A Realistic Look at the B1G and the SEC's 14-team Playoff Proposal

[Jon Joseph]

Dennis Dodd gets it. The B1G and SEC proposal for three automatic qualifying (AQ) spots for each conference and a 1st round bye for the SEC and B1G champs in a 14-team playoff, may on the surface appear to be greedy but is justified by some of the playoff committee's screwy decisions, by the make up of the SEC's and B1G's 34 teams, and what the fields would have looked like had a 14-team playoff started in 2014.

 

Three votes for this format are in the bag; B1G, SEC, and Notre Dame. Notre Dame finishes in the top 14 and it's in the playoff. The ACC and the B12 may not like it but there is no assurance that the conferences would have two teams in the playoff every year and 3 AL spots would give the B12 and the ACC a shot at three teams in the field.

 

The G5? The guarantee of one spot in the field is no different than the G5 will have in a 5/7 format and the G5 will be convinced to vote in favor of the B1G/SEC proposal by some additional sugar spooned over to the G5. The G5 commissioners know that for the most part, the G5 playoff game will be a body bag game for the P4 opponent, and more than one such game every season would hurt the money to be made from the new playoff media deal.

 

"If a 14-team field had been in place over the prior ten years, the newly formed (2024 version) Big Ten and SEC would have landed 75% of the top two seeds (15 of 20.)" 

 

It sure is nice to be B1G.

 

Big Ten, SEC power grab tough to stomach but difficult to argue amid College Football Playoff negotiations - CBSSports.com

WWW.CBSSPORTS.COM

---

Big Ten and SEC aim to have their brands and schedule strength do the flexing

Edited March 1 by Jon Joseph

[Jon Joseph]

https://collegefootballnews.com/news/college-football-playoff-14-team-expansion-idea-5-things-to-know

[Duckley Palace]

The NCAA has been corrupt for years(much like the government).

 

One must only look at the FBI probing into college basketball in '17. Yet North Carolina and Kansas got no punishment, and Sean Miller got no show clause. Louisville got stripped of their title, Pitino was fired. 

 

While I dislike the way the transfer portal is being used in conjunction with NIL, mainly because it allows the gap in haves and have nots to increase. I would prefer the young men putting their bodies at risk getting paid, rather than the old men with too much money to begin with.

 

ESPN is now suing FSU because of trade secrets, yet they colluded with the ACC behind it's members backs, and the contract isn't allowed to be viewed outside of the ACC offices. I think we know how that story is going to end. It's clear as day that FSU is coming to the Big Ten, not the SEC. ESPN has a vested interest in keeping big brands in the ACC, but they also just inked that deal with the SEC. So I believe they know FSU is leaving for a conference with no deal with them.

 

If/When that happens, you have the path cleared for the Big Ten to get into the Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina markets. That means the Big Ten is in every region in the country. I doubt the SEC cares about that, but ESPN does. Because essentially that move would decrease the value of their secondary conference(ACC), and strengthen what Fox can offer up.

 

 

In closing, I'm glad the NCAA is losing it's authority. I feel bad for the programs that have invested into their program, yet have no way of ever cracking into the Big Two Club, but that's life. Maybe the remnants of the ACC can go to the Big Twelve. Programs like Louisville, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Duke, NC State etc.. But I feel like the ACC may just add Boise, Beavis, and Wazzu.

[JabbaNoBargain]

My biggest issue would actually be the guarantee of two teams for the ACC and B12. SEC and B1G are pretty much guaranteed getting 3 each with a field that simply takes the top 14. Two spots reserved for the ACC and B12 will result in some 8-5 team making the field one day soon, which is just stupid.

 

Edited March 1 by JabbaNoBargain

[GeotechDuck]

I don't understand this.  While it benefits the Ducks, having multiple auto bids from a single conference is going to end up letting in some 8-5 team in a down conference year that has no business being in the field. 

 

As the posted above noted, this will most likely happen in the ACC or Big-12, but could happen less frequently in the BIG or SEC as well.  In 2012, are you letting in 8-5 Michigan as the third place team?  How about letting in 9-4 Wisconsin in 2013?  I know there are more teams now and an unbalanced schedule, but that doesn't mean there won't be a 4- or 5-loss team in a down year.  Why not just stick with the at-large bids, so the best teams are invited? 

