either ACC or B-12 gotta go

I think this is a valid topic. Nothing will make the playoffs expand to 8 faster than the B10 regularly missing out.

Our AD said last year that as soon as one of the conferences starts missing the playoffs they will go to eight.

(07-09-2014 08:03 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  either ACC or B-12 gotta go

They will eventually expand the playoffs to at least 6 & in the meanwhile they will be counting their $$$...

(07-09-2014 08:45 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Our AD said last year that as soon as one of the conferences starts missing the playoffs they will go to eight.

By definition, that has to happen this year (and every year).

(07-09-2014 08:45 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Our AD said last year that as soon as one of the conferences starts missing the playoffs they will go to eight.

The first year the SEC and Big 10 both miss out will end any opposition to 8. ESPN will be begging/threatening everyone to go to 8.

Eight would be good. 5 power league champs, 1 G5(highest ranked champ) and 2 at larges.

I doubt they'd throw us a bone, if they did I'm sure we'd have to be top 12 or something to make the actual playoff.

(07-09-2014 09:25 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Eight would be good. 5 power league champs, 1 G5(highest ranked champ) and 2 at larges.

I doubt they'd throw us a bone, if they did I'm sure we'd have to be top 12 or something to make the actual playoff.

It would probably be the same as it is now: decided by the committee.

I don't think they'd require conference champs, just keep it at ambiguous criteria to consider for tiebreakers. It would lead to a better tournament and would prevent the G5 from having legal arguments.

For instance let's look at 2 years:

2008-

OU (1 Loss B12 Champ)
Florida (1 Loss SEC Champ)
Texas (1 Loss B12 runner up and #3 or #4 in either poll)
USC (1 Loss P10 champ)
Penn State (1 Loss B1G champ)

Last 3 spots get decided between Texas Tech (1 loss), Alabama (1 loss), Utah (unbeaten), and Boise (unbeaten).

By avoiding conference champs as expressed rules the playoff isn't obligated to take a 4 loss VT team and it potentially opens up a spot for a 2nd G5 team (Boise) in addition to Utah who likely gets in. I have to think that of the 4 teams vying for the last spot that the margin of defeat for TTU (and the presence of 2 Big 12 teams already) nixes their bid.

It lends itself to a better group.

(07-09-2014 09:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 08:45 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Our AD said last year that as soon as one of the conferences starts missing the playoffs they will go to eight.

By definition, that has to happen this year (and every year).

There is probably a better than 50-50 chance that 2 SEC teams make the playoff. I doubt that will be uncommon. That would mean TWO power conferences don't make the playoff many years. How long do you think that's going to last?

I will rejoice?

(07-09-2014 10:10 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:25 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Eight would be good. 5 power league champs, 1 G5(highest ranked champ) and 2 at larges.

I doubt they'd throw us a bone, if they did I'm sure we'd have to be top 12 or something to make the actual playoff.

It would probably be the same as it is now: decided by the committee.

I don't think they'd require conference champs, just keep it at ambiguous criteria to consider for tiebreakers. It would lead to a better tournament and would prevent the G5 from having legal arguments.

For instance let's look at 2 years:

2008-

OU (1 Loss B12 Champ)
Florida (1 Loss SEC Champ)
Texas (1 Loss B12 runner up and #3 or #4 in either poll)
USC (1 Loss P10 champ)
Penn State (1 Loss B1G champ)

Last 3 spots get decided between Texas Tech (1 loss), Alabama (1 loss), Utah (unbeaten), and Boise (unbeaten).

By avoiding conference champs as expressed rules the playoff isn't obligated to take a 4 loss VT team and it potentially opens up a spot for a 2nd G5 team (Boise) in addition to Utah who likely gets in. I have to think that of the 4 teams vying for the last spot that the margin of defeat for TTU (and the presence of 2 Big 12 teams already) nixes their bid.

It lends itself to a better group.

Expanded playoffs discourage strong OOC schedules.

To expand you 2008 scenario, Ohio State (ranked #10 behind Boise) was 10-2 that year. Their losses were to USC and Penn State. OSU's other OOC games were Troy, Ohio, and Youngstown St.

