How I learned to stop worrying and love the expanded CFB Playoff

GarnetBeamer

Active Member
Dec 7, 2020
2,070
2,648
113
It creates recruiting imbalances. The same thing that happens in business.

Do you believe all of Amazon, IBM, etc. success is directly related to their continual brilliant decision making?

Or was it also that they caught tail wail and through their household name which increased success by heavy multiples?

Remember when people used to call making paper copies "Xeroxing?"

The network effect is very real. This is one reason why our government sometimes is forced to intervene.

Recruiting imbalances existed long before the CFP or even the BCS.

People are just miffed that the CFP is merely confirmation that some teams are simply better than others. It seems people hoped the CFP would expose a team like Alabama, when all it's done is give further confirmation that they're as good (or better) as they seemed to be. On a year-to-year basis, certain teams will always out-recruit other teams. UCF will never out-recruit Alabama. Ever. There is no conceivable system in which they can compete with Bama in recruiting. Bama could go 0-11 for 3 straight years and still out-recruit UCF.

Short of taking a kid's choice away, you're not gonna correct recruiting imbalances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USMCatFan

Balwiles

Member
Nov 20, 2020
223
146
43
Recruiting imbalances existed long before the CFP or even the BCS.

People are just miffed that the CFP is merely confirmation that some teams are simply better than others. It seems people hoped the CFP would expose a team like Alabama, when all it's done is give further confirmation that they're as good (or better) as they seemed to be. On a year-to-year basis, certain teams will always out-recruit other teams. UCF will never out-recruit Alabama. Ever. There is no conceivable system in which they can compete with Bama in recruiting. Bama could go 0-11 for 3 straight years and still out-recruit UCF.

Short of taking a kid's choice away, you're not gonna correct recruiting imbalances.

"Creates" wasn't the correct word there. I should have stated "exacerbates" which was included the original post.

We're only 7 years in. This bottleneck will likely only get worse.
 

GarnetBeamer

Active Member
Dec 7, 2020
2,070
2,648
113
"Creates" wasn't the correct word there. I should have stated "exacerbates" which was included the original post.

We're only 7 years in. This bottleneck will likely only get worse.

So is the goal of a playoff to correct recruiting imbalances? What's gonna happen when they expand the CFP and the first title game is between Bama and OSU or Bama and Clemson?

Might as well go full-on socialism and just dictate where recruits can go to school. Make sure every P5 and G5 school get equal allotments of 5*, 4* and 3* recruits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USMCatFan

king ward

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 1999
32,613
25,778
113
70
Lancaster, SC
King, I'll flip that around to you. Do you not believe in the monopoly concept?

I've discussed recruiting. Here's one for perception: Two years ago, Will Muschamp sat down with ESPN after his SEC Conference speech - What was the first thing they asked him? "If you were a recruit just coming out of high school, would you choose Clemson or Alabama?"

This happens on a regular basis now.
I believe that those who have enjoyed something like a monopoly don't indefinitely keep it. I don't believe that the change depends on intervention, either. Internal changes and successions bring it about. That's why we don't see the Michigans, Nebraskas, and Notre Dames up there all the time now when most assuredly we would have if this were the 1960s or the 1970s. There will always be a top tier. It is natural. It is desirable, but it's occupants are not guaranteed permanence. Florida State might have been a playoff mainstay in the 1990s. Look at them now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USMCatFan

Balwiles

Member
Nov 20, 2020
223
146
43
So is the goal of a playoff to correct recruiting imbalances? What's gonna happen when they expand the CFP and the first title game is between Bama and OSU or Bama and Clemson?

Might as well go full-on socialism and just dictate where recruits can go to school. Make sure every P5 and G5 school get equal allotments of 5*, 4* and 3* recruits.

These are fundamental concepts in capitalism.

I have no doubt the first several title games could look like that beyond expansion as the effect unwinds.

When you expand the playoffs, it signals a larger team pool to potential prospects and the talking heads aren't centered on four to five teams year after year.
 

