Smart move or screaming we're a weak conference?
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...cc-weigh-changes-title-game-commissioner-says
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...cc-weigh-changes-title-game-commissioner-says
Proposed ACC Championship Game Change
- Thread starter -RUFAN4LIFE-
- Start date
Absurd to me. Essentially you'd remove the best team and call the next team/tournament winner a champion? This is the kind of thing that screams of desperation.
Desperate times call for desperate measures from a desperate conference
Possibly the committee ignores the championship game?
This is easily going to backfire.
The rule will be "5 highest ranked teams from the different conferences get an AQ".
So it won't be "conference champ" but highest ranked team.
Most conferences there won't be a difference.
But something like the crappy ACC this past year, Clemson would easily get left out even though they are "conference champion" because SMU would get the AQ.
The current rule is stupid in that SMU is ranked ahead of Clemson but Clemson got the AQ.
The "final four" idea is not that bad. The 2 vs 3 idea is asinine.
I actually think it is smart
What did SMU, Oregon and Texas have to gain by playing hard in the conference championship in a world with a true national champion ? SMU and Texas both made it with a loss anyway. In fact, all 6 CG participants made it from SEC, ACC, BIG.
The bubble teams should play elimination games instead:
This year we would have :
Clemson v Miami
Indiana v Illinois
Alabama v USC
Losers are out. Winners are "eligible" but not guaranteed a spot.
That is way better than a glorified exhibition between 2 teams that are going to make the CFB PO anyway and are praying not to sustain any injuries.
What did SMU, Oregon and Texas have to gain by playing hard in the conference championship in a world with a true national champion ? SMU and Texas both made it with a loss anyway. In fact, all 6 CG participants made it from SEC, ACC, BIG.
The bubble teams should play elimination games instead:
This year we would have :
Clemson v Miami
Indiana v Illinois
Alabama v USC
Losers are out. Winners are "eligible" but not guaranteed a spot.
That is way better than a glorified exhibition between 2 teams that are going to make the CFB PO anyway and are praying not to sustain any injuries.
My biggest grip with the 12 team playoff is it rendered conference championship games meaningless. This idea is different but would result in games that matter.
This makes sense.
The ACC will get 2 AQs as part of the 3/3/2/2/1/3 or 4/4/2/2/1/1 CFP 14 team expansion in 2026.
The expectation is that the SEC and Big10 will do a 1v2 for the champion and 3v6, 4v5 if 4 AQ spots or 3v4 if only 3 AQ spots.
The ACC and Big 12 could do 1v4, But then you might get a 12-1 team who lost the final game out of the CFP. Hence the consideration for a 1 getting a bye and 2v3.
The problem is that the Big10/SEC would likely have 2 or 3 important games while the B12 and ACC would only have 1 or 2. If 2 the ACC/Big12 risk their regular season champion being left out of the CFP. So less money for the miniP2 and more money for the P2.
The ACC will get 2 AQs as part of the 3/3/2/2/1/3 or 4/4/2/2/1/1 CFP 14 team expansion in 2026.
The expectation is that the SEC and Big10 will do a 1v2 for the champion and 3v6, 4v5 if 4 AQ spots or 3v4 if only 3 AQ spots.
The ACC and Big 12 could do 1v4, But then you might get a 12-1 team who lost the final game out of the CFP. Hence the consideration for a 1 getting a bye and 2v3.
The problem is that the Big10/SEC would likely have 2 or 3 important games while the B12 and ACC would only have 1 or 2. If 2 the ACC/Big12 risk their regular season champion being left out of the CFP. So less money for the miniP2 and more money for the P2.
I don't see the CFP committee giving the ACC multiple bids under this format if the conference championship game winner is not highly ranked to start with and the team skipping the game hasn't proved their worth to be in the CFP and possibly gets downgraded in the field and could find themselves out in certain scenarios.
I think it's preparing for the 14-team
The B10 wants 4 while giving the ACC and B12 2 each. The SEC while not wanting this initially might be ok with it given that they only got 3 in the first year.
Also the ACC 2nd place team might have a say if it turns out it was their best team who won the semifinals and lost the final if they do 1v4, 2v3... Or just another win for their 2nd place team.
But who knows.
