forums

“COmmissioner” Josh Pate Reworks the CFP and Bowl Season

Screen Shot 2026-01-22 at 12.21.08 PM.png


@DMoney wishes his do looked this **** good!
 
Advertisement
Hold My Beer said:
(y)

Curious, though, what y'all don't like about it?

It would Make the Rose Bowl the cathedral of College Football, similar how Wembley Stadium is with English soccer. One place every season teams would be working toward

Much preferable imo to random NFL venues wherever they may be located
Click to expand...

Hard Rock Stadium would be better than the Rose Bowl by multiples. That Rose Bowl is old, pitiful, and like the traditional codpiece - a couple of centuries out of style.

January - it's nice and warm in Miami - lots of folks could enjoy the trip, do some other things in Florida - make it a trip!

California? Another few months from now, the California motto, "Thank God for Mississippi" will no longer be appropriate.

I guess - I don't like anything about it.
 
Advertisement
Expansion is coming. Big X and SEC will eventually split away from the rest of the conferences and earn more $ with super conference league. Hence, why it is pivotal for us to get in the Big X, ASAP.
 
Hoyacane1620 said:
Click to expand...

I don’t understand how Pate can propose this plan and at the same time be so upset about a 24 team playoff.

In his format, the conference championship games as well as the initial bowl games would operate under a similar mechanism compared to the first round of a 24 team playoff; as the top 8 teams have byes. The first round of a 24 team playoff is 8 games, 16 teams, then that repeats in the second round. Instead of bowl games, these would be home games for the teams seeded 9 to 16.

The only difference is that he has 12 teams playing in 6 “bowl games that count,” and 8 others in the p4 conference championship games. His proposal would force non-p4 teams to abandon their own conference championship games in order to play in a bowl game to qualify for the 16 team playoffs as well; which doesn’t make sense because in years like this past year, there are sometimes multiple non-p4 teams, in varying conferences, competing for a playoff spot.

The proposal just creates a 20 team first round whereby the committee will eliminate the four weakest before the 16 team bracket commences. In his version, the two teams that make the national championship game will always play 17 games no matter what; with 5 of them being postseason games. In the 24 team format, a team that gets the elite 8 first round bye will only have four postseason games if they make it to the natty.

Regardless, then from there he goes into his 16 team playoff model that is straight seeding with no bye. The result of this format is the same amount of games as teams in the 24 team format, with one small exception. In the off-chance that two teams ranked 9 to 24 make it to the championship game, they both would’ve played their 17th game as the natty. Us and Indiana each played 16; 4 of them being postseason games.
 
cookies said:
I don’t understand how Pate can propose this plan and at the same time be so upset about a 24 team playoff.

In his format, the conference championship games as well as the initial bowl games would operate under a similar mechanism compared to the first round of a 24 team playoff; as the top 8 teams have byes. The first round of a 24 team playoff is 8 games, 16 teams, then that repeats in the second round. Instead of bowl games, these would be home games for the teams seeded 9 to 16.

The only difference is that he has 12 teams playing in 6 “bowl games that count,” and 8 others in the p4 conference championship games. His proposal would force non-p4 teams to abandon their own conference championship games in order to play in a bowl game to qualify for the 16 team playoffs as well; which doesn’t make sense because in years like this past year, there are sometimes multiple non-p4 teams, in varying conferences, competing for a playoff spot.

The proposal just creates a 20 team first round whereby the committee will eliminate the four weakest before the 16 team bracket commences. In his version, the two teams that make the national championship game will always play 17 games no matter what; with 5 of them being postseason games. In the 24 team format, a team that gets the elite 8 first round bye will only have four postseason games if they make it to the natty.

Regardless, then from there he goes into his 16 team playoff model that is straight seeding with no bye. The result of this format is the same amount of games as teams in the 24 team format, with one small exception. In the off-chance that two teams ranked 9 to 24 make it to the championship game, they both would’ve played their 17th game as the natty. Us and Indiana each played 16; 4 of them being postseason games.
Click to expand...
Isn’t part of the 24 team proposal to have play-in games like the NBA. It’s basically a play in game format, besides those bowl game don’t guarantee a spot if you win. It’s just a more complicated massive playoff expansion under the guise of supporting the concept of bowl games/ conference championships.

