the arguments right now surrounding the # of playoff teams and how many auto bids....

[michael anderson]

Basically, regardless of how many teams are included in the expanded playoff(whether it's 8 or 12), the SEC wants as high a ratio of at large spots to auto bid spots as possible.

What they are *not* ok with is an 8 team playoff that has 6 auto bid for conference champs slots. Thats a non starter from their perspective. It would mean that even under the best of circumstances the expanded SEC would only get 3 of the 8 teams. And some years they may only get 2 of 8 I suppose.

That's not realistic or representative when you look at how the power programs are divided across the country. Let's say Alabama a few years from now goes 13-0 and gets the auto bid. Then you have Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Auburn, LSU, a rejuvinated OleMIss with Kiffin, Texas A&M all competing for two *at most* slots in the expanded playoff?

Meanwhile let's say that Clemson falls off a couple years from now(maybe we are seeing that a little now?) and is no longer a great team anymore year in and year out? In that case you have a collection of mediocrity like Vatech, UNC, NC State, a still down FSU team, and other ACC also rans fighting for a guaranteed bid? Why should these mediocre teams get to fight for a guaranteed bid against themselves while over half the power programs in the entire country fight for an artificially limited number of at large slots?

You can replace the ACC with the PAc12 most years as well.

And my gosh if there were 6 auto bids that means both the big12 and another group of five conference would get an auto bid. Thats too many auto bids, especially if you cap the total teams at 8 and not 12.

Same problem with limiting bids from any conference(and by any conference in this case we mean the SEC here). Since after the texas/oklahoma move the sec contains over half the power programs in college football, why would you limit the # of teams that conference can get in? After all, that conference is where the teams who likely will deserve to be in are housed......

I get why the other conferences are doing this. And let me be clear- I *don't* think an all sec-final four or a playoff of 8 teams where 6 of them are sec teams would be great for college football.

At the same time we have to get out of this mindset(and I think we mostly are) that there are a full handful of 'power conferences' that all likely deserve strong consideration at a small table should they be the best in their conference. That's not what we have.....we have 1 premiere conference above all others that has over half the top programs in college football. Then we have another conference that is important and does matter(as long as they stop taking more terrible programs lol). And then rest of it is sort of a mish mash with a few programs of note here and there depending on how they are cycling.

Finally, I'm reminded of something that xy said a couple of weeks ago. Something about how Oklahoma might not be so relevant now that they went from the Big12 to the sec because they will likely not win the sec every year. It's that type of thinking that is part of the problem. Oklahoma is *still Oklahoma*, whether they are in the sec or the big12 or the big 8 or the swc or the bigten or pac12. The conference isn't what makes Oklahoma a power program of success and a national brand; they are that because.....thats just what they are. Adding Oklahoma and Texas doesn't shrink the pie for them and everyone else....it *expands* the pie for the whole conference.

Likewise, Oklahoma leaving the big12 doesn't suddenly mean that all these crap big12 also rans that are left over are elevated to successful national programs should they be at the top of the trash heap left now. No....while it does mean that they are more likely to win the big12 now, it also means the pie has shrunk for the big12 and winning the big12 doesn't mean as much now.

Understanding the concept of that example helps understand the larger point here.....