Saban was originally for it, until he found out they were going to make LSU as one of Bama’s 3 permanent rivals, instead of Mississippi State.

they didn’t think the crossover game with the B1G would happen now, if ever. The schools that have in state rivalry games with ACC schools, were against the B1G crossover game, especially if they go to 9 games. However, the 9 games is not done until they do a better job of defining the playoff selection criteria, in particular giving heavy weighting to strength of schedule over the record.

16 team super league. Since they can't count, and don't understand math, they must not have figured out that adding two more teams means there will be 128 SEC conference games every season, meaning someone out of those 16 teams is going to have to eat 64 losses, an average of 4 conference losses per member, every single year, before you even GET to the OOC slate. I am sick and GD tired of SEC teams whining about getting left out and wanting the entire CFP to be auto bids. THEY made their bed, they should have to lay in it. Every time I hear Jim Phillips or anyone else try to play patty cake with these audacious jerkoffs, smoke starts coming out of my ears like a cartoon.

Well said. What these people fail to understand is that blue bloods didn't become blue bloods by having a schedule of only blue bloods. And if they play a "blue blood schedule" (which is what they THINK they are playing now) every year, and go .500 most years, they wouldn't have ever become bluebloods...and might not stay blue bloods. I'm tellin' ya. There is A LOT that these idiots didn't think through in their expansionpalooza adventures.

Does 4-4-2-2-1-3 refer to: * 4 guaranteed SEC bids * 4 guaranteed Big 10 bids * 2 guaranteed ACC bids * 2 guaranteed Big 12 bids * 1 guaranteed G5 bid * 3 additional at-large bids Also, is it your understanding that, for example, the 4 guaranteed SEC bids would go to their champ and 3 other highest rated teams by the committee? Or might it be champ and next 3 highest in conference standings? Presumably the former and not the latter, I guess. Thx!

being the new member of that group. “If” they go to that model, then the P2 Conferences are talking about 1 and 2 being in, but doing play in games for 3 and 6, and 4 and 5. The ACC and B12 would have 1 in, and 2 play 3 for the second automatic bid for the Conference. PS I wish they would let everyone play week 0, bring back old out of conference rivalries, or move the ones still going to that week. Drop the play in games thought. Then let Army Navy play the week after Thanksgiving and give everyone that made the playoff a bye.

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.

playing at the end of the year. Right now only a handful of teams can play week 0, and same thing with this play in games. Be consistent, and let everyone play the SAME AMOUNT OF GAMES! College Football has thrived more than some others because of the heavy emphasis on the regular season. So let Oklahoma play Nebraska, Virginia Tech play West Virginia, Virginia play Maryland etc. week 0, then have the Conference Rivalry games on Thanksgiving weekend help determine who makes the playoff. This playoff before the playoff is not going to make as much money as week 0 OOC Rivalry games. Plus do we really want to reward 3rd through 6 place teams. Do they really want to play another game right before the playoff? Make it like the Daytona 500 starting the new racing season. People will be talking about the OOC rivalry game the entire off season. There is more money there with more games, emphasizes the regular season and it can bring back some of the best annual rivalry games, that have been lost with expansion.

We might as well get another big game out of it, and use what we have to try to match the P2 as much as possible. Just being in those games will give a reputation boost. We need that for as many teams as possible. And if Clemson or FSU is the top team, we should force them to play-in. If they lose, they will likely get in anyway as an at large.

for the other spot. This rewards the best team in the league by record, while also staging a big knockout game for TV. The SEC and Big 10 should do the same, if they were smart - #1 automatically in, #2 plays #7, #3 plays #6, #4 plays #5. But, even agreeing to let the SEC and Big 10 have double your AQ spots is insanely cowardly and stupid, and a de facto death warrant for both the ACC and the Big 12, so hopefully we will never get there.

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

is agreeing to give the SEC and Big 10 twice the number of auto bids. That is akin to saying, "those conferences are twice as good as our conference, and will always be twice as good as our conference." Everyone knows I think the ACC is a joke conference run by idiots, but VT sits where they currently sit, and even if it's actually the common perception that the SEC and Big 10 are twice as good, for the ACC to admit that in such a way is akin to committing institutional suicide. Frankly, it would be preferable to just say no auto-bids, or only 1 auto-bid for conference champs.

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.

5 top rated conference champs, 11 auto-bids. You don't see them shaking in their boots, or rushing to bend the knee. That's because Yormark knows what the SEC and Big 10 are doing with this 4 auto-bids vs. 2, the Big 12 is playing hardball just like they should be, and not rushing to bend the knee and give the SEC and Big 10 everything they want. You might not get as many at-large bids, but if things get entirely out of hand (e.g., only 1 ACC and Big 12 team, while 6 SEC teams and 5 Big 10 teams make it in) then those two conferences have a righteous cause to raise holy hell from the rafters, and it will create an enormous public backlash that will be hard to defend, because most of those SEC and Big 10 teams will have 3, 4, or more losses. They can't do that if they just roll over and agree to give the SEC and Big 10 double the auto-bids they get every year, regardless of what actually happens. This is chess, it's not checkers.

over x amount of time in this or that hypothetical scenario. They could have had only had 1 in 20 years. It's the principle of the matter. There is no reasonable scenario where the ACC can agree to take half the auto-bids as the SEC or Big 10. It would be the dumbest move in the history of the sports business. It would permanently codify that the ACC sucks. The ACC could become the best conference in America, but would be locked in to being half as good as the SEC. It would be better for the ACC for the SEC and Big 10 to break away than to agree to that.

Don't forget ND has an (almost) automatic bid.