I know this was talked about a bit on the CFP thread, but given the AD held a press conference today going all in on signling out and blaming the ACC in particular for them being left out, claiming the league has been a bad football partner to them, it's worth pulling it out into its own thread to discuss, because this seems to be the beginning of the end of the ND and ACC partnership.
Bevacqua on the "permanent damage" with the ACC:"We have the ultimate respect for the fellow schools in the ACC... It's not about the universities... We were surprised and disappointed with the ACC going on a social media campaign against Notre Dame."Says he felt it was...— Bennett Wise WSBT (@BennettWiseWSBT) December 9, 2025
Pete Bevacqua says when he saw the first anti-Notre Dame ACC post, his gut reaction was someone in the social media department got over their skis. He expected an apology call from the league office.That never happened.Said he spoke to "Jimmy" Phillips last week and he knows... pic.twitter.com/D5lo3tGl3q— Matt Fortuna (@Matt_Fortuna) December 9, 2025
And then decided to get into a dick measuring contest about how many fans they have...
Pete Bevacqua said ACC football stadiums sell out 23% of the time on average. When Notre Dame visits an ACC stadium, the sell out rate is 90%. Notes television ratings also rise with Notre Dame's participation.— Pete Sampson (@PeteSampson_) December 9, 2025
And the ACC is very clear with its messaging: you don't get protection and prioritization by the conference in the one sport you refuse to join us in.
The ACC's statement is gracious, but the subtext is obvious: Notre Dame chose independence. You don't get fiduciary-level advocacy from a league you refuse to join. ND helped design the CFP rules, signed ACC settlements, and now claims breach of duties it never assumed. It's... pic.twitter.com/ABZ0akQFU5— David McKenzie (@mckenzielaw) December 8, 2025
Personally, ND can go fuck themselves. If they are unhappy about this, by all means leave our conference in the rest of the sports. I would welcome it. Good luck getting the SEC or Big Ten to.agree to your football independence terms in trying to get in there.
Comments
Let the door hit ya where the dog bit ya, Notre Damn.
I don't get the seemingly split public opinion where people think you're either supporting ND or supporting ESPN. Yeah f*%k both of them they both suck.
@ND, go cry about it
Let's also keep at the forefront that Notre Dame receives a full non-football revenue share of about $21M from the ACC plus receives about $4.5M for ACC road games. Does the rise in viewership for those 3 games really warrant covering them in the other 24 sports of which only two have been relatively successful? Womens basketball and women's lacrosse. They are also good at fencing but not sure that's an ACC sport. None of them drive that many eyeballs.
Does the $21M come from tv revenue from football and basketball? If so, and they receive $4.5M from road games, that seems like an incredible deal that really favors them, otherwise I would expect them to have to pay a share of the $21M from their own tv revenue (which I think may be a point you made in the comment about taking $30M or the difference from the $21M share and their revenue, correct?).
$21M is non-football revenue. $4.5M is road game payout for 3 games.
And you throw in their absolute bitch move of withdrawing from the post season entirely (which would have also displaced an ACC team)... fuck these guys into the sun. At least FSU tried to compete despite all the opt outs.
I've watched ND steal opportunity after opportunity from the Big East when I was in school and from the ACC now.
Where was this energy when they snatched the Fiesta bid away from VT in Vick's final season? When they were getting the shit choked out of them by Oregon State? Pepperidge Farm remembers motherfuckers.
Fuck 'em. Let 'em walk.
Yup. And regardless every fucking p4 school should refuse to schedule them so that they will never be ranked again and get a playoff bid.
I know for a fact that the ACC's deal with ND is a bad deal for the ACC. So, in that regard, I genuinely hope that ND does blow the deal up and leaves the conference entirely. Good riddance, I say
The problem is, though, that ND knows it's a bad deal for the ACC (and a sweetheart deal for them) so they're going to whine and cry and make a big fuss about it but at the end of the day they're too chickenshit to leave. They just want their
FIFA Medalparticipation trophy and they'll cry about it to make sure everyone knowsit's just posturing at this point.
They definitely know it. What other conference would they join with one toe in? SEC and B1G are now bigger than ND and can throw their weight at them. If they could even do the partial membership bullshit at the SEC or B1G, that one sided advocacy they are complaining about, I bet would actually be clearly against them.
The Big East with UCONN is the only conference they actually belong in doing this garbage.
FWIW - and setting aside my dislike of ND - they probably should be in the Big 12. Lots of Midwest teams and they could probably dominate that conference in football as much as they do the ACC. If I was them, that is where I would try and go assuming the financials work out for them. Much as I dislike ND, they should do what is in their best financial interest. Just like we should. SEC makes no team and geography and history-wise. Big 10 would be too good and they would not be the runaway top team.
I don't think geography nor history matters anymore since the PAC-whatever it is now was raided by everyone.
It's been 20 years since a team west of the Mississippi won a natty in FBS...
Look, if Notre Dame's women's tennis team was in contention for the CFP, I'd fully expect the ACC to lobby for them the make it. Notre Dame's football team should ask their own conference to do that, not an unaffiliated organization of which they are not a member.
Just beat Miami then ND, or better yet join the ACC and kick the shit out of UVA in the championship game.
