šŸ“” College Football Playoff's 12-team model goes before top decision-makers next week - ESPN

  • Thread starter Thread starter SEC Sports
  • Start date Start date



CHICAGO -- The proposal to expand the College Football Playoff to 12 teams is moving forward, as the CFP's management committee on Friday agreed to present the concept to the 11 university presidents and chancellors who have the ultimate authority over the format at a meeting Tuesday in Dallas.

The management committee, which is made up of the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick, will ask the presidents and chancellors on the CFP's board of managers to "authorize the solicitation of feedback" and "begin feasibility assessments of any new formats."

"It's an information process," said Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, one of the four members of the working group that wrote the proposal. "Four of us were at one place. Now I think we have 11 of us at that place. Now we move to talk to the presidents and see if we can get them in that place."

If the board of managers supports the proposal, it would be a green light for the commissioners to continue to work on the details throughout the summer before reporting back in September.

The two-day meetings in Chicago were an important step in expanding the field beyond its current four-team format, but those in the room cautioned that there won't be any definitive conclusions on when and how it might happen until this fall at the earliest.

"This is an enormous undertaking with dozens and dozens of moving parts, and it's not going to be a rapid process," Bowlsby said. "It's going to be at least [this] fall before we have the necessary conversations and possess the necessary information to make informed decisions."

The proposal was written after two years of research by a subcommittee of Bowlsby, Swarbrick, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson. The meetings in Chicago were the first time the entire management committee was able to discuss the details in person.

Swarbrick joined the meetings Thursday but did not participate Friday because he wasn't feeling well, according to CFP executive director Bill Hancock.

The proposal does not include guarantees for conference champions. Instead, it calls for the bracket to include the six highest-ranked conference champions plus the six remaining highest-ranked teams as determined by the CFP selection committee. There would be no limit on the number of participants from a conference.

"The good news is that everyone who's on this conference committee supports expansion," said incoming Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, who will begin his role July 1 and attended the meetings along with current commissioner Larry Scott. "So we're all aligned on that. The great news for me coming into this for the first time is that the starting point for everyone's discussions is what's best for the student-athletes and what's best for the game."

After the meeting, Scott released a statement saying the Pac-12 supported CFP expansion. But he also showed that some details are yet to be settled, as he added that all Power 5 conference champions should be guaranteed a playoff berth.

In a statement later Friday, Sun Belt commissioner Keith Gill said his conference doesn't believe that should be the case.

"The Sun Belt Conference supports College Football Playoff expansion, including the working group's recommendation to have the six highest-ranked conference champions in the field," Gill said. "Playoff spots should be earned and not given. Under the proposed system, if you are a deserving team, you should have no concerns of being left out of the playoff."

The general sense from within the room Friday was that the 10 FBS commissioners supported the foundation of the proposal but needed more time to gather feedback from the university presidents, athletic directors, coaches and student-athletes within their conferences.

"There are so many constituents," Kliavkoff said. "We're going to spend the next couple of months going back to our constituents, getting them all on board with the same format. There's also timing issues related to all of the contracts."

The playoff is entering the eighth season of a 12-year contract that runs through the 2025 season, and Hancock reiterated that the playoff will not change this season or next, though it could happen as early as the 2023 season. Hancock said the commissioners didn't talk a lot this week about the timing of implementation.

"That will come later," Hancock said. "The first step is determining whether this new format is even feasible or something that the people on campus want to do."

According to the proposal, first-round games would take place on campus sometime during the two-week period after conference championship games. The quarterfinals would be played on Jan. 1 -- or Jan. 2 when New Year's Day falls on a Sunday -- and on an adjacent day.

The working group didn't include which bowls might be a part of the CFP in the future, but it did recommend that if "traditional bowls" host games, teams would be assigned to those bowls for the quarterfinals, with the priority going to the higher-seeded team.

"We don't know who the six bowls might be if the format goes through," Hancock said. "That will be determined later. In my mind, the six bowls that will be a part of this will be delighted to be part of it."
 

Former Florida and South Carolina Coach Steve Spurrier described Southeastern Conference Media Days as part of ā€œtalking season.ā€ One of the three big issues of college athletics, specific to football, in this talking season is expansion of the College Football Playoff. (The others, one unconditional transfer and former amateur players now being able to be paid for Name, Likeness, and Image.)

And the talk continues regarding the CFP.