If OSU had played 4 nobodies in their OOC, they probably would have jumped Boise, Texas Tech, and maybe even Utah and been guaranteed a spot in an 8-team playoff (because let's face it, the selection committee is organized very similar to how the polls are organized). It's practically guaranteed that's how they would organize their schedules if the playoffs expanded to 8 teams.

So if you're a fan of weak regular season matchups, then go ahead and root for the 8-team playoff. Personally, I much prefer to see dozens of strong intersectional games in the first few weeks of the year rather than a couple of playoffs games.

i'm with you there, Terry

B10 would get a New Conference commissioner!

Give the champs from the Top 5 conferences a spot and then take the next three best teams regardless of which conference they are in.

(07-09-2014 10:39 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Give the champs from the Top 5 conferences a spot and then take the next three best teams regardless of which conference they are in.

That is why an eight (8) playoff will happen in the very near future!

(07-09-2014 10:31 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 10:10 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:25 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Eight would be good. 5 power league champs, 1 G5(highest ranked champ) and 2 at larges.

I doubt they'd throw us a bone, if they did I'm sure we'd have to be top 12 or something to make the actual playoff.

It would probably be the same as it is now: decided by the committee.

I don't think they'd require conference champs, just keep it at ambiguous criteria to consider for tiebreakers. It would lead to a better tournament and would prevent the G5 from having legal arguments.

For instance let's look at 2 years:

2008-

OU (1 Loss B12 Champ)
Florida (1 Loss SEC Champ)
Texas (1 Loss B12 runner up and #3 or #4 in either poll)
USC (1 Loss P10 champ)
Penn State (1 Loss B1G champ)

Last 3 spots get decided between Texas Tech (1 loss), Alabama (1 loss), Utah (unbeaten), and Boise (unbeaten).

By avoiding conference champs as expressed rules the playoff isn't obligated to take a 4 loss VT team and it potentially opens up a spot for a 2nd G5 team (Boise) in addition to Utah who likely gets in. I have to think that of the 4 teams vying for the last spot that the margin of defeat for TTU (and the presence of 2 Big 12 teams already) nixes their bid.

It lends itself to a better group.

Expanded playoffs discourage strong OOC schedules.

To expand you 2008 scenario, Ohio State (ranked #10 behind Boise) was 10-2 that year. Their losses were to USC and Penn State. OSU's other OOC games were Troy, Ohio, and Youngstown St.

If OSU had played 4 nobodies in their OOC, they probably would have jumped Boise, Texas Tech, and maybe even Utah and been guaranteed a spot in an 8-team playoff (because let's face it, the selection committee is organized very similar to how the polls are organized). It's practically guaranteed that's how they would organize their schedules if the playoffs expanded to 8 teams.

So if you're a fan of weak regular season matchups, then go ahead and root for the 8-team playoff. Personally, I much prefer to see dozens of strong intersectional games in the first few weeks of the year rather than a couple of playoffs games.

Nonsense. We just expanded the playoff from 2 to 4 teams and the result has been a rush to build STRONGER schedules with MORE P5 games in OOC. Adding an additional 4 games makes no difference. In the end, multiple imperfect teams will be fighting for each of those 4 new slots. The winner of those slots will be based upon SOS. There are 64 teams in the NCAA tournament and every year it comes down to SOS. Ask SMU if they intend to schedule easier or harder this year for basketball. The key is not how many teams get into the playoff (and 8 team playoff would be 6% in the playoff vs nearly 19% for basketball). The key is how SOS is weighted by the selection committee. As long as they are true to their word about SOS, teams will not schedule weak OOC's.

but committee are not true to their word,
they flop like fish to serve their master

expanding playoffs to 8 is not gonna satisfy B-10
When SEC & B-12 are getting 2 a piece

A small cable provider but interesting nonetheless:

http://www.brctv.com/news/bigtennetwork-16-may-14

(07-09-2014 10:39 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Give the champs from the Top 5 conferences a spot and then take the next three best teams regardless of which conference they are in.

If this doesn't eventually happen, it would just show you how much power the SEC has. They are the only conference in D1 who wouldn't benefit from it, but not all votes are equal.