Playoff format expected to change in wake of realignment

[Webmaster]

https://sports.yahoo.com/after-pac-12s-implosion-college-football-playoff-format-set-for-another-shakeup-120015987.html

On Aug. 30 in Dallas, leaders of the College Football Playoff were scheduled to finalize minutiae of the expanded postseason format set to begin in 2024.

Now, after another realignment wave shook the college sports landscape, the meeting is expected to take a different tone. The CFP’s governance structure, revenue distribution model and, most notably, playoff format are all up for re-examination after last week’s realignment shift, several college leaders say.

[Swamp Gas]

Can't say I feel hugely optimistic about how that might play out.

[Dukie]

Can't say I feel hugely optimistic about how that might play out.

Agreed; it means all of rodrod’s certitude that the PAC is guaranteed to continue getting a full P5 share of the money will be put to the test.

[Topper]

It means Big 10 and SEC gobble up everything.

[35straight II]

SMU 2 BIG 10

[rodrod5]

Can't say I feel hugely optimistic about how that might play out.

Agreed; it means all of rodrod’s certitude that the PAC is guaranteed to continue getting a full P5 share of the money will be put to the test.

When it comes down to it I do not believe the difference in money for a P4 vs. a P5 will be worth the political pressure that will come to some former PAC 12 members and to the Big 10 in particular to boot the PAC 12 from the P5.

I think there will be a trade off between the SEC and the Big 10 and their various factions that will most likely result in a "per team" payout of the playoff money that will benefit the Big 10 the most followed by the Big 12 and SEC and that will come at the biggest cost to the ACC.

The other trade off in return for the SEC not really pushing to take P5 status from the PAC 12, because the SEC does not care about political pressure or "optics", will be a change to a 5-7 or perhaps even a 4-8 playoff format. I think the SEC would probably want a 4-8 because they would feel that they will never be left out of a team in the top 4 and the Big 12, PAC 12, and ACC would always have some risk of that. The Big 10 will feel the same. The G5 conferences will not like that though and will probably push for a 5-7. I think the SEC would love the 4-8 more, because they will feel that most years they will be getting the extra team in instead of another conference winner, but I think to keep the 80% / 20% money split they all might have to go with 5-7.

I think there are too many major issues that could come up with booting the PAC 12 from the P5 and there are 7 former PAC 12 members that are not in favor of that including 3 in the Big 10 that will have significant political pressure on them to not let that happen. I think the Big 10 overall will feel some pressure too. The SEC of course wants more money and the PAC 12 gone and could not care less about any political issues.

So there will be some trading of money away from the ACC, sucks to be them, and towards the Big 10 the most with a per team payout of P5 money. Then the SEC will get a change in the auto bid split that will be more of a potential issue for the Big 12, ACC, and PAC 12. The PAC 12 as a 12 team conference would actually take the biggest hit on P5 money with a per team distribution, but hey better than being G5.

[Charleston Pony]

I agree that a "per team" rather than a "per conference" distribution of playoff proceeds makes sense and would be more equitable, although I'd like to also see performance based rewards that might provide additional shares to schools that qualify and then advance (along the lines of the basketball tournament). Just need to be sure to include more than "crumbs" for the little guys because we know that qualifying out of the pool of little guys can be very political, especially when the "haves" won't risk playing the "have nots" on the road, if they agree to play them at all.

[EastStang]

Just guarantee the SEC and Big 10 6 slots and they'll be fine. That leaves 6 other slots for ACC, Big XII, Pac 12, and G5 (as well as 2 more at large slots for SEC and Big Ten to probably gobble up unless the Big XII, Pac 12 or ACC get remarkably better).

[rodrod5]

I agree that a "per team" rather than a "per conference" distribution of playoff proceeds makes sense and would be more equitable, although I'd like to also see performance based rewards that might provide additional shares to schools that qualify and then advance (along the lines of the basketball tournament). Just need to be sure to include more than "crumbs" for the little guys because we know that qualifying out of the pool of little guys can be very political, especially when the "haves" won't risk playing the "have nots" on the road, if they agree to play them at all.

I would think at best the split would go to 75% / 25%, but I doubt there will be a change in the split. If there is a change in the split then it will probably be along the lines of what you are saying and that is something like 75% P5 / 20% G5 just like now, and 5% for advancing in games.

If the money is $950 million that 5% would be $47.5 million. That would be $4.75 million for 10 games and no real extra payout for the NC similar to now. Although now it is $6 million per game and no real extra, other than cost for the teams, for the NC. I could see a chance that it would go to 70% / 20% / 10% and each playoff game is $9.5 million, but i think there would be a push for some of that second 5% to come off the back of the G5. So perhaps 72.5% / 17.5% / 10%.

I think the split will depend a lot on the final money offered. If it is $950 million or so I think the P5 will push to have as close to the current 80% as possible. If it gets to $1.2B then I think you get the G5 getting closer to a 25% share or maybe a 22.5% share with 70% P5 and 7.5% for game participant.

The 70% / 22.5% / 7.5% split gets the G5 to actually more than double their payout with $1.2B while it only adds about $3 million each for P5 members. But with 7.5% per playoff game that would be $9 million per game for 10 games and that is a 50% increase and more importantly it allows those "top teams" in conferences that are crying like the ACC to make a claim on a much larger % of that per game money. So if the ACC agreed that 75% of the per game money would go to the individual school playing the game that is $6.75 million per game played to that school. So Clemson or FSU playing in the first two rounds would get $13.5 million more than other members of the ACC while the entire conference would split the $4.5 million. That $4.5 million is just a bit less than the $6 million they were all splitting under the old format. I can also see a situation where the 2.25% I have in the G5 either gets put back to the P5 or it gets put in the per game % and the G5 stays at 20% "and likes it".