Eight teams with six AQ spots isn’t good in his view. I agree. Let in a three loss Pac 12 champ and leave out 11-1 Alabama or Michigan State? Nope.
Swine, why would we have to have six AQ spots? Why not keep a similar model as we have today but allow the top 8 in rather than 4? If my math is correct, you could have a team that could end up playing 17 games in the 12 team format. 12 regular season, 1 conference championship, 1 play-in game, 1 in the field of 8, 1 in the semi’s and 1 in the finals. I’m just afraid that last game or two could really be tough on 18 - 20 year old bodies.
The people who want the 8-team format also want the Pac-12, and every other P5 league, to get a spot whether they deserve it or not, and for the Group of Five to have a designated spot. That’s six AQs. Sankey is okay with six AQs, meaning the six best conference champions (which may not include all P5 leagues), but not with limiting to two at-large. Notre Dame ain’t gonna go for six AQs and two at-large either.
I understand why Sankey is taking that stance. SEC has a good chance to get two of the four now, but would really only have a chance to get two of the eight. He’s thinking that most years the SEC would get at least three of the 12, maybe more.
High school teams are playing 15-16 games now without a break between the regular season and the playoffs. The 12-team format gives teams a bye after the conference championship games, a two week bye for the top four teams. And since some of the at-large teams would not be in their CCG, they’d also have a two week bye.
All true. I forgot about all the bye weeks so that does help. I’m just looking from the standpoint of wear and tear on young bodies and the college kids take a lot harder hits than the high school kids. The eight team format is a compromise that allows enough teams in to make almost everyone happy. Being ranked 5 or 6 and not getting in would really sting but being 11 or 12 not as much.
That’s true, they take harder hits. They also have much greater access to sports medicine, better trainers, better rehab, etc.
Let’s just stick with 4. There are not 8 teams in the country who could win it all. It ain’t broke, so don’t go a fixin!
1 Like
I’ll be stunned if they don’t expand. And I bet it’s 12 teams. The lower divisions have more games than that. DII lets 28 teams in. What’s the difference?
12 makes everyone happy except those who are upset that Sankey worked on the original plan while also talking to UT and OU. Oh, and the Pac-12 and the bowls. It makes sure the Group of Five gets at least one team, and most years all five P5 leagues will get in (if the best the P12 can manage is #17 in the rankings, they don’t deserve a spot). I know college football is cyclical and some day the SEC may suck, but if it does, it doesn’t deserve a spot either. The answer is to improve their product. If you’re a competitor, you want to compete for championships. Bowls are nice participation trophies and fun trips, but they’re not the be all any more.
FCS, DII and DIII are different animals. The games are played at campus sites in geographic groupings. Travel for the teams and fans is significantly reduced. Playing at campus sites also ensures there will be a good crowd, as fan bases are much smaller.
We are talking about the athletes playing more games like Division II and III. Division I can play more games. That is the argument (that it is too much on the players) that I do not buy. Ever.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.