SEC/Big10 Pushing for 16 Team Playoff

[FriendlySpartan]

I agree.

That 9th conference game guarantees an additional loss for 8 SEC teams and when you factor in computer rankings using opponent's opponents W-L records as well, the negative impact on computer rankings is significant.

What is also significant is the overweighting of Margin of Victory factors used in those same computer rankings. Despite Indiana playing only two teams with winning records in 2024 and beating one of them, they still ranked high in composite computer rankings because Cignetti ran up the score whenever he could and IMO, that triggered his future non-con scheduling changes, not so much to copycat the SEC as he claimed earlier this week.

Yeah I agree with some of that but the team Indiana cancelled was Virginia which is P4 in name only and was also done to get an extra home game instead of the home and home.

Still don’t like it but it’s not like they dodged anyone good. I agree that I think he just used the SEC schedule copying as cope

 

[ClubCy]

5+11 will enable a 9th SEC conference game and that will increase the odds of the B12 getting 3 teams in. Even better if the ACC somehow does likewise. BYU certainly gets in last season if both played a 9th conference game.

And it's always funny when a ESPN bias claim is made. The SEC thinks the existing CFP selection process screws them and then you have Pettiti claiming likewise with his push for the stupid multiple auto bids.

The fix? Cody Campbell's 7+9 model (with media rights aggregation) and a separate 4 or 8 team G5 playoff.

Let’s worry about getting 2 before we talk about getting 3.

Also thanks for providing sources about the sublicensing (not being sarcastic).

 

[Al_4_State]

The reason the Big 12 and ACC support 5/11 is they aren’t just going to acquiesce to a conference where 75% of the teams probably wouldn’t win either league telling them they just have to automatically accept codified inferiority.

It’s also a way to keep the SEC and Big 10 from being so damn chummy.

 

[ClubCy]

I guess I should have put two and two together but Tony Petitti was the COO of MLB starting in 2015 during a time where they initially added the extra wildcard game and eventually adding 3 wildcards teams to each league. Not sure if it was his idea but it seems this guy is the king of participation trophies.

 

[Gonzo]

The reason the Big 12 and ACC support 5/11 is they aren’t just going to acquiesce to a conference where 75% of the teams probably wouldn’t win either league telling them they just have to automatically accept codified inferiority.

It’s also a way to keep the SEC and Big 10 from being so damn chummy.

It also opens the door to the ESPN-controlled committee to load up on SEC/B1G teams for the 11 at-large spots. I doubt Sankey is in favor of 5+11 because he wants broader conference representation in the CFP.

 

[Raiders70]

Why not a 4-4-3-3-1 model with one at large. Has this ever been seriously discussed? This would seem to be a reasonable compromise for all parties. The committees only role would be to pick the G5 rep and the single at large then seed the 16 teams. Let the conferences decide who their 3 or 4 representatives will be. So if the Big 10 wants play in games to decide who gets their bids so be it.

 

[WooBadger18]

It also opens the door to the ESPN-controlled committee to load up on SEC/B1G teams for the 11 at-large spots. I doubt Sankey is in favor of 5+11 because he wants broader conference representation in the CFP.

Sure. Neither option is good. But it’s better than permanently consigning yourself to second-tier status. Because the committee could choose to put more big 12 teams in than either the sec or the big 10. But if you go with the big 10’s plan, they or the sec will always get more spots regardless of quality on the field.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Why not a 4-4-3-3-1 model with one at large. Has this ever been seriously discussed? This would seem to be a reasonable compromise for all parties. The committees only role would be to pick the G5 rep and the single at large then seed the 16 teams. Let the conferences decide who their 3 or 4 representatives will be. So if the Big 10 wants play in games to decide who gets their bids so be it.

SEC and BigTen would never agree to that and they get to make the playoff decisions going forward

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Sure. Neither option is good. But it’s better than permanently consigning yourself to second-tier status. Because the committee could choose to put more big 12 teams in than either the sec or the big 10. But if you go with the big 10’s plan, they or the sec will always get more spots regardless of quality on the field.

I honestly think it’s splitting hairs but I would be doing the exact same thing in the big12/ACC’s position

 

[Gonzo]

Sure. Neither option is good. But it’s better than permanently consigning yourself to second-tier status. Because the committee could choose to put more big 12 teams in than either the sec or the big 10. But if you go with the big 10’s plan, they or the sec will always get more spots regardless of quality on the field.

If you seriously think an ESPN guided committee is going to put more Big 12 teams in than SEC/B1G teams, we just disagree. I don't see that ever happening. All the 5+11 does for the Big 12 is guarantee 1 spot instead of 2. Not a smart move IMO.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

If you seriously think an ESPN guided committee is going to put more Big 12 teams in than SEC/B1G teams, we just disagree. I don't see that ever happening. All the 5+11 does for the Big 12 is guarantee 1 spot instead of 2. Not a smart move IMO.

