College Football Playoffs

[dawg80]

The 12-team model has been put on hold again when the commissioners of the Big 12 and ACC had hissy fits and took their ball and went home. Another commissioner quipped, "I knew they weren't leaving for a restroom break when they took their briefcases."

The holdup seems to be those two want the P5 conferences to have their champion a guaranteed place in the 12-team model. I am surprised that is even an issue and assumed the P5s would be united on any and all issues that favor them. If those five get the guarantee than that leaves 7 slots to be filled by G5s and other P5 at-large bids. My only concern is how much access will the G5 conferences have. There are five G5 leagues meaning there will be 5 champions. NO WAY will the elites settle for just two at-large berths for themselves, so no way will all G5 champs get a bid to the playoffs. They might agree to having the two highest ranked G5 champions get a slot leaving them five at-large bids.

[Blue Dawg]

The 12-team model has been put on hold again when the commissioners of the Big 12 and ACC had hissy fits and took their ball and went home. Another commissioner quipped, "I knew they weren't leaving for a restroom break when they took their briefcases."

The holdup seems to be those two want the P5 conferences to have their champion a guaranteed place in the 12-team model. I am surprised that is even an issue and assumed the P5s would be united on any and all issues that favor them. If those five get the guarantee than that leaves 7 slots to be filled by G5s and other P5 at-large bids. My only concern is how much access will the G5 conferences have. There are five G5 leagues meaning there will be 5 champions. NO WAY will the elites settle for just two at-large berths for themselves, so no way will all G5 champs get a bid to the playoffs. They might agree to having the two highest ranked G5 champions get a slot leaving them five at-large bids.

More than one G5 would be a surprise.

[Dawgonit]

More than one G5 would be a surprise.

That's what I think. I think they'll implement a 5+1 system for automatic bids. The one G5 automatic birth will be the only one let in most of the time. G5s will find a ceiling around 12-14 when ranked now funny enough.

[SicemDawgz]

And the G5 team will always play the toughest team first.

[The Historian]

More than one G5 would be a surprise.

In 2020 both the AAC and Belt champions were in the top 6.

The ACC and Big 12 want to ensure they have a spot even if they're not in the top 6. The other 3 leagues appear to be on the side of the G5 on this.

But there have been all kinds of other issues. The Rose Bowl wanting to stay on 1/1 being just one of them.

[champion110]

The ACC may have some power, but the B12 may find their power in meetings is not near as strong after Texas and OU took their ball and left. Should be interesting if the other P5's have a different idea on the G5's.

On a related note, I am SO SO SICK of how they divided up Division 1 football into P5 and G5. It is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is how they just started USING the term mid-major for G5 conferences without ANY definition or formal separation. There is still no such thing as mid-major in basketball, but it has become accepted. Rant over....

[Champ967]

On a related note, I am SO SO SICK of how they divided up Division 1 football into P5 and G5.

Point of order ...

If by THEY, you mean the NCAA, then "they" didnt do that. The NCAA divided Division 1 football into FCS & FBS.

P5/G5 (formerly BCS/non-BCS) are terms that only serve to DESCRIBE the current power structure. But they're not things that were PERSCRIBED (or sanctioned, formalized, mandated, etc) by anyone. They're only names / category descriptors.

If you preferred to use "haves / have-nots" (or major / mid-major or Star-Bellied Sneetches / No Stars Upon Thars), it would do the job just as well.

[inudesu]

Point of order ...

If by THEY, you mean the NCAA, then "they" didnt do that. The NCAA divided Division 1 football into FCS & FBS.

P5/G5 (formerly BCS/non-BCS) are terms that only serve to DESCRIBE the current power structure. But they're not things that were PERSCRIBED (or sanctioned, formalized, mandated, etc) by anyone. They're only names / category descriptors.

If you preferred to use "haves / have-nots" (or major / mid-major or Star-Bellied Sneetches / No Stars Upon Thars), it would do the job just as well.

I think it is a real difference though. The P5 schools have more say.

They literally have weighted votes and the legislative process is tilted in their direction for stuff they want:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...ncaa-proposal/

I found this amusing, from the chirpy "P6" AAC back then:

The American Athletic Conference said it wants a process or criteria for adding or removing conferences from the autonomy group.

I think when they allowed conferences with less than 12 teams to hold a conference championship game in football, each P5 conference got 2 votes (so while it happened to benefit the SB, it was really for the Big 10 and Big 12).

Members voted 77 percent to 23 percent to amend the proposal and then 77 percent to 23 percent to adopt it as amended. Only the Football Bowl Subdivision members of the Council participated in the vote, and votes were weighted. Votes from members representing the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern conferences each counted twice. Votes from members representing the American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference each counted once.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/a...-now-able-hold