cburgroop

...and having the division winners automatically advance. This would be possible with a larger playoff, while also still allowing for several at-large bids.

...for the reasons cited in my original post. I don't feel UNC is a premier opponent for ND either. I only mentioned them along with Clemson and FSU because they are mentioned as some of the most likely defectors. If ND wanted to continue to play any of the defectors, they could, while still keeping a five-game ACC slate. I have no doubt that ND could easily find 12 opponents willing to play them. The challenge is for their opponents in trying to shoehorn a game vs ND into October and November when they have conference obligations those months.

I know some people would choose a 4, 6, or 8 team format or even a return to the BCS, but we all know contraction won't happen. Just curious to see what everyone else's preference is--the current format, or something else. I'm actually fine with what we have now, although I hate the conference championship games because they potentially allow idle teams on that weekend to leapfrog teams who have to play in them. Likewise, if both teams are squarely in the playoff going into a CCG (like Ohio St and Indiana last year) the game means virtually nothing. My ideal format would be: 1) Keep the playoff at 12 teams 2) Give automatic bids (but not guaranteed byes) to at least the P4 regular season champions + possibly the next 1 or 2 highest-ranked non-champs (meaning 4-6 total auto bids). This gives more meaning to winning the conference and/or having a strong overall regular season. 3) Replace the conference championship games with play-in games at the sites of the former conference championship games + additional new sites as needed for the final 6-8 spots. One game would match the top two G6 conference champs. The auto-bid teams mentioned in #2 would of course be idle that weekend. 4) Seeds and bracket are determined following the play-in games 5) The above is essentially an 18, 19 or 20 team playoff depending on how many auto bids there are. I am opposed to the 24 team playoff if it is formatted into a standard 24-team bracket. I think it would be interesting, though, if it were something outside the box, like if all 24 teams were in action on the former conference championship weekend (call it Survival Saturday), with the survivors re-seeded afterward into the standard 12-team bracket. This could also allow for multiple intra-conference matchups to help alleviate the loss of the conference championship games.

One of the reasons ND moved from the BE to the ACC to begin with was to benefit its Olympic Sports. I agree that the current BE might arguably be preferential for men's basketball as opposed to a future watered-down ACC; however, the ACC sponsors more sports than the BE (28 to 22 I think), not to mention that the ACC is a stronger league overall (even with potential defections) in most of the sports that both conferences offer. Negotiating a 12-game independent football schedule every year is a HUGE headache, even for a Notre Dame. Finding 12 opponents willing to play them is not an issue, but finding opponents ABLE to play them in October and November during the middle of a conference schedule is. The current 5 game ACC rotation, even if it's a bit weaker with defections, still allows ND plenty of flexibility to where it can beef up the rest of the schedule if it chooses to do so. ND usually only draws 1 or 2 of the premier ACC football programs annually as it is now. It could still potentially opt to play a Clemson, FSU, UNC or other P4 programs while still playing a 5-game ACC slate of say, Cal, SMU, GT, BC and Pitt. ** Edited by cburgroop at 7/28/2026, 10:59:30 AM

I suppose there is some benefit to keeping them in a 14 team format because the top two ranked CCG winners could get the two byes. Personally I would like to see the playoff stay in the current 12 team format with the following changes. 1) No conference championship games 2) P4 regular season champs + highest ranked non champ automatically advance to playoff (5 spots) 3) Play in game between the top two G5 conference champs for spot #6 4) Six play-in games on what used to be conference championship weekend for the final 6 spots. Play them at the sites of the old conference championship games plus two additional sites. 5) Seeding of the 12 teams is determined after the play in games are completed. Essentially this would be a 19 team playoff -- 5 auto bids plus 14 play-in participants. It also heavily weights conference championships and /or a great regular season for the at-large.

As it stands now, the first round is one game on Friday followed by a tripleheader Saturday with games at 12, 4 and 8 EST. Would they try to cram two games into Friday? Or would they dare venturing into Thursday and competing directly against the NFL on yet another date? Of course they could stagger the start times with games overlapping a la the NCAA BB tourney. That would be a headache in negotiations though.

