Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I’d honestly rather go back to the BCS.  Even if it did spit out two SEC teams half the time.

genie is not going back in the bottle - we're staying at 12 or going to 16 - ccgs not going away

top 4 ccg winners have to get a bye AND host their first game

5 through 16 could play an opening round - but that is 6 games producing 3 winners leaving 7 standing - derp

therefore 5/6/7/8 also have to get a bye - but to make the top 4 'more valuable' 5/6/7/8 should 'host' at the indoor stadium equidistant to their opponent - the 'host' gets 80% of the tickets for 24 hours before their opponents can buy more than 20

proceed with quarter/semi bowl rotations from there

- otherwise as posted 5 is the most valuable - miss your ccg - get an extra week of rest - and still get a home game?

Posted

Bama got smoked by a dogshit OU team late in the season. They had no business even being considered for the CFP. The fact that DeBoer is still bitching about it is bizarre and sad. I respected this guy after he beat us in the CFP.

South Carolina had a compelling case based on vibes, winning streak, and beating an eventual CFP team Clemson. But Ole Miss smoked them, and the Bama loss defies imagination in different ways to lose. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Bama got smoked by a dogshit OU team late in the season. They had no business even being considered for the CFP. The fact that DeBoer is still bitching about it is bizarre and sad. I respected this guy after he beat us in the CFP.

South Carolina had a compelling case based on vibes, winning streak, and beating an eventual CFP team Clemson. But Ole Miss smoked them, and the Bama loss defies imagination in different ways to lose. 

…and SMU didn’t beat anyone that finished ranked and lost to BYU. 
 
At some point, shouldn’t a CFP team have a good win? Rather than just not have many losses?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
On 5/31/2025 at 7:41 PM, statsman said:

…and SMU didn’t beat anyone that finished ranked and lost to BYU. 
 
At some point, shouldn’t a CFP team have a good win? Rather than just not have many losses?

Yup. Why even schedule hard OOC if all you need to do is just not lose. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-joel-klatt-show-a-college-football-podcast/id1037085984?i=1000710848310
 
Klatt has a good comp of 4-4-2-2-4 vs 5-11. He points out that the B12 is less likely to, over a five year span, get as many teams in the CFP under the 5-11. He winders why Yormark is for 5-11. 
 
My suspicion? Yormark knows that the 4-4-2-4, through play-in games and SEC/B1G OOC games will help the SEC and B1G much more than it helps the B12, increasing the gulf between the P2 and Mid2. 

Posted
15 minutes ago, statsman said:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-joel-klatt-show-a-college-football-podcast/id1037085984?i=1000710848310
 
Klatt has a good comp of 4-4-2-2-4 vs 5-11. He points out that the B12 is less likely to, over a five year span, get as many teams in the CFP under the 5-11. He winders why Yormark is for 5-11. 
 
My suspicion? Yormark knows that the 4-4-2-4, through play-in games and SEC/B1G OOC games will help the SEC and B1G much more than it helps the B12, increasing the gulf between the P2 and Mid2. 

I think most years big 12 would have 2 in anyway and being in favor of 5/11 gives them the better chance of an additional team more than 4/4/2/4 format 

Posted

I really think it’s about not acquiescing to codified next level status.

The reality is that the SEC has been the best conference for a long time, but the Big 10 is closer in actual on-field quality to the Big 12 and ACC.  The Big 12 and ACC don’t went to formally concede anything even if everyone knows they’ll probably get fewer bids in this system.  At least there will be a semblance of earning things.  There are plenty of years when the 3rd and 4th Big 10 teams could easily lose to the 2nd and 3rd ACC or Big 12 teams.

The Big 10 doesn’t deserve a formal advantage just because they have the biggest fanbases.  Most people in the SEC know deep down that they’ll probably get more than 4 teams in a lot of years too.

The 4-4-2-2 system is just anti-competitive at the end of the day.  It was a vehicle to generate more content in the form of play in games.  Like there isn’t enough $ already.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The reality is that the SEC has been the best conference for a long time, but the Big 10 is closer in actual on-field quality to the Big 12

When is the last time that current members of the Big 12 won conseuctive national titles in Football? 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

Yeah I think we've all acknowledged that tOSU and UM are at the top, everyone else is mid. I looked through the list and the last OG Big 10 team I could find winning a national championship was Michigan State in 1966. USC and Washington have won at least one since as members of the Pac 10/12, Nebraska has some as members of the Big 8/12, and PSU has some in the 80s as an independent.

Edited by 'stache
Posted
15 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Put them in?

They don’t deserve an auto bid.

