B1G/sec scheduling agreement/CFP ramifications

Remember what Sankey said about March Madness:

“We are giving away highly competitive opportunities for automatic qualifiers (from smaller leagues), and I think that pressure is going to rise as we have more competitive basketball leagues at the top end because of (conference) expansion.”

He would blow up his grandmother’s Thanksgiving dinner traditions if it increased revenue for the SEC.
 
LagrangeJacket said:
Remember what Sankey said about March Madness:

“We are giving away highly competitive opportunities for automatic qualifiers (from smaller leagues), and I think that pressure is going to rise as we have more competitive basketball leagues at the top end because of (conference) expansion.”

He would blow up his grandmother’s Thanksgiving dinner traditions if it increased revenue for the SEC.
Click to expand...
Yes....yes he would. And wouldn't think twice about it. But sadly, that's his job.
 
Having a selection committee is “too subjective” and the remedy is to earmark 8 of 12 games for two of five leagues. Same way Congress dishes out pork spending to home districts. It’s textbook anti competitive behavior and it’s begging for an antitrust suit.
 
gojkts said:
Having a selection committee is “too subjective” and the remedy is to earmark 8 of 12 games for two of five leagues. Same way Congress dishes out pork spending to home districts. It’s textbook anti competitive behavior and it’s begging for an antitrust suit.
Click to expand...
It's like the electoral college
 
BuzzCzar said:
It's like the electoral college
Click to expand...
The EC reduces the per capita voting weight of population centers and amplifies the vote of less populous areas. The heavyweight conferences are the population centers in an EC analogy, and the proposal is giving them greater weight relative to their number in the larger FBS population. Just the opposite of what the EC does.
 
gojkts said:
The EC reduces the voting weight of population centers and amplifies the vote of less populous areas. The heavyweight conferences are the population centers in an EC analogy, and the proposal is giving them greater weight relative to their number in the larger FBS population. Just the opposite of what the EC does.
Click to expand...
If it gives a fixed amount of slots for designated conferences, regardless of their relative strength, then it's just like the electoral college
 
BuzzCzar said:
If it gives a fixed amount of slots for designated conferences, regardless of their relative strength, then it's just like the electoral college
Click to expand...
It’s closer to sole source contracting. You’ve got five companies bidding on twelve contracts and you’re determining in advance that three of the bidders can’t possibly service more than four contracts. By guaranteeing awards to the two heavyweights you’re locking in a competitive advantage for them to retain that status.
 
I guess teams like Kentucky, Vandy, Missouri, and South Carolina are lucky to be in the SEC and have the easier path. Same with Iowa, Rutgers, Northwestern, Michigan State.

Looks like you will have to win the ACC to be in when this hits, and might not even be in then. They may put in it must be a 0 or 1 loss champion from the ACC or BIG12
 
BravoWhiskey said:
Correct. No one should be surprised when 25% or more of the 12 team playoff is SEC teams.
Click to expand...
I’d be surprised. They’re proposing to make the SEC 33% of the playoff field. They’re not gonna settle for 25.
 
GoBees said:
Therefore, all they have to do is get their lapdog media to ensure 10-15 of their teams are ranked in the preseason polls, and then they are guaranteed to get all 12 of those spots, as they beat one another but never fall out of the top 15.
Genius, diabolical, and totally predictable.
Click to expand...
Preseason polls mean nothing. AP/Coaches Polls mean nothing. If you lose, you’re out. Reference the following:

Preseason #10 FSU
Preseason #17 Oklahoma State
Preseason #22 Kansas
Preseason #24 NCSU
Preseason #25 Iowa

The CFP Poll that comes out in a few weeks is the only poll that matters. The ACC/B12 as currently constructed have a real problem. Simply put, quality headliner matchups.
 
USCJacket said:
It was reported today, the B1G/sec will meet next week to work on a scheduling agreement and put together a proposal starting in 2026 for each league to be “guaranteed” 4 bids to the CFP (with up to 6 teams getting in).

It’s time the ACC/B12 get together and figure out how to be a strong #3 with some power. Otherwise they can continue as is letting those 2 leagues control all decisions.

ESPN article:

www.espn.com

Sources: Big Ten, SEC eye schedule partnership

SEC and Big Ten athletic directors will meet next week to discuss a possible partnership in football scheduling and preferences for automatic bids, sources told ESPN.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

On3 article:

www.on3.com

Report: SEC, Big Ten looking for 4 automatic bids each to College Football Playoff

The Big Ten and SEC could come together on a scheduling partnership, according to ESPN's Heather Dinich.
www.on3.com www.on3.com
Click to expand...
maybe everyone else should band together and limit conferences to 2 teams each in cfp?
this sux
 
From the headline you would think the Big 10ish and SEC were meeting to discuss scheduling OOC games. Just the opposite. The Rust Belt wants the SEC to play a 9 game conf schedule. A 9 game SEC schedule would obviously make cross conf in state rivalries more difficult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top