Balwiles

Member
Nov 20, 2020
223
146
43
I believe that those who have enjoyed something like a monopoly don't indefinitely keep it. I don't believe that the change depends on intervention, either. Internal changes and successions bring it about. That's why we don't see the Michigans, Nebraskas, and Notre Dames up there all the time now when most assuredly we would have if this were the 1960s or the 1970s. There will always be a top tier. It is natural. It is desirable, but it's occupants are not guaranteed permanence. Florida State might have been a playoff mainstay in the 1990s. Look at them now.

It's a vacuum effect. By week 8, all of the networks are talking about the same thing - the College Football Playoffs. Prior to the CFP, it was about bowl season. That's just one delineation which can have major downstream implications.
 

Gamecock Lifer

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 8, 2008
11,059
9,227
113
So is the goal of a playoff to correct recruiting imbalances? What's gonna happen when they expand the CFP and the first title game is between Bama and OSU or Bama and Clemson?

Might as well go full-on socialism and just dictate where recruits can go to school. Make sure every P5 and G5 school get equal allotments of 5*, 4* and 3* recruits.
You do know why they implemented limits to the number of recruits a team can get, right?
 

Gamecock Lifer

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 8, 2008
11,059
9,227
113
The current system is broken, again- not because of who won the trophy eventually, because there is no way of knowing who would have won if a more fair selection process had been in place. It is broken because of the subjective nature of the selection process itself and last year was the smoking gun. NO WAY OSU should have gotten in with that BS schedule they played, but they are OSU and they are almost always in, so GUESS WHO GOT SELECTED over more deserving teams. This happens every year and it is why, after SEVEN four team playoffs we have had only a grab total of like 10/11 different teams make it to the playoffs. The recruits see those are the only teams who have made it, so all the best recruits keep going to those schools- even if they may have grown up a fan of/dreaming of playing for another program sometimes- and it is a self fulfilling repetition of Bama, coemsun, OSU and Oklahoma… Getting the best players over and over and over… It has ended parity in CFB. There is none. It is the same top 10 or so teams getting all the players every year and making the playoffs. As ling as the subjective selection process stays the same and the potential for making the playoffs and winning championships is limited to the same couple of teams that the selection committee always selects, there will be no change. It should be fair and equitable and your participation in playoffs should be earned on a field not handed to you because “OSU has always been good so we will let them in even though they played less games and zero good teams”. That is what is broken. If they expand to 12 and have conf champs auto placed and Bama still wins- great! They earned it fairly. But it will change the dynamic of recruiting substantially and that along with well implemented NIL rules should allow for more parity long term and more interesting product on the end than seeing the same 2-3 teams play each other for the championship every year.
 

king ward

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 1999
32,613
25,778
113
70
Lancaster, SC
It's a vacuum effect. By week 8, all of the networks are talking about the same thing - the College Football Playoffs. Prior to the CFP, it was about bowl season. That's just one delineation which can have major downstream implications.
That effect would be attenuated at least somewhat by adoption of the suggestions I made earlier in the thread. Whatever the ultimate prize is in any system will always get a lot of attention. Why wouldn't it? But make every week of the regular season more captivating and the CFP implications are highlighted earlier with more games in the conversation. No need for the CFP rankings to begin in October, either, in that case. They could begin weeks earlier. In any case, from the outset, more teams would have a larger hand in what happens.
 

