I knew I would look forward to your take and - as always - we're in overly substantial agreement on this. In fact, it may be 100% (as I've noted numerous times, we're at 90% agreement on the whole BCS-Playoff issue).
I have three issues with this. It's not the worst possible scenario, but I'm sure you are surprised to hear I have some concerns. For the sake of anyone that doesn't know, I'd still prefer to have the BCS so it is clear where I'm coming from.
1: I do not like automatic inclusion at all. A lot of times in discussions I think people get so lost in the importance of winning a conference, or in how many conference games are played, and forget that it is all relative to the quality of the conference. Under the BCS agreement we saw some pretty suspect teams make it into the BCS bowls purely on the basis of automatic inclusion. I think that criteria poisons almost any process and actually did some harm to the BCS as well. It was hard to justify having Uconn playing in a BCS bowl game for instance. I am firmly of the belief that the most deserving teams in the regular season are the ones that should be playing for a championship, not because they happened to win a conference. Conference championships of any sort, much like playoffs put heightened importance on particular games, while I don't believe just winning certain games is really a good measure of how deserving a team is.
I cannot argue with any of this. In fact, your point about 'automatic inclusion' gets to the heart of the whole 'conference champion' problem most of us have. As we've noted too many times - not all conferences are created equal and 2011 is proof positive. NOBODY - nobody to this day outside of Stillwater, OK - even tries to argue that we didn't KNOW that LSU and Alabama were BY FAR the two best teams that year. (Even those who were arguing for the inclusion of Okie St back then stated up front that they didn't think the Cowboys were the best or second best - they always fell back on 'the most deserving' argument.
2: All along I have feared the growth of playoffs and I don't know if expansion can be kept at bay. If history has taught is anything though it's that playoffs tend to grow until they overshadow the regular season. This 8 team playoff doesn't add more games but it does seem to cast a longer shadow over the regular season. What's to say it would stop there? How long after we got the 4 team playoff, did it take for people to start talking about an expansion? Was it days or minutes?
The only thing I'd quibble with here - and it's VERY slight - is the notion that the 8-team playoff casts a shadow over the regular season. To your credit, you modified it with 'does seem' - by the same token, I have to modify my own statement with the weasel words 'it depends.' Otoh - I agree with you if we're necessarily going to have co-champions (presume a 2009 UA-UF scenario where they don't meet at all until the playoff) and REQUIRE them to meet in the FIRST ROUND then it's a bigger problem.
Also - we are in TOTAL agreement about the growth of playoffs. Even Bama basher Tim Brando has said MANY times that the problem we have is we have BY FAR the greatest regular season of ANY sport....ANY sport - but sometimes how we determine a champion becomes rather less than stellar. Of course, his insane idea is basically what we have now with the so-called Blue Ribbon Panel (so named because they drink Pabst at the dinner where they're making inane decisions like suddenly deciding Ohio State's loss to Va Tech is not so bad after all - a decision I will never be convinced was made other than because it was blue blood Ohio State).
I have two real problems with the current scenario that I'll touch on below, but we agree with the sole exception of the word noted (and I'm not being critical since even as I state this it has to be nuanced).
3: It easy for a conference like the Big 12, who has already given up their championship game, or even for the other members of the Power 5 to give up their championship games because it isn't such an integral part of their identity. It is newer for them, but for the SEC the conference championship game is a big deal. It would be a lot to sacrifice that and a part the SEC's way of doing things for the sake of a playoff. I'd argue one resolution for the whole, lose and you are out of a playoff problem to just remove that conference champion stuff altogether and then you just pick the four best teams. If a team was a clear #1 before a conference championship game, they should have a chance to stay in the top four.
Not being critical at all of your comments except I'll note that not too long such things as OU-Nebraska and even Colorado-Nebraska or Texas/ATM were integral parts of the way things operated for FAR LONGER than the SECCG has been around. My suspicion is that Atlanta and the SEC would throw a hissy fit over lost revenue. I read the other day that Kent St-Alabama game that started 2011 pumped $17 million into Tuscaloosa's economy. I cannot even imagine what the take is for the city of Atlanta for that game.
My concern if we did this sort of 'expansion of playoff' is that they'd force the two unbeaten teams from a conference (not just the SEC) to play the equivalent of an elimination game in the first round. This is not really fair if both teams look to be in the top four - plus, isn't that same game what we already have now in the SEC?
I suppose it's ironic that in the BCS era there was, generally speaking, an additional round already with the conference championship games. Now, it's almost like an eight team playoff, but I'd rather see that dialed back a bit by just taking the top 4 period (yes, the BCS computers), than moving to a scenario which hypothetically might not even have the top 5 anyway. It does feel a bit like the whole thing was setup to force some sort of an expansion though doesn't it?
FTR - my support for five years now has been the Top Four BCS OR the Plus One AFTER all the bowls were played. Amazingly enough, this would work easier if you ended the whole bowl game mess on New Year's Day (no team would have an advantage of extra rest).
What we have now to me is pretty good but there are two problems I have with it. Again - I'm NOT advocating this 8-team concept, just asking around - and the answers top to bottom are about what I figured they would be.
1) The damned committee - I mean, this is still the most ridiculous part of this whole thing. There were concerns when it was 60 SIDs voting for the poll rankings that made up the portion of the BCS. Remember the charges of bias when Pinkel (I believe it was him) ranked us over Okie St as Mizzou was leaving the conference - all the charges of political blah blah? Well, I'd say it's a whole lot easier to bribe SIXTEEN people than it is SIXTY......and you might only need to bribe 2 at most. (For anyone thinking I'm paranoid, you better look at some of the hogwash that has gone on with the bowls through the years).
2) The polls - REALLY - are absolutely meaningless top to bottom.
They literally mean NOTHING. Verne and Gary get to say they have #2 LSU squaring off against #4 Alabama, but unlike the old days where a win would guarantee at least one spot higher in such a game.........Alabama can go roll LSU but if 'the committee was impressed by (insert school here - especially one named Baylor) running up the score on Prairie View A/M, 88-6,' your win doesn't even count until MAYBE later if they suddenly decide it does.
But hey I'm enjoying reading the replies. I've had trouble replying - for some reason this site alone is locking up or sticking my computer. But I do read all responses.
