Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 5/22/2025 at 12:40 PM, JOSEYWALES66 said:

Absolute horseshit that ND can get a first round bye without having to play a conference championship game.

 

Same joke as some fringe top 25 team getting a berth as a 'conference champion.'

Posted (edited)

Fuck all that.

9 conference games should be the standard.  If you have fewer than 9 conference games on your schedule, every number less than 9 counts as a loss.  Every conference (should have) a conference championship game. All teams will play a 12 game schedule unless they make the CCG.

 

So fucking difficult...

Edited by Iceman
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
8 hours ago, Sgt Hulk said:

Nope. Enjoy you big 12 loser conference. BDF ahahhaahhaha

Micro-penis energy notwithstanding, this is simply a weird response to a post about the logical extension of devaluing CCGs.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Haha 2
Posted

Every year, there are only 2 to 6 teams that legit have a case that they are the best team.  Usually it's 2 or 3.  I know I'm in the minority, but playoffs should be scaled back to 6 teams.  Have every game in the regular season matter. DeBoer, your team lost to Vandy.  You're out.  Ole Miss?  You lost to Kentucky.  Out.  S Carolina, get out of here.  You lost three games.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TxEx84 said:

DeBoer, your team lost to Vandy. 

Alabama made OU bowl eligible. They should have been ejected from FBS for that 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, TxEx84 said:

Every year, there are only 2 to 6 teams that legit have a case that they are the best team.  Usually it's 2 or 3.  I know I'm in the minority, but playoffs should be scaled back to 6 teams.  Have every game in the regular season matter. DeBoer, your team lost to Vandy.  You're out.  Ole Miss?  You lost to Kentucky.  Out.  S Carolina, get out of here.  You lost three games.

 

Bluto-dead man.png

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, satyanash said:

The caterwauling for further playoff expansion has reached absurd levels.

bla2.PNG.b56d2e069126ea54461cc14528ff67b0.PNGbla1.PNG.cce9677bdf86c0db1e5224cbf67b97a6.PNG

Kirby Smart continues to be a phenomenal ambassador for the conference.

- The SEC got 14 teams in the NCAA tournament. Not 13.

- College basketball hasn't used RPI since 2018. 

- Fat. Dumb. Fuck. 

Edited by Park Gothic
  • Haha 4
Posted
17 hours ago, Park Gothic said:

Kirby Smart continues to be a phenomenal ambassador for the conference.

- The SEC got 14 teams in the NCAA tournament. Not 13.

- College basketball hasn't used RPI since 2018. 

- Fat. Dumb. Fuck. 

giphy.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
On 5/25/2025 at 12:37 PM, Horn of Gabriel said:

 

This is the least worst way to do 16. Still has value in the conference championship. The final step is to move the quarterfinals on campus and we will achieve perfection. That leaves 6 games for the hollowed out husk of the bowls and then the championship, which should be permanently put in the Rose Bowl.

This here. I think there are too many bowl games for the fans to travel to if the team advances and doesn't give the top 2-4 seeds any advantage when they start the bowls that early.

Save the Bowls for the Semifinals, and NC game only.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
12 minutes ago, Bartles said:

Attendance at bowls and fan travel are the last things they're thinking about. Those get dwarfed financially by the TV rights

Oh i know that's why they don't care. It was more about us.

Posted

Yahoo’s Ross Dellenger on the “heated” situation regarding the SEC

I guess we’re going to war,” said one Big 12 athletic director.

At the center of this brewing battle is a memorandum of understanding that the 11-member CFP governing board — the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame — authorized last spring. The document grants format decision-making powers starting in 2026 to the SEC and Big Ten — a move to keep the two goliaths from separating to form their own playoff.

According to most who have viewed the memorandum, the agreement grants the Big Ten and SEC control over the format but directs them to have “meaningful consultation” and collect “input” from the other conferences and TV partner, ESPN.

Have they satisfied the agreement’s language to hold “meaningful consultation?” Some do not believe so and have sought legal counsel over the validity of the document.

Other things that Dellenger is reporting? The new CFP model is a 5+11 model, which would award 5 auto bids for conference champions and 11 at-large bids, but no one wants this as long as the SEC stays at 8 conference games. The SEC coaches favor the 4-4-2-2-1+3 model (4 auto bids for SEC & Big Ten, 2 auto bids for Big 12 & ACC, 1 bid to the Group of Six and 3 at-large bids). The regulation of NIL by Deloitte sounds like a disaster (or lawsuit) waiting to happen:

The officials from the Deloitte-run clearinghouse “NIL Go” — the centerpiece of the new enforcement entity, dubbed the “College Sports Commission” — is sharing data with coaches and athletic directors, including that 70% of past deals from booster collectives would have been denied. Deloitte also shared that about 80% of NIL deals with public companies were valued at less than $10,000 and 99% of those deals were valued at less than $100,000 — figures that suggest the clearinghouse threatens to significantly curtail the millions of dollars that collectives are distributing to athletes.

