HerbRedman said:

You guys can argue all you want with me, but I'm right.

Click to expand...

You're right, and it sucks.

HerbRedman said:

Yeah but the 5th team from B1G/SEC is likely going to be a $45m/yr roster like USC, Nebraska, LSU or Texas. That team that is left out is going to be way, way, way better than a Memphis or East Carolina.

Think 5-7 yrs out: the 5th place team in the B1G or SEC is going to be a really good team. An expensive team with NFL players all over its roster.

That 5th team could very often be Nebraska. Our $$$ people aren't going to pay $25m/yr (+$20m rev sharing) when it's almost impossible to crack the top 4. Especially when a Sun Belt team gets to be in.


I wouldn't look at this now per se, but look at it after another 5 yrs of this $$$ flowing to the B1G/SEC. The 5th place team in those leagues is going to look like a mini NFL team. There's no reason to arbitrarily keep them out in favor of lesser talented Memphis or Cockeye St. Include everyone, I say. You just need a 28 team playoff to do it.

Click to expand...

IDK, the playoffs should be a difficult goal to attain and plenty of teams will have a chance at 12. And we, Nebraska, can and will have our chances. Absolutely nobody had Indiana or Arizona St in the playoffs until it happened. And at 28-32 teams (as some have eluded to) you will have multiple 8-4 teams and probably some 7-5 teams. I personally don’t want to see that.

We’ve only had 1 single 12 team playoff and we’re already looking to expand? We barely know what it’s like with 12 teams and we want to go all willy nilly with 20+ teams? Maybe 16 I guess, but let’s actually give this 12 team thing a chance and see what it’s like for a handful of years before we rush to make these changes that may or may not enhance the CFB experience/game. JMO

HerbRedman said:

Yeah but the 5th team from B1G/SEC is likely going to be a $45m/yr roster like USC, Nebraska, LSU or Texas. That team that is left out is going to be way, way, way better than a Memphis or East Carolina.

Think 5-7 yrs out: the 5th place team in the B1G or SEC is going to be a really good team. An expensive team with NFL players all over its roster.

That 5th team could very often be Nebraska. Our $$$ people aren't going to pay $25m/yr (+$20m rev sharing) when it's almost impossible to crack the top 4. Especially when a Sun Belt team gets to be in.


I wouldn't look at this now per se, but look at it after another 5 yrs of this $$$ flowing to the B1G/SEC. The 5th place team in those leagues is going to look like a mini NFL team. There's no reason to arbitrarily keep them out in favor of lesser talented Memphis or Cockeye St. Include everyone, I say. You just need a 28 team playoff to do it.

Click to expand...

Additionally, I don’t think these big revenue teams are entitled to anything. You earn your way in by winning. And I’m pretty sure most of those big revenue boosters will still fork out the big dollars as long as their team is making the playoffs 1 or 2 times in a 5-10 year period. (which is very reasonable/realistic IMO)

I don’t think USC money will dry up if they only make the playoffs 2 times in the next 10 years and I don’t think our money will dry up either. Hell, 2 playoff appearances in the next 10 years for us would be a HUGE improvement over the last 20 years. Of course you want to make it almost every year, but as long as those big money teams make it every once in a while and keep the hope alive, the money will keep flowing. JMO

The only reason it’s coming up now is because this is the year the contracts allow them to rework the format.

If they don’t, they are going to find themselves locked into to the current format. I like that for once they are thinking ahead to consider how football is changing, instead of being behind the curve like the postseason has been for the last 40 years.

V-Doub said:

We’ve only had 1 single 12 team playoff and we’re already looking to expand? We barely know what it’s like with 12 teams and we want to go all willy nilly with 20+ teams?

Click to expand...

This is a good point. And I should clarify, I'm not arguing on a competitive standout....I'm just saying what the money is going to dictate. The $$$ bag men in the B1G/SEC are looking 5-7 yrs out and going 'why are we all pouring millions of our own $$ into these programs when only 4 out of 34 of our teams can make the CFP?'

It's no coincidence that Eli Drinkwitz was the first HC to bring up a 30-team playoff. Missouri is the perfect example. Drinkwitz has almost unlimited funding from Mizzou's deep pocketed Walmart heirs & other bag men. But you have to finish basically top 2 in the SEC to make this CFP. He really has to thread that needle to be top 2 among Texas, LSU, UGA, Bama, Tennessee.

