SDS has multiple articles out about how the other conferences will more than likely vote against it now due to the sec having a huge financial advantage by getting in more teams.

They also have one article about sankey basically stating he expects to get his way.

Not sure he can force the acc, big, pac or bdf (if they're still a voting member) to vote in favor of it.

What's the consensus on this next potential argument?

The Pac, B1G, and the BFD have all had years where they were left out of the playoffs. They can vote against it out of spite, I guess, but not sure how not guaranteeing your conference a spot in the playoff games is ultimately a good decision by them.

Expanding the playoffs makes sense for every conference regardless of SEC expansion or not.

There are a few different angles at play here. Three very or relatively new conference commissioners n the B1G, PAC and ACC. They don't know Sankey nor Bowlsby all that well. And none of those conferences had a representative on that small committee. Now Bowlsby is crying foul because he was working with Sankey and Sankey had inside information that heavily influenced his decision making.

Instead of focusing on what was best for college football as a whole, Sankey was seeing dollar signs that would go into his conference coffers.

A 12 team playoff is a very bad idea for college football in general as it not only dilutes the value of the regular season but it will extremely hard on the players physically and mentally, will kill the bowl system, have multiple rematches and will lose the viewing audience over time because there will be the usual blowout games, just more of them.

The final complicating factor is, as always the Rose Bowl. They are balking.

nereus said:

---

The Pac, B1G, and the BFD have all had years where they were left out of the playoffs. They can vote against it out of spite, I guess, but not sure how not guaranteeing your conference a spot in the playoff games is ultimately a good decision by them.

Expanding the playoffs makes sense for every conference regardless of SEC expansion or not.

---

This. Adding Oklahoma and Texas only strengthens the argument that a 1-loss SEC team deserves to be ranked higher than an undefeated PAC/B1G/ACC team.

These stories are just posturing. Don't expect the conferences to come out and admit "Hey, we were caught off-guard and now we're in an even worse position."

45-70Ag said:

---

SDS has multiple articles out about how the other conferences will more than likely vote against it now due to the sec having a huge financial advantage by getting in more teams.

They also have one article about sankey basically stating he expects to get his way.

Not sure he can force the acc, big, pac or bdf (if they're still a voting member) to vote in favor of it.

What's the consensus on this next potential argument?

---

They're not going to turn down more $$$$. There will be inevitably some type of discussion to make sure everyone gets a little bit more, even if the SEC gets more playoff slots comparatively from year to year.

aggiehawg said:

---

Now Bowlsby is crying foul because he was working with Sankey and Sankey had inside information that heavily influenced his decision.

---

If OU & tu stayed in the Big XII, the Big XII benefits by playoff expansion by getting at least one team in every year. If the remaining eight end up in a non-power five conference, they benefit by having access to the playoffs (something none of the group of 5 currently have). Playoff expansion makes sense for all of the Big XII teams regardless of conference expansion.

There isn't actually a conflict of interest here.

Bevo99 said:

---

nereus said:

---

The Pac, B1G, and the BFD have all had years where they were left out of the playoffs. They can vote against it out of spite, I guess, but not sure how not guaranteeing your conference a spot in the playoff games is ultimately a good decision by them.

Expanding the playoffs makes sense for every conference regardless of SEC expansion or not.

---

This. Adding Oklahoma and Texas only strengthens the argument that a 1-loss SEC team deserves to be ranked higher than an undefeated PAC/B1G/ACC team.

These stories are just posturing. Don't expect the conferences to come out and admit "Hey, we were caught off-guard and now we're in an even worse position."

---

Yes, the the SEC team with one loss should be a consideration now for the playoff whether it is expanded or not. Texas and Oklahoma probably realized this, and this was another reason to leave the Big 12.
A&M needs to get every "gentleman's agreement" in writing from hereon out. Gentleman's agreements seem to apply only in farming and ranching.

No way they stop the expanded playoff. Everything I've read says they may need to delay because of so much uncertainty it will be difficult to figure out the media rights situation with the conference situation so fluid.

Those that are starting to balk are not thinking rationally and are just reacting to the SEC expansion in a negative way.

Expanding the CFP to 8 or 12 will happen. Their fear is that will mean multiple SEC teams. Well, that was going to happen anyway, likely 3-5 SEC teams would make a 12 team playoff every year even before cow and OU were in the SEC.

But is that better or worse than having a 4 team playoff and having two of those spots taken by the SEC? Expanding to 8 or 12 it is highly likely that the champ of the B1G and PAC get in the CFP assuming they are ranked in the Top 15 or so. Keep it at 4 and that is not the case.

CFP expansion may have lost some momentum over the past 7-10 days, but it will gain steam again, and it will expand to 8 or 12 teams in the very near future.