Just crown a regular season champ and no championship game. Squeeze in a 13th regular season game for everyone and teh TV money will remain the same.. 18 cupcake games have to be worth the same as one conference championship game.. right?
Whenever Rutgers Day is, pretty safe bet the Spring Game will be on that day. So...last Saturday in April if I had to make an educated guess.
The problem with the current playoffs is the legacy bowl system. Starting with e 2026 season, the awkward playoff-bowl system will be, well not removed but lessened.
A CFB problem is the lack of leadership at the top. NCAAF needs a commissioner. The commissioners office could be a replacement for the NCAA, provide a single entity for referees and do some positive things to actually better connect championship week with the playoffs.
For example, the conference championships, stupid as they are, might remain as-is. (The championship games are an important part of the conference TV packages, so getting rid of them isn’t a realistic option).
However, why not have the conference third- and fourth-place teams play intersectional games the week after the conference championships? This could create some highly marketable games and work as play in games for the playoffs. (in my most perfect world, these games could be the play-in games, or a playoffs preliminary round.
Some example matchups could be the fifth and sixth rated conference championships facing off for a playoff spot. ACC #3 plays at SEC #4, and so on.
What about the Army-Navy game? Move it to a week (or a day) before the start of the regular season.
A lot of these ideas are from Joel Klatt’s podcast.
A CFB problem is the lack of leadership at the top. NCAAF needs a commissioner. The commissioners office could be a replacement for the NCAA, provide a single entity for referees and do some positive things to actually better connect championship week with the playoffs.
For example, the conference championships, stupid as they are, might remain as-is. (The championship games are an important part of the conference TV packages, so getting rid of them isn’t a realistic option).
However, why not have the conference third- and fourth-place teams play intersectional games the week after the conference championships? This could create some highly marketable games and work as play in games for the playoffs. (in my most perfect world, these games could be the play-in games, or a playoffs preliminary round.
Some example matchups could be the fifth and sixth rated conference championships facing off for a playoff spot. ACC #3 plays at SEC #4, and so on.
What about the Army-Navy game? Move it to a week (or a day) before the start of the regular season.
A lot of these ideas are from Joel Klatt’s podcast.
The NFL has "Wild Card" games.
Since 1970, 10 "Wild Card" teams advanced to play in the Super Bowl and 6 wild card teams have actually won the Super Bowl.
More great TV games with added financial gain.
Has anyone watched the new Max Series called "The PITT". Emergency room hospital setting in Pittsburgh with references to UPMC.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Since 1970, 10 "Wild Card" teams advanced to play in the Super Bowl and 6 wild card teams have actually won the Super Bowl.
More great TV games with added financial gain.
Has anyone watched the new Max Series called "The PITT". Emergency room hospital setting in Pittsburgh with references to UPMC.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
Stupid post. I doubt you even believe this. The ACC is collapsing (as expected).
A commissioner would be ideal but not likely as I wouldn't expect current conference commissioners (especially in the B10/SEC) to both cede control and give up their nice jobs.
I've seen this talk about a sort of "flex schedule" in the last week after it was used during covid. It's a nice way to make some extra money potentially with a couple more compelling matchups for a conference at the end of the season. I don't know that it'll happen anytime soon though, if at all.
I don't know why the ACC needs to change much. They got 2 teams in, even if one was iffy til the end. That's about as good as you can expect. In the autobids per conference idea, the ACC was afforded 2 bids so they got the same number this year. If there are no autobids in whatever format comes about in 2026 then voting for expansion to 14 would be their next best best as it would give the a couple more opportunities to get a 2nd team in, maybe even a 3rd on occasion.
I don't know why the ACC needs to change much. They got 2 teams in, even if one was iffy til the end. That's about as good as you can expect. In the autobids per conference idea, the ACC was afforded 2 bids so they got the same number this year. If there are no autobids in whatever format comes about in 2026 then voting for expansion to 14 would be their next best best as it would give the a couple more opportunities to get a 2nd team in, maybe even a 3rd on occasion.
The ACC and Big12 would love to get a 12-team with 2 autobids, but starting in 2026 that will not be the case. The B10 and SEC have the power to make many changes (not all) unilaterally.
With that said the Gap will continue to increase between the P2 and MiniP2.
The SEC and B10 with 4 autobids will have a minimum of 3 high profile games with the Championship game, 3v6, and 4v5. All on championship week.
