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Kentucky, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, etc?

Big 10 only have Oregon, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State that have been consistent on winning for the last 10 years. Nobody else.
SEC only have Alabama and Georgia being consistent. Not even Texas and Oklahoma was winning.

The 2 conferences breaking away does not make good football without the rest of the schools. There are schools outside of the P2 that can brings ratings as well.

Boise State vs any of the P2 still can bring in the ratings. Even if they are down right now, they are still winning, and they still have the SOS to be like a P2 team since they could beat a lot of teams in the Big 10 right now. They almost beat UCLA in the bowl game.

(03-12-2024 11:23 AM)b2b Wrote:  The SEC/Big 10 are approaching the end game and the compromises will just force FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc to choose their path sooner than they'd probably like.

So ... FSU (at least) isn't in a hurry to leave the ACC?

(03-12-2024 11:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I haven't listened yet, but a 2/2/1/1/1 makes more sense to give the conferences value back.

As someone brought up a couple weeks back:

4@1 + 3@2 P2 QF play-ins (4 slots)
Big 12 CCG (1 slot)
ACC CCG (1 slot)
G5 CCGs (1 slot)

That gives you seven slots. Make the final slot a play-in game on the third Friday that includes highest remaining seeds and ND. No NFL conflicts. CCGs are incorporated into the playoffs. 1 seed losers have another shot to play themselves back in the third Friday.

Neither interview mentioned any format favorites. Just mentioned the 3 formats as the breakaways for now as they focus on financial distributions and the media deal.

Also worth nothing since I think you've said you've listed to Flugaur in the past that he was hearing the B1G was willing to take a lower (smaller gap) distribution for the 4th autobid. Doesn't mean it'll happen though.

I'm honestly open to the ladder bracket with 16 teams if they ditch CCGs. Go with 4/4/2/2/1+3 and offer the 5 champs at least a bye, but maybe not necessarily a home game (if a champ is ranked 12th or worse, that champ gets a bye as a 12 seed, plays @ 5th seed). Could be too much for KISS though, but 3 rounds of campus games would be fantastic before a Sugar and Rose bowl semis, but could make QFs on New Years if CFP had to avoid 3rd weekend of Dec. and/or wanted QFs on New Years, but 5 weeks is a lot of time off for top 4 teams or even for quarterfinals in a 16 team straight bracket.

(03-12-2024 12:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 05:46 AM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Deal will not get done. Big and SEC will do own playoff. Until the big poaches everyone.

If I were the G5, I would join forces with the Big 12 and ACC to fight against the P2. The Big 12 and ACC will give them carrots. Does anybody really cares about watching a game that have Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Kentucky, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, etc?

Big 10 only have Oregon, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State that have been consistent on winning for the last 10 years. Nobody else.
SEC only have Alabama and Georgia being consistent. Not even Texas and Oklahoma was winning.

The 2 conferences breaking away does not make good football without the rest of the schools. There are schools outside of the P2 that can brings ratings as well.

Boise State vs any of the P2 still can bring in the ratings. Even if they are down right now, they are still winning, and they still have the SOS to be like a P2 team since they could beat a lot of teams in the Big 10 right now. They almost beat UCLA in the bowl game.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that many, perhaps most of the M2 either wants to join the P2 in the future, or they want to continue to reap the benefits of P4 association. Picking a fight with the biggest bullies on the block is unlikely to increase their odds of either of those things. I suppose SMU or Wake Forest might be interested in some sort of loose alliance with the g5, but they won't get anywhere if Clemson and TCU are more interested in polishing their resumes and sending them to Sankey and Petitti.

(03-12-2024 01:35 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 11:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I haven't listened yet, but a 2/2/1/1/1 makes more sense to give the conferences value back.

