(11-07-2017 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 04:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What ultimately brought change to the BCS system was the all-SEC championship game a few years back. That's when the powers at be started talking about a playoff. Now that we've got a playoff, I can definitely see this nightmare scenario forcing yet more changes.

If 3 separate conferences are left out then I do think you'll see a push for a champs only event although I wouldn't be shocked to see an expansion either.

How might it speed up realignment? Well, somehow we've got to account for 8 Big 12 schools...maybe even all 10.

The wrinkle in that is if Notre Dame can make the playoff without being a conference champion then we have to see a major shift in order to force them to go full in with the ACC. A champs only event would do it, but can everyone agree?

What I'm getting at is this...if it's champs only then your odds of making the playoff are directly related to how strong your conference competition is. If only one can make it then that's certainly an incentive to choose a weaker conference. The stronger the conference(SEC) then the less likely you are to want to limit it to champs as it could limit your possibilities in a variety of regards.

And since everyone knows the Big 12 is on the way out then whoever is opposed to a champs-only model may have to do some wheeling and dealing with Big 12 members to get a more favorable situation. In essence, if the Big 12 is interested in voting champs only then the SEC might look at that prospect one of two ways....

1) They may find a way to protest the process if the Big 12 votes for a measure that quickens its own death. In other words, why should their vote be allowed to alter the system if they're not even going to be around to participate under the new rules.

2) Strike some sort of deal with Big 12 schools that might very well still result in a champs-only playoff, but somehow gives an edge to the SEC under a new set of rules.

I'm not really proposing a specific plan of action. Just musing how some of these things might be viewed.

This is a good point to raise. I suspect that the trade off would be ease of access vs payout. Obviously Texas and Oklahoma are worth more in either the Big 10 or SEC, but the easiest path to the final four might well be to the West.

Send Texa-homa to the PAC and they ar at 16.

The SEC could take T.C.U. for the DFW market and look at taking West Virginia/Iowa State/or Kansas. I would lean toward Kansas because it gives the West a breather in conference. If the Big 10 wanted to move to 16 with Iowa State and Kansas then great. The SEC could take WVU and call it a day. That's 8 and it's adios Big 12. The SEC adds two to the middle and upper middle. Neither the SEC or Big 10 gets Texas and Oklahoma so that's a stalemate that would be acceptable.

If however the Big 10 wanted Iowa State and Kansas for whatever reason, and WVU received interest from the ACC then maybe looking at USF or UCF in connection with T.C.U. would be the most natural way to end SEC expansion. Shore up DFW and pick up a Central to South Florida presence.