Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sactowndog

Play-off Committee Jan Meeting

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, StanfordAggie said:

Yeah others are reporting that the ACC is demanding no expansion past eight teams with six automatic qualifiers and two at-larges because they think that would force Notre Dame to join the conference as a full member. But I'm sure that the ACC has no real interest in Notre Dame and their true motive is to help the PAC screw over the MWC.

That makes sense.  The agreement reached is tailor made to prevent ND from ever having to join a conference.  And someone +++++ing explain to me why ND gets a seat at the table equivalent to entire conferences.  Will college football please and at long last get the balls to put them in their place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RebelAlliance said:

That makes sense.  The agreement reached is tailor made to prevent ND from ever having to join a conference.  And someone +++++ing explain to me why ND gets a seat at the table equivalent to entire conferences.  Will college football please and at long last get the balls to put them in their place.

Notre Dame having a vote was in the MWC’s favor.   What I said earlier about the next vote was incorrect.   Regardless right now we are allied with the SEC, Big-12, Notre Dame, and the G5.   We are opposed by the Big, PAC-12 and ACC.  

Below is a quote from a pretty plugged in poster known as Frank the Tank 
 

In order to change the CFP early, before it expires in 2026, it is one conference, one vote, and any vote against is enough to veto any change in the CFP. So in effect, each of the 10 conferences, and Notre Dame, can nuke the early modification of the CFP. To change the CFP before 2026, a unanimous, 11-0 vote to do so is needed.

Regarding what happens once the CFP expires, all bets are off. At that point, IIRC, it is an open negotiation among all of these entities. So there isn't even a vote that anyone has to abide by. E.g., if seven conferences want a particular new format and three conferences disagree, the seven cannot force those three to adopt their format by a 7-3 vote. The three dissenters can simply refuse to participate in that playoff scheme.

But, the seven who do agree could go ahead with their scheme anyway, amongst themselves.

As for 5+1+6, it seems like there is quite a bit of opposition to that right now, from the SEC, Big 12 and at least some G5, all of whom have said they oppose autobids for the P5 conferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2022 at 11:46 PM, sactowndog said:

Final vote for the 6-6 playoff 8-3…….

with surprise surprise…… the PAC, BIG and ACC voting against the 6+6 format.  
 

guess @StanfordAggie@RSFand @wolfpack1 need to work on their bullshit detectors.   The PAC never favored every proposal and only +++++ing morons thought they ever did. 

They stuck together...because it only took one to gum up the works.  And the ACC and P12 stayed with their Big Brother.  And its the B10 who benefits the most here.  Not really difficult to understand.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two main sticking points for the Pac-12 centered on the Rose Bowl and a lack of clarity surrounding revenue distribution, sources told The Athletic. In the proposed new format, the Rose Bowl would host two CFP quarterfinals consecutively (which would fall over New Year’s, the Rose Bowl’s traditional time slot) and then one semifinal every third year. The Pac-12 proposed and pushed for the Rose Bowl to be allowed to play a traditional bowl game at its designated time on Jan. 1 in years in which it was hosting a semifinal later in January.

“The CFP should not counter-program to kill the bowl game,” a source explained.

Opinions among other commissioners differ on the Rose Bowl. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said “it’s not just a little issue,” though Kliavkoff has described it as just that, believing that allowance wasn’t too much to ask from his peers.

The Pac-12 also wanted clarity about the future revenue distribution breakdown. Others leagues proposed moving forward with the revenue distribution model the CFP currently uses. “I’ve never signed a contract in my life where I don’t know the financial terms,” Kliavkoff said on “The Paul Finebaum Show” a few weeks later.

The vote in Indianapolis was to approve the 12-team proposal for Years 11 and 12 — the 2024 and 2025 regular seasons, the two final years of the current contract — and Year 13 and beyond. Pac-12 sources say that the Pac-12 wanted to vote yes for Years 11 and 12 because its main issues (the Rose Bowl and the revenue distribution) were resolved for those years. Both were open-ended beyond 2026, meaning Kliavkoff felt he couldn’t vote yes on that time frame.

But the group had to vote, simply, yes or no on expanding the Playoff to 12 teams, with the six highest-ranked conference champions and six at-large spots, as the original proposal stated.

So, the Pac-12 voted against expansion.

 

https://theathletic.com/3142187/2022/02/25/inside-the-college-football-playoff-expansion-breakdown-pettiness-power-struggles-and-indignation/

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number that I hear was left on the table by not expanding early is $450M.  Sounds like a lot of money at first, but is it really?  That breaks down to $112.5M/year split 120+ ways.  What is that to a school like Ohio State with a (checks Google) 200M athletic budget that takes no subsidies, 7B endowment and 1.25B in annual research funding.  It's couch cushion change.  For a school like UNLV, it might mean a bit more but still wouldn't cover a fraction of its subsidy.

So, I totally get why rich schools in the PAC, B1G and ACC had no hesitation to put a brake on things in favor of other issues important to them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...