With all the clamour about three of the best teams in football being in the SECW

[starkvegasdawg]

Does anybody think there is a chance the way this season ends that more people start calling for an 8 team playoff? I honestly think MSU and Auburn are two of the best teams in the country and as things stand now probably both deserve playoff spots. Right now fans of MSU, Auburn, Oklahoma, FSU, Baylor, Notre Dame, Oregon, and I guess TSUN can all make a claim of why they should make the 4 team playoff. Coincidentally enough that is 8 teams. I really don't think any other team can make a legitimate argument of why they should be included. Maybe Michigan State. But imagine if your first round playoff matchups were:

1.MSU
8. Baylor

2.Auburn
7. Notre Dame

3. Oregon
6. FSU

4. Oklahoma
5. TSUN

Assuming the favorites all won your quarter finals would be:

1.MSU
4. Oklahoma

2. Auburn
3. Oregon

Then a semifinal rematch between MSU and Auburn for all the marbles.

That would be some compelling football.

[thf24]

No doubt people will be demanding 8, probably already are. Although I firmly believe that whatever n number of teams it's increased to, there will always be people whining that team n+1 deserves a shot and is getting unfairly left out.

[DistrictDawg92]

I have a weird feeling that if two SEC teams make the playoff that the committee would purposely place them in opposite semi games, setting up the potential for an all SEC final. Might just be a hunch. And yes 8 teams would be good but I think they would have to consider pushing the first round up a week in that case. I honestly believe the powers that be don't want the NCAA and NFL playoffs conflicting too much, would cause split TV ratings, we all know that football's Sun is money.

[maroonmania]

I have a weird feeling that if two SEC teams make the playoff that the committee would purposely place them in opposite semi games, setting up the potential for an all SEC final. Might just be a hunch. And yes 8 teams would be good but I think they would have to consider pushing the first round up a week in that case. I honestly believe the powers that be don't want the NCAA and NFL playoffs conflicting too much, would cause split TV ratings, we all know that football's Sun is money.

I would think they would more likely try to pair up the SEC teams to AVOID an all SEC final. The SEC pairing in the BCS championship game was the biggest prompting to end the BCS.

[DistrictDawg92]

I would think they would more likely try to pair up the SEC teams to AVOID an all SEC final. The SEC pairing in the BCS championship game was the biggest prompting to end the BCS.

You may be right, and honestly I can see why other conferences were upset when two SEC teams went to the BCS championship because it was guaranteed that an SEC team would win. However, if you placed the two SEC teams in opposite semis, the only way an All SEC championship would occur is if the two SEC teams each beat one of the best 4 teams in the nation to get there, nothing is guaranteed and the SEC would have to prove itself, if they don't then there is a championship with zero SEC teams. It really brings some extra intrigue. And also, it wasn't the BCS people choosing the championship matchup that didn't want two SEC teams in the championship, it was the people in all the other conferences. The playoff committee would not be scared whatsoever of the possibility of two SEC teams in the championship, after all, would could complain? The SEC teams proved themselves against two of the top four teams in the nation.

[Political Hack]

I think they'll seed them 1-4 and let 1 play 4 and 2 play 3.***

In 4-5 weeks the dust will clear and we'll know who belongs and who doesn't. I fully expect us to be #1 or #2 when we roll into T-town. Win that and we roll into the regular season finale as #1.

[Johnson85]

I would think they would more likely try to pair up the SEC teams to AVOID an all SEC final. The SEC pairing in the BCS championship game was the biggest prompting to end the BCS.

If the SECW gets two teams into the playoffs, you will see a push to either expand the playoffs or require that you win your conference to go.

[sandwolf]

I think it will probably go to 8 teams within the next couple of years.

[DistrictDawg92]

If multiple SEC west teams being in the playoff is a real issue, then I don't see them expanding the playoff because that would mean even more SEC west teams get a bid. With the way that SEC west teams beat up each other's records, it really is gonna be hard to get 2 in a 4 team playoff, but when you back up to 8 teams, you might see 3 or even occasionally 4 west teams in the top 8, you back it up to 16, and shit you might have 3/4 of the west teams get in. As a west team it's a lot easier to land in the top 8 or 16 than top 4, I just see an expanded playoff causing more bad then good if, again, multiple west teams in the playoff is really an issue.

[blacklistedbully]

No doubt people will be demanding 8, probably already are. Although I firmly believe that whatever n number of teams it's increased to, there will always be people whining that team n+1 deserves a shot and is getting unfairly left out.

Yes, but the farther you go down the rankings, the less an argument can be made that a team is one of the top 2. in the end, the playoff isn't about fiinding the 4 best teams, it's about trying to not bypass a team that might have a legit claim at 1 or 2.

The way things are shaping up, whoever is #5-8 could well make a strong argument, but with 8 having less of one than 5. At 9, have we reached the point where we've included a team that, though they could make a legit claim to be in the top 4, don't really have a strong case for 1 or 2?

To me, that's the key. Find the minimum # that almost assuredly includes every team with a strong case at being #1 or 2. Right now, 4 doesn't seem like enough, but I think 8 would be.

[thf24]

Yes, but the farther you go down the rankings, the less an argument can be made that a team is one of the top 2. in the end, the playoff isn't about fiinding the 4 best teams, it's about trying to not bypass a team that might have a legit claim at 1 or 2.

The way things are shaping up, whoever is #5-8 could well make a strong argument, but with 8 having less of one than 5. At 9, have we reached the point where we've included a team that, though they could make a legit claim to be in the top 4, don't really have a strong case for 1 or 2?

To me, that's the key. Find the minimum # that almost assuredly includes every team with a strong case at being #1 or 2. Right now, 4 doesn't seem like enough, but I think 8 would be.

