Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35
  1. #16

    Default

    Six team playoff, auto bids for P5 champs and highest ranked non-P5 conf member. Bye for top two seeds, 3v6 and 4v5 the week after conf champs games, on campus stadiums of 3 and 4. Then semi’s at big bowls as now.

    Don’t know if TV will buy it or pay more for it, but it’s the easiest step from where we are now.


  2. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gophers_4life View Post
    Six team playoff, auto bids for P5 champs and highest ranked non-P5 conf member. Bye for top two seeds, 3v6 and 4v5 the week after conf champs games, on campus stadiums of 3 and 4. Then semiís at big bowls as now.

    Donít know if TV will buy it or pay more for it, but itís the easiest step from where we are now.
    TV will definitely buy it, my only concern is that it brings back the 2 vs 3 argument back from the BCS era (as a bye week is a huge advantage) - I'd rather go straight to 8 games with the first round being home games for the top 4 seeds. 5 P5 champs, 3 at large with an auto-bid for the highest G5 team if they are in the top 15.

  3. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeerFueledFF View Post
    TV will definitely buy it, my only concern is that it brings back the 2 vs 3 argument back from the BCS era (as a bye week is a huge advantage) - I'd rather go straight to 8 games with the first round being home games for the top 4 seeds. 5 P5 champs, 3 at large with an auto-bid for the highest G5 team if they are in the top 15.
    I love that idea, and I think it's better than what I proposed .... the problem I think is that this is just too big of a jump. We've seen the history of major college football postseason has been smaller steps.

    It took a baby step just to get the Big Ten and PAC-10 to bring their Rose Bowl into the Bowl Alliance. That formed the BCS, which finally guaranteed 1v2 rotating as one of the four big bowls. Then another baby step to make 1v2 a standalone bowl game, rotating at one of the four big bowl locations, and also got G5 teams a chance at access for the first time (Utah, TCU, etc.). Then another small step to get to our current CFP, four team bracket, semi's rotating as two of the now six big bowls.

    So I just guess, pessimistically, that they won't be able to pull off going straight from four to eight. And a guaranteed spot for highest G5 champ (while Notre Dame doesn't have any hard guarantee) .... too many points of contention, too many competing agendas, too much fighting can sink a deal. That's why baby steps work better. My $0.02


    But one thing for sure, after the last two years: Big Ten and PAC (probably should be Big XII too) will *demand* auto-bids for their champions to any kind of expanded bracket. That will be non-negotiable, or they walk away and take their Rose Bowl with them. Which, might not be the worst thing in the world with where this is clearly headed .... not sure if Big Ten and PAC schools, besides the elites, can compete financially with the top SEC, ACC, Texas/OU type programs when you're going to have to start paying players and such.
    Last edited by Gophers_4life; 01-09-2019 at 09:47 AM.

  4. #19

    Default

    The other issue with the SEC is the 8 game conference schedule.
    SEC teams who go 0.500 in conference and sweep non-conference end up 8-4.
    Big Ten, PAC12, and Big 12 who sweep non-conference and play 0.500 in conference play go 7.7-5.5

    That's a big difference when looking at polls. 7 win teams don't get ranked. 8 win teams do.
    Play that across your whole conference schedule, and a SEC or ACC schedule will look better across all 8 games because of this.

    Take that and the fact Big Ten plays usually a 10th game against a Power 5, you are just going to end up with a few more losses across the conference.

    Yes, the SEC is good, but not good enough to have 5 of the top 10 spots every year.
    Go Gophers!

  5. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Face The Facts View Post
    The other issue with the SEC is the 8 game conference schedule.
    SEC teams who go 0.500 in conference and sweep non-conference end up 8-4.
    Big Ten, PAC12, and Big 12 who sweep non-conference and play 0.500 in conference play go 7.7-5.5

    That's a big difference when looking at polls. 7 win teams don't get ranked. 8 win teams do.
    Play that across your whole conference schedule, and a SEC or ACC schedule will look better across all 8 games because of this.

