(12-10-2017 11:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 06:34 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Again, this is more if sitting at a bar conversation and brainstorming. Not that it will happen.

Since everyone talks about an 8 team playoff ...

Thing is, as soon as we get an 8-team playoff, "everyone" will immediately start clamoring for a 16-team playoff, just like when we had the BCS, and there was big controversy over who should be #2, everyone would say "a four-team playoff would solve this and make everyone happy!"

Truth is, no playoff format will do that. We know this because the Big Dance has 68 freaking teams, and yet the entire month leading up to Selection Sunday is dominated by talk of "who is on the bubble" and as soon as the teams are selected, it's about "whose bubble burst", "who got robbed", etc.

It's really pointless. Think about it: The only sports where there is no controversy about who made the playoffs are sports in which there are no 'at large' bids, where every spot is determined by some formula that involves winning a division followed by formal tie-breakers.

As long as someone is going to be selected by humans, there will be controversy and unhappiness, no matter if the field is 4 teams or 400 teams.

Easy answer to the problem is Conference champs get auto bid into playoff. Either 8 game top 8 teams and SOS or 10 games with wild card style 1st round.

Works in other leagues, would work here as well.

(12-11-2017 09:41 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Oklahoma will need to move - but the only logical move is to the SEC. No other conference works. Texas goes where ever and the rest are left behind. The other 8 schools really have no value.

The SEC is a good fit and probably allows them to keep Bedlam in conference. The Big Ten isn't a terrible landing spot either. It's a reunion with Nebraska and the Divison only has one perrenially strong team in Wisconsin so they'd be in a position to compete for titles immediately and regularly.

I wonder if Oklahoma would keep the RRR if they went to the SEC. Maybe the start playing A&M in the Cotton Bowl during the state fair instead. That would really make burnt orange blood boil.

(12-11-2017 11:01 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Oklahoma will be fought over by the Big Ten, Pac, and SEC.

Oklahoma will probably be the catalyst. The Big Ten may be an attractive conference, but they won't allow OSU to tag along. Also OU would be very much out of place geographically and culturally. The Pac has already shown itself to be amenable to taking OSU. The SEC might be willing to take the OK schools as a pair. OU and OSU aren't exactly attached at the hip, but OU should have enough leverage to bring little brother along.

The OK schools alone would also be rather out of place geographically and culturally in the Pac. But the Pac has more room to grow than the Big Ten or SEC, so at least two Texas schools can come along as well. If one of those schools isn't UT, however, there likely won't be any Pac expansion at all.

OU and OSU were turned down by the Pac 12 in 2011.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...c-12-snub/

In this attempted move, Texas decided to stay put, and the Pac 12 refused to take OU and OSU by themselves. The Pac did not want OU and OSU without Texas.

Times change, and administrations change, so you can never say never. But, IMO, the Pac 12 likes what they have, even if they make less money than the other P5 conferences.

Kansas is a valuable property, they won't get left behind. Iowa State won't get left behind either. AAU, attendance, support, and facilities are all fine in Ames. West Virginia won't get left behind either. Lots of wishing and hoping from the AAC schools like normal.

(12-12-2017 12:07 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 11:01 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Oklahoma will be fought over by the Big Ten, Pac, and SEC.

Oklahoma will probably be the catalyst. The Big Ten may be an attractive conference, but they won't allow OSU to tag along. Also OU would be very much out of place geographically and culturally. The Pac has already shown itself to be amenable to taking OSU. The SEC might be willing to take the OK schools as a pair. OU and OSU aren't exactly attached at the hip, but OU should have enough leverage to bring little brother along.

The OK schools alone would also be rather out of place geographically and culturally in the Pac. But the Pac has more room to grow than the Big Ten or SEC, so at least two Texas schools can come along as well. If one of those schools isn't UT, however, there likely won't be any Pac expansion at all.

OU and OSU were turned down by the Pac 12 in 2011.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...c-12-snub/

In this attempted move, Texas decided to stay put, and the Pac 12 refused to take OU and OSU by themselves. The Pac did not want OU and OSU without Texas.

Times change, and administrations change, so you can never say never. But, IMO, the Pac 12 likes what they have, even if they make less money than the other P5 conferences.

Texas is definitely the deal breaker for Pac expansion.