8w7A0dY.png CBS Sports’ John Talty on the frustration with reform regarding the transfer portal and the Power Four want to force the Big Ten and SEC agree to a 65% of the power on rule-making.

Currently, the Power Four conferences are pushing for a weighted vote that would give them 65 percent of the power on rule-making committees. Even that amount, which would give the Power Four conferences significantly more power than they have now, still comes with risk. One high-ranking source said there are concerns that all it takes is one conference not voting with the others — or even ceasing to exist altogether if there’s further realignment and consolidation — to prevent approval for solutions. Sankey said Monday that he’d like to see that weighted vote go up to at leas 68 percent to avoid some of those issues.

Multiple Big Ten and SEC sources have expressed extreme frustration to CBS Sports about being unable to push through changes because smaller conferences won’t support it. The transfer portal situation has been especially frustrating that the conferences that would seemingly benefit from not having a spring transfer portal window won’t go for it just because the SEC and others want it. The SEC’s representatives on those committees have made those arguments to no avail, according to sources. When you have conferences that didn’t hesitate to fully fund the $20.5 million cap and others that won’t spend a dollar on revenue sharing voting on the same issues, you can see how it can go awry quickly.

The SEC’s success, in particular, has seemed to hurt its ability to make rule changes when smaller conferences question its motives.

“It’s really hard to be playing in a championship setting and having to deal with it, but when I brought that up as a complaint or problem it was told to me, ‘There’s no crying from the yacht,'” Smart said. “If you’re going to play in these environments you have to be willing to do that. Now it’s we can’t do that.”

Smart believes the implementation committee, which includes two athletic directors from each power conference, will ultimately have say over the transfer portal

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

plaintext4darkmode

the “heated” situation regarding the SEC

I guess we’re going to war,” said one Big 12 athletic director.

At the center of this brewing battle is a memorandum of understanding that the 11-member CFP governing board — the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame — authorized last spring. The document grants format decision-making powers starting in 2026 to the SEC and Big Ten — a move to keep the two goliaths from separating to form their own playoff.

According to most who have viewed the memorandum, the agreement grants the Big Ten and SEC control over the format but directs them to have “meaningful consultation” and collect “input” from the other conferences and TV partner, ESPN.

Have they satisfied the agreement’s language to hold “meaningful consultation?” Some do not believe so and have sought legal counsel over the validity of the document.

Other things that Dellenger is reporting? The new CFP model is a 5+11 model, which would award 5 auto bids for conference champions and 11 at-large bids, but no one wants this as long as the SEC stays at 8 conference games. The SEC coaches favor the 4-4-2-2-1+3 model (4 auto bids for SEC & Big Ten, 2 auto bids for Big 12 & ACC, 1 bid to the Group of Six and 3 at-large bids). The regulation of NIL by Deloitte sounds like a disaster (or lawsuit) waiting to happen:

The officials from the Deloitte-run clearinghouse “NIL Go” — the centerpiece of the new enforcement entity, dubbed the “College Sports Commission” — is sharing data with coaches and athletic directors, including that 70% of past deals from booster collectives would have been denied. Deloitte also shared that about 80% of NIL deals with public companies were valued at less than $10,000 and 99% of those deals were valued at less than $100,000 — figures that suggest the clearinghouse threatens to significantly curtail the millions of dollars that collectives are distributing to athletes.

8w7A0dY.png CBS Sports’ John Talty on the frustration with reform regarding the transfer portal and the Power Four want to force the Big Ten and SEC agree to a 65% of the power on rule-making.

Currently, the Power Four conferences are pushing for a weighted vote that would give them 65 percent of the power on rule-making committees. Even that amount, which would give the Power Four conferences significantly more power than they have now, still comes with risk. One high-ranking source said there are concerns that all it takes is one conference not voting with the others — or even ceasing to exist altogether if there’s further realignment and consolidation — to prevent approval for solutions. Sankey said Monday that he’d like to see that weighted vote go up to at leas 68 percent to avoid some of those issues.

Multiple Big Ten and SEC sources have expressed extreme frustration to CBS Sports about being unable to push through changes because smaller conferences won’t support it. The transfer portal situation has been especially frustrating that the conferences that would seemingly benefit from not having a spring transfer portal window won’t go for it just because the SEC and others want it. The SEC’s representatives on those committees have made those arguments to no avail, according to sources. When you have conferences that didn’t hesitate to fully fund the $20.5 million cap and others that won’t spend a dollar on revenue sharing voting on the same issues, you can see how it can go awry quickly.

The SEC’s success, in particular, has seemed to hurt its ability to make rule changes when smaller conferences question its motives.

“It’s really hard to be playing in a championship setting and having to deal with it, but when I brought that up as a complaint or problem it was told to me, ‘There’s no crying from the yacht,'” Smart said. “If you’re going to play in these environments you have to be willing to do that. Now it’s we can’t do that.”

Smart believes the implementation committee, which includes two athletic directors from each power conference, will ultimately have say over the transfer portal

dinich

Spoiler

CFP 5+11 model gaining traction as leaders eye next steps - ESPN
Heather Dinich
7–8 minutes

DESTIN, Fla. -- A 16-team College Football Playoff model featuring the top five conference champions and 11 at-large teams is gaining traction following SEC spring meetings this week, but the next step in playoff expansion for 2026 and beyond will depend on how quickly the sport's leaders can make a flurry of decisions.

A critical component is the SEC's choice between staying at eight league games or moving to nine, a topic ACC sources say could be revisited in their league after years of being dormant if prompted by playoff expansion. The linchpin to those scheduling decisions is one thing every conference seems to agree on: the need for clarity about how the CFP selection committee ranks its teams, starting with how strength of schedule is determined and applied.

"I do think there's a need for change," SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said of the ranking protocol Thursday at the conclusion of his league's spring meetings. "... How do you make those decisions? It's hard, and we trust the committee to do that, and I respect the people in there, so this isn't a criticism of the people. This is wanting to understand the decisions. We have to have better clarity on the criteria that inform those decisions."

Currently, strength of schedule is one of several factors not weighed in the committee's ambiguous protocol -- language the FBS commissioners wrote at the inception of the four-team playoff in 2014. There's a sense among some athletic directors in the SEC and ACC that moving to nine conference games is feasible -- if the committee doesn't penalize teams for losing two or three games against strong opponents.

Some SEC athletic directors stressed this week that they would only favor a nine-game league schedule if the conference is guaranteed four playoff spots -- also the Big Ten's preferred model.

"If we're not confident that the decision-making about who gets in and why and what are the metrics around it, it's going to be really hard for some of my colleagues to get to the nine games," Texas A&M athletic director Trev Alberts said. "We've got a timeline that's getting tight, and we recognize that. It seems like everything is coming to a head. In a way it's a little bit frustrating, in another way it feels good because eventually, it feels like we're actually going to get some of this dealt with."

CFP leaders have set Dec. 1 as a deadline to determine the future format, and Sankey said he wants to make a scheduling decision in 2026, but didn't specify when. The FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua are scheduled to meet in person June 18 in Asheville, North Carolina.

Sankey was asked if his conference will be unified on a format by then.

"We'll see," Sankey said.

Multiple ACC sources said the conference would prefer a 5+11 model, and Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark has publicly supported it at his league's spring meetings this week.

"It has always been our first choice," Yormark told ESPN. "It's fair and rewards on-field performance. I'm not surprised SEC coaches like it."

The Big 12's administrators agree.

"The construct of the CFP wasn't to give one or two conferences more value. It was supposed to be the best way to conduct a real national championship," UCF athletic director Terry Mohajir said. "I think a 5+11 is the best way to do that, and it gets the best teams in."

If Sankey can get his athletic directors on the same page as his coaches, who this week voiced strong support for a 5+11 model (but with eight conference games), the Big Ten would likely be the lone league in the room pushing automatic qualifiers.

"[We're] kind of important," Sankey said, "a bit important in that decision."

The Big Ten and SEC have the bulk of control over the playoff's format in 2026 and beyond, something the other FBS commissioners and Bevacqua agreed to when they signed a memorandum of understanding for the new six-year deal.

"If we do want to have a national tournament, we do have to get everyone on the same page and everyone has to work together," Florida athletic director Scott Stricklin said.

The ACC's considerations of a nine-game league schedule had been tabled for a few years for multiple reasons. Several schools already have existing rivalries with SEC schools, plus there is a built-in agreement with Notre Dame. The ACC doesn't necessarily have to decide that for the 2026 season. It's something that could be phased in, according to a source.

Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne said two of his main priorities as the playoff discussions move forward are access and having "a pretty clear understanding of what gets you in, what doesn't."

"I know last year I talked about a lot of what I read was two versus three losses, and that was concerning," Byrne said. "Granted, ultimately, it's up to you and the play you have on the field, and you have to recognize that, but I also do believe that when you looked at the bullet points for the CFP, strength of schedule was the first bullet point listed. Trying to get some clear understanding of how is that weighed in the room is important. Our conference because of the play on the field has deserved the benefit of the doubt at times to be strongly considered for the CFP."

On Thursday afternoon, the SEC provided members of the media with a six-page packet that included color-coded charts using multiple metrics to illustrate the league's dominant schedule strength. Sankey said the task for determining the CFP's strength of schedule component is striking a balance "between human and machine," referring to the old BCS computer formula.

"Whether you agree or not, that's what we're looking at," Sankey said of the packet, which included ESPN's Strength of Record, Bill Connelly's SP+, Kenneth Massey's metric, ESPN's Football Power Index and ESPN's Strength of Schedule metric. "That doesn't mean every one of these should be inserted into the CFP, but I think you have to consider what it means, because there's other ratings and evaluation tools we've looked at that are much like these results."

While the issues are on the table, the CFP's management committee is notorious for missing its own deadlines. Sankey this week didn't rule out the possibility of the 12-team CFP remaining in place in 2026.

"Can I see a scenario? Sure, I can see a scenario," Sankey said. "But is that the most likely scenario? Come back for more. I said -- genuinely -- we're interested in a model. We're not committed to that model, and you've seen that play out this week, where people have different ideas."

The question is if the Power 4 leagues can put their differences aside -- quickly.

"We need to work well together," Sankey said. "The emotional maturity needed right now is higher than ever."

 

Posted

dinich

Spoiler

CFP 5+11 model gaining traction as leaders eye next steps - ESPN
Heather Dinich
7–8 minutes

DESTIN, Fla. -- A 16-team College Football Playoff model featuring the top five conference champions and 11 at-large teams is gaining traction following SEC spring meetings this week, but the next step in playoff expansion for 2026 and beyond will depend on how quickly the sport's leaders can make a flurry of decisions.

A critical component is the SEC's choice between staying at eight league games or moving to nine, a topic ACC sources say could be revisited in their league after years of being dormant if prompted by playoff expansion. The linchpin to those scheduling decisions is one thing every conference seems to agree on: the need for clarity about how the CFP selection committee ranks its teams, starting with how strength of schedule is determined and applied.

"I do think there's a need for change," SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said of the ranking protocol Thursday at the conclusion of his league's spring meetings. "... How do you make those decisions? It's hard, and we trust the committee to do that, and I respect the people in there, so this isn't a criticism of the people. This is wanting to understand the decisions. We have to have better clarity on the criteria that inform those decisions."

Currently, strength of schedule is one of several factors not weighed in the committee's ambiguous protocol -- language the FBS commissioners wrote at the inception of the four-team playoff in 2014. There's a sense among some athletic directors in the SEC and ACC that moving to nine conference games is feasible -- if the committee doesn't penalize teams for losing two or three games against strong opponents.

Some SEC athletic directors stressed this week that they would only favor a nine-game league schedule if the conference is guaranteed four playoff spots -- also the Big Ten's preferred model.

"If we're not confident that the decision-making about who gets in and why and what are the metrics around it, it's going to be really hard for some of my colleagues to get to the nine games," Texas A&M athletic director Trev Alberts said. "We've got a timeline that's getting tight, and we recognize that. It seems like everything is coming to a head. In a way it's a little bit frustrating, in another way it feels good because eventually, it feels like we're actually going to get some of this dealt with."

CFP leaders have set Dec. 1 as a deadline to determine the future format, and Sankey said he wants to make a scheduling decision in 2026, but didn't specify when. The FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua are scheduled to meet in person June 18 in Asheville, North Carolina.

Sankey was asked if his conference will be unified on a format by then.

"We'll see," Sankey said.

Multiple ACC sources said the conference would prefer a 5+11 model, and Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark has publicly supported it at his league's spring meetings this week.

"It has always been our first choice," Yormark told ESPN. "It's fair and rewards on-field performance. I'm not surprised SEC coaches like it."

The Big 12's administrators agree.

"The construct of the CFP wasn't to give one or two conferences more value. It was supposed to be the best way to conduct a real national championship," UCF athletic director Terry Mohajir said. "I think a 5+11 is the best way to do that, and it gets the best teams in."

If Sankey can get his athletic directors on the same page as his coaches, who this week voiced strong support for a 5+11 model (but with eight conference games), the Big Ten would likely be the lone league in the room pushing automatic qualifiers.

"[We're] kind of important," Sankey said, "a bit important in that decision."

The Big Ten and SEC have the bulk of control over the playoff's format in 2026 and beyond, something the other FBS commissioners and Bevacqua agreed to when they signed a memorandum of understanding for the new six-year deal.

"If we do want to have a national tournament, we do have to get everyone on the same page and everyone has to work together," Florida athletic director Scott Stricklin said.

The ACC's considerations of a nine-game league schedule had been tabled for a few years for multiple reasons. Several schools already have existing rivalries with SEC schools, plus there is a built-in agreement with Notre Dame. The ACC doesn't necessarily have to decide that for the 2026 season. It's something that could be phased in, according to a source.

Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne said two of his main priorities as the playoff discussions move forward are access and having "a pretty clear understanding of what gets you in, what doesn't."

"I know last year I talked about a lot of what I read was two versus three losses, and that was concerning," Byrne said. "Granted, ultimately, it's up to you and the play you have on the field, and you have to recognize that, but I also do believe that when you looked at the bullet points for the CFP, strength of schedule was the first bullet point listed. Trying to get some clear understanding of how is that weighed in the room is important. Our conference because of the play on the field has deserved the benefit of the doubt at times to be strongly considered for the CFP."

On Thursday afternoon, the SEC provided members of the media with a six-page packet that included color-coded charts using multiple metrics to illustrate the league's dominant schedule strength. Sankey said the task for determining the CFP's strength of schedule component is striking a balance "between human and machine," referring to the old BCS computer formula.

"Whether you agree or not, that's what we're looking at," Sankey said of the packet, which included ESPN's Strength of Record, Bill Connelly's SP+, Kenneth Massey's metric, ESPN's Football Power Index and ESPN's Strength of Schedule metric. "That doesn't mean every one of these should be inserted into the CFP, but I think you have to consider what it means, because there's other ratings and evaluation tools we've looked at that are much like these results."

While the issues are on the table, the CFP's management committee is notorious for missing its own deadlines. Sankey this week didn't rule out the possibility of the 12-team CFP remaining in place in 2026.

"Can I see a scenario? Sure, I can see a scenario," Sankey said. "But is that the most likely scenario? Come back for more. I said -- genuinely -- we're interested in a model. We're not committed to that model, and you've seen that play out this week, where people have different ideas."

The question is if the Power 4 leagues can put their differences aside -- quickly.

"We need to work well together," Sankey said. "The emotional maturity needed right now is higher than ever."

 

Posted (edited)

They need to stop dancing around playing fuck-fuck and just do what the B1G and SEC want.

It's insulting to everyone else to pretend like they matter.

or...
Have a true plan for what the end goal is and make it happen.  These scheduling rules are not difficult.  Certain parties are pedantic. There a huge difference.

Edited by Iceman
Posted
56 minutes ago, Iceman said:

They need to stop dancing around playing fuck-fuck and just do what the B1G and SEC want.

It's insulting to everyone else to pretend like they matter.

Sankey and the SEC are losing the PR battle in order to win the war. The Big 12 and ACC rejected 4+4+2+2 because they didn't want to codify their worth as half than that of the SEC and Big Ten, so now Sankey is going for the entire pie, trying to expand to 16 with more at-large spots that can be filled by more SEC teams.

1927398823824880088.webp.0d46539df2e6df00040119dcc4c77bd1.webp

1927398823824880088.webp.fc5a35b8aa7cf08f1c77bace981f8e03.webp

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Iceman said:

They need to stop dancing around playing fuck-fuck and just do what the B1G and SEC want.

It's insulting to everyone else to pretend like they matter.

I agree.

It is time for Sankey to force them into a game of chicken and not to blink. Tell them it is 4 autobids for SEC & B1G, 2 for ACC and Big 12, or else the SEC champ plays the B1G champ for the national title. Which do you prefer? 

Posted
1 hour ago, Iceman said:

They need to stop dancing around playing fuck-fuck and just do what the B1G and SEC want.

It's insulting to everyone else to pretend like they matter.

or...
Have a true plan for what the end goal is and make it happen.  These scheduling rules are not difficult.  Certain parties are pedantic. There a huge difference.

If they agreed it would be done but they disagree and it sounds like there’s also disagreement between SEC administrators and head coaches. I still can’t tell who’se pressuring SEC for nine game conference schedule in this discussion. I assume it’s the BIG 10 because they play nine and think SEC teams overall records are being fluffed by the extra noncon game? 

Huge eyeroll though in this shit:

“There's a sense among some athletic directors in the SEC and ACC that moving to nine conference games is feasible -- if the committee doesn't penalize teams for losing two or three games against strong opponents.”

Jesus fuck, everyone knows the top of the SEC is usually very strong but they’re acting like the ninth game for everyone will be UGA. Nobody is getting the top three in a nine game schedule, and if it happens for some reason, maybe just win one? And regardless, a two loss SEC team is already getting in over a 2 loss Big XII team and even a 1 loss team most of the time. SOS is being considered whether it’s on paper or not. And the whole point of expanding to 16 is that the first team out regardless of conference has no realistic chance at winning it all anyway.

And extra lol at this:

"I know last year I talked about a lot of what I read was two versus three losses, and that was concerning," Byrne said. "Granted, ultimately, it's up to you and the play you have on the field, and you have to recognize that, but I also do believe that when you looked at the bullet points for the CFP, strength of schedule was the first bullet point listed.”

Bama lost to 3-6 Vandy and 2-6 OU dipshit. SOS considerations wasn’t your problem last year, so yeah, beat the mid teams on your fucking schedule or shut the fuck up. 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, satyanash said:

Sankey and the SEC are losing the PR battle in order to win the war. The Big 12 and ACC rejected 4+4+2+2 because they didn't want to codify their worth as half than that of the SEC and Big Ten, so now Sankey is going for the entire pie, trying to expand to 16 with more at-large spots that can be filled by more SEC teams.

1927398823824880088.webp.0d46539df2e6df00040119dcc4c77bd1.webp

1927398823824880088.webp.fc5a35b8aa7cf08f1c77bace981f8e03.webp

 

 

17 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

I agree.

It is time for Sankey to force them into a game of chicken and not to blink. Tell them it is 4 autobids for SEC & B1G, 2 for ACC and Big 12, or else the SEC champ plays the B1G champ for the national title. Which do you prefer? 

Did you both miss that most SEC coaches want 5-11 as long as they can keep the 8 game schedule? It looks like BIG is the only one strongly advocating for 4-4-2-2-1-3. They want 4 guaranteed spots because they play 9 conference games and SEC plays 8. They’re the ones who are acting as though they’re equal in strength to SEC on the field which is laughable. If you think BIG XII administrators and fans think they’re equal to SEC you’re reading too many internet comments or message boards. If anything you’d expect the Big XII to want 2 guaranteed spots but they’re on board with 11 at large knowing that SEC will get most of them and BIG XII is far more likely to get 0 at large than 2 in any given year. Sounds like your beef should be with BIG.

Edited by 'stache
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

 

Did you both miss that most SEC coaches want 5-11 as long as they can keep the 8 game schedule? It looks like BIG is the only one strongly advocating for 4-4-2-2-1-3. They want 4 guaranteed spots because they play 9 conference games and SEC plays 8. They’re the ones who are acting as though they’re equal in strength to SEC on the field which is laughable. If you think BIG XII administrators and fans think they’re equal to SEC you’re reading too many internet comments or message boards. If anything you’d expect the Big XII to want 2 guaranteed spots but they’re on board with 11 at large knowing that SEC will get most of them and BIG XII is far more likely to get 0 at large than 2 in any given year. Sounds like your beef should be with BIG.

Seems like 3/4 of the p4 conferences are okay with 5/11 format with BIG not being okay with it because they stand to lose the most. Where as giving the year Big12/ACC could get 3 each. Where as in the 4/4/2/2/1/3 format B12/ACC might only get just the two.

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Seems like 3/4 of the p4 conferences are okay with 5/11 format with BIG not being okay with it because they stand to lose the most. Where as giving the year Big12/ACC could get 3 each. Where as in the 4/4/2/2/1/3 format B12/ACC might only get just the two.

Yup. I would sarcastically tell people to “just read the damn article” but even I had to read it a few times to figure out what is going on here. I know many on this board are still mad at Yormark and the “Irate 8,” but we’re not the ones causing trouble here, it’s the BIG conflating their big payday with strength on the field. They got their money because of the size of their media markets, not because they’re in any way equal to SEC on the field (top to bottom).

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

They can't come out and say "Iowa can't make the CFP without help" or "We need to keep Charleston Southern on our schedule" so instead we get weeks of posturing. Neither B1G (4 guaranteed spots) nor SEC (stay at 8 conf games) has a good argument. At least at this point we're basically having a stare down over whether Iowa or South Carolina makes it in a certain year. Not a ton of money involved either way.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yup. I would sarcastically tell people to “just read the damn article” but even I had to read it a few times to figure out what is going on here. I know many on this board are still mad at Yormark and the “Irate 8,” but we’re not the ones causing trouble here, it’s the BIG conflating their big payday with strength on the field. They got their money because of the size of their media markets, not because they’re in any way equal to SEC on the field (top to bottom).

The B1G has all of its talking heads, paid directly or indirectly, out there talking about being the strongest conference and winning the last two titles. "Now that everyone is paying players, power has shifted to the north" implying that the SEC was actively playing bag games that other leagues avoided before. Shit like that. 

I hate the SEC history and idiotic bravado. Hell, and the schools themselves, outside of UF and Vanderbilt, who I like a little. I'm all for what the B1G is doing. I hope it all causes the SEC to yield to the pleadings for them to play 9 conference games. 8 game conference schedules causing what is effectively a cheat for the SEC and ACC (lol) getting more teams into a playoff is beneath what Texas and its brand stands for, so fuck all of that shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted

The Big 10 is 3 programs that could win a natty and 5-6 programs that would compete for ACC or Big 12 titles in good years.  The remainder struggle with bowl eligibility in any non-G5 league.

They have money because they’re the more popular universities in large population areas.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I know this for sure - the Big 10 doesn't deserve 4 automatic bids. Fuck a bunch of that. Penn State would be guaranteed a playoff spot every year. We don't need to watch Penn State get pantsed in the playoffs every year. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

In summary:

ESPN will pay more if the SEC goes to nine league games. 
 
The SEC is concerned that “loss column bias” by a CFP selection committee will penalize the SEC if it has more league games (and more losses). That’s why it wants four AQs. Yes, that would mean a three (or even four) loss team getting in. 
 
4 AQs also means that the SEC can make a three game play-in series on CG weekend, where 1/2 play for the SEC championship and seeding, while 3/6 and 4/5 play for the other two AQ positions. This would suck for the B12 and ACC, leeching attention. It would make a ton of money for the SEC. It would also mean that there would be a lot more November SEC games with playoff meaning, again hurting the ACC and B12 (who is going to watch UCF/ASU with playoff implications, when Tenn is playing LSU with playoff implications?)

Finally, if the SEC has 4 AQs, the conference record becomes much more important than the overall record for SEC teams, meaning more premiere OOC opponents (again, more money for networks). Conversely, if SEC teams are competing for the at large CFP spots (5-11 model), they will be more hesitant to schedule tougher OOC games.

In short- the 4-4-2-2 offers so much more money and benefits for the SEC (and ESPN), that I doubt they go to nine league game schedules unless that model is adopted  

 

Edited by statsman
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, statsman said:

In summary:

ESPN will pay more if the SEC goes to nine league games. 
 
The SEC is concerned that “loss column bias” by a CFP selection committee will penalize the SEC if it has more league games (and more losses). That’s why it wants four AQs. Yes, that would mean a three (or even four) loss team getting in. 
 
4 AQs also means that the SEC can make a three game play-in series on CG weekend, where 1/2 play for the SEC championship and seeding, while 3/6 and 4/5 play for the other two AQ positions. This would suck for the B12 and ACC, leeching attention. It would make a ton of money for the SEC. It would also mean that there would be a lot more November SEC games with playoff meaning, again hurting the ACC and B12 (who is going to watch UCF/ASU with playoff implications, when Tenn is playing LSU with playoff implications?)

Finally, if the SEC has 4 AQs, the conference record becomes much more important than the overall record for SEC teams, meaning more premiere OOC opponents. Conversely, if SEC teams are competing for the at large CFP spots (5-11 model), they will be more hesitant to schedule tougher OOC games.

In short- the 4-4-2-2 offers so much more money and benefits for the SEC (and ESPN), that I doubt they go to nine league game schedules unless that model is adopted  

 

Lolwut? That ain't happening for a bunch of reasons, including the SEC isn't going to limit itself to 4 AQ positions, they'll be aiming for one or more of the at-large's too and aren't going to guarantee additional losses to their 3-6 programs during CCG weekend. "Leeching attention" from the ACC and Big XII title game ain't an issue here, the same networks have stakes in those games as well.  

a man wearing a mask and gloves is saying truly , you have a dizzying intelligence .

Edited by 'stache
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Lolwut? That ain't happening for a bunch of reasons, including the SEC isn't going to limit itself to 4 AQ positions, they'll be aiming for one or more of the at-large's too and aren't going to guarantee additional losses to their 3-6 programs during CCG weekend. "Leeching attention" from the ACC and Big XII title game ain't an issue here, the same networks have stakes in those games as well.  

a man wearing a mask and gloves is saying truly , you have a dizzying intelligence .

Yeah, that’s not what I said. 4 AQs for the SEC last year would have meant that on Dec 7, 2024, there would have been an 11 AM game between SEC #3 Tennessee and #6 S. Carolina, a 3:30 game between #4 Alabama and #5 Ole Miss, and an 8PM game between Texas and Georgia. The winners of the first two games and both in the CG would have gone to the CFP. 
 
In this model, there are still a couple of at large places, and the SEC #5 (after play in weekend) will argue it deserves it more than the B12 #3 or the B1G #5. We’ll see. 
 
The only place for3-5 SEC teams is as November spoilers. 
 
Note that in this scenario, TAMU and LSU miss out because of league losses, and their OOC losses to ND and USC, respectively, play no part. 

Edited by statsman
Posted

snakey is wasting a grand opportunity

"our schools that call the shots will force an embargo on fcs games on all of the other league members"

"all the rest of you other leagues, what are you going to do for us?"

ignore all of the other topics

put the easiest one on the table and see what happens

Posted
2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The SEC being worried about the playoff committee leaving them out is like my wife being worried that I won’t dump loads in her.

