ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[Archbold44]

I think the SEC had formerly proposed that. But I think last year the coaches told the PTB that they wanted it to be mostly at-large teams. I believe the SEC's current position is that they want it to be 5 (Conf champs) + 11 at large. The SEC and B1G have to agree on the format for the future before it changes. Otherwise it stays a 12 team playoff under the current format. ESPN has told the conferences and the CFP committee they need to know for next year by December 1, 2025.

Sorry, I think the B1G proposed the 4-4-2-2-1-3 first. 9 seasons out of 10, that is B1G/SEC getting 10 teams out of 16. And if ND is no good, then probably an 11th also. Not sure why that is not good enough for everyone.

 

[FloridaCuse]

Sorry, I think the B1G proposed the 4-4-2-2-1-3 first. 9 seasons out of 10, that is B1G/SEC getting 10 teams out of 16. And if ND is no good, then probably an 11th also. Not sure why that is not good enough for everyone.

I think the SEC coaches prefer the 5-11 because they think they can get more in with that format. You may be right that the B1G originally proposed the 4-4-2-2-1-3. Or they may have both considered it. I recall that last year, or maybe it was in the Spring, the SEC changed its position based on the result of a meeting of their coaches. Last Spring I think.

 

[FloridaCuse]

Sorry, I think the B1G proposed the 4-4-2-2-1-3 first. 9 seasons out of 10, that is B1G/SEC getting 10 teams out of 16. And if ND is no good, then probably an 11th also. Not sure why that is not good enough for everyone.

There also may be a fundamental philosophical difference between the B1G and SEC. The B1G may still want there to be only 2 conferences to rule the CF world -- them and the SEC. The SEC I think recognizes for the good of the game there needs to be more than just the two conferences. (Among other differences.)

 

[Archbold44]

There also may be a fundamental philosophical difference between the B1G and SEC. The B1G may still want there to be only 2 conferences to rule the CF world -- them and the SEC. The SEC I think recognizes for the good of the game there needs to be more than just the two conferences. (Among other differences.)

Perhaps... but the B1G's proposal of 4-4-2-2-1-3 would have given the ACC and B12 juice, especially if everyone locked in for 10 years. Who cares if Clemson/FSU leave if we still have 2 playoff spots? Plus, Clemson/FSU cannot crack top 3 in the ACC... are they really going to be top 6 in the SEC? To me, that was a life preserver for the ACC... and we said "nah." The ACC will get 1 team in a 16-team playoff more often than 3. Why not take 2 and hope you still get an at-large for that 3rd team in that rare year with 3 playoff-quality teams???

 

[FloridaCuse]

Perhaps... but the B1G's proposal of 4-4-2-2-1-3 would have given the ACC and B12 juice, especially if everyone locked in for 10 years. Who cares if Clemson/FSU leave if we still have 2 playoff spots? Plus, Clemson/FSU cannot crack top 3 in the ACC... are they really going to be top 6 in the SEC? To me, that was a life preserver for the ACC... and we said "nah." The ACC will get 1 team in a 16-team playoff more often than 3. Why not take 2 and hope you still get an at-large for that 3rd team in that rare year with 3 playoff-quality teams???

I don't disagree with your logic. Maybe it was a concern with the perception issue that the ACC and Big12 would forever be viewed as lesser. Maybe at some point reality has to be recognized.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I hate multi auto bids. Only way it makes sense is if you have divisions. Then you can at least argue a team earned it. With unbalanced conference schedules, how is just being 3rd fair? Look at A&M this year for example.

SEC can go 4 x 4. B1G 3 x 6. ACC 2 x 9. B12 2 x 8. Divisions aren’t static they can change year to year.

For example the ACC can have 6 pods of three so you are in everyone’s division twice in five years. Which means you play three teams 5x, one team 4x, and 13 teams 2x.

I also hate expanding without having G6 Champs getting in. Personally I don’t want G6s but how can you call it a playoff while excluding them? Either give them a bid or split into FBS-A and FBS-AA (which I prefer).

 

[HtownOrange]

There also may be a fundamental philosophical difference between the B1G and SEC. The B1G may still want there to be only 2 conferences to rule the CF world -- them and the SEC. The SEC I think recognizes for the good of the game there needs to be more than just the two conferences. (Among other differences.)

As you note, the SEC has identified that a power league of just the B1G and SEC is not likely to succeed. Also, the SEC remains a regional conference, tightly packed into the Atlantic south, Gulf Coast and a few more interior teams, all geographically packed into a small region.

Add to the above the other issues, such as:
- ESPN will not kill off money makers to please the B1G, they may expand elsewhere to maximize profit but not slice their throat, the ACC is safe for now
-Hoops is a money maker, 25% of conference media deals, you cannot destroy sources of income when you try to maximize income.
-Fox and ESPN make money off the Big12, again, not slashing their own throats
- If too many schools are left out, CFB viewership will wane, fans watch their team first and foremost then watch other games.
-Not many people care about Illinois v Washington, Mississippi v. Mizzou, etc.
-Many more metrics that TV analysts use to make decisions that this site has not discovered.

 

[Hoo's That]

There also may be a fundamental philosophical difference between the B1G and SEC. The B1G may still want there to be only 2 conferences to rule the CF world -- them and the SEC. The SEC I think recognizes for the good of the game there needs to be more than just the two conferences. (Among other differences.)

I am honestly surprised by this. I was convinced that the SEC and B1G thinking was totally aligned. Their recognition could lead to a reduction in poaching. Notice I didn't say "will", but "could,"

 

[FloridaCuse]

I am honestly surprised by this. I was convinced that the SEC and B1G thinking was totally aligned. Their recognition could lead to a reduction in poaching. Notice I didn't say "will", but "could,"

I believe SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has made statements about this. You're right about "could". I'm not sure it necessary "will". I think the comments were just aimed toward the talk of the SEC and B1G forming and finalizing a Big Two and only they would participate in the college football playoffs. Maybe others remember more about this.

 

[HtownOrange]

I am honestly surprised by this. I was convinced that the SEC and B1G thinking was totally aligned. Their recognition could lead to a reduction in poaching. Notice I didn't say "will", but "could,"

I think the SEC and ESPN are not willing to let the B1G/Fox garner more teams without at least a fight. This is one reason I believe that the ACC is safer than many think. ESPN does not want to pay SEC money but does not want to lose a steady reliable source of revenue and profit, either. Just an opinion.