I've said it before. In the next 5 or so years, based on when TV contracts expire, conferences will realign again and we will end up with 4 major conferences of 16 or 20 teams.
I think seeding should be ranked by strength of schedule. Some SEC and Big TEN teams may not like where they land, but it is the fairest way to go. I also think the SEC has to go to a t least a 9 game conference schedule, replacing one of the cup cake teams they now play. That improves strength of schedule and produces a better representation of a conference champion.
By the end of the season, strength of schedule is much more accurate than an acting A D from any University charting a committee which is in charge of selecting and ranking the best 14 college football teams and determining their seeding in any playoff system. We already have two polls which rank the best teams in the Nation. While there is some biases in both polls, they are, historically , resulted in very similar results. Data are fed into computers and the results are, to me, the most accurate data we on which to select the participants and their seeding order. There were way too many”upset” in this year’s playoff for the outcomes to have been correctly seeded .
Yeah, you're right. I knew OH St tickets were cheaper than we thought they'd be because that fanbase was ticked and Penn State tix were cheap because the opponent was SMU.
16 is just dumb based upon this years playoffs. 12 looks like too many if you look at the first weekend of play. Not one competitive game the whole weekend. When you have a lower seeded team playing on the higher seeds home field there's just not much chance for an upset. Unless Michigan gets in and plays OSU in the shoe.
