re: Espn: Sizing up the SEC resumes

quote:

---

"gives the good teams that just missed out on a conference championship an opportunity to go on a run"

Why is that so important for teams that didn't win their conference?

So you blew it during the season, but we'll give you a chance to 'go on a run' just 'cause?

That's going to be the Notre Dame/USC/Michigan/OSU/Alabama inclusion clause. "Okay, if you're one of these teams and you did not win your conference we're going to give you another shot just because of your name."

That doesn't make much sense to me.

---

In principle, I agree with you, only conference champions should have a shot. However, the reality is that there is no way to have a conference-champions-only tournament.

There are only 10 conferences in FBS. So to have a 10 team tournament, the top 6 teams would get a bye, and 7-10 would play each other. OK, that's just like the old SEC hoops tournament, and it wasn't so bad. Then you notice that Notre Dame isn't in a conference, and you and I know that no playoff arrangement can exist without including Notre Dame (complain all you want, but you know it is true). So, to give Notre Dame a chance, you either have to have them take the place of conference champion (but it will probably be the Sun Belt, so who cares, right?) or expand the tournament to 11 teams.

11 teams is an unworkable tournament draw, so that would necessitate a move to 12 just to balance the whole thing and not have a second "play-in" round. Once you are at 12, you are stuck at having wild cards, and as long as wild cards are allowed, the "USC/Michigan/OSU/Alabama inclusion clause" is in effect.

Another solution is to only allow 8 teams, but how do you eliminate 2 conference champions objectively? And some years, you might have to eliminate 3 conference champions because Notre Dame is undefeated. That leads me to the 5 super-conference champions and 3 wild card format mentioned above. Throw in a "undefeated teams have priority" clause and I think you end up with a workable solution that takes care of the occasional 04 Utah and 07 Hawaii. (If you are Boise State, Hawaii or Northern Illinois, you really can't complain about being left out if you are not undefeated.)

My preferred solution is to radically realign into 8 9-team conferences and have only conference champions in the playoff. That would mean that 48 teams would have to go back down to the FCS, but let's not fool ourselves: It's a complete joke to say that LSU and UT-San Antonio are competing for the same national championship.

I would be more than happy to eliminate an Alabama team that lost on that kick return. I just can't figure out how it is done without radical realignment. We all know that won't happen.

GEAUX TIGERS