If they want to complain about the ACC it should be about their complete mishandling of the tiebreakers, but the biggest issue is Alabama getting in and not even dropping a spot in the rankings after getting boat raced in their championship game and losing to FSU.
You can't expect the ACC to not push for one of their members to make the playoffs, especially when that member has the head-to-head win against the team that will be forced out.
This exactly. "Wasaaah the ACC fought for their one available spot!!"
Meanwhile the SEC has *five* teams in where one of them is clearly not capable of actually winning based on their lack of rushing output in the most recent matchup up and another team is missing its head coach and much of the offense staff.
The better argument and more target-rich environment is to point out that several teams are substantially degraded and not as intact as they were when their resumes were developed and why didn't the committee properly account for that in their final evaluations. Mississippi didn't move at all? Bama loses in convincing fashion and they're the only conference title loser that doesn't move *at all?*
But sure, punching down at the ACC is the move. GTFO.
Completely agree about this. If anybody should be complaining right now, it should be FSU pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.
Wasn't that the reasoning behind leaving FSU out several years ago before the playoff expanded? I think it was QB injury and the selection committee said, I think, they aren't the same team that came in undefeated.
Note that the ACC tiebreaker is the same as the other P4 conferences. It's just that the ACC sucks so bad that our championship game had a 7-5 team due to poor OOC performance.
The only part I'd be upset about if ND left the ACC is having the option to go to South Bend for a VT-ND football or basketball game.
Other than that...bye
If ND wants to be mad at something, they should be mad at Alabama. That's who stole their spot.
EDIT: To add, I also would not miss them if ND tried to get out of the ACC deal.
Bevacqua really saw Bob Kraft apologize and thought, "I have an opening here"
For a place that always would get preferential treatment because "they're Notre Dame"! ... It is hilarious watching them, their fans, talking heads online or on TV complaining about anything. Anyone remember the 6-4-1 Notre Dame getting into the Fiesta Bowl? Total joke. Have no sympathy for any of them.
By the way, anyone remember the Notre Dame Football Fan Real Men of Genius video? It was a riot. "BC's got better Christians" made me laugh out loud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0Y7yjxJVlc
The most depressing part of that video was seeing us sitting at #9 in both of the rankings shown.
Was that one of the real commercials or a parody?! That was hilarious!
Pretty sure it was a parody. But honestly, I'm not sure. The voices sound like the same people.
One of the funniest comments is "Ages like fine wine", as it continues to age well.
In the only non-football sports that really generates revenue, mens basketball, they are an earth shattering 105-127. They have four winning seasons in their 12 seasons in the ACC. Really driving that market.
They were only on the right side of the rankings the whole season solely because of preseason rankings propping up their 0-2 start. The actual CFP rankings should never be announced until they announce the brackets.
Q U A L I T Y L O S S
U
A
L
I
T
Y
L
O
S
S
BOO HOO HOO! SHUT THE FUCK UP AND JOIN A CONFERENCE YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS PIECES OF SHIT.
New season in a few weeks!!!!!
Can't wait! From the trailer it looks like the Bulldogs brought in Gorgeous Gord, Schnurr, Palmer, and the Freezer twins to help them show the Euros how hockey is supposed to be played.
I, for one, am giddy thinking about more scenes with the Freezer twins.
"Brooks, Alberta to Sudbury. That's a 27 hour drive."
"I did it in a day, once."
Sorry for hijacking, but if you've watched any of the mixed doubles curling, Cory Dropkin sounds a lot like Shoresy when barking directions while sweeping. I keep waiting for big sexy to chime in.
HA! Yeah, there was a little remembrance thing tickling the back of my brain.
Oh man, I can hear it
"SWEEEEEP!"
"titfucker! *whistle*"
See ya! ✌️
Roddy Jones (who is one of the few associated with ESPN that consistently makes salient points) noted that in 2020 Covid Year, the ACC did Notre Dame a huge solid by making them temporary full member. Otherwise, ND would have been left trying to piece together a schedule as an Independent.
Thanks for nothing, I suppose is the message.
Long and short, the ACC needs to figure out what actual financial value ND has for them. The main Revenue sports are FB and MBB --they are essentially a parasite member in Football and their MBB Program is in the dumps at this point. I say jettison them and let them see if anyone else is willing to let them make a sweetheart deal like the ACC has.
Just another reminder of how bad the ACC leadership was. Sure, help them out but in exchange they join as a full sports member. That should have been the deal. But no, we do them a solid and get fuckall out of it.
What were they going to do, leave sooner for another conference?
Except Notre Dame on all of social media is trying to flip the narrative of that story by saying they saved the ACC's season and all of College Football. They insist that without them the conference would have folded during Covid. 1000s of examples of this fallacy all over today. They have a Touchdown God Complex about their self importance.
Sure, ND fans go ahead and implore the school to sue for damages over the COVID year. I'm sure discovery in such a case would be so kind to your favor. No really, do it
^^^^ This! 1000%
And my battery is at 5%
Thats a full string of delusional copium.
Let the chips fall and the ACC show them the door. They'll be left in a wasteland. Adios!
