Latest news with #Groupof5
Fox Sports
6 days ago
- Business
- Fox Sports
Why the 5+11 CFP format fails to meet objectives fans should want
I'm starting to feel very pessimistic about what some of the leaders in college football want to do with the sport. My optimism surrounding the future of college football is waning because I'm not sensing from some of these groups that they understand what's going on, and they're not considering you — the fans. In case you missed it, the discussion surrounding the College Football Playoff expansion took another turn this week. There was some momentum behind the push for a 16-team CFP with a format that features the five-highest-ranked conference champions getting an automatic bid, while the 11 remaining spots would be at-large bids (5+11 model). Last week, I shared my thoughts on which direction the CFP should go with expansion. While I'd prefer a 14-team CFP over a 16-team one, it seems evident that it will be expanded to 16 teams. In that scenario, I'd like to see a format with the Big Ten and SEC each getting four automatic qualifying spots, the ACC and Big 12 both getting two automatic qualifying spots, an automatic bid for the highest-ranked Group of 5 champion and three at-large bids/Notre Dame. However, the recent push for the 5+11 model picked up steam at the Big 12 and SEC conference meetings last week. Frankly, it's awful for college football on so many different levels. I have a ton of respect for Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, and I think he's a smart guy, but I also disagreed with him when he co-signed the 5+11 model while speaking with reporters last week. "In talking to our [athletic directors] and coaches … the 5+11 model might not be ideal for the conference, but it's good for college football and it's what's fair," Yormark said. "We don't want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field. That was the direction of the key stakeholder group, the ADs and the coaches, and I feel very comfortable with that. I feel the same way, and I've been very outspoken about it." That doesn't make sense, quite frankly. How can you earn it on the field when the CFP committee determines nearly the entire field? The 5+11 certainly hurts the Big 12, which would in turn hurt the sport because we need more conferences to be relevant. If we opt to go with the 5+11 model, we'd get four things: One, the entire sport is going to be determined in the boardroom and be committee-driven (which fans want that?); Two, we're going to lose valuable non-conference games; Three, you'd lose out on the possibility of having a conference championship play-in weekend (more on that here); Four, you'd have a massive amount of politicking and propaganda being pushed. (In fact, that final point was already being put into practice by the SEC at its conference meetings in Florida this past week, as it distributed an analytics packet that touted how tough the regular-season conference schedule is at its conference meetings.) Is this what we're going to be as a sport going forward? We should take the sport out of the boardroom and define the criteria a little more clearly on what it should take to make the CFP. The 5+11 model fails on every single level to drive the sport forward. Here are the six objectives I think must be considered when the CFP determines what format and model to use for expansion. 1. Increase fan base engagement As I've mentioned with some of the previous models they've thrown out with the 16-team CFP, you'd increase fan base engagement by increasing the probability that your team is playing meaningful games late in the season. In the 5+11 model, we're going to have rankings every week, so we're going to minimize the number of teams that feel like they have a relevant and defined path toward getting in. That would be particularly true if you play in the "wrong conference" where your team can only lose once, while it's OK for teams from other conferences to lose four games. 2. Increase meaningful games If we had a play-in weekend within conferences, each of the power conferences could have multiple games with a CFP spot on the line on the same weekend. If we went with the 5+11 model, we'd miss out on the idea of the third-place and sixth-place teams or the fourth-place and fifth-place teams in the Big Ten or SEC battling for one of the conference's automatic qualifying spots because of the 11 at-large bids. 3. Increase valuable non-conference games If this sport is solely determined in a boardroom and the committee decides who gets into the CFP, we're going to have what's happened already: athletic directors and teams getting rid of valuable non-conference games. Tennessee and Nebraska just called off their series because of this. The future of USC and Notre Dame's rivalry is also in question because of this. When there's a committee involved, the idea is to have as many wins as possible. The best way to get as many wins as possible is to have as easy of a schedule as possible. The committee has never really shown a willingness to honor teams for challenging themselves in non-conference play. The 5+11 model would fail to protect teams from challenging themselves in the non-conference slate. 4. Minimize or eliminate the committee Nobody wants all this committee-driven drama late in the year, with teams politicking and sending out analytics packets to prove their case. When nearly three-quarters of the field is made up of at-large bids, you're only going to see more of that. Having as many automatic qualifiers as possible would tone down the committee's influence beyond seeding. 5. Define a clear path In the other 16-team models, there's a clear path for teams to reach the CFP. They know they either need to win their conference championship game, finish within a certain spot in the standings or win one of the conference championship weekend play-in games. With the 5+11 model, the only clear path to making the CFP is to be one of the five highest-ranked conference champions. If you're not one of those five teams, you're hoping the committee likes your résumé. 