If one or more of Campbell at PSU, Fitzgerald at MSU or Whittingham at UM (or if Wisconsin or USC can ever put together a good run again), The Big 10 will be in contention for 4 or 5 spots in a 16-team field. It has a lot of capable programs and in an 18-team conference where you don't play half the league annually, somebody is bound to benefit from a favorable schedule and get in based on record and conference affiliation alone.

The Big 12's problem is that it has no current members with any sustained football success on the national level. Yes, there are one-off's like TCU's NCG appearance (the B12's lone CFP win since it started) and BYU's 84 championship, but not much outside that. Say what you want about the ACC, but it has three schools (Clemson, Florida State, and Miami) that have been powerhouses over a multi-year period. If any of those three have, say, two losses in a CFP at-large discussion vs a two-loss Big 12 school, they're likely to get the edge based simply on brand. I actually like the Big 12 in that there are no clear "have-not" programs ; anyone can move up the ladder relatively quickly. But the insecurity of their YouTube community is comical - constantly trying to down the ACC and openly rooting for its demise as if somehow they can shape perception to put their conference into the #3 spot nationally behind the SEC and B1G.

Let the top 4 regular season conference champions, plus maybe the next one or two highest ranked non-champions automatically advance to the playoff and bypass the play-in games to reward a good regular season. Use the sites of the current championship games to host the play-in games, ideally with a "local" team (or teams) from the old affiliated conference. For instance, the Atlanta game would feature at least one (or maybe even two) SEC teams. Same with Charlotte, Dallas, etc. I would much rather see this Saturday's games all be 100% "Win or go home" scenarios rather than just playing for seeding.

With the first two digits of each transposed

To me that's difficult to determine because there's so much parity in the Big 12. No one really stands out either way. This is not a dig on the conference, because you could make a pretty good case for any of the 16 to make the cut for different reasons. The ACC is a bit different as the more obvious "left-outs" would be Wake, BC and Syracuse. Pitt, Duke, Stanford and Cal would be next out IMO but one could make a solid case for any of those four. IMO, SMU would make the cut if the top ACC programs were to branch off and form a new league although that might change in a merger situation with other Texas schools coming in.

While I agree in theory that refusing to schedule the P2 *might* give the remaining leagues some leverage, you would need nearly everyone outside the P2 to agree to it in unison. Good luck with that. Do you think Clemson would agree to stop playing South Carolina ? FSU would stop playing UF? GT would refuse to play UGa,? What if the state legislatures get involved and dictate they all continue to play? It would also be pretty easy for the P2 to break the union, so to speak, by offering more money to the G6's to come play them. ACC and Big 12 won't play us? Fine, we'll just bump up the payouts to the MAC and Sun Belt schools to entice them instead. Not to mention the P2 could just agree to schedule more games against each other.

First, guarantee each P4 champ a #8 seed or better which would yield a first--round home game. This would add more significance to the outcome of the conference championship game. Second, have the 6 regular season G6 champs face each other on play-in weekend with the two highest-ranked among the three winners moving on to the playoff. This would require the G6 leagues to abandon their conference title games but would potentially allow each G6 conference more access to the playoff. One question...would your play-in games on home fields or neutral sites ?

I just think the 4-4-2-2-1-1 is the best format that both benefits the ACC / VT and that is most likely to be agreed upon by everyone involved. Maybe someone has already done the research, but it would be interesting to see how each of the different proposed playoff formats would have looked retroactively over the past 10 or 15 years. In other words, how many ACC teams would have made the playoff annually under each format. Of course, realignment and existence or lack of divisions prevent it from being a "true" representation but it would be interesting regardless.