king ward

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 1999
32,613
25,778
113
70
Lancaster, SC
The current system is broken, again- not because of who won the trophy eventually, because there is no way of knowing who would have won if a more fair selection process had been in place. It is broken because of the subjective nature of the selection process itself and last year was the smoking gun. NO WAY OSU should have gotten in with that BS schedule they played, but they are OSU and they are almost always in, so GUESS WHO GOT SELECTED over more deserving teams. This happens every year and it is why, after SEVEN four team playoffs we have had only a grab total of like 10/11 different teams make it to the playoffs. The recruits see those are the only teams who have made it, so all the best recruits keep going to those schools- even if they may have grown up a fan of/dreaming of playing for another program sometimes- and it is a self fulfilling repetition of Bama, coemsun, OSU and Oklahoma… Getting the best players over and over and over… It has ended parity in CFB. There is none. It is the same top 10 or so teams getting all the players every year and making the playoffs. As ling as the subjective selection process stays the same and the potential for making the playoffs and winning championships is limited to the same couple of teams that the selection committee always selects, there will be no change. It should be fair and equitable and your participation in playoffs should be earned on a field not handed to you because “OSU has always been good so we will let them in even though they played less games and zero good teams”. That is what is broken. If they expand to 12 and have conf champs auto placed and Bama still wins- great! They earned it fairly. But it will change the dynamic of recruiting substantially and that along with well implemented NIL rules should allow for more parity long term and more interesting product on the end than seeing the same 2-3 teams play each other for the championship every year.
Last year was atypical, but OSU beat another CFP semifinalists that played a full conference schedule, did they not? I hate 'em, but I nor anyone else can say convincingly that they weren't one of the four best teams in the country. That's all that matters
 
  • Like
Reactions: USMCatFan

USMCatFan

Member
Oct 2, 2007
396
605
93
This is the issue with the playoffs. The top players are flocking to these 4 programs. I was never a fan of more than 4 until the past few years and realizing it’s going to be 3 of these 4 just about every year with someone else in the mix. Spreading the field to 8 will at least make it more attractive for recruits to choose another school.

With the current setup, the top 4 school in America basically get the top recruits because of the advantages they have in being in the playoff each season. Of course that’s not the only reason they get the players, but it’s a huge advantage.

In the NFL, the winner of the Super Bowl gets the last draft pick. This is set up where the winner gets the “first pick”. It doesn’t have to be fair, but the current setup is certainly benefitting 4 universities far more than anyone else in the country. 8 or 12 would at least spread some of the talent out and give up and coming teams a better chance to create some momentum for themselves with a big upset win in the playoffs.
I don't care how many teams they put into the Playoff...As long as it's the BEST teams. I don't care if a 12 Team Playoff includes the entire SEC minus Vandy and Arkansas.

But, if they are doing some kind of Touchy-Feely, All-Inclusive, Participation-Trophy Expansion. I'm not into that at all.

This whole "Spread the wealth" recruiting argument is BULLSH$T!!!

UK is in the SEC. Make the playoff as many teams as you wish. It still doesn't make UK's chances to win a championship appreciably better. UK still has to win the games to make the SEC Championship and win it to make the playoff.

This fantasy about the West Coast and the G5 having a shot is also BULLSH$T!

A 12 team playoff will mean there will likely be 4 decent games by the 8 lowest rated teams the first weekend. Then the winners of the first weekend are going to get bludgeoned by the 4 highest rated teams.

The highest rated teams will still have the best talent because they recruit better than anyone else. They recruit better than everyone else because they win more than anyone else. Bama, Clemson and OSU aren't recruiting better because they are making the Play-off. They are making the Play-off because they are recruiting better than everyone else. Same as when champions were crowned through the BCS. Same as when the Champ was crowned using the polls.

The West Coast and the G5 will win more games once they start recruiting better .
 

USMCatFan

Member
Oct 2, 2007
396
605
93
In fact, I would suggest that expanding the playoff to include more bad (G5) teams is going to make the recruiting and inclusivity problems even worse.

As it stands now, G5 teams receive "generous" rankings during the season. Cry about not getting serious consideration for the Playoff. Then, face a disinterested P5 team that is disappointed in both its bowl placement and opponent. Then, the G5 teams win a disproportionate number of those "bad" bowl games. Which reinforces the G5's "We be disrespected" whining.

With an expanded playoff? Starting out the first few years, G5 teams will still receive mistakenly inflated rankings. Get placed into the Playoff against P5 teams which are hungry to be in the playoff. Get bludgeoned (or just plain embarrassed) in those games.

In just a few years the media (and the Selection Committee) will tire of lining up fodder for the P5 teams and begin selecting the absolute minimum number of G5 teams for massacre.
 

