Ross Dellenger report on SEC spring meetings

[MugNight]

The last update I’ve seen is that the SEC would prefer no auto-bids at all and the BigTen is threatening to not agree to anything until the SEC adds a 9th conference game.

I’m sure it will change a dozen more times before they finally settle on something.

The SEC totally wants the top 12 ranked teams. They typically start the season with favorable pre-season rankings (media bias) and their 8 game schedule means those teams either duck the others or get a “quality loss” head to head. They want +6 teams in the CFP.

#7 beats #9 and moves up to #5 while #9 drops to #11. Wash rinse repeat.

It’s like a preloaded “eye test”. Meanwhile the best teams from the XII have to claw their way up from like rankings 18-25.

 

[AlaCyclone]

Once again, the Big XII should embrace the 2 auto-bids for the Big XII and not look a gift horse in the month.

With no auto-bids, they risk getting left out altogether.
With one auto-bid, they risk not having a 2nd team most of the time.
With two auto-bids, they will get two (which would have helped ISU last year) and could get a third if they have a bang-bang-bang season.

All the angst about the SEC ad B1G is not going to change the fact that having two auto-bids for the Big XII is a good thing for the Big XII and Iowa State. The other two options, not so much.

 

[cycloneman003]

Once again, the Big XII should embrace the 2 auto-bids for the Big XII and not look a gift horse in the month.

With no auto-bids, they risk getting left out altogether.
With one auto-bid, they risk not having a 2nd team most of the time.
With two auto-bids, they will get two (which would have helped ISU last year) and could get a third if they have a bang-bang-bang season.

All the angst about the SEC ad B1G is not going to change the fact that having two auto-bids for the Big XII is a good thing for the Big XII and Iowa State. The other two options, not so much.

Textbook buying their bull ****. Float a terrible idea (4-4-2-2-1) and Big XII rightfully doesn’t agree with institutionalizing SEC/B1G as superior. B1G floats an even worse idea (no auto qualifiers) and so now we’re supposed to go believe in the previous ****** proposal being amazing.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Playoffs went too long. I didn't even know the final game was on until that morning. I was already in the NFL mode.

It’s hilarious to me that they actually chose to go head to head with NFL games.

 

[Frak]

What they prefer is an SEC invitational with 2-3 B10 teams and ND mixed in.

 

[AlaCyclone]

Textbook buying their bull ****. Float a terrible idea (4-4-2-2-1) and Big XII rightfully doesn’t agree with institutionalizing SEC/B1G as superior. B1G floats an even worse idea (no auto qualifiers) and so now we’re supposed to go believe in the previous ****** proposal being amazing.

Not really. I don't like what the SEC and the B1G are doing at all, but I definitely like a scenario that guarantees two slots for the Big XII. ISU would have been in the 2020 Playoff and probably one of the two teams in the 2024 Playoff with the two auto-bid scenario. At the end of the day, the Big XII having 2 guaranteed slots is better than having 1 or 0 guaranteed slots for the Big XII, as they can still get additional slots if warranted.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Textbook buying their bull ****. Float a terrible idea (4-4-2-2-1) and Big XII rightfully doesn’t agree with institutionalizing SEC/B1G as superior. B1G floats an even worse idea (no auto qualifiers) and so now we’re supposed to go believe in the previous ****** proposal being amazing.

2 auto-bids maintains competitive relevance through the duration of the CFP contract, helps with TV negotiations in 2030 and helps prevent further realignment.

Theres certainly negatives, but there’s a lot of positives with the model for ISU, first and foremost ensuring ISU’s survival as a relevant athletic program.

 

[Cloneon]

Has anyone floated the idea of penalizing the leagues based on the previous year's CFP performance? For example if the #1 ranked fell to the #6 rank, then some equation used to apply that 5 pt spread against the league the following year. That'd at least provide two benefits: one, offer some evaluation to the rankings themselvves, and two, offer balanced opportunity for league representation to move up.

 

[NWICY]

Has anyone floated the idea of penalizing the leagues based on the previous year's CFP performance? For example if the #1 ranked fell to the #6 rank, then some equation used to apply that 5 pt spread against the league the following year. That'd at least provide two benefits: one, offer some evaluation to the rankings themselvves, and two, offer balanced opportunity for league representation to move up.

Pffft, the only thing that matters is SEC, B!G, then give the rest enough scraps to play along.

 

[QBEagles]

I don't think the second auto-bid is that valuable. Going back through the committee era (last 11 years), current B12 teams would have 29 bids under 4-4-2-2-1 and 28 under 5+11. It's 29 just taking the top 16 as well. The counter argument is that last year is more like of what we'll see going forward with all teams in the same conference with no blue bloods on the schedule, but last year was close to our worst case scenario with extreme parity and all the preseason ranked teams collapsing. And we still would've just missed a second (and third) bid.

