CFP board of managers expected to vote on 5+7 playoff format

NT80 · February 14

This basically eliminates the former PAC12 from consideration. Is this format good for the AAC?

"The College Football Playoff board of managers is expected to vote Feb. 20 on a model that would include the five highest-ranked conference champions and the next seven highest-ranked teams in the 12-team playoff this fall -- a format change that could finally get the unanimous backing it needs if the Pac-12 agrees to it."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39520319/college-football-playoff-board-managers-expected-vote-5-plus-7-format

Edited February 14 by NT80

outoftown · February 14

5 hours ago, NT80 said:

This basically eliminates the former PAC12 from consideration. Is this format good for the AAC?

"The College Football Playoff board of managers is expected to vote Feb. 20 on a model that would include the five highest-ranked conference champions and the next seven highest-ranked teams in the 12-team playoff this fall -- a format change that could finally get the unanimous backing it needs if the Pac-12 agrees to it."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39520319/college-football-playoff-board-managers-expected-vote-5-plus-7-format

Will they (the PAC-12) agree though? If they get a financial recompense maybe I guess? Not so sure. They have little to lose by negotiating hard. For the AAC the best was actually someone else holding up the process, so it isn't the AACs fault, but there would be an extra champions spot under the 6+6 model.

Arkstfan · February 17

If the 6+6 had been in place in 2020 Pac-12 would have been out. The champions of AAC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and Sun Belt were the six highest rated champions.

I want 6+6 to remain but Pac-12 getting a Power 5 share would be a disaster because that fat cut of money increases the odds they can pick off schools from the G5 and create another round of instability. As it stands there's a good chance MWC tells them join or be independent and that's the only options they have.

NT80 · February 17

19 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

I want 6+6 to remain but Pac-12 getting a Power 5 share would be a disaster because that fat cut of money increases the odds they can pick off schools from the G5 and create another round of instability. As it stands there's a good chance MWC tells them join or be independent and that's the only options they have.

What's to keep the MWC from just merging into the PAC to keep that Brand and P5 status?

No different than $mut buying their way into a P5 conference rather than earning it.

El Paso Eagle · February 18

19 hours ago, NT80 said:

What's to keep the MWC from just merging into the PAC to keep that Brand and P5 status?

No different than $mut buying their way into a P5 conference rather than earning it.

I think that the PAC 2 does not want all the Mountain West teams. Not sure why the Mountain West would be bending over to help the pack these next couple years if there was not a guarantee for that to happen

NT80 · February 19

10 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

I think that the PAC 2 does not want all the Mountain West teams. Not sure why the Mountain West would be bending over to help the pack these next couple years if there was not a guarantee for that to happen

The PAC 2 wants to keep their Conference Brand alive, but they want to cherry pick the MWC. The MWC wants to join the PAC but they currently are holding the line at All or None. They have 2 years to get it settled but look for the PAC to remain in the future in some form.

El Paso Eagle · February 19

4 minutes ago, NT80 said:

The PAC 2 wants to keep their Conference Brand alive, but they want to cherry pick the MWC. The MWC wants to join the PAC but they currently are holding the line at All or None. They have 2 years to get it settled but look for the PAC to remain in the future in some form.

In no way do I have any understanding of how the two most irrelevant teams in the PAC seem to be able to continue to carry so much power.

NT80 · February 20

21 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

In no way do I have any understanding of how the two most irrelevant teams in the PAC seem to be able to continue to carry so much power.

It all has to do with the stupid label = P5.

Some schools ($mut) would sell their souls just to get the P5 patch on their uniforms. It's a fake promotion in that case.

NT80 · February 20

CFP unanimously approves 5+7 model for new 12-team playoff

"In most years, the 5+7 format will assure the conference champions from the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC a spot in the playoff, along with the highest-ranked Group of 5 conference champion. The CFP intentionally won't refer to the Group of 5 in its description of the format, though, because there is a chance that a champion from one of the Power 4 conferences finishes ranked below the top champion from the American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, Mountain West, Sun Belt or Mid-American Conference."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39563282/cfp-unanimously-approves-5+7-model-new-12-team-playoff

greenminer · February 20

MeanGreen22 · February 20

On 2/18/2024 at 11:02 PM, NT80 said:

The PAC 2 wants to keep their Conference Brand alive, but they want to cherry pick the MWC. The MWC wants to join the PAC but they currently are holding the line at All or None. They have 2 years to get it settled but look for the PAC to remain in the future in some form.

Just feels like to me the end result is PAC merges with MWC, ACC left overs merge with AAC.

NM Green · February 21

What about the Sun Belt CUSA and MAC? Thats a lot of teams too.

Our basketball league has made me more interested in our football league.

GMG

NT80 · February 21

2 hours ago, MeanGreen22 said:

Just feels like to me the end result is PAC merges with MWC, ACC left overs merge with AAC.

PAC brand > MWC brand.

MWC schools see an easy road to a P5 conference with a merger. However, PAC2 currently wants only the best names in the MWC, not all. MWC leadership is trying to push an all or none merger. Eventually the better programs like Boise, SDSU, etc will split away to the PAC anyway, if there is a reasonable media package being proposed.

MeanGreen22 · February 21

27 minutes ago, NT80 said:

PAC brand > MWC brand.

