What is the CFP going to look like in the future?

Uh, we're gonna get into Chip-O-Litics.

Okay. Even about basketball today. We're gonna get, like, you and I have not talked any basketball yet because I, and this is going to sound like I'm buttering you up, but I am not. Um, you have a view of the college football world, slightly different from mine by the way. Uh, I think I'm more, uh, more militant and cynical, uh, than you, and you know more about it, uh, than I do, so I'm probably wrong.

But the, um, but I love talking about the mechanisms of the sport on top of the fact that you know more about who's good and who isn't than I do. Um, but I was reading John Wilner's piece in the San Jose Mercury News today, and it's, it's inevitable what's going to happen here, right? It's inevitable that the Big Ten and the SEC are going to not organically dominate the college football playoff in the future, but essentially game the system where they automatically dominate the college football playoff in the future because there's no guarantees what it's going to look like beyond not this upcoming season but the following season because there's, there's not even a television contract. We have no playoff starting with the 2026 season, uh, but it's going to look like whatever the Big Ten and the SEC want it to look like, it'll have as many teams as they want it to have, and they will have as many spots in it as they want, uh, want themselves to have regardless of what the reality is.

Is that fair? I think it's too early. I think that we are currently in the process of looking at what the college football playoff is going to be from 2026 to beyond to, to know exactly which of these things will be true because yes, flatly, the SEC and the Big Ten are going to dominate the SEC and the Big Ten might also look different in 2026 than they look in 2024. Um, a big thing I've gotten out of the last seven, 10 days or so is just the, you know, underling the underlying, um, bubbling of another wave of conference realignment. No question about it for the SEC and the Big Ten.

So when you're making these decisions about the makeup and the revenue distribution of the college football playoff from 2026 to 2032, if you believe that these conferences, the SEC and the Big Ten are going to be more valuable because of additions that they're going to have to the conference, then that's going to go into their negotiations and the way that they're looking at things. But what you're pointing out is that at the meeting, the board of managers, which apparently is different than the working group, which is apparently different than the FCA, the FCC, the C double a, and I don't know, it's alphabet soup to me, power brokers of the sport come out from these meetings and they say, yeah, we talked about 14. Yeah.

We talked about 16. Yeah. We talked about potential guaranteed bids, multiples of them specifically for a conference. And that's what you're referencing here. Yes.

Here is my, um, translation of where we're at. The SEC and the Big Ten want to make sure that because they believe they will have all of the brands that are worth a dam in the new college football playoff era, that they will be compensated as such from the television contract with the revenue distribution. Now there's a couple of different ways you can do this. You can sign a contract that says right off the bat, we are going to get a big chunk and everybody else, which includes the ACC and the big 12, as well as the sunbelt and the mountain west, y'all can deal with it. That's very similar to what we have at the 14 model where the power five conference distributed about 80% of the money that was generated. And the other conferences shared the crumbs from the other 20%. The other way you can do it is to game the system with a wink and a nod, which is to say, we are going to guarantee spots in the college football playoff for our conference.

But the revenue, Oh, this is just all going to be a meritocracy. However many teams you get in and however many wins they get that will dictate what the payouts are, which of course you are loading the dice. If you set it up with automatic qualifiers specifically for that conference, the expansion to 14 to me is built with the idea that the sec and the big 10 are guaranteed extra spots beyond just one conference champion. The expansion to 16 might be something that happens so that the ACC, the big 12, and then the group of five don't see all of their spots getting gobbled up by these automatic qualifiers. I know this seems confusing, but just understand that all these reports you're hearing are the negotiations. This is what they are fighting over. The sec and the big 10 at the end of the day, want to make sure that they have more teams in and that they've got more money coming their way from the deal.

So there's a couple of different ways you can do it. Everybody else, you can guarantee us box, or you can guarantee us the paycheck, but either way, we want to make sure that because we're the leagues with all the tiny helmets that people tune in to see that we end up making a good portion of the deal. Chip Patterson is joining us here. Cover three podcast. Uh, every Wednesday we do this and I get so many people that respond to me that say, man, I can listen to this all day.