It was revealed today that in advance of next week’s meeting of university presidents and chancellors who oversee the CFP, the CFP management committee reviewed a working group’s proposed 12-team playoff. The announcement included ā€œcommittee members stating they look forward to discussing the proposal with key constituent groups.ā€

The executive director and man behind the CFP – as he was for its predecessor, the Bowl Championship Series – is Bill Hancock. Although almost since the first talk of expansion of the CFP, he has been adamant that there had been no discussion of the issue. Today he said, ā€œThe management committee praised the working group for its proposal,ā€ and added that this was the first in-person meeting of the committee since January 2020. ā€œThe process will move forward, and the proposal will be discussed next week by the board of managers.ā€

The proposal has not been a secret. It is for a 12-team playoff to include the top-seeded champions of six conferences plus the six highest-ranked other teams as determined by the CFP selection committee. No conference would qualify automatically and there would be no limit on the number of participants from a conferenceThe top four seeds would receive a first round bye with teams 5 through 8 hosting teams 9-12 (5 hosting 12, 6 hosting 11, 7 hosting 10, and 9 hosting 8). The winners would then proceed against the top four seeds. The quarterfinals, semifinals and national championship game would be played at neutral sites.

At next week’s board of managers meeting, the management committee will ask the board to authorize the solicitation of feedback over the next few weeks and months with groups that are expected to include student-athletes, university presidents and chancellors, athletics directors and coaches to inform them about the details of the 12-team proposal, and also to begin feasibility assessments of any new format.

ā€œVetting with everyone on campus will be an important element,ā€ Hancock said.

ā€œThe working group’s proposal was the first step in a long process. It’s important to reach out and listen to a wide variety of people involved in college football.

ā€œThis is a very exciting time for college football,ā€ Hancock added. ā€œThe working group’s proposal includes many details that must be carefully reviewed and discussed. We look forward to that review.ā€
 
But the fact is....neither won their division or won conference...
And yet...here they are... because.... you put teams in a tournament and Things happen...

is how they have structured "tuition and grants" because they are not a state school...don’t understand that...
Here you go again trying to build a hill to die on.

You are not going to find a team winning the AAC and making into the playoffs and winning the title. As the committee clearly said, it was about giving a team the chance to be there; not to win it. We have the hopes of making the playoff so, as many have quoted, they can enjoy the experience of being there.

It's a participation trophy. It's a token. It's not about finding the best football team.

And now you want to draw a comparison between the two sports when baseball has 300 programs? This hill you're building is made of quicksand. Baseball is a terribly unfair and unregulated collegiate sport.
 
You can tack the name "playoff" on a game and it still won't attract more viewers if it's a game between two bad teams.

If it's about TV it's about money and a lot don't have a problem that that. If it is about money and it effects you personally, like seats or ticket prices, now there's a problem.
O. Totally disagree.
playoffs with 2 teams will attract more viewers. Than same game being played in Alamode weedeater pillsbury biscuit state farm bowl

2 bad teams aren't getting in playoffs like they get in bowls anyway
May not be top 1-4 teams but they will be pretty good teams

picking top 12 teams in 2019. Bama may have slipped in ( who knows)
And Bama gets jn. Who knows ( almost same team that ran table the next year!!!!!)
 
O. Totally disagree.
playoffs with 2 teams will attract more viewers. Than same game being played in Alamode weedeater pillsbury biscuit state farm bowl

2 bad teams aren't getting in playoffs like they get in bowls anyway
May not be top 1-4 teams but they will be pretty good teams

picking top 12 teams in 2019. Bama may have slipped in ( who knows)
And Bama gets jn. Who knows ( almost same team that ran table the next year!!!!!)
Wait a minute here.

"2 bad teams are getting in the playoffs..."

And then a reference to 2019 which would have had teams that weren't in the top 25 in the playoffs.

The 5th ranked team in the nation facing the 12th seeded team—a team that's not even ranked— in the playoffs and that's, somehow, a recipe for good football ratings?
 
No, Bama would be out. We know because we know how this proposal is set up.
We dont know that.

The selection committee could look at Bama losing to the #1 team by 4 and losing a freaky rivalry game by 3....

I don't remember a lot about 2019..
but
Maybe
Maybe not
( they are still bama and ranked #1 for a majority of season... who really believes that their were 12 teams better than them even with 2 close losses... by a total of 7 points)
 
Lost me completely


Ur quote of " bad teams in playoffs "
Mine actually says "2 bad teams ARENT getting in playoffs "

and i don't know what the rest...last paragraph... even means

i was referring to bama getting in as a wild card snd with their talent... actually as much or more than 2020... what they could do ( with Mac actually getting more practice time)
Ok reviewing 2019
@1CrimsonTider

bama was 9 after AU loss

with 12 teams playoff they would be going to Florida for first round
Would they get in? They were #1 team for 5 weeks and 2 close losses

even throwing in conference champs and group of 5 Memphis Still top 12

CD719869-9B3E-4020-8092-498B75ACBCED.png
 
Back
Top Bottom