It’s not an espn guided committee, that’s weird logic that doesn’t hold up for the playoff. I don’t disagree with your bid process but with the expansion I imagine all P4 conferences will get at least 2 teams in most years

 

[WooBadger18]

If you seriously think an ESPN guided committee is going to put more Big 12 teams in than SEC/B1G teams, we just disagree. I don't see that ever happening. All the 5+11 does for the Big 12 is guarantee 1 spot instead of 2. Not a smart move IMO.

I think it’s very unlikely it’ll ever happen. However, by choosing the 5+11 option, you’ve at least given yourself a chance because it’s possible the Big 10 or SEC quality (more likely Big 10) will fall off a cliff.

I think it’s better to kick the can down the road and give yourself a chance at a better future than locking yourself into a bad future.

 

[Gonzo]

It’s not an espn guided committee, that’s weird logic that doesn’t hold up for the playoff. I don’t disagree with your bid process but with the expansion I imagine all P4 conferences will get at least 2 teams in most years

I'm just saying that, behind the scenes, what ESPN wants is going to weigh pretty heavily on committee selections. I'll be shocked if SEC/B1G don't end up with 4 each every year, minimum. This just opens the door to more since they only have to guarantee the other conferences 1 spot.

 

[ClubCy]

If you seriously think an ESPN guided committee is going to put more Big 12 teams in than SEC/B1G teams, we just disagree. I don't see that ever happening. All the 5+11 does for the Big 12 is guarantee 1 spot instead of 2. Not a smart move IMO.

Let’s all call a spade a spade. There is no good/fair outcome for the Big 12 and ACC regardless of the format. Won’t happen.

What I bolded, I believe, is what Yormark is trying to fight. The fact that everyone is already guaranteeing only 1 bid for the Big 12 in a 5+11 model before any format has been agreed upon and before any games are played is a fundamental problem in the sport. I think Yormark is saying at least let us go down swinging playing actual football games.

While I have been adamant that there will be a decent amount of years that only 1 Big 12 team will be good enough for the playoff but it’s unfair to go into every single season saying you can only get 1 regardless of game outcomes.

This is not me advocating for the 4/4/2/2 etc model either because I don’t think the Big 10 has 4 worthy teams year in and year out. The SEC 7/8 out of 10 years in my opinion will have 4 teams worthy.

TL;DR

I feel like Yormark is saying “schedule us, spot play us, and see what happens on the field before you tell us how many teams we deserve.”

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I'm just saying that, behind the scenes, what ESPN wants is going to weigh pretty heavily on committee selections. I'll be shocked if SEC/B1G don't end up with 4 each every year, minimum. This just opens the door to more since they only have to guarantee the other conferences 1 spot.

On that I do agree on. But with the adjustment being 14-16 teams I don’t see a world where a P4 conference is held to one team. Especially if the SEC is forced to go to a 9 game schedule

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I think it’s very unlikely it’ll ever happen. However, by choosing the 5+11 option, you’ve at least given yourself a chance because it’s possible the Big 10 or SEC quality (more likely Big 10) will fall off a cliff.

I think it’s better to kick the can down the road and give yourself a chance at a better future than locking yourself into a bad future.

I agree except for the quality part. If anything I would expect to see a big12 team separate itself to make 2 teams every year almost a guarantee.

 

[Gonzo]

I think it’s very unlikely it’ll ever happen. However, by choosing the 5+11 option, you’ve at least given yourself a chance because it’s possible the Big 10 or SEC quality (more likely Big 10) will fall off a cliff.

I think it’s better to kick the can down the road and give yourself a chance at a better future than locking yourself into a bad future.

I guess we'll see. I think 5+11 will be very effective at screwing over the Big 12 and ACC by not giving spots to teams that have earned it on the field, and this is why the SEC wants it, because they see more $$$ in it for them.

 

[ClubCy]

I guess we'll see. I think 5+11 will be very effective at screwing over the Big 12 and ACC by not giving spots to teams that have earned it on the field, and this is why the SEC wants it, because they see more $$$ in it for them.

I mean really comes down to:

Do we want to see the SEC to gobble up the last remaining spots or have 5th/6th place teams in the SEC and BIG with 8-4 possible 7-5 records playing for playoffs spots?

Would we all be getting excited to watch a 7-4 Wisconsin team play a 7-4 Minnesota team play in November for a chance to play at a 9-3 Illinois the next weekend with the winner going to playoff? That novelty will wear out real fast for the casual and even die hard fan, imo.

It all kind of sucks imo.

 

[cykadelic2]

I agree except for the quality part. If anything I would expect to see a big12 team separate itself to make 2 teams every year almost a guarantee.

Agree, especially if/when the SEC goes to 9 conference games to facilitate the 5+11 format.

And they will need to figure out how the ACC can also go to 9 conference games. My solution would be for them to add effin Memphis since the B12 won't (and shouldn't).

 

[Gonzo]

Agree, especially if/when the SEC goes to 9 conference games to facilitate the 5+11 format.

And they will need to figure out how the ACC can also go to 9 conference games. My solution would be for them to add effin Memphis since the B12 won't (and shouldn't).

There's no guarantee they'll do that and I'd bet they won't.