the Management Committee for CFP and the Transformation Committeeand Phillips has effectively shut down the CFP discussion of the Management Comm.


Note Item 3 from Feb7/8 in the attached link

"Discussion on Minimum Division I Commitments and Standards. The Transformation
Committee engaged in preliminary discussion regarding possible minimum commitments
and outcomes necessary to be a Division I member and the characteristics that should bind
institutions together in one division. The identification of meaningful minimum standards
of support for student-athletes will be helpful in distinguishing the unique elements of a
Division I experience, and may mitigate some of the legal, political, and public-trust
challenges."


[Post edited by daveinop at 02/23/2022 12:32PM]

we could see some shrinkage in D1, or further definition of the football subdivisions.

but minimum standards is where they "...may [I think, WILL] mitigate some of the legal, political, and public-trust challenges" that get discussed here a lot and that are currently addressed by having no auto qualifiers for the CFP.

severely damaged his credibility with the CFP/UT/OU incident both across the NCAA and within his own conference. People will be watching him very closely and likely challenging his ideas with much greater scrutiny for at least a while.

For anything to pass now requires unanimous vote. In 2025, it does not. And any playoff needs the SEC. alliance can’t just bail on a playoff either because they’d be losing money and handing over recruits to SEC even more. If Alliance really pisses off SEC, watch your members because SEC could just start their own league with whoever else they want. They may have some GOR obstacles but they can name their members and start the countdown clock. May sound ridiculous but so was adding Texas and Oklahoma.

What a disaster college football has become. greed.

[Post edited by Colonel Jessup at 02/23/2022 5:29PM]

the minimum standards for participation in what is now D1, which should start to take shape by August, then it will be appropriate to take another look at revising the CFP.

The current crisis to find a solution is an artificial one fueled by ESPN who wants exclusivity re: the CFP, and the SEC who is trying to leverage "G5" (and ND) interest in long term access to the CFP to free up more spots for SEC participation; there is in fact no real emergency situation that needs a decision right now.

the new standards for what is required to be a DI, DII, or DIII member could be similar to trying to navigate a minefield. I say that because this definition could potentially impact all sports sponsored by each division level. Not just the sports that fans tend to care about. Schools will likely have to be willing to make compromises if they want to achieve some of their desired goals. Will enough of the schools be willing to compromise? Only time will tell how things play out.

is now waiting on the Transformation Committee, as it should. How can you structure a playoff when you don't know who might be eligible?

IMO, Sankey et al tried, at least in part, to get the CFP contract extended ahead of the Transformation work so that the Transformation recommendations might be shaped by a newly minted contract with ESPN. If the current G5 would have access now, it would be difficult to exclude them later if the NCAA changes its D1 qualifications. That would in fact trigger the lawsuits you have mentioned before. And leaving the door open to a worthy G5 entry would also open the door for more SEC teams. So it was pretty easy to line up the G5's, ND, and the SEC on that front.

As you point out; change, if any, is TBD; and significant moves may be controversial. But it would be subject to a broad vote and not just the Mgt Committee cutting a deal. And they don't have to get everyone on board. This isn't a one vote veto scenario.

On this board we have long discussed homes for schools in power conferences. 65? 80?. We've talked about superconferences. We've talked about breakaways. Whatever does or does not come out of the Transformation group will hopefully facilitate those kinds of decisions. The co-chairs of that group have put that expectation out there in black and white.

[Post edited by daveinop at 02/26/2022 09:39AM]

impact that decision would have on all the other sports sponsored by DI. Specifically I am referring to all the non-revenue sports especially the ones that the power conferences are depended upon the G5s/mid-majors/DII/DIII schools to have enough participating teams in order to hold a national championship tournament at the end of the season. If the power conferences try to exclude them from football and basketball, but include them for the non-revenue sports, then you can bet the rest of the NCAA schools will balk at that proposal unless the power conferences are willing to give up something in return (i.e. a cut of the money generated from the 2 revenue sports). The power conferences won't agree to that because the only reason they want to exclude the rest of the group from those sports is so they don't have to share the money that is being generated by those sports.

