I’d he surprised if the 4-4-2-2 came into being at this point with the push back. I get why the SEC wants it but at the end of the day that’s probably how it’s going to break more years then not unless a real power emerges from the big12 or ACC
Ross Dellenger report on SEC spring meetings
- Thread starter JP4CY
- Start date
It’s been widely and no one seems to realize..
4-4-2-2 is the Big 10’s brain child. This is Petitti’s idea and he’s pushing it….hard. SEC doesn’t want it and why would they? Under 5-11 they would GET MORE.
The Big 10 has the best PR and Marketing in the game. They always keep quiet while moving the chess pieces. Same with realignment…they just happened to have Oregon USC fall in their laps.
SEC plays the villain while the Big 10 appears to go along yet they started this whole f’n thing.
Edited: the Big 10 knows most years they don’t have 4 viable playoff teams. SEC most years do.
Reports are Petitti was the one that wanted it the most. But who knows, the guy never says anything in public.
Good call as I didn’t really know it was his original idea just through the was along for the ride. Oregon was a weird add but that’s for another thread.
I’d agree looking at historical results about the playoff team viability but in the new NIL era the SEC is going to continue to lose ground. Plus without Satan I mean Saban good luck reproducing those results
I still hate the idea of going to 16 teams but autobids to that degree just don’t make any sense
The 4-4-2-2 is good for the big 12. We won’t get hosed by the committee. Committees are always biased towards the SEC and the B1G.
I guess the only way I could live with a 4-4-2-2 automatic bid system for the football playoffs is if they also implemented a 12-6-6-6 automatic bid system for the NCAA men's basketball tournament at the same time. The Big 12 would receive the 12 automatic bids. Same logic.
I probably agree but I have a hunch if we have another year like last year where SEC teams get snubbed in favor of teams they clearly don’t respect like SMU then I could easily imagine them bringing back the idea of auto-bids. Also so many of their revenue-generating ideas like the play-in games and the scheduling agreement with the BigTen work a lot better if they don’t have to worry about their best teams getting snubbed because they took an extra loss during the season.
What we really need is something like basketball has where there is a system everyone agrees to for comparing resumes (Net ratings and the Quad system). Then you are rewarded for playing a tough schedule and piling up lots of easy wins doesn’t do anything for you. But you need lots of non-conference games for the ratings to be meaningful and all of the SEC’s future plans mean less not more games against the ACC.
What we have today is a system where all of the SEC fans are convinced their teams would easily win against the teams in the playoffs from other conferences but the games never happen so there is no way to prove it.
Totally agree, I just don’t know how you would create a system with the schedule issues and limited amounts of games. Obv have a different take on this but I rarely have a hard time with the rankings at the end of the season before playoffs are announced. Pre season and early season I have massive issues with but sadly those are never going to change.
Also agree that if the SEC has a simple issue to 2024 we will see some pushback. The odd thing is that just expanding to 16 will fix that to an extent and looking at last year as an example they would have gotten another 2 teams in with the expanded playoff. But I see the SEC on a downturn from a championship perspective unless Georgia delivers
Now that you mention it I remember seeing that the old BCS rankings wouldn’t have been very different at all from what the committee came up with so it’s maybe not as big of an issue as we all make it out to be. I just always hear everyone say that there aren’t enough games played in football for the same quality of ranking system, which makes sense to me in principle.
I did see that the SEC is going to try to push for changes in the criteria, which I imagine mean some attempt to take into account strength of schedule but it’s hard to have an opinion on it before we get details. All we know so far is they want a “selection committee criteria change”, which could mean anything but I’m sure it’s designed to benefit the SEC in some way.
I don’t see ND ever supporting that format as long as they’re not in a conference.
Yeah, last year the committee put both Boise State and SMU ahead of Alabama so I’m sure they are hard at work on a formula that would have reversed that outcome. I’ve read that the SEC coaches were against the 4-4-2-2 model and I’m sure they weren’t against that model because they wanted to make sure SEC teams earn it on the field. They probably think 11 autobids with the right selection criteria would result in way more than 4 SEC teams every year.
Agree that this was the B10’s idea and they are skating.
I disagree with the SEC not really wanting it. The SEC decision makers definitely did want the 4-4-2-2-1 form, but they got a ton of pushback from lots of sources: B12/ACC, their own coaches and fans, and, most importantly, the media. Sankey isn’t good enough to navigate all that mud coming his way, and just bungled his press/leaks during the Spring meetings.
Hot take here: I know everyone in the B12, ISU and Blum were dead set against 4-4-2-2-1. As an ever-increasing lukewarm CFB fan, I was too. As an ISU fan though, I’m not convinced it wasn’t in our best interest. I understand it pretty much officially relegated us to a lower tier. But it also establishes a floor, and guarantees more access to the CFP every year.
To ensure relevance, I think it would have helped ISU and we cut off our nose to spite our face a little bit. I also understand the reasons against it too.
The SEC coaches didn’t want it cause they would have had to move to 9 games, plus a play-in game for the SEC championship
If the six BCS computer rankings (with no AP/Coaches polls) were used last season for CFP selection, Bama gets in instead of Tennessee. Those six ranking systems all use varying forms of weighting factors for W/Ls. SOS and Margin of Victory and the SEC cherry picked Massey (one of the 6 BCS rankings) and ESPN SOR to support their SOS arguments last week.
I would have no problem leaving CFP selection solely to a composite of 6 or more computer rankings with an emphasis on leaving out those with that overly weigh Margin of Victory like Sagarin. Going this route would completely removed any lingering bias from preseason rankings and any other human bias as well.
Last edited:
Any conference getting more AQs than another conference was not acceptable to the B12 and understandably so. The whole notion of multiple AQs is absurd for multiple reasons.
Any format that automatically locks in a conference as superior to other conferences is automatically a steaming pile of horse ****. It goes against the competitive spirit of any sport.
Even if unlikely, what happens if the SEC and/or the Big ten have a bad few years or stop being top dogs all together? We fill the postseason with inferior teams because once upon a time they were the top ones? If you conference is truly the best then you will get at large spots. No need to give a conference or two more guaranteed spots than the others.
Even if unlikely, what happens if the SEC and/or the Big ten have a bad few years or stop being top dogs all together? We fill the postseason with inferior teams because once upon a time they were the top ones? If you conference is truly the best then you will get at large spots. No need to give a conference or two more guaranteed spots than the others.
This has been my preference since we first went to a playoff. We don't need a committee. Let the ranking formula sort out the at large bids and rankings. Auto bids to the P4 champs. Done. Everything else is just introducing opportunity for bias and shenanigans.
So…. I agree with this morally and logistically. But I’m also pragmatic. It’s also worth noting 5+11 still locks in some conferences better than others. Every G5 isn’t getting an autobid.
This is the mindset the P12 had. Anything deal that’s less than the SEC/B10 and on-par with the B12 is unacceptable. Where did that get them?
I’m not saying 4-4-2-2-1 was good. But I don’t think the 5+11 is as much of a slam dunk as we thing.