And it's mostly because you, uh, are awesome at this. And let me ask you this question because last week, first of all, my, my plan would be, um, well, my, this would not be my plan, but they're going to 16. I would say, get rid of automatic qualifiers altogether.

I don't think there should be, I think we should have, we're doing this. We should have the 16 best teams, let them fight it out for the national championship. This again, there's always going to be just five teams that really have a chance, but that's fine.

We're making it bigger because more games are more fun. Um, but last week you pointed out your what, 12 best teams. And they were basically all from these two leagues anyway, right?

Yeah. So next season with Florida state reloading with Clemson, just still being so, you know, a head scratcher offensively, anti-modern with Utah, I guess, you know, Utah, Oklahoma state, Kansas state. That's really the conversation we're having. I mean, we're not talking any top 10 team, right? So they're going to get all the teams in any way, just do it organically.

But my point is, because you know what, when you, what you were describing to me, and I apologize that this is going to bother people. You just described gerrymandering to me. And that's what the big 10 and the SCC are doing. We are guaranteeing our dominance over time because that's the way that's the way it is. Now we have all the money, anybody, everybody, Oregon and Southern Cal don't want to be in the big 10. They feel like they have to be in the big 10. They would rather stay where they are. It's just, there's no way. There's no way a team in Eugene, Oregon could want to move out of the big 10. Oregon could want to play against teams in the Midwest of the United States. There's zero chance of that, but they feel like they have no, they have no other option. Otherwise they're going to get left behind. This, the whole system is gross to me.

I, so a couple of things. Yes, they are 100% drawing the districts, so to speak, power and they have all the leverage and the ultimate, you know, Trump card is all right, no deal. We'll do our own and we'll have, they should, we'll have one bracket. That's the big 10 bracket. We'll have another bracket. That's the SCC bracket and they'll play in a game.

That's what they want. And you know what we'll call that game, the excellent bowl. And we'll have a half time. Just call it the, well, I can't call it the Rose bowl. Uh, sorry. The AFC NFC model is the threat. All right.

I will push back. I do think that going to 16 teams and just having it be one through 16. I think that is extremely, uh, damaging to college football as a whole.

I think that when you're able to dangle these little carrots out, even if you're just going to go get beat, being able to have spots for conference champions keeps engagement going. I think there's an oversaturation issue that you would face if you just lined them up one through 16 and told the committee to go pick the best 16. The other thing that I don't trust the committee's decisions, because as I wrote at cbssports.com last week, the committee hasn't had to make a lot of hard decisions.

They blew the one, the blue, the one hard decision they made. Like, I don't want that to be the future of the expanded college football playoff. You know, their decisions from five through 12, essentially separating one loss and two loss teams have only made a difference in terms of who goes to the peach and who goes to the cotton. And now it's going to decide who has home field for a first round game in the playoff for the national championship. I don't trust the committee to do some one through 16.

So I like having automatic bids. Um, I would be fine with an expansion of 16 and getting rid of the buys, but in order to keep college football as a whole, you know, as intact as possible, uh, I, I like having the conference championship auto bids, just cause it gives the ACC the big 12, you know, the mountain West, the sunbelt, uh, it gives them something to really hang on to and something to really compete for all the way through the end of the season, except that it's just lawsuit avoidance. They don't want to do this. They're doing it to avoid a lawsuit.

The only reason why we have this, I mean, why is not important to me? I'm consuming this as like college football. Like I think the college football fan would have even more frustration with an oversaturation of a 16 team tournament that has even more skewed of only the super two than what we're already going to have even an expanded playoff with guaranteed automatic qualifiers. That's why you have to expand is to give the sec and the big 10, what they want without losing what you already have with the 12. I want to, I want to do, I want to do a little chip politics and basketball in a second, but let me, so let's spend two more minutes on this.