 

Notre Dame gets a vote in all of this even though they are not in a conference?  I think they should implement a requirement that you should have to be in a conference OR have won a major Bowl Game since 1994 to have a vote.  That would knock immediately them out of the discussion.  

[JabbaNoBargain]

On 3/1/2024 at 12:33 PM, GeotechDuck said:

I don't understand this.  While it benefits the Ducks, having multiple auto bids from a single conference is going to end up letting in some 8-5 team in a down conference year that has no business being in the field. 

 

As the posted above noted, this will most likely happen in the ACC or Big-12, but could happen less frequently in the BIG or SEC as well.  In 2012, are you letting in 8-5 Michigan as the third place team?  How about letting in 9-4 Wisconsin in 2013?  I know there are more teams now and an unbalanced schedule, but that doesn't mean there won't be a 4- or 5-loss team in a down year.  Why not just stick with the at-large bids, so the best teams are invited? 

 

Notre Dame gets a vote in all of this even though they are not in a conference?  I think they should implement a requirement that you should have to be in a conference OR have won a major Bowl Game since 1994 to have a vote.  That would knock immediately them out of the discussion.  

Agree that this is stupid logic for all conferences, but the reality with the new membership in the SEC and B1G is that it stretches the imagination to think these two conferences won't have at least 3 teams in the top 14 every year.

 

Most of what I've seen with ND is they are in if they are in the top 14, which is true for nearly anyone. So I'm not in a huge twist on that one.

 

For fun, I reviewed the historical ACC standings...about every 3 years, the team with the second best record had 4+ losses, the frequency gets much worse if they are taking division champs. The B12 no longer having Texas and Oklahoma is bound to have it's second best team have 3+ losses just about every year.

 

Format really should be 4 conference champs, 1 best mid, rest completely at large.

 

Edited March 1 by JabbaNoBargain

[Jon Joseph]

The 3rd place team in the B1G is unlikely to finish with more than 3 losses in any given season. The top teams do not play each other enough intra-conference for this to happen and the majority of B1G and SEC teams do not schedule more than 1 P4 opponent out-of-conference.

 

With 16 teams in the B12, I don't believe the runner-up would have more than 3 losses. 

 

As to Notre Dame. the gig should have been up long ago. The ACC loses its top teams and ND will join a conference.

 

I think come 2026 we will end up with a 16-team PO field with some manner of assurances for the B1G and the SEC. The Power 2 should not leave everything up to a 13-member committee that operates with no disclosure as to how it made its choices and with B1G and SEC committee members not being in the room when teams from their conference are discussed. 

Edited March 2 by Jon Joseph

[MikeJ]

2 automatic bids for the ACC and B12 is actually too generous.  And I say that as a long-time fan of a Duck team that has gotten the short end of the stick due to favoritism towards other conferences for years.  But when you consider the present composition of the B1G and SEC, the disparity between those conferences (especially the top several teams in any given year) and the ACC and B12 is vast.  It's bigger than 3 automatic berths vs. 2 adequately accounts for. 

 

The article that Jon Joseph linked is correct,  The ACC would be the big winner here, and as the article points out, over the last 10 years, the SEC and B1G (as they are now) would have each had 3 teams in every year anyway.

[JabbaNoBargain]

On 3/1/2024 at 4:26 PM, Jon Joseph said:

The 3rd place team in the B1G is unlikely to finish with more than 3 losses in any given season. The top teams do not play each other enough intra-conference for this to happen and the majority of B1G and SEC teams do not schedule more than 1 P4 opponent out-of-conference.

 

With 16 teams in the B12, I don't believe the runner-up would have more than 3 losses. 

 

As to Notre Dame. the gig should have been up long ago. The ACC loses its top teams and ND will join a conference.

 

I think come 2026 we will end up with a 16-team PO field with some manner of assurances for the B1G and the SEC. The Power 2 should not leave everything up to a 13-member committee that operates with no disclosure as to how it made its choices and with B1G and SEC committee members not being in the room when teams from their conference are discussed. 