Oooh I am sure that will end well for ND
Yeah, piss off the Big12 commish just when it looks like the play may be to join the Big 12.
I'm not sure what's in the water in the AD's ice bucket in PSU and ND.
Big 12 turned them down last time. After this doubt that position changes. Leaves them the Big L-East which pays out only $8M a year.
Do we think they'll really join a conference? I assume it would be for another sweetheart deal to pay for all their non-revenue sports, but would want to maintain their football independence.
I think at some point, their choices are going to be join a conference or not have any games scheduled.
If for no other reason but conference schedules are expanding, meaning there are fewer non-con games available for ND to fill.
I think we're more likely to see major restructuring in FBS, P4, G5 alignments/conference/groups before Notre Dame either accepts or is offered full membership in one of the current conferences. They are special now, and the like that. And while they had to go whining to the committee, they did get what they wanted; a guarantee of selection if in the top 12.
If I was on the committee I would keep them at 13th all season long and only make the final determination at the final ranking on if they are in or out. Treat them like a mediocre conference G5 school where an undefeated record might not be enough
Exactly.
Getting them to 12 should be a last minute decision only.
Nah, they'll get pushed up to top 10 for games against the big names like they do all the time
I'm pretty sure the committee had this in mind, along with their fingers crossed behind their back, when signing. You want a guaranteed spot if in the top 12...which we control?
ND as an institution is absolutely certain the stripper loves them.
ACC has right of first refusal if Notre Dame ever goes to football in a conference until 2037
I'd seen that in another comment, but assumed they'd try to remain independent forever. 12 years is a long time still though...
Well that makes the other life rafts for ND look pretty bad. Maybe they will be dumb enough to push to leave the ACC, but that would be like going out for burgers when there is steak at home. Jim Phillips should make a move now while ND's alternatives look like crap. Push them for full membership while dangling their other sports over the G5 meat grinder. The MAC would be a good geographical fit for them.
Ruh roh
I have my doubts this would actually happen but how fucking fantastic would it be if it did? If ND just clowned themselves out of contention permanently that would be epically hilarious
Or the alternative is that other teams just start extorting them for money. Oh, you want Toledo to come and play, that will be $5 million.
Yeah this is what I am hoping for. Notre Dame to pay out $30 of their $51M TV deal.
I mean why would teams from the P4 choose to schedule ND now. A good OOC loss hurts way more than a win against a terrible cupcake with conferences moving to 9 games.
You'll never have alignment from all the P4 to not schedule ND. There will always be a Wake Forest or Purdue or Miss St that will say , "sure we'll add you to our schedule but we can't do it for less than 1 million "
Except that even the crap teams know they have negotiating power if ND NEEDS to get games scheduled. Why ask ND for $1M if you are pretty sure you could get $2M. Or $2M if you could get $3M. Maybe they could get some D2 or 3 school to play them for cheap, but considering their attitude, if I was an opponent they were trying to schedule, I'd try to squeeze them for everything I could.
Exactly, i was just using 1mil as a starting point. the going rate would likely increase with ND's desperation. Eventually they'll break or the "scheduling fee" would level off
How dare they leave them out of the playoffs the year they changed their fighting Irish logo! What a travesty 🙄
I agree with the get fucked ND stance. The issue is that the ACC TV rights value is overwhelming placed on ND being partly in conference. This has been the primary issue from back when Swofford got played like a fiddle by them.
If they do jump ship it will be very interesting to see how that value gets reassessed when our 7-5 conference champion does not make the playoffs.
Shouldn't be much ESPN can do there. ESPN finally locked in the extension to 2036 back in January. The expansion to a nine game conference schedule would more than offset the Irish departure. ESPN was not able to include much specifically tied to Notre Dame because the true value is their football impact. If Irish are forced to pay exit fees that would also mitigate the impact.
There is also this piece. If Notre Dame ever decides to join a conference for football before 2037, it's contractually obligated to join the ACC. This provision essentially gives the ACC the first right of refusal over Irish's football membership. It creates a leverage point that could complicate any potential move to the Big Ten, SEC or other conferences. The arrangement also extends automatically with the ACC's Grant of Rights modifications. It means Notre Dame's non-football commitment runs parallel to the conference's broader media deals.
Nice to know they got at least something right.
Exit fees are a short term mitigation. If ND leaves then the rights will be renegotiated. The locked extension includes ND within it.
Also, about the 'valie' ND brings to the ACC....
They think every game will make millions upon millions tune in. When in fact everyone is tuning out. Including to them. They aren't immune to waning interest.
Notre Dame is going....bowling
Of all the craziness they've pulled in the last few weeks, this is actually a decent PR move. It pokes fun at themselves and casts the players in a nice light as well as giving to the community at the holidays.
It doesn't undo the mess they've made for themselves though. Not a bad way to save a little face, especially if the AD stays away from the event (at least publicly).
And separates the players from the AD...good distance.
Would they not have made more money by playing in a football bowl game instead?...
Their fan base claims they dont need the money to be subjected to the immature and embarrassing pomp and circumstance of the Pop Tart Bowl.
Essentially they are too good for it.
And yes, it would have paid $6M. Instead Georgia Tech will be adding that to the ACC pot.