So yes, it is possible to form the new playoff structure to be created before the criteria is defined. If the Playoff is going to be 8, 12, 16, 24, or even 32 teams and all the spots are at-large bids, then there is no reason to wait on the finalization of the DI criteria.

Read their charge and their Jan-Feb minutes

The rest of the current DI, DII, and DIII schools on the Committee were NEVER going to support the proposal because it wasn't in their best financial interest. They knew if they supported this proposal then it would me losing out on the football and/or basketball money that they currently receive now. Remember the DII and DIII schools receive a portion of the money generated from the NCAA DI Basketball Tournaments under the current structure.

Even you would have to agree that if the roles were reversed, then VT wouldn't be willing to give up the money it receives in football and/or basketball under the current structure for nothing in return. If VT isn't willing to do it, then why expect all the other NCAA members to agree to do it?

what is the "it" you are referring to?

The "it" I was referring to is deciding on a revised CFP prior to Transformation Committee taking action. I agreed with your premise that at one time it was possible, but the recent collapse of that effort (as evidenced by the recent news and Sankey's statement re: SEC reevaluating) has put an end to that. The Management Committee will now wait on the Transformation Committee, i.e., my cart/horse analogy. And the Transformation Committee is only working on D1.

possible for the playoffs to be finalized prior to the Transformation Committee taking action. And what I have been saying and saying for the final time is it was never possible because both sides have competing interests. In order for something to have passed, it would have required both sides to reach a compromise which neither side was willing to do because neither side was willing to give the other side some or all of their demands in order to pass something.

To put it another way, all these things below have a higher percentage of occurring before the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame unanimously agreeing on the new format before the Transformation Committee started its project.

1. Hell freezing over.
2. UVA-Wise, a DII school, beating VT in football.
3. VT winning a national championship in football, men's basketball, and women's basketball in the same fiscal year.
4. VT expanding the capacity of Lane Stadium to at least 80k in the next 10 years.
5. VT starting a varsity men's and women's ice hockey team in the next 20 years.

There were 2 main proposals that the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame considered during their meeting(s).

Proposal 1: 5+1 Model
It has been well established that the 5+1 Model stated that the 5 power conference champions would receive an automatic bid to the FBS Playoffs and only the highest ranked G5 champion among the 5 G5 conferences. This model was considered for both the 8-team playoffs and 12-team playoffs.

Supported the proposal: The 5 power conferences and Notre Dame

Reason(s) for the support: It would allow most or all of the money to remain with the power conferences.

Rejected the proposal: The 5 G5 conferences

Reason(s) for the rejection: It would increase the unfair competitive advantage that the 5 power conferences currently have because the power conferences would no longer have any incentive for its champion to finish ranked in the Top 10 in order to make the FBS Playoffs. An unranked P5 champion would still make it under this proposal. Also, all 5 G5 champions could finished ranked ahead of all 5 P5 champions, but yet only 1 G5 champion would receive the automatic bid. Second, it would increase the uneven distribution of the money generated from the FBS Playoffs. Remember all 10 FBS conference and Notre Dame are currently equal owners of the FBS Playoffs.

Basically what I am saying is that this proposal was DOA even before someone brought it to the floor for a vote. This proposal had as much chance of passing as if someone proposed another version of the 5+1 where the 5 G5 conferences received automatic bids and only the highest ranked power conference champion received an automatic bid. If that proposal was brought to the floor, then you would see the following:

Supported it: The 5 G5 conferences
Rejected it: The 5 power conferences and Notre Dame

It is even possible the 2 sides would have the same or similar reasons as I stated above.

Proposal 2: Top 6 conference champions, regardless of affiliation, receiving automatic bids

Supported the proposal: The 5 G5 conferences and some of the power conferences. Note: it isn't clear if "some" means 2 or 3 power conferences. I know the ACC is on the record giving its support for this proposal, but I have not been able to confirm the Big XII's and Pac-12's position on this proposal.

