How many think th Power Ego 2 Conferences will end up with 8 Auto Bids?YorN
If Yes, why do you think so? If No, why do you think so?
PS Of course talking about the 2026 playoff.
** Edited by Stech at 5/31/2025, 12:32:46 PM
24 Replies
1y
The AQ model would give more money to the P2.
As I said before, from the P2 POV:
secure AQs → move to nine games for the SEC → schedule the SEC/B1G challenge → schedule additional play-in games → ESPN/FOX pay more for these new high-profile games → $$$.
As we all know, money is a very strong incentive. So I would put my money on the AQ model.
If so, the ACC should try to get the best possible outcome under the AQ model.
The 4-4-2-2-1 is not good for the ACC. Phillips should push 3 or 2.5 bids (with one bid shared with ND or the B12). and seek ESPN's help.
Phillips is bad at the PR but I suspect he might be reasonably good at backroom politics.
We will see.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
but it is contingent on better selection criteria, especially for Strength of Schedule. If/When they improve the SOS criteria, the SEC takes bids from the B1G. It's one of the reasons they aren't as friendly as they were about a month ago. The B1G is better off with the 4 AQ, because they don't have the depth at the top of the SEC.
So I agree follow the money. but I think the SEC and yes ESPN are better off if they keep the sport with a national following and let the SEC get even more bids from the at large pool. The 5+11 does both.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
to suggest Phillips is good at backroom politics and even less to suggest that, even if so, he is actually politicking on behalf of the conference that employs him.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
I know the difference is really marginal but how many people would have thought the ACC would get more than the B12 last year when the ACC was in the middle of nasty lawsuits?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
who understood the metrics thought that. You're going to need a much better rebuttal than that, whether you actually believed your original statement or were just grasping for anything to throw against the wall.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
what if anything you really know? If you actually had a clue you would realize how ridiculous both your posts in this thread really are.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
actually read the reply. Your assertion that the CFP cut for the ACC has anything to do with Phillips skills is a fantasy showing you have no clue who, or what, determined those metrics.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
You apparently don't know much about politics.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
You brought up the metrics to defend your assertion of Phillips being reasonably good at backroom politics. I know enough about politics to know that when you try to make a point you need to be able to logically and reasonably defend it. Here's your chance.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
And the CFP revenue split favors the ACC over the Big 12 following backroom negotiations.
If you want to rebut my point, please explain so that I can understand.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
and when challenged you relied on metrics as the evidence of his backroom political skills but, so far, you have been unable, or unwilling, to explain what those metrics were, how they were determined or how they confirm Phillips' backroom political skills. So far, the most public example of Phillips' behind the scene skills is getting played along with Kliavkoff by Kevin Warren in the original alliance and the rising questions as to where his real alliances might reside.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
IIRC, it's actually Phillips who initiated that. For sure he was naive, And he tried to force ND to join the league, which didn't work out at all.
In my opinion, he became better after the Alliance fiasco.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
When did I rely on metrics as the evidence? You brought up metrics first, so explain how they were determined and by whom.
To my knowledge, it was the P4 commissioners who agreed on metrics based on historical playoff performance, resulting in the ACC receiving a slightly larger share than the B12.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
the revenue split was the product of the metrics not evidence of his skills. The metrics were a result of historical performance having little to no dependence on the skills of any individual conference commissioner.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
It's the commissioners that determined which metrics to use, a decision inherently political.
Each pushes for metrics that benefit their own conference...like the SEC commissioner now pushes for the SOS.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
no point. Performance is what it is and when splitting money relies on logical and objective performance metrics. The decision is not political and it is not subjective like picking playoff criteria.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 6/1/2025, 5:30:48 PM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
H
HouClone
1y
and Big 10 and SEC themselves only can dictate the format in 2026. The 4-4-2-2-1 is just a sideshow. What this does is allows the Big 10 and SEC schedule each other, locking out the other conferences to play them, while Fox and ESPN sink the best timeslots and more money into the Big 10 and SEC at the expense of other conferences. Then, the strength of schedule will be all the talk of Herbie, the rest of the ESPN crew, Fox studio guys, and the national media during playoff teams discussion.
There will be no data point for comparison if you can't play them. Virginia Tech plays South Carolina this year. If Tech wins and South Carolina beats some SEC teams vying for the playoff spot, this is one data point the ACC can use for their contending teams.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
ESPN has ACC (maybe expanded) and SEC and Fox the Big 10
Currently, ACC has better brands and more established well funded universities and their new funding model, keeps the BRAND schools getting a revenue bump that makes them competitive (and they are OK with that). and after seeing annual reports, ACC revenues much highter than reported.
(if they can pull some from the Big 12), ESPN would be tickled. (key would the numbers after expansion, keep ACC competitive with the SEC. (Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah WVU and maybe Kansas and Kansas St.) ESPN gets a competive pacific coverage (Arizona, Az st, Colorado Utah Stanford Cal, Kansas Kansas State,
SMU, Louisville, BC Pitt Cuse WVU, Wake Duke, and UNC State, VT UVA, Clemson GT, Miami FSU
(In response to this post by HouClone)