GarnetBeamer

Active Member
Dec 7, 2020
2,070
2,648
113
In fact, I would suggest that expanding the playoff to include more bad (G5) teams is going to make the recruiting and inclusivity problems even worse.

As it stands now, G5 teams receive "generous" rankings during the season. Cry about not getting serious consideration for the Playoff. Then, face a disinterested P5 team that is disappointed in both its bowl placement and opponent. Then, the G5 teams win a disproportionate number of those "bad" bowl games. Which reinforces the G5's "We be disrespected" whining.

With an expanded playoff? Starting out the first few years, G5 teams will still receive mistakenly inflated rankings. Get placed into the Playoff against P5 teams which are hungry to be in the playoff. Get bludgeoned (or just plain embarrassed) in those games.

In just a few years the media (and the Selection Committee) will tire of lining up fodder for the P5 teams and begin selecting the absolute minimum number of G5 teams for massacre.

Nice point. Good grief, can you imagine what Bama would have done to some hapless G5 team in the playoffs last year?
 

Balwiles

Member
Nov 20, 2020
223
146
43
The CFP system has been in place for 7 years. Below are the AP's Top 4 Teams for the 7 years prior to the playoffs. Notice the difference in parity? And it's still very early. This effect is momentum based and only gets worse over time.

2013
1 Florida State
2 Auburn
3 Michigan State
4 South Carolina

2012
1) Alabama
2) Oregon
3) Ohio State
4) Notre Dame

2011
1) Alabama
2) LSU
3) Oklahoma State
4) Oregon

2010
1) Auburn
2) TCU
3) Oregon
4) Stanford

2009
1) Alabama
2) Texas
3) Florida
4) Boise State

2008
1) Florida
2) Utah
3) Southern Cal
4) Texas

2007
1) LSU
2) Georgia
3) Southern Cal
4) Missouri
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Carolina4

USMCatFan

Member
Oct 2, 2007
396
605
93
I'll tell you when all this Mandatory G5 inclusion will cause me to go berserk.

Make just a couple of changes to last year's proposed result...

Last year it would have been:

1st round byes:
Bama (1)
Clemson (2)
OSU (3)
ND (4)

Oregon (12) at A&M (5)
IU (11) at Oklahoma (6)
Iowa St (10) at UF (7)
UGA (9) at Cincy (8)

Have UK finish 2nd in the East instead of Georgia. Have UK end the regular season ranked 11th. Maybe Cincy ends the year ranked 13th. But, Cincy is still the highest ranked G5 team. UK gets bumped from the playoff because Cincy as the highest rated G5 has to be included.

Not sure what I would do. But, I'm pretty sure I'd require Felony Bail money.
 

Gamecock Lifer

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 8, 2008
11,059
9,227
113
Last year was atypical, but OSU beat another CFP semifinalists that played a full conference schedule, did they not? I hate 'em, but I nor anyone else can say convincingly that they weren't one of the four best teams in the country. That's all that matters
Can you say Cinci or coastal were not one of the four best?
 

atl-cock

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2006
8,142
1,943
113
Atlanta (Beaufort native)
That would be alright. But several leagues already play nine conference games. With a 14-team league, why should the SEC play fewer?
I was opposed to the SEC expanding to 14 members (MEMBERS, everyone, not TEAMS) in the first place.

SEC already plays more conference series than the Big XII in baseball.
 

king ward

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 1999
32,613
25,778
113
70
Lancaster, SC
I was opposed to the SEC expanding to 14 members (MEMBERS, everyone, not TEAMS) in the first place.

SEC already plays more conference series than the Big XII in baseball.
And the SEC should be playing nine games in football also. Reverse how they do things now. Have one or two permanent opponents to protect historical rivalries and make everything else round robin. Unfortunately, our problem is that we don't have anyone now that might be willing to partner with us. Maybe Georgia would if they also get to keep Florida. I don't know whom else we could get. I'd be good with Missouri since we already have that Columbia Trophy thing going on with them.
 