Reason(s) for the support: It is probably the most fair thing to do and a reasonable compromise since no group is given a perceived unfair advantage at the start of the season. Also, it gives the G5s an opportunity to receive multiple bids regardless if the format is 8 or 12 teams.

Rejected the proposal: The Big Ten and the SEC

Reason(s) for the rejection: The Big Ten and I think SEC are only willing to support the 5+1 Proposal. They don't want to share as much of the money with the G5 conferences as they do under the current plan. Also, they want to reduce the opportunity of the G5 conferences to receive multiple bids because that increases their opportunity to receive multiple bids.

Note: I don't believe Notre Dame has publicly stated whether it supports or rejects Proposal 2.

Based on the percentages, Proposal 2 has a better chance of passing assuming the Big Ten, SEC, and anyone else who rejects this proposal can be persuaded to change their position. Unfortunately, I think the odds of that happening is less than 50%. Maybe even 25% since the Big Ten has already drawn its line in the sand and really dug in on its position unless the G5s are willing to give up quite a lot (i.e. most or all of the money received from the FBS Playoffs and/or NCAA Basketball Tournaments). The SEC has taken a similar position as the Big Ten, but not quite as vocal about it in the media. Hence why the meetings ended because of the stalemate.

If you still don't understand what I am saying after this lengthy and detailed post, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Our entire discussion in the 1/3- to 2/1 timeframe was based on:

YOUR premise that the NCAA would adopt a playoff structure that would be challenged in court and MY premise that they wouldn't adopt anything until after the Transformation Committee acted.

But that aside and hopefully under the bridge, the only thing I'd point out regarding your concerns re: the other Divisions is that the Transformation Committee involves only D1, and whether they do anything significant or not, one of their charges is to put the NCAA on firmer legal ground. Hopefully they will be successful.

could decide at any time that they are determined to implement the 5+1 model even if it means doing it without the support of the G5s. All it would take is to dissolve the College Football Playoffs, LLC, which they co-own with the G5s, and announce they are going to do their own thing going forward. It really doesn't matter whether they did it before or after the Committee did its thing because the 5+1 model is likely a violation of antitrust laws unless the G5s agree to support it. Even if the P5s decide to hold their own playoffs, then that likely violates antitrust laws too as long as the G5s are affiliated with the DI-FBS subdivision.

As I noted in another post, it is very unlikely the Committee will decide that DI will just be the power conference schools and Notre Dame because of the impact it will have on all the other sports currently sponsored at the DI level. If the P5s want to avoid working with the G5s in football, then their only hope is that the Committee decides to merge the G5s and DI-FCS schools under the DI-FCS subdivision. Even that decision will likely result in lawsuits very similar to what happened when the DI schools decided to create the DI-A and DI-AA subdivisions in football. Some schools, who were being forced into the DI-AA subdivision against their will, sued the NCAA which didn't get settled until the mid to late 1980s.

and it is only a guess, is that they'll avoid structural discussions until they arrive at standards/guidelines for monetary support for athletes. If they truly want a comparable athletic experience across D1 and broad competition for their championships, then those sideboards are going to have to be substantive. But finances across that same landscape are highly variable. If the current P5 contingent on the TC (11 incl co-chair), pushes for a level higher than the lower level contingent (9 incl co-chair) can tolerate, then that could be the first indicator of a split. And what I don't think they'll be able to do in any circumstance, is set different standards for different sports; not to mention Title IX isn't changing.

