re: The 8-team playoff...if it existed today...5 conf champs plus 3 at larges

3 SEC teams wouldn't get into the playoff. A 4 team playoff is definitely best for the SEC.

quote:

---

I don't see that from a SEC perspective.

---

You should, the SEC is pushing harder then any conference for it.

quote:

---

Great, but no one wants to do a home & home with Texas if Texas is going to restrict their home game to a network no one wants to pay for.

---

That is a misconception. The LHN games are the tier 3 games (think pay per view games that wouldn't be picked up by the networks). LSU is a huge draw and would be televised nationally.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of taking ONLY conference champions based on their BCS ranking. You can preserve the regular season, keep the incentives for big-time OOC games, and prevent mulligans. It would also allow the conferences to take their own routes to determine their champions. If you want to play round-robin, so be it. Same with a conference championship game.

Take the 6 highest champions and give 1 and 2 a bye. All playoff games are at the site of the higher seed, except for the championship. This year would be:

#1 Florida State - bye

#15 UCF @ #4 Michigan State

#6 Baylor @ #5 Stanford

#2 Auburn - bye

Had Northern Illinois won, they would have taken UCF's place. Had Texas won, they may or may not have made it in the playoffs. I've not nearly as concerned as letting Texas in as I am with leaving Missouri out in favor of Alabama.

quote:

---

Great, but no one wants to do a home & home with Texas if Texas is going to restrict their home game to a network no one wants to pay for.
That is a misconception. The LHN games are the tier 3 games (think pay per view games that wouldn't be picked up by the networks). LSU is a huge draw and would be televised nationally.

---

Most of the Southeast would have had a casual interest in watching Ole Miss vs Texas but that wasn't available.

I don't want LSU playing Texas unless there is an absolute guarantee the game won't be rerouted to the LHN. ESPN is taking a bath on that boondoggle and has adequate motivation to shunt what should be a game of regional or national interest into a lower tier to prop up their bad investment.

quote:

---

Most of the Southeast would have had a casual interest in watching Ole Miss vs Texas but that wasn't available.

I don't want LSU playing Texas unless there is an absolute guarantee the game won't be rerouted to the LHN. ESPN is taking a bath on that boondoggle and has adequate motivation to shunt what should be a game of regional or national interest into a lower tier to prop up their bad investment.

---

well said...

if there is an 8 team playoff, would the conference championship games go away?

what happens to Notre Dame and BYU? should they be forced to join a conference?

I've been saying for awhile now either 6 or 8 is the right number. I don't mind up to 8, but anyone talking about 16 is out of their mind.

I agree with the 5 spots being taken up by conference champions then three at large spots. Really puts a premium on winning it and you're gonna have to be damn impressive to be one of those three at large.

That's only part of the story.

Ole Miss wanted to play Texas for the national exposure. They were robbed of that because of the LHN. LSU doesn't need the national exposure as much but certainly they want it - that's why they keep playing neutral site games in ATL and Dallas to start the year.

To make it a non-issue I'd want LSU's administration to insist on it not being carried on the LHN. The temptation for ESPN to try and use a game like that as a tool to motivate new subscribers would be something I'd be wary of otherwise... and I have no interest in propping up Texas' LHN.

quote:

---

gonna have to be damn impressive to be one of those three at large.

---

Not always. Also, you will still be rewarding teams who did not play in the conference championship games. Before the final weekend, Auburn, Missouri, and Alabama were 3,4, and 5 respectively. Missouri and Auburn played each other for the SEC Championship, and the winner woudl get in to the playoffs while the loser had to watch Alabama get in? How is that fair? Alabama is better off losing the Iron bowl and getting an at-large spot than they were winning the Iron Bowl and possibly losing in the SEC Championship and falling out of the at-large selections. That is preposterous.

In 2013, Missouri is out while Alabama would be in.

In 2012, Georgia is out while Florida gets in.

In 2011, LSU could have fallen out while Georgia, Alabama, and Arkansas get in.

Teams should not be penalized for playing in a conference championship.

The idea of only taking conference champions is ridiculous and I've said that since 08 way before the mulligan was even thought possible. First of all in the NFL there's rematches all the time and they usually make for very entertaining football games (New England vs. Manning), Pitt vs. Baltimore, SF vs. Seattle, Dallas vs. Philly. To suggest that you'd rather see an Auburn vs. UCF instead of a rematch with Alabama in a playoff is absurd. If you want to compare what happens with automatic qualifiers look no further than the current BCS system. Every year we get force fed a slate of shitty matchups instead of good ones.


Take the top 8 regardless of conference, why should a weak conference champion be rewarded for winning a bad conference if they lose their OOC games, and then punish a team who could dominate a good OOC slate, but drops one game in a tough conference?

We've had the 3 of the top 5 teams in the country in the SEC west before why should 2 of them get left out of a playoff simply because the #1 team is in the conference and caught them at home this year?