(11-05-2017 12:38 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

So off on so many levels.
This would officially open up anti trust litigation due to the G5 effectively being banned from the playoff..........currently they technically can make it, even though we all know they can't....... courts would like that technicality in an anti trust case. You remove that and it becomes a lot more murkier and would favor a plaintiff.

Secondly and more importantly, what on GODS green earth makes you think the PAC, ACC, and BIG12 are just gonna roll over and allow B1G/SEC to get advantages. We all know that since they usually have more bias in their favor, they will get those last two slots most years.

Lastly, you are giving ND an inherent advantage. All they need to be is top 8. Other teams need to win their conference or compete in ranking with other runner ups......which is tough to do when the runner up would have just lost the championship game and taken a bath in the polls from the loss.

Look, I'm all for expanding the playoffs.......but just leave it to the current ranking system of the committee. You start making designated auto bids and it screws up the system and makes it weaker.

I am so amazed that a fan of any sport would be ok with making a playoff based off of potential ratings and not simply using the best teams.

Where to start.....

1) Those seeds were based on THIS YEAR'S performances. In other years, those WC's could change, capiche? It's also possible that if, like last year, ND is down then that slot would go to another conference's runner up.

2) No one gives a flying duck about the G5 except G5 fanboys. If you think the PAC would have a problem with the SEC/B1G getting one of the WC's over their runner up they sure as hell aren't going to accept some G5 program getting in over theirs. That pretty much COMPLETELY destroys your argument.

3) The playoffs are about RATINGS. The networks didn't pay billions for the rights to televise the CFP to show the Memphis game. They WANT programs from the P5. They want programs with huge followings. They'll take and WANT a Bama-tOSU, OU-Washington or ND-OU matchup over what "some" might argue as a "better team". Which, BTW, is completely subjective and purely opinion based.

4) It amazes me that a fan of any sport would continue to fall for the old and untrue argument that all conferences are the same. I heard that same BS back in the Boise days. Oh, they're 12-1, they DESERVE to be there. Ah, no they don't. Playing an average Iowa or Mississippi team is still harder than playing a "good" MWC team.