If they have some great wins and the committee puts them, whatever. 

Posted
Just now, TKthunder2 said:

Lots of Big Ten bashing on here but…

 

 

I don't think you can necessarily look at past rankings to dictate this because how teams are ranked will be different and a completely different thought process will be used now in ranking them.

Posted
21 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I don't think you can necessarily look at past rankings to dictate this because how teams are ranked will be different and a completely different thought process will be used now in ranking them.

I agree it’s not a perfect 1to1 (obviously having Oregon/USC/Washington play OSU/Mich/Pedo is going to generate some more losses) but it’s still valid data and illustrates how perception doesn’t necessarily align with past results.

Posted

Dan Morrison: Joel Klatt explains why it's 'absolutely bananas' for Big 12 to support 5+11 CFP format

Quote

The impending expansion of the College Football Playoff has drawn plenty of discussion. Much of that has centered around the SEC and Big Ten, but other power conferences like the Big 12 are also looking to have their say. The Big 12, in particular, has been in favor of the 5+11 CFP format, which would give five automatic bids, or one per power conference, and the Group of Five along with 11 at-large bids.

That’s a decision that analyst Joel Klatt doesn’t understand, given where the Big 12 stands in the sport, as he explained on The Joel Klatt Show. “I think it is absolutely bananas that the Big 12 and their ADs and their coaches would argue for this,” Joel Klatt said. “Because they’re going to get crushed by this. If you want the sport to continue coalescing power in only two power conferences, then go to a 5+11 model. Because that’s exactly what will happen.”

The basic concern that Klatt has for the Big 12 in the 5+11 model is that the conference will only get one bid. That’s when the other option appears to be a model that would include four bids of the SEC and Big Ten, two for the Big 12 and ACC, and one for the Group of Five to go along with three at-large bids. “Right now, I believe, there’s a bit of a fork in the road. With the differences in money and revenue more specifically that is clearly going to take place in distribution between the SEC, Big Ten, and then the other Power Four conferences, the ACC and the Big 12, you can in theory say that maybe that gap is even going to grow in coming years. Right now, we might be closer to one another than we will be in five years. Now, that’s not a guarantee, and maybe they would argue, ‘No. We’re gonna invest and we’re gonna be even better in the future.’ Okay. You know what? That’s fine,” Klatt said.

“But think about the gamble that putting the sport in the boardroom is for the Big 12 and the ACC. If they’re going to take a position that the 5+11 model… is better for the sport, then I think more often than not, we’re gonna have years like we had last year, in which we would have had I believe it’s six teams from the SEC, three teams from the ACC, four teams from the Big Ten, and guess what the Big 12 got? One. They would have gotten one team in last year. Even in an expanded 16-team field and even with 11 at-large bids. You go back to 2023. How many teams would they have gotten in a 5+11 model? One. One team.”

Ultimately, the Big 12 is making a bet by pushing for the 5+11 model. They’re betting that, in the future, they’ll get at least one of those at-large bids each season and potentially more than that. That’s a gamble Klatt wouldn’t take.

Yet, here we are, trying to guarantee them two spots,” Klatt said. “And they’re gonna argue for a model where they get one? Here’s the bet. Over the course of, let’s just call it five years. Over the course of five years, I can guarantee these conferences two spots every single year. So, they’re gonna get 10 Playoff teams. By the way, there was that stipulation there’s three at-large bids, there’s a chance for a third. Now, it might be unlikely, but there is a chance for a third, but you’re guaranteed two. So, at a minimum, you’re going to get two Playoff teams every single year in a model that is 4+4+2+2+1+3. We go to that.”

Ultimately, there are a few reasons to avoid the model that guarantees two Big 12 teams make the Playoff. Commissioner Brett Yormark shared that the conference decided, “We don’t want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field.” On top of that, he emphasized that he believes this is going to be the more fair model.

“Now, what they want is a model that doesn’t guarantee them two,” Klatt said. “And in the last two years would have notched them only one Playoff berth. So, the bet that Brett Yormark and the Big 12 stakeholders want to make is that they’re gonna get more than two teams over a five-year rolling term in a 5+11 model. What planet are we living on? No. That is not the case. It’s just not. If they wanted to argue for anything. If they wanted to earn it on the field, they should be arguing for the two model, and maybe even a two-and-a-half model.”

Ultimately, the future of the College Football Playoff remains a mystery. The question is whether administrators will push what’s best for them or all of college football. Yormark has said that he believes 5+11 is best for the sport. Klatt doesn’t think it’s best for the Big 12, though. 