MWC schools see an easy road to a P5 conference with a merger. However, PAC2 currently wants only the best names in the MWC, not all. MWC leadership is trying to push an all or none merger. Eventually the better programs like Boise, SDSU, etc will split away to the PAC anyway, if there is a reasonable media package being proposed.

Sure but at which point do you run into the Theseus Paradox. When you lose your storied programs and down to 2 teams, how much does history the brand even matter at that point. You’re “PAC” in name but no one will see you that way. That’s the argument ESPN, Fox, Apple, etc are making right now.

NT80 · February 21

57 minutes ago, MeanGreen22 said:

Sure but at which point do you run into the Theseus Paradox. When you lose your storied programs and down to 2 teams, how much does history the brand even matter at that point. You’re “PAC” in name but no one will see you that way. That’s the argument ESPN, Fox, Apple, etc are making right now.

That's correct, and I agree. I would say that it is diluted beyond P5 status anymore.

Who decides why conferences or programs are P5 in the first place? It's an arbitrary term. The Big12 expanded to offer four G5 programs. But there are no benchmarks to meet other than an invite. And now schools like Smut are simply buying their way in, which taints the quality even more.

El Paso Eagle · February 21

Just wondering ..... If the PAC 2 were to get an invite from the Big 12, would they turn it down to preserve the PAC?

UNTLifer · February 21

12 minutes ago, NM Green said:

No way they preserve the PAC. Oregon state is playing Texas tech in baseball today and there are quite a few Oregon state beavers here. They drove in from Waco near Oklahoma…they fit the big 12 nicely. Fresh stadium solid football - kind of crazy they haven’t got the call yet.

jerry scratching my head GIF by HULU

NT80 · February 22

As expected, the SEC and Big10 are already getting greedy...

CFP officials discuss expanding to 14-team playoff in 2026

"Officials will still need to discuss how a 14-team playoff would split up automatic qualifiers -- for example, could the Big Ten and SEC get as many as four automatic bids? Those early discussions were had Wednesday, with no definitive conclusions....

Everything, of course, boils down to finances. The Big Ten and SEC have made it clear the next contract will be more financially favorable than the current one, where 80% of the money is split evenly among the Power 5 leagues. Now there's four power conferences, and the Big Ten and SEC have a combined 34 teams...

There has been a push, especially from the Big Ten, for an increase in automatic qualifiers for the CFP. Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti has made clear that he values the regular season and believes that increasing automatic qualifier spots could assure that late season games have higher stakes."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39572477/cfp-officials-discuss-expanding-14-team-playoff-2026

Edited February 22 by NT80

Arkstfan · February 24

So we went from G5 and P2 fighting to preserve 6+6 to approving 5+7 for 2024 and 2025 and talk of going to 14 or 16 for 2026 the contract that will be bid on by multiple companies. Think you can expect 6+8 or less likely 7+7 for a 14 team playoff and 7+9 or less likely 8+8 for a 16 team format.

In a nutshell, SEC and B1G are selling to the rest that the contract for 2026 and future will have real bidding and will be a blockbuster and they can “afford” to invite more conference champions but they need at-large slots so a couple teams don’t suck the spots up every year increasing disparity in their own ranks

outoftown · February 24

5 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

So we went from G5 and P2 fighting to preserve 6+6 to approving 5+7 for 2024 and 2025 and talk of going to 14 or 16 for 2026 the contract that will be bid on by multiple companies. Think you can expect 6+8 or less likely 7+7 for a 14 team playoff and 7+9 or less likely 8+8 for a 16 team format.

In a nutshell, SEC and B1G are selling to the rest that the contract for 2026 and future will have real bidding and will be a blockbuster and they can “afford” to invite more conference champions but they need at-large slots so a couple teams don’t suck the spots up every year increasing disparity in their own ranks

thats optimistic. I feel a 14 team will be 5+9 or in a good case 6+8, while a 16 team playoff will be 6+10 or if lucky 7+9

Arkstfan · February 24

2 hours ago, outoftown said:

thats optimistic. I feel a 14 team will be 5+9 or in a good case 6+8, while a 16 team playoff will be 6+10 or if lucky 7+9

They go in the meeting supposedly with enough 6+6 votes to make it a nasty fight and come out with 5+7 and completely out of the blue are talking about adding two or four teams to the field for 2026.

NT80 · February 24

1 hour ago, Arkstfan said:

They go in the meeting supposedly with enough 6+6 votes to make it a nasty fight and come out with 5+7 and completely out of the blue are talking about adding two or four teams to the field for 2026.

The SEC and Big10 fear a 1-loss Tulane and/or 1-loss App State both getting an at-large CFP spot over a 3-loss SEC or Big10 team. They want more at-large spots for their 3-4 place teams.

greenminer · February 24

10 minutes ago, NT80 said:

The SEC and Big10 fear a 1-loss Tulane and/or 1-loss App State both getting an at-large CFP spot over a 3-loss SEC or Big10 team. They want more at-large spots for their 3-4 place teams.

I feel like this is a toss up. If the at-large is REALLY GOOD, it could steal their thunder and take an actual title.

If we're talking about a 1-loss at-large team that is overmatched against a powerful Georgia team, the SEC/B10 will laugh and welcome it. They can say "look, the system works! The little guys get a chance" while still easily taking a title, tons of money, and increasing the gap.

Having a shot at the title is what everyone wants to talk about, but the real problem we want to address is the gap between the haves and have-nots.

Edited February 24 by greenminer