(12-12-2017 12:42 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Kansas is a valuable property, they won't get left behind. Iowa State won't get left behind either. AAU, attendance, support, and facilities are all fine in Ames. West Virginia won't get left behind either. Lots of wishing and hoping from the AAC schools like normal.

ISU will in all likelihood be left behind if the Big 12 falls apart. The Big Ten won't want them, as the market is already covered by Iowa. And no other conference would be willing to make the stretch to include ISU. It's unfortunate, but they're simply not valuable enough.

(12-12-2017 03:56 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 12:42 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Kansas is a valuable property, they won't get left behind. Iowa State won't get left behind either. AAU, attendance, support, and facilities are all fine in Ames. West Virginia won't get left behind either. Lots of wishing and hoping from the AAC schools like normal.

ISU will in all likelihood be left behind if the Big 12 falls apart. The Big Ten won't want them, as the market is already covered by Iowa. And no other conference would be willing to make the stretch to include ISU. It's unfortunate, but they're simply not valuable enough.

Kansas does not have a market either. Their basketball is good, but what drives the bus for expansions is football.

(12-11-2017 11:04 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Nice in theory, but the reality is that it is near impossible to find a home for at least 8 Big 12 programs in the four power conferences. After Texas and Oklahoma (and you can possibly group OK State/TCU in this group as well), are any of the other power conferences really pushing for the remaining programs?

An easier solution could - potentially - expand the playoff to six teams (instead of eight), and have each conference have their representative, with an at-large bid for #6. This solves a couple of issues. 1.) It guarantees each of the P5 to have a spot in the playoff. 2.) It allows Notre Dame to still have a great shot at getting into the playoff without forcing them into a conference. 3.) It provides a marginal sliver of hope for the G5, if they have an undefeated team to potentially get into a playoff. 4.) It only adds an additional week of games. 5.) It also removes the worry about putting two teams from a conference in, over one from a conference that is not going in.

I'm sorry, but that makes way too much sense to have a chance. What were you thinking?

Seriously, though, imagine the controversy about which two conference champions get that first round bye every year.

(12-11-2017 09:41 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Oklahoma will need to move - but the only logical move is to the SEC. No other conference works. Texas goes where ever and the rest are left behind. The other 8 schools really have no value.

OU fits with any conference in the P5, except perhaps the ACC.

(12-12-2017 03:56 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 12:42 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Kansas is a valuable property, they won't get left behind. Iowa State won't get left behind either. AAU, attendance, support, and facilities are all fine in Ames. West Virginia won't get left behind either. Lots of wishing and hoping from the AAC schools like normal.

ISU will in all likelihood be left behind if the Big 12 falls apart. The Big Ten won't want them, as the market is already covered by Iowa. And no other conference would be willing to make the stretch to include ISU. It's unfortunate, but they're simply not valuable enough.

(12-12-2017 06:52 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:56 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 12:42 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Kansas is a valuable property, they won't get left behind. Iowa State won't get left behind either. AAU, attendance, support, and facilities are all fine in Ames. West Virginia won't get left behind either. Lots of wishing and hoping from the AAC schools like normal.

ISU will in all likelihood be left behind if the Big 12 falls apart. The Big Ten won't want them, as the market is already covered by Iowa. And no other conference would be willing to make the stretch to include ISU. It's unfortunate, but they're simply not valuable enough.

Kansas does not have a market either. Their basketball is good, but what drives the bus for expansions is football.

Wrong and wrong.

(12-12-2017 09:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 11:04 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Nice in theory, but the reality is that it is near impossible to find a home for at least 8 Big 12 programs in the four power conferences. After Texas and Oklahoma (and you can possibly group OK State/TCU in this group as well), are any of the other power conferences really pushing for the remaining programs?

An easier solution could - potentially - expand the playoff to six teams (instead of eight), and have each conference have their representative, with an at-large bid for #6. This solves a couple of issues. 1.) It guarantees each of the P5 to have a spot in the playoff. 2.) It allows Notre Dame to still have a great shot at getting into the playoff without forcing them into a conference. 3.) It provides a marginal sliver of hope for the G5, if they have an undefeated team to potentially get into a playoff. 4.) It only adds an additional week of games. 5.) It also removes the worry about putting two teams from a conference in, over one from a conference that is not going in.

I'm sorry, but that makes way too much sense to have a chance. What were you thinking?

Seriously, though, imagine the controversy about which two conference champions get that first round bye every year.

