Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[heitclone]

Or a compromise of a 10 team playoff where the top 6 teams get a bye and the first round is played at home sites. Don't need auto qualifiers- if two G5 schools are ranked above a P5 school, they should be rewarded for that.

The thing is, having the highest rated teams is too open to the same manipulation of the polls we have now. The committee has shown, they'll alter their ratings based on $$$. They'll simply change their rankings to keep espn happy. Auto bids are the only check and balance on espn greed.

 

[HawaiiClone]

The thing is, having the highest rated teams is too open to the same manipulation of the polls we have now. The committee has shown, they'll alter their ratings based on $$$. They'll simply change their rankings to keep espn happy. Auto bids are the only check and balance on espn greed.

Interesting point. Definitely need to fight against the committee kowtowing to TV networks.

 

[Triggermv]

 

[cyclones500]

The thing is, having the highest rated teams is too open to the same manipulation of the polls we have now. The committee has shown, they'll alter their ratings based on $$$. They'll simply change their rankings to keep espn happy. Auto bids are the only check and balance on espn greed.

Yes.

D-1 CFB is the only major team sport that doesn't involve automatic bids for playoff. Pro sports have division winners. CBB tournament champs are auto-bids (leagues are free to choose the regular season champ as auto bid, but Ivy was the final holdout on that one).

A committee still could "massage" seedings to maximize ratings, if the seed format is left open-ended, but auto bids remove complete "favorites" manipulation.

 

[ISU_Guy]

January 28th, 2027, Chicago Tribune: "Matt Campbell has been hired as head football coach at Purdue. Campbell led Iowa State to back-to-back Big 12 titles as well as to the CFP semi-finals. The contract is for $22 million/year which puts him 5th highest in the Big 10."

This is fricking funny!! But at the same time could become a sad reality.
who would thought 5 years ago that we would be talking 100M per year for places like Purdue and that OU would be in the SEC, and USC would be in the Big Ten, Pac12 is all but dead and the ACC could be next.

 

[CascadeClone]

Assuming the PAC dies/converts to MWC+, and the ACC sticks around due to GoR... I would guess the next CFP iteration would be 8 teams:
P4 champs
Best G5 champ (only if in top 10)
3 at large (almost guaranteed all SEC/B1G)

I think B1G will try to pressure ND by making them be at large only access, no "G5 winner top 10" exception. That would make B1G favor a smaller playoff, and the SEC surely believes they will get 2 at large plus their champ, which is 37.5% of the money. Seems like they can both agree that's a win. More teams just gets more ACC/Big12/ND opportunity to dilute the money.

 

[isucy86]

Yes.

D-1 CFB is the only major team sport that doesn't involve automatic bids for playoff. Pro sports have division winners. CBB tournament champs are auto-bids (leagues are free to choose the regular season champ as auto bid, but Ivy was the final holdout on that one).

A committee still could "massage" seedings to maximize ratings, if the seed format is left open-ended, but auto bids remove complete "favorites" manipulation.

It would be great if P2-P5 conferences could agree on a method to name playoff teams without having a committee determine ANY teams.

I don't think its a difficult hurdle to overcome once the # of CFB Playoff teams is established as there seem to be two areas of debate:

1. # of Auto Bids to Each Conference. I don't feel like each power conference needs to have the same # of auto bids. Using historical victories (e.g. rolling last 5 years) in Playoff games could reward conferences that do better in the Playoff with an extra bid vs. other conferences.
2. Have P Conferences establish a ranking calculation and once auto bids are awarded, then the top ranked teams not receiving auto bids get a berth. If every major professional sport can determine playoff teams based on what happens on the field, then college football (and basketball) can do as well. The PGA invited the top 30 players to the season ending Tournament at East Lake this weekend. And NBC was tracking where players ranked throughout last weekends 4 day tournament. The key is the ranking methodology needs to be transparent! We know beforehand if a series of outcomes occurs, then this team would finish ranked x.