One of the funnier things I've seen about this on social media crosses over into the political correctness realm, so i wont drop a link, but I'll summarize the point in that ND can't just decide to not play a bowl and they need to carry their season to full-term.
....and the real reason the Irish declined... they didnt want to get embarrassed by BYU when this list opted out
Funny seeing Stroman on that list. He did a lot for them this year.
Non CFP bowls are dead. Yeah, you think you are getting these great match ups from the just missed the CFP teams but none of the players want to play in them so what's the point? It like watching preseason NFL.
Fun while it lasted, I guess.
Frank Beamer was ahead of the times.
I agree. I forgot where I saw it, maybe on FB, maybe in a comment here. But what might help is to have the next 16 highest ranked teams play in a tournament for a different "championship" (think NIT), and then the next 16 play for a 3rd "championship". Keep the first, maybe even the 2nd round on campuses of the higher ranked team, then move to "bowls" for neutral site games. That would make it more fun and give the teams something to play for.
Oh, and if you are a player and opt out, pay back all the NIL money you received. Make these kids sign contracts... but that's a different argument / thread.
Don't look now but you thought the Notre Dame meltdown about the CFP and ACC were bad then dont go see their meltdown about Jeremiyah Love getting "snubbed" for the Heisman.
When it rains, it pours.
Such entitlement is rarely seen and beautiful to behold! 😎😎😎
Oh wait, we're talking about Notre Dame football. Never mind, it's communal delusion. 🤡🤡🤡
I would love to hear that people didn't vote for him because ND cried about the playoff and then declined a bowl.
The IU QB was better anyway.
Yeah Love didnt touch the ball enough to warrant the Heisman. If Jeanty didnt win last year with 2X Love's yards and TDs against a slightly worse SOS no way Love was winning. Sad part is he still got the invite which speaks to how mediocre individual performances were this season beyond Mendoza and Pavia.
The QB from North Texas Mestemaker was honestly the most impressive story in football this year. Freshman QB that never even started a game at QB in high school led the nation in passing yards with 4,129 yards and threw second most TDs. Had 500 more passing yards than #2.
Love was 4th in nation in yards. He and Johnson from Nebraska were both receiving backs though which separated them some.
I would hope the votes go to those who deserve to win and for no other reason. There's too much BS these days.
Mendoza deserved it, glad he got it.
Lol, I love it when ND is the butt of the joke
WOW! The fan of a team that lost both of it's big games telling the guy who's last win was against the #1 team in the country on a neutral site that he had no big wins. Holy crap delusional!
Tip of the iceberg ...there were a ton like that
Its unreal for a team that hasn't won a Natty in nearly 40 years.
They only had the best record of independents this season by a single game.
ND and the SEC
Dominating hypothetical matchups since the 1980s
"But we always win on paper!"
They are perceived as the best, going undefeated in hypothetical matchups, which is why the SEC needed 5 teams in the playoffs and why it's such an injustice that ND was left out
But what happens if they play UNCheat in a hypothetical game in the middle of a hurricane? Can they claim a hypothetical championship?
I'm gonna blame ND fans acting in bad faith for all this discourse about G5 teams "not belonging" this year too. I swear, this take hasn't been this prevalent any other year we've had the playoffs. Both of the teams that beat Notre Dame got in. Notre Dame got left out. It doesn't get much fairer than that. SYBAU.
And it's a slippery slope from "G5 doesn't belong" to "VT doesn't belong, they only played an ACC schedule."
In a hypothetical future where JMFF leads us to an undefeated season and we get left out of the playoffs, we should just crown ourselves national champs. That's the only way the perceived little guy is gonna keep their foot in the door. "Oh, we're undefeated but got snubbed? Guess y'all are scared. You're so much better than we are, settle it on the field." I don't care that it's bad viewing or a foregone conclusion or whatever, it's important G5 teams keep their representation. Can't have a chance to win if you don't even play, and it doesn't get much less fair than that.
This is only the second year that the G5 has been guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, and last year, the main complaints were focused on how the tournament was seeded. And that discourse was largely due to Boise State being ranked 9 or 10 but getting the 3 seed because they were the third highest ranked conference champ. Notice that rule got changed coming into this season. And I would bet that going into next year, the format will get changed again to guarantee spots for all P4 champs, if it hasn't already been changed.
Each year, there are a handful of G5 teams that can hang with the Power conferences. I just don't think we're consistently going to have the top G5 teams being able to hang with the top P4 teams.
Sure, people point back to Boise's BCS busting run where they beat nearly every Power team they played. But every single one of those matchups either came at the beginning of the season or in a bowl game, when they had extra time to prepare and focus. Would they have still had those results if those games were more frequent and mixed into the middle of the season?
Is there a fair way to keep the G5 in the CFP mix? They could change it to allow all conference champions, but that will probably only happen after the SEC forces the tournament to expand to 32 teams with 16 SEC auto-bids.
I think the problem is the entire landscape of college football is on the verge of a major shift and as usual, the powers-that-be are incapable of working together to make big sweeping decisions and changes. They just nickel and dime the system until it breaks and something new is required. Maybe it's time to decide if D1 football should separate into 3 subdivisions.