I guarantee you Mizzou's bag men are looking out over next 5-7 yrs and going 'why are we pouring $100m's into this?' when it's almost impossible for a program like Mizzou to finish top 2 in the SEC. Drinkwitz has incredible pressure on him from the huge NIL funding he's getting.


This is where this talk is coming from. The bag men are looking out over the next 10 yrs and not liking what they see (4 out of 34 B1G/SEC teams making the CFP each yr - it's not enough of an ROI for them).

HerbRedman said:

Huge difference between FCS and FBS though. With FBS is you have massive national, big $$$ brands. And they will all be spending some $45m/yr on their rosters.

Those brands are:

• BIG 6: Ohio St, USC, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn St, Oregon
• SEC 6: Texas, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida, Tennessee

With a 16-team playoff (only 4 spots to B1G/SEC) you might get 2 of those brands in from each, potentially leaving 8 big $$ brands out every year. That's not acceptable to the people writing the checks. And not acceptable to ESPN and FOX. You guys can argue all you want with me, but I'm right.

The power brokers for those 12 schools are not going to fund those rosters to the tune of $45m each year only to have a setup where only 4/12 are in the CFP every year and 8 are playing in the Poulan Weedeater Bowl. It's just not gonna happen. They're not giving their spots to Army, Marshall or Jacksonville St. Sorry but they control the $$ and they won't allow that.


Look at NCAA Hoops for example. You have the big dollar brands like Duke, Kansas, UNC, Michigan St, Purdue, UCLA, UConn, Kentucky etc and they ALL have an avenue to make their sport's playoff every single year. That's not by accident. CBS pays billions of $$$ for that contract. They're not paying $8.8bn to have a system that doesn't get in every single big brand name they possibly can. They're not morons. You guys really want to think (hope) that the CFB money people are morons with their money. They're not.

All you have to do is follow the money on this RE: football. There will be a playoff solution that gets each of B1G/SEC around 7 guaranteed spots. You all can argue it all you want, but this will happen. If you don't think this is happening, you're naive.

Click to expand...

I have a lot of thoughts on this but you are conveniently leaving out a lot of things to try to prove your point while also assuming I’m advocating for what I want versus what reality they have to operate in to make the format.

First off - you cite the NCAA Tournament as an example of a tournament that provides the premier brands in the sport a path for access. You fail to note however that every single Division 1 league also gets access to the tournament. Thats the inherent tradeoff for the amount of at larges - these smaller leagues get an auto bid for winning their conference. The SEC can put 14 teams in the tournament in a single year because they also give an at large bid to the NEC, MAAC, etc. And shockingly, they all spend different amounts of money and still make the tournament together.

Second - I am not proposing a 10+14 format because it’s what I personally want or feel is best. The TV networks will absolutely ultimately sign off on any format that goes into play because they’re the ones paying for it. But while that is true, the schools have to craft something that also avoids a mass amount of lawsuits coming in as a result of any formalized inclusion/exclusion that may exist. Using the NCAA Tournament example - the rule isn’t “Every conference champion and 8 additional SEC teams make the field” - the rule is “32 conference champions and 36 at-larges”.

Third - While certain schools may not spend as much money, draw as many eyeballs, etc, they are equally represented in the House and Senate who can ultimately make life extremely difficult for these “brand” schools and their administrators (who are the ones on the hook for doing all of this and don’t want to be named in lawsuits for their own personal careers sake) if they so choose. You are willingly ignoring a big piece of what influences the decision on format - it won’t just be G6 schools suing either, can very easily see the BC’s, Utah’s, etc of the world filing lawsuits as their schools and states would have limited access as a result of some of the formats being discussed.

Fourth - Conference realignment has made all of this significantly more difficult to navigate, but I’m not feeling sorry for anyone. They could go back to their old leagues tomorrow if they wanted to and guarantee more wins, better chances at the CFP, etc, and instead are choosing the $$ to stay in their current situation. Nobody is forcing these schools to all be in the Big Ten/SEC together, they choose to do it voluntarily for more money

In summation: The only way this eventually works (which is what everyone is getting at) is in ~2030 forming a new sub-division within D1 and having a playoff that is centric to that group of schools, with ~40 or so teams included. That is the super league and that is when everything will get re-shaped for good. But there is still a matter of figuring out what format they can roll out a year from now that won’t get them sued and won’t prevent them from eventually separating off to do their own thing in 2030.