I agree that they probably won't be able to set different standards for each sport especially since Title IX will probably always be the elephant in the room. If there is a split, then I hope the power conference schools are prepared for all the consequences vs. only looking at the issue on how it impacts basketball and football.

the SEC holds a lot of cards, however, whether it is the most or as strong as before, largely depends on what happens going forward. To move CFP now required unanimity, however, going forward it still requires a majority vote. If the SEC and any combination of P5 conferences cannot convince enough of the remainder to go along the only option will be a split off and that, in all probability, blows up the golden goose known as March Madness. The dynamics have changed but, at the end of the day it is still about money and slicing the revenue pie. Yes, the SEC could try and go it alone or solicit a few more to join but, there are a host of other unknowns and potential complications with that alternative. You're right that it is a mess due in no small part to greed but, Greg Sankey prematurely overplayed his hand, with a little help from Texas A&M and to quote Denzel Washington from the Equalizer, "sometimes when you pray for rain you have to be prepared to deal with the mud." Sankey's challenge now is to not let that mud become quicksand.
[Post edited by 2hhoop3 at 02/23/2022 6:21PM]

If the B10 joins the SEC, then the both of them together can almost do what they want with the playoffs. No one will have much power to stop it.

But if the B10 sticks with the Alliance, then I think the Alliance has more cards than the SEC. If the Alliance gets the B12, too, it should be able to almost dictate the structure of the playoffs.

changes with the way votes are tabulated then majority still controls and the Big 10 is one vote. This is why I said a breakaway may be necessary. From where I sit you have a few questions to answer and when answered that will tell you where things are headed. Right now, the shared revenue pie is football playoff revenue and NCAA basketball tournament revenue. The expansion of football playoff revenue, both in $$ amounts and bids, revolves around the format and the question is access(guaranteed bids). Right now the SEC is angling for expansion with no limit on teams from a single league. The only other conference that benefits from that is possibly the Big 10 and obviously ND thinks it assures them a berth. G5 and the rest of the P5 are fine with expansion BUT, they want guaranteed access to a playoff spot. The wildcard is the total amount of money and how divided. How much would the P5 be willing to sweeten the money to G5 to get their vote and how much money would it take for G5 to loosen their access demands? The dance is negotiating money for access as, without a breakaway, it is unlikely the P5 can control enough votes to pass preferred format from a P5 perspective. If a breakaway were to occur, then all hell breaks loose in determining the future of the basketball piece of the pie.

by that decision. Most likely all the sports will be impacted by it. Hence why I have been saying that the power conferences better be darn sure they are prepared for that potential consequence before they decide to push that shiny red button.

[Post edited by VTHokie2000 at 02/26/2022 11:30PM]

over has certainly made the other commissioners not trust him at all. They will all poach schools, but he had a major conflict of interest going on there.

you might need to take a look in the mirror.

several decades was the Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC announcement. Bigger than any of the previous expansions. Bigger than NIL. Bigger than CFP expansion, etc.

And the move to me was almost exclusively negative to most parties (especially the remaining BigXII). It was also done, in conjunction the CFP-12 scheme, in an underhanded way.

It's a brinksmanship era for everyone now after the OU/UT and the SEC did what they did.

[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 02/23/2022 11:23AM]

With 8 the SEC would only get two teams in at the most. That is no different than the current 4 team setup. So there is no benefit to them as it only helps the other P5 conferences.

But with 16 that could mean 3-4 teams from a single conference make the playoff. That is a huge money carrot for the SEC and the other conferences. It would require some schedule adjustment to maybe remove a regular season game, but I’m sure the money would be worth it.

And with 16, the regular season becomes more interesting. Teams would no longer be out of the hunt after one loss. It would become more NFL like with the wild card hunt.

But in the end it is about money and 16 would bring much more money than just an 8 team playoff (assuming 12 is not happening).

ND’s the one that probably doesn’t like 8, but they are choosing not to be a part of a Conference, so that’s on them.

*If they go to 6 Conference Champions and 2 at large.

[Post edited by Stech at 02/23/2022 05:39AM]

that adds undeserving teams and leaves out deserving teams is comical at best and will further the harm to a sport that most of us love. These ideas are more like a tournament than a playoff.