 

Posted

I think Klatt's missing the mark here.  I think the committee will frequently screw over the Big 12 with odes to "eye test" and "good losses", but at least they (the Big 12) aren't publicly saying "we're signing up for a guaranteed less".  They're also planting a bit of a strategic flag in saying "we know we'll get less than we want some times, but it's the right thing for the good of the sport".  I think at this point most Big 12 officials are more interested in staying in the game than maximizing revenue in the short term.  Especially when the playoff gets reformed every single year.

The Big 12 isn't super likely to get more bids this way, but I don't think that's what they're after in this negotiation.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think Klatt's missing the mark here.  I think the committee will frequently screw over the Big 12 with odes to "eye test" and "good losses", but at least they (the Big 12) aren't publicly saying "we're signing up for a guaranteed less".  They're also planting a bit of a strategic flag in saying "we know we'll get less than we want some times, but it's the right thing for the good of the sport".  I think at this point most Big 12 officials are more interested in staying in the game than maximizing revenue in the short term.  Especially when the playoff gets reformed every single year.

The Big 12 isn't super likely to get more bids this way, but I don't think that's what they're after in this negotiation.

Which is dumb. He/they care more about perception than reality.

I’m good with either option but from the Big 12’s point of view Klatt is 100% correct, this is a horrible move.

Posted
30 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think Klatt's missing the mark here.  I think the committee will frequently screw over the Big 12 with odes to "eye test" and "good losses", but at least they (the Big 12) aren't publicly saying "we're signing up for a guaranteed less".  They're also planting a bit of a strategic flag in saying "we know we'll get less than we want some times, but it's the right thing for the good of the sport".  I think at this point most Big 12 officials are more interested in staying in the game than maximizing revenue in the short term.  Especially when the playoff gets reformed every single year.

The Big 12 isn't super likely to get more bids this way, but I don't think that's what they're after in this negotiation.

Hahahahahaha!  HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!

Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense. They're not being altruists or strategic thinkers on this. They're simply not interested in codifying their position as merely a second tier conference in an explicit manner. Klatt is 100% correct with his argument. 

I realize not everyone on here has had the misfortune of being present in a board room when leadership is facing a daunting outlook and some of the sunshine-pumping ass-kissers start vomiting false hope and everyone else starts injecting that into their veins as well, but that is almost certainly what the Big 12 and ACC board rooms are doing in this set-up. They're convincing themselves of the premise that they'll outperform their past as they look to the future, even though their foundation has actually gotten weaker relative to the competition.

It is flatly idiotic for those groups to leave a locked up spot sitting on the table. The SEC and B1G will ultimately figure out how to take all of the at-larges on a virtually annual basis. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Hahahahahaha!  HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!

Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense. They're not being altruists or strategic thinkers on this. They're simply not interested in codifying their position as merely a second tier conference in an explicit manner. Klatt is 100% correct with his argument. 

I realize not everyone on here has had the misfortune of being present in a board room when leadership is facing a daunting outlook and some of the sunshine-pumping ass-kissers start vomiting false hope and everyone else starts injecting that into their veins as well, but that is almost certainly what the Big 12 and ACC board rooms are doing in this set-up. They're convincing themselves of the premise that they'll outperform their past as they look to the future, even though their foundation has actually gotten weaker relative to the competition.

It is flatly idiotic for those groups to leave a locked up spot sitting on the table. The SEC and B1G will ultimately figure out how to take all of the at-larges on a virtually annual basis. 

Well no shit they aren't being altruistic.  Your next point is exactly what I said up the thread.  Not codifying second tier status is the primary goal.  But this absolutely allows them to pay "walk the walk" type lip service to the idea they've been tossing around (that the most powerful leagues should care more about what's best for everyone), regardless of how bullshit it actually is.  It's not their motivation, but it's something they can use.  The Big 12 and ACC aren't in a power position, and they know it.  I really doubt that they honestly believe that they're going to gain on the blue bloods.

The SEC and Big 10 can just drive this into the ditch whenever they want.  If the Big 12 and ACC agree to 4-4-2-2 they're in a shitty spot.  If they agree to 5/11 they're in a shitty spot.  If they agree to 4-4-2-2 what's to stop the SEC and Big 10 from changing it to 5-5-1-1 in another two years?  Nothing.  They can now do what they want.

This is a play at perception.  It's the best hand the Big 12 and ACC have.  Work to effect public perception and hopes that the viewing masses push back against the SEC and Big 10 formally hoarding power on top of having all the de facto power.  We all know that turning the playoff into an anti-competitive invitational sucks.  Does anyone really want that product?  I mean, outside of Sankey and Pettiti.

