So how much does it cost us....

[Liverpooldawg]

if no SEC team makes the playoff?

[mic]

Hopefully we will find out

[Jack Lambert]

I don't know how much it will cost us but I think you will see the playoff expanded a little faster.

[chef dixon]

I'd be fine with it. Our conference is pretty weak this year. And if it pushes for more expansion that only helps the Mississippi State fan experience.

[Todd4State]

I agree with every response so far. I think if that happened, you would see the SEC expand to 16, some slight divisional realignment with Mizzou going to the West, and then I think you would see a push for the playoffs to be expanded to 8.

And then all would be right in the world. For now.

[Quaoarsking]

Ideally the power 5 conferences could fold back into 4 conferences of 16-20 teams, determine their champions however they want, and the Big 10 and Pac-12 champions play in the Rose Bowl and the SEC and ACC champions play in the Sugar, and then the 2 winners play for the national title.

No Committee, no polls, everything 100% settled on the field.

[Liverpooldawg]

I don't know how much it will cost us but I think you will see the playoff expanded a little faster.
That's an excellent point. I'd be all for that.

[Taog Redloh]

Ideally the power 5 conferences could fold back into 4 conferences of 16-20 teams, determine their champions however they want, and the Big 10 and Pac-12 champions play in the Rose Bowl and the SEC and ACC champions play in the Sugar, and then the 2 winners play for the national title.

No Committee, no polls, everything 100% settled on the field.
That would be fine, as long as you don't care about out-of-conference matchups during the season. You'd have to play 12 games against your own conference, which would probably be needed since you have 20 teams in your conference.

[Todd4State]

Ideally the power 5 conferences could fold back into 4 conferences of 16-20 teams, determine their champions however they want, and the Big 10 and Pac-12 champions play in the Rose Bowl and the SEC and ACC champions play in the Sugar, and then the 2 winners play for the national title.

No Committee, no polls, everything 100% settled on the field.

That's too simple. But you're right. It will be interesting to see which Big 12 members end up in the PAC 12, the Big 10, or in West Virginia's case- the ACC. I hope it happens because my OCD doesn't like WV in a conference made up of teams from Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

[ShotgunDawg]

I prefer an 8 team playoff with 5 conference champions & 3 at-large teams.

To me, this is a better way to determine the National Championship because 8 conference games, some SEC teams, Big 10 teams (Iowa), etc... playing drastically different schedules than other teams in the same conference isn't a large enough sample size to actually determine who the best teams are. So by having the 3 at-large teams, it would allow for maybe the best team that lost a few games, due to playing a tougher schedule, get into the field.

[Quaoarsking]

That would be fine, as long as you don't care about out-of-conference matchups during the season. You'd have to play 12 games against your own conference, which would probably be needed since you have 20 teams in your conference.

The OOC games would still count for bowl eligibility and TV $$. Maybe the fact that a loss to a great non-conference team can't derail your season would encourage more good non-conference matchups.

Or maybe you could have 4 18-team conferences with 3 divisions of 6. In each conference the 3 division winners and a wildcard based on an unbiased computer formula that factors in non-conference SOS, so there would be some incentive to play and win out of the conference.

Just brainstorming here. I just want the Committee out, and I sure don't want the BCS rankings back either.

[Alldawg]

I prefer an 8 team playoff with 5 conference champions & 3 at-large teams.

To me, this is a better way to determine the National Championship because 8 conference games, some SEC teams, Big 10 teams (Iowa), etc... playing drastically different schedules than other teams in the same conference isn't a large enough sample size to actually determine who the best teams are. So by having the 3 at-large teams, it would allow for maybe the best team that lost a few games, due to playing a tougher schedule, get into the field.

Hell no. Unless you do away with divisions within conferences and no championship game. That was part of the problem with the BCS. Put it this way, would you be ok with USC making the playoffs this year if they beat Stanford tonight? Enough with the gauranteed stuff. Have enough spots if they deserve it, but don't allow a way for teams that shit the bed in the regular season to make it.

[ShotgunDawg]

Hell no. Unless you do away with divisions within conferences and no championship game. That was part of the problem with the BCS. Put it this way, would you be ok with USC making the playoffs this year if they beat Stanford tonight? Enough with the gauranteed stuff. Have enough spots if they deserve it, but don't allow a way for teams that shit the bed in the regular season to make it.

I disagree. I think if you win your conference you should be in, especially with 8 teams. With 4 teams, since one conference champ is getting left out anyway, I prefer just picking the best 4 teams. With teams though, I like the idea, like the NCAA Tournament, of teams that win their conference championship getting automatic bids.

[rrog17]

Four 16 team conferences. 8 teams in a division. Only those 7 division games count for div. champ. Other 5 games would be cross div and ooc. Doesn't count toward div. record. Div champs meet to decide conference champ. Four conference champs in playoff. That's basically an 8 team playoff.

[rrog17]

All decided on the field. No committees, No rankings involved.

[Alldawg]

So USC plays the game of their lives and deserve a shot? Hell no. Win your 10 games in the regular season and make it. I agree there should be enough spots, but don't let a team get in based on one game ( championship game ). Do away with those and divisions and I can see your point of allowing the " conference champ ". Divisions are not fair anyway. Iowa has a joke of schedule due to their week side. Georgia has no business not winning the East every year.

[rrog17]

Division strength will always be cyclical. Up to the schools to make sure they compete!