Honestly, I feel like it was coming more SEC fans complaining that they only got 5 teams in instead of 12.
I don't know about anyone else, but I watch college football for the times when the answer to this question is "yes." Now we have people who want to eliminate the possibility of those times ever happening or that question even being asked, and that will never sit right with me. Aside from their fans, who wants to see the same small group of schools passing the trophy back and forth year on year? Nobody. That shit done been boring for years already.
This is such a laughable prospect it hadn't even occurred to me, but considering the average delusional SEC homer you're probably onto something here
The issue I'm having is that there's no fair way to ask or answer the question.
Right now, there's two ways for a G5 team to get into the CFP:
-the conference championship auto bid
-get ranked in the top 10 and get an at-large.
The problem with both options is that the deck is stacked against the G5 schools in the rankings. They're already behind the 8 ball because their schedules are considered softer -- much of which, they have no control over. And their options for strengthening their schedules are taking a hit if the Power conferences moving towards scheduling 10 or 11 Power teams each year.
Even Cincy in their breakthrough year basically had to be undefeated for two straight years and beat Notre Dame to even be looked at.
And now, the conference champs get in as the bottom seeds where they're instantly outmatched by the higher seeded teams. I would have felt more confident about JMU or Tulane if they had gone up against some of the 7-10 teams, instead of 5 and 6. Now their inclusion feels more like a handout.
This question was much different 10-15 years ago when we had a more robust group of G5 teams, but most of them have jumped up into the P4.
The sport is flawed. If we fix the postseason, we can remedy the sport.
Either the P4 and G6 are equals, or they're not.
Right now we have 10 conferences, and a 12 team playoff. Each conference gets an auto bid. The 2 floor sweepings go to the best at large teams; the only time we need a committee.
No debate needed. This is how a sport works.
Now, we can break the P4 and G6 teams apart. Have two postseasons. That's an option that makes a lot of sense.
But right now, if 15 SEC teams are better than the CUSA champ? Well that's a pretty stupid of all those SEC teams.
We need to set boundaries. One team per conference. Sort that however you'd like.
Either this is a fucking sport. Or this is a fucking beauty pageant.
I agree 100% but I also think that part of the fabric of what makes this particular sport special to so many people (maybe me, but maybe not, I'm undecided) is that it is the one sport where the beauty pageant is mixed in.
It's like, even if your rival is hotter than you, you can still make snide remarks about their stretch marks or the fact that their busted ass eyebrows haven't been treated in 6 weeks.
Can't do that in the NFL.
I can do that in the NFL....the Cowgirls give us so much fodder.
I absolutely do that in the NFL
I've been thinking about this... I think what I like the most is that after you lose one game, you no longer control your own destiny.
I hate the idea of all or only FBS conference champions getting in.
My biggest complaint is the inconsistency and the 'predicting' of what could happen (see FSU, 2023). That's why I say use computer rankings, if you're in the top 15 and a conference champion, then you're in no matter the conference. Then fill out the bracket with at large bids.
This has always been what I hate the most about CFB, haha. Teams get punished too much for losses. Unless you're Alabama. Or Clemson up until a few years ago. Or anOSU. Or Michigan. Or...you get my point. Funny enough, Notre Dame getting punished for losing two games this year is one of the only times I can remember that ever happening to them. "It's a big club and you ain't in it."
If you're in the Big Club, they find excuses instead of punishments.
The best part about sports is that the best teams don't always win and over the last 10-15 years the SEC, through their mouthpieces in ESPN, have been full court pressing to make results not matter as much as perception.
I don't care how good someone thinks you are, the only thing that should matter is if you won your division or conference. If you didn't do that, then shut the fuck up until at least those teams are taken care of.
Exactly. ESPN is the chairman of the Big Club, and they also happen to be the entire board of directors
This is the whole choice, though. Either you lead with objective criteria like this, or you open the door for entirely corrupt decisions like an undefeated FSU missing the post-season because AI-generated excuse goes here.
Computer ratings can be both malleable and disposable in the hands of people who would rather just vote in the first place.
Subjective criteria is inherently corruptible.
You can't really corrupt ten conference champions in a 12 or 16 team bracket.
If you don't want to see blowouts, then don't watch postseasons, because that's totally a thing in sports.
I'm okay with that - as long as the computer rankings aren't changed midseason. The thing about Computer rankings is that they are predictable and the inputs/outputs are known (I know, I know, LLMs are non-determinant blah blah blah - that's not what these things are/should be). A team can hire some nerd to crunch numbers, and figure out that if they win the next five games by 3 points, there's a 97.34% chance they're in the playoff.
Compare that to the committee which does things like bump a team from the playoff when a QB gets injured, and elevate Miami over ND if and only if the team in between them loses (I just can't wrap my head around that logic smh) and change their ranking criteria week-to-week.
I don't have a problem with blowouts. I don't see anyone arguing that OU or Oregon shouldn't be in the playoff, despite being blown out in previous years. I think it's good that Tulane and JMU got in this year, and I think it's shitty how the rules for 2026 were changed (once again) to make sure that doesn't happen.