    Take that and the fact Big Ten plays usually a 10th game against a Power 5, you are just going to end up with a few more losses across the conference.

    Yes, the SEC is good, but not good enough to have 5 of the top 10 spots every year.
    As long as the AP/Playoff Committee don't punish them for their objectively poor schedules they have no incentive to change anything, and they get to play more home games for more $ and an even bigger scheduling advantage.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Corn Field
    Posts
    22,773

    Default

    The SEC is undefeated in bowl games in which their team cared about. Every loss is because they didn't really care, their heart wasn't in it, etc.

  7. #22

    Default

    Problem for SEC/ACC going to 9 conf games is that four from each have locked in, traditional inter-state rivalry games that add another P5 game to their schedule guaranteed every year. Louisville Kentucky, Georgia GT, FSU Florida, Clemson USC.

    You can say what about Iowa Iowa St, and you can propose all kinds of reasonable things, like saying P5 (+ ND) must play 10 P5 games per year. That would still let each do 7 home games (two buy games at home plus 5/5). But so far that hasn’t been on the table. And so the SEC/ACC have pushed back and held at 8. That is an advantage, depending how they schedule nonconf.

  8. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Face The Facts View Post
    The other issue with the SEC is the 8 game conference schedule.
    SEC teams who go 0.500 in conference and sweep non-conference end up 8-4.
    Big Ten, PAC12, and Big 12 who sweep non-conference and play 0.500 in conference play go 7.7-5.5

    That's a big difference when looking at polls. 7 win teams don't get ranked. 8 win teams do.
    Play that across your whole conference schedule, and a SEC or ACC schedule will look better across all 8 games because of this.

    Take that and the fact Big Ten plays usually a 10th game against a Power 5, you are just going to end up with a few more losses across the conference.

    Yes, the SEC is good, but not good enough to have 5 of the top 10 spots every year.
    The Big 10, Pac 12 & Big 12 could solve the problem by going back to 8 games if they so choose. Nobody forced the Conferences to go to 9.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    4,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GophersInIowa View Post
    The SEC is undefeated in bowl games in which their team cared about. Every loss is because they didn't really care, their heart wasn't in it, etc.
    I was tweeting about this topic yesterday and an SEC fan brought up Auburn's win over Purdue as evidence why the SEC should have 5 of the top 10 rankings going into next season. After going .500 in the bowl season, the Auburn/Purdue game was apparently the only one this guy remembered. And, the SEC propaganda is so common even people in B1G country start believing it. I saw a post here on GH explaining an SEC loss in a NEW YEARS SIX bowl was because the SEC team didn't care.

    The classic example of having it both ways.

  10. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ope3 View Post
    The Big 10, Pac 12 & Big 12 could solve the problem by going back to 8 games if they so choose. Nobody forced the Conferences to go to 9.
    My overlying point is that this affects polls and computer rankings.

    You have a closed set of data guarranteed to have their majority of games against opponents who place near 0.500 with final records. You have that across 9 of your games where the results are zero sum.

    It affects your team negatively in the following ways.
    1. Additional possible loss on your record.
    2. 75% of your schedule teams also perform a half game weaker. If your non-conf includes a team from Big 12 or Pac12, this is further exemplified
    3. Computer polls and human voters look at 7-5 team differently than 8-4 teams. An additional win usually by most polls and most computer rankings makes you "better".

    Take the bias of the pre-season polls, then marry up the idea that LSU, Florida, or Miss St's losses came against other teams that were 9-3, 8-4, and 6-6 (say TX A&M, Auburn, South Carolina. That looks much better than a Northwestern, Michigan State, or Minnesota who have losses against a 8-4 Penn State, and 7-5 Wisconsin, and a 5-7 Maryland
    Go Gophers!

  11. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schnauzer View Post
    I was tweeting about this topic yesterday and an SEC fan brought up Auburn's win over Purdue as evidence why the SEC should have 5 of the top 10 rankings going into next season. After going .500 in the bowl season, the Auburn/Purdue game was apparently the only one this guy remembered. And, the SEC propaganda is so common even people in B1G country start believing it. I saw a post here on GH explaining an SEC loss in a NEW YEARS SIX bowl was because the SEC team didn't care.