Byes aren't uncommon -we see them in the NFL and MLB, and in the NCAA tournament too with the "first four" concept.

Sure, there would be some whining, but not all that much, because nobody is going to complain too much about being *in* the playoffs.

The big controversy would be over that sole "at large" spot.

(12-12-2017 12:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 09:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 11:04 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Nice in theory, but the reality is that it is near impossible to find a home for at least 8 Big 12 programs in the four power conferences. After Texas and Oklahoma (and you can possibly group OK State/TCU in this group as well), are any of the other power conferences really pushing for the remaining programs?

An easier solution could - potentially - expand the playoff to six teams (instead of eight), and have each conference have their representative, with an at-large bid for #6. This solves a couple of issues. 1.) It guarantees each of the P5 to have a spot in the playoff. 2.) It allows Notre Dame to still have a great shot at getting into the playoff without forcing them into a conference. 3.) It provides a marginal sliver of hope for the G5, if they have an undefeated team to potentially get into a playoff. 4.) It only adds an additional week of games. 5.) It also removes the worry about putting two teams from a conference in, over one from a conference that is not going in.

I'm sorry, but that makes way too much sense to have a chance. What were you thinking?

Seriously, though, imagine the controversy about which two conference champions get that first round bye every year.

Byes aren't uncommon -we see them in the NFL and MLB, and in the NCAA tournament too with the "first four" concept.

Sure, there would be some whining, but not all that much, because nobody is going to complain too much about being *in* the playoffs.

The big controversy would be over that sole "at large" spot.

My approach would be to include the highest ranked non-P5 conference champion or independent, provided that they are ranked in the Top 12. If there are no such champs or indys in the Top 12, then the spot goes to the highest ranked non-champ.

For the rankings, I would use the AP and Coaches' polls, Sagarin, Colley Matrix and Massey ranking. Throw out the highest and lowest rank for each team, and average the rest.

(12-10-2017 11:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 06:34 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Again, this is more if sitting at a bar conversation and brainstorming. Not that it will happen.

Since everyone talks about an 8 team playoff ...

Thing is, as soon as we get an 8-team playoff, "everyone" will immediately start clamoring for a 16-team playoff, just like when we had the BCS, and there was big controversy over who should be #2, everyone would say "a four-team playoff would solve this and make everyone happy!"

Truth is, no playoff format will do that. We know this because the Big Dance has 68 freaking teams, and yet the entire month leading up to Selection Sunday is dominated by talk of "who is on the bubble" and as soon as the teams are selected, it's about "whose bubble burst", "who got robbed", etc.

It's really pointless. Think about it: The only sports where there is no controversy about who made the playoffs are sports in which there are no 'at large' bids, where every spot is determined by some formula that involves winning a division followed by formal tie-breakers.

As long as someone is going to be selected by humans, there will be controversy and unhappiness, no matter if the field is 4 teams or 400 teams.

This is seriously the easiest thing in the world. It is only done in every other legitimate team sport that crowns a champion. Every conference champ gets in. Period. Pick some at large teams if you like but if you do not win your conference you have no gripe. Win it or join a conference you can win if you want to be in the playoff. The good old boy system protects the status quo and preserves the least credible "champion" in all of sports.

(12-12-2017 01:10 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 11:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 06:34 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Again, this is more if sitting at a bar conversation and brainstorming. Not that it will happen.

Since everyone talks about an 8 team playoff ...

Thing is, as soon as we get an 8-team playoff, "everyone" will immediately start clamoring for a 16-team playoff, just like when we had the BCS, and there was big controversy over who should be #2, everyone would say "a four-team playoff would solve this and make everyone happy!"

Truth is, no playoff format will do that. We know this because the Big Dance has 68 freaking teams, and yet the entire month leading up to Selection Sunday is dominated by talk of "who is on the bubble" and as soon as the teams are selected, it's about "whose bubble burst", "who got robbed", etc.

It's really pointless. Think about it: The only sports where there is no controversy about who made the playoffs are sports in which there are no 'at large' bids, where every spot is determined by some formula that involves winning a division followed by formal tie-breakers.

As long as someone is going to be selected by humans, there will be controversy and unhappiness, no matter if the field is 4 teams or 400 teams.

