[Dalegarz1]

The CFP just adopted the 5 plus 7 model for the 12 team playoff playoff. I’m starting this thread to solicit your opinion on how this affects us now and moving forward.

[Kricket]

Obviously having 2 automatic bids for G5 would have been better than 1, but I think a lot of us saw this coming. To be honest, I'm not sure we really can complain, as under this format we would have been in the CFP this year.

I was really hoping we'd get one year of 6 plus 6, with Kaidon and most of the offense being back.

[tyndal23]

Mountain West for 24 and 25 will have both a perceived and real, SOS dominance over rest of G5. 3 teams that had 1 will now have 2 ( P5 equivalent...just for you PH ) games. Several had 2 (now 3 )and a few had (3 now 4). Anyone arguing playing Wa State or Oregon St in 24 isn’t “ technically” a P5 for SOS...well - pull up rest of G5 Conference schedules from top to bottom and match them up with MW and tell me who sniffs it. It would take an App St beating Clemson or Tulane beating OU type scenario where both came out with equal record to overcome SOS..

Good news is - 2 loss team from MW is a tough road and an undefeated or 1 loss Pac2 won’t steal an auto bid - they would have to sneak in via at large.

As for LU - we get App St. a week after they play Clemson on the road - we need a close game or long shot upset that shoves us up rankings early if we beat App St. Then we might be in the mix with a loss, and leader in the club house If we run the table.

As for Fiesta Bowl - seeing LU in more than half of the early 24 “CFP” brackets. That is huge for perception starting point.

https://fbschedules.com/mountain-west-f ... -schedule/

[Ill flame]

Chances are the 5/7 model won't last long. The B1G and SEC wants 4 autobids a piece and are pushing for an expansion to a 14 team CFP starting in 2026.

[LUOrange]

Chances are the 5/7 model won't last long. The B1G and SEC wants 4 autobids a piece and are pushing for an expansion to a 14 team CFP starting in 2026.

That would leave 7 conferences to share 6 bids. It seems to me that they're just straddling the line of their own subdivision or a break away. They probably would prefer to be pushed then them jumping on their own.

Personally, I'd give them 2 or 3 each with an expansion to 16 and 4 each with an expansion to 24, with both models giving each Conference champ an auto-bid.

[tyndal23]

Chances are the 5/7 model won't last long. The B1G and SEC wants 4 autobids a piece and are pushing for an expansion to a 14 team CFP starting in 2026.

That would leave 7 conferences to share 5 bids. It seems to me that they're just straddling the line of their own subdivision or a break away. They probably would prefer to be pushed then them jumping on their own.

Personally, I'd give them 2 or 3 each with an expansion to 16 and 4 each with an expansion to 24, with both models giving each Conference champ an auto-bid.

I concur with 24 teams.
Top 8 Conference Champs get a bye.
9th Conference Champ hosts at home ( vs 24 seed ) which would probably be a 4 loss SEC or BIG team.
Emphasis on Conference Champs regardless of perceived SOS.
Next round also at highest seed home field.
Then plug in the bowl sites if you must...

Tiered $ for team and conference per round.

First round $ is w.
2nd round $ is x
3rd round is y
Champ is Living in a Purple Haize of euphoria and $.


Conference share starts at 50% and team gets 50% first round ) and swings another 10% each round toward team.

This scenario keeps the big dogs happy and the small dogs get an opportunity to become medium size dogs - it also levels out the recruiting gap a bit - top G5 Programs can get/keep a bit more talent if a kid knows he can show out on a National Stage vs possibly riding the bench for more $. ( won’t solve the NIL gap, but will narrow it a bit ) and will engage G5 boosters and support. The Crappy Bowl System is dead - move on - no need to wait just go 24 team playoff - give SEC and BIG their guaranteed teams and save college football.

[alabama24]

I think it is more likely that the B10 and SEC break away.

[Ill flame]

If this is implemented its no better for us than the 5/7 model. In most seasons you'll likely need to finish in the top 12 to get an at large bid with those proposed autobids and that just isn't happening in CUSA.

[Kricket]

Having more bids designated to a conference is not a good idea. You want more teams in the playoffs? They’re called at large bids and they’re based on your ranking. Seems silly to designate a certain number of teams per conference (outside of maybe conference champions) as strength of conferences naturally fluctuate.

[LUOrange]

It's amazing at how little of a fight, if any, that it appears that the G5 and Mid-major conferences and their Commissioners put up against the Power conferences. 1st it was the First 4 play-in games, then the NIT changes, the recent change of 6+6 to 5+7, and now this proposal. You'd think that these ppublic schools would be getting their university systems and state politicians involved. Obviously money makes the corrupt elitist world go round, and college athletics is one of the best examples of that.

[Kricket]

It's amazing at how little of a fight, if any, that it appears that the G5 and Mid-major conferences and their Commissioners put up against the Power conferences. 1st it was the First 4 play-in games, then the NIT changes, the recent change of 6+6 to 5+7, and now this proposal. You'd think that these ppublic schools would be getting their university systems and state politicians involved. Obviously money makes the corrupt elitist world go round, and college athletics is one of the best examples of that.

I feel the same. I saw one headline that said 5+7 was unanimously approved. I don't know how the whole process works, but do all the G5 conferences get no say? I thought they could maybe stick to 6+6 for one year.