I completely agree, and yet we have 68 teams in the NCAA basketball tournament, with historically none outside the 50th percentile in terms of seeding ever winning it. If every person were rational as far as only calling for teams that could actually win it, then yeah, there would be a clear cutoff, but as long as people put significance behind simply being there, I think there will always be controversy and demands to include more teams no matter how many are already there.

[Westdawg]

I think that to be fair -
Should the committee be faced with one or more conferences have 2 teams make the playoffs then by all means place them in different brackets. This allows for the other conferences to prove they really are worthy of being there. This would especially be effective WHEN the playoff is expanded.....and it will eventually happen. There have been years recently where both the PAC and the SEC had legit claims to having 2 teams in a Final 4 or 8. I like having 8. You can really clear it up with doing 8. Four straight weeks of fantastic football. Allow the top 4 seeds to host the first round at their stadium. Have the semis and finals at predetermined sites. Would be absolutely EPIC

[Quaoarsking]

Give it a couple years of the Big 10 and Pac-12 getting locked out of the playoff and 2 SEC teams getting in. I fully expect it to be 8 teams, with an autobid for the power 5 conference champions by 2019.

[TUSK]

If the SECW gets two teams into the playoffs, you will see a push to either expand the playoffs or require that you win your conference to go.

^this^

I'll go a step further, J85... even as strong as the SEC(W) is this year, there is, IMO, a very LOW probability we get 2 in this year...

my current, ever-changing guess is FSU, Baylor, Michigan St. and the SECC.

[Quaoarsking]

I disagree. An 11-1 SEC West team who doesn't play in Atlanta will be ahead of any 1-loss non-SEC team.

My current prediction is Mississippi State and Baylor in the Sugar, Florida State and Auburn in the Rose.


With an 8-team format, Oregon, Michigan State (or another Big 10 team), another at-large (Oklahoma? Alabama? Ole Miss? TCU?), and a non-power team (East Carolina? 13-0 Marshall?) would also get in, and no conference would whine, at least not as much.

[Aces High]

Michigan state will make it somehow. Watch.

[FlabLoser]

When we go to an 8-team playoff, we need to get rid of conference championship games.

Unless winning a conference championship somehow equates to a 1st round bye or some such.

If we win a national championship this year, it means we have to play 9 more games. The "season" is half way over at 6-0, but we'd have to play 9 more. 15 games total. Add another playoff round, and its 10 more from today, or 16 games total.

[TUSK]

I disagree. An 11-1 SEC West team who doesn't play in Atlanta will be ahead of any 1-loss non-SEC team.

My current prediction is Mississippi State and Baylor in the Sugar, Florida State and Auburn in the Rose.


With an 8-team format, Oregon, Michigan State (or another Big 10 team), another at-large (Oklahoma? Alabama? Ole Miss? TCU?), and a non-power team (East Carolina? 13-0 Marshall?) would also get in, and no conference would whine, at least not as much.

Not to be argumentative, but have you, by chance, looked at all of these* teams schedules, where they are currently ranked, and projected the likely outcome of each game?

You'd be surprised at how easy it will be to exclude a 1 loss SEC team... especially in this political climate.

*Baylor, Michigan St., FSU/ND, Oregon, and the SECW

[Quaoarsking]

Not to be argumentative, but have you, by chance, looked at all of these* teams schedules, where they are currently ranked, and projected the likely outcome of each game?

You'd be surprised at how easy it will be to exclude a 1 loss SEC team... especially in this political climate.

*Baylor, Michigan St., FSU/ND, Oregon, and the SECW

What political climate? There's no evidence that the Committee will be anti-SEC in any way. None of the selection committees in any other sport show a bias against the SEC, nor a bias against the top conference when that's not the SEC.

It's like some SEC fans have such a persecution complex that they just assume a Committee will screw us over, despite no evidence that it will. Just because some random clown writer in Orlando or Los Angeles whines about the SEC doesn't mean that a knowledgeable group of people whose only job is to pick the 4 best teams will.

In no way would Michigan State's resume approach that of an 11-1 SEC team. Maybe Oregon, Baylor, and Florida State/ND will all get in, but that's about the only combination that could rob the SEC of a second bid, and I still think 11-1 Auburn probably gets the nod over Oregon unless Oregon's just lights out for the rest of the year.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Baylor loses at some point, and an 11-1 Baylor is definitely behind any 11-1 SEC team on resume.

[TUSK]

If both MSU and AU run the table, I think you're right... but I don't think that will happen...

My fear is that the committee will focus more heavily on Conference Champs than SEC peeps expect or would like... resume, be damned...

They've already said it will be a factor... and if any 2 of Oregon, Baylor, and Michigan State are undefeated or 1 loss conference champs and ranked higher, I feel they will get the nod over a 1 loss MSU or OM...

Heck, I hope I'm wrong and they decide it should be OM, MSU, AU and (maybe) Bammer in the thing.... other than Michigan State, I don't see another team as a good as them...

Lemme ask ya this:

Assumptions:
1) MSU, OM, and AU or Alabama ALL finish with only 1 loss, and all games are competitive and all 3 of the above finish ranked 4th - 6th.
2) Three of: FSU (undefeated), Baylor (undefeated), Michigan St. (1 loss) & Oregon (1 loss) all win out impressively and finish 1st - 3rd.

Who gets in?

I realize all this is premature and hypothetical, but it's fun to ponder...

[Political Hack]

Tusk. the conference champ, the 2nd place team in the West, FSU, and Baylor.

Oregon and Mich State are old news. 1 loss for them is like 3 for an SEC West school. I think most of the country realizes that.