[Austroturf]

Just for comparison's sake, the SEC's OOC opponents for September 14 (all SEC home games) are:

Colorado State
Kent State
Arkansas State
Northwestern State
Southeast Louisiana
Kansas State
Southeast Missouri State
UT-Chatanooga
Lamar

My biggest disappointment in the playoff committee, and the NY6 committee, so far, is that they have consistently rewarded the SEC for scheduling 5 byes each season.  The majority of the SEC starts the season with 4 wins in the bank and must win two league games to become bowl eligible.

Yes, and if you are Florida, you can finish 5-3 in the SEC and still be rated #10 in the nation and get a New Year's 6 bowl bid.

The math here is not mysterious: schedule easy prey in the OOC portion of the season and make sure these teams play on your turf.  You have home field advantage, no jet-lag and can easily handle the logistics of running onto the field, trouncing an overmatched opponent and preparing for the real schedule, which consists of 8 games.  

Then, by playing only eight games, the conference ensures that, by definition, there are fewer losses among its members than in conferences that schedule nine games.  If the SEC had scheduled 9 games, there would have been 7 more losses among its 14 teams.  That might have meant one more loss for the likes of Florida, LSU, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi State and Texas A&M; and collectively the entire conference would have looked much worse and not been invited to a total of 4 NY6 bowls (Pac-12 got 1 bid).   Not surprising that Georgia and Alabama rarely meet during the regular season.  When Stanford went 12-2 in 2015, it had to play every top team in the Pac-12 that year and beat south champ USC twice.  The losses to Oregon and a good Northwestern team (OOC) kept us out of the CFP that year.

Read the article I provided the link for.  It is satire, but hits a very valid point.

[Austroturf]

Just for comparison's sake, the SEC's OOC opponents for September 14 (all SEC home games) are:

Colorado State
Kent State
Arkansas State
Northwestern State
Southeast Louisiana
Kansas State
Southeast Missouri State
UT-Chatanooga
Lamar

My biggest disappointment in the playoff committee, and the NY6 committee, so far, is that they have consistently rewarded the SEC for scheduling 5 byes each season.  The majority of the SEC starts the season with 4 wins in the bank and must win two league games to become bowl eligible.

Yes, and if you are Florida, you can finish 5-3 in the SEC and still be rated #10 in the nation and get a New Year's 6 bowl bid.

The math here is not mysterious: schedule easy prey in the OOC portion of the season and make sure these teams play on your turf.  You have home field advantage, no jet-lag and can easily handle the logistics of running onto the field, trouncing an overmatched opponent and preparing for the real schedule, which consists of 8 games.  

Then, by playing only eight games, the conference ensures that, by definition, there are fewer losses among its members than in conferences that schedule nine games.  If the SEC had scheduled 9 games, there would have been 7 more losses among its 14 teams.  That might have meant one more loss for the likes of Florida, LSU, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi State and Texas A&M; and collectively the entire conference would have looked much worse and not been invited to a total of 4 NY6 bowls (Pac-12 got 1 bid).   Not surprising that Georgia and Alabama rarely meet during the regular season.  When Stanford went 12-2 in 2015, it had to play every top team in the Pac-12 that year and beat south champ USC twice.  The losses to Oregon and a good Northwestern team (OOC) kept us out of the CFP that year.

Read the article I provided the link for.  It is satire, but hits a very valid point.

[needle]

The only realistic solution to *almost* level the playing field is an eight-team playoff, with guaranteed playoff berths to five conference champions.

Sure, the SEC would still likely be overrepresented among the three at-large selections, but at least the Pac would have an opportunity each year to showcase (hopefully) the best conference team.

[needle]

The only realistic solution to *almost* level the playing field is an eight-team playoff, with guaranteed playoff berths to five conference champions.

Sure, the SEC would still likely be overrepresented among the three at-large selections, but at least the Pac would have an opportunity each year to showcase (hopefully) the best conference team.

[SamuelMcF]

The only realistic solution to *almost* level the playing field is an eight-team playoff, with guaranteed playoff berths to five conference champions.

Sure, the SEC would still likely be overrepresented among the three at-large selections, but at least the Pac would have an opportunity each year to showcase (hopefully) the best conference team.

And mandate 9 conference games. Or 8. I don't care which, just mandate one.

[SamuelMcF]

The only realistic solution to *almost* level the playing field is an eight-team playoff, with guaranteed playoff berths to five conference champions.