I'm going to kick it forward two years. Um, the ACC and Florida state are headed for some sort of a separation. Um, however much that costs will determine whether or not there is a draft of teams that follow through the gaping hole of the league, whether it's Clemson or North Carolina or Virginia, others will, if Florida state goes, others will go as well. Um, so I will then ask Jim Phillips, if he's still the commissioner of the league at the time, the exact same question I asked Craig Thompson, who was commissioner of the mountain West, this goes back 20 some odd years. Why are you part of a system that conspires against you? Why would you ever schedule and make it easier for these schools to keep you down?

And he, his answer was they pay us. I, I will ask, I promise I will ask the ACC commissioner that question. Why are you even scheduling these teams? Like, why are you scheduling SCC and big 10 teams?

Yes. Why, why take part in the system that is keeping you down? Cause that's what, that's what the consolidation, I'm not even going to call it expansion anymore. Well, that's what these, this corporate takeover is about. It's about squashing the competition. It's not about anything other than that. It's all about greed.

So why would I take part in your greed? I, I can't speak to the business side of this, um, except for what I'm able to gain for gather from industry experts. But I do think from a philosophical standpoint, you want at certain institutions to be competing at the highest level. And even if a, um, uninvolved objective party and analysis can say, you are not playing the same game, you are getting, um, held out. I think that there is a philosophical standpoint that is saying, you know, we want to measure ourselves against the very best. And I don't know if you have that at like every ACC school, but I do think that you've got them at a lot of ACC schools where you understand you're not playing the same game as the SCC and the big 10, but that doesn't mean that you are holding yourself to a different standard. And there may be a financial gap, but when you go play those teams in non-conference play a football coach or an athletic director can look out on the field and say, I don't see much of a difference here.

So you, you stay in the game because you believe that if you eliminate all the external factors and just leave it to what happens between kickoff and triple zeros, that you can still, you know, prove your worth and being able to be at the big boy table. Um, I think that that is the value competitively, uh, that drives a lot of these decisions. Ultimately, I think we're going to see the big 10 and the SCC get much bigger, not just a little bit, I think much bigger, uh, unless they jettison some schools, which I would certainly, I could certainly see that happening too. Um, and they're going to do their own thing. That's the way I think we're headed where they're going to just do their own thing. And that's going to be division one or one a, and then when, who, whoever's left from the big 12 and the ACC will be part and the group of five will be division one AA. And then the FCS will be division one AAA. That's the way I think we're headed. Uh, and I don't think that's good for anybody, but that's the way we're headed because the money, uh, is the most important thing.

Let me get to the chip. Politics. Uh, I don't know if you saw Scott van Pelt's one big thing, but he did the breakdown of what I have been talking about for a long time.

He just did it much more smoothly. Uh, me, I rant and I waved my arms around, um, about the difference between conferences. And he talked about the big 12 and how he thinks it's the best league.

And I don't disagree with him. Uh, I just don't think there's that big a difference, uh, between that league and the ACC. I think they've gamed the system to make it look better. Um, do you, first of all, do you think the ACC has a chance to get more than five teams in or even five teams into the tournament? Hmm.

Yes. Five. Uh, I would say is definitely on the board. You know, the getting to the sixth is going to depend on what happens. Let me see if I can do this off the top of my head.

The Atlantic 10, the mountain West, the, the valley, depending on what happens with Indiana state. Wow. Your chip, your chip.

Politics run deep. Oh yeah. Yeah. Drake, Bradley could be like a big problem for Indiana state. And when we go into the eight 10, I mean, Dayton is not even the first place team in the conference right now. Rich VCU could be a big time problem for them.

Um, so like that's, that is what we're looking at right now is the fact that whoever the, the, when we're talking about the five or the six, like to me, four, four seems good. I mean, I don't know, man, Virginia might lose at Boston college tonight. And then I don't even know what to do with the Wahoos at that point, but let's just say that Virginia, just because of everything they've done between then, have you listened to the, the, the T-ball rating? Did you hear Matt? T-ball is T B a L they've been blank lately, you know, like T-ball scores through the roof right now.