Posted

yormark shit on us on the way out and paid for it on unedited uncensored national television

the presidents of the rig schools need to fire him tomorrow and take the 2 slots in the same presser

based on current conferences, the list of schools in the top 100 by wins (ivies/fcs not counted) is the best power/revenue/tv-ratings metric there is; duplications are correct (ties)

sec/b1g: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 12 14 17 20 24 25 28 33 33 35 39 46 48 53 60 61 62 92 95 97 97 97

acc/rig12: 18 23 26 27 29 31 39 42 45 53 56 58 66 74 90 95 100

 

Posted (edited)

As a fan of a school in the Big 12, I'm don't know that I even care all that much about which method (between these two) ends up getting selected.  I know that my school (and the other schools in this league) isn't going to win a natty.  I don't see a massive difference in outcome from one method to the other.  I just want to know that my school is allowed to objectively play it's way in, and the game stops getting farther away from the sport I fell in love with.  I'm fine with the allocation of the 4-4-2-2 model (I think it's fair), I just don't like the idea of an invitational (the codifying different strata doesn't bother me as much as it does the decision makers).

I think 5/11 because I think it makes for a better product (I enjoy conference championship games) and I think a pure invitational kinda sucks as a sports fan.  I'll watch regardless as long as my school is allowed to participate.

This just doesn't seem like a situation with an obvious best choice from my perspective.  There are existential risks in either path.  We don't have much control anyhow, and what's going to happen in this support for good or bad will happen regardless of the Big 12 or ACC.

Edited by Al_4_ISU
Posted

Last year Iowa State would have made the 16 team playoff along with Arizona State in the 44/22/13 model.

With the 5/11 model Iowa State would have been out just like with the current 12 model.

I just don’t see how turning down a free playoff spot most years is in anyway beneficial to the Big 12. If they have multiple years as a single bid league they will not be able to justify a potential 2nd bid the next time this comes up for negotiation and TV viewership will start treating Big 12 football like they treat other one bid leagues in basketball (where they only watch the championship game).

This would destroy the Big 12.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Last year Iowa State would have made the 16 team playoff along with Arizona State in the 44/22/13 model.

With the 5/11 model Iowa State would have been out just like with the current 12 model.

I just don’t see how turning down a free playoff spot most years is in anyway beneficial to the Big 12. If they have multiple years as a single bid league they will not be able to justify a potential 2nd bid the next time this comes up for negotiation and TV viewership will start treating Big 12 football like they treat other one bid leagues in basketball (where they only watch the championship game).

This would destroy the Big 12.

And this board would have been apoplectic that ISU took a spot from the SEC. I know it’s not his motivation but Yormark supports a plan that benefits the SEC and y’all still mad? 

Just in general 442213 is dumb as shit just because of how goddamned confusing it is for those who don’t follow this stuff closely. As for Yormarks motivation I think it’s far more aimed at Big 10 who really doesn’t deserve 4 auto bids. A 5-11 plan does nothing about perception, nobody anywhere thinks the XII/ACC is equal, SEC/BIG will get majority of the spots anyway.

 

Posted

Most of our fan base is fine if another SEC team doesn't get it.

Look at the ncaa baseball tournament thread, we're openly rooting for sec teams to lose.

We don't give a shit about the other teams, we only care if we get in.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
14 minutes ago, blacklab said:

Most of our fan base is fine if another SEC team doesn't get it.

Look at the ncaa baseball tournament thread, we're openly rooting for sec teams to lose.

We don't give a shit about the other teams, we only care if we get in.

And I can't imagine there will be any proposed system that will give any true blue blood fits for making it into the playoff with a minimum of 8-9 wins.

Posted
1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

And I can't imagine there will be any proposed system that will give any true blue blood fits for making it into the playoff with a minimum of 8-9 wins.

9 wins minimum

No aggy

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Posted

in addition to this list am i missing any of the key variables / points of contention in a 16 team format:

- guaranteed playoff teams per conference

- fcs games allowed / not allowed

- 8 or 9 game conference schedules

- no conference for domer = can they be seeded and get 1) a bye and/or 2) a home game

- date of army/navy game

- the 'big 6' bowls facehugging the quarters and semis

am i missing any binary questions like the above.....  not the arguments one way or another..... just the basic question

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I don't advocate moronically chanting a conference name but I do hope the other schools do well out of conference because that affects the seeding and perception of my school's teams. In men's basketball the non-conference performance of the schools in the SEC absolutely helped everyone when it came to NCAA tournament seeding and getting in.

