Williams & Blum: Should the Big 12 consider the 4-4-2-2 model?

[Aiden Wyatt]

Chris Williams & Brent Blum dumb down the much talked about house settlement for the common fan. Plus, should the Big 12 consider taking two auto bids? All this and more presented by Mechdyne.

Williams & Blum: Should the Big 12 consider the 4-4-2-2 model?

Chris Williams & Brent Blum dumb down the much talked about house settlement for the common fan. Plus, should the Big 12 consider taking two auto bids? All this and more presented by Mechdyne. https://youtu.be/0fa99YUFCLo

cyclonefanatic.com

 

[Cycsk]

OK, these may be dumb questions, but I'll ask them anyway.

Who is paying the back pay to players like Colin Newell? It is the NCAA or Iowa State?

And is this inside of the $20m? Or in addition to the $20m?

It seems like it will just add more burden on the schools with limited resources. As if the Big Spender schools weren't already paying their players since 2016.

 

[CloniesForLife]

@brentblum if We Will gets absorbed just make sure it's still easy to give small monthly donations directly to the pay the players fund! That's how I can and want to contribute right now.

 

[Cydkar]

I'm glad I care WAY less about college sports than I used to. So much yuch.

Pardon the interruption. I'll go back to yelling at clouds now.

 

[HFCS]

I prefer 5+11 even if it means Big 12 only gets one team once in a while.

The only way I'd back 4-4-2-2 is if the Big Ten and SEC were actually limited to only 4 bids and the remaining 4 spots were all for G5/B12/ACC which I know would never happen.

The idea these leagues need a guaranteed 4 spots is absurd and frankly makes them look paranoid and weak. Just select on merrit and you'll get 4-6 every year and who cares if you have a horrible year some year with only 3/16 in the field.

Look at basketball. The Big Ten has every reason to be a premier, if not THE premier basketball conference, yet it has been between average and poor for a quarter century. Just prove it on the field and you'll be fine. They have chances to prove it on the court and year after year they don't prove it while the Big 12, Big East and now SEC do prove it on the court.

 

[cykadelic2]

OK, these may be dumb questions, but I'll ask them anyway.

Who is paying the back pay to players like Colin Newell? It is the NCAA or Iowa State?

And is this inside of the $20m? Or in addition to the $20m?

It seems like it will just add more burden on the schools with limited resources. As if the Big Spender schools weren't already paying their players since 2016.

Newell's back pay comes from a separate pool of funds that the NCAA, P4/G5/FCS schools all contributed to.

It is not part of the $20M RevShare that ISU will pay directly to existing (and selected) athletes during 2025-26.

 

[Clonedogg]

OK, these may be dumb questions, but I'll ask them anyway.

Who is paying the back pay to players like Colin Newell? It is the NCAA or Iowa State?

And is this inside of the $20m? Or in addition to the $20m?

It seems like it will just add more burden on the schools with limited resources. As if the Big Spender schools weren't already paying their players since 2016.

From what I've read, it'll be the NCAA, via future reduced payouts from the NCAA. Schools will be getting less money until the back pay is finished.

Directly it's the NCAA, indirectly the schools.

 

[isucy86]

Stop the entitlement. Never liked the idea of guaranteed bids. This is sports and qualifying for CFP should be based on what happens on-field.

So I'm big on 5-11 or 5-9 based on # of teams.

My concern is as long as there is a committee, the selection will be political and favor Brands. I'd prefer a computerized ranking system determine at-large selections. But again have concerns criteria will give advantage to Big10/SEC based on over-weighting their Conference games SOS.

Would love to see at least 2 non-con games between P4 schools AND require 9 conference games.

 

[cytor]

Stop the entitlement. Never liked the idea of guaranteed bids. This is sports and qualifying for CFP should be based on what happens on-field.

So I'm big on 5-11 or 5-9 based on # of teams.

My concern is as long as there is a committee, the selection will be political and favor Brands. I'd prefer a computerized ranking system determine at-large selections. But again have concerns criteria will give advantage to Big10/SEC based on over-weighting their Conference games SOS.

Would love to see at least 2 non-con games between P4 schools AND require 9 conference games.

100%.... So ACC and SEC you are hereby put on notice.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

I prefer 5+11 even if it means Big 12 only gets one team once in a while.

The only way I'd back 4-4-2-2 is if the Big Ten and SEC were actually limited to only 4 bids and the remaining 4 spots were all for G5/B12/ACC which I know would never happen.

The idea these leagues need a guaranteed 4 spots is absurd and frankly makes them look paranoid and weak. Just select on merrit and you'll get 4-6 every year and who cares if you have a horrible year some year with only 3/16 in the field.

Look at basketball. The Big Ten has every reason to be a premier, if not THE premier basketball conference, yet it has been between average and poor for a quarter century. Just prove it on the field and you'll be fine. They have chances to prove it on the court and year after year they don't prove it while the Big 12, Big East and now SEC do prove it on the court.

It not going to be once in awhile, its going to be most years getting in ONE team, lets be real here, if we do not take the two team guarantee per conference, the B10 and SEC will set up a system that is going to end up with the B12 and ACC fighting over 1 spot per year, sometimes two, while the other two leagues get 9, 10 or more.

