Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I could see them also refusing to sign bowl agreements or OOC games against SEC teams

I think the B1G/ACC/PAC scheduling alliance is somewhat of a way to freeze the SEC out of OOC scheduling. If all three leagues drop to 8 games, and set up two OOC games annually with the other two conferences, there won't be a lot of room to fit the SEC in. 

I saw something a few days ago about the PAC head guy (maybe?) saying they'd be willing to drop to 8 games and create annual scheduling with the other conferences. 

I'm not sure they'd try to freeze the SEC out of bowl scheduling though... I don't think they could pull that off, especially with some of the serious history of those games.

Again, the optics of trying to freeze them out of bowl games are a lot worse than setting up a scheduling alliance and just "oh, we don't have enough time in the schedule for you, 'Bama..." 

But there's no way that the other leagues will break off in an attempt to duck the SEC. The optics of that move are terrible. 

I don't think it is much about an admission of weakness as opposed to negotiating the ongoing playoff format. I believe the SEC is pushing hard for more teams but keeping the same basic system, i.e., a committee which just ranks the best teams. The other leagues want autobids and guaranteed inclusion. 

I don't think it is much about an admission of weakness as opposed to negotiating the ongoing playoff format. I believe the SEC is pushing hard for more teams but keeping the same basic system, i.e., a committee which just ranks the best teams. The other leagues want autobids and guaranteed inclusion.

Well that's a big difference compared to breaking off to form their own playoff system not including the SEC...

And threatening to break off and form their own playoff/championship is an empty threat and the SEC will laugh in their faces. "Oh, you want to create your own playoff because you're not consistently good enough to make it into the one with the best teams? That seems like a wonderful idea, bless your heart."

Truth is that if the playoff expands, the SEC will NOT be able to stop auto-bids. But they know in a 6+2 they can have three teams in an 8-team playoff, something they're not going to get in a 4-team playoff. If the playoff goes to 12 teams, it's quite possible the SEC can get 4 teams in. I don't see them fighting auto-bids as long as it gives them their ability to continue getting multiple teams in. 

If the other conferences can get a 6+2 system, then they don't have a leg to stand on limiting how many at-large come from any individual conference, because they got what they want--a seat at the table. 

Literally there is NO reason that any of the other conferences would float the idea that they're going to create a non-SEC championship. Which is why it's just some rumor on Fox Sports that has no credence. 

I saw something a few days ago about the PAC head guy (maybe?) saying they'd be willing to drop to 8 games and create annual scheduling with the other conferences.

As I said before, I'd love this.  I think it would be beneficial for all of us.  I'm trying to think through the implications for basically all teams so input from you and others but particularly fans of teams other than mine is encouraged.  

I'm thinking that the new schedule for all B1G teams would be:

• Four Conference Home Games
• Four Conference Away Games
• One ACC/B12/PAC Home Game
• One ACC/B12/PAC Away Game
• Two TBD (probably at least one MAC type home game, not sure about the other).  

Then I'm thinking that the match-ups for the scheduling alliance games would be either based on preseason expectation or perhaps one of the games would be later in the year and based on mid-season (ish) performance.  That way those two should always be "reasonably" competitive games.  Ie, if Ohio State is a NC contender, they'd get high-end ACC/B12/PAC opponents.  In years when Ohio State is more mediocre they'd get more mediocre opponents.  If Purdue is having a good year they'd get good ACC/B12/PAC opponents.  If they are struggling for bowl eligibility they'd get similarly situated ACC/B12/PAC opponents.  

Lulz.  Defensive much?

We recruit the same players, and they talk.  Everyone knows what's what.

Well if they're going after the same players that may work out for you 😁

Pretty good article here from Wetzel.  I think this is where we are all at.  I can't blame the SEC at all, but if you love all that is college football, it's also a problem

https://sports.yahoo.com/se-cs-chokehold-on-football-will-tighten-if-rose-bowl-sunsets-and-other-trivialities-are-prioritized-over-cfp-expansion-001608263.html

I like the last line

These are perilous times for those who want a true national sport, where a measure of parity exists. For many, it’s the diversity of the sport that makes it so fun, so rich, so worth the time. College football is a game, but it’s also life to millions. The idea of 60-plus kickoffs each Saturday, or traditions even at losing programs. Of MACtion and Blue Turf and Paul Bunyan’s Axe and a buffalo rumbling pregame across a field in Boulder.

Give more teams a chance to compete for a title, give more recruits more options to play in big playoff games and even contend for national championships, make more conference races and more postseason contests matter.

Or watch the sport wither over obstinance, tribalism and mismanagement.

It’s not just SEC v. SEC that is overwhelming college football now, and even more so in the future.

It’s the Alliance v. Common Sense.