Lets say the ACC gets two auto-bids and allows the regular season champ one bid with a play-in between #2 and #3 to determine the other. At least there is a clear road to the playoff. No more being at the mercy of the CFP committee coming back with "well, Alabama is 8-4 but they've played a tougher schedule than 10-3 Miami , so Alabama gets in". I would rather a 2-bid ACC allow the regular season champ to bypass the play-in game because the regular season needs to hold more weight IMO. That being said I would also be okay with 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 if it helps exposure and money wise. I wonder if the ACC and Big 12 might be willing to agree on the SEC and Big 10 getting four bids each in return for the one at large bid (in a 14 team playoff) being guaranteed between the ACC, Big 12 and Notre Dame ? ** Edited by cburgroop at 5/28/2025, 1:14:19 PM

First off, I'm with you in that the conference championship games should be eliminated completely if the playoff expands past 12 (and arguably even at 12). I just can't see the conferences and networks foregoing the revenue from that weekend. In the "guaranteed bids" format, any At-Large bids (whether it be 1 or 3) should be determined at the end of the regular season. Those at-large teams should then be exempt from the play-in games so the play-in weekend is 100% win or go home. No more losing on that weekend and still making the playoffs. This also ensures that if Notre Dame isn't ranked high enough to secure one of the At-Larges at the end of the regular season, then they should be playing for survival on play-in weekend like the rest. If a conference has an at-large team selected, then that could vacate a spot in that conference's play-in game(s) to be filled by ND or the next highest ranked team in that conference.

They should be for multiple reasons : If the play-in games on what is now conference championship weekend become a reality, then no teams playing that weekend should be able to lose and still make the playoff. That should be a "win or go home" weekend for everyone involved. If the #3 SEC gets upset by the #6 SEC in the play-in ...tough.. you're out. No backing in with an at-large selection. Second, Notre Dame should not be able to "skip" the play-in weekend unless they are ranked among the top 5 or 6 teams in the country. Otherwise they should have to earn their way in by winning a play in game like most of the rest of the field. ** Edited by cburgroop at 5/19/2025, 1:30:11 PM

According to the ESPN article.

They should stipulate that all the top 4 conference champs are seeded no lower than 8th, guaranteeing each at least a first round home game. Winning a conference championship should hold SOME value over being the third or fourth place team from the B1G or SEC. It would probably never happen, but I would even be okay with all five champs being guaranteed a top 8 seed. We might actually see some first round upsets.

This rekindles a lot of old rivalries previously lost to conference realignment, plus allows for more regional matchups. This alignment assumes no change in the current 18 ACC and 11 BE teams. The East Division would have 9 teams, subdivided into groups of 3. The South and West, with 10 each, are grouped into five rivalry "groups" each. The schedule could be arranged to where each team also plays additional non-group teams in its division home and home on a rotating basis. For example, UConn would play BC and Providence twice annually and also play, say Syracuse and Georgetown twice one year, then St. John's and Pitt twice the next, and so on. EAST DIVISION (9): Group 1) UConn, Boston College, Providence Group 2) Syracuse, St John's, Seton Hall Group 3) Georgetown, Villanova, Pitt SOUTH DIVISION (10): 1) VA Tech, UVa 2) UNC, Duke 3) Wake Forest, NC State 4) Clemson, GA Tech 5) Miami, Florida State VT would play UVa twice every year, then play every other South team AT LEAST once annually. A second game against some of the other division teams could be scheduled either on a permanent or rotating basis. For instance, VT might play UNC and Clemson twice in a given year. WEST DIVISION (10): 1) Louisville, Xavier 2) Marquette, DePaul 3) Notre Dame, Butler 4) Stanford, Cal 5) SMU, Creighton Both leagues currently play 20 conference games, but a merger could potentially increase that even further, with so many cross-regional matchups available between teams from different divisions.