The "problem" is that the networks haven't figured out the maximal amount of high viewership games they can create before people start losing interest. It's not about the right number of teams or the best format. It's simply a matter of going so big on the playoffs and the regular season that they get more viewership/money but not so big that viewership declines because no one gives a shit until playoffs

HerbRedman said:

Yeah but the 5th team from B1G/SEC is likely going to be a $45m/yr roster like USC, Nebraska, LSU or Texas. That team that is left out is going to be way, way, way better than a Memphis or East Carolina.

Think 5-7 yrs out: the 5th place team in the B1G or SEC is going to be a really good team. An expensive team with NFL players all over its roster.

That 5th team could very often be Nebraska. Our $$$ people aren't going to pay $25m/yr (+$20m rev sharing) when it's almost impossible to crack the top 4. Especially when a Sun Belt team gets to be in.


I wouldn't look at this now per se, but look at it after another 5 yrs of this $$$ flowing to the B1G/SEC. The 5th place team in those leagues is going to look like a mini NFL team. There's no reason to arbitrarily keep them out in favor of lesser talented Memphis or Cockeye St. Include everyone, I say. You just need a 28 team playoff to do it.

Click to expand...

I said this in my other post but you are conflating the 2030+ format with the 2026-2029 format discussions. There is too much that needs to happen between now and 2030 to guarantee 7+ teams from one league.

V-Doub said:

Additionally, I don’t think these big revenue teams are entitled to anything. You earn your way in by winning. And I’m pretty sure most of those big revenue boosters will still fork out the big dollars as long as their team is making the playoffs 1 or 2 times in a 5-10 year period. (which is very reasonable/realistic IMO)

I don’t think USC money will dry up if they only make the playoffs 2 times in the next 10 years and I don’t think our money will dry up either. Hell, 2 playoff appearances in the next 10 years for us would be a HUGE improvement over the last 20 years. Of course you want to make it almost every year, but as long as those big money teams make it every once in a while and keep the hope alive, the money will keep flowing. JMO

Click to expand...

The big revenue teams are terrified because by chasing money to consolidate themselves in one conference they inherently will take more losses and there is a chance that the administrators and coaches get tired, fans become angry and/or disinterested, etc.

The best thing that could’ve happened was a real playoff forming in the early 2000’s before the first Big East teams left for the ACC. We had awesome regional conferences, 6 of which were “BCS”/“Power” conferences, with every sect of the country represented and it would’ve made a 16 team playoff incredible. But as teams (and money) started consolidating within what is ultimately 2 leagues now, everything else around it is a mess and here we are

Baron Winnebago said:

The "problem" is that the networks haven't figured out the maximal amount of high viewership games they can create before people start losing interest. It's not about the right number of teams or the best format. It's simply a matter of going so big on the playoffs the regular season that they get more viewership/money but not so big that viewership declines because no one gives a shit until playoffs

Click to expand...

I think they had it figured out with the bowl system. I for one loved the bowl system. I liked the bowl + 4 system as well. I think their challenge now is to try to assess how different the CFB landscape is and how much they need to change with it.


My contention is, if the (highly diluted) bowl system + small CFP isn't working, you need to fully embrace the 'new.' I'm more apt to say, let's call a spade a spade with the bowl system and modernize it to fit with the current landscape (NIL, portal, rev sharing, mega conferences, mega TV $$).

Others think the current setup is fine. I disagree - I don't think it will fit the CFB landscape in 5 yrs. And the power brokers' job is to predict where things will be in 5 yrs.

Seaofred92 said:

The big revenue teams are terrified because by chasing money to consolidate themselves in one conference they inherently will take more losses and there is a chance that the administrators and coaches get tired, fans become angry and/or disinterested, etc.

The best thing that could’ve happened was a real playoff forming in the early 2000’s before the first Big East teams left for the ACC. We had awesome regional conferences, 6 of which were “BCS”/“Power” conferences, with every sect of the country represented and it would’ve made a 16 team playoff incredible. But as teams (and money) started consolidating within what is ultimately 2 leagues now, everything else around it is a mess and here we are

Click to expand...

Hadn’t really thought about that much, but you might be right. If we formed a national playoff around 1999/2000 (instead of realigning conferences) and made conference champs auto bids with a couple/few at large bids we might have avoided massive conference realignment altogether. I think I might have liked that better, hard to say cause it never happened, but I could see that being a much better system than what we have today.

HerbRedman said:

I think they had it figured out with the bowl system. I for one loved the bowl system. I liked the bowl + 4 system as well. I think their challenge now is to try to assess how different the CFB landscape is and how much they need to change with it.