Pretty good article here from Wetzel.  I think this is where we are all at.  I can't blame the SEC at all, but if you love all that is college football, it's also a problem

https://sports.yahoo.com/se-cs-chokehold-on-football-will-tighten-if-rose-bowl-sunsets-and-other-trivialities-are-prioritized-over-cfp-expansion-001608263.html

I like the last line

These are perilous times for those who want a true national sport, where a measure of parity exists. For many, it’s the diversity of the sport that makes it so fun, so rich, so worth the time. College football is a game, but it’s also life to millions. The idea of 60-plus kickoffs each Saturday, or traditions even at losing programs. Of MACtion and Blue Turf and Paul Bunyan’s Axe and a buffalo rumbling pregame across a field in Boulder.

Give more teams a chance to compete for a title, give more recruits more options to play in big playoff games and even contend for national championships, make more conference races and more postseason contests matter.

Or watch the sport wither over obstinance, tribalism and mismanagement.

It’s not just SEC v. SEC that is overwhelming college football now, and even more so in the future.

It’s the Alliance v. Common Sense.

As I've said before I don't think expansion will help but I do think it is inevitable.  

Since I think that expansion is inevitable, I hope it is done in the best way possible.  As much as I like your 5+1+2X5 proposal, I think the best way would be to have the top-4 league champions host the first round.  I think this would help for at least three reasons:

• "Regular" fans could attend a lot more games.  If the first round is a home game for 1/2 the teams then at least some fans wouldn't need to pay travel costs for each CFP game.  
• All the fun traditions of local on campus stadiums would be added to the CFP mix.  
• Over time you'd get some really fun match-ups in places where they'd otherwise rarely or never be played.  

On #3, this year's first round match-ups would have been:

• #12 Pitt (ACC Champ) @ #1 Bama (SEC Champ)
• #11 Utah (PAC Champ) @ #2 Michigan (B1G Champ)
• #5 Notre Dame @ #4 Cincy (G5 Champ)
• #3 Georgia @ #7 Baylor (B12 Champ)

2020 match-ups would have been:

• #25 Oregon (PAC Champ) @ #1 Bama (SEC Champ)
• #8 Cincy (G5 Champ) @ #2 Clemson (ACC Champ)
• #5 aTm @ #3 Ohio State (B1G Champ)
• #4 Notre Dame @ #6 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)

2019 match-ups would have been:

• #17 Memphis (G5 Champ) @ #1 LSU (SEC Champ) 
• #7 Baylor @ #2 Ohio State (B1G Champ)
• #6 Oregon (PAC Champ) @ #3 Clemson (ACC Champ)
• #5 Georgia @ #4 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)

2018 match-ups would have been:

• #9 Washington (PAC Champ) @ #1 Alabama (SEC Champ)
• #8 UCF (G5 Champ) @ #2 Clemson (ACC Champ)
• #5 Georgia @ #4 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)
• #3 Notre Dame @ #5 Ohio State (B1G Champ)

2017 match-ups would have been:

• #12 UCF (G5 Champ) @ #1 Clemson (ACC Champ)
• #8 USC (PAC Champ) @ #2 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)
• #6 Wisconsin @ #3 Georgia (SEC Champ)
• #4 Bama @ #5 Ohio State (B1G Champ)

2016 match-ups would have been:

• #15 Western Michigan (G5 Champ) @ #1 Bama (SEC Champ)
• #7 Oklahoma (B12 Champ) @ #2 Clemson (ACC Champ)
• #6 Michigan @ #4 Washington (PAC Champ)
• #3 Ohio State @ #5 Penn State (B1G Champ)

2015 match-ups would have been:

• #18 Houston (G5 Champ) @ #1 Clemson (ACC Champ)
• #7 Ohio State @ #2 Alabama (SEC Champ)
• #6 Stanford (PAC Champ) @ #3 Michigan State (B1G Champ)
• #5 Iowa @ #4 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)

2014 match-ups would have been:

• #20 Boise St @ #1 Alabama (SEC Champ)
• #7 MissSt @ #2 Oregon (PAC Champ)
• #6 TCU @ #3 Florida State (ACC Champ)
• #5 Baylor (B12 Champ) @ #4 Ohio State (B1G Champ)

So over the last eight years the B1G would have hosted eight CFP games and travelled to five.  The visitors to B1G Country would have been:

• Baylor (@tOSU2x)
• Stanford (@MSU)
• Ohio State (@PSU)
• Bama (@tOSU)
• Notre Dame (@tOSU)
• Texas A&M (@tOSU)
• Utah (@M)

B1G teams meanwhile would have travelled to:

• Oklahoma (IA)
• Alabama (tOSU)
• Penn State (tOSU)
• Washington (M)
• Georgia (UW)

Even the tOSU/PSU rematch would actually have been a very interesting game.  Penn State won the first one with 17 unanswered fourth quarter points.  A lot of tOSU fans felt that the loss was a fluke.  PSU fans said no.  Ok, rematch is put-up or shut-up for both teams:

To Penn State:  You won the first one so you get home field.  Was it a fluke or can you do it again?  

To Ohio State:  If the first one was a fluke, prove it.  

The rest are all great match-ups that are rarely if ever seen.