Sure, the SEC would still likely be overrepresented among the three at-large selections, but at least the Pac would have an opportunity each year to showcase (hopefully) the best conference team.

And mandate 9 conference games. Or 8. I don't care which, just mandate one.

[Austroturf]

The only realistic solution to *almost* level the playing field is an eight-team playoff, with guaranteed playoff berths to five conference champions.

Sure, the SEC would still likely be overrepresented among the three at-large selections, but at least the Pac would have an opportunity each year to showcase (hopefully) the best conference team.

And mandate 9 conference games. Or 8. I don't care which, just mandate one.

Yes, that would go a long way to level the playing field.  Imagine if we hadn't been required to play Utah this year and could have replaced them with, say, Idaho.  Suddenly, we are 6-2 in the conference and 9-3 overall.  Better than #10 Florida.  We had to play the north and south champions and the north runner-up plus Notre Dame.

[Austroturf]

The only realistic solution to *almost* level the playing field is an eight-team playoff, with guaranteed playoff berths to five conference champions.

Sure, the SEC would still likely be overrepresented among the three at-large selections, but at least the Pac would have an opportunity each year to showcase (hopefully) the best conference team.

And mandate 9 conference games. Or 8. I don't care which, just mandate one.

Yes, that would go a long way to level the playing field.  Imagine if we hadn't been required to play Utah this year and could have replaced them with, say, Idaho.  Suddenly, we are 6-2 in the conference and 9-3 overall.  Better than #10 Florida.  We had to play the north and south champions and the north runner-up plus Notre Dame.

[BostonCard]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

[BostonCard]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

[82lsju]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

which can be "solved" if you offer enough money to get the other team to come and play you (which the SEC seems to have no problem doing)

[82lsju]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

which can be "solved" if you offer enough money to get the other team to come and play you (which the SEC seems to have no problem doing)

[Austroturf]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

which can be "solved" if you offer enough money to get the other team to come and play you (which the SEC seems to have no problem doing)

Yes, it just takes $$$ and planning.  I wonder if Florida would be in the Peach Bowl if they had played Georgia (SEC east champ), Alabama (SEC west champ), Kentucky (co-runner up in the East) and Notre Dame.  Plus they lost to Missouri (SEC 4-4 in the east).  At 7-5, I doubt they would even be in the top 25, let alone in a NY6 bowl at #10 in the nation.

[Austroturf]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

which can be "solved" if you offer enough money to get the other team to come and play you (which the SEC seems to have no problem doing)

Yes, it just takes $$$ and planning.  I wonder if Florida would be in the Peach Bowl if they had played Georgia (SEC east champ), Alabama (SEC west champ), Kentucky (co-runner up in the East) and Notre Dame.  Plus they lost to Missouri (SEC 4-4 in the east).  At 7-5, I doubt they would even be in the top 25, let alone in a NY6 bowl at #10 in the nation.

[SamuelMcF]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

which can be "solved" if you offer enough money to get the other team to come and play you (which the SEC seems to have no problem doing)

...we did that.

[SamuelMcF]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

which can be "solved" if you offer enough money to get the other team to come and play you (which the SEC seems to have no problem doing)

...we did that.

[CardinalSagehen]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

which can be "solved" if you offer enough money to get the other team to come and play you (which the SEC seems to have no problem doing)

Yes, it just takes $$$ and planning.  I wonder if Florida would be in the Peach Bowl if they had played Georgia (SEC east champ), Alabama (SEC west champ), Kentucky (co-runner up in the East) and Notre Dame.  Plus they lost to Missouri (SEC 4-4 in the east).  At 7-5, I doubt they would even be in the top 25, let alone in a NY6 bowl at #10 in the nation.

I agree that the system is unfair as currently construed, but I think we may be a little naive to the financial realities of the situation.

First, SEC teams have the luxury of not worrying about buying an easy FCS win for $1M, because they know they'll fill their stadium and earn decent ratings no matter who they play. They also know that CFP and NY6 trips are worth even more to them, given their large and highly engaged fan bases, than they would be to Stanford and most Pac 12 schools. With Stanford's small and apathetic fan base, it's harder to justify a big payout.  (Sure, we here on the CARDboard care, by definition, but let's be honest that there's just not very many of us.)

