Can the ACC secure three AQs?
The ACC is clearly pushing back and trying to secure more than two AQs, though Phillips didn’t provide specifics.
A 16-team playoff would give the ACC a better chance to get three spots compared to a 14-team playoff. (I still believe the P2 conferences want their champions to receive byes, so the 16-team playoff will likely include byes for two teams.)
Obviously, the P2 have more leverage and do not want to give the ACC additional spot. In my opinion, one possible compromise from the P2 could be to offer three AQs for the ACC and ND. In other words, if ND doesn’t qualify for the playoff, that spot would go to a third ACC team.
While both the ACC and Big 12 are pushing back, I haven’t seen reports indicating direct discussions between the ACC and Big 12 offices. In fact, I doubt the ACC cares whether the Big 12 secures a third AQ. The ACC is top-heavy, so it’s possible that the ACC gets more AQ than the B12.
This doesn’t fit the media narrative, so it’s not discussed much, but don’t be surprised if the ACC gets a better deal than the Big 12. (If I recall correctly, Dellenger mentioned that a 4-4-3-2-1 model is also under consideration.)
22 Replies
1y
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
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
T
Truthahn
1y
BTW, I think the SEC gets slightly more than the B10, too. IIRC, they both get the same amount of money, but the B10 has two more teams.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
Although the difference is small, I am glad it’s not the way around.
Can you imagine how some pro-B12 pundits/youtubers would react if the Big 12 schools received a tiny bit more?
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
T
Truthahn
1y
I wonder if ND anticipated that development, when they arranged to play Clemson every year?
It will give every ACC team a much bigger incentive to beat ND, making our ACC vs ND games much more interesting.
Maybe the ACC could turn that around have have ND somehow in an ACC play-in game when they are otherwise out of the playoffs? That is, whenever ND is out of the playoffs, if they are close enough, they could play-in with our #3. That game would be pretty huge for us. They would also have to be considered an ACC playoff team at that point, and share most of the money with us, or it would not make sense.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
If not, compare ND's ranking with the ACC's third-best team. This arrangement benefits ND because, if it doesn't rank in the top 16, it only needs to compete against the ACC's number three team, not the entire pool of CFB teams.
It also benefits the ACC. But of course, three AQs without any qualifiers would be the best outcome for the ACC.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
T
TerryD
1y
Competing for an ACC playoff spot is too much entanglement.
An at large spot is good enough.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
1y
slotted to have a play in gamy against an undefeated G6 (there could be more than one), a B12 school, or an ACC school.
"Play in games" would be another source of revenue that is not shared and distributed by the playoff committee. It could be a way to generate revenue for the top schools not getting an AQ, or otherwise would not be included by the committee because of the number of at large or the lack of the AQ's not given to the P2.
I would watch that game, no matter who was playing in it. Even if it was against 2 G5's that didn't rank high enough for their AQ.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
Truthahn
1y
While it could be mutually beneficial if done right, it would probably just be seen as more evidence that the ACC is bending over backwards to help ND.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
1y
That would certainly help the ACC $ wise and help ND. Basically the ACC gets 3 autobids with the 3rd contigent on beating ND in a play in when they are not an at large?
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
T
Truthahn
1y
Basically, it is like they "own" a couple of the first round games.
I would not be surprised to see the ACC make their "last team in" slot into a play in.
Heck, since they are all auto bids, make them all play ins. If we are just grabbing cash, go for it. If we get two autobids, then play 1-4 and 2-3 for the two slots.
** Edited by Truthahn at 5/19/2025, 1:34:06 PM
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
I don't see the ACC championship going away or 1 playing 4. Dr. J AND SMU were saying last year they shouldn't be penalized for playing in the championship with a chance to not make the playoffs when they could not play and be in. Hopefully we get 3 spots and both the top 2 and ACC play in 3 vs 4 get in.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
1y
selections. It will be a way for the SEC to get as many playoff teams as they did in the recent basketball tournament.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
to not face a potential loss in a championship or play-in game while every other team would. At that point they may need to be undefeated or 1 loss maximum as an at large.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
1y
He made mention that the 3 in the 4-4-3-2-1-2 model would be determined by an ACC 3rd team vs a Big 12 3rd team play-in game. That would take an at-large bid away, but still give two at-larges so ND would have a better shot than a 4-4-3-3-1-1 model, and the SEC and Big Ten would still have a shot at a 5th team (and maybe 6th team) in the play-off.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
He can't see that the ACC could get a better deal than the Big 12, which is why he's speculating about the play-in game. At least that’s my view.
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
1y
will they be the solution to the ACC if/when they falter.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 5/19/2025, 2:31:07 PM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
a Big 12 guy hanging out on an ACC board talking about obsession.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
my interest. I could have picked any name, like randomly.
BTW, do you agree with my comment, disagree, or have anything to add?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
disagree with your comment. The Big 12 has no relevance to the ACC as a problem and only a slightly higher probability as a solution. You are also correct you could have picked any name, however, I doubt you could have hidden your allegiance and bias for long.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
dissenting ones. I could go to a KU echo chamber, but that is boring to me.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)