6. Keep more conferences relevant This is vital for the health of the sport. It's important that the ACC and Big 12 remain relevant. Yet, if you go with the 5+11 model, the Big Ten and SEC will get more participants into the CFP. That means those conferences will continue to generate more revenue and power, further creating a fork in the road between those conferences and the rest. Simply put, the 5+11 model fails every objective, and it falls short of the other models. Far be it from me to disagree with smart people, but I don't see how the 5+11 model is "good for college football" and "fair." If I were Yormark or ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, I'd take a 14-team format that guaranteed my conference two spots right now. If the Big Ten and SEC really press those two conferences to accept a 16-team format, the ACC and Big 12 should ask for five guaranteed spots between the two conferences. Ultimately, I want the sport to be better for you, the fans. If the CFP expansion meets these objectives, it would do that. I'm concerned, though, about the recent push for the 5+11 model, which certainly wouldn't. Joel Klatt is FOX Sports' lead college football game analyst and the host of the podcast " The Joel Klatt Show. " Follow him at @joelklatt and subscribe to the "Joel Klatt Show" on YouTube . Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily. recommended Get more from College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more
New York Times
20-03-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
Jackie Robinson the college football star, plus 2025 transfer portal winners
Until Saturday Newsletter 🏈 | This is The Athletic's college football newsletter. Sign up here to receive Until Saturday directly in your inbox. Today in college football news, you are watching basketball right now. For daily tourney updates, subscribe to The Pulse, our all-sports newsletter. (In fact, this weekend, I'm gonna write a little Madness in our first-ever Saturday edition. You're the first people to hear about The Pulse expanding to seven days a week. Breaking media news! Did you know Jackie Robinson was a four-sport standout in college? That's multiple Travis Hunters at once, I think. Check my math. Even if you knew this, it's always worth remembering anew, because every time, it sounds too amazing to be true. So many basic Robinson facts function as an escalating series of 'not only did he do X, but also he did Y' statements. In both athletic merit and contributions to society, no American sports figure will ever surpass Jackie Robinson. If he isn't worthy of honor, then nobody is worthy. On that note, here is some news: 'On Wednesday morning, a (Department of Defense) link that guided users to a 2021 article titled, 'Sports Heroes Who Served: Baseball Great Jackie Robinson Was WWII Soldier,' showed a 404 error page with 'dei' included in the URL.' After public outrage, that link has been restored, minus 'DEI,' a term that has been altered into shorthand for complaining about achievements by women and people of color. At this time, the Defense Department has responded to questions by sounding like 'King of the Hill's' Dale Gribble, but has not explained the process that briefly branded the unbelievably overqualified Robinson as unqualified in the first place. With a bit of transfer activity left to go in April, we pretty much already know which schools gained the most from it this time around. Manny Navarro recently named LSU, Miami, Oregon, Texas Tech and Southern Miss as this cycle's biggest winners (in a list that also included the biggest losers). And this week, Manny looked at the same question from a more numerical POV, after 2,328 FBS players left their previous schools: Plenty more to dive into here, including details on how badly Group of 5 teams got raided this time and which new coaches brought along the most of their previous employer's players. Washington State Jackrabbits! We finally got a 16-seed beating a 1-seed in March Madness. If the Playoff goes to 16, how long will it take to get a 16 over 1? — Reggie C., San Diego The only way I could see that happening is an even more extreme example of 2024 Ohio State. Imagine if the Buckeyes had sustained a third loss in the regular season, snuck in at 9-3 with the last at-large spot but behind all of the five highest-ranked champs, then caught fire exactly the way they did last year. In that scenario, certainly, No. 16 could beat No. 1. But my guess is that spot would go more often than not to an ACC, Big 12 or Group of 5* champion. * I have seen people start to use the phrase 'Group of 6,' presumably encompassing the reconstituted Pac-12. Personally, I'm considering retiring the phrase altogether. Its intended meaning in the old system was to refer to the five conferences that did not have a contracted berth in one of the New Year's Six bowls. Obviously, that's irrelevant now. Any team from any conference can earn an automatic CFP berth, whatever its label. So shouldn't we just retire the label? More Stewart Mandel mailbag here. Untimely thought, spinning off of Stewart's last point: The Group of Whatever is not actually a group. Those conferences do not have their own postseason or share any broadcast deals, they poach each others' schools all the time and the only thing they have in common is that they are not in the Power Whatever. For years, I've thought the conferences outside the Power Whatever should refer to their football versions with the same term everyone uses for those leagues in other sports: mid-majors. The same goes for FCS. 'Football Championship Subdivision' was adopted in 2006 (as distinct from 'Football Bowl Subdivision') because the old name, Division I-AA, arguably made that level sound insignificant. But in hindsight, I-AA was the more prestigious name — because it left no doubt that those teams are part of Division I. Now that we call it FCS, casual fans share misstatements like, 'Carson Wentz played for a DII team called North Dakota State,' and, 'Did you hear a Big Ten team just lost to a non-DI team?' Advertisement Actually, nevermind. I take all this back. Group of Whatever, start calling yourselves The Absolute Highest Of All Possible Majors. What are they gonna do about it, refuse to let you play in the Rose Bowl? That's it for this week. Thank you for reading. If you have thoughts on any of this, let me hear them at untilsaturday@ Last week's most-clicked: The QB situations at each Power 4 school. 📫 Love Until Saturday? Check out The Athletic's other newsletters. And if you have thoughts on any of this, I will see them at untilsaturday@