 

[isucy86]

Assuming the PAC dies/converts to MWC+, and the ACC sticks around due to GoR... I would guess the next CFP iteration would be 8 teams:
P4 champs
Best G5 champ (only if in top 10)
3 at large (almost guaranteed all SEC/B1G)

I think B1G will try to pressure ND by making them be at large only access, no "G5 winner top 10" exception. That would make B1G favor a smaller playoff, and the SEC surely believes they will get 2 at large plus their champ, which is 37.5% of the money. Seems like they can both agree that's a win. More teams just gets more ACC/Big12/ND opportunity to dilute the money.

In late July, I started to see articles on the internet mentioning a 16 team playoff as preferred by some conferences. That would be about 25% of the current P5. That seems like too many. The the NFL, MLB and NBA all include 40-50% of their teams in playoffs, but that is basically because the 1st round of playoffs is a money grab for owners & players.

IMo there will be 12 teams with the Big10 & SEC getting 2 spots and then 1 spot for the remaining P5 conferences. The remaining 6+ spots would be awarded based on a ranking calculation. The Big10 & SEC will push for an extra spot based on historical wins in the current 4 team playoff.

 

[WhoISthis]

Pretty sure the Big Ten/ACC/PAC 12 don’t care who gets the playoff, they just wanted it to be open for bid. The reason ESPN tried to force playoff expansion is they have exclusive negotiating rights until their CFB Playoff deal expires in 2025 and any contract signed before that would have extended those rights. The other conferences just want to get to 2025 so that they can have a real bidding process and everyone can bid, maximizing the return they get.

I’m pretty sure they want to model the CFB Playoff like the Big Ten Championship, passing around the games between networks, to not be locked into one network and to get two (two networks each get one semi-final game and the championship rotates) or three network (three networks each broadcast one playoff game on a rotating schedule) bids, like the NFL does with their playoff rights.

As I said, a ruse. About ESPN not getting the CFP (aka, exclusivity). Not actually because of the difference between 6+6 vs 5+1+6.

Potentially also some realignment reasons too, but that’s likely overestimating the foresight of BIG/Warren

 

[Big_Sill]

In late July, I started to see articles on the internet mentioning a 16 team playoff as preferred by some conferences. That would be about 25% of the current P5. That seems like too many. The the NFL, MLB and NBA all include 40-50% of their teams in playoffs, but that is basically because the 1st round of playoffs is a money grab for owners & players.

IMo there will be 12 teams with the Big10 & SEC getting 2 spots and then 1 spot for the remaining P5 conferences. The remaining 6+ spots would be awarded based on a ranking calculation. The Big10 & SEC will push for an extra spot based on historical wins in the current 4 team playoff.

Could work for a while. Eventually it will be all SEC and Big 10 teams when they break away, and will work exactly like the NFL model in every way.

 

[PickSix]

TLDR version: Notre Dame is the only school whose value is written in the contract. Increased value from any other schools added will be negotiated "in good faith."

Knowing that, along with the growing consensus of Notre Dame staying put, I doubt we see any westward Big Ten expansion in the near future.

No way they would want to re-enter negotiations after they just wrapped it all up.

 

[VeloClone]

SEC fans in my timeline up in arms about CBS using the intro music for the B1G. But I really enjoyed this take.

I know I'm late to the party, but I had to laugh when the only images of iowa in an over minute and quarter promo were some iowa fans, their QB getting totally blown up, and a few players petting a trophy.

 

[BCClone]

I know I'm late to the party, but I had to laugh when the only images of iowa in an over minute and quarter promo were some iowa fans, their QB getting totally blown up, and a few players petting a trophy.

Petting a trophy? Was it a sheep?

 

[CascadeClone]

It would be great if P2-P5 conferences could agree on a method to name playoff teams without having a committee determine ANY teams.

I don't think its a difficult hurdle to overcome once the # of CFB Playoff teams is established as there seem to be two areas of debate:

1. # of Auto Bids to Each Conference. I don't feel like each power conference needs to have the same # of auto bids. Using historical victories (e.g. rolling last 5 years) in Playoff games could reward conferences that do better in the Playoff with an extra bid vs. other conferences.
2. Have P Conferences establish a ranking calculation and once auto bids are awarded, then the top ranked teams not receiving auto bids get a berth. If every major professional sport can determine playoff teams based on what happens on the field, then college football (and basketball) can do as well. The PGA invited the top 30 players to the season ending Tournament at East Lake this weekend. And NBC was tracking where players ranked throughout last weekends 4 day tournament. The key is the ranking methodology needs to be transparent! We know beforehand if a series of outcomes occurs, then this team would finish ranked x.