Just make a 13 weeks regular season 8 conference, 5 nonconf. 11 Power 4 games. No conference titles, 16 team playoff no auto qualifiers.

I like the idea of two back to back on campus games. Rotate the NY6 games bi yearly. The semi finals and finals can be the only neutral site.
 
Highline17 said:
Isn’t part of the 24 team proposal to have play-in games like the NBA. It’s basically a play in game format, besides those bowl game don’t guarantee a spot if you win. It’s just a more complicated massive playoff expansion under the guise of supporting the concept of bowl games/ conference championships.

Just make a 13 weeks regular season 8 conference, 5 nonconf. 11 Power 4 games. No conference titles, 16 team playoff no auto qualifiers.

I like the idea of two back to back on campus games. Rotate the NY6 games bi yearly. The semi finals and finals can be the only neutral site.
Click to expand...
Nah, that’s apart of the 16 team proposal.

NBA has 8 teams, 4 in each conference, participating in play-in games for the bottom 4 playoff spots, 2 in each conference. 12 teams are already playoff secured. Instead the 24 team model has 8 teams w/ byes and 16 competing in the first round—so the main difference is majority of the teams in contention (12/20 aka 2/3rds) don’t participate in playin games.

In the 24 team playoff, the first round has the majority of teams (16/24 aka 2/3rds*). A 24 team playoff keeps the same proportions that are there right now with 12 as 8/12 aka 2/3rds play in the first round while 4 get byes—everything is just doubled.

The 16 proposal has had multiple iterations proposed; two standout. The first is straightforward no byes, 1 vs 16 etc. This is the least favored method of its proponents because said proponents are attempting to keep conference championship games AND expand the playoffs altogether.

The second one would be that the top two teams in the country get a double-bye so to speak. This can work with or without conference championship games; however, again, the SEC + ESPN want to keep conference championship games alive. The playin round would have 16 v 13 and 14 v 15. Then the first round would be: 3 v winner of 13/16, 4 v winner of 14/15, 5v12, 6v11, 7v10, 8v9. 6 teams emerge from this round; the top two teams play the two lowest seeds while the other 4 split up in a pair of games for the quarterfinals.

As Tony Pettiti said, whether ppl want 24 or 16, everyone wants conference championship games to go away. So if that’s the consensus, or even a supermajority of stakeholders; neither format of the 16 team bracket will be able to recoup the losses of no conference championship games.

ESPN only wants to expand to 14 or 16. SEC commissioner Sankey is screwed and scrambling because Sankey told coaches that he would only go to a 9 team conference schedule with an expanded playoff; and he already didn’t get that done for 2026; the first year the SEC plays 9 conference games.

Tony Pettiti of the B1G offered him two years of playing 16 then 3 years of playing 24 — then the contract ends. SEC said no.

Now the B1G has even more leverage because of the SEC’s change in conference scheduling. Pettiti’s new line is that he is done talking about 16. If they cant reach a deal on 24, the plan B is just to stay at 12–which he knows Sankey cannot afford to do after his previous promise to ADs and HCs of the SEC.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
cookies said:
Highline17 said:
Isn’t part of the 24 team proposal to have play-in games like the NBA. It’s basically a play in game format, besides those bowl game don’t guarantee a spot if you win. It’s just a more complicated massive playoff expansion under the guise of supporting the concept of bowl games/ conference championships.

Just make a 13 weeks regular season 8 conference, 5 nonconf. 11 Power 4 games. No conference titles, 16 team playoff no auto qualifiers.

I like the idea of two back to back on campus games. Rotate the NY6 games bi yearly. The semi finals and finals can be the only neutral site.
Click to expand...
Nah, that’s apart of the 16 team proposal.

NBA has 8 teams, 4 in each conference, participating in play-in games for the bottom 4 playoff spots, 2 in each conference. 12 teams are already playoff secured. Instead the 24 team model has 8 teams w/ byes and 16 competing in the first round—so the main difference is majority of the teams in contention (12/20 aka 2/3rds) don’t participate in playin games. In the 24 team playoff, the first round has the majority of teams (16/24 aka 3/4ths).

The 16 proposal has had multiple iterations proposed; two standout. The first is straightforward no byes, 1 vs 16 etc. This is the least favored method of its proponents because said proponents are attempting to keep conference championship games AND expand the playoffs altogether.