We need more churn in the playoffs, like conference championship losers should be removed from consideration (removing Alabama from this year's playoffs), and no non-division winners should be considered (also Alabama from 5 or so years ago, IIRC). I don't care who thinks they are good enough to stay in those situations, those types of failures are enough evidence that they don't belong. So there is credibility to removing those sorts of teams. Whoever gets their place deserves it more, IMO.

You are exactly right. The schools must change their focus from pleasing the media overlords to developing a post-season that will benefit more schools. And I don't mean four more schools or twelve more.
Your suggestion that this looks like a tournament prompted me to imagine the current playoff remaining as it is, while using the bowl cities to play mini-tournaments all around the country. Teams from different conferences playing in a dozen, or so, four-team tournaments during December and early January would involve more teams than the current bowl system. There may not be enough interest from advertisers to fund this, so a trial year would be needed.
And the schools must be wise enough this time to engage more than one media company.

If kids think they can be in the spot light playing in other conferences, they will go to other Conferences too. That's a good thing, that's how you have national interest and national advertisers.

I watched NASCAR go back to being a regional sport and it still has not recovered. College Football needs to learn form that mistake and not repeat it.

much tinkering. First, there was taking away races from historically important tracks to give a race or in some cases an extra race to a track in another region of the country. Then there was a push to add more cookie cutter tracks instead of encouraging more creativity in the designs of new tracks. Next there was a push to make all the drivers more corporate-friendly and less colorful (think Jimmy Spencer). Then comes NASCAR decision to implement the Playoffs because it didn't like Matt Kenseth winning the championship without winning a single race. Finally, the decision to implement segments, which is a common practice at the local tracks, because today's audience has a shorter attention span (I guess).

ticket prices, reduced attendance and a loss of fan interest !

10/20 years ago? Will college football be better 10/20 years from now? Why tinker with a sport that we all love? I love the regular season. I love the bowl season. I love the polls. And I bet most college football fans do as well - an expanded "playoff" will further diminish those things that most of us love about college football. The pursuit of more money - "playoff" - will make changes to the college football landscape that most of us love about the sport.

For me, I prefer the pre-BCA era when the AP Poll and Coaches Poll crowned their own champion and people spent the offseason debating who would have won the game if each poll's champion had played each other last season. Heck even the pre-BCA era allowed a non-power conference school to be crowned undisputed DI-FBS national champion for 1 season (BYU in 1984) which gave hope to the little guys that history could always repeat itself.

However, if you ask the media, then they will probably say the expanded playoff is "better" for them. The media is bottom line driven and the media doesn't make much money during the regular season or even covering the bowl games. The media makes the most money from the coverage of the Playoffs (FBS, DI-FCS, DII, DIII, etc). So naturally the bigger the playoffs the more likely it will have a larger profit margin.

Given that the schools have already gotten into bed with media, who should they listen to more; the media or their fan base? Answer: Whomever lines their pockets with the most money. Is that the "right" or "better" answer? Again, it depends on who you ask.

[Post edited by VTHokie2000 at 02/23/2022 10:52AM]

"fans" want to continue to tinker with it. I know why the media and some others want to tinker with it - $. I just dont understand why true fans of college football want to further head down this path

football playoff even if it means scrapping the bowls. It works for the NCAA DI (aka FCS Playoffs), NCAA DII, NCAA DIII, NAIA DI, and NAIA DII. If FBS is going to commit to a true playoff, then I do believe that all 10 FBS conferences should receive 1 automatic bid so its conference champion can participate in it. Also, I believe every round except the championship game should be played at the higher seed's stadium to reduce travel cost for the fans. I have no problem with the national championship game being played at a neutral site because I think both fan bases should be equally represented at the game.

If the FBS isn't going to commit to that format for whatever reason, then go back to pre-BCA format and call it a day.

They will want 8, not 12 or 16. Everything you say about the SEC position is accurate. But it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I think the collective of the B1G and the Pac-12 is just as powerful at the SEC.

