Latest news with #SandestinHilton
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Future College Football Playoff formats: Here's what you need to know about what's on the table
MIRAMAR BEACH, Fla. — Inside one of the Sandestin Hilton's many meeting rooms, some of the most highly paid and recognizable college football coaches, sitting alongside their athletic directors, tossed a proverbial wrench into playoff format discussions this week. A majority of the SEC's coaches did not support the multiple automatic-qualifier playoff structure that had gained momentum with a large group of their administrators. Advertisement A ninth league conference game? No thanks, plenty of coaches said. A season-ending, inner-conference play-in game? No way, some of them told ADs. The 16 coaches weren't completely aligned against the concepts, but the room wasn't split either: They preferred a format that is similar to the current 12-team bracket — a 5+11 model with five automatic qualifiers for conference champions and 11 at-large bids instead of the so-called '4-4-2-2-1' model that grants twice as many qualifiers to the Big Ten and SEC (four each) than to the ACC and Big 12 (two each). The stance from SEC coaches — and the pushback from the public, other conferences and even television partner ESPN on the 4-4-2-2-1 format — has, perhaps, altered the conversation around the future of football's postseason as the three-day SEC spring meetings ended Thursday. Advertisement So, what now? During his final news conference from here, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey declined to reveal his league's preference in a model, only saying the conference is 'interested' in certain formats and that he would discuss those in his next meeting with his fellow FBS commissioners. But it is clear, more than ever, just how seriously the SEC is considering the 5+11 model. Take Thursday's news conference, for example. While Sankey spoke, SEC officials distributed to media members a seven-page packet of data highlighting the conference's strength of schedule — part of Sankey's weeklong agenda to lay groundwork for a change to the CFP selection committee's criteria. He and his league administrators and coaches want more value placed upon the strength-of-schedule metric. In flipping through the packet, Sankey identified certain data points and described his conference as 'not like any other.' His regular season schedule is 'unique' and 'stands alone,' he said. Advertisement Such an intense argument from the commissioner speaks to the serious nature of the SEC's consideration for the coach's preference, the 5+11 format, instead of a model — 4-4-2-2-1 — that would significantly limit the selection committee's role. What will the College Football Playoff look like in the future? (Amy Monks/Yahoo Sports) The debate now rages onward as conference commissioners will soon schedule a meeting to further discuss playoff options. They have before them one of the most significant and landscape-altering decisions in college athletics history. And the proverbial CFP ball seems as if it is firmly planted in the SEC's court. The league's decision on the two most-discussed 16-team formats is expected to tip the scales — perhaps the final vote needed for either format. Advertisement Which will it be? The Big Ten-backed '4-4-2-2-1' model or the Big 12 and ACC-backed '5+11' format that may put at odds college football's two goliaths and the controllers of the format itself: the Big Ten and SEC. Such an intense argument from the commissioner speaks to the serious nature of the SEC's consideration for the coach's preference, the 5+11 format, instead of a model — 4-4-2-2-1 that would significantly limit the selection committee's role. Let's dive in. The 4-4-2-2-1: more money and guaranteed access In this revenue-generating model, SEC and Big Ten officials have discussed holding season-ending play-in style games pitting their third, fourth, fifth and sixth-place finishers against one another, with the winners gaining the league's final two playoff spots. Also, in this format, the SEC would likely move to a nine-game conference schedule. Advertisement Both of these concepts generate more revenue at a time when schools are at their height of financial stress. How much revenue? That remains uncertain, but ESPN is gearing up to finalize an offer with the SEC of as much $5 million per school annually in additional revenue for the SEC's ninth conference game. Two additional play-in games per year could fetch millions more. Along with the extra cash, there is the guarantee of always having four participants and, in some years, a fifth with at-large bids. The argument from coaches is quite simple against this model: too many games. Teams participating in play-in games, then playing in the first round of the CFP and advancing to the national championship game will have played 18 games. Advertisement Their other issues with this format? Well, it could cause the complete implosion of the CFP as an entity. The Big 12, ACC, Notre Dame and several Group of Six conferences are strongly fighting against the format — publicly, privately and politically, too. The battle has turned feisty on the public scene and could result in legal action over a memorandum of understanding signed last year that grants authority over future format to the Big Ten and SEC. Big 12 and ACC officials don't seem to be backing down. Would the Big Ten and SEC really leave the CFP to start their own playoff with just the two of them? It's not so foreign of a concept as it sounds. Last spring, leaders of the Big Ten and SEC threatened to leave the CFP if not granted both significant revenue in a new distribution model (the leagues will now get 58% of the revenue) and authority over any future format. Some SEC administrators here have wondered aloud this week if an SEC and Big Ten-only playoff is the right path. 'There would be no argument that the winner is the national champion, right?' asked one high-level SEC school official. Advertisement But such a move may be viewed as political suicide for two conferences that are fighting for congressional assistance. After all, more than half U.S. states don't have an SEC or Big Ten school in their boundaries. How would their U.S. senators and congressmen react to the implosion of the industry? Perhaps that's why the SEC and Big Ten have not yet decided on a format, Florida athletic director Scott Stricklin said earlier this week. 