I think the P2 would oppose it, accusing the current ACC and B12 members of trying to "steal" an extra automatic CFP bid for their members. True or not, that's how I think they would spin it. In reality if there are still 5 auto-bids it just lessens the chance of the G5 getting one. Essentially the third league would end up being mostly former Pac 12 schools with a few new teams (BYU, etc) sprinkled in

I see no way the ACC schools make any more $ partnering with the BE. With the B12 at least you get some slightly better football matchups AND the B12 is also a better BB conference than the BE. I've always felt that if the ACC fell apart and Wake, BC, Cuse (plus maybe Duke and Pitt) got left behind, they could add UConn, Temple and maybe 1 or 2 other FBS football schools and then round out the league by absorbing some of the BE schools for BB / Olympic sports. ** Edited by cburgroop at 2/10/2025, 4:48:33 PM

The biggest problem with a merger IMO is that in football, you're taking two conferences with essentially two automatic bids each and reducing said bid down to one. Problem #2 is that the conference becomes so big that it becomes difficult to rotate opponents AND maintain current rivalries to where it still feels like a conference. One thing that MIGHT work is if two conferences pooled their TV rights together while maintaining separate leagues. Then arrange it to where most of your non-conference games are against your partner conference. Like maybe doing 18 league games for basketball and 6 or 8 vs the other conference. Same for football .. Have 3 of 4 of your non-league games vs your partner conference. I'm not sure how that could be done without total cooperation from the TV networks involved. Bad thing is you run the risk of your good teams beating each other and lessening their chances for an at large NCAAT or CFP bid. It might work in football if each league gets a guaranteed number of CFP spots though.

There are several benefits to these types of games: 1) Long-standing series 2) Both schools fan bases can travel to the away game (or at least State's, since UVA fans have a hard enough time showing up for HOME games...) 3) Better / more exciting matchup than most other potential opponents 4) Keeps the visitor's guarantee money in- conference Im sure ESPN is in favor as well since it adds a decent game to their inventory. Personally I wouldn't mind an occasional VT vs GT / UNC / State / Miami / Louisville non conference matchup if a better one couldn't be arranged.

Just wondering if something like that was a possibility

Let's say the player is promised a $500k deal then blows out his knee in a pre season practice...what then? Which brings up another question...when and how much of the money is paid out? Can the NIL payors say "Nope, you're not getting a dime from us now, you're no good to us anymore?" ??

I know most Hokie fans won't want to hurt the school by not attending or watching games on TV. Perhaps the answer might be for fans to stop watching any college sporting events that do not involve their team (or maybe fellow conference teams)....and make sure the networks are made aware of it. That may not even be enough, but I'm sure lots of viewers, regardless of school affiliation, are going to gradually be turned off by the current situation. I'm to the point now where I think the whole "student athlete" facade needs to go away. Just outright pay the kids to play as university employees or contractors and don't waste the money on paying their tuition unless the kid also WANTS an education ( if a combination model is even doable).

NIL / demand from other schools might not have been much of a factor. I know nothing about his particular situation. He could have been injured, but may also be a bust. Seems odd that 5 - star recruit contributed so little.

Last championship for the Big 10 in : Softball : 2005 Michigan Baseball: 1966 Ohio State Women's BB: 1999 Purdue The only two football championships since 2003: Michigan this year Ohio State 2014 The conference should change its slogan to: The Big Ten: No one does less with more ** Edited by cburgroop at 4/9/2024, 10:55:24 AM

There was lots of talk about possibly firing him following the loss to Oakland. Now UK doesn't have pay him that $33 million buyout they would have owed him had they fired him. Interestingly enough, Arkansas doesn't have to pay UK a buyout either. I've never understood the appeal of Cal. The recruits supposedly want to play for him because he can "get them to the NBA". Those first round draft picks would have made the NBA playing at pretty much anywhere. All that $$ UK and it's bagmen and boosters spent for only one national title. That's one hell of an ROI. ** Edited by cburgroop at 4/8/2024, 7:20:24 AM

Good defender, can play both wing spots and can even play PG in a pinch. He could have essentially played starter's minutes at 25-ish per game coming off the bench, sometimes even more depending on injuries, foul trouble, or matchups. He obviously needed to get more consistent with his jumper but that could be corrected with enough off-season work.

Either as high schoolers or while they were in the portal (Ekh and Micheaux)? Was told this morning before the announcement that the new coach had recruited some of the Tech players, but no specifics.