Gamecock Lifer

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 8, 2008
11,059
9,227
113
Not in this case. You could come up with some plausible examples, I suppose, but you'd have to do better than that.
But.. that IS THE example though. What happened last year with OSU being picked over more deserving teams despite their shortened weak schedule is the catalyst for this 12 team playoff proposal and the exact reason it is taking off right now.
 

atl-cock

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2006
8,142
1,943
113
Atlanta (Beaufort native)
And the SEC should be playing nine games in football also. Reverse how they do things now. Have one or two permanent opponents to protect historical rivalries and make everything else round robin. Unfortunately, our problem is that we don't have anyone now that might be willing to partner with us. Maybe Georgia would if they also get to keep Florida. I don't know whom else we could get. I'd be good with Missouri since we already have that Columbia Trophy thing going on with them.
An that's why when the SEC re-expanded to 12 when admitting USC & ARK, we became a permanent cross-division opponent in football for each other.

A problem with 9 conference games is that you'll always have an uneven number of home-vs-road games each season.

Of course, when we were in the ACC and in those years we played every other conference member, it was uneven. Hmmmm....... I'd still would rather play a Kansas for a change rather than Ole Miss State again.
 

king ward

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 1999
32,613
25,778
113
70
Lancaster, SC
An that's why when the SEC re-expanded to 12 when admitting USC & ARK, we became a permanent cross-division opponent in football for each other.

A problem with 9 conference games is that you'll always have an uneven number of home-vs-road games each season.

Of course, when we were in the ACC and in those years we played every other conference member, it was uneven. Hmmmm....... I'd still would rather play a Kansas for a change rather than Ole Miss State again.
How do you mean "again"? You'd only play a team once in a given year.
 

king ward

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 1999
32,613
25,778
113
70
Lancaster, SC
But.. that IS THE example though. What happened last year with OSU being picked over more deserving teams despite their shortened weak schedule is the catalyst for this 12 team playoff proposal and the exact reason it is taking off right now.
Despite howls of protests, mine among them, Ohio State was better than any team that wasn't picked and last year was not a typical year. If every year were going to be like last year, I might agree with the need for a change. As it is, I do not.
 

Gamecock Lifer

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 8, 2008
11,059
9,227
113
Despite howls of protests, mine among them, Ohio State was better than any team that wasn't picked and last year was not a typical year. If every year were going to be like last year, I might agree with the need for a change. As it is, I do not.
That is fair, last year was certainly an exceptional circumstance. It turns out that OSU looked like a good pick- as they to my great joy whipped clemsun! I am not trying to discount your opinion here, just saying that the outrage you mention is the catalyst for this change and we have no way of knowing if Cinci, Coastal, TAMU… Might have done as well or better than OSU if given the chance because the chance was given to OSU.

I was not a fan of moving to a playoff system initially as I knew it would be a never ending escalation from 4 to 6, 8… and more teams… Now that my fears about the negative impacts the playoffs would have on CFB have been confirmed and the impacts have actually been worse than I anticipated-Specifically in regards to the dilution of parity- it seems that well implemented expansion could be a solution of some of the problems! We will see because it is coming..
 

atl-cock

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2006
8,142
1,943
113
Atlanta (Beaufort native)
How do you mean "again"? You'd only play a team once in a given year.
again = "we just played them a few years ago". Instead of playing an SEC member for that 9th game, would like to see us play a team from another P5 league whom we would otherwise only play in a bowl or a playoff scenario, e.g., Kansas, Oregon State, Syracuse, etc.
 

king ward

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 1999
32,613
25,778
113
70
Lancaster, SC
again = "we just played them a few years ago". Instead of playing an SEC member for that 9th game, would like to see us play a team from another P5 league whom we would otherwise only play in a bowl or a playoff scenario, e.g., Kansas, Oregon State, Syracuse, etc.
I would accede to that rather than play any teams from the FCS or G5. But there's no reason on earth for a 14-team league not to play nine conference members during a 12-game season, especially since it is already being done elsewhere.
 

atl-cock

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2006
8,142
1,943
113
Atlanta (Beaufort native)
again = "we just played them a few years ago". Instead of playing an SEC member for that 9th game, would like to see us play a team from another P5 league whom we would otherwise only play in a bowl or a playoff scenario, e.g., Kansas, Oregon State, Syracuse, etc.

