When you’ve lost Bill Hancock…

Guys, I don’t think the playoff expansion talks are going well.

A plan to expand the College Football Playoff stalled Wednesday, when the college sports administrators who oversee the postseason system were unable to reach a consensus on whether to grow the format from four to 12 teams.

The 10 conference commissioners of the Football Bowl Subdivision and Notre Dame athletic director director Jack Swarbrick, who make up the CFP management committee, met to share feedback from their member schools and address concerns about the expansion proposal unveiled in June.

“There’s still issues that need to be discussed,” CFP executive director Bill Hancock told AP…

“There won’t be a vote next week,” Hancock said. “Next week will be, I’ll call it an informational meeting. It’s complicated.”

Hancock added: “We have time.”

When the process first began, the 2023 season seemed like the soonest an expansion plan could be implemented. After the latest meeting, Hancock talked about 2024.

“I can’t say what the timetable might be, but I would say if we want to expand beginning in the 2024 season, we have a few months,” he said. “But if we want to change the format beginning in 2026, after the 12-year contract (with ESPN) is over, we have a couple of years.”

And if that doesn’t work, they can always extend year over year until they get their collective shit together, right, Bill?

Skip all the alleged side issues they’re supposedly grappling with.  The sticking point is over an eight- or twelve-team format.  The Alliance conferences (as well as the Big 12, I presume) prefer the former, with conference championship tie-ins, because that will act as a limit on how many teams the soon-to-be enlarged SEC would be able to seed the field with.  Needless to say, Greg Sankey isn’t on board with that.  Nor is Notre Dame.  Nor is the G5.  And since any vote on the format has to be unanimous, it’s safe to say that isn’t going anywhere.

On the other hand, the 12-team proposal has Greg Sankey’s fingerprints on it, which means it isn’t going anywhere until his peers’ fee-fees have been assuaged.  When will that happen?  Let’s ask Bill.

Hancock downplayed the idea the new Power Five commissioners were responsible for tapping the brakes on expansion.

“Any time you talk about a format discussion, there are lots of details,” Hancock said. “The working group knew this, and the full group did, too.”

Hancock said the committee is still sorting through issues related to the involvement of bowl games, media rights and number of teams in the field. He insisted that doubling back to talk about an eight-team format should not be viewed as a setback.

“It’s one of the details that has to be discussed,” Hancock said. “Eight was discussed today. There certainly was not unanimous support for it.”

Asked whether there was any support for it, Hancock said: “I don’t want to get into details.”

Rut row.

9 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

9 responses to “When you’ve lost Bill Hancock…

  1. theotherdoug

    The Power 4 (sorry Big12) have to be thinking about a 4 team playoff with only their conference champs. That’s probably better for the ACC, Big10, and PAC compared to the 8 team making room for the smaller conferences.

    Everybody wants a bigger table as long as that means more seats for them.

    Like

  2. Faltering Memory

    Sounds like the SS Minnow to me. Apologies to those too young to get the reference.

    Like

  3. Ran A

    The only amateurs left in college sports is the clowns running it. As soon as these butt-hurt conferences (who would have all gladly taken Oklahoma/Texas), get over it, the sooner something can get worked out.

    But if they think the SEC is going to agree to a one-sided conference championship deal – they are on crack. Add to it, Notre Dame… Then it comes down to who is left that is worth watching? Ohio State? Penn State? Oregon? Anybody in the ACC, with Clemson now in trouble?

    I picked the wrong profession…

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Hogbody Spradlin

    Their heads will clear and their judgments will become set as soon as ESPN drops a few hints of extra revenue.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. godawgs1701

    I am starting to get really concerned about the way these commissioners from the Pac 12 and Big 12 are able to function in their personal lives because they simply aren’t very smart.

    Look, guys, an SEC with Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas, OU, Auburn, LSU, et al is going to have no problem getting two teams into an 8 team field in most seasons. Even if we grant the AAC champ a bid (and for some reason grant the Big 12 an automatic bid for… some reason… lol) that leaves two at large spots. Gang, the SEC is getting one of those at large bids. And some years we might even merit two of them. If you want to make money, if you want your teams to have a shot at a title, then you need to go to 12.

    Me? I am perfectly happy with four teams and mostly hope it stays the way it is now because I’m against doing anything that further devalues the best regular season in American sports. So, screw around all you like. Your desire to ruin your own conferences might actually end up preserving the sport, so go for it.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. whb209

    There is only two problems, that would be the Rose Bowl and ND.
    To hell with both of them.

    Like

    • ericstrattonrushchairmandamngladtomeetyou

      The Rose Bowl will become irrelevant if they are not careful and ND will fall into line when the $$are on the table.

      Like

  7. MGW

    They had a happy G5 with 12, anything less and that support evaporates. Before you scoff at that, remember that Texas and OU have shown everyone aside from your top 15 or so schools that they can all be turned into G5 schools with the snap of Ohio State, USC, Clemson, etc.’s fingers.

    12 benefits everyone as far as access, but rewards the exact behavior that just created 8 new G5 schools. Not going to 12 punishes the SEC because that’s a whooole lot of quality programs vying for 1 playoff spot, sometimes 2. You can bet your ass there is no playoff committee that will ever allow more than 2 expanded SEC schools in, and they’ll jump on any opportunity ti keep it at 1.

    So it isn’t a bad idea for them to posture against 12, but the SEC is indifferent to 12 versus 8 because we’ll regularly get 2-3 into that tournament. 12 is nice but we’ll still be king of the mountain. But time is on the SEC’s side; we’ll just keep on dominating as long as they want to keep it at 4 and we don’t have to pluck Texas and OU from the big 12 for a few more years. And the Pac12 just gets less and less relevant every year.

    Point is there’s not a perfect solution but they need to accept that battle #1 is over and was lost in an absolute rout. 1-0 New SEC. Every day that goes by they lose leverage needed to win the war or (more realistically) force a draw. As in there’s no scenario where they kill the SEC’s dominance, but if they want to stay relevant and increase access to the postseason then they need to get their act together and pick a plan and execute while they still have nearly unanimous support against the SEC.

    Like