At least with 8, the SEC would benefit by an extra round. And if a maximum of 3 SEC teams could get in, that just makes their regular season more attractive.
[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 02/23/2022 12:01AM]

There are years now when they get half the bids. Not sure they'd be willing to settle for a cap of three, especially after adding OU and UT.

with 3 or 4 teams in the current playoffs? I could easily see it happen assuming the Committee buys into the hype that the SEC significantly deeper and stronger than any of the other power conferences that year. Plus, it could be the catalyst to get people to react so that the FBS Playoffs expands. It is likely that the FBS Playoffs would never have existed if it wasn't for the All SEC BCS National Championship Game.

The playoffs need to spread the wealth around and be national in scope. Having an 8 team playoff with 3 or 4 SEC teams is a non-starter in my opinion.

But if it's 8 teams in the CFP, I think there should be 6 champions.

If the SEC gets the two at-large bids, then fine. Keep in mind, for the two at-large bids, they would have had to have compete with Ohio State, Notre Dame and others.

If we had an 8-team tournament this year (with 2 at-large), here is who would have made it:
Champs: Bama, Michigan, Cincinnati, Utah, Baylor, Pitt
At-large: Georgia, Notre Dame

So the SEC would have only gotten two bids.
If they went 8 with no conference champion requirement, Ole Miss and Ohio State would have gotten in over Utah and Pitt.


[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 02/23/2022 11:12AM]

That is fine, but it also kind of leads the discussion back to this 1 question.

What is the intended purpose of the FBS Playoffs?

Leave selection committees out of it. In my 5 P5 + 1 G5 + 2AL playoff, the 2 AL would be the 2 highest ranked conference championship lovers. Too bad independents. Join a conference.

but only the highest ranked G5 conference? The only reason the P5s favor that idea is because they don't want to share the money with the G5s. Not that the P5s are necessarily "more deserving" than the the G5s. It is possible that there could be a year where all 5 G5 champions are ranked higher than all 5 P5 champions/Notre Dame or that multiple P5 champions finish the year unranked (think the year GT at 6-6 ended up playing in the ACC Championship Game). Why is an unranked P5 champion "more deserving" of a Playoff spot than a G5 champion regardless of whether that G5 champion is ranked or not?

the money with the other 5 FBS conferences. Plus, there is a struggle within the power conferences on whether to share the money equally vs. every power conference for themselves.

You are basically saying that an 8 team playoff is not doable then. You may be right but if the Alliance sticks together then I think conf champ auto bids are going to be part of the formula.

If greed wins out (which is very likely) and we see the CFP with the same teams every year from just a couple of conferences then college football is doomed.

publicly stated they won't support the 5+1 model regardless if the Playoffs is 8 or 12 teams.

but Sankey co-chairs that group and that's where his next move is likely to be made, IMO. They tried to get function to follow form; now I'd guess they'll flip it. Perhaps reduce the qualifying pool at the top tier of football. He's going to have to throw some bones to the other major players.

The acc should also make it clear (perhaps thru back channels) that our yes vote will only follow some changes to our tv contract. More money and/or cut the years in half, etc.

Thank you John Skipper, for killing the ACC, with the help of ND/SEC!

presidents killed the ACC

that are responsible for putting the ACC in a weak position.

First he was trusted on unc relationship fo get rhe inside deal- yeah he got the deal. (Guess the unc snake mentality is not just in the athletic dept) .

Second swofford was faced with some serious departures with fsu and clemson demanding a network and maryland leaving. If he didn't get the network it is questionable that acc would be here.. he didn't have many cards. Think espn had acc boxed in.

Third some blame go to the football schools - the vt fsu miami - they took the acc money to balance the books instead to ratchet it up. They were in the acc bubble. Acc didn't have the product to sell.

I do think there is something going on behind the scenes…its going to involve the programs who want to put money on the table. Its in the ncaa transformation committee.

I also think vt is in much better shape to play in this world- alot of pry reconstruction of football operations is a model that other programs of the athletic dept should evolve.

than he should not have been in the position he was in. I knew that he was not the right person for the job during the first round of ACC expansion - anyone with half a brain knew who the ACC should have taken vs who he wanted to take. The ACC presidents were asleep at the wheel and they let an unqualified person put the ACC in a very bad spot.