Even if it does cost us a few bids a decade, there's still huge downsides to the 4-4-2-2-1 scheme. The B10 will get to run their ridiculous play-in game scheme, rake in more money, and get free shots at sneaking extra teams into the field at the expense of a potential 3rd B12 team. More importantly, the B12 will be officially classified as a second tier conference, which isn't going to help our perception.

I see people saying we can take this now and renegotiate for a better deal down the road, but the deal's never going to get better for us. The B10 and SEC have the leverage. Anything we surrender now we're not getting back. I don't know if we can ever completely reverse the balance of power, but I'd rather resist giving them more where we can.

 

[AlaCyclone]

I don't think the second auto-bid is that valuable. Going back through the committee era (last 11 years), current B12 teams would have 29 bids under 4-4-2-2-1 and 28 under 5+11. It's 29 just taking the top 16 as well. The counter argument is that last year is more like of what we'll see going forward with all teams in the same conference with no blue bloods on the schedule, but last year was close to our worst case scenario with extreme parity and all the preseason ranked teams collapsing. And we still would've just missed a second (and third) bid.

Even if it does cost us a few bids a decade, there's still huge downsides to the 4-4-2-2-1 scheme. The B10 will get to run their ridiculous play-in game scheme, rake in more money, and get free shots at sneaking extra teams into the field at the expense of a potential 3rd B12 team. More importantly, the B12 will be officially classified as a second tier conference, which isn't going to help our perception.

I see people saying we can take this now and renegotiate for a better deal down the road, but the deal's never going to get better for us. The B10 and SEC have the leverage. Anything we surrender now we're not getting back. I don't know if we can ever completely reverse the balance of power, but I'd rather resist giving them more where we can.

Nice, logical, well thought out argument.

 

[MountainManHawk]

I read this 3 times and I still don’t understand the distinction.

 

[RustShack]

I prefer the 5+11, but if people want two auto bids for the Big12, then it should be two per conference and not four for two of them.

 

[CyCrazy]

I prefer the 5+11, but if people want two auto bids for the Big12, then it should be two per conference and not four for two of them.

Thats great in theory but wont happen

 

[Clonedogg]

I don't think the second auto-bid is that valuable. Going back through the committee era (last 11 years), current B12 teams would have 29 bids under 4-4-2-2-1 and 28 under 5+11. It's 29 just taking the top 16 as well. The counter argument is that last year is more like of what we'll see going forward with all teams in the same conference with no blue bloods on the schedule, but last year was close to our worst case scenario with extreme parity and all the preseason ranked teams collapsing. And we still would've just missed a second (and third) bid.

Even if it does cost us a few bids a decade, there's still huge downsides to the 4-4-2-2-1 scheme. The B10 will get to run their ridiculous play-in game scheme, rake in more money, and get free shots at sneaking extra teams into the field at the expense of a potential 3rd B12 team. More importantly, the B12 will be officially classified as a second tier conference, which isn't going to help our perception.

I see people saying we can take this now and renegotiate for a better deal down the road, but the deal's never going to get better for us. The B10 and SEC have the leverage. Anything we surrender now we're not getting back. I don't know if we can ever completely reverse the balance of power, but I'd rather resist giving them more where we can.

Agree with this 100%, relegate yourself as second class, really hard to come back from that.

I've said it before...the only way I'd be ok with agreeing to 4-4-2-2-1; is if SEC and B1G would be then excluded from the 3 remaining at-large bids. They'd never agree to that, which is pretty much how I feel about 4-4-2-2-1 anyway.

 

[Cyhig]

I prefer a 8 team division with 10 division system. Get rid of conferences altogether for football. Each division is by region, allowing for nearby rivals to play routinely. Playoffs would be winners of each division. 10 team playoff with 2 teams receiving a first round bye. Keep it simple

Best option for the overall product of college football IMO; but since the Big 10/SEC schools would likely make far less $$, this is nothing but a dream

It’ll be harder and harder to be a fan of college football if the big 10/SEC/media providers continue to do whatever they want.

 

[RustShack]

Thats great in theory but wont happen

Which just seems odd that the other conferences votes out number the B1G SEC votes, but still bend to their will.

 

[mj4cy]

Which just seems odd that the other conferences votes out number the B1G SEC votes, but still bend to their will.

Because TV values SEC and B1G exponentially more than other conferences.

 

[cyman05]

I read this 3 times and I still don’t understand the distinction.

I think they’re just saying that apparently NIL Go is going to use a formula to see if deals fall in the range of expected compensation. So instead of school arguing against an athletes payment of $x not being allowed, now they will argue against the formula set range of $y to $z being wrong.

 

[MountainManHawk]

I think they’re just saying that apparently NIL Go is going to use a formula to see if deals fall in the range of expected compensation. So instead of school arguing against an athletes payment of $x not being allowed, now they will argue against the formula set range of $y to $z being wrong.

Ah, that would make sense. Although if the formula allows major metro areas to pay more than places like Iowa, I’m not sure it’s going to be a good outcome. I can see how it makes the job of the NIL Go committee easier though.