I've said it here before and it was commented as one if the most depressing takes, but i love college football because it is the best analogy to life, all other sports are escapism, college football is life, no matter how good you are the bosses son will be the next boss, your last name matters more than it should. CFB will always find a way to support the institutional teams, they will always punish mizzou for crimes committed by Bama.
But once and a while some one comes out of no where to win. You get a Howard Shultz, Larry Ellison, Bill Clinton, some one that comes from poverty and gets to the top of the mountain. Its why we want Indiana to win so much, if your team isnt in the playoffs the how can you not root for Indiana. Because if they can do it then we believe anyone can beat a "rigged" system. That why college football is amazing.
I know it's weird, but I am the other way regarding Indiana. I don't want anyone except us to upset the big dogs and beat the rigged system because if they do, it's a brutal reminder that we should also have been able to do it but couldn't figure it out. Seeing Indiana go from football afterthought to #1 CFP ranking at 13-0 doesn't give me hope - it makes me feel worse that we couldn't get anywhere close to that because it makes it feel possible.
Again, I know most fans don't feel this way, it's just my thoughts on the matter. As much as I like Oregon, I weirdly enjoy that they also don't have a natty in football. It makes it one little bit less painful that we don't have one because I can be like "well look even those guys can't get one"
If it makes you feel better, IU rise is a lot like Oregon's - they spent ~$26m on this roster, and paired it with tremendous coaching. Also, despite there 7% bluechip ratio, over 60% of players were acquired through the portal.
It may make me feel better, but that depends on how they do in this CFP
There is also a lot of winning the lottery/catching lightning in a bottle. VT did that with Frank & Vick, but absolutely fumbled it in the same way that some lotto winners are broke 10 years later.
The current trend of buying everything, from coaches to players, makes it a lot more of a crapshoot than it ever was. Where I think it is going to be hardest for those that "win the lotto" is that they are typically very underprepared for grand stage that is the CFP. That is where the blue bloods will typically hold strong. It'll be interesting to see where IU's trajectory will head in year 3, if not just in the next couple of weeks.
What a great analogy.
I LOVE this, and I loved how especially true it was in the BCS era.
What bothers me is two things:
For some teams, they lose control over their destiny after losing one game, for some teams they lose control over their destiny after losing zero games - they just never have control over their destiny.
For other teams, you really only lose control over your destiny after losing 2 games, and in some cases, maybe even three games.
Bingo.
If every team knows an undefeated record is safe, and a single loss is game over, we have a self-moderating level of competition in the sport.
Once we start letting the SEC and Big Eleventy super load their conferences, and then scribble the bracket in crayon each season to include as many teams in as they can, we kinda lose that.
A 12 team playoff should always be an improvement over a 4 team playoff in any sport.
The only reason the CFB postseason remains unsatisfying is because we just let the 12 team playoff be just as subjective and corrupted as the 4 team playoff. The expansion didn't really have anything to do with guaranteeing conference champs a damn thing.
The playoffs central purpose is making TV networks money. It should be about playing college football.
FCS, Divisions II & III, just about every team sport in the world manages to do this.
Disagree about one-single-loss-and-you're-done being a good thing, but the rest of your comment was kind of what I was getting at about how different teams have their losses weighted differently. VT and any other ACC schools not named Miami would almost certainly have to run the table to ever get into the playoffs. And anyone not in the SEC has to hear haint played nobody Pawwwwl ad nauseam even if you do win every game going away.
This stuff has bothered me since losing one time to Miami in 2000.
I like the options that keep as many late season games interesting as possible.
Nothing would do this better than introducing promotion/relegation
I'm beginning to think the only way that's even a possibility is if G5 conferences are aligned with power conferences on a business level. Otherwise, the money and revenue is too unpredictable.
Under the current set up, it'll never happen. Too many short sighted greedy people running the individual shows.
It's quite foreign to americans, but I think that one desperate conference needs to try it, and it will take off... like, maybe the ACC:
.
Never heard of anything like this
Didn't the Big10 try that already with their two divisions: Liars and Losers? /s
LOL touché.
I wasn't trying to imply that we shouldn't celebrate all the pettiness and drama.
I find it infinitely frustrating that we have an amazing sport that insists on choosing the prettiest champion of them all (subjective committee/panel selection). When we could just do what all the other sports do (create a mostly objective bracket arranged by auto bids and conference champs; use the panel to simply determine seeds and hand out the charity spots to at-large teams).
The SEC wants to monopolize the majority of powerful teams into their new super conference?
That's cute. 10 conference champs and only 2 at large teams into the playoffs could solve that.
Instead we're carving up the postseason every year based on anecdotes and handing extra seeds to the greedy bastards. Trying to solve make believe problems like "what if (*gasp) two of the poorer conference champions play in the postseason?". Or "how can we eliminate the incidences of a large margins of victory between the highest and lowest seeds?".
Distractions.
The issue is going to continue to be that one of the super conferences thinks (knows) that their 4th place team is better than the champion of conference xyz. While that may be true, if we were doing this the right way that shouldn't matter. Quit hording teams. It's the way every other sport is played. There has to be a path to a championship for everyone. Any yes, in nearly every sport, some shit teams get into the playoffs. Just make it work itself out. There's no need to ring hands and decide who's in, set some fucking rules that everyone can read and follow.
