Official 2025 CFPO Change Has Happened

Advertisement
Incredibly ignorant statement from Phillips. That he still has a job is beyond me. It’s almost as though he is employed by the Big Ten and SEC to run a lesser conference. It’s like being a manager of a minor league team and having decisions dictated by the major league team.
Seems like he's openly admitting that he breached his fiduciary duty to the conference and its members.
 
It is [essentially ACCCG] Miami's ONLY path to CFPO.
Ok @Alex_Dynamix and @Ispyin ...

Lay out your scenario(s) for how my thesis is inaccurate.

z8AJNUSLDgNvG.gif
 
College basketball conference winners are not automatically granted the top seeds. The worst 2 actually have to play-in for the 16 seed. Wining your division in NBA no longer gets you anything.
I can agree with that, but in football it usually means you’re going to the finals. In college it should at least get a bye.
 
Ok @Alex_Dynamix and @Ispyin ...

Lay out your scenario(s) for how my thesis is inaccurate.

View attachment 326121
As I understand it, the 5 conference champs are still guaranteed a spot but the favorable seeding and bye for the 4 highest ranked champs goes away.

So basically if you apply the current rules to last year's CFP, the matchups would have been different, but the teams would have been the same (see https://www.espn.com/college-footba...-football-playoff-seeding-change-2024-bracket). So the ACC theoretically would have still had 2 teams in if the new rules were in place last year. That remains possible.

If UM plays Clemson in the ACCCG, both teams come in top 10ish with 1 loss or fewer, and the game is competitive, I would guess there is a good shot at both getting in.

But I definitely agree with your sentiment - the only guarantee of getting in is to win the ACCCG. You cannot leave it in the hands of the CFP committee, especially with the perception among some that it "screwed" an SEC team last year.
 
As I understand it, the 5 conference champs are still guaranteed a spot but the favorable seeding and bye for the 4 highest ranked champs goes away.

So basically if you apply the current rules to last year's CFP, the matchups would have been different, but the teams would have been the same (see https://www.espn.com/college-footba...-football-playoff-seeding-change-2024-bracket). So the ACC theoretically would have still had 2 teams in if the new rules were in place last year. That remains possible.

If UM plays Clemson in the ACCCG, both teams come in top 10ish with 1 loss or fewer, and the game is competitive, I would guess there is a good shot at both getting in.

But I definitely agree with your sentiment - the only guarantee of getting in is to win the ACCCG. You cannot leave it in the hands of the CFP committee, especially with the perception among some that it "screwed" an SEC team last year.
The Committee now has even broader re-ranking authority.

Re-run last year and I don't believe SMU gets in, but Ol' Miss does.

145hX7QVWqyili.gif
 
Advertisement
I think that $8M goes to the conference so doesn't matter who wins it. Although with new ACC rev share I assume we'd get a slightly larger piece of the $8M if we won.
Phillips agreed to give back all ACC playoff money to SEC and B1G while those Commish run a train on his wife.

 
The Committee now has even broader re-ranking authority.

Re-run last year and I don't believe SMU gets in, but Ol' Miss does.

View attachment 326133
What do you mean by broader re-ranking authority? The committee ranked SMU #10 and put Ole Miss behind both Alabama and Miami. As far as I know there was no formulaic basis for the committee's CFP rankings that no longer exists. Unless I am wrong about that, I think SMU sucking against PSU is more problematic than the seeding change. Again, I generally agree with you that the safest assumption is that only the ACCCG is safely in.
 
What do you mean by broader re-ranking authority? The committee ranked SMU #10 and put Ole Miss behind both Alabama and Miami. As far as I know there was no formulaic basis for the committee's CFP rankings that no longer exists. Unless I am wrong about that, I think SMU sucking against PSU is more problematic than the seeding change. Again, I generally agree with you that the safest assumption is that only the ACCCG is safely in.
I believe by relieving the Committee of the constraint of locking in the conference champions in seeds 1-4, they are now "free" to have broader discretion top to bottom of who gets in and who is pushed out.

When a drill was run racking and stacking Arizona and Boise under the new system, I think their fall to the bottom of the seeds makes it very difficult to include an SMU or BigXII runner-up over an Ole Miss [insert B1G darling too] from last year.

#WatchTheFinish
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
At this point, the SEC and BIG10 are completely content with playing against themselves. Everyone wants into the conference to get a big piece of $.

The leaders of ACC, BIG12, and everyone else need to replicate what they are doing. Be leaders and promote your own brand. Make their own super conference.

Have more conference games and less cupcake teams. Nobody wants to watch big schools against smaller schools unless it’s my Georgia Southern Eagles beating down the Gators.
 
Back
Top