(05-16-2019 11:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 11:17 AM)esayem Wrote:  The Michigan AD chirped this week in support of looking into it.

As I've said, the B1G is an extremely powerful force in college athletics. If they want something, there's a good chance they will get it, unless the SEC is equally admantly against it.

The B1G has in fact been "hurt" by the CFP more than any other conference, compared to what we would have under say an expanded 8 team playoff.

E.g., if we look at the last two seasons, and compare the ACC and the B1G, the ACC has had two teams ranked in the top 4, and thus has put two teams in the CFP (Clemson each year). If the playoffs had been 8 teams rather than 4, that would not have changed, as Clemson was the only ACC team ranked in the final top 8 each of the last two years.

In contrast, the B1G had 3 teams in the top 8 in 2017, and 2 in the top 8 this past season, but has had zero teams in the CFP, because none of those teams were top 4. So if we had had an 8-team playoff the past two seasons, even with no autobids for conference champs, the B1G would have had 5 playoff teams in compared to 2 for the ACC.

Heck, if we go back one more year, to 2016, the ACC and B1G both put one team in the playoffs - #2 Clemson, #3 Ohio State. But, whereas once again Clemson was the only ACC team ranked in the top 8, the B1G had *three* other teams ranked in the top 8, and would have gotten 4 teams in an 8-team playoff!

So the last three years, with a 4-team playoff, the ACC has 3 playoff teams and the B1G just 1. Whereas with an 8-team playoff with no auto-bids, the B1G would have had *9* playoff teams to 3 for the ACC.

The B1G has been really good at producing top-8 teams, but not top-4 teams.

The SEC also benefits.

2018 - +1 add #5 Georgia (#1 Alabama)
2017 - +1, add #7 Auburn (#3 Georgia, #4 Alabama)

Though, one could argue that the Georgia-Alabama CCG loses luster if both teams are slotted for the CFP, win or lose in the CCG.