It is a mute point. The BIG12 and acc never agreed to a four-four-two-two.
Agreed about the movies!
Last year, SEC/B1G were given the rights to determine format of the next playoff. ACC, B12, G6, and ND agreed to that.
So B12/ACC may not like the new format that SEC/B1G produce but they’ll have to accept it. I think the hope here is that there will be so much public and political pressure of SEC/B1G that they’ll have no choice but to create a format that will treat ACC/B12 much better, or even as equals.
I don’t see that happening. Largely because I don’t underestimate the political and financial power of SEC/B1G flagship schools, their booster, and alumni.
Let me put it like this, suppose Cody and Tillman both came together and created a proposal that would benefit TT, Baylor, TCU, and UH. But this proposal required some concessions or support from UT and A&M, without giving them major benefits in return, what do you think are the odds that Cody and Tillman would be able to overcome opposition from UT/A&M boosters? Even if the proposal cost UT/A&M nothing, what do you think are the odds that their boosters would support it?
Now take this example and replace UT/A&M with all the flagship schools in B1G/SEC, and replace TT/UH with all Big 12, ACC, and G6 schools.
Politicians in Virginia are already looking into it for fairness. So yes, there are cards to play. How it will play out and to what level is unknown, but not nonexistent.
ACC more so with Virginia, N Carolina, New York as states with some political clout.
No they do not have to accept it. Clearly both the big10 and sec are acting against the interest of both the BIG12 and acc.
But both ACC/B12 gave the SEC/B1G the power to decide how to structure the next playoff. Unless part of that agreement was that SEC/B1G would treat ACC/B12 interests as paramount or equal to their own interests, I don’t see what argument they can make in a court of law.
Not quite to do what they want 4-4-2-2-1-2 the big10 and sec need a unanymous decision. That is not the case.
The threat of congressional involvement is very real. I don’t think the media moguls running the show want that kind of smoke at all. They have the money and the power to decide.
Professor Tim Snyder’s admonition not to agree in advance is relevant here. The Sec and B1G asked for 4 auto qualifiers just to see if their “partners” would defer to an unreasonable demand.When you voluntarily cede power early, it positions the bully to know what’s possible going forward. They know they don’t deserve 4 bids. They’re just testing to see if everybody knows it as well.
3 Likes
That’s only if they want changes to this years playoff format.
According to this,
After this 2025 season, control of the College Football Playoff shifts into the hands of the SEC and Big Ten. Those two conferences will reshape the playoff as they see fit.
When was the last time Congress took on corporate interests? Why do you think Congress will go against ABC/ESPN?
Ultimately it’s ESPNs call. If ESPN wants SEC/B1G to not get 4 AQ spots each, they won’t.
SEC/B1G will have egg all over their faces if they just lay down and play dead and give in B12/ACC demands. No one will ever again take the SEC/B1G seriously. Also I don’t think ESPN will want SEC/B1G to surrender to Big 12/ACC, because that would be bad for ESPN too.
I’m all for a stronger conference getting more bids. But instead of everyone saying you are the best, then only playing yourselves, go out there and prove it.
I think the Big 12 and ACC should lean hard into challenging the Big 10 and SEC as the monopolies they are. They are trying to create a system by which they don’t actually have to prove, in that given year, they are better ON the field, instead of using their media leverage to say that they are. It’s clear ESPN has shown SEC favoritism for years. The Big 12, meanwhile, got screwed out of the playoffs (or BCS) multiple times because to the illusion they were a far inferior conference (last year we probably were to be honest).
All major conferences should be mandated to play three OOC P4 opponents. Look at long-term rivalries that should be protected, then create a system designed to create home and home matchups that rotate on a biennial basis. A problem that needs to be addressed is the imbalance in the number of teams between conferences (14, 16, 18, and 15 I think). SOC is determined largely by the WL percentage of that non-conference slate, and post-season teams get allocated based on the relative strengths. Have a max of 4 qualifiers and a minimum of 2. Gone are the days of the SEC and Big 10 getting more because of (often) BS pre-season rankings and constant chest puffing in the media. Just like CBB go out and ********* earn it.
1 Like
If there needs to be more bids, then set a formula as to which conferences get it. If SEC and B1G earn it fairly then no problem.
For example, the conference with the best OOC records among P4 games would earn an extra bid over the others.
Don’t look now, but Congress is currently looking for ways and opportunities to exert influence over American media conglomerates. All it would take for a President to put his foot on the neck of ESPN (as is currently being done to CBS) is to have a someone like Cody Campbell give him a big bag, tell him how smart he is and how good his hair and make up look, and the President suddenly becomes a fan of the B12. Easy Peasy.
Not sure what you mean about the Sec and B1G never being taken seriously if they decide to work collaboratively with other conferences.
While it is true that they don’t play well with others, I’m not sure they, or most importantly, ESPN has a choice. That is not to say they are above colluding to get their way. Let’s not forget how Sec Commissioner Sankey met regularly with his B12 counterpart for the ostensible purpose of creating conference realignment that benefitted everybody. This was being done while he was secretly colluding to steal two of the B12 anchor institutions. So, as far as taking the Sec seriously, that ship has sailed.
1 Like
How did they get the power to decide next CFP format in the first place? Why would we ever allow that?
2 Likes
Clearly not since both the BIG12 and acc are against it.
That is some strong tin foil hat stuff.
Always be wary of people who get what they want (4 spots) then don’t allow others to get what they want (3 spots) when it won’t hurt them at all…
2 Likes
There aren’t 4 teams good enough to win a national championship in any given year. To say there are 4 in any one conference is laughable.
4 Likes
That is the concise statement of the day on this which signals greed. It’s bc the sec and big want to grab all the at large spots which is the answer to why would they care as long as they get 4 .
2 Likes
Guess you are right. See MBB. All they want is everyone in the conference in the national tournament. How can that be wrong…?
They have to be blocked. They get four and we get two…A season later they will ask for five. If they get four we can not accept less than three guaranteed.