SeaBee_Gopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2022
- Messages
- 445
- Reaction score
- 518
- Points
- 93
I've now been convinced of the 4-4-2-2-1-1 model. I didn't like it initially because I thought it didn't allow for enough annual variance, but the argument that convinced me is it significantly limits the power of the "playoff committee". I don't trust those people to be fair. Win on the field and you're in based on your conference's allocation of automatic slots. Instead of having annual unending arguments with what the committee is doing, the conferences can occasionally argue about he number of automatic bids. Maybe you renegotiate every 5 years. If the B1G or SEC do poorly for a while, lower their number of automatic bids. If the ACC does better, raise them to three, etc.
I think with 1-6 in the conference playing elimination games, you don't need the nine game schedule anymore. Lower it to 8 like the SEC and save these kids' bodies a little from the wear and tear. Those extra elimination games will provide enough added strength of schedule for any good team and plenty of added TV revenue.
I actually prefer the 12 team playoff with the adjustments made to last year's selection process, but know we're going to 16 teams because of the money.
I think with 1-6 in the conference playing elimination games, you don't need the nine game schedule anymore. Lower it to 8 like the SEC and save these kids' bodies a little from the wear and tear. Those extra elimination games will provide enough added strength of schedule for any good team and plenty of added TV revenue.
I actually prefer the 12 team playoff with the adjustments made to last year's selection process, but know we're going to 16 teams because of the money.
