📡 Neither the SEC nor Big Ten needs divisions. Both leagues would be better by getting rid of them and playing off 1 vs 2 in the title game.

[RTB X Bot]

 

[TUSKtimes]

I agree. Roy Kramer had it wrong.

 

[TUSKtimes]

And just for chuckles, let's go ahead and just eliminate the CCG altogether. Let 8 teams in the playoff, cause we are heading there anyway. First round goes to the higher seeds home field.

Now, what do we have? 15 games are still the max for a champion's season, having 2 teams from the same conference is now no big thing, and who knows, we might even have an occasional fly in the ointment team for the #1 seed to consume.

Make me King, I dare you.

 

[TerryP]

Make me King, I dare you

 

[alagator]

And just for chuckles, let's go ahead and just eliminate the CCG altogether

Sure. Let's get behind an idea to throw millions of conference revenue away.

Let 8 teams in the playoff, cause we are heading there anyway.

What you suggesting means the loss Ohio State had last season, which was inexcusable, is now excused. The same goes for what happened to Okie State back in '11. Or, even better, Michigan getting their butts handed to them by Penn State.

You would be excusing losses, bad losses, and therein devaluing the regular season.

All you're doing is echoing Wolken (and you should be ashamed) who is only echoing Delany (who in in charge of a conference that deserves its shame.)

 

[TerryP]

Or, even better, Michigan getting their butts handed to them by Penn State.

 

[BamaFan334]

Or, even better, Michigan getting their butts handed to them by Penn State.

Cause that's the only way his team can get in.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Sure. Let's get behind an idea to throw millions of conference revenue away.

How much money would that 2nd playoff game put into the SEC coffers? Answer: The difference shouldn't keep anyone awake at night.

What you suggesting means the loss Ohio State had last season, which was inexcusable, is now excused. The same goes for what happened to Okie State back in '11. Or, even better, Michigan getting their butts handed to them by Penn State.

You would be excusing losses, bad losses, and therein devaluing the regular season.

All you're doing is echoing Wolken (and you should be ashamed) who is only echoing Delany (who in in charge of a conference that deserves its shame.)

An intelligent football mind could argue that any CCG that doesn't automatically match up the 2 best teams in their conference has already "devalued" the regular season.

Every crappy/inferior team that will have absolutely no chance of playing in the NC and yet is there in the CCG in place of a better team has "devalued" the regular season. Like 6-6 UCLA and 6-6 GaTech.

Your turn.

 

[TerryP]

How much money would that 2nd playoff game put into the SEC coffers? Answer: The difference shouldn't keep anyone awake at night.

Answer: nope. Not the case.

UA and UGA, both as CFP participants, brought 12 million in for the conference. When the SECN was being launched the conference was already bringing in over 15 million for the SECCG alone. As I recall, it eclipsed the 15mm mark in 2013.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Answer: nope. Not the case.

UA and UGA, both as CFP participants, brought 12 million in for the conference. When the SECN was being launched the conference was already bringing in over 15 million for the SECCG alone. As I recall, it eclipsed the 15mm mark in 2013.

Rather than have a CCG that is often an exercise in futility and often comes down to a playoff representative in the game having a lot more to lose than gain, why doesn't the SEC just bite the proverbial economic bullet for the good of the game?

And tell me, if its all about making conference money, why the SEC isn't more determined to play 9 conference games like most of the other power 5 conferences?

Risking the golden child to an upset to an SEC team not going anywhere in the Playoff is insane when you think about it. The SEC refusing 7 more conference games between 14 teams seems like bad financial advice.

 

[TerryP]

Rather than have a CCG that is often an exercise in futility and often comes down to a playoff representative in the game having a lot more to lose than gain, why doesn't the SEC just bite the proverbial economic bullet for the good of the game?

One, you're assuming it's "for the good of the game." I don't see how expanding the playoffs all the while excusing poor losses does any amount of good for the game.

And tell me, if its all about making conference money, why the SEC isn't more determined to play 9 conference games like most of the other power 5 conferences?

Risking the golden child to an upset to an SEC team not going anywhere in the Playoff is insane when you think about it. The SEC refusing 7 more conference games between 14 teams seems like bad financial advice.

You're assuming playing nine conference games makes the conference more money. How? The TV deals are already in place. Adding another conference game doesn't mean the deal is reworked. We're looking at the middle of the '20's before CBS comes back up again. ESPN is longer I believe.

What you're really missing is something Sankey pointed out. If you look at the number of championships the SEC has won it demonstrates what they are doing is working. The same goes for the 6-1-1 format. Why change something that's working?

Expanding the playoffs weakens the field. But that's good for the game? It's only good for those teams who didn't do enough during the season to put themselves in that group of four that make the playoffs.

If a loss in the SECCG causes a team to miss the playoffs they didn't deserve to be there in the first place.