All true, but one conference has 5+ “blue bloods” and the other has zero, Not equal schedules so not all losses are equal. I’d go as far to say that 9-3 in the new B1G is the equal to 11-1 in the new B12.

Edited March 2 by JabbaNoBargain

[Duckley Palace]

The only true positive of the Big Ten/SEC alliance is the end of Notre Dame being allowed to pretend they are still a unicorn. When in reality, they've been nothing special for years. They never provide a compelling game when they get into the playoffs, or BCS before that.

 

Rudy is a great movie, but that's the limit of their aura imo. The ACC had a chance to force their hand in 2020, but didn't. Is it any wonder FSU wants out of that conference? The ACC would've fought for Notre Dame if they went undefeated, in hopes of them joining. They allowed Notre Dame to influence the stupid additions of Stanford and Cal. FSU, Clemson, and UNC didn't want them.

[HappyToBeADuck]

IMHO, the P-4 and G-5 are not on equal footing. They don't belong at the same table. 

 

In most cases, the G-5 teams get handled by the top level P-4 teams.

In reality the top level P-4 teams handle the mid to lower level P-4 teams.

 

Yes there are G-5 teams that have had amazing seasons. But against who? They only have to get up for a big game or 2 a year.

 

If you can handle a regular schedule that would include tOSU, Michigan, washington, Wisconsin, etc. Then you have a legitimate claim to an invite.

 

Realistically, about 20 P-4 teams will annually fight for the CFP spots. Liberty did not belong on the field in a NY6 bowl game, let alone garnering a expanded CFP invite.

 

Liberty had an amazing season for their level of competition. Not a CFP worthy invite.

 

Only the fear of litigation or congressional interference keeps the BIG/ESECPN from shutting the G-5 or G-6 out of the expanded CFP.

 

Fear of losing money or control is the competition that drives this bus.

 

The rules will change often. Especially if a 10-2 team from the P-2 gets left out.

 

The way the 2024 BIG schedule plays out, tOSU, Oregon, PSU and Michigan could easily have 10-2 or better seasons. Someone is going to be left out.

 

It only takes a few upsets and Whisky and Iowa could be 10-2 or

9-3........

 

I just dont see the 3rd place team in the BIG with 3 or 4 losses. Not enough difficult match ups.

 

I wish the G-6 would have their own 12 team playoff. Then all their champs and next best 6 teams would have their shot at a Natty.

 

Of course it all depends on the Networks and the money......

 

Go Ducks......

[Jon Joseph]

A Bama fan(atic) weighs in.

 

14-Team CFB Playoff an SEC and Big Ten power move or common sense?

BAMAHAMMER.COM

---

The format for the 2026 CFB Playoff appears headed to a 14-team field with lots of automatic qualifiers. The most recent conversations are being driven by the S

 

[Jon Joseph]

More ammunition for the B1G and the SEC to have 3 automatic bids and the two top seeds with a 1st round bye in a 14-team playoff field. Plus, a prediction that the B1G may have the most players selected in the 2024 NFL draft.

 

O’Gara: The SEC & B1G reportedly want the top 2 seeds in a potential 14-team Playoff? Give it to ’em

WWW.SATURDAYDOWNSOUTH.COM

---

The data shows exactly why the Big Ten and SEC are the leaders in the clubhouse.

 

[NJDuck]

 

Of course they are.  But their conferences aren't as daunting like the Big Ten and SEC.

 

Report: Multiple Big 12, ACC coaches voice concerns about Big Ten, SEC automatic bids in CFP proposals

 

Report: Multiple Big 12, ACC coaches voice concerns about Big Ten, SEC automatic bids in CFP proposals

WWW.ON3.COM

---

.

 

[JabbaNoBargain]

They have this completely backwards. Anything that guarantees multiple conference bids outside the big 2 should be grabbed without question. Just look at the 2024 top 25 recruiting classes, 20 are from the SEC/B1G. If the PAC had continued sans the LA schools, I would have been very happy taking a guarantee of at least two teams every year.
 

Not hard to see where this is going.