Second, I assume that CFB probably would consider it bad business to force any scheduling changes that disfavor the SEC and favor the Pac 12. They want we Pac 12 fans to keep consuming the product - glad-handing us at the CFP, NY6 and Voldemort "parties" - all the while knowing that we're collectively less valuable to them.  

So, we can carp about it all we want, but I think the money-based arguments actually work against us and suggest that there won't be change. My favorite idea (as someone mentioned above) is an 8-team playoff with all the Power 5 champs, the best G5 champ and 2 at-larges for independents and conference runner-ups. I hope that happens but I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps this year's Big Ten snub will rattle people more than previous Pac 12 and Big 12 snubs have done.

[CardinalSagehen]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

which can be "solved" if you offer enough money to get the other team to come and play you (which the SEC seems to have no problem doing)

Yes, it just takes $$$ and planning.  I wonder if Florida would be in the Peach Bowl if they had played Georgia (SEC east champ), Alabama (SEC west champ), Kentucky (co-runner up in the East) and Notre Dame.  Plus they lost to Missouri (SEC 4-4 in the east).  At 7-5, I doubt they would even be in the top 25, let alone in a NY6 bowl at #10 in the nation.

I agree that the system is unfair as currently construed, but I think we may be a little naive to the financial realities of the situation.

First, SEC teams have the luxury of not worrying about buying an easy FCS win for $1M, because they know they'll fill their stadium and earn decent ratings no matter who they play. They also know that CFP and NY6 trips are worth even more to them, given their large and highly engaged fan bases, than they would be to Stanford and most Pac 12 schools. With Stanford's small and apathetic fan base, it's harder to justify a big payout.  (Sure, we here on the CARDboard care, by definition, but let's be honest that there's just not very many of us.)

Second, I assume that CFB probably would consider it bad business to force any scheduling changes that disfavor the SEC and favor the Pac 12. They want we Pac 12 fans to keep consuming the product - glad-handing us at the CFP, NY6 and Voldemort "parties" - all the while knowing that we're collectively less valuable to them.  

So, we can carp about it all we want, but I think the money-based arguments actually work against us and suggest that there won't be change. My favorite idea (as someone mentioned above) is an 8-team playoff with all the Power 5 champs, the best G5 champ and 2 at-larges for independents and conference runner-ups. I hope that happens but I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps this year's Big Ten snub will rattle people more than previous Pac 12 and Big 12 snubs have done.

[Austroturf]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

which can be "solved" if you offer enough money to get the other team to come and play you (which the SEC seems to have no problem doing)

Yes, it just takes $$$ and planning.  I wonder if Florida would be in the Peach Bowl if they had played Georgia (SEC east champ), Alabama (SEC west champ), Kentucky (co-runner up in the East) and Notre Dame.  Plus they lost to Missouri (SEC 4-4 in the east).  At 7-5, I doubt they would even be in the top 25, let alone in a NY6 bowl at #10 in the nation.

I agree that the system is unfair as currently construed, but I think we may be a little naive to the financial realities of the situation.

First, SEC teams have the luxury of not worrying about buying an easy FCS win for $1M, because they know they'll fill their stadium and earn decent ratings no matter who they play. They also know that CFP and NY6 trips are worth even more to them, given their large and highly engaged fan bases, than they would be to Stanford and most Pac 12 schools. With Stanford's small and apathetic fan base, it's harder to justify a big payout.  (Sure, we here on the CARDboard care, by definition, but let's be honest that there's just not very many of us.)

Second, I assume that CFB probably would consider it bad business to force any scheduling changes that disfavor the SEC and favor the Pac 12. They want we Pac 12 fans to keep consuming the product - glad-handing us at the CFP, NY6 and Voldemort "parties" - all the while knowing that we're collectively less valuable to them.  

So, we can carp about it all we want, but I think the money-based arguments actually work against us and suggest that there won't be change. My favorite idea (as someone mentioned above) is an 8-team playoff with all the Power 5 champs, the best G5 champ and 2 at-larges for independents and conference runner-ups. I hope that happens but I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps this year's Big Ten snub will rattle people more than previous Pac 12 and Big 12 snubs have done.

Good points all around.  At the end of the day, it will come down to whatever maximizes revenue for those in charge.  

I also would like to see an 8-team play-off and believe it will eventually come.  This year, that would have been:
Alabama
Clemson
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Washington
Notre Dame
UCF
and possible Georgia (due to their strong showing in the SEC championship game and overall high ranking)

This still might have caused some Group-of-5 champions to grouse, but it is much, much closer to a fair system.  I have to assume the current 4-team play-off system is simply too lucrative for the powers-that-be, otherwise we would already have the 8-team play-off.  