that depends on the type of load

i know you guys up in iowa are in to some kinky shit

but your point is taken and agreed

teams who lose 3rd games to teams with sub-.500 league records shouldn't be in the top 16 anyway....   ESPECIALLY if they are playing an fcs scrimmage game

they SHOULD be penalized for losing a 3rd game when one of their wins is fcs

i just hope the "conference shot callers" (anchor bama creamsicle gatah uga) put an end to this fcs bullshit once and for all

they should all be embarrassed for taking the purchased win

not our standard

not theirs either

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
50 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

that depends on the type of load

i know you guys up in iowa are in to some kinky shit

but your point is taken and agreed

teams who lose 3rd games to teams with sub-.500 league records shouldn't be in the top 16 anyway....   ESPECIALLY if they are playing an fcs scrimmage game

they SHOULD be penalized for losing a 3rd game when one of their wins is fcs

i just hope the "conference shot callers" (anchor bama creamsicle gatah uga) put an end to this fcs bullshit once and for all

they should all be embarrassed for taking the purchased win

not our standard

not theirs either

With 16 teams Bama would have been in last year so again what are they crying about? Also, why do you think others would agree to do away with the fcs games? You’re the only program that seems to avoid them. The November cupcake week seems to be a deeply rooted sec turdition.

Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

With 16 teams Bama would have been in last year so again what are they crying about? Also, why do you think others would agree to do away with the fcs games? You’re the only program that seems to avoid them. The November cupcake week seems to be a deeply rooted sec turdition.

NFL teams win Superbowls all the time with 4-6 losses, often to some of the league’s worst teams. We understand why- there is a lot of parity. 
 
The SEC is a tougher league. They play more games against teams that can beat you. 

Posted
8 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The SEC being worried about the playoff committee leaving them out is like my wife being worried that I won’t dump loads in her.

 

6 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

that depends on the type of load

i know you guys up in iowa are in to some kinky shit

The whole shovelfull, Miss Kitty?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 hours ago, Iceman said:

They need to stop dancing around playing fuck-fuck and just do what the B1G and SEC want.

It's insulting to everyone else to pretend like they matter.

or...
Have a true plan for what the end goal is and make it happen.  These scheduling rules are not difficult.  Certain parties are pedantic. There a huge difference.

Yes...the brilliant strategy of College Football has resulted in a thriving national sport, loved in most of the big markets in this country outside the Northeast, and instead turned into a regional sport for the Southeast and the Rust Belt.

I am sure this ingenious strategy of destroying our national brand in favor of the narrow interests of a few regions will do wonders.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

The current format is great, including the byes for the top 4.  It doesn't need to be expanded to add 3-loss teams with bitchy coaches.  I mean, when you're a big-time program you have maybe 6 challenging games a year.  Win more than half of them or go sit down.

 

Edited by TexArcher
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, TexArcher said:

The current format is great, including the byes for the top 4.  It doesn't need to be expanded to add 3-loss teams with bitchy coaches.  I mean, when you're a big-time program you have maybe 6 challenging games a year.  Win more than half of them or go sit down.

 

Byes are stupid, there shouldn’t be byes

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

Byes are stupid, there shouldn’t be byes

Byes keep late regular season games meaningful, many of which are rivalry games.  Do you want to see 11-0 Bama resting guys against 9-2 Auburn?  11-0 Ohio State resting guys against 9-2 Michigan?  Because without CCG's and byes, that's exactly what we'll get.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

Byes keep late regular season games meaningful, many of which are rivalry games.  Do you want to see 11-0 Bama resting guys against 9-2 Auburn?  11-0 Ohio State resting guys against 9-2 Michigan?  Because without CCG's and byes, that's exactly what we'll get.

 

 

Poor example. Rivalry games will be meaningful even if one of the teams you mentioned are 7-5. Hell in one of your examples the current national champions lost their last game, didn’t get a bye and still won it all.

Also every team with a bye lost this past season. I think coming into the playoff having more time off hindered them vs teams that had got back into their routine. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

Poor example. Rivalry games will be meaningful even if one of the teams you mentioned are 7-5. Hell in one of your examples the current national champions lost their last game, didn’t get a bye and still won it all.

Also every team with a bye lost this past season. I think coming into the playoff having more time off hindered them vs teams that had got back into their routine. 

And that is the epitome of small sample bias.  Coaches will continue to covet the byes, which will continue to make late regular season games matter.

And rivalry games will not be meaningful if one team needs the win and the other doesn't.  This is pretty much the entire reason the byes exist: regular season integrity.  This isn't a new idea.

Expanding the playoffs is about adding more games for more money.  It does not make the format better in any other way.  You think we had a boring first round last year?  Do we really need to see Ohio State beat the dog shit out of the MAC champion, and get someone hurt in the process?  You know how no one gives a shit about the first round of the NBA playoffs because it's completely predictable?  That's where this is headed.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

The Conference CG, in conferences with multiple bids, hurt. Georgia, for example, lost their two year starter at QB (and their fantastic punter). 
 
Teams like ND, tOSU, Tennessee and Indiana didn’t play in the CG, so they got the extra week of rest even without a bye. The Buckeyes used that time to restructure their run game and clean up their defense. 
 
The old BCS and four team CFP seemed like a conclusion to the season. The 12 team CFP is more like the NCAA tournament, a whole second season. 

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...