The second one would be that the top two teams in the country get a double-bye so to speak. This can work with or without conference championship games; however, again, the SEC + ESPN want to keep conference championship games alive. The playin round would have 16 v 13 and 14 v 15. Then the first round would be: 3 v winner of 13/16, 4 v winner of 14/15, 5v12, 6v11, 7v10, 8v9. 6 teams emerge from this round; the top two teams play the two lowest seeds while the other 4 split up in a pair of games for the quarterfinals.

As Tony Pettiti said, whether ppl want 24 or 16, everyone wants conference championship games to go away. So if that’s the consensus, or even a supermajority of stakeholders; neither format of the 16 team bracket will be able to recoup the losses of no conference championship games.

ESPN only wants to expand to 14 or 16. SEC commissioner Sankey is screwed and scrambling because Sankey told coaches that he would only go to a 9 team conference schedule with an expanded playoff; and he already didn’t get that done for 2026; the first year the SEC plays 9 conference games.

Tony Pettiti of the B1G offered him two years of playing 16 then 3 years of playing 24 — then the contract ends. SEC said no.

Now the B1G has even more leverage because of the SEC’s change in conference scheduling. Pettiti’s new line is that he is done talking about 16. If they cant reach a deal on 24, the plan B is just to stay at 12–which he knows Sankey cannot afford to do after his previous promise to ADs and HCs of the SEC.
Click to expand...
Very informative. I wonder if the numbers would be closer with a 16 straight bracket and an additional reg season. I want a streamlined process with less dead weeks like we have during Byes and conference championships (which I dislike in the first place).

I will say I didn’t know conference championships were so profitable, that they are significantly larger than playoff games.
 
Highline17 said:
Very informative. I wonder if the numbers would be closer with a 16 straight bracket and an additional reg season. I want a streamlined process with less dead weeks like we have during Byes and conference championships (which I dislike in the first place).

I will say I didn’t know conference championships were so profitable, that they are significantly larger than playoff games.
Click to expand...
I agree on needing less dead time and killin off conference championship games as well. Haven’t seen a proposal on a 13th regular season game yet.

Without conference championship games, Petitti said the Power 4 conferences would lose collectively more than $200 million of championship game revenue.

"I just don't think it works economically," he said. "I don't think it works schedulingwise as well. I think it doesn't create enough new inventory. And then the last piece, I don't think it gets enough access."
Click to expand...

I think there is money being left on the table by a lack of cross conference p4 games throughout the season. Im a proponent of making all the p4 add a second OOC p4 game as the majority just has one although some have two. ****, others like IU last year had zero. But teams don’t want to go to a more difficult model if they perceive an insufficient room for error.

Much more profitable for the SEC than everybody else; and I’d figure that’s partially because there are oftentimes rivalries in those games or playoff implications; but i think it’s largely just reflective of the SEC putting up larger tv numbers than everybody in the regular season already.
 
cookies said:
Highline17 said:
Very informative. I wonder if the numbers would be closer with a 16 straight bracket and an additional reg season. I want a streamlined process with less dead weeks like we have during Byes and conference championships (which I dislike in the first place).

I will say I didn’t know conference championships were so profitable, that they are significantly larger than playoff games.
Click to expand...
I agree on needing less dead time and killin off conference championship games as well. Haven’t seen a proposal on a 13th regular season game yet.

Without conference championship games, Petitti said the Power 4 conferences would lose collectively more than $200 million of championship game revenue.

"I just don't think it works economically," he said. "I don't think it works schedulingwise as well. I think it doesn't create enough new inventory. And then the last piece, I don't think it gets enough access."
Click to expand...

I think there is money being left on the table by a lack of cross conference p4 games throughout the season. Im a proponent of making all the p4 add a second OOC p4 game as the majority just has one although some have two. ****, others like IU last year had zero. But teams don’t want to go to a more difficult model if they perceive an insufficient room for error.

Much more profitable for the SEC than everybody else; and I’d figure that’s partially because there are oftentimes rivalries in those games or playoff implications; but i think it’s largely just reflective of the SEC putting up larger tv numbers than everybody in the regular season already.
Click to expand...
The goal should always be more P4 OOC. They are the best games of the year imo.
 
Back
Top