I would accede to that rather than play any teams from the FCS or G5. But there's no reason on earth for a 14-team league not to play nine conference members during a 12-game season, especially since it is already being done elsewhere.
As long as all non-SEC games are against schools in a P5 league, I'll go along with a 9-game conference schedule. But I don't care what other leagues are doing.

At least the SEC league scheduling structure is much better than it was when Ga Tech & Tulane were members. 12 members, 10 game schedule, 6 conference games, and each school picked/scheduled who they wished to play each year.
That's how Bobby Dodd /Georgia Tech was able to get away with playing Mississippi only twice during Tech's ~30-year membership: a 1946 regular-season game in Atlanta, and in the 1953 Sugar Bowl (I'm certain that the Sugar Bowl invited those teams in part because there would be no need to worry about racial integration).

Not once during Tech's SEC membership did they play Mississippi State!

And from 1952-1977, Auburn and Vanderbilt played each other only once - in the 1955 Gator Bowl (I'll bet that race played a part in the invites on this one as well).

Another egregious example of warped SEC football scheduling is this:
Tennessee & Tulane have met only 5 times on the gridiron: Twice while each school was in the SoCon, twice when both were in the SEC, and once after Tulane left the SEC.
 
Last edited:

Gamecock Lifer

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 8, 2008
11,059
9,227
113
As long as all non-SEC games are against schools in a P5 league, I'll go along with a 9-game conference schedule. But I don't care what other leagues are doing.

At least the SEC league scheduling structure is much better than it was when Ga Tech & Tulane were members. 12 members, 10 game schedule, 6 conference games, and each school picked/scheduled who they wished to play each year.
That's how Bobby Dodd /Georgia Tech was able to get away with playing Mississippi only twice during Tech's ~30-year membership: a 1946 regular-season game in Atlanta, and in the 1953 Sugar Bowl (I'm certain that the Sugar Bowl invited those teams in part because there would be no need to worry about racial integration).

Not once during Tech's SEC membership did they play Mississippi State!

And from 1952-1977, Auburn and Vanderbilt played each other only once - in the 1955 Gator Bowl (I'll bet that race played a part in the invites on this one as well).

Another egregious example of warped SEC football scheduling is this:
Tennessee & Tulane have met only 5 times on the gridiron: Twice while each school was in the SoCon, twice when both were in the SEC, and once after Tulane left the SEC.
I literally had no recollection Ga tech and Tulane (seems I had heard mention of Tulane being part if in in ancient times) were in the SEC… Made me go digging for some more history- Sewanee was another founding member, as school I had never heard of, and they had the single best football team in CFB history!

“Sewanee was a charter member of the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association in 1894. The Sewanee Tigers were pioneers in American intercollegiate athletics and possessed the Deep South's preeminent football program in the 1890s. The 1899 football team had perhaps the best season in college football history, winning all 12 of their games, 11 by shutout, and outscoring their opponents 322-10. Five of those wins, all shutouts, came in a six-day period while on a 2,500-mile (4,000 km) trip by train.[39] In 2012, the College Football Hall of Fame held a vote of the greatest historic teams of all time, where the 1899 Iron Men beat the 1961 Alabama Crimson Tide as the greatest team of all time.[40]

won 5 games BY SHUTOUT in 6 days!?!? DAMN!!
 

Harvard Gamecock

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2014
5,164
6,809
113
How are some on here missing the glaringly obvious reason for expansion.
It is not PC
It is not for Participation inclusion.
It is not to rebalance recruitment.
It is not to exclude one team from the process.

This isn't that hard to interpret.
It's a money grab, plain and simple.
 

USMCatFan

Member
Oct 2, 2007
396
605
93
The Athletic posted an article yesterday. It looked at what would have happened had the currently proposed Playoff configuration been applied over the past 10 years...