[Post edited by 133193Hokie at 02/24/2022 08:26AM]

was scheduling. The zipper model should have been thrown out a long time ago.

to 12 and maybe beyond though, as the money is too big not to.

reason for P5 + 1 is the Rose Bowl wants PAC and B1G. Which is a big deal!!

them in a playoff game just because they were the least bad team in a weak conference. But, I agree the expanded playoff will probably include the conf champions as a "compromise" to get to the expanded playoff $'s.

Also has a limit of one team per conf getting the first round byes.

I agree with those sorts of compromises. You need to build in some features to promote parity, or else you start to lose it, like now. Lose any more parity, and people will really start to tune out imo, which is another way to lose $.

Edit: I just realized you might have been referring to the rose bowl only, being a mismatch. Ya, it probably will be, although iirc the last one was great. I watched from Utah, so I was pulling for them, and it was close!

[Post edited by Truthahn at 02/22/2022 8:44PM]

That feature is there to add parity to the playoffs.

The SEC only gets one bye. Under the proposal scheme I would expect the ACC to get a bye as much as anyone except maybe the SEC, given our history.

I'd rather have a 16 playoff, with each conference champion given a slot (and no conference championship games). But the 12 team proposal is actually pretty good at limiting SEC dominance, as long as you limit each conference to only 2 teams. Without a two team limit, it does the opposite, of course, and we should fight that to the death.


[Post edited by Truthahn at 02/25/2022 12:03PM]

but if kids can make it through other conferences, then they will go there too.

ESPN wants to create one avenue, but that’s horrible for college football, no matter what lies their minions repeat!!!!

Is it to crown a National Champion - if yes - than go with 2 or 4 teams.
Is it to "reward" teams - than go with 12/16/24/36
Is it to generate as much $ as you can - than go with 12/16/24/36. But, be careful as the regular season games diminish in importance than so too will the TV contracts for the regular season. Which will hurt more teams than the increased playoff revenue will help. This will further the gap between the haves and the have nots.
[Post edited by 133193Hokie at 02/22/2022 5:34PM]

You sound like sec win at all costs and no principles

This is about the good of the game of collegiate football. Its a community of conferences fighting it out to win the conference and represent to group in a national tourney.. this set up really focuses on your support of your achool alumni or friend. Then you play your peer schools in the comference. And among your peers represent them in national competition

When you.say i - i think 1) you really have no tie to your college either lack of interest or attendance or 2 ) u see college football is jusf entertainment .

This is all about the good of rhe game and not get hostage by hulligans in certain conferences

College football IS JUST entertainment for us that are not players/coaches.

The current version does that, so does the proposed 12 team model.

I thought the bigger issue was that the Big Ten didn't want to share more of the money with the G5s. At least that seems to be the driving factor to explain why all 5 P5 conferences and Notre Dame support the 5+1 model. While only "some" support the Top 6 champions model.

their P5 very soon.

The at large are about getting more SEC and ND, every year, that and ESPN getting the whole playoff. The ESPN, led by John Skipper’s vision, is about getting more money for ESPN. He doesn’t want his legacy to be labeled a failure.

the guy’s vision is still very much alive and well.

Do an 8 or 16 team bracket. with a supermajority of bids slotted for conference champions.

8= 6 champions
16= all 10 champions

I understand that ND wants a home game, but maybe that can be worked around if the tournament is 16, or even 8.

If the CFP is 8 or 16, I'd be willing to throw out the provision that only conference champions can host a first round game. I'd make an exception for an undefeated independent who gets an at-large bid to be eligible to host a game. Let the committee decide in the end. But to me, the bigger issue is getting MORE conference champions in the playoffs.
[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 02/22/2022 1:45PM]

especially the at large bids.


[Post edited by Stech at 02/22/2022 2:18PM]

That's why they were working with the SEC for the 12 team model.