This is seriously the easiest thing in the world. It is only done in every other legitimate team sport that crowns a champion. Every conference champ gets in. Period. Pick some at large teams if you like but if you do not win your conference you have no gripe. Win it or join a conference you can win if you want to be in the playoff. The good old boy system protects the status quo and preserves the least credible "champion" in all of sports.

There is no other team sport remotely like college football. In those other sports, for one reason or another, including every conference champion makes some sense. For college football, it does not.

(12-12-2017 01:10 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 11:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 06:34 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Again, this is more if sitting at a bar conversation and brainstorming. Not that it will happen.

Since everyone talks about an 8 team playoff ...

Thing is, as soon as we get an 8-team playoff, "everyone" will immediately start clamoring for a 16-team playoff, just like when we had the BCS, and there was big controversy over who should be #2, everyone would say "a four-team playoff would solve this and make everyone happy!"

Truth is, no playoff format will do that. We know this because the Big Dance has 68 freaking teams, and yet the entire month leading up to Selection Sunday is dominated by talk of "who is on the bubble" and as soon as the teams are selected, it's about "whose bubble burst", "who got robbed", etc.

It's really pointless. Think about it: The only sports where there is no controversy about who made the playoffs are sports in which there are no 'at large' bids, where every spot is determined by some formula that involves winning a division followed by formal tie-breakers.

As long as someone is going to be selected by humans, there will be controversy and unhappiness, no matter if the field is 4 teams or 400 teams.

This is seriously the easiest thing in the world. It is only done in every other legitimate team sport that crowns a champion. Every conference champ gets in. Period. Pick some at large teams if you like but if you do not win your conference you have no gripe. Win it or join a conference you can win if you want to be in the playoff. The good old boy system protects the status quo and preserves the least credible "champion" in all of sports.

Let's face it: The college national champ has as much legitimacy as any other champ. Do you really think anybody regards Clemson as any less the football champ than North Carolina is the hoops champ? Nobody thinks that.

Your solution would actually dramatically decrease the credibility of the playoffs. E.g., imagine if this year, Alabama was not in the playoffs but FAU and Troy were?

Nobody would regard that as anything but bogus. In contrast, the winner of this four-team playoff will once again be universally regarded as the champ.

USC is unhappy with the PAC.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...gnment-lol

USC and the B1G spark realignment that gets us to the P4 (and almost the P2). They eschew the CFP and go to a plus-1 system, where the National Championship contenders are selected after the NY6 bowls.

B1G takes the four PAC California schools, Washington, Oregon and Colorado to expand to 21 teams. Separates into 3 divisions and institutes a 4-team conference championship (3 division winners and 1 wild card), semifinals in Indianapolis and Santa Clara, that culminates in the Rose Bowl.

The SEC grabs Texas and Oklahoma. The ACC provides Notre Dame with a landing spot and includes West Virginia to grow to 16.

Then, to counter the B1G's Rose Bowl, the expanded SEC and ACC affiliate for a Champions Bowl in the Sugar Bowl.

B1G (21)
Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St., Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St., Indiana
Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska
USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington, Colorado
10-game schedule: 6+2+2 format.
Semifinals in early December. Championship game = Rose Bowl.

SEC (16)
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee
Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Auburn, Alabama
Mississippi St., Ole Miss, LSU, Arkansas
Missouri, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma
9-game schedule: 3+2+2+2 OR 3+4+1+1 format (with annual rivals)
Championship in Atlanta. Champion plays ACC champ in Sugar bowl.

ACC (16)
Florida St., Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest
Virginia Tech, Louisville, WVU, Miami
North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Georgia Tech
Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College
9-game schedule: 3+2+2+2 format (with certain annual rivals).
Championship in Charlotte. Champion plays SEC champ in Sugar bowl.

....
The PAC and B12 leftovers regroup and merge, with a couple of additional invitees. The PAC/B12 affiliates with the Fiesta Bowl for its marquee bowl game.

PAC/B12 (14)
Arizona, Arizona St., Utah, Washington St., Oregon St., SDSU, BYU
TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor, Iowa St., Kansas, Kansas St., Oklahoma St.
9-game schedule: 6+3 format.
Championship in Arlington. Champion plays in Fiesta Bowl.

G5 champ still gets NY6 invite to Cotton or Peach bowl.