Edited March 2 by JabbaNoBargain

[Jon Joseph]

On 3/2/2024 at 4:13 PM, JabbaNoBargain said:

They have this completely backwards. Anything that guarantees multiple conference bids outside the big 2 should be grabbed without question. Just look at the 2024 top 25 recruiting classes, 20 are from the SEC/B1G. If the PAC had continued sans the LA schools, I would have been very happy taking a guarantee of at least two teams every year.
 

Not hard to see where this is going.

Good call. And in recruiting,1 from the B12, No.24 Texas Tech. I think the money men in the ACC and the B12 will be making the decision and not the coaches. Grab onto 2 and if 3 stellar teams somehow show up, look for an AL spot. 

 

Based on College Football News' predicted 2024 regular season win totals, the following are in contention for a PO spot in the 12-team field and would be contending for automatic seeds in a 14-team PO.

 

B1G -

 

Ohio State - 12-0 - 1st round bye in both 12 and 14 teams/ proposed that SEC/B1G champs be seeded 1 + 2 with a 1st round bye. 

 

11-1 - Oregon/ USC and Penn St 10-2/ Michigan 9-3 - CFB has USC, 8-1 in the conference without a game vs Ohio State, making the champ game in favor of 8-1 in the conference Oregon with a loss to Ohio State.  Regardless, at 11-1, Oregon would be in the 12-team field.

 

SEC -

 

Georgia 12-0 - same as Ohio State

 

Texas and LSU 10-2, 9-3 Ole Miss, Bama, Oklahoma, and Tennessee - Tie breaker in play here to determine the team that plays UGA in the SEC champ game.

 

5 B1G, 7 SEC contenders. SEC has a leg up playing only 8 conference games. 

 

 

[GeotechDuck]

On 3/1/2024 at 11:26 PM, JabbaNoBargain said:

All true, but one conference has 5+ “blue bloods” and the other has zero, Not equal schedules so not all losses are equal. I’d go as far to say that 9-3 in the new B1G is the equal to 11-1 in the new B12.

This is a good discussion.  It will probably work out most years.  But let's look at an extreme example:

 

1) Team A is 7-2 in the BIG and finishes in third place.

Team A beats: Illinois (17), Indiana (18), Maryland (12), Minnesota (13), Northwestern (16), Purdue (14), Rutgers (15) and gets destroyed by Wisconsin (8) and UCLA (9).  Team A has zero ranked wins and didn't play tOSU (1); Oregon (2); Michigan (4); Washington (5); PSU (6); USC (7).      

 

2) Team B is 8-1 in the ACC, but finishes in third place because of a tiebreaker.

Team B beats: North Carolina (4), Florida State (5), Louisville (6), VA Tech (7), NC State (8), Duke (9), Syracuse (10), Boston College (11) and loses to Miami (2).  Team B didn't play Clemson (1), but has ranked wins against UNC (4) and FSU (5) and loses a close game to Miami (2) in OT, which costs them the tiebreaker.

 

Why should Team A get an auto bid over Team B just because of conference afflation?  That seems completely ridiculous, especially with the unbalanced schedules.  

 

3) Then add this twist to the scenario.  What if Michigan, Washington, and PSU all finish tied for 4th in the BIG at 6-3, but they each played tOSU, Oregon and each of the other two teams they are tied with? 

 

Is Team A better than any of them??  No chance

Is Team B better than any of them??  Maybe not

 

We have not even discussed OOC games.   

 

IMO, they need to stay with the at-large format and make teams that don't win their conference prove it on the field.      

 

 

  

 

Edited March 2 by GeotechDuck

[JabbaNoBargain]

On 3/2/2024 at 1:57 PM, GeotechDuck said:

This is a good discussion.  It will probably work out most years.  But let's look at an extreme example:

 

1) Team A is 7-2 in the BIG and finishes in third place.

Team A beats: Illinois (17), Indiana (18), Maryland (12), Minnesota (13), Northwestern (16), Purdue (14), Rutgers (15) and gets destroyed by Wisconsin (8) and UCLA (9).  Team A has zero ranked wins and didn't play tOSU (1); Oregon (2); Michigan (4); Washington (5); PSU (6); USC (7).      