I think the largest impediment to progress in this area are the prestigious bowls and their organizers/owners.  The NY6 bowls do not want to lose appeal; and a play-off system would either mean that 1) some of them get lower-level quarter-final match-ups that would need to be played in mid-Decmber or 2) they host teams that did not make the play-offs, which lowers the value of their product.  The Rose Bowl, for example, is still interesting this year because it pits the Pac-12 champ against the Big Ten champ (both excluded from the elite group of four).  If the Power 5 conference champs all make the play-off, then in certain years the Rose Bowl might have to host a quarter-final and give up their hallowed New Year's Day slot or make do with the conference runners-up.  I can imagine that prospect does not appeal to any major Bowl organizers. 

Leach has made an impassioned plea for an expanded play-off, claiming (rightly) that every level in football, from state high-school to FCS to the NFL, has an expanded play-off system.  The only level that does not is FBS; and the only difference between FBS and the other levels is an entrenched bowl system structure.  Too much money there to tamper with.

[Austroturf]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

which can be "solved" if you offer enough money to get the other team to come and play you (which the SEC seems to have no problem doing)

Yes, it just takes $$$ and planning.  I wonder if Florida would be in the Peach Bowl if they had played Georgia (SEC east champ), Alabama (SEC west champ), Kentucky (co-runner up in the East) and Notre Dame.  Plus they lost to Missouri (SEC 4-4 in the east).  At 7-5, I doubt they would even be in the top 25, let alone in a NY6 bowl at #10 in the nation.

I agree that the system is unfair as currently construed, but I think we may be a little naive to the financial realities of the situation.

First, SEC teams have the luxury of not worrying about buying an easy FCS win for $1M, because they know they'll fill their stadium and earn decent ratings no matter who they play. They also know that CFP and NY6 trips are worth even more to them, given their large and highly engaged fan bases, than they would be to Stanford and most Pac 12 schools. With Stanford's small and apathetic fan base, it's harder to justify a big payout.  (Sure, we here on the CARDboard care, by definition, but let's be honest that there's just not very many of us.)

Second, I assume that CFB probably would consider it bad business to force any scheduling changes that disfavor the SEC and favor the Pac 12. They want we Pac 12 fans to keep consuming the product - glad-handing us at the CFP, NY6 and Voldemort "parties" - all the while knowing that we're collectively less valuable to them.  

So, we can carp about it all we want, but I think the money-based arguments actually work against us and suggest that there won't be change. My favorite idea (as someone mentioned above) is an 8-team playoff with all the Power 5 champs, the best G5 champ and 2 at-larges for independents and conference runner-ups. I hope that happens but I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps this year's Big Ten snub will rattle people more than previous Pac 12 and Big 12 snubs have done.

Good points all around.  At the end of the day, it will come down to whatever maximizes revenue for those in charge.  

I also would like to see an 8-team play-off and believe it will eventually come.  This year, that would have been:
Alabama
Clemson
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Washington
Notre Dame
UCF
and possible Georgia (due to their strong showing in the SEC championship game and overall high ranking)

This still might have caused some Group-of-5 champions to grouse, but it is much, much closer to a fair system.  I have to assume the current 4-team play-off system is simply too lucrative for the powers-that-be, otherwise we would already have the 8-team play-off.  

I think the largest impediment to progress in this area are the prestigious bowls and their organizers/owners.  The NY6 bowls do not want to lose appeal; and a play-off system would either mean that 1) some of them get lower-level quarter-final match-ups that would need to be played in mid-Decmber or 2) they host teams that did not make the play-offs, which lowers the value of their product.  The Rose Bowl, for example, is still interesting this year because it pits the Pac-12 champ against the Big Ten champ (both excluded from the elite group of four).  If the Power 5 conference champs all make the play-off, then in certain years the Rose Bowl might have to host a quarter-final and give up their hallowed New Year's Day slot or make do with the conference runners-up.  I can imagine that prospect does not appeal to any major Bowl organizers. 

Leach has made an impassioned plea for an expanded play-off, claiming (rightly) that every level in football, from state high-school to FCS to the NFL, has an expanded play-off system.  The only level that does not is FBS; and the only difference between FBS and the other levels is an entrenched bowl system structure.  Too much money there to tamper with.