My contention is, if the (highly diluted) bowl system + small CFP isn't working, you need to fully embrace the 'new.' I'm more apt to say, let's call a spade a spade with the bowl system and modernize it to fit with the current landscape (NIL, portal, rev sharing, mega conferences, mega TV $$).

Others think the current setup is fine. I disagree - I don't think it will fit the CFB landscape in 5 yrs. And the power brokers' job is to predict where things will be in 5 yrs.

Click to expand...

I do wonder how many problems are solved with cash prizes.

Seaofred92 said:

I said this in my other post but you are conflating the 2030+ format with the 2026-2029 format discussions. There is too much that needs to happen between now and 2030 to guarantee 7+ teams from one league.

Click to expand...

FYI - I'm not really speaking about anything specifically. My only point is that the monied interests (schools, bag men, ESPN/FOX) are going to want more than 8 playoff qualifiers out of 36-40 combined B1G/SEC teams.

I don't think that's a hot take!

Seaofred92 said:

In summation: The only way this eventually works (which is what everyone is getting at) is in ~2030 forming a new sub-division within D1 and having a playoff that is centric to that group of schools, with ~40 or so teams included. That is the super league and that is when everything will get re-shaped for good.

Click to expand...

I agree with this

@HerbRedman is right.

How many of the top 25 brands in college football are in the Big 10 and SEC? 20? Those conferences have no reason to continue being part of a system that does not benefit them.

Baron Winnebago said:

The "problem" is that the networks haven't figured out the maximal amount of high viewership games they can create before people start losing interest. It's not about the right number of teams or the best format. It's simply a matter of going so big on the playoffs the regular season that they get more viewership/money but not so big that viewership declines because no one gives a shit until playoffs

Click to expand...

This a big reason why I think we need to stick with 12 for a while. Let the networks (everyone really) get some more data and make the right decision. Even if the networks are convinced that 12 is not the point of diminishing returns, (Probably isn’t) let’s get some more data and get a better understanding of where that number is before we jump to 20+ (or 30+) teams and “jump the shark” so to speak.

Let’s ride this 12 team thing for more than 1 or 2 seasons. Probably will give the networks better gage of where that number is… 16? 24? IDK? But more time and data should help establish that.

Kaladin said:

@HerbRedman is right.

How many of the top 25 brands in college football are in the Big 10 and SEC? 20? Those conferences have no reason to continue being part of a system that does not benefit them.

Click to expand...

BTW I am not celebrating this fact. I much preferred the 1980s-90s CFB.

This is just where the money (and legislation) is taking the sport. On the bright side, the system is set up so Nebraska has a real shot at being a player. So in that sense we could be a player in the 1980s-90s and we can also be a player in this new era.

But yeah like many on here, I preferred the old model. It's gone and never coming back, however.

HerbRedman said:

FYI - I'm not really speaking about anything specifically. My only point is that the monied interests (schools, bag men, ESPN/FOX) are going to want more than 8 playoff qualifiers out of 36-40 combined B1G/SEC teams.

I don't think that's a hot take!

Click to expand...

Which is not only fair, it’s accurate. Apologies for putting words in your mouth if that is how that is coming off.

I just think whatever they settle on for 2026-2030 is not what will be in place for 2031+, that feels like almost a guarantee as we’re literally one year into the current version and already tearing things up. Actually, we’re technically in the last year of the original CFP contract which has already now been changed twice.

Seaofred92 said:

Which is not only fair, it’s accurate. Apologies for putting words in your mouth if that is how that is coming off.

I just think whatever they settle on for 2026-2030 is not what will be in place for 2031+, that feels like almost a guarantee as we’re literally one year into the current version and already tearing things up. Actually, we’re technically in the last year of the original CFP contract which has already now been changed twice.

Click to expand...

I appreciate you calling that out. I didn't realize there were two discussions going on here: 2026-2030 and then 2030 on.

I honestly don't care that much about 2026-2030, I'm more interested in where things are going long term.

V-Doub said:

This a big reason why I think we need to stick with 12 for a while. Let the networks (everyone really) get some more data and make the right decision. Even if the networks are convinced that 12 is not the point of diminishing returns, (Probably isn’t) let’s get some more data and get a better understanding of where that number is before we jump to 20+ (or 30+) teams and “jump the shark” so to speak.

Let’s ride this 12 team thing for more than 1 or 2 seasons. Probably will give the networks better gage of where that number is… 16? 24? IDK? But more time and data should help establish that.

Click to expand...

I'm on board with staying at 12, but I'd like to see the 2nd round played on campus