Straight seeding model expected for 2025 CFP

[WhosYourDawggy]

I agree. If there were no auto bids and straight top 16 rankings, it would benefit the SEC a whole lot more than the B1G. JMO.

I just wonder how much viewership numbers will look if it comes down to nearly a complete B1G/SEC playoff.

That's why the ACC and B12, the B12 in particular, should be glad to have 2 with the chance to get some of the 3 at-larges. This reminds me so much of The Alliance where they thought they were doing something and screwed the pooch. The 4-4-2-2-1-3 tracks historical results almost exactly, except the B12 and the ACC get more. The fuck they aren't all over that is amazing. Just make sure you have a time period - 5 years, 10 years, whatever - to reevaluate based on results.

 

[Deep Creek]

Q

That's why the ACC and B12, the B12 in particular, should be glad to have 2 with the chance to get some of the 3 at-larges. This reminds me so much of The Alliance where they thought they were doing something and screwed the pooch. The 4-4-2-2-1-3 tracks historical results almost exactly, except the B12 and the ACC get more. The fuck they aren't all over that is amazing. Just make sure you have a time period - 5 years, 10 years, whatever - to reevaluate based on results.

Until the ACC and Big 12 start winning some playoff games against the B1G and SEC, it doesn't really matter. They are only getting the check.

Outside of Clemson's wins several years back, and TCU beating Michigan, have either of those conference teams won playoff games over the P2? I know, I know there are some close games like ASU/Texas last year. But close don't count.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I just don't see a scheduling agreement where UGA plays Purdue home and away. We can schedule way better than that with FSU, UNC, Clemson, Miami, etc. The ACC makes more sense for our fanbase, even if I would love to travel to some of the B1G campuses.

I would like to think they would try and keep the big teams playing each other. You’re absolutely right that UGA/Purdue does nothing for anyone. And yes there will be years where we may get one or two games like that. But I’d have to think they aren’t giving up matchups like OSU/UGA or PSU/Bama or Oregon/LSU because the off chance some shit plays a big boy. But I guess we’ll see.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I agree. If there were no auto bids and straight top 16 rankings, it would benefit the SEC a whole lot more than the B1G. JMO.

I just wonder how much viewership numbers will look if it comes down to nearly a complete B1G/SEC playoff.

Exactly. Thats why I’m kinda confused why the B12 is even pushing this 5+11 model. It feels like taking the 2 guaranteed autos is the safer play imo.

I don’t think we’ll ever get to a complete B1G/SEC playoff. (Unless they break away) But it’ll be damn close as you say some years with no auto bids. Viewership would interesting to see.

 

[ralphiewvu]

More likely to see another logjam of 2-loss teams at the top... but unbalanced schedules can make weird stuff happen. It's how the Big Ten got Indiana in there last season. A couple of lucky breaks, a few missed teams during the regular season, and there could be 3 Big XII teams with one loss at the end of the year. Who they might be escapes me, as the league was impossible to predict last season and should be again this fall.

I don’t know who will win.

But I can tell ya who won’t win

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I would like to think they would try and keep the big teams playing each other. You’re absolutely right that UGA/Purdue does nothing for anyone. And yes there will be years where we may get one or two games like that. But I’d have to think they aren’t giving up matchups like OSU/UGA or PSU/Bama or Oregon/LSU because the off chance some shit plays a big boy. But I guess we’ll see.

At least from UGA's perspective, we already schedule those. It's the Illinois, Iowa, Minny games that would be kind of fun. Also the 4 West Coast teams. But I don't want them all the time. The SEC is a regional conference ... I like playing teams I can drive to, or games in Charlotte/Atlanta if we are going to go neutral.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Exactly. Thats why I’m kinda confused why the B12 is even pushing this 5+11 model. It feels like taking the 2 guaranteed autos is the safer play imo.

I don’t think we’ll ever get to a complete B1G/SEC playoff. (Unless they break away) But it’ll be damn close as you say some years with no auto bids. Viewership would interesting to see.

The other conferences already acknowledged the B1G and the SEC are in the driver's seat when they allowed an uneven revenue distribution. Why say, "hey you guys can take 29% each, and the ACC gets 17% and the B12 gets 15%" and then turn around and say we should have the same number of AQs. It makes no sense.

The money was divided by historical participation. What's wrong with doing AQs the same way when it has a ton of advantages? Some years, an underserving SEC/B1G team might get in, but it's more likely an underserving B12 or ACC gets in more often.