'That's why we haven't moved forward,' he told reporters on Tuesday. 'We're trying to navigate all that. That's where Greg Sankey is so good. He's got a great way of navigating and bringing people along together. We're trying to find solutions to legitimate questions and the solutions are not easy. Something has got to give somewhere.' The 5+11: perhaps more teams and new criteria Data shared with SEC presidents, athletic directors and coaches this week showed that, in a 5+11 model, the league may actually have a chance at more playoff participants compared to a 4-4-2-2-1 format. Advertisement 'Take the top 12-14-16 teams,' LSU coach Brian Kelly says. 'That's my personal opinion. We'd much rather have a situation where more of our teams could get in than limiting it with AQs.' It's true. Since the 2014 playoff, the Big Ten led all conferences with 59 total teams ranked inside the top 16 of the CFP's rankings heading into conference championship weekend, or about 5.3 teams a year. The SEC has had 55 teams (5.0 a year), followed by the Big 12 (2.4) and the ACC (2.1). But the data should be taken with a grain of salt. It considers conference-realignment shifts (ie: Oklahoma is counted toward the SEC figures, USC for the Big Ten, Stanford for the ACC, Utah for the Big 12, etc.). And it also doesn't consider the ACC and SEC potentially playing a ninth conference game. They currently each play eight while the Big 12 and Big Ten play nine. Perhaps most important, a move to a 5+11 format will necessitate a change to the selection committee's criteria, according to SEC administrators and coaches. Advertisement Such a model relies heavily on a committee that many SEC leaders publicly attacked this week. At times, it seemed like a choreographed assault on the athletic administrators, former coaches and others on the 13-member committee that selects and seeds the teams. 'A committee is not ideal to choose a postseason,' Stricklin said. 'I question whether it is appropriate for college football.' 'The selection committee's role is not to send messages, but the outcome of their decisions do,' Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione said. Kelly even suggested a move toward more data-driven method to choosing and seeding teams such as the BCS. Advertisement 'We got away from the old model with the computer and now we've got it totally subjective,' he told Yahoo Sports. 'Can we find a way to bring it more to the middle with a little more information on strength of schedule, quality of opponents, things of that nature?' Much of the discussion on CFP format this week here centered on the committee's insistence on relying too much on the loss column, SEC coaches and administrators say. 'Does strength of schedule matter or not?' asked South Carolina coach Shane Beamer. 'If strength of schedule doesn't matter, the only number they're going to be really looking at is on the right side of the column — how many loses do you have?' The College Football Playoff is in the midst of examining its selection committee criteria with a goal of revamping the process in a move, very likely, to appease the SEC's wishes. Advertisement But the Big Ten is another matter. The SEC's consideration for 5+11 has elicited surprise from the Big Ten group. In fact, Big Ten athletic directors, in a call Wednesday, discussed the 5+11 format, and many of them do not support such a format if the SEC remains at eight conference games. The Big Ten plays nine conference games, something viewed as a disadvantage as half of the league will be saddled with an extra loss while attempting to jockey for 11 at-large spots. Would it be possible for the SEC to move to nine conference games in a 5+11 format? That seems doubtful without an overhaul of the committee's criteria. 'If we're not confident that the decision-making about who gets in and why, and the metrics around it, it's going to be hard for my colleagues to get to nine games,' Texas A&M athletic director Trev Albert says. Advertisement What now? Timing is a problem, even Sankey acknowledges that. The SEC must determine its 2026 conference schedule — eight games or nine — by the end of the summer, at the latest. Sankey said Wednesday that he doesn't anticipate that a future CFP format will be determined by that time, suggesting that both (1) playoff negotiations will extend into the fall and (2) the SEC may play eight league games in 2026. 'The pressure point for us is we're going to have to make a decision for our 2026 schedule in a timeframe shorter than the deadline for CFP decisions,' said Sankey, referencing the CFP deadline of Dec. 1 to determine a 2026 playoff format. 'I'm not sure we can work through obligations in (that timeframe).' Advertisement But why exactly? Every other league has voiced its preference for a particular format. The SEC's decision tips the scales. What's the holdup? Questioned about that, Sankey cited the memorandum of understanding granting authority to the Big Ten and SEC over future format as long as they hold 'meaningful consultation' with the other conferences. 'We have certain responsibilities in that memo,' he said. And, so, the CFP format discussions march onward with another twist in tow: a tune-change in the SEC that could very well put it at odds with the Big Ten.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Will NIL deals be better regulated in the future? 'At the end of the day, we're all looking for a competitive advantage'