NY6 Bowls:
Rose: B1G championship
Sugar: SEC v. ACC champions
Orange: ACC v. SEC or B1G
Fiesta: PAC/B12 v. B1G
Cotton: SEC or B1G v. at large
Peach: at large v. at large

National Championship = plus one. Participants selected after the NY6 bowl games.

(12-12-2017 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:10 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 11:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 06:34 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Again, this is more if sitting at a bar conversation and brainstorming. Not that it will happen.

Since everyone talks about an 8 team playoff ...

Thing is, as soon as we get an 8-team playoff, "everyone" will immediately start clamoring for a 16-team playoff, just like when we had the BCS, and there was big controversy over who should be #2, everyone would say "a four-team playoff would solve this and make everyone happy!"

Truth is, no playoff format will do that. We know this because the Big Dance has 68 freaking teams, and yet the entire month leading up to Selection Sunday is dominated by talk of "who is on the bubble" and as soon as the teams are selected, it's about "whose bubble burst", "who got robbed", etc.

It's really pointless. Think about it: The only sports where there is no controversy about who made the playoffs are sports in which there are no 'at large' bids, where every spot is determined by some formula that involves winning a division followed by formal tie-breakers.

As long as someone is going to be selected by humans, there will be controversy and unhappiness, no matter if the field is 4 teams or 400 teams.

This is seriously the easiest thing in the world. It is only done in every other legitimate team sport that crowns a champion. Every conference champ gets in. Period. Pick some at large teams if you like but if you do not win your conference you have no gripe. Win it or join a conference you can win if you want to be in the playoff. The good old boy system protects the status quo and preserves the least credible "champion" in all of sports.

Let's face it: The college national champ has as much legitimacy as any other champ. Do you really think anybody regards Clemson as any less the football champ than North Carolina is the hoops champ? Nobody thinks that.

Your solution would actually dramatically decrease the credibility of the playoffs. E.g., imagine if this year, Alabama was not in the playoffs but FAU and Troy were?

Nobody would regard that as anything but bogus. In contrast, the winner of this four-team playoff will once again be universally regarded as the champ.

Hey Guys, I like you both fine, but a playoff discussion is off topic for a thread about possible PAC and Big 10 expansion to become a P4. Start another playoff structure thread if you want to continue this.

Thanks, JR

(12-12-2017 05:25 PM)YNot Wrote:  USC is unhappy with the PAC.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...gnment-lol

USC and the B1G spark realignment that gets us to the P4 (and almost the P2). They eschew the CFP and go to a plus-1 system, where the National Championship contenders are selected after the NY6 bowls.

B1G takes the four PAC California schools, Washington, Oregon and Colorado to expand to 21 teams. Separates into 3 divisions and institutes a 4-team conference championship (3 division winners and 1 wild card), semifinals in Indianapolis and Santa Clara, that culminates in the Rose Bowl.

The SEC grabs Texas and Oklahoma. The ACC provides Notre Dame with a landing spot and includes West Virginia to grow to 16.

Then, to counter the B1G's Rose Bowl, the expanded SEC and ACC affiliate for a Champions Bowl in the Sugar Bowl.

B1G (21)
Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St., Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St., Indiana
Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska
USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington, Colorado
10-game schedule: 6+2+2 format.
Semifinals in early December. Championship game = Rose Bowl.

SEC (16)
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee
Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Auburn, Alabama
Mississippi St., Ole Miss, LSU, Arkansas
Missouri, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma
9-game schedule: 3+2+2+2 OR 3+4+1+1 format (with annual rivals)
Championship in Atlanta. Champion plays ACC champ in Sugar bowl.

ACC (16)
Florida St., Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest
Virginia Tech, Louisville, WVU, Miami
North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Georgia Tech
Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College
9-game schedule: 3+2+2+2 format (with certain annual rivals).
Championship in Charlotte. Champion plays SEC champ in Sugar bowl.

....
The PAC and B12 leftovers regroup and merge, with a couple of additional invitees. The PAC/B12 affiliates with the Fiesta Bowl for its marquee bowl game.

PAC/B12 (14)
Arizona, Arizona St., Utah, Washington St., Oregon St., SDSU, BYU
TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor, Iowa St., Kansas, Kansas St., Oklahoma St.
9-game schedule: 6+3 format.
Championship in Arlington. Champion plays in Fiesta Bowl.

G5 champ still gets NY6 invite to Cotton or Peach bowl.