She may want to take a year or two off, especially after putting up with all the pressure from the UT fanbase. She will get $2.2 million (I think) from her buyout, so she could easily sit out this season and wait for a (perceived) better opportunity. When her firing was announced, my first thought was she was the one Tech would end up with. The timing lined up, as Whit would have had to wait until she was fired first so UT would have to pay the buyout. I'm much less confident of that now, as more time has passed, obviously.

Could that be the reason for the delay? I know Whit said he wants a proven coach but he may not have been able to get any...at least at the terms he is offering ? ** Edited by cburgroop at 4/3/2024, 7:58:50 AM

He will leave here when Lisa Bluder retires (j/k) He does have an impressive record. The only two losing seasons were his first year at Bucknell and first at UR, and even then was only one loss below .500. One negative is that he has never coached (even as an assistant) at a big program. All three of his HC stops have been at private / more selective schools.

Back when Summit was coaching, you basically had only UT and UConn that took women's basketball seriously...and virtually no one else, at least at the level of the those two schools. There is a lot more parity and competition now. UConn is obviously still a great program and Geno is still there but they are nowhere near as dominant as they once were. Tennessee fans shouldn't expect anything close to what they enjoyed under Summit. Especially with Staley and Mulkey in the same league. I admittedly don't know a ton about Harper but think she should warrant serious consideration from Tech. Some people will say "she couldn't win at / got fired from Tennessee", well it's not as easy to win there as it once was.

Not saying she IS, but it might explain Whit not naming a replacement sooner. I had heard rumblings of UT fans wanting her gone after the loss to USC-E in the SEC tournament. Could be that Whit (and Harper for that matter) knew the firing was in the works but couldn't be announced until April 1 when her buyout decreased. I have no inside knowledge at all. It's just interesting how the timing lines up. Of course, as someone else mentioned, Harper may end up at Duke if UT gets Lawson.

I was a little confused as to how the story linked below mentions his contract being 5 years at $5 million yet his salary is only $550k to start, increasing by $25k annually? That doesn't come anywhere near $5 million. WVU is owed 100% of his remaining contract if he leaves before April 30, 2024. Even if that $5 million figure is incorrect, given the current salary x 4 years, his buyout should still be well over $2 million

Everyone heard what Kidd (and probably others from other schools) were getting and decided they don't have anything to lose by testing the waters. Some probably think they can come back if they don't get a better offer, but even if not, worst-case they probably land elsewhere for a similar amount as what they are getting now... especially if Tech's BB NIL deals are really that low.

I just randomly skimmed through a few pages. There may be schools with more. Just insane.

Her head coaching record is impressive: 191-24 at D2 Glenville State 68-4 her final two years with a national title and another final four appearance 26-7 in her first year at MU after starting 2-4 Won Sun Belt w a 17-1 record and won the tourney (Marshall was a .500 team the season before) Her pressure D, run and gun style of play would be attractive to recruits , and to the fans, which will be needed after the letdown from Brooks. Cons: only one year of D1 experience, most recruiting ties are apparently to the Ohio Valley

And didn't even get a foul called for it. The Jax coach, however; got ejected for ripping the officials for the no-call

....saying they deserve more than the guys who never get off the bench? (Referring only to the tournament payout) ** Edited by cburgroop at 3/11/2024, 8:59:59 PM

Then an additional $1 mil for the winner.

We've had multiple sellouts for regular season games. They want full arenas for the $$ plus it looks good for tv.

With there still being at-large spots available outside the 2 or 3 AQs per conference, any additional game between two conference opponents results in an additional loss for a conference team, further decreasing that league’s chances of getting one of the at-large spots. Some team in another conference (or Notre Dame) would slide into that spot by not even playing that weekend. Now if there were no at large spots available 🤔….

..is that the 2nd best team in the regular season in a given conference can make their CCG and lose, only to have another school that was 3rd or 4th (or a Notre Dame) potentially leapfrog them just by sitting at home that weekend. Example: Clemson is 11-1 in the regular season and beats 10-2 Va Tech in the ACCCG. FSU, who also finished 10-2, sneaks into the playoff ahead of now 10-3 VT as do some random 9-3 SEC and Big 10 teams who did not play a 13th game.