 

[Wishbone]

SEC and Big10 moving closer to splitting football from NCAA

With college sports in limbo and key issues coming to a head, the spotlight is on the SEC: 'It's going to get heated'

With potential CFP format changes, athlete revenue sharing and the impending House ruling all in flux, college sports is at a critical juncture. And the SEC is at the forefront of it all this week in Florida.

sports.yahoo.com

There's a lot to unpack here but this is one point:

From the article:

In Destin this week, SEC administrators are expected to examine the governance proposal and the possibility of separating football completely out from under the NCAA. During its spring meetings last week, the Big Ten swung its support for doing just that — bifurcating football governance.

 

[Deep Creek]

SEC and Big10 moving closer to splitting football from NCAA

With college sports in limbo and key issues coming to a head, the spotlight is on the SEC: 'It's going to get heated'

With potential CFP format changes, athlete revenue sharing and the impending House ruling all in flux, college sports is at a critical juncture. And the SEC is at the forefront of it all this week in Florida.

sports.yahoo.com

There's a lot to unpack here but this is one point:

From the article:

In Destin this week, SEC administrators are expected to examine the governance proposal and the possibility of separating football completely out from under the NCAA. During its spring meetings last week, the Big Ten swung its support for doing just that — bifurcating football governance.

Good article Bone. Why hasn’t the B1G/SEC already separated from the NCAA? It makes no sense to allow a group of schools without the financial wherewithal to control decisions for those that do have it.

 

[ralphiewvu]

At least from UGA's perspective, we already schedule those. It's the Illinois, Iowa, Minny games that would be kind of fun. Also the 4 West Coast teams. But I don't want them all the time. The SEC is a regional conference ... I like playing teams I can drive to, or games in Charlotte/Atlanta if we are going to go neutral.

Yes UGA does. But many in the SEC don’t. Thats probabaly partly why this was introduced. But most of it was to make more money by replacing one of the hopeless cupcakes with at least teams and matchups that may garner some interest.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Yes UGA does. But many in the SEC don’t. Thats probabaly partly why this was introduced. But most of it was to make more money by replacing one of the hopeless cupcakes with at least teams and matchups that may garner some interest.

It's why the AQs are important, even though I am not necessarily an advocate of them. With AQs, we can have all the great OOC games we want. Without it, it will require then committee to weigh SOS very strongly.

Everyone keeps pointing at Bama. That's not the right team to point at. They lost to Vandy and OU, and didn't deserve to be in last year. The team to look at is Clemson. Had they not played UGA, they would have either had a bye or hosted a game. Why would they keep playing UGA or other top teams in the future?

 

[ralphiewvu]

The other conferences already acknowledged the B1G and the SEC are in the driver's seat when they allowed an uneven revenue distribution. Why say, "hey you guys can take 29% each, and the ACC gets 17% and the B12 gets 15%" and then turn around and say we should have the same number of AQs. It makes no sense.

The money was divided by historical participation. What's wrong with doing AQs the same way when it has a ton of advantages? Some years, an underserving SEC/B1G team might get in, but it's more likely an underserving B12 or ACC gets in more often.

The other teams should have never given in to this uneven revenue distribution for the CFP. Thats exactly where the fight should have been at the beginning. But honestly I can’t blame them, it’s better to get something than risk getting nothing. No one with a straight face can argue the B1G and SEC won’t get the benefit of the doubt when push comes to shove if It’s even remotely close. Earned?? Perhaps depending on the team and schedule. But most years it’s going to depend on matchups and what drives ratings instead of who is deserving/undeserving. To say the ACC/B12 will get more of that compared to the B1G/SEC is ludicrous. I mean we quite literally had an undefeated ACC champ 2 years ago miss out over a 1 loss SEC team. Thats exactly why I wish the ACC/B12 would push the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model. Guarantee yourself 2

 

[ralphiewvu]

It's why the AQs are important, even though I am not necessarily an advocate of them. With AQs, we can have all the great OOC games we want. Without it, it will require then committee to weigh SOS very strongly.

Everyone keeps pointing at Bama. That's not the right team to point at. They lost to Vandy and OU, and didn't deserve to be in last year. The team to look at is Clemson. Had they not played UGA, they would have either had a bye or hosted a game. Why would they keep playing UGA or other top teams in the future?

I’m not advocating against AQs but for them. But again I understand why the SEC likes the 5+11 model given the position they are in. I have no idea why the B12 or even ACC would want it.