NY6 Bowls:
Rose: B1G championship
Sugar: SEC v. ACC champions
Orange: ACC v. SEC or B1G
Fiesta: PAC/B12 v. B1G
Cotton: SEC or B1G v. at large
Peach: at large v. at large

National Championship = plus one. Participants selected after the NY6 bowl games.

Don't you think that if Stanford and USC were probable for the Big 10 that Notre Dame might be rethinking their ACC affiliation?

And if something major happened with regards to PAC placement I think ESPN would use Texas and Oklahoma to anchor at least 4 of those PAC schools, maybe even more.

So you might wind up with conferences that looked like these:

Big 12:

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington

Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Why? The California schools & Washington will stick together. Utah builds a bridge and Texas would like the caliber of the schools coming on board.

I think Colorado would opt Big 10 and Kansas would have their only chance to make that jump and they would say yes.

So the Big 10 becomes:

Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska

Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers


The SEC is strong enough but would have some niche additions that could be made to help clear room for this. T.C.U. puts the SEC in DFW and gives them a second Texas school and rival for A&M. West Virginia expands our markets into the Northeast.

So the SEC becomes:

Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt

Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia


And the ACC is now free to take in the only G5 school which is ranked above more than 1 or 2 of the present 65.

ACC:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Syracuse

Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Yes this kind of move forces N.D. all in and UConn gives them a bigger hold in New England.

Having all 4 North Carolina schools in one division keeps the state of North Carolina involved annually in the conference championship rounds.

Having all 4 of the football first schools in the same division keeps their fans and A.D.'s happy because it increases the value of their home season books with the games their fans want most to see.

Washington State and Oregon State join with Boise State, San Diego State, Brigham Young, Air Force, Wyoming, the two Nevada's, Fresno St., New Mexico, Tulsa, S.M.U. and Houston to form a new version of the WAC and the AAC takes the best of all of the G5 in the East and now we have 4 P conferences and a G2 on steriods that will form the new upper tier.

Then you seed the P4 champs and their #3 & #4 seeds play the champs of the AAC and new WAC and there's your playoff.

A stupid thought occurs:

There's talk on the boards about UConn moving to the Big East and becoming a football independent.

If the Big 12 dies and they can't find a power-conference home, would West Virginia be a candidate to do that?

(12-12-2017 08:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:10 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 11:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 06:34 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Again, this is more if sitting at a bar conversation and brainstorming. Not that it will happen.

Since everyone talks about an 8 team playoff ...

Thing is, as soon as we get an 8-team playoff, "everyone" will immediately start clamoring for a 16-team playoff, just like when we had the BCS, and there was big controversy over who should be #2, everyone would say "a four-team playoff would solve this and make everyone happy!"

Truth is, no playoff format will do that. We know this because the Big Dance has 68 freaking teams, and yet the entire month leading up to Selection Sunday is dominated by talk of "who is on the bubble" and as soon as the teams are selected, it's about "whose bubble burst", "who got robbed", etc.

It's really pointless. Think about it: The only sports where there is no controversy about who made the playoffs are sports in which there are no 'at large' bids, where every spot is determined by some formula that involves winning a division followed by formal tie-breakers.

As long as someone is going to be selected by humans, there will be controversy and unhappiness, no matter if the field is 4 teams or 400 teams.

This is seriously the easiest thing in the world. It is only done in every other legitimate team sport that crowns a champion. Every conference champ gets in. Period. Pick some at large teams if you like but if you do not win your conference you have no gripe. Win it or join a conference you can win if you want to be in the playoff. The good old boy system protects the status quo and preserves the least credible "champion" in all of sports.

Let's face it: The college national champ has as much legitimacy as any other champ. Do you really think anybody regards Clemson as any less the football champ than North Carolina is the hoops champ? Nobody thinks that.

Your solution would actually dramatically decrease the credibility of the playoffs. E.g., imagine if this year, Alabama was not in the playoffs but FAU and Troy were?

Nobody would regard that as anything but bogus. In contrast, the winner of this four-team playoff will once again be universally regarded as the champ.

Hey Guys, I like you both fine, but a playoff discussion is off topic for a thread about possible PAC and Big 10 expansion to become a P4. Start another playoff structure thread if you want to continue this.

Thanks, JR

The original post was about how having 4 conferences would make it easier to seed the playoff. The whole thread is about playoff structure at its core.