possible for the playoffs to be finalized prior to the Transformation Committee taking action. And what I have been saying and saying for the final time is it was never possible because both sides have competing interests. In order for something to have passed, it would have required both sides to reach a compromise which neither side was willing to do because neither side was willing to give the other side some or all of their demands in order to pass something.

To put it another way, all these things below have a higher percentage of occurring before the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame unanimously agreeing on the new format before the Transformation Committee started its project.

1. Hell freezing over.
2. UVA-Wise, a DII school, beating VT in football.
3. VT winning a national championship in football, men's basketball, and women's basketball in the same fiscal year.
4. VT expanding the capacity of Lane Stadium to at least 80k in the next 10 years.
5. VT starting a varsity men's and women's ice hockey team in the next 20 years.

There were 2 main proposals that the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame considered during their meeting(s).

Proposal 1: 5+1 Model
It has been well established that the 5+1 Model stated that the 5 power conference champions would receive an automatic bid to the FBS Playoffs and only the highest ranked G5 champion among the 5 G5 conferences. This model was considered for both the 8-team playoffs and 12-team playoffs.

Supported the proposal: The 5 power conferences and Notre Dame

Reason(s) for the support: It would allow most or all of the money to remain with the power conferences.

Rejected the proposal: The 5 G5 conferences

Reason(s) for the rejection: It would increase the unfair competitive advantage that the 5 power conferences currently have because the power conferences would no longer have any incentive for its champion to finish ranked in the Top 10 in order to make the FBS Playoffs. An unranked P5 champion would still make it under this proposal. Also, all 5 G5 champions could finished ranked ahead of all 5 P5 champions, but yet only 1 G5 champion would receive the automatic bid. Second, it would increase the uneven distribution of the money generated from the FBS Playoffs. Remember all 10 FBS conference and Notre Dame are currently equal owners of the FBS Playoffs.

Basically what I am saying is that this proposal was DOA even before someone brought it to the floor for a vote. This proposal had as much chance of passing as if someone proposed another version of the 5+1 where the 5 G5 conferences received automatic bids and only the highest ranked power conference champion received an automatic bid. If that proposal was brought to the floor, then you would see the following:

Supported it: The 5 G5 conferences
Rejected it: The 5 power conferences and Notre Dame

It is even possible the 2 sides would have the same or similar reasons as I stated above.

Proposal 2: Top 6 conference champions, regardless of affiliation, receiving automatic bids

Supported the proposal: The 5 G5 conferences and some of the power conferences. Note: it isn't clear if "some" means 2 or 3 power conferences. I know the ACC is on the record giving its support for this proposal, but I have not been able to confirm the Big XII's and Pac-12's position on this proposal.

Reason(s) for the support: It is probably the most fair thing to do and a reasonable compromise since no group is given a perceived unfair advantage at the start of the season. Also, it gives the G5s an opportunity to receive multiple bids regardless if the format is 8 or 12 teams.

Rejected the proposal: The Big Ten and the SEC

Reason(s) for the rejection: The Big Ten and I think SEC are only willing to support the 5+1 Proposal. They don't want to share as much of the money with the G5 conferences as they do under the current plan. Also, they want to reduce the opportunity of the G5 conferences to receive multiple bids because that increases their opportunity to receive multiple bids.

Note: I don't believe Notre Dame has publicly stated whether it supports or rejects Proposal 2.

Based on the percentages, Proposal 2 has a better chance of passing assuming the Big Ten, SEC, and anyone else who rejects this proposal can be persuaded to change their position. Unfortunately, I think the odds of that happening is less than 50%. Maybe even 25% since the Big Ten has already drawn its line in the sand and really dug in on its position unless the G5s are willing to give up quite a lot (i.e. most or all of the money received from the FBS Playoffs and/or NCAA Basketball Tournaments). The SEC has taken a similar position as the Big Ten, but not quite as vocal about it in the media. Hence why the meetings ended because of the stalemate.

If you still don't understand what I am saying after this lengthy and detailed post, then I don't know what else to tell you.