 

2) Team B is 8-1 in the ACC, but finishes in third place because of a tiebreaker.

Team B beats: North Carolina (4), Florida State (5), Louisville (6), VA Tech (7), NC State (8), Duke (9), Syracuse (10), Boston College (11) and loses to Miami (2).  Team B didn't play Clemson (1), but has ranked wins against UNC (4) and FSU (5) and loses a close game to Miami (2) in OT, which costs them the tiebreaker.

 

Why should Team A get an auto bid over Team B just because of conference afflation?  That seems completely ridiculous, especially with the unbalanced schedules.  

 

3) Then add this twist to the scenario.  What if Michigan, Washington, and PSU all finish tied for 4th in the BIG at 6-3, but they each played tOSU, Oregon and each of the other two teams they are tied with? 

 

Is Team A better than any of them??  No chance

Is Team B better than any of them??  Maybe not

 

We have not even discussed OOC games.   

 

IMO, they need to stay with the at-large format and make teams that don't win their conference prove it on the field.      

 

 

  

 

There are all kinds of whacky scenarios that are possible. You could have the B12 second best team (or champ) be 7-5 and make the playoff.

 

On average though, the big 2 are each going to have 3+ teams that win 10+ games, these teams will no doubt all be in the top 14. SEC/B1G will organically have at least 3 teams in the top 14 whether or not the word “guaranteed” is used, can’t say the same for the B12/ACC.
 

I think on average, the lesser two conferences come out ahead with these guarantees.

 

[Jon Joseph]

I know the B1G is an 18-team conference and only plays 9 conference games, but looking at the schedules through 2028, a B1G team could finish 3rd at 7-2 in the conference but would play ranked B1G teams including a highly ranked team in the B1G champ game.

 

As to out-of-conference games, the B1G schools are not ducking anyone. Oregon plays potential B12 champ OK St in 2025 and 2026. This season Michigan plays Texas. In 2025, Michigan plays at Oklahoma and Ohio State plays Texas. Ohio State also plays Texas in 2026 and Alabama in 2027 and 2028. This season both UCLA and USC play LSU. Purdue and USC play Notre Dame. Wisconsin plays Alabama. 

 

I'm not certain the B1G and the SEC champs should be the top 2 seeds every season but I am certain when looking back to the beginning of the BCS and accounting for the 2024 conference realignment that the B1G and the SEC would have had 3 teams in a 14 team playoff field every season. Accordingly, why should the Power 2 trust 13 people who 'operate in the dark' to determine the field?

 

On several occasions from the start of the 4-team playoff in 2014, two SEC and 2 B1G teams made the field. The ACC and the B12 never came close to doing this.  Again, accounting for conference realignment, in 2023, one ACC and one B12 team would have been in the field.

 

And without the B1G and the SEC dominating the field, what would ESPN or any other media entity be willing to pay for broadcast right? 

[Jon Joseph]

247 Sports ranking of the 10 easiest schedules in 2024 supports the B1G/SEC 3-3-2-2-1-3 AL Playoff format. 

 

5 ACC teams on the list. 4 B12 teams. 1 SEC team. 

 

Why would anyone trust a PO Committee that since 2014 has valued wins and losses and paid little or no attention to SOS?

 

College football's easiest schedules for 2024 season, ranked

247SPORTS.COM

---

Go ahead and pencil in a bowl berth for these teams based on scheduling.

 

 

[Jon Joseph]

247 Sports ranking of 2024's 15 most difficult schedules. 

 

9 SEC teams. 5 B1G teams. 1 ACC team. ZERO B12 teams. And TCU's Sonny Dykes thinks that the B1G/SEC playoff proposal is "preposterous?" What is perhaps "preposterous" is guaranteeing 2 ACC teams and 2 B12 teams spots in the 14-team field. 

 

Leave out the entire B12 and how much less media money would the B1G and the SEC receive? Not much. And how much of a hit would the Power 2 take if Clemson, FSU, and UNC were not in the ACC but in the SEC and Notre Dame was a B1G member? Not much.

 

College football's 15 toughest schedules in 2024, ranked

247SPORTS.COM

---

Several national championship contenders have a gauntlet to prepare for in 2024.