Clemson had 3 losses, if they didn’t win the ACC they weren’t getting in. The gripe I had was how BYU wasn’t even getting mention yet SMU (yes an ACC team) got in. Both had 2 losses and no conference championship while BYU went to Dallas and beat SMU.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

The other teams should have never given in to this uneven revenue distribution for the CFP. Thats exactly where the fight should have been at the beginning. But honestly I can’t blame them, it’s better to get something than risk getting nothing. No one with a straight face can argue the B1G and SEC won’t get the benefit of the doubt when push comes to shove if It’s even remotely close. Earned?? Perhaps depending on the team and schedule. But most years it’s going to depend on matchups and what drives ratings instead of who is deserving/undeserving. To say the ACC/B12 will get more of that compared to the B1G/SEC is ludicrous. I mean we quite literally had an undefeated ACC champ 2 years ago miss out over a 1 loss SEC team. Thats exactly why I wish the ACC/B12 would push the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model. Guarantee yourself 2

I was actually surprised they did it they way they did it. Normally they would have done shares for every win your team has. That is the way they do it for March Madness. But, if you did it that way, the B12 in particular would have gotten very little as ASU would have gotten 1 share for the bye and that's it. They went for the sure money, and the SEC and B1G likely gave up making more money had they gone with shares. That may explain why the B12/ACC took the uneven distribution.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I’m not advocating against AQs but for them. But again I understand why the SEC likes the 5+11 model given the position they are in. I have no idea why the B12 or even ACC would want it.

Clemson had 3 losses, if they didn’t win the ACC they weren’t getting in. The gripe I had was how BYU wasn’t even getting mention yet SMU (yes an ACC team) got in. Both had 2 losses and no conference championship while BYU went to Dallas and beat SMU.

The point on Clemson is that their 3rd loss was to UGA. Had they not lost to UGA, which dropped them in the rankings, they would have been ahead of ASU or BSU and gotten a bye, or at least home game. Their example is why teams shouldn't play tough OOC games unless that is taken into consideration in the rankings. I did a rundown on it how the UGA loss dropped them to 19th or something like that. They worked their way back up and then lost the two games. Without the UGA game, they would have been top 8 at the end of the year, or at least ahead of ASU for the bye.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I was actually surprised they did it they way they did it. Normally they would have done shares for every win your team has. That is the way they do it for March Madness. But, if you did it that way, the B12 in particular would have gotten very little as ASU would have gotten 1 share for the bye and that's it. They went for the sure money, and the SEC and B1G likely gave up making more money had they gone with shares. That may explain why the B12/ACC took the uneven distribution.

Yup, I get why they ceded the power but as you said it’s hard to then ask for equal AQs. But it’s exactly why I want them going for the sure AQs. Because if not it may hurt them yearly by not getting 2. Limits committee bias also. From the article I linked it sounded like the B1G wants that 4-4-2-2-1-3 model. Also heard on radio some in the SEC want 5 guaranteed AQs.

 

[ralphiewvu]

The point on Clemson is that their 3rd loss was to UGA. Had they not lost to UGA, which dropped them in the rankings, they would have been ahead of ASU or BSU and gotten a bye, or at least home game. Their example is why teams shouldn't play tough OOC games unless that is taken into consideration in the rankings. I did a rundown on it how the UGA loss dropped them to 19th or something like that. They worked their way back up and then lost the two games. Without the UGA game, they would have been top 8 at the end of the year, or at least ahead of ASU for the bye.

While I get that, they still made it as a 3 loss champ. Absolutley losing to UGA prevented at the very least a home game but if they don’t lose to UScar or UL ether, they get that home game or bye also. I’m not going to shed a tear in this situation because it wasn’t just the UGA game that prevented them getting that.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Yup, I get why they ceded the power but as you said it’s hard to then ask for equal AQs. But it’s exactly why I want them going for the sure AQs. Because if not it may hurt them yearly by not getting 2. Limits committee bias also. From the article I linked it sounded like the B1G wants that 4-4-2-2-1-3 model. Also heard on radio some in the SEC want 5 guaranteed AQs.

No, the SEC appears to be leaning toward what is referred to as 5-11 - 1 AQ for each conference, and 11 at-large. The SEC is not really pushing the 4 AQ plan, that's more of a B1G thing ... last year in a 16-team CFP the SEC would have gotten 6 teams in.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

While I get that, they still made it as a 3 loss champ. Absolutley losing to UGA prevented at the very least a home game but if they don’t lose to UScar or UL ether, they get that home game or bye also. I’m not going to shed a tear in this situation because it wasn’t just the UGA game that prevented them getting that.

I am not going to shed a tear for them anyway. I am using it as an example of why, without AQs, teams will be disincentivized to play big OOC games. That's not what CFB wants to needs, but it will happen if the committee holds a IC loss against a team when a team like IU bailed on an OOC games with Louisville and then had a weak B1G schedule.

 

[NinerSpartan]

Good article Bone. Why hasn’t the B1G/SEC already separated from the NCAA? It makes no sense to allow a group of schools without the financial wherewithal to control decisions for those that do have it.

Because they are pussies