All of the "my team would hypothetically win over your team" decision making is just so much nonsense. Think some other conferences is too easy and yours is much harder? Fine, go there and clean up. Play games, use those results to crown a champ.
Every single sport has figured this out except for FBS college football.
This is why I'm in favor of computer rankings. The question is no longer 'would my team win over your team', instead it's 'who has the most impressive resume'. Which I am in favor of.
nah, fuck resumes. Resumes are predicated on perception. Texas A&M has a way better resume than Miami because they play in the SEC. Miami beat them heads up.
Throw all that shit out the window. Get rid of rankings. Get rid of resumes. Conference Champions get in. Full Stop.
Resumes are a list of past accomplishments. It's not forward looking.
I don't think it has to do with being in the SEC. TAMU dropped one game: to a not-bad Texas team. Miami lost twice. I think you can hate the SEC and still recognize that Miami had a lesser resume than TAMU.
But this supports my point: TAMU clearly had a better resume, but because resumes are not predictors, Miami still won. Miami winning does mean TAMU had a lesser resume than they did. It means Miami won.
Similarly, OU losing to Bama doesn't mean that OU was undeserving of a bid or undeserving of a home game - teams with the better resume lose all the time.
Resumes are predicated on perception. Here's why: If two teams have identical records, the team that has beaten the "better" teams will have the "better" resume. "Better", of course, being subjective. The ONLY part of the resume that should matter at all is whether or not a team has won their conference championship.
Regardless, I think you're kinda missing my point. You're saying rankings(or resumes) should be used to seed a field for the playoffs. I'm disagreeing with that on a fundamental level. Resumes and records shouldn't matter. Win your conference championship. If you don't win your league, you're not in the playoff. Too bad, loser. Want to play for a national title? Win your league. Try again next year. The SEC and (to a lesser extent) the B1G are the biggest group of feather soft snowflakes there is in college football. Doing everything and anything in their power to make sure at least one of their teams gets a title to boost their fragile egos. It's kind of embarrassing, actually.
The idea that we can find a system to correctly judge resumes seems like a feasible goal.
Then ESPN starts treating Heather Dinich's newfangled criteria of "P4 wins" like some legitimate metric. (It's a redundant way of saying P4 teams louder. Only P4 teams have lots of P4 wins because of the existence of conferences).
Resume comparison might be a valid way to judge teams in a league with some kind of legitimate governing body. But ESPN drastically overpays for the SEC, then gets to control the narrative and create a new postseason from scratch each year to milk the most out of their stupid investment, and we're supposed to trust the process? Nah.
I tend to agree with this 🤝
Bama should have been excluded, as they had 3 losses.
Agreed. All conference champions. No byes. Fill out the bracket with at-larges. ESPN can even keep the committee for the at-larges and the seeding so they can have their special unveiling show.
Win and advance. Lose and go home.
Gimme an unbiased computer ranking vs human poll any day. I wish the "BCS computers" still existed and we could run those in comparison to what the biased human rankings reveal come the halfway point in the season.
I'd imagine we'd see a lot less SEC/Big 10 teams littered throughout the Top 25.
Actually, there's a group that has been tracking the BCS rankings since the CFP started, and the rankings have actually matched up fairly closely to what the committee has done.
But that doesn't help my argument.
Well, if they use computer rankings then you could argue we need a selection committee
I've had an idea milling about for a while now.
Do it like the world cup.
Random draw off 3 pots into 6 groups.
Pot1: P4 champs, top 2 G5 champs.
Pot2: remaining G5 champs, top 3 P4 runners up
Pot3: remaining P4 runner up, 5 at-larges.
6 pods, everybody play 1 home and 1 away.
Each pod winner advances, top 2 runners up advance.
Scoring for advancement goes: 3 pts road win, 2 points home win, 1 point OT win.
No more than 1 team per conference in a pod.
8 teams advance to knockout stage.
Gameday 1 is weekend after Army/Navy
Gameday 2 is weekend after that
Gameday 3 is weekend after that.
Weekend after that is a bye
Quarterfinals are the next week
Semis are the next
Then a bye week
National championship is weekend before the Super Bowl.
You lost me in the first round.
How many games are actually played here?
Two games in the group stage, 3 in the knockout stages
I meant overall in each round.
I think I'm still lost on pot and pod, and who actually plays who.
If i read it right, there's 3x 6-team pots = 18 teams.
These 18 teams are then split into 6x groups of 3 teams for scoring purposes. Each of the 18 teams plays 1 home & 1 away over the course of a couple of weeks. Wasn't clear how these matchups are determined.
Then the top-scoring teams from each of the 6 pods, plus the top2 runners-up from across all the pods are seeded into an 8-team playoff.
or something
If correct, I see 9 games in week 1, 9 more games in week 2. I'm not sure what week 3 is, because an 8 team tournament only needs three rounds.
I know this next sentence is going to sound weird, but....
That seems like it's too much football.
When the Pac12 becomes a thing again, they will be added to whichever category (P5/G6) and 1-2 at large spots get eliminated.
Wouldn't this require conference championships to be done in early November to allow for the Pod games?
If you are playing pod games (Home/Away against 2 opponents) would need minimum of 6 weeks right?
