The talk of expanding to 8 playoff teams is circulating among the powers-that-be in College Football Athletic offices. The current 4 team playoff has been successful and has 7 years left on its original contract. But, in truth, only the SEC can be entirely happy.
A number of athletic directors and commissioners of other conferences have a different perspective. They feel that the system is designed to benefit the SEC, and they point to examples from this year’s final rankings as evidence: Florida at No. 10, despite the two FCS games; LSU hovering at No. 7 after its blowout loss to Alabama; the Gators and Tigers making New Year’s Six bowl games ahead of Penn State and Washington State, which both played nine conference games; and a two-loss, non-champion Georgia slotted ahead of Ohio State, a one-loss conference champion.
The proposal getting the most chat right now is 5 conference Champs, the non-power -5 highest rated and two wild cards. Conference Championship games will be replaced by the first round games at the homes of the top four ranked teams.
The thing is that all of the people on the committee that vote/rank/rate, whatever word one wants to use, have access to the teams SOS playing nine games eight games. So IMO complaining about it is nothing more than just a smokescreen. If Georgia had played one more SEC game most likely they win it. So again smokescreen.
Now, wait, God's Conference's excuse for only 8 conference games, and for playing that penultimate week of cookies, is how tough the conference is. Now, you are poo-pooing the lower reaches of the league? Mike Silve's ghost will NOT be happy with you.
If tOSU had only played 8 conference games, and one was not Purdue, what would your thought be about tOSU's chance to win that game? Actually playing the game is a risk. That extra conference game can be a killer.
The other conference's ADs and Commissioners are just whining. Yes, whining. People think LSU is overrated, okay that's their prerogative. Opinions vary. Sure it's possible that Georgia loses an extra game by playing Ole Miss, Arkansas, Auburn, Miss St, and Tex A&M.
They'd sure as hell be favored even more had they had to face any of the Big 10 West teams or the PAC South teams or the ACC Coastal teams, or any of the Big 12 teams not named Oklahoma Sooners. All this has to enter into a Committee voters minds. I know what my mind would think given all of the same information. Either real or the SOS speculative scenarios I just laid out. Whining. Nothing more than that.
But the point is they DIDN'T play any of those teams instead of a ninth conference game. The current schedule model is one power five team out of conference (though some, like tOSU this year, play two. Granted, everyone licked the Beavers this year, but they are a P5 school). Georgia, Alabama did that. So what did they replace that extra conference game they did not play with? Citadel? Louisiana Lafayette? Yes, it does enter into the strength of schedule, but the risk they are avoiding is the risk of a Purdue result. The loss, the second loss especially; those mean way more than the strength of schedule.
Now I don't blame them for whining mind you. But lets call it for what it is. System advantage? IMO that's just a bunch of whiny bullshit.
No, it is a clear system advantage, and a real issue.
Additionally, and not really related to the above, I used to think the bowls games meant something as far as the power of the conferences went. But lately I'm beginning to rethink that assumption too. Especially in this day and age of stars sitting those games out. It used to be about motivation factors and to the most extent I think it still is. Who has something to prove, and who doesn't really give that much of a rat's ass. But now we have stars just flat out refusing to play period. Back when their were much less bowl games and when the major bowls hadn't been highjacked by the playoff games. I think there was a time when teams played hard in the bowl games 110% kinda stuff. I think when there were less games it was considered more of an honor to get in one of those games. So you played hard.
I have seen no evidence of any wide spread taking it easy in games. Most I have seen, both teams play hard. There is an odd team disappointed about where they are, but I would argue it is very rare. Maybe not 110%, but that is a mathematical impossibility anyway.
Some individual players are going to sit it out, but the rest of the team is still there, playing hard.
Poll
