BIG sees what everyone but apparently Yormark sees- that is that the SEC bias in a 5+11 is going to be extreme. In no world will BIG capitulate to a second tier level below the SEC. If BIG doesn’t support 5+11 then it is dead. 4+4+2+2+1+1 or stays how it is now. SEC arrogantly believes they are in control but really it is the combination of an aligned SEC and BIG that is in control. BIG is the one conference with negotiating leverage with SEC and they are going to use it.
GOOD. I can see the BIG pushing for the 4-4-2-2 deal…It greatly benefits them. I hope they oppose 5-11. That was a terrible idea from Yormark. Does nor benefit our league at all.
I lean towards the 4422 also because it gives us 2 guaranteed spots and the big 12 play can a tougher or weaker schedule then fight for 1 more spot. A free for all in 5-11 benefits the sec and big and it’s drama each yr then some yrs we could be screwed over and only get 1. 2 spots each yr worse case puts the big 12 in the conversation each yr in playoffs.
The sec and big did add a lot of heavyweights so it’s fair in some ways bc if Texas and OU stayed in the big12, prob OU or one of them grabs a playoff spot.
So if it is 5-11 then it has merits of showing parity among conferences but each yr it’s a drama queen of sec wanting a bunch of at large and lobbying polls.
4422 cuts down on drama and doesn’t give the sec and big more teams bc it’s more capped with only 3 at large bc ND takes one.
My take is under 5-11 we have to fight each yr for what we would have received under 4422.
the SEC and the Big 10 take the cream off the ACC and Big 12 and it’s all over.
There are no big enough brands left in the Big 12 and only FSU, Clemson, and probably UNC are worth the squeeze in the ACC.
Monte, the sec and big10 do not have the power to impose how many big10 and sec schools can get into the cfp. This is what espn is not telling the public.
Yormark made it very clear. The “deal” between all Div I conferences with the sec and big10 was specific. It meant the sec and big10 can’t control the cfp. This is why Yormark wants a 5-11 and …this is why the sec is now favoring staying at 12. sec and and big10 controlling the cfp at 12 is much more easy than at 16.
This is what espn is pushing. They are pushing the sec and big10 control over the cfp when in fact it does not exist WITHOUT repercussion.
I completely understand your angle, but I think Yormark believes in the Big 12 which is why he wants the 5-11
He genuinely thinks Big 12 can get 3 teams EVENTUALLY
key word - eventually
2 Likes
Kirby Smart pitches in
an SEC loss is more valuable than a Big 12 / ACC win guys - hey, I don’t make the rules!
on X: “Kirby Smart said he likes 5+11 playoff & 9 SEC games but is concerned about how losses are viewed re: playoff. “Two conferences are stronger than others, and if you don’t agree with that, then you probably just don’t know college football.”” / XWhen you have top-heavy leagues with a nationally dominant team, you can claim your league is stronger.
If you are strong top to bottom conference with losses spread around, many claim you are weaker.
Stupid but reality.
No way the playoffs stay at 12. SEC only got 3 schools in last year and Alabama and Ole Miss threw a fit about it. 16 teams is more games and more revenue for everyone. If 4-4-2-2 is what BIG wants, i think the other conferences will accept it. 5-11 is a terrible idea. All that will happen is the BIG and SEC will nail down virtually every open bid.
1 Like
9-4 Alabama, who lost to Vanderbilt, complained about not making the CFP
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
1 Like
Did you read my post Monte?
Kind of an oxymoron.
1 Like
That’s seems like it’s inevitable under current circumstances regardless of which format is chosen.
IMO, I’d like to see a 2-2-2-2 with one guaranteed spot for the highest ranking G5.
That would leave seven at-large spots. If the Big 10 and the SEC are as good as they say (and often are, in fairness), then they will grab most of those spots.
However, should fortunes change for the ACC or Big 12 (or the MWC, Pac, etc.), then those other non-SEC or non-Big 10 conferences should have the ability to snag additional spots. That’s something the 4-4-2-2 precludes.
1 Like
You guys aren’t understanding the bigger picture. If we accept the 4-4-2-2 model, it’s over. There is no more P4. It would be officially be P2 (SEC & B1G), with the ACC and Big12 as the official stepping stone programs. There would be no more questions about it.
B1G and SEC do currently have the leg up, but it’s not official. Therefore, we can still fight for equal footing. With a 5+11, we have an equal chance. B1G and SEC will likely have a big share of the 11 for now, but at least there’s opportunity for that to change. Instead you all are fighting for ONE extra spot while giving the SEC and B1G THREE extra spots EACH! +1 for us, but +6 for the “P2.”
Show some fight, you effing pansies.
13 Likes
…again the reason that Yormark is pushing for the 5-11 is due to the following. The binding “contract” between the sec/big10 and all other conference does not allow for the big10 and sec to “stack up” cfp invitations. If they do the big10 and sec are in breach of the “contract” Understand the difference because this is key.
ie: big10 and sec get unacceptable/logical cfp invitations all other conferences will sue both the sec and big10.
The public won’t accept it either and will know it is “rigged”.
Suing them? Yes he can because there is a monetary value associated with it. This is and has always been about money, not sports merits.
1 Like
The chance that the Big 12 actually averages 2+ bids in a 5+11 is slim to none and slim just left town. Look at the data. The old Big 12 was basically right at a 2 bid league WITH OU and UT. Even now that the Big 12 is larger now, it simply isn’t a 2 bid league by the numbers - trust me I’ve crunched them. The last 2 years there would have been exactly 1 current Big 12 team each year getting a playoff bid - Arizona in 2023 and Arizona State in 2024. I’d argue 2 auto bids for the Big 12 is a reasonable concession from BIG/SEC. Yeah I know that isn’t going to be popular to say.
