a lot of communities can be really economically damaged by what college athletics does or doesn't do, so yes our representatives have a stake in it.
Ross Dellenger report on SEC spring meetings
- Thread starter JP4CY
- Start date
Not really unless you’re willing to give up a true championship game. The SEC is still putting 1 vs 2 for the title. But they’re adding 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 with the winners getting AQ spots. The Big12 could do 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, but that loses the purpose of the CCG weekend. Plus also the 1 and 2 teams wouldn’t likely still get in with an at-large like the 3 and 4 SEC teams wouldn’t likely still if they’d lose.
So the Big 12 has two play in games to determine their representatives. It's more inventory for the TV partners.
Do I think this is incredibly stupid? Yes. If we don't have CCGs and/or CCGs have no bearing on anything, whats the point of even having conferences? At this point, I think the whole idea of conferences has become absurd and has only allocated an extreme amount of power in the hands of a few warped individuals who are actively trying to destroy the game in order to extract maximum next-quarter profits.
But this is where we're at, and if the SEC and Big 10 are going to have play-ins, we probably have to as well.
But they are almost guaranteed six with the four AQ model. The third and fourth seeds in their worthless conference tournament have absolutely no incentive to win and are guaranteed a lot more money if they lose. the 4-2 model is stupid for college football and dangerous for Big 12. The SEC will not go for the 4-3 model, but that is the one that would we need to fight for.
Yes, that line of reasoning didn't hold much water.
I think having that many aq's is silly but if it allows for more freedom in scheduling good games either in non-con or at the end of the season in these mini tournaments then I guess it's worth it. It's not like there are going to be lots of years where the 4th sec or big 10 team, and the 2nd big 12 or acc team will be grossly unqualified.
I feel like the 5-11 model will end up with more than 4 sec and b10 teams a lot of years, but at least it doesn’t legitimize them as being a tier above. 4-4-2-2 does that.
That's my take as well.
4-4-2-2 assumes that's always the most reliable or representation of each league for a tournament, informally based on general historic evidence.
A 5-11 at least allows it being assessed on a season-by-season basis.
A ranking system still could be manipulated to skew it, but at least we'd be scrutinizing selection process of at-large teams.
That's a fair point. I do think the 5-11 model also retains importance in conference championship games, which I prefer. The idea of a conference championship meaning nothing seems to completely go against all my instincts as a sports fan.
The flip side of that is 4-4-2-2 legitimizes the Big 12 and ACC as permanently ahead of any G5 league, and in the 5-11 model, you will routinely hear ESPN touting the idea that the Big 12 champ shouldn't be among the 5 teams automatically in and that the league should never have a second bid.
I don’t see 2 guaranteed spots changing the narrative at all. It’ll transition to why a second Big12 team deserves a spot over the 8th SEC team.
That's my "fear."
What's to stop B2 from altering it again to be 5-5-2-2 (et al)?
I'm sure if it was established it'd be locked into some kind of timeframe, but is that 2 years? 4? What if they decide to just break the agreement just cuz they can?
You’re always gonna have (totally unbiased) coaches pushing the narrative that more teams from their conference should be At Large. Kirby Smart recently came out with comments. Saban used to do it. Kiffin did it last year. Hmm maybe it’s distinctly an SEC thing?
Why should the 4th place team in the SEC get a chance to win the national championship? They couldn’t even get top 3 in their conference.
Why should the 4th place team in the SEC get a chance to win the national championship? They couldn’t even get top 3 in their conference.
They need to leave a spot for ND and the best P5 school our congress would get involved. I get the B12 and ACC do not like the guaranteed 4 spots for the P2 but we really do not have much of a choice here, because the 5-11 set up is even worse.
Completely disagree that the 5-11 model is worse. Give me the conference champs and then everything else is based on performance.
What the fight needs to be is how those teams are selected.
- There needs to be clear criteria for how teams are selected.
- There needs to be even number of conference games played.
- There needs to be actual schedule analysis rather than they play an SEC schedule so it must be tough.
- P4 road games need to be given more credit than home games to encourage home and home series.
Pretty sure Sankey said yesterday that 5-11 would not mean any changes to the SEC’s 8 game conference schedule.
That is the thing I would like to see changed immediately. The fact that they are allowed to only play 8 conference games, with one slap-**** non-con in November, is asinine.
But we are not going to get most of those items, sounds like the SEC will be going to a 9 game season, but that is about it. The B10 and SEC are not going to give up their advantage of being able to wriggle out ways to improve their teams ranking and getting them into the playoff. You give them 11 open slots, and they will take 8 of those most years, with the other three going to ND, P5 best team and the one from the either the ACC or B12.
I don't necessary disagree, but many of these schools are public. There have been and will be economic implications for state and local economies. It's not a stretch that state and federal governments will want a say in this mess.
When it comes to operating in the best interests of all, our political system hardly seems qualified.
“Congress being involved” doesn’t mean waving a magic wand and dictating playoff formats or conference inclusions.
The reason there likely WILL need to be some sort of congressional involvement for long term health of CFB is to get an anti-trust exemption, or other statutory exemption.
Pandora’s box of paying players has been opened, and it’s unlikely to me that we will backtrack. There is also the broader issue with media rights sales and collusion between conferences.
By their nature, sports leagues collude with each other and have anti-competitive business practices. MLB, NFL, NHL, and NBA are all exempt from antitrust law for the purposes of collectively selling their broadcast rights.. the MLB has a general exemption from the Sherman act.
The NCAA has been losing lawsuit after lawsuit (starting back in the 80s with the huge TV rights suit from Oklahoma/Georgia).
A solution that involves some kind of “super league,” whether it’s the 30 teams Sankey wants or the 70 teams that most ISU fans would prefer, almost certainly will require congressional action in order to exist because of the nature of antitrust law.
The reason there likely WILL need to be some sort of congressional involvement for long term health of CFB is to get an anti-trust exemption, or other statutory exemption.
Pandora’s box of paying players has been opened, and it’s unlikely to me that we will backtrack. There is also the broader issue with media rights sales and collusion between conferences.
By their nature, sports leagues collude with each other and have anti-competitive business practices. MLB, NFL, NHL, and NBA are all exempt from antitrust law for the purposes of collectively selling their broadcast rights.. the MLB has a general exemption from the Sherman act.
The NCAA has been losing lawsuit after lawsuit (starting back in the 80s with the huge TV rights suit from Oklahoma/Georgia).
A solution that involves some kind of “super league,” whether it’s the 30 teams Sankey wants or the 70 teams that most ISU fans would prefer, almost certainly will require congressional action in order to exist because of the nature of antitrust law.