Posted
1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

in addition to this list am i missing any of the key variables / points of contention in a 16 team format:

- guaranteed playoff teams per conference

- fcs games allowed / not allowed

- 8 or 9 game conference schedules

- no conference for domer = can they be seeded and get 1) a bye and/or 2) a home game

- date of army/navy game

- the 'big 6' bowls facehugging the quarters and semis

am i missing any binary questions like the above.....  not the arguments one way or another..... just the basic question

Possibility of play-in games if a conference has multiple guaranteed spots

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

question:

if the committee's rankings sunday morning after ccg saturday are THE LAST AND FINAL committee rankings.....

does the loser of a ccg remain ranked higher than the winner of a play-in game for bracket seeding?

if the ccg participants are, for example, ranked #5 and #7, and the 3rd and 4th teams based on conference rank that make a play-in game are #6 and #8 in the final committee rankings, what happens to bracket seeding when #7 wins by 1 point and #8 wins by 5 scores.....

shouldn't the committee reconvene one more time and issue another ranking to seed the bracket?

Posted
13 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

As a fan of a school in the Big 12, I'm don't know that I even care all that much about which method (between these two) ends up getting selected.  I know that my school (and the other schools in this league) isn't going to win a natty.  I don't see a massive difference in outcome from one method to the other.  I just want to know that my school is allowed to objectively play it's way in, and the game stops getting farther away from the sport I fell in love with.  I'm fine with the allocation of the 4-4-2-2 model (I think it's fair), I just don't like the idea of an invitational (the codifying different strata doesn't bother me as much as it does the decision makers).

I think 5/11 because I think it makes for a better product (I enjoy conference championship games) and I think a pure invitational kinda sucks as a sports fan.  I'll watch regardless as long as my school is allowed to participate.

This just doesn't seem like a situation with an obvious best choice from my perspective.  There are existential risks in either path.  We don't have much control anyhow, and what's going to happen in this support for good or bad will happen regardless of the Big 12 or ACC.

You are so wrong with your non competitive argument. The World Cup has automatic qualifiers and folks have to play their way in. Italy was knocked out of the last World Cup after winning the Euro. No committee would have ever left them out but they were knocked out by playing the games based on the group they were put into. No committee would have selected UTSA but when you play the games shit happens. In this case the automatic qualifiers are awarded by the games played within your conference.

Sankey got what he wanted when he entrapped the BIG XII by saying I want ideas and not people that complain about the good of the game. So Yormark takes the contrarian stance to seem independent and Sankey jumps on it.

Posted
9 hours ago, John80 said:

I don't advocate moronically chanting a conference name but I do hope the other schools do well out of conference because that affects the seeding and perception of my school's teams. In men's basketball the non-conference performance of the schools in the SEC absolutely helped everyone when it came to NCAA tournament seeding and getting in.

I generally fall into this same camp. For example I wanted Auburn to beat Maryland last year and hope they beat Baylor next year. It comes down to SOS and perception that ultimately benefits my team's conference and thereby my team. There are some obvious notable exceptions. I can't find my way to pull for aggie vs ND for example despite typically pulling for whoever ND happens to be playing. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
14 hours ago, blacklab said:

Most of our fan base is fine if another SEC team doesn't get it.

Look at the ncaa baseball tournament thread, we're openly rooting for sec teams to lose.

We don't give a shit about the other teams, we only care if we get in.

I agree however, the Surly fan base does get twisted if a team gets in over one that shouldn't. That might be a Big XII team getting in over an SEC team or SEC team getting in over ACC. Either way, we are going to argue about it and won't agree on which should have been left out.

Posted

I'm seeing now that Sankey will push for an ESPN metric to determine the CFP rankings.

If that's the case, I switch to firmly in the 4-4-2-2 camp because ESPN is 100% going to use that to fill it with SEC teams and keep Big 12 teams out.

Posted
13 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

question:

if the committee's rankings sunday morning after ccg saturday are THE LAST AND FINAL committee rankings.....

does the loser of a ccg remain ranked higher than the winner of a play-in game for bracket seeding?

if the ccg participants are, for example, ranked #5 and #7, and the 3rd and 4th teams based on conference rank that make a play-in game are #6 and #8 in the final committee rankings, what happens to bracket seeding when #7 wins by 1 point and #8 wins by 5 scores.....

shouldn't the committee reconvene one more time and issue another ranking to seed the bracket?

delete user ban post

derp

Posted
4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm seeing now that Sankey will push for an ESPN metric to determine the CFP rankings.

If that's the case, I switch to firmly in the 4-4-2-2 camp because ESPN is 100% going to use that to fill it with SEC teams and keep Big 12 teams out.

espn already owns all the metrics

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...