At best the ACC can do 1v4, and 2v3 on the last week of the season (better than a regular season game, but not extra games) and a final on championship week, OR #1 gets bye and 2v3 on championship week for the 2nd AQ which is silly.
Best ACC can do is for the top teams is dissolve with 10 teams. UNC, NCState, Duke, Miami, FSU, UVA, Vtech, Clemson, Louisville have been part of that idea. Who is the 10th? Pitt, Syracuse, GTech? Some have put the money on Cuse. These teams want private equity and want to remove Wake, BC and west teams. If they can't do that, it is just a slow death with too many mouths to feed. Even if ESPN picks up a tweaked ACC contract, its probably for a 9th game and at the same rate.
The SEC and B10 will be able to get more money by just adding play in games for their 4 AQs and potentially the scheduling agreement without private equity.
The Big12 commissioner is all in on Private Equity and will be a step ahead of the ACC unless the ACC finds 10 teams to dissolve the conference. That will mean Pitt, Cuse or GTech on the outside looking in........... with Cal, SMU, Stanford, Wake and BC are SOL. I assume ND would try to do a scheduling agreement with the New ACC.
Pretty soon the ACC might be
UNC, NCState, Duke, Miami, FSU, UVA, Vtech, Clemson, Louisville, Cuse
AAC might be
Army , Tulane, Memphis, Navy, East Carolina, South Florida, UTSA, Charlotte, North Texas, Rice, Temple, UAB, Florida Atlantic, Tulsa, Wake Forest, Boston College, SMU, Pitt, and Georgia Tech.
Pac12 might end up with
Cal, Stanford, Boise, Fresno, Colorado St, San Diego St, Utah St, Wash St, Oregon St.
With that said the Gap will continue to increase between the P2 and MiniP2.
The SEC and B10 with 4 autobids will have a minimum of 3 high profile games with the Championship game, 3v6, and 4v5. All on championship week.
At best the ACC can do 1v4, and 2v3 on the last week of the season (better than a regular season game, but not extra games) and a final on championship week, OR #1 gets bye and 2v3 on championship week for the 2nd AQ which is silly.
Best ACC can do is for the top teams is dissolve with 10 teams. UNC, NCState, Duke, Miami, FSU, UVA, Vtech, Clemson, Louisville have been part of that idea. Who is the 10th? Pitt, Syracuse, GTech? Some have put the money on Cuse. These teams want private equity and want to remove Wake, BC and west teams. If they can't do that, it is just a slow death with too many mouths to feed. Even if ESPN picks up a tweaked ACC contract, its probably for a 9th game and at the same rate.
The SEC and B10 will be able to get more money by just adding play in games for their 4 AQs and potentially the scheduling agreement without private equity.
The Big12 commissioner is all in on Private Equity and will be a step ahead of the ACC unless the ACC finds 10 teams to dissolve the conference. That will mean Pitt, Cuse or GTech on the outside looking in........... with Cal, SMU, Stanford, Wake and BC are SOL. I assume ND would try to do a scheduling agreement with the New ACC.
Pretty soon the ACC might be
UNC, NCState, Duke, Miami, FSU, UVA, Vtech, Clemson, Louisville, Cuse
AAC might be
Army , Tulane, Memphis, Navy, East Carolina, South Florida, UTSA, Charlotte, North Texas, Rice, Temple, UAB, Florida Atlantic, Tulsa, Wake Forest, Boston College, SMU, Pitt, and Georgia Tech.
Pac12 might end up with
Cal, Stanford, Boise, Fresno, Colorado St, San Diego St, Utah St, Wash St, Oregon St.
The Death Knell for the Big East football conference was rung far too early and far too often.... and the ACC still has advantages over the old Big East.
What could happen is all the power conferences realigning in some way in a merger.. and some ACC teams would be brought along.. while some power conference teams might not.. ala the 2-Team Pac 12
As for CFP.. just goto 16 with no byes. Stop this BYE nonsense. No home games or guarantee conf champs home games and then go by rankings... ie seeding by the committee with the committee guaranteed to have balanced representation according to revenues generated by the conference. Have the conferences name the reps according to how much they pay to their members. That will guarantee the conferences that make the money for the CFP will be properly represented.
Last edited:
Similar threads