As someone brought up a couple weeks back:

4@1 + 3@2 P2 QF play-ins (4 slots)
Big 12 CCG (1 slot)
ACC CCG (1 slot)
G5 CCGs (1 slot)

That gives you seven slots. Make the final slot a play-in game on the third Friday that includes highest remaining seeds and ND. No NFL conflicts. CCGs are incorporated into the playoffs. 1 seed losers have another shot to play themselves back in the third Friday.

Neither interview mentioned any format favorites. Just mentioned the 3 formats as the breakaways for now as they focus on financial distributions and the media deal.

Also worth nothing since I think you've said you've listed to Flugaur in the past that he was hearing the B1G was willing to take a lower (smaller gap) distribution for the 4th autobid. Doesn't mean it'll happen though.

I'm honestly open to the ladder bracket with 16 teams if they ditch CCGs. Go with 4/4/2/2/1+3 and offer the 5 champs at least a bye, but maybe not necessarily a home game (if a champ is ranked 12th or worse, that champ gets a bye as a 12 seed, plays @ 5th seed). Could be too much for KISS though, but 3 rounds of campus games would be fantastic before a Sugar and Rose bowl semis, but could make QFs on New Years if CFP had to avoid 3rd weekend of Dec. and/or wanted QFs on New Years, but 5 weeks is a lot of time off for top 4 teams or even for quarterfinals in a 16 team straight bracket.

Sounds like the 3/3/2/2/1/3 is dead. Its being discussed, but the SEC and Big 10 (and ACC and Big 12) don't want the CCGs killed. The SEC and Big 10 would probably lose a few bids to ACC and Big 12 teams. They are probably proposing it as a carrot to get more autobids and more money relative to the ACC/Big 12. The 2/2/1/1/1/5 doesn't really offer anyone anything. The SEC and Big 10 always got at least two schools during the CFP era. So it is just a status thing for the P2 to throw in the M2's face. While at the same time, it threatens the value of the CCGs.

So I think we end up with a 5/9.

As for money, I haven't heard any pushback on the G5 and ND share. So it looks like it will end up somewhere between a 29/29/16/16/9 (G)/1 (ND) and a 25/25/20/20/9/1. The 25/25/20/20 split would probably give the SEC and Big 10 the differential ($65 million) they could get keeping a revised set of contract bowls and a 4 team playoff, so it seems unrealistic for the Big 12 and ACC to push for anything better than that.

Changes to the conferences since the 4 team playoff was started and the even money split was negotiated:
ACC-added Cal, Stanford and SMU
Big 12-added Utah, Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, BYU, UCF, Cincinnati, Houston and lost Texas and Oklahoma
SEC-added Texas and Oklahoma
Big 10-added USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington
G5-lost UCF, Cincinnati, Houston and SMU and added ODU, App. St., GA Southern, Coastal Carolina, JMU, Charlotte, UAB (returned), Liberty, Jacksonville St., Sam Houston, Kennesaw St., Delaware

(03-11-2024 07:48 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  -3/3/2/2/1+3, 2/2/1/1/1+7, and 5+9 CFP formats being discussed, but CCGs almost assured will not exist in 1st model in their current form
-CCGs probably will be reevaluated in latter 2 formats
-B1G and SEC would work hard to kept some version of CCGs because of how much it's worth to them
-3rd model (5+9) more likely to keep CCGs around for a little bit longer, but 1st 2 models would have hard time keeping CCGs around any longer

CCGs may not as important as they were this year when CCGs were de facto quarterfinals for the SEC and Big Ten. However, I do not understand the comments that CCGs will be unimportant in the future. With a 14 team playoff, the CCGs are still important because there are two byes at stake. This is especially true for the B1G and SEC, but also for any undefeated Big 12 or ACC team. Also, if the second round games move to campus sites (which I anticipate they will eventually), getting a Top 4 seed is important to host a second round game and CCGs will almost certainly impact that. The Big Ten and SEC have a lot of equity in the CCGs and they will want to maintain that, which is likely a major part of the reason that they are not advocating for a 16 team playoff.