4 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Josh L's avatar

Historically a 12-1 Pac-12 team or for that fact even a two loss team would be in the Top 12 thus qualifying in the new proposed CFP. This year even Utah with 4 losses (counting the Rose Bowl last minute loss) was in the top 12.

I am confident that a 12-1 Pac-12 under the proposed 12 team CFP would get in. It would look outrageous if a 9-3 SEC team took their place.

However, I do agree that a 12-1 Pac-12 conference champ team under the current 4 team CFP might not get in. That's why it is imperative that Conference Champs get AQ bids, which is why Kliavkoff rejected last year's proposal.

Expand full comment
Mike's avatar

History has less relevance going forward because we did not have any 16-team conferences back then. Utah was actually a 3-loss team prior to bowl season, and they only barely finished in the Top 12 (#11).

If the SEC, as assumed, goes to a 9-game conference schedule, then their 3-loss teams are going to be looked at much more favorably than they are right now. Meanwhile, the Pac with only 10 teams, or with a couple G5s added if they so choose, is going to be judged even more harshly by the CFP than it is now.

Sankey wants zero AQs. Warren seems to be leaning in that direction. Those two guys make all the rules now.

Expand full comment
Josh L's avatar

The point is Utah with 3 losses during the season 4 total finished in the top 12. That is 2 and/or 3 more losses than in your 12-1 trying to make a point scenario.

As for Sankey wanting no AQs, yeah fine. This isnt rocket science if a 9-3 or 8-4 SEC team get in over a 12-1 Pac-12 team then you can wring your hands and say I told you so then, but it wont happen. Football fans in this country arent that stupid ... yet.

Expand full comment
Mike's avatar

Football fans aren't the decision-makers though. If we were, this would be a much better sport.

Expand full comment