Cause they had been blank. Um, I, I am in the position to think that you can get to that fifth. If you don't have a lot of problematic bid situations in the mountain West, the Atlantic 10, and maybe in the Valley. However, if things get a little bit hairy and some unexpected conference tournament winners come out of there, you have a strong team, you know, like a Dayton potentially like an Indiana state or like one of those teams in the mountain West, who are one of the many teams in the mountain West, who've been pretty good this year, that that's where it gets really, really tough for a pit.

For example, a team who I fundamentally believe is very good, but just might end up being on the wrong side of the way the selection committee seats things. You know, they probably needed to win last night against Clemson on the road. They've got good road wins, right? I mean, pit, I've seen pit play a bunch and every time I watch them, they look good.

I didn't see last night, uh, otherwise occupied last night too. It was my story last night was that Clemson. We are not used to still talking about Clemson being good on February 28th. We are used to talking about Clemson's 14 to no start and then watching them collapse in ACC play. Well, they don't have a great conference record.

That's the most amazing thing. They've, they've not been great in inside the league. They have been good enough and I just, but, but I think the overall quality over the last, what, seven, eight games. And we're talking about a team that's won.

Was it five out of six, six out of seven, right? I, I, I think that Clemson's good. They do their record in the league. They're not going to be there. They're not going to get one of the four buys. They're one of the four best teams in the league.

I'm convinced of it, but they're not going to be one forward. They're going to have to play on Wednesday. I haven't even done the ACC tournament bracketology. That's usually a motivating chipolytic factor when putting in our best bets for the final two weeks regular season. So is it Carolina Duke wake Virginia right now? I think those are going to be the four teams that are going to, you know, enter the fray on Thursday and Clemson, who I think is one of the best four is going to have to play on Friday on rather on Wednesday, frankly, NC state could be playing on Tuesday as bothers me. Cause I think they should have been better than this, but, but I like Pitt.

I really do. Yeah. Again, this, and they play, it was like a one possession game with like two or three minutes left.

I it's a, it's a tough one. Pitt needed to win. It wasn't a bad loss. I think, I think last night seemed to me to be a little bit more about Clemson's win. Yeah.

Good. I mean, good for good on a good on the, the tigers. I think Brad Brown now does a good job. And finally, it's good to see them play better offense than defense for a change.

It's not a great defensive team, pretty good offensive team. No, but PJ hall's good enough. I mean, I was, it was so funny.

I was, I was coming out of, uh, going into last night's game and I was like, you know what? Oh man, this is a good one that you can run with is, is Sebastian Aho, the Kawhi Leonard. No. Okay.

No. Um, so you talk about him as like one of the best two way players in the league and Kawhi Leonard, Kawhi Leonard gets respected by the basketball nuts, but by your average fan, probably Kawhi Leonard doesn't get the same level of respect. I think the people that are really into hockey loves you, Sebastian. Oh, no, he's very good player. I need what I need more from Sebastian.

Oh, I appreciate you folding this into the hurricanes. Um, what I need more from Sebastian Aho is, um, you know, first and foremost, I mean, you're a two way player, but first and foremost, uh, you gotta be dynamic offensively. He and Andre Spetchnick off both.

I need more. That's my, my, one of the things I said last night on the canes quarter podcast available wherever you get your podcast, uh, was that we need more from 20 and 37. They've got to be noticeable, uh, all night long. And they go through stretches when they're not, uh, and I'm not trying to compare them to Connor McDavid or play players like that. But I mean, the best players are always noticeable. So I need Sebastian to be that.

Kawhi never got put on the same level as a LeBron or a staff health issues. I had something to do with that. But, uh, anyways, anyway, PJ hall is what led me there. Clemson big man. PJ hall is a very good two way player, taller Sebastian Aho.

And he does enough rim protection that I think that even though Clemson's not a lockdown defensive team, he can be a difference maker on that side. You're the best. That's chip Patterson, CBS sports.com. Cover three podcast. Always great. This would be up on YouTube.

I don't know. I'd like an hour. Uh, thank you, man. I'll talk to you later. Sounds good. Y'all be well. He's the best.