Straight seeding model expected for 2025 CFP

[ralphiewvu]

Do you think the conferences are concerned about the possibility not having a single top sixteen team and being left out totally? Such happens with all but one G5 anyway.

I found this article interesting...in spite of it being too damn long. The SEC seems to not like the choice of nine conference games vs CFP spots. This guy took a deep look into how much more difficult the SEC schedules would be going to nine conference games/three permanent rivals.

CFP format

I think maybe for the B12 it might be getting completely left out. But for the others I think it’d be about not getting enough teams in. The B1G seems to be very for the 4-4-2-2-1-3 format to lock in AT MINIMUM 4 bids. It’s also why I haven’t seen any article say they like the 5+11 model.

 

[Deep Creek]

I think maybe for the B12 it might be getting completely left out. But for the others I think it’d be about not getting enough teams in. The B1G seems to be very for the 4-4-2-2-1-3 format to lock in AT MINIMUM 4 bids. It’s also why I haven’t seen any article say they like the 5+11 model.

I can see the Big 12 getting completely left out because of parity, not winning meaningful OOC games and not having a definitive top. But Yormack and a couple of coaches said they “wanted to earn it on the field” as the reason for supporting the 5-11 format. I guess they meant “after” the guaranteed spot. (I’ll see if I can find the article.)

If the B1G and SEC can’t get four teams in a sixteen team playoff without guaranteed help, then they are overrated imo.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I think maybe for the B12 it might be getting completely left out. But for the others I think it’d be about not getting enough teams in. The B1G seems to be very for the 4-4-2-2-1-3 format to lock in AT MINIMUM 4 bids. It’s also why I haven’t seen any article say they like the 5+11 model.

I can see the Big 12 getting completely left out because of parity, not winning meaningful OOC games and not having a definitive top. But Yormack and a couple of coaches said they “wanted to earn it on the field” as the reason for supporting the 5-11 format. I guess they meant “after” the guaranteed spot. (I’ll see if I can find the article.)

If the B1G and SEC can’t get four teams in a sixteen team playoff without guaranteed help, then they are overrated imo.

The B12 not advocating for AQs is the strangest thing I have seen in a long time. It's almost like 'P2 Derangement Syndrome' - if they are for it, we have to be against it. The ACC might have a little bit more of an argument, but in any year they have 3 viable teams, they can pick up the 3rd in the 3 at-large bids. Especially when they have the ability to knock ND out of one of those 3 bids.

The way I was reading the media/X/public was that they were up in arms when the SEC was for AQs. Then, the minute the SEC said they would support 5+11, and people saw the SEC could get up to 6 teams in, they lost their minds and started accusing the SEC of stacking the deck. For all their whining, the SEC can't win for losing on this one. Support AQs, you are setting the field before the season starts. Say you are against AQs, you are trying to stack 6 teams into the CFP.

I have a fucking brilliant idea. How about the teams in the ACC and B12 invest like the SEC has done, have fans show up for games, and fans watch TV. Until then, the metrics speak for themselves and they can all fuck off. I say that fully understanding the SEC brings some of this on themselves by Bama/OM/USCjr whining incessantly last year, and people saying Vandy would win the ACC, and that type of thing.