Should the new PAC 12, AAC, MAC and other ‘G5s’ demand their equal spots with BIG/SEC too? I mean they should ‘fight too right’? This is what you are claiming must be done.
I disagree but can understand why Yormark is officially calling for 5+11. It allows him plausible deniability and lack of personal accountability for when the Big 12 ends up with many less bids than BIG/SEC. ‘Hey, well, it was equal footing, we just have to keep investing in our programs and get better’. That is a nice cozy position for him to be where he says he is doing the best he can for the conference but the teams are the ones that have to ‘get it done’.
The bottom line is there is 100% certain to be heavy SEC selection bias, some BIG selection bias, and FSU/Clemson/Notre Dame selection bias in any format where subjectivity is involved which 5+11 is an extreme form of. I guess if we run this 5+11 thing for 6 years and the Big 12 gets 1+1+3+1+2+1 bids for an average of 1.5 bids per year instead of a guaranteed 2 per year in a 442211 format then he can say it isn’t his fault and put it onto the programs in the Big 12 to ‘be better’. The Big 12 schools are not going to magically double their stadium sizes, triple their fan base and NIL sizes, and vastly improve their brand values.
There is no vision and leadership from Yormark if he won’t live in reality here. What he can do is provide certainty to the Big 12 by guaranteed bids and put 1v4 and 2v3 in play in games to add a highly viewed and lucrative $ tv game to the market as well as allow the Big 12 teams to play better OOC games which will also provide more $ since their overall/OOC record won’t be scrutinized with 2 auto bids nearly like in a 5+11 format.
Where is that Big 12 vs ACC schedule alliance Yormark or maybe he could get in with the SEC/or BIG on that? He could work with the ACC commissioner that the first game of each team’s season is based on last year’s finish 1 v 1, 2 v 2, etc… so you have these really cool OOC matchups with Clemson vs Iowa State, BYU vs Miami, Louisville vs Colorado, etc… yeah those games would get some eyeballs and bring some $$$ in. There are so many possibilities when you just take the 2 auto bid spots and move on with life and aren’t worried about competing in a beauty contest.
The one thing he should demand from BIG/SEC is a 5 year auto bid review window which looks at some kind of agreed upon metrics to determine if the number of auto bids per league need to change which would allow for the Big 12 the opportunity to continue to grow/improve back up to SEC/BIG level. For instance if BIG 10 is clearly not living up to 4 bids then maybe they get bumped down to 3 in the next 5 year window and Big 12 goes from 2 to 3 if they are ‘outperforming’ as a 2 bid league. For SEC/BIG to agree to this it would have to go both ways though. If SEC is increasingly dominant then maybe they go from 4 to 5 auto bids…Now pushing something like this is leadership while simultaneously living in reality.
Anybody can proclaim ‘fight fight’. Completely foolish if you have no weapons and are vastly overpowered.
The last side note I will add is that the Big 12 and Houston Cougars will be much more enjoyable to watch in a 442211 format vs 5+11. In 5+11 we will have to be a top 2 team in the Big 12 and win the Big 12 championship to get a playoff spot and we will likely water down our OOC to try to stack up wins and rankings so that if we don’t win the Big 12 we can wait around to maybe get selected or more than likely hear how an 8-4 ATM, South Carolina, Wisconsin, or USC deserves it over a 9-3 Houston. In a 442211 you can play better OOC teams which is more exciting to see and you only need to be a top 4 Big 12 team to get into one of the play in games. More chances to get into the play-in games or if our season isn’t going well to play spoiler for teams.
I may not be good at math but 4/16 is better odds than 2/16 and 2 bids is better than 1.
2 Likes
Except that the exact OPPOSITE is what actually happened.
Only the B1G wanted that format. The SEC, Big 12, and ACC all rejected it, which is why there now seems to be a possibility that the 12 team format will be retained.
Here’s the thing.
My guess is that if the 12 team format is retained, then the Big 12 and ACC will get two bids ONLY if the following occurs:
One team wins the regular season conference title and goes into the championship game undefeated and in the Top Ten AND…then loses the conference title game in a close match to a team that finishes with 11 or more wins. In THAT particular instance, either the Big 12 or ACC might very well get two bids.
But given the comparative unlikelihood of that…it might make more sense to simply go along with the B1G’s proposal and take a guaranteed two bids.
The Big 12 or ACC getting three bids, while not a hypothetical impossibility, seems too unlikely to make it a hill worth dying on. The problem lies in the pre-season polls which will likely put the best Big 12 and ACC teams too low from the start to allow many of them to be highly ranked enough at the end to secure at larges.
Pretending college football is the same pre and post NIL makes your whole argument null and void.
1 Like
What are you even talking about? Yeah money matters now more than ever but other than a few instances like apparently Texas Tech has a billionaire trying to help buy some wins, BYU buying a basketball player, Texas NIL buying more proven college players instead of blue chip HS players so their on-field product is more likely to be better, maybe a couple SEC teams struggling a bit with NIL (to maintain their previous on-field dominance) the same BIG/SEC schools are dominating. SEC and BIG TV payouts which are NIL independent still WAY outweigh ACC/Big 12. Regarding NILs - it is mostly the same big brand schools with the big NILs who were good then and still good now. College football is 95% the same as it was before ON THE FIELD.
The Big 12 has never looked worse than in the last 2 years from a 5+11 perspective. Like stated above in the last 2 years of this ‘all powerful NIL era’ you refer to the current Big 12 teams would have averaged exactly 1 team per year in the playoff. Do you argue this fact is not a fact? Seems like Big 12 is not faring so well overall as the NIL era is maturing.
Way I see it your position is null and void.
1 Like