- Twice, the SEC would have gotten only a single team into the Playoff,
- 3x, the SEC would have gotten three teams into the Playoff.
- 4x, the SEC would have placed four teams into the Playoff.
- Once, the SEC would have placed 5 teams into the Playoff field!

In 2011 and 2013, South Carolina would have been included in the Playoff field.

Is this Playoff reconfiguration a "Money Grab"? Probably, But, everything is money driven. College football, period, is a money grab. That money grab pays for nearly every other sport in college. "Money Grabs" aren't necessarily evil.

Will the new configuration increase parity across 130 teams in Div1? Probably not. The programs which recruit the best during the Playoff era are the same teams which recruited best during the BCS era. Which were the best recruiting programs when a champion was crowned by the polls.

Winning, better facilities and better coaching are the things which have traditionally bumped recruiting up for programs. All of those things take money. I don't see where getting one or two teams into the Playoff is going to put appreciably more cash into G5 pockets.

Will the larger Playoff field "water down" the regular season? Possibly. But, under the current plan there will be a huge premium on being a 1 - 4 seed and getting a first round Bye. Can't get those by losing games.

Could loading the Playoff field with SEC teams result in SEC exhaustion by the rest of the free World? Undoubtedly. If that bothers you. Have some other teams win some damn games.
 

atl-cock

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2006
8,142
1,943
113
Atlanta (Beaufort native)
I literally had no recollection Ga tech and Tulane (seems I had heard mention of Tulane being part if in in ancient times) were in the SEC… Made me go digging for some more history- Sewanee was another founding member, as school I had never heard of, and they had the single best football team in CFB history!

“Sewanee was a charter member of the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association in 1894. The Sewanee Tigers were pioneers in American intercollegiate athletics and possessed the Deep South's preeminent football program in the 1890s. The 1899 football team had perhaps the best season in college football history, winning all 12 of their games, 11 by shutout, and outscoring their opponents 322-10. Five of those wins, all shutouts, came in a six-day period while on a 2,500-mile (4,000 km) trip by train.[39] In 2012, the College Football Hall of Fame held a vote of the greatest historic teams of all time, where the 1899 Iron Men beat the 1961 Alabama Crimson Tide as the greatest team of all time.[40]

won 5 games BY SHUTOUT in 6 days!?!? DAMN!!
Sewanee (AKA The university of the South) is now NCAA D-III. They never won a football game against a fellow SEC member during their 7 years of league gridiron competition. Similar to the University of Chicago 10 years later (Chicago was a charter member of the B1G), the school hired a president who sought to de-emphasize intercollegiate athletics. Last I read, Sewanee has a healthy intramural program.

Georgia Tech's SEC departure in the spring of 1964 was officially due to the league's stance on the "140 rule" (time to look it up!).

Tulane's 1966 departure was similar to that of Sewanee's, though not as severe. The Green Wave were getting run "roughshod" on the gridiron and asked the SEC office for "relief", which was not forthcoming. Their last SEC football contest was a 62-0 shellacking at the hands of LSU in the fall of 1965. And the two schools discontinued playing each other in football about 10 years ago (they continue to schedule each other in most all other sports).
 

atl-cock

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2006
8,142
1,943
113
Atlanta (Beaufort native)
How are some on here missing the glaringly obvious reason for expansion.
It is not PC
It is not for Participation inclusion.
It is not to rebalance recruitment.
It is not to exclude one team from the process.

This isn't that hard to interpret.
It's a money grab, plain and simple.
Correct, and like the early rounds of March Madness, it will heighten interest in the sport.
 

BattleshipTexas

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2001
39,008
3,057
113
Without the expanded playoff, OU and Texas to the SEC doesn't happen. Not with one or at most two of four going to the SEC. Under the expanded, the SEC will get four spots at least. One will be Alabama, one will be whichever of Texas and OU wins its pod, and two will be whoever of LSU, Florida and Georgia have the best season. With Auburn, A&M Tennessee, etc occasionally making an appearance if they have a great year.