Kittonhead
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
|
RE: Slive outlines plan for subdivision
(04-24-2014 08:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (04-24-2014 08:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote: (04-24-2014 08:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (04-24-2014 07:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote: The tragedy is that the ACC/Sun Belt CFP plan didn't fly.
Would have had 4 team playoff and ten bowls. 1-4 to the playoff 5-20 in the ratings would go to the 10 enhanced bowls with a committee making the pairings while respecting history (ie. B1G vs. P12 in the Rose, SEC in Sugar, etc).
The biggest mistake Ive ever heard of was when the MW and CUSA turned down the opportunity to play a yearly "play-in" game for an AQ BCS slot. That might have very well changed the long term trajectory of both those conferences.
They thought it would make the taint worse and if you are the MWC at the time what happens to your brand equity if Boise faces ECU in the play-in and wins. If you are CUSA at that time what happens to your brand equity if Troy or La.Tech ends up playing TCU?
We all ended up at pretty much the same deal 5 years later---except now its not decided on the field. We could have all been playing for more over the last 5 years---plus there would have been some pretty interesting games played. Maybe one conference would have made enough of a name for themselves to garner a contract game. Missed opportunity in my mind.
Who needs a contract when you have an automatic bid?
Its not a relevant discussion now but if the playoff expanded to 6 teams and the G5 moved its automatic bid from the access bowls to the playoff then it starts to get really interesting.
|
|
04-24-2014 09:22 PM |
|