 

[HFCS]

It not going to be once in awhile, its going to be most years getting in ONE team, lets be real here, if we do not take the two team guarantee per conference, the B10 and SEC will set up a system that is going to end up with the B12 and ACC fighting over 1 spot per year, sometimes two, while the other two leagues get 9, 10 or more.

You think the rankings/selection will get way worse than last year? Or you think the Big 12 will actually be much worse at football each passing year? I'm not necessarily disagreeing.

Last year's non B10/SEC teams cfp ranking before playoff bowls:
#5ND (at large outside B10/SEC)
#9BSU (auto in 5+)
#10 SMU (at large in 5+)
#12 ASU (auto in 5+)
#13 Miami (at large in 5+)
#16 Clemson (auto in 5+)
-------
#17 BYU, Big 12 is first team out
#18 ISU, Big 12 is second team out

So the Big Ten would have gotten four either way, The SEC would have got 6 with either system with the 5th and 6th teams being Ole Miss and South Carolina.

The rankings weren't off last year with Big Ten and SEC, they were off the entire year underrating the superior Big 12 vs the inferior ACC. BYU has absolutely nothing on its resume to suggest it should have been even one spot behind SMU let alone 7 spots behind them.

If you could adjust for the mistake of the media and CFP massively overrating ACC vs Big 12, it should have actually been the Big 12 to get 2/3 at large bids. Certainly BYU was more worthy than any ACC team was and they weren't even in the mix for 16 spots, let alone 12.


Big 12 had 3 teams in top 15 of AP poll after bowls/playoff.

 

[cyclones500]

Blum summarizes it best, for the way I view playoff format options, if Big 12 signs up for 2 teams (the 4-4-2-2), "there's no going back."

It might become reality that it's less safe for Big 12/ACC with a 5-11, but if that becomes the case, you deal with it (and you probably are doomed anyway, by that point).

Edit: No real perfect solution, because B10-SEC-ESPN driving the bus, but at least a 5-11 is closer to a true sports league playoff setup compared to the imbalanced auto-bid system.

 

[HFCS]

Blum summarizes it best, for the way I view playoff format options, if Big 12 signs up for 2 teams (the 4-4-2-2), "there's no going back."

It might become reality that it's less safe for Big 12/ACC with a 5-11, but if that becomes the case, you deal with it (and you probably are doomed anyway, by that point).

Edit: No real perfect solution, because B10-SEC-ESPN driving the bus, but at least a 5-11 is closer to a true sports league playoff setup compared to the imbalanced auto-bid system.

If we are only getting two teams in the top 16 because a rule protects us, it probably means our playoff teams are getting blasted unlike this year where ASU looked equal to Texas and BYU/ISU looked better than every ACC team that got in and probably should have been ranked top 16 over the entire ACC.

If the Big 12 slips and we need that second spot to get our #28ish team in that doesn't deserve it, that probably won't do us wonders anyway.

I rembember back when there were 8 BCS spots and a super week 8 team Big East was guaranteed one and they'd get #25 UConn or unranked FSU in and get blasted. It didn't do them wonders, they didn't deserve 1/8 of the spots automatically. The Big 12 being guaranteed 1/16 spots with a chance to get 2-3 most years but only one others is just reality of where Big 12 football is. The one guaranteed spot is a good idea.

 

[StPaulCyclone]

You think the rankings/selection will get way worse than last year? Or you think the Big 12 will actually be much worse at football each passing year? I'm not necessarily disagreeing.

Last year's non B10/SEC teams cfp ranking before playoff bowls:
#5ND (at large outside B10/SEC)
#9BSU (auto in 5+)
#10 SMU (at large in 5+)
#12 ASU (auto in 5+)
#13 Miami (at large in 5+)
#16 Clemson (auto in 5+)
-------
#17 BYU, Big 12 is first team out
#18 ISU, Big 12 is second team out

So the Big Ten would have gotten four either way, The SEC would have got 6 with either system with the 5th and 6th teams being Ole Miss and South Carolina.

The rankings weren't off last year with Big Ten and SEC, they were off the entire year underrating the superior Big 12 vs the inferior ACC. BYU has absolutely nothing on its resume to suggest it should have been even one spot behind SMU let alone 7 spots behind them.

If you could adjust for the mistake of the media and CFP massively overrating ACC vs Big 12, it should have actually been the Big 12 to get 2/3 at large bids. Certainly BYU was more worthy than any ACC team was and they weren't even in the mix for 16 spots, let alone 12.


Big 12 had 3 teams in top 15 of AP poll after bowls/playoff.

The perception of the ACC vs. the B12 is probably the biggest issue. As I have said before, SMU joined and ran through that league. When the other best G5s and BYU joined the B12, they got blasted. BYU recovered in year two, but I don't consider them a G5. FSU, Miami and Clemson are giving ACC the perception edge but FSU was dog *$%&, Clemson was down and Miami was overhyped.

 

[MugNight]

The B1G/SEC don’t want to earn it on merit. There’s too much money at stake.