    The classic example of having it both ways.
    If the SEC was half as good as these SEC fans believe, each game they play should be a win by 20-30 points. That should be consistent throughout.

    Granted bowl matchups seldom are best vs best, 2nd best vs 2nd best, etc. But if they really feel they should have 5 of the top 10 spots, they should be winning the majority of their bowl games, and most by 20 points.
    Go Gophers!

  12. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Face The Facts View Post
    My overlying point is that this affects polls and computer rankings.

    You have a closed set of data guarranteed to have their majority of games against opponents who place near 0.500 with final records. You have that across 9 of your games where the results are zero sum.

    It affects your team negatively in the following ways.
    1. Additional possible loss on your record.
    2. 75% of your schedule teams also perform a half game weaker. If your non-conf includes a team from Big 12 or Pac12, this is further exemplified
    3. Computer polls and human voters look at 7-5 team differently than 8-4 teams. An additional win usually by most polls and most computer rankings makes you "better".

    Take the bias of the pre-season polls, then marry up the idea that LSU, Florida, or Miss St's losses came against other teams that were 9-3, 8-4, and 6-6 (say TX A&M, Auburn, South Carolina. That looks much better than a Northwestern, Michigan State, or Minnesota who have losses against a 8-4 Penn State, and 7-5 Wisconsin, and a 5-7 Maryland
    I totally get that playing a 9th game can likely impact negatively a teams ability to get into the playoff. It assures 7 more losses for the conference, lowering SOS etc. I get tired of the whining that the SEC only plays 8 so it props them up. Big 10 can go back to 8 if Jim Delaney wants to.

  13. #28

    Default

    Can’t go back to 8 conf games from 9. That cat is out of the bag and run over. 9 conf games means you have more conf games to sell to TV networks. The conf games are the valuable one and the one the confs for sure control the rights to.

    If the go back to 8, the TV contracts would have to be renegotiated and likely sell for far less.

    If anything, think they should go to 10. Gives 5/5 every year, instead of 4/5 every other year. Two G5 buy games to get guaranteed seven home games.

  14. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gophers_4life View Post
    Can’t go back to 8 conf games from 9. That cat is out of the bag and run over. 9 conf games means you have more conf games to sell to TV networks. The conf games are the valuable one and the one the confs for sure control the rights to.

    If the go back to 8, the TV contracts would have to be renegotiated and likely sell for far less.

    If anything, think they should go to 10. Gives 5/5 every year, instead of 4/5 every other year. Two G5 buy games to get guaranteed seven home games.
    Not sure the TV contracts would go down, as there could be 7 more home games to sell. Even so that's fine, keep it at 9, enjoy the extra cash and don't whine about another conference only playing 8 games.

    Not say you are whining about it but others here and Barry Alvarez have complained about it.

    Personally, I like the 9 games. 10 would be even better, and I don't care about the ramifications of making Big 10 teams making the BCS Playoffs.

    It would also mean fewer teams getting 6 wins to be Bowl eligible. Sobeit.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Corn Field
    Posts
    22,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schnauzer View Post
    I was tweeting about this topic yesterday and an SEC fan brought up Auburn's win over Purdue as evidence why the SEC should have 5 of the top 10 rankings going into next season. After going .500 in the bowl season, the Auburn/Purdue game was apparently the only one this guy remembered. And, the SEC propaganda is so common even people in B1G country start believing it. I saw a post here on GH explaining an SEC loss in a NEW YEARS SIX bowl was because the SEC team didn't care.

    The classic example of having it both ways.
    You saw it with UCF the past two years. Their win over Auburn wasn't a big deal because Auburn had nothing to play for. Now LSU beats them and it proves UCF can't play with the big boys.

    I'm still amazed at the whole concept of "SEC fans". I'm a Gophers fan and I like to see the Big Ten do well but I'm never going to bang my chest because Ohio St or Michigan do well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •