A reminder of why the same teams make the CFP year after year ($$):
That’s what happened during the 2021 cycle. As of now, 57 of the top 100 players in the country signed with one of six schools: Ohio State, Clemson, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma and LSU. And when five-star defensive tackle J.T. Tuimoloau signs, it will most likely be 58. That means just about 60 percent of the most elite players in the country wound up at six programs.
And playoff expansion won’t do a damned thing to change that. It’ll only make the elite teams play an extra game to get to the semis.
Get The Picture 
The fact that no Florida school, the University of Texas, and the real USC are in that group is a damning indictment of those programs.
LikeLiked by 5 people
That sucking sound you hear, is that indictment…(what, no nd in there)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Notre Dame too.
LikeLike
Well, while ND has the history, prestige, and name, what it doesn’t have is location in or in close proximity to a state that is one of three best recruiting bases in the nation. I would add UCLA to ee’s list. The fact that Texas hasn’t been relevant since 2009 season when it got thumped by Alabama is, to me, insane. With competent coaching and recruiting, Texas should be a behemoth annually.
LikeLike
Texas Booster:
“Damn straight! Watch me wade into that situation and kick some ass! Throw my weight around and fix it!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Texas boosters “fixing” the football program:
LikeLike
Facts.
LikeLike
Is your argument that playoff expansion will not change where the players are going – 60% to six schools – or that playoff expansion will not change the outcome at the end? I am skeptical as much as any about playoff expansion, but I do think that if more teams get in and get the big time TV coverage then top players may end up at said teams more than they do now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why? You think the only reason top players go to those six schools is because of playoff TV exposure? (Snark: how, then, do you explain Georgia’s recruiting success?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, you didn’t answer my question, but I will answer yours anyway. No, of course I do not think they go to those six schools because of PLAYOFF TV exposure, but I do think that a few may go to other schools if those schools can offer more BIG TIME TV coverage than they do now. The playoffs are big time TV.
LikeLike
Not going to the playoff makes it easier to opt out to prep for the draft. They get plenty of exposure at P5 schools especially the ones on the list. An expanded playoff will result just add another game for the 6 mentioned and likely fewer good games for fans to enjoy.
I’d be interested to see the distribution before the playoff. Bring back the BCS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would think it won’t be zero effect on where players go, but it won’t be too much either.
A lot of the best players are just going to go to one of the NFL factories no matter what, but becoming one of those will get a little easier. An eight team playoff gives twice as many teams per year the ability to claim some level of a “successful” season and so a better chance to crack into that top group and either supplant someone or to expand it by a team or two because winning does matter to recruits (it’s a chicken and egg question but for most teams a rise in recruiting is preceded by some success on the field… then there’s Saban and Smart). While the top two or three teams will generally destroy everyone else along the way to the finals, the three and four seeds will face tough games against the 5/6 seeds most years, and so at least one of those 5-8 teams will get some validation of “belonging” most years, and so the group will over time.
I’d imagine it will have an effect, but there will still be a strong gravity towards the established factories that’ll overwhelm much of the “more teams having successful seasons” effect.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I see expansion hurting OU’s and Clemson’s advantage of coasting to the cfp.
If OU makes a 16 team tourney to face SECCG runner ups and other high quality 1/2 loss teams, they’ll advance at a lower clip and lose that reputation as a top 4 program.
16 team playoff benefits SEC teams as we’ll get cracks at winners of other conferences we could have taken.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oklahoma just blew out Florida. Which SECCG runner ups are you referring to?
LikeLike
Not sure I should even bother bc that doesn’t appear to be a good faith response. Bama won in 17 without even making the SECCG. Good enough example?
LikeLike
You’re using a team that didn’t play in the SECCG as proof of the quality of SECCG losers?
How many SECCG losers in the last decade do you believe would have gone on a major tear in an expanded playoff? UGA 2012 comes to mind, but that’s about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m arguing the depth of the conference prohibits teams from making the cfp who would have if they were in the Big12 or ACC. And when they do get in, they’ll be very competitive with the winners of those conferences.
LikeLike
I understand what you’re arguing. I think you’re seeing more prowess in the SEC viz a viz Oklahoma and Clemson than is justified.
Let’s look at the SECCG losers’ bowl games for the last few years:
2020: UF loses to OU
2019: UGA beats Baylor
2018: UGA loses to Texas
2017: Auburn loses to UCF
2016: UF beats Iowa
2015: UF loses to Michigan
2014: Mizzou beats Minnesota
2013: Mizzou beats Oklahoma State
2012: UGA beats Nebraska
2011: UGA loses to Michigan State
That’s 5-5, with only one win over a top ten team. Color me unimpressed with your theory.
LikeLike
Couldn’t reply to your latest so leaving it here. 10 games as an eval? Meh.
I’ll reframe it though. The SEC is significantly deeper than anywhere else. 2nd place in the league could win the Big12 or ACC not infrequently – the inverse cannot be said ever – this appears to be where we differ? So when 2nd and 3rd place start getting into a bloated cfp, it’ll cut into OU and Clemson wins.
LikeLike
Guess I misunderstood “If OU makes a 16 team tourney to face SECCG runner ups…”.
LikeLike
Yea – it seems to me you intentionally mistook a representative example as a rule (clipped quote and all…). Anyhow, I think the SEC regularly has 2 teams that can win other conferences more so than the reverse. We differ there, so be it.
LikeLike
Both.
You didn’t answer my question, though. I know that’s what you think, but I don’t know why you think that.
LikeLike
I think players tend to choose based on location, prestige/chance of success/winning, chance to start, chance to get drafted, and resources (facilities, stadiums, bag men, etc.).
Expanding the playoff so that more teams like UCF and Cincinnati go there makes those schools more attractive to kids choosing based on location (I don’t have to move to make the playoff), prestige/winning (I can do better than just an AAC title), and resources to some extent (more national success usually leads to more money and booster investment). Those schools already offer a better chance to play. Even the NFL factor moves the needle ever so slightly; the more you get exposed, the less you have to scrap to get noticed.
Will it level the playing field? No, of course not. While their identities will change there will always be 5-6 schools that are dominating at any given point in time. But I do think a larger playoff makes smaller schools that can win more attractive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But think of the kids. So many more will experience getting beaten by those top programs. Do it for equality.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Agree on the pointlessness of playoff expansion. Anyone who complains about having to watch ND play in the CFP is not allowed to argue for expansion.
LikeLiked by 4 people
That’s a great point PD. Hell, the only reason they’re considering expansion is dollars and we all know that. But…
If I have to have a media darling foisted on me as the Cinderella seed only to lose in spectacular fashion I’d just as soon it be Notre Dame.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah the Cinderella concept just doesn’t port well from basketball. I mean, I enjoyed watching Oral Roberts “blow” everyone’s bracket as much as anyone else, but that won’t happen in college football. There is such an insane concentration of talent and depth at the top 4 or so schools in CFB that by season’s end, there’s simply no contest with any school outside that top group.
LikeLike
It will expand and once every 4-5 years we’ll have a fluke upset and maybe once in a lifetime a crappy team will get hot and win it all. Kind of like how the 10-6 Giants were world champs over the 16-1 Patriots.
LikeLike
I’m not sure you’ll get even that, as there’s way more parity in the NFL than in college.
Again, if what you want is more parity in CFB, the way to that isn’t playoff expansion, it’s adjusting roster size.
LikeLiked by 5 people
True on the diagnosis and possibly the medicine, but at 25 you are already at 1 scholarship for each position (22) + P/K/Return Man each year. Not much roster size fat to trim there? (NFL suits up with only 47/48 on Sundays (from an active roster of 55 plus 12 practice squad players), and, of course, have much more flexibility to bring in others as needed.)
LikeLike
FCS rosters are capped at 63 scholarship players. That’s 22 below FBS.
LikeLike
They are also much more likely to split scholarships, so you are likely to have more kids which are receiving some form of scholarship.
LikeLike
I’d like to steamroll our way to a title or two first, but I’m all for cutting roster sizes by about 5-10. CFB would get a lot more interesting top to bottom.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Adjusting roster size puts recruiting at a premium, expanding rosters would result in parity.
LikeLike
Expanding rosters would allow the powerhouses to stash more talent. It would not improve parity.
LikeLike
Disagree, only so many kids play, more spots allows teams more chances for other schools to get kids the recruiting services missed. Shrinking the roster the big school will still be loaded with 4 and 5 stars, Sure the other guys may get a few more 4 stars but the big 6 will dominate 4 and 5 stars.
LikeLike
Alabama has nothing but 4/5 star kids and a few three stars now, and can only play 11 of them at a time. Cut that roster by 20 and a bunch of four stars, a five star or two, and some three stars go elsewhere, the place they go not only has lost roughly their bottom 20 but also now a bunch of their better players are bumped to make room for players that would otherwise have been at schools like Bama, and on and on and on down the line through fcs; the top schools lose depth and the lesser teams gain depth and quality starters.
There isn’t any disputing that cutting roster sizes would dramatically increase parity across the sport. It also makes quality depth harder to establish, and so on top of increasing parity, the sport becomes more volatile because teams couldn’t absorb injuries and attrition like they can now, and due to greater reliance and value placed on your #1’s.
LikeLike
Further I would the reduction from 105 to 95 and now 95 to 85 has created the situation we are now in and parity was better then with cheating being more rampant back then which help the big schools.
LikeLike
You could argue the earth is flat but you’d be just as wrong.
LikeLike
Given OU, Bama, and Ohio State’s dominance of their respective conferences certainly takes my argument around the football P5.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I follow (typo?), but it sounds like you’re saying that because there is a lack of parity, and those teams dominate their conferences, that the lack of parity must be due to scholarship limits having been enacted starting in 1973, and finally reduced to 85 in 1992.
If that’s the case, you’re making a bit of a leap.
Yes, Alabama’s average player star rating could go up if they lopped off the three stars and low four stars on the roster (if we generously presume that they would still recruit a roster equal to their current 65 best players which is unlikely). But they’d still be playing only the top 11 at any given moment, but their depth would take a 20 man hit. Meanwhile every single lesser team in the country would be starting a better top 11 than they did before due to talent trickling down from the best teams (where else would they go?).
In this example, Bama stays the best team, but they’re not quite as good because they lost depth, but every other team gets better. The gap closes because those players have to go somewhere, therefore the lesser teams can aim higher with recruiting. The best get worse, the worst get better. That’s the definition of parity.
LikeLike
Those players would go elsewhere but they would be diluted by going to the other ~100 programs in FBS. Bama and the other school mentioned have the resources which get the top recruits. You may get a few less blowouts but the national title picture goes even more favor of the handful at the top. I read the NFL has more parity but at the same time the Patriots have had an unmatched run at the top as they optimize the process under restrictive roster/salary cap rules. Saban in the same way has not been caught cheating but has rules written due to his action and searches the rules to discover prior players could be part of practice.
D1 has been swinging back to the way it was 50 years ago dominance when the big schools signed kids to track scholarships to keep them from rivals and then restrictive transfer rules kept them from moving thanks to pendulum swinging to the other side.
LikeLike
Senator,
I totally agree with your point regarding roster size. Its the only way to change the current state of CFB recruiting.
That would only hurt our chances of getting more NC
s or going on a Bama type roll. So Im all for whatever legally within the rules helps Kirby win now.My personal rule when looking at CFB changes is follow the money to find the reason. Until those in charge find a way to generate more revenue I don`t see any major change.
Playoff expansion is the future like it or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Roster reduction isn’t in the cards.
Playoff expansion is coming. I’ve never kidded myself about that. There will be a host of excuses made to justify that, the vast majority of which will turn out to be total BS.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Except one…Mickey will be able to expand that game day coverage to what, 6 hours and some change…
LikeLike
I agree with the Senator.
If you want parity, it’s roster size…
and…
a return to one platoon football!!
Let’s face it, the trade school was decent with one platoon football under Dudd,
and the hillbillies with Kneeland, Ole’ Mississippi with Johnny Vaught, Army with Earl Blaik.
LikeLike
No Texas, ND, Michigan, Penn State, USC, Florida, Florida State, Miami, and I am sure I missed a few other blue bloods. As a UGA fan I couldn’t care less about them getting left behind. As a generic college football fan, I get concerned. It’s always good when the whole sport is strong and at some point do fans of these other schools just quit watching since they have little to no chance of winning it all? How do you fix this? I don’t have a clue without measures the would destroy what we love about college football. I just hope that the powers that be in college football don’t kill the patient curing the disease (but given their track record they probably will or at least give it a good try).
LikeLiked by 1 person
If murder pays, they’ll kill with impunity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Three of those teams play in conferences where they have little or no opposition. That helps them a lot too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Texas and all the Florida schools are real head scratchers. They are in the most talent rich states. They have history. When it comes to recruiting they just don’t seem to have a clue. I’m not sure their recruiting staff could hit water if they fell out of a boat. These days they rarely get a lot of top shelf talent and when they do they seem to flame out. Is that because of coaching? Was it that they were able to get that talent because other coaches saw the flaws before hand and passed even if they were hyped by the recruiting services?
LikeLike
I don’t get Texas at all. I thought Charlie Strong would do well there after Louisville. Then I thought Herman would do well after Houston. But I guess the boosters really are running the show there and apparently they don’t know how to run a football program anymore.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Texas has TWELVE HUNDRED + football playing high schools. That’s 1200 kids that can play QB or 2000+ RBs, etc.
Hard not to find a few quality players in that massive prospect base.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Texas Dawg, I can’t explain the state of Florida. In the current list of 2022 top 50 players in the nation, UF doesn’t have a single commit. Not. One. FSU has one (from Suwanee, Georgia).
LikeLike
To be a P5 blueblood in Texas or Florida and still have a 2nd tier roster is an act of gross negligence. You almost have to actively try NOT to recruit that level of player to be that devoid of blue chips.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kinda speaking out of both sides of my mouth but I like the current 4 team set up. I’d argue it’s made conference championships effectively play in games and thus more relevant. In addition, other than 2007 I can’t think of a year out of the last 20 when more than four teams had a resume at the end of conf championship weekend where they could make an argument for being the best team in the country and thus merited a chance to play for a “national” championship after conference championships had been decided. Four teams is great.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’d argue it’s made conference championships effectively play in games and thus more relevant.”
You didn’t see the asterisk and read the fine print did you?
**Alabama is excluded from this requirement in most years
LikeLike
Just to play devils advocate, what if the UGA- Cincinnati game had been a first round expanded playoff. I think anyone would say it was a pretty competitive game. And as far a talent disparity, UGA was ranked #1 in the 2020 247 team talent composite. UGA had 16 – 5*, 51 – 4* and 18 – 3*. Cincinnati? Ranked #59 with 0 – 5*, 7 – 4* and 64 – 3*. I know everyone will say UGA had players opt out and weren’t as motivated. But those replacements were all 4 and 5 stars and were trying to impress for 2021. And isn’t that the point of having a deep roster? As our OC says: “at the end of the day, nobody gives a shit about excuses.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Outside of the top 4 teams, bowl games are DEAD to me….and to most. Something needs to be done to create more interest. How many more teams???….who knows, but the other bowl games outside of the top 2 are insignificant.
Hell, I’d be happy with just 8 more teams for now.
Besides, the top 100 players do not always become the best players in CF. You increase your chances if you get them, but most of that stuff is based on potential (size, speed and etc.), gotta have the “want to”.
“Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard.”
Experience (senior teams), attitude and coaching all matters also….it is not just talent alone.
Upsets happen, increase the field…..
LikeLiked by 2 people
Two ways to make bowl games more interesting:
NIL rights would naturally dictate that many endorsement deals will pay more if players actually play in the bowl games. You’re more valuable to them if you’re actually playing the sport. Their agents/advisors/clingy relatives will suddenly not give a damn about injury risk because it will make them money, and push them to play because “more film can’t hurt.”
Kill “cupcake week” and replace it with bowl game rematch week. As in, whoever you get slotted to play in your bowl game, you rematch the next year at the winner’s stadium. If you suck bad enough to miss a bowl one year, feel free to pad your schedule with whoever you want the next year. Just ruminate for a moment over some of the rematches we could have witnessed in the regular season over the years if this was a rule. It’s beautiful isn’t it?
Bonus: kill the hokey corporate names and make the bowls go by their historical names “presented by _______” so there’s some semblance of historical significance at stake.
LikeLike
Also while we’re on the topic of parity, bowl game rematches would have a serious effect on that at the top of the heap. No more Bama Clemson and Ohio State cruising to the playoff year after year; you go one year, by god the semifinal losers play in the regular season next year and so do the finalists. Far more likely for others to break in the next year with a guaranteed loss for two of last year’s four.
For any big dog policy makers out there who happen across this comment… loads more prime time regular season fodder for you. Big money. Go do it. It’s your idea! Get that cash you brilliant genius!!!
LikeLike
Correct.
This is why the inclusion of Gonzaga in the NCAA tournament back in the 90s should never have been allowed to happen.
They had no business being there and their program will never be able to compete with Duke and Kentucky at the highest levels.
LikeLike
Gonzaga this year is one of the few undefeated one seeds in ncaa tournament history. If your point is that cinderella deserves a chance, Gonzaga hasn’t been a cinderella for a looooong time. Also if you look at the history of the NCAA tournament very few teams there have been a grand total of THREE champions seeded lower than a four seed. Cinderella may get invited to the dance, she does not stay long.
LikeLike
Meant to type “in the history of the NCAA tournament, there have only been three champions seeded lower than a four seed”
LikeLike
Actually, my point is that exposure on the national stage over an extended period of time took Gonzaga from “the school where John Stockton played” to a desirable destination for talented players.
Notre Dame benefits from the same. They are a household name that gets to compete for titles. So kids will go play there
LikeLike
You really believe college basketball is just like college football in that regard?
LikeLike
Just like? No.
Similar, yes.
A major recruiting tool for Kirby Smart is to walk/Zoom into a kid’s house and say “You wanna chance to play for a championship, you come to Georgia son.”
Do you think a coach at SMU, Cincinnati, Indiana or Oregon State says that?
Expand the opportunities and exposure for programs and eventually one with good coaching and special players will eventually begin to make serious runs. Then those programs become legitimate options for players and talented coaches will stay put at lesser schools instead of serving as the minor leagues for top 10 programs.
LikeLike
It’s a chicken and egg scenario.
Do the top 10 programs always get into the CFP because they get all the talent?
Or does all the talent pool at ten schools that have a chance to play for the title?
IMO, both feed each other. As long as there is no potential for a team to play for a title, the top talent won’t even consider them.
And, of course, there is a correlation between talent and titles.
LikeLike
I can’t force talent to evenly distribute, but I can, at least, dilute the narrative that a school will never have a legitimate opportunity to play for a title.
LikeLike
Reducing roster limits does force talent to distribute more evenly.
LikeLike
That is true.
Though of the two options, playoff expansion is still preferable.
Limiting rosters without limiting scholarships would likely have no effect on talent distribution.
Which means you would have to reduce the number of scholarships per program, which means fewer kids getting an opportunity to parlay their talent into a good education.
Expanded playoffs benefit the players, more exposure in front of a national audience, an opportunity to play against the top talent in the nation for players from smaller schools, an opportunity to expand their NLI brand, and an opportunity to compete for what all competitive spirits want, the title.
It’s a no-brainer. If you ask the players at Southwest Punxsutawney Tech if they minded being blown away by Kansas in the first round and would they have rather not played, no one will say “Yes, we should have stayed home. We had no legitimate claim to be playing or chance to win the title.”
They will all say they relish the experience.
Those kids from Hawaii that got butchered by the Dawgs will tell you to a man that they were glad they played and look back on that season fondly.
The players want to play. Let them play. If they get stomped, so what. They wanted to play.
LikeLike
Nothing in college football is a no-brainer.
Look, I appreciate that you’re convinced of this. I’m not seeing it. Besides, there’s only one reason we’ll be getting playoff expansion, and that’s more money.
By the way, when I say roster reduction, I mean scholarship reduction. Also, expanded playoffs mean kids play more games and risk more injuries. Not saying that’s the end of the discussion, but there are tradeoffs in everything.
Also, I must have missed that Hawaii faced Georgia in a playoff game.
LikeLike
The more money thing really doesn’t matter.
If my primary motivation for curing cancer is because I want to get rich selling cancer cures, the net result for the net result is still a positive one.
I mean it’s hard to advocate for a college athlete saying they want money to play is a good and healthy noble ambition while simultaneously arguing that the schools and member institutions wanting to make money is a negative, evil ambition.
Self interest is self interest.
LikeLike
I’m not saying it’s positive or negative. It just is.
Historically speaking, it’s why all revenue generating sports have expanded their postseasons.