It’s the same reason American soccer will never implement Promotion/Relegation: MLS teams spend huge sums upfront for access to the top league. They don’t want smaller clubs getting a piece of the pie nor do they want to risk the financial windfall of relegation.

Plenty of P2 bottom feeder schools are complicit in all of this because they’d rather be the shortest giant than the tallest midget.

 

[HFCS]

The perception of the ACC vs. the B12 is probably the biggest issue. As I have said before, SMU joined and ran through that league. When the other best G5s and BYU joined the B12, they got blasted. BYU recovered in year two, but I don't consider them a G5. FSU, Miami and Clemson are giving ACC the perception edge but FSU was dog *$%&, Clemson was down and Miami was overhyped.

It turned out ASU and BYU were better than the entire ACC. ISU and KSU were also probably about even with the best teams in ACC, who knows maybe KU even wins ACC if that early season dip is less severe.

BYU's ranking vs SMU's ranking is as bad as anything you'll ever see throughout course of a season.

 

[BACyclone]

Personally I don't like "locking in" the disparity, but let's be honest, the disparity exists and I'm of the mind to play with the cards that are on the table.

Frankly with the current setup, if we are set at 14 teams (slightly less ideal at 16 teams) the 4-4-2-2-1-1 scenario is the best available scenario for Iowa State and the Big 12.

The payouts from the CFP are based upon participation in the CFP. The only way the 5-11 is better overall is if the Big 12 somehow nets at least 2 teams on average, and sometimes 3 teams in the 5-11 scenario.

The best selling point IMO is 4-4-2-2-1-1 is solely based upon conference standings (or a conference format). No polls, no computers, no committees, no ESPN rankings.

The 5-11 format is bound to be based upon polls and a committee.

 

[HFCS]

Personally I don't like "locking in" the disparity, but let's be honest, the disparity exists and I'm of the mind to play with the cards that are on the table.

Frankly with the current setup, if we are set at 14 teams (slightly less ideal at 16 teams) the 4-4-2-2-1-1 scenario is the best available scenario for Iowa State and the Big 12.

The payouts from the CFP are based upon participation in the CFP. The only way the 5-11 is better overall is if the Big 12 somehow nets at least 2 teams on average, and sometimes 3 teams in the 5-11 scenario.

The best selling point IMO is 4-4-2-2-1-1 is solely based upon conference standings (or a conference format). No polls, no computers, no committees, no ESPN rankings.

The 5-11 format is bound to be based upon polls and a committee.

European soccer adjusts its bids for a coefficient formula.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Personally I don't like "locking in" the disparity, but let's be honest, the disparity exists and I'm of the mind to play with the cards that are on the table.

Frankly with the current setup, if we are set at 14 teams (slightly less ideal at 16 teams) the 4-4-2-2-1-1 scenario is the best available scenario for Iowa State and the Big 12.

The payouts from the CFP are based upon participation in the CFP. The only way the 5-11 is better overall is if the Big 12 somehow nets at least 2 teams on average, and sometimes 3 teams in the 5-11 scenario.

The best selling point IMO is 4-4-2-2-1-1 is solely based upon conference standings (or a conference format). No polls, no computers, no committees, no ESPN rankings.

The 5-11 format is bound to be based upon polls and a committee.

The 4-4-2-2-1 model imo has a lot of benefits.

From ISU’s perspective: more money from CFP by guaranteeing 2 teams vs risking just one, keeps B12 (and by extension ISU) relevant in major college football, helps prevent further realignment, helps with TV contract in 2030.

It also may be more “fair” in a way. It’s obviously unfair in that obviously the B10 and SEC are getting 2x the bids that the ACC/B12 is.

But is more fair in that it’s reducing the human bias of a committee or the computer metrics. In the same way all other sports work, you earn your way in by qualifying through your conference. The human bias will only have impact on 3 wild cards rather than 11, thus limiting their impact.

In today’s CFB with perception being what it is, the less we can incorporate biased the better.

 

[CycloneSpinning]

Personally I don't like "locking in" the disparity, but let's be honest, the disparity exists and I'm of the mind to play with the cards that are on the table.

Frankly with the current setup, if we are set at 14 teams (slightly less ideal at 16 teams) the 4-4-2-2-1-1 scenario is the best available scenario for Iowa State and the Big 12.

The payouts from the CFP are based upon participation in the CFP. The only way the 5-11 is better overall is if the Big 12 somehow nets at least 2 teams on average, and sometimes 3 teams in the 5-11 scenario.

The best selling point IMO is 4-4-2-2-1-1 is solely based upon conference standings (or a conference format). No polls, no computers, no committees, no ESPN rankings.

The 5-11 format is bound to be based upon polls and a committee.

5 + 11 is the only option that makes sense. I would rather never get more than one Big 12 team in the playoff than set up a system that says those two conferences are just better and should automatically get twice as many teams in. If they’re better…let them earn it.

Also, I’m not convinced things stay as they are forever. And fairness breeds open competition and innovation.

To me, the biggest barrier to things being fair isn’t the conferences…it’s ESPN. I’m less and less convinced ESPN will be the controlling force it has been 10 years from now.