12 team playoff? "We don't need no stinking Automatic Qualifiers."

I like the top 12, whoever it is and wherever they may play.

But having 3 loss teams in the top 10 isn’t ideal either. The rankings are still based on preseason expectations to a large degree. I’m thinking specifically of Tulane and Utah here.
 
I like a specific number of conference champions getting in. Yes, there is a good mix of P5 schools in the top 12, but if that is how it is selected, you will see voters manipulating the system. If you are a voter and cover a B1G school, you're going to weight your votes to put more B1G schools at the top. Thus, we would not get the best teams, unless there is guidance, i.e. you cannot rank a team with 2 more losses above another team (or something like that). I would much rather have conf. champs (however many power conferences there are plus 1) and the rest being at large.
 
david_WVU said:
I like a specific number of conference champions getting in. Yes, there is a good mix of P5 schools in the top 12, but if that is how it is selected, you will see voters manipulating the system. If you are a voter and cover a B1G school, you're going to weight your votes to put more B1G schools at the top. Thus, we would not get the best teams, unless there is guidance, i.e. you cannot rank a team with 2 more losses above another team (or something like that). I would much rather have conf. champs (however many power conferences there are plus 1) and the rest being at large.
Click to expand...
Which is why a BCS like computer ranking should be involved in the process. JMO.
 
Really depends on how the realignment shakes out. When the Big12 lose OU and Uterus they will basically be the AAC. The PAC won't be much better when USC and UCLA leave. So you would really only have 3 Power conferences and I honestly question calling the ACC a power conference. I think I would count them stronger than the PAC and B12 after the moves, but still nowhere near the B1G and SEC. But assuming that holds....

3 power conference and G5 conferences, could have 8 AQs (conference champs) and 8 At-Large.
 
Blackshirts Blvd said:
Really depends on how the realignment shakes out. When the Big12 lose OU and Uterus they will basically be the AAC. The PAC won't be much better when USC and UCLA leave. So you would really only have 3 Power conferences and I honestly question calling the ACC a power conference. I think I would count them stronger than the PAC and B12 after the moves, but still nowhere near the B1G and SEC. But assuming that holds....

3 power conference and G5 conferences, could have 8 AQs (conference champs) and 8 At-Large.
Click to expand...
I like the AQs because it sets a clear expectation on what is required to ensure a spot. I think being a conference champion is a good criteria for AQs because it should mean something. I don't think there should be 8 AQs, I liked the Power conferences + highest rated non power conf., be that 3 (P2+1) or 6 (P5+1).

But, careful there dissing the XII. If you remove OU and UT, since the last round of realignment (2012) the XII has a .666 record against the PAC (18-9), .500 records against the ACC (15-15) and B1G (14-14), and .421 against the mighty SEC (16-22). I think they belong in the discussion as a power conference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top