MIRAMAR BEACH, Fla. — Along a carpeted hallway within the Sandestin Hilton, Brian Kelly is mid-conversation when a man interjects. 'Hey,' the man said toward the LSU football coach, 'you asked great questions today during our presentation!' The man continued onward, leading a team of about a half-dozen people through the lobby of this place. They are members of the Deloitte leadership and implementation team operating college sports' new NIL clearinghouse dubbed 'NIL Go.' Presenting in front of SEC coaches here on Tuesday — a question-and-answer session too — Deloitte representatives walked them through the intricacies and concepts of the much-ballyhooed clearinghouse, the industry's new, somewhat controversial method to prohibit booster payments to athletes. While the presentation garnered rave reviews, uncertainty and doubt still lingers from coaches and others on the clearinghouse's legal sustainability and enforcement method. There's so much uncertainty, says Georgia coach Kirby Smart, that some schools are promising high school recruits and transferring players third-party NIL deals as part of their compensation package despite an important fact: None of those deals can be approved by a clearinghouse that hasn't fully launched. But more concerning, says Smart, is that some school-affiliated, booster collectives are currently compensating high school players — upwards of $20,000 a month — to remain committed and eventually sign with their school. 'Teams that are unusually good at recruiting right now are doing it. Kids are getting money, but if you decommit, you owe that money back,' Smart said. 'These are high school kids getting money from an entity not affiliated with the university but is a collective of the university.' Pressed to identify the schools, Smart said none of them are in the SEC, but the schools 'are signing kids [to contracts] right now and paying upfront through an outside collective.' It is the latest maneuver from athletic departments to take advantage of this murky, unregulated space as college sports transitions the way in which it compensates athletes — from booster-backed collectives to direct school revenue sharing, a move scheduled to be finalized July 1 if the House settlement is approved. In the meantime, it is a free-for-all. But not for long, says Kelly. Three days after the settlement is approved — if it is approved — the 'NIL Go' clearinghouse is expected to begin processing athlete NIL contracts. Athletes must submit to the clearinghouse all deals valued at more than $600. Deloitte is using a fair market value algorithm to create a 'compensation range' for NIL deals to assure they are not the fabricated contracts that boosters have struck with athletes for years. Smart expects a 'mass run' on submissions to the clearinghouse from schools attempting to test the entity to determine just 'how much can I get outside the cap,' he said. 'Every team is going to put pressure on Deloitte to say, 'I need to know! I'm promising this money outside of the cap!'' Smart told Yahoo Sports. It could get tricky. The officials from the Deloitte-run clearinghouse 'NIL Go' — the centerpiece of the new enforcement entity, dubbed the 'College Sports Commission' — is sharing data with coaches and athletic directors, including that 70% of past deals from booster collectives would have been denied. Deloitte also shared that about 80% of NIL deals with public companies were valued at less than $10,000 and 99% of those deals were valued at less than $100,000 — figures that suggest the clearinghouse threatens to significantly curtail the millions of dollars that collectives are distributing to athletes. 'If you got some mucky deals going on right now, you'd better be careful,' warned Kelly. 'These deals have got to be for a valid business purpose. A lot of [previous] deals would have never gotten through.' Even some of those currently being promised to recruits are at risk of rejection by the clearinghouse, coaches and administrators tell Yahoo Sports. For example, schools are guaranteeing to recruits that a portion of their compensation will be derived from third-party deals. An example of this might be a school guaranteeing a player an entire compensation package of $500,000: $300,000 from the school in revenue share plus $200,000 more in third-party endorsement deals that would, presumably, not count against a school's revenue-share cap. What if these third-party deals don't get approved? 'That's a risk,' Smart told Yahoo Sports. 'Schools are going to either default on a contract, or have lied, or have been right and they gain a player for it.' Such a contract is actually prohibited by new rules. Administrators learned of that during a call with House implementation committee members earlier this spring. No third-party NIL deals — including those from multi-media rights companies, apparel brands and corporate sponsors — can be guaranteed to athletes as part of their revenue-sharing contracts from schools. However, uncertainty still lingers about all of this. Many legal experts believe that the clearinghouse concept will trigger a bevy of legal challenges, but Texas A&M athletic director Trev Alberts believes in the new entity. He is one of 10 administrators from the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, SEC and Pac-12 on the implementation committee. 'The reality is not a lot of people understand it or know about it, which leaves them to [say], 'It won't work!' 'It won't be fair!' 'They don't know what they're doing!'' Alberts said from meetings on Tuesday. 'The system has to be given a chance.' For now, the system cannot formally launch until a decision from a California judge is made over the House settlement. A decision to approve or deny the settlement has, for nearly two weeks, been in the hands of Judge Claudia Wilken. She's on her own timeline. Meanwhile, Alberts acknowledges the jockeying from schools in an attempt to exceed the cap with third-party contracts. 'Everybody is trying to figure out fair market value NIL,' he said. 'At the end of the day, we're all looking for a competitive advantage. What is real is you have rev-share amount and scholarship amount, but what is undefined is how much fair market value deals can you get through NIL Go. 'The institutions most successful in getting that done, if you can organically grow your cap by $3-5 million per institution, you have more resources as others.' An affiliation agreement being circulated throughout the power conferences requires schools to abide by the new enforcement rules, even if their state law contradicts them, and waives their right to sue over enforcement decisions. The agreement aims to, above all, protect the clearinghouse's decisions, exempting it from lawsuits from schools and preventing those schools from circumventing the settlement's compensation cap through affiliated entities such as collectives. Alberts calls the agreement 'critically important.' 'We are all defendant schools and conferences and you inherently agree to this,' he said. 'I sat in the room with all of our football coaches, 'Do you want to be governed?' The answer is yes.'
