Current system

Expanding beyond the current format negates the value of the regular season matchups and more importantly, invalidates the conference championship games. We've seen how very different rematches can go, and it sucks when it doesn't go your way.

That said, there have only been 7 regular season rematches in 25 years of SECCG. To expand to 5+3 will make that sort of thing likely the norm, not the exception. You'll be rewarding not winning your division/Conference.

No you are setting concrete rules. You are literally promising a reward for winning a conference which I your last sentence you said it doesn't do. I want it set in stone. Idc what they are but I want everyteam to know if you do this you are in. So make winning your conference an auto invite. That only validates the game so I can't even see how you think it invalidates. The group of 5 almost every year has a team that's somewhere from pretty good-great rarely and I want them in. The other two at larges decided by best computer model. It sets concrete rules so everyone knows what they have to do to win it all like every other sport, it allows the G5 a chance, and solves having the 2 teams from one conference with the last 2 at larges. All P5 is represented. I honestly can't see an argument I buy against this.

If the floater is the highest ranked G5 team I would buy it. We are basically the equivocal of separate but equal with them. They need to be removed from the P5 or have the chance to win the same trophy

Know that has been discussed ad nauseum by the talking heads, but it really comes down to whether you want to be more likely to crown the most deserving team or the best team. I think the current system does a pretty good job of balancing both but probably skews towards “best team” (See Ohio State getting in last year)

A larger playoff helps you be more confident that the most deserving team is crowned. A team that repeatedly beats others in a single elimination format is by definition “deserving”. And matching up only conference champs makes the conference championship games into a de facto first round of the playoff. But is “most deserving” really what we want?

For example, Alabama is the best team right now, and would be favored over anyone (maybe pickem with Clemson). Losing to auburn didn’t change this. Not making the sec championship didnt chance this. The current system acknowledges this and gives them a good shot of getting in. They’d probably be a lock if FSU wasn’t a horrible disappointment.

The current system could have acknowledged that UGA was among the best in 2012 and many other years and given us a shot despite not winning SEC. I like the weighting and flexibility of putting in “best” teams that may not be as deserving.

Separate argument on how you define “deserving” anyway. You could argue Alabama is deserving due to all the effort and results they get from recruiting.

quote:

---

I think it needs to be 6 teams. All power 5 champs and a floater.

---

This seems a reasonable compromise and probably doable in terms of the number of additional games that would need to be played. You could give the top 2 teams a by and that would greatly simplify the playoffs.