LikeLike
TN Dawg, I’m of the opinion that if Urban Meyer walked into the home of any 4/5 star recruit as the coach of USC, ND, etc, he would have a better than average chance of signing that kid. It’s not the school, it’s the opportunity. And Meyer means opportunity to a recruit regardless of the logo on his hat. Potential changes with circumstances.
LikeLike
You have 13-man rosters in CBB and the game is such that you can make a major run with as few as three superior players. You need far more depth to succeed in cfb. It’s an apples and oranges comparison.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, it’s apples and oranges.
They aren’t the same. But they are both fruits, and as such, share some common characteristics.
LikeLike
Senator, did you watch the UGA – Cincinnati game?
LikeLike
Of course.
LikeLike
You don’t think Cincinnati was competitive? Looked like a pretty good #1 vs #8 ( talent wise ) playoff game to me. Only thing is, it was actually #1 vs #59.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Basketball is played by 5 people, not 22. That makes upsets a whole lot more possible. A 3 seed’s best player has a bad night and a 14 seed’s three point guy catches fire… upset. Not so simple with football. Need a lot more guys to catch fire and a lot more guys to falter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Basketball one guy cam score 30 -50 % of total. Without much assists.
LikeLike
College basketball and college football are both college, but any similarity ends there.
College basketball is an 8-man sport. Many teams aren’t even running that deep come tournament time. Required infrastructure is a gym, two hoops, a team bus, and conference membership. That allows 350+ tournament-eligible programs to exist. And yes, out of that pool of 350+ programs, some surprises emerge by the end of the year.
Those are usually a few teams with some senior guard play that can control pace and get past a defender with some regularity. The 3 point line distance and rules emphasis dramatically encourage upsets. The entire sport is wired for parity. The entire appeal of the sport is based on “March Madness,” which as a spectacle would be loosely defined as (Insert some tiny school out of a pool of 280+ programs) taking down (insert Big State U). We gawk at those spectacles like car crashes.
And btw, go look at how many free throws Oral Roberts was awarded against OSU and Florida. Oral Roberts takes half its shots from 3. And went to the free throw line as often as Ohio State and twice as often as Florida. “David vs Goliath” is absolutely an officiating bias in a lot of 1st and 2nd round NCAA games. Not intentionally. But it’s a reality.
And the overall effect of ALL that? Georgia is completely irrelevant to college basketball. Middle-tier P5 basketball programs are nice paychecks, but those programs largely go nowhere these days. Just cycle through coach after coach hoping to hit the lottery.
Do any of us watch regular season college basketball? Even my Duke-UNC-Kentucky friends follow the regular season only to check on the progress of a star freshman or two and assess the teams’ prospects come March. It’s just a seeding exhibition, and it’s kind of pointless to watch unless you’re just a junkie for the game itself.
All that for an annual flirtation with an Oral Roberts or Florida Gulf Coast or George Mason.
On the flip side…
Fielding a college football team requires a hell of a lot more infrastructure. That’s why there are only 130 +/- of them.
Fielding an elite one requires exponentially more. Does any team in college basketball have a Boom in the background, pulling down $300K a year, just wading through defensive game tape? Nope. Is an Oral Roberts going to be able to walk a NFL-aspirant player through a state of the art work out facility, staffed with state of the art performance trainers, and backed by state of the art medical personnel? Nope.
Re-wiring the sport to create a few more post-season car crashes is a really dumb idea. But yeah, it’s inevitable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“This CFP Quarter-Finals SEC Champ game brought to you by The Georgia Lottery”
LikeLike
If the playoff expands to eight teams I see us as being a perpetual 4 or 5 each year. That means that we get to play the best team outside of the top three and then face the #1 seed. An eight team playoff would just be the most Georgia thing; screwed again.
LikeLike
The brackets I’ve seen give a bye for the top 2 or 4 teams. And i think thats absolutely bunk. But not like safety and school are a thing anyhow. Imagine Georgia Cincy with that hard fought a game then you play rested bama who got an extra week of specific Georgia practice.
Some Cinderella would make it over 20 years, but its not happening much.
LikeLike
I looked at that list and it helps me understand why it’s so difficult to get over the top in the SEC whether you’re Bama, LSU, or Georgia. You might have a top 6 roster, but maybe only 3rd best in your conference. Not a formula for frequent MNC appearances, unless you’re Alabama.
LikeLiked by 1 person