 

[TUSKtimes]

One, you're assuming it's "for the good of the game." I don't see how expanding the playoffs all the while excusing poor losses does any amount of good for the game

I thought I was very specific about what I said. But for the sake of summation: The 2 best teams are seldom matched up in the CCG. That alone depreciates the regular season record. A reminder: It's also the reason we ended up playing LSU twice in the same season.

You're assuming playing nine conference games makes the conference more money. How? The TV deals are already in place. Adding another conference game doesn't mean the deal is reworked. We're looking at the middle of the '20's before CBS comes back up again. ESPN is longer I believe.

Maybe we are losing money. Why not go back to the 6 game SEC format so we can all get rich.

What you're really missing is something Sankey pointed out. If you look at the number of championships the SEC has won it demonstrates what they are doing is working. The same goes for the 6-1-1 format. Why change something that's working?

I would argue that the best teams in the best conference with the best athletes will always win more games. I wish Sanky was thinking about all this past SEC success before he offered free agency to graduate students within the conference. That thought is predicated on the idea that infallibility is achieved from one's position on the football food chain.

Expanding the playoffs weakens the field. But that's good for the game? It's only good for those teams who didn't do enough during the season to put themselves in that group of four that make the playoffs.

Then they shouldn't be that difficult to beat. What are you worried about? By the way, as far as the playoffs and their committee, isn't it ironic that a #1 seed has failed to win the thing yet? Yet 2, #4 seeds have taken the trophy home? So much for perception over reality.

If a loss in the SECCG causes a team to miss the playoffs they didn't deserve to be there in the first place.

Well, that was half my argument. How about the second best team in the SEC that has to sit at home and watch someone with a lesser team try to qualify for the playoffs because the 2 best teams happen to be in the same division, while they get ready for the bowl season?

 

[TerryP]

I thought I was very specific about what I said. But for the sake of summation: The 2 best teams are seldom matched up in the CCG. That alone depreciates the regular season record. A reminder: It's also the reason we ended up playing LSU twice in the same season.

Bama had one loss in '11, Georgia had one loss in '11. UGA and LSU met. UGA and Bama are tied to end the season so you can't say the two best teams didn't make it to ATL. LSU was the best, UGA was tied for 2nd.

You're really going to have to nit-pick to say the two best haven't made it to ATL. It's worked the vast majority of the time.

Maybe we are losing money. Why not go back to the 6 game SEC format so we can all get rich.

What? Explain your math on this one/

Then they shouldn't be that difficult to beat. What are you worried about? By the way, as far as the playoffs and their committee, isn't it ironic that a #1 seed has failed to win the thing yet? Yet 2, #4 seeds have taken the trophy home? So much for perception over reality.

Your beef is with the rankings. It's not on which teams deserve to be in the playoff. They have gotten it right each and every year.

 

[bamachine]

I do agree, do away with the divisions and put the two best teams in the CCG. Also go to a 9 game conf schedule plus 1 P5 , 1 G5 and 1 FCS OOC, for all of the P5 conferences. Stick to the the 4 team playoff for the national title.

 

[planomateo]

Does he understand how this works...

 

[TerryP]

Does he understand how this works...

Wolken? I understand he asked John Currie.

 

[TerryP]

I do agree, do away with the divisions and put the two best teams in the CCG. Also go to a 9 game conf schedule plus 1 P5 , 1 G5 and 1 FCS OOC, for all of the P5 conferences. Stick to the the 4 team playoff for the national title.

I agree with everything sans the doing away with divisions.

I don't want to see Bama play Auburn one week, and then a week later have to deal with that again. It's already enough to deal with them one weekend of the year.

Assume this...Bama beats Auburn and then plays in the SECCG against Auburn. If it's a battle for that 4th position what good does that game do? Nothing except dropping strength of schedule, right? Hell, I thought UGA vs Auburn so soon was too much, too soon, so what do I know?

 

[bamachine]

I do agree, do away with the divisions and put the two best teams in the CCG. Also go to a 9 game conf schedule plus 1 P5 , 1 G5 and 1 FCS OOC, for all of the P5 conferences. Stick to the the 4 team playoff for the national title.

I agree with everything sans the doing away with divisions.

I don't want to see Bama play Auburn one week, and then a week later have to deal with that again. It's already enough to deal with them one weekend of the year.

Assume this...Bama beats Auburn and then plays in the SECCG against Auburn. If it's a battle for that 4th position what good does that game do? Nothing except dropping strength of schedule, right? Hell, I thought UGA vs Auburn so soon was too much, too soon, so what do I know?

I just like the idea of more flexibility in the scheduling. Have 4 permanent and 5 rotating games in the conference. That way in a 4 year period you play every team in a home and home.

 

[252BAMA]

The rule was relaxed in regard to the number of teams required in order to hold a CG. I do not believe the proposal as stated here would be approved.

 

[TUSKtimes]

What's most amazing is that since the inception of the BCS we have honestly been looking for the 2 best teams in college football to play for the national championship. In that same period, we have not demanded that in our own conference championships. What a fraud.