[winflop]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

My recollection is that Northwestern had to push out the home and home and that by the time they did there weren't a lot of teams left with room to schedule. I have no issue with us playing one or even two cupcakes a year. We have ND and 9 conference games.

[winflop]

Keep in mind that we struggled to get a third opponent (Davis) this year.

BC

My recollection is that Northwestern had to push out the home and home and that by the time they did there weren't a lot of teams left with room to schedule. I have no issue with us playing one or even two cupcakes a year. We have ND and 9 conference games.

[needle]

The quarter-final round of an eight-team playoff should happen the weekend after the conference championship games, with the games played at the home of the higher seeds.

I don't know if this is contractually possible, but the five power conferences (forget about the others being involved) could, at least in my head, band together to market and sell this round of games to TV separate from their existing deals.

[needle]

The quarter-final round of an eight-team playoff should happen the weekend after the conference championship games, with the games played at the home of the higher seeds.

I don't know if this is contractually possible, but the five power conferences (forget about the others being involved) could, at least in my head, band together to market and sell this round of games to TV separate from their existing deals.

[Phogge]

Playoff is a long shot for the conference. Get bloody against NW and take it out on SC. Win the conference and beat the Domers. Nothing else matters.

[Phogge]

Playoff is a long shot for the conference. Get bloody against NW and take it out on SC. Win the conference and beat the Domers. Nothing else matters.

[BostonCard]

Dissolve the Big-12 into the other conferences to give you four 16-team conferences, each with two 8-team divisions.  Play a round robin within each division (3 home games, 3 road games, and 1 rivalry neutral game).  Top two of every division go to a round robin conference final (1 home, 1 road, 1 neutral game), and lower tier teams get to compete in their own lower level four-team tournaments. The top 2 in each conference advance to a regional with the 16 team Big-Ten and PAC-16 teams facing off in another four team round robin held at the Rose, Cotton and Fiesta Bowls and a four team round robin between the SEC and ACC held at the Sugar, Orange, and Peach bowls. Lesser bowls can host lower level teams. Top team in each round robin advances to the national championship.

BC

[BostonCard]

Dissolve the Big-12 into the other conferences to give you four 16-team conferences, each with two 8-team divisions.  Play a round robin within each division (3 home games, 3 road games, and 1 rivalry neutral game).  Top two of every division go to a round robin conference final (1 home, 1 road, 1 neutral game), and lower tier teams get to compete in their own lower level four-team tournaments. The top 2 in each conference advance to a regional with the 16 team Big-Ten and PAC-16 teams facing off in another four team round robin held at the Rose, Cotton and Fiesta Bowls and a four team round robin between the SEC and ACC held at the Sugar, Orange, and Peach bowls. Lesser bowls can host lower level teams. Top team in each round robin advances to the national championship.

BC

[CTcard]

Dissolve the Big-12 into the other conferences to give you four 16-team conferences, each with two 8-team divisions.  Play a round robin within each division (3 home games, 3 road games, and 1 rivalry neutral game).  Top two of every division go to a round robin conference final (1 home, 1 road, 1 neutral game), and lower tier teams get to compete in their own lower level four-team tournaments.  The top 2 in each conference advance to a regional with the 16 team Big-Ten and PAC-16 teams facing off in another four team round robin held at the Rose, Cotton and Fiesta Bowls and a four team round robin between the SEC and ACC held at the Sugar, Orange, and Peach bowls.  Lesser bowls can host lower level teams.  Top team in each round robin advances to the national championship.

BC

That's very complicated. 

No more non-conference games?

[CTcard]

Dissolve the Big-12 into the other conferences to give you four 16-team conferences, each with two 8-team divisions.  Play a round robin within each division (3 home games, 3 road games, and 1 rivalry neutral game).  Top two of every division go to a round robin conference final (1 home, 1 road, 1 neutral game), and lower tier teams get to compete in their own lower level four-team tournaments.  The top 2 in each conference advance to a regional with the 16 team Big-Ten and PAC-16 teams facing off in another four team round robin held at the Rose, Cotton and Fiesta Bowls and a four team round robin between the SEC and ACC held at the Sugar, Orange, and Peach bowls.  Lesser bowls can host lower level teams.  Top team in each round robin advances to the national championship.

BC

That's very complicated. 

No more non-conference games?