How does that work realistically? Leagues that get one team in must bat 1.000 over time to keep their AQ while other conferences get 3 or 4 uncontestable bids?
Then there's the huge advantage that 1st round byes and campus sites will provide...
What the hell is Bowlsby thinking?!
- Thread starter cyclonestunners
- Start date
How does that work realistically? Leagues that get one team in must bat 1.000 over time to keep their AQ while other conferences get 3 or 4 uncontestable bids?
Then there's the huge advantage that 1st round byes and campus sites will provide...
I think whatever gets us AQ is best for us... if that takes 12, then 12 is best. If it's 8, then 8 is best. If both provide that option, I think 8 is better for B12 for purposes of money allocation.
AQ is the only way Iowa State (and the majority of college football teams) ever get a chance to be in the playoff. We can dream of an undefeated (or even 1-loss) season, but history has shown that's never going to happen, and a 2-loss ISU is alway going to be skipped over. We want a system where we can earn everything on the field.
Also, I think some people are vastly overestimating the monetary value of being in the playoff. It's nothing compared to the TV money advantage the SEC/Big10 already have.
Also, I think some people are vastly overestimating the monetary value of being in the playoff. It's nothing compared to the TV money advantage the SEC/Big10 already have.
The best teams…..now there is a subjective term. On paper ISU may be a top 12 team, performance this year, they were not. Now are we talking best teams at the beginning, end, week 6-9, or on average? Doesn’t the best team in a conference considered the conference champ? Who defines, best teams?
That's why a blend of AQs and a couple at large "best teams" is ideal. You have a controllable path for everyone (win your conference) but if a great team stumbles (e.g. Georgia this year, or the year KSU upset #1 OU) they can still be included.
Initially all P5 conferences would have a least 1 bid a year.
Conferences would only need to win 1 game over a 3 or 4 year window. So if a conference sends 1 team a year, over a 4 year period their teams would only need to go 1-4, to keep it's auto-bid.
The better question, if a P5 conference goes 0-4, why should they continue to get an auto bid? After all, there would still a playoff path for "G5 or G6 or G7" schools.
There simply aren't enough cross-over games and too many differences in SoS to say a reasonable goal with 8 teams is to get the best 8 teams. Realistically the goal should be to make sure you get the best 4-5 and having an 8 team playoff helps give you some room for error. Having it mostly AQs helps ensure you don't totally overvalue a conference. There are so few games across conferences you can't make a good conclusion.
I always raise this example, but it the best we have. Maybe around 2007 or 2008 Ohio State beats Michigan in an epic game at the end of the year. Pretty much all the talking heads were in agreement that they were the best two teams. Basically the rematch factor (and Jim Walden voting Florida #1) barely won out. And all that happened was that Florida so thoroughly dominated Ohio State it was clear that they could play 10 times and Ohio State was not going to beat them. Thorough domination.
People think they know, just like for some reason there was an oddly high level of confidence in Georgia prior to the SEC championship team. Their SoS going into that game was #51. Cincy's was #66.
It's not the end of the world if an 8 team playoff has the 5 best teams, and the 7th 10th and 11th. Make sure you get the top four or so right. Eight teams with AQs will do that.