A/B, A/C, B/A, B/C, C/A, C/B
How does determining the 2 runners up for Quarterfinals work if you have 3 or 4 with same points tally?
You only need 3, because you would only pay one home and one away game, drawn at random.
I edited my post to clarify.
Ehh then we will get the moaning about who gets what opponent at home vs away.
This is fun! But it's way overly complicated.
4 team playoff. Conference champions only. Committee picks the champions. Simple. Everyone else gets regular bowl games. Don't wanna play? Leagues get penalized for opt outs. How does the committee pick the 4 "best" champions? Interleague non con results.
By guaranteeing all conferences have a shot, even just in name only, you could see some top tier talent at lower tier schools.
Also, half the fun of March are the upsets that seemingly come out of nowhere.
Like the one below this text.
Here's an idea. Just eliminate the entire regular season. You pick the top 12 or 16 teams based upon preseason rankings and then there is no danger of inconclusive season results. The "best" 12 or 16 teams get in. There, full proof!
This message brought to you by ESPN and the Walt Disney Corporation.
So this led me to two thoughts.
First, if the CFP goes to a format that includes all conference champions, we'd probably end up with one of two scenarios:
-G5 teams would be the lower seeds 95% of the time and lose most of the first round games.
-conferences would get paired up, so we would always see SEC vs. Big 12, Big Ten vs. ACC, American vs. Sun Belt, etc in the first round. We'd get more evenly matched first round games, but then most of the G5 teams would get obliterated in the later rounds against the big boys.
And that thought progressed to thinking about the distribution of teams in college football. If there was one unified league (which could also more evenly distribute TV money), then the conferences or divisions within could get realigned maybe in a way where talent would be better distributed and make it easier for different teams to win it all.
I really think that with the resources at play Division 1 needs to be split and allow for a G5 playoffs that awards a National Championship. This would eliminate much of the discussion about Strength of Schedule and belonging.
Do I appreciate the little guy story in basketball? Yes but the resources dedicated to basketball are not as glaringly different top to bottom as football.
Is that changing? Absolutely. With the increased focus by the SEC on basketball its becoming much more spread out. That said, Basketball as we saw last night, a couple of boo boos and sniffles can turn a 14 point spread into a trading leads game. Football outside of losing a QB or starting RB on a run dominant team doesn't have that major shift.
Agree here. There is rarely a Cinderella type run or story in football. In basketball, any given night a team can get hot and shoot lights out/a more talented team on paper can be cold and get upset. Much more level playing field in basketball. With football, the sheer size and athleticism that top level teams have on the lines give lower level teams little to zero chance of success. They can out athlete and bully you.
Just given the disparity of resources and talent between G5 and P4 there has to be a split (and likely even a future split between P2 and the rest coming). When you only play a 12 game regular season schedule in college football, in a new era where it's all about ratings, brands, and revenue, no one is excited about these matchups either anymore.
I think it's going to be a P2 that holds about 64 teams, and then rest will fall to the current G5 ranks. A few years ago, I would have said that there would be issues with teams like Duke, Vanderbilt, and Indiana -- the perennial doormats that just happened to be in the right place at the right time when conferences were forming and would likely be grandfathered in, while there are more deserving programs that would be shut out from being able to move up. But now that problem has been compounded by those schools actually getting good.
Boston College and Stanford still define your intent.
USC with Big 10 moving to 9 game schedule has ended the annual commitment to Notre Dame. Dominoes starting to fall on the Crying Irish
Nah, this isn't on number of conference games. USC has played a 9 conference game schedule dating back to their time in the Pac-10.
The true culprit is the date of the game. USC didn't want to risk a loss at the end of the season.
This one is on USC, but it does show how vulnerable ND's scheduling ability is.
I am just hoping more and more P4 teams cancel on them. Then ND can try to defend a schedule of 5 ACC games, and 7 G5 or FCS games. And if I am the AD's of those G5 matchups, I am doubling the cost for a one and done or demanding at least a here and there with punitive damages if ND cancels.
None if this would matter if the playoffs were determined based on record, and not human perception of good/bad losses or which players were/were not involved in the games because of injury.
I am wondering specifically which examples USC is referring to. Notre Dame's exclusion from the CFP was due to a loss in week 1, even though it took 3 months for the committee to notice it. The only other example I can think of is FSU's 13-0 snub, and that's not because they lost a game.
The whole thing smells from both sides. Why was the deal for next year's game still on the table after this season was already done? They've played that game almost nonstop for a century, and most schools have multiple games already scheduled for the 2030s. The ACC hasn't released their full schedule, so ND should have some wiggle room to move some of their games around.
Because decisions for a big time college football program are made by a board or high ranking official that needs to weigh all options and not made on a message board with a knee jerk reaction. They have to mull it over, offer up something to vote on, the options associated with it, make the case, vote, then roll it out. It's not eff those guys in a 120 character tweet.
Also, why do Alabama and Ohio State get the benefit of the doubt EVERY YEAR?
Seems like if the tie goes to you one year, the next time it's up for debate the OTHER team should get it. Or the tie should always go to the underdog team, to promote diversity of participation.
Because their daddy is ESPN and daddy won't leave them out