Agree get the committee eye test BS out of there. But they tried the ranking thing (BCS computer component) and everyone hated it - even though it was actually pretty good overall. The challenge was no matter who got picked for #2, someone always had a decent argument for #3 or #4 instead.

I would be all for taking the P4 champs and then next 4 highest computer rankings (averaging like 5-10 systems). The champs give you the "best on field" part, and the computers give you the "best on paper" part, which is always the biggest argument. Do you reward those that have won, or those who appear to be the best on paper? Well, why not both?

 

[theshadow]

The challenge was no matter who got picked for #2, someone always had a decent argument for #3 or #4 instead.

I think you'll always have that no matter how many teams are included, because there's rarely a clear-cut separation between last in and first out whether it's 2/3, or 4/5, or 8/9, or even 68/69 in the case of hoops.

 

[Clonehomer]

Agree get the committee eye test BS out of there. But they tried the ranking thing (BCS computer component) and everyone hated it - even though it was actually pretty good overall. The challenge was no matter who got picked for #2, someone always had a decent argument for #3 or #4 instead.

I would be all for taking the P4 champs and then next 4 highest computer rankings (averaging like 5-10 systems). The champs give you the "best on field" part, and the computers give you the "best on paper" part, which is always the biggest argument. Do you reward those that have won, or those who appear to be the best on paper? Well, why not both?

Feels like the BCS formula was only hated by the TV folk. Maybe it would be manipulated for the 2 vs 3 spot. But I don't think anyone should get too worked up about using it to select 6 through 8 ( P4 + P1 + 3AL)

 

[VeloClone]

Petting a trophy? Was it a sheep?

Close, it was a pig.

 

[AuH2O]

Agree get the committee eye test BS out of there. But they tried the ranking thing (BCS computer component) and everyone hated it - even though it was actually pretty good overall. The challenge was no matter who got picked for #2, someone always had a decent argument for #3 or #4 instead.

I would be all for taking the P4 champs and then next 4 highest computer rankings (averaging like 5-10 systems). The champs give you the "best on field" part, and the computers give you the "best on paper" part, which is always the biggest argument. Do you reward those that have won, or those who appear to be the best on paper? Well, why not both?

People that were dumb didn't like the BCS based on something that the BCS system couldn't control - there were only two teams. All the BCS hate really got cranked up when Auburn, USC and Oklahoma were all undefeated, and somebody got left out. Basically a bunch of dimwits in sports media were complaining about Auburn getting left out and saying that they didn't need some compooder tellin them who was the best. So basically they thought a committee was going to magically figure out a way for three teams to play in one game.

The best example of how superior a BCS type system is to committees was the the 2007 national championship game. The consensus based on the "eyeball test" was that after Michigan and Ohio State played that they were clearly the two best teams, and by a tiny margin Florida beat out Michigan. Then they went on to completely overwhelm Ohio State. In fact, the only saving grace was some people voting in the polls still believing OSU and Michigan were the best two teams, but that their game they had just played was a defacto playoff/NC game, so a rematch would not be fair to OSU. Ohio State was completely overmatched by Florida.

A BCS system with at least a 4 team playoff would be far and away the best ever system in CFB.

Pick a system to use. Show how the formula works. Then shut the hell up and let the ranking system do its thing.

 

[NodawayRiverClone]

More smoke? From The Comeback as reported by MSN:

While Oregon expressed interest in joining, McMurphy reports that Oregon president Michael Schill, athletic director Rob Mullens, and Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren were not a part of the conversations, indicating that the talks are in the early stages.


McMurphy did not specifically report who represented Oregon in the talks. However, Nike CEO Phil Knight, who is an Oregon alum and a prominent booster of the athletic department, reportedly wants the Ducks to join either the Big Ten or the SEC.

This news comes just one day after Florida State president Richard McCullough expressed interest in conference realignment. So it sure looks like the college football world better brace itself for more unprecedented change.

 

[VeloClone]

That "loose partnership" really worked out well with the Big Ten...