In 2010 and 2011 under different labels.
Hey everyone is entitled to their opinion I have no issues. Back and forth debate is what this place is for and makes it fun. It would be boring if everyone had the same opinion.
We all were taught that “everybody is somebody” and “sharing is caring” as young children, but evidently it really stuck with Warren because he is completely averse to the B1G actually using the power it has over lesser conferences.
Actually the SEC is the one that's being fair here. The original plan released in the summer was a good one that was fair to a lot of parties. 6 highest conf champs even allows for the chance of 2 G5. 95% of the time 6 highest and 5+1 are going to end up in the same result but on rare occasion a P5 could get left out. Sankey is pushing for that plan but the ACC/B10 are pushing for 5+1 with AQs for the P5 and highest G5. The SEC is pushing the plan that's more open and allows slightly more opportunity.
The SEC wants as many at large bids as possible because they're betting on themselves to fill as many as possible. Don't think for a second that they are in it for equity amongst conferences.
Sure but the B10 would have had more bids than the SEC since 2014. They’re just about equal. Also other P5s would never be shut out and all of them have had as many as 3 teams qualify in some of the those years. Much better situation for them than what they have now being shut out.
Sure but other way to look at it which I prefer lol…after a qb change, team goes on a 9-1 run gets hot and who knows what kind of noise they may make in the playoffs.
This is the biggest mindset problem. The CFP is set up to choose the top 4 individual teams which will play to determine the MNC. It just so happens 2 of them are from the SEC this year.
I don’t think any controversy this year with the 4 and I’m okay with Alabama and UGA. They deserve a chance.
Been watching cfb long enough to know it isn’t a run of the mill any sport. Part of that is knowing there have been consequences for failing to win.
Conference champs only? So the best way to determine a national champion is to ignore the results of 25-33% of a teams games and only consider the 67-75% of games that are regionally based that you selectively deem to be important?
I don't think many people feel this way. It's so much fun when a low level team beats a P5 school in the lower rounds and when a Butler or VCU gets to the Final Four.
Nah, only P5 and the best team of the rest should get an AQ.
I don't have a problem with G5 getting opportunity but don't want them taking up too many spots because it's not feasible. They don't play the schedule the P5 does, so no the opportunity should not be equal. I like highest 6 best which in could in theory get 2 G5s in a strange year but at least 1 G5 ever year is more than fair. Football isn't basketball. Basketball can add all those G5 teams and it won't be at the expense of of many worthy non conf champ teams. BTW 6 highest conf champs isn't AQ either, it's technically not tied to any particular conference but in practice obviously it's going to be the P5 in there.
www.si.com