The whole idea of a certain number of bids per conference feels like gerrymandering to me. Once you get power ensure you keep it by changing the structure of the system. I suppose their argument is now that the SEC and Big Ten are so big they effectively deserve more than one auto bid. It's somewhat valid. Perhaps a structure where the "east" and "west" division winners of conferences that have more than 16 teams or eligible for an auto bid. Essentially that would create 7 auto bids with the assumption that the BIG Ten and the SEC would take four of those slots leaving the Big 12 and the ACC one auto for each and the one for the best G5. 7+5 model essentially.

[Purple Haize]

They don’t put up a fight because they don’t really have any leverage. The G5 need the P4 more than the other way around

[Ill flame]

They don’t put up a fight because they don’t really have any leverage. The G5 need the P4 more than the other way around

This is exactly what I was gonna say. It's not like the G5s can just refuse to play until the P4 gives them a better deal. We would just be doing them a favor at that point and considering ESPN all but owns the SEC, all of the talking heads would just makes the G5s look like the bad guys for being greedy.

[Kricket]

They don’t put up a fight because they don’t really have any leverage. The G5 need the P4 more than the other way around

This is exactly what I was gonna say. It's not like the G5s can just refuse to play until the P4 gives them a better deal. We would just be doing them a favor at that point and considering ESPN all but owns the SEC, all of the talking heads would just makes the G5s look like the bad guys for being greedy.

My understanding is each conference gets a vote on the CFP and it was reported that the transition was unanimous to go to 5+7. What did the G5 teams gain from that move? Why didn't any of them vote to keep it 6+6?

Is my understanding wrong that each conference had a representative to vote?

[Ill flame]

The pac-2 held out for awhile but was offered enough money to agree to the new model. I assume it was the same with the G5. With this new format being discussed it does not have to be unanimous and since the P4 has double the voting power, they don't need the G5 to agree to anything.

[Kricket]

The pac-2 held out for awhile but was offered enough money to agree to the new model. I assume it was the same with the G5. With this new format being discussed it does not have to be unanimous and since the P4 has double the voting power, they don't need the G5 to agree to anything.

Why would the PAC 2 not want the new model? They wouldn’t get an autobid so the new format is better for them (one more at large).

You’re making an assumption that the G5s negotiated something out of giving up an extra spot for the sake of a unanimous vote? Why would the G5 get anything if they had no leverage? And if offered nothing because they have no leverage, why not vote to keep it 6+6? Are you saying the G5s were paid for the optics of a unanimous vote?

[Ill flame]

The pac-2 held out for awhile but was offered enough money to agree to the new model. I assume it was the same with the G5. With this new format being discussed it does not have to be unanimous and since the P4 has double the voting power, they don't need the G5 to agree to anything.

Why would the PAC 2 not want the new model? They wouldn’t get an autobid so the new format is better for them (one more at large).

You’re making an assumption that the G5s negotiated something out of giving up an extra spot for the sake of a unanimous vote? Why would the G5 get anything if they had no leverage? And if offered nothing because they have no leverage, why not vote to keep it 6+6? Are you saying the G5s were paid for the optics of a unanimous vote?

In the current agreement, P5s get roughly 80% of the CFP money. I believe the P4 didn't want the two remaining pac 12 schools to get a full P5 share so those two teams held out until they got what they were asking for. To change from a 6/6 to 5/7 prior to the end of the current contract in 2025 it needed to be unanimous. After that year the G5 schools lose all leverage. My assumption is that they agreed to change to 5/7 in exchange for more money and a guarantee to not be left out of the expanded CFP which is always a possibility.

[Kricket]

Ok, so you’re saying G5s did have leverage to keep it 6+6 and chose not to for an unknown benefit (perhaps money or perhaps not losing a G5 autobid in the future).

It sounds like you’re giving the G5 reps the benefit of the doubt that they made a fair trade. Without knowing the details of the negotiation I’m not so sure I’d give them that benefit.

I do think that if the G5s made a big enough deal out of getting auto bids the public would support it. That being said, I don’t think most schools care that much about that autobid. It’s not like Ball State is worried about making the CFP. There are few G5s that have that desire to be in contention to make the CFP and we are one of them. Most schools would take guaranteed money over another autobid.

[Ill flame]

Ok, so you’re saying G5s did have leverage to keep it 6+6 and chose not to for an unknown benefit (perhaps money or perhaps not losing a G5 autobid in the future).

It sounds like you’re giving the G5 reps the benefit of the doubt that they made a fair trade. Without knowing the details of the negotiation I’m not so sure I’d give them that benefit.

I do think that if the G5s made a big enough deal out of getting auto bids the public would support it. That being said, I don’t think most schools care that much about that autobid. It’s not like Ball State is worried about making the CFP. There are few G5s that have that desire to be in contention to make the CFP and we are one of them. Most schools would take guaranteed money over another autobid.

I went back and saw some quotes from AACs commissioner regarding the change to 5/7. Naturally he wanted to keep it at 6/6 for the next two years but knew (at the time) 5/7 was inevitable one way or another. The P4 was threatening to change the format to all at larges starting in 2026 if G5 didn't play ball. As you said, schools like ball state don't really care much about the auto bid. There's probably only about 12 of the 65 G5s that are legit contenders on an annual basis. You toss a school like that an extra $500k-$1 million a year and they'll agree to almost anything.