30Duck No. 1 Share Posted October 28, 2021 On the basis of competitiveness, it sure makes sense, this article gives even more reasons why it makes sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyToBeADuck No. 2 Share Posted October 28, 2021 30duck as you know many people are uncomfortable with change. Others don't care. .. Many pros and cons to this. If the PAC has any plans to expand then consider leaving it alone. If it could make more money for each school then go for it. Having your top 2 teams by record play for the title makes a great deal of sense. However, strength of schedules will not be equal. Someone will cry, unfair! Go to an 8 game conference schedule, play your 2 alliance partner games and get after it. Just don't change for the sake of change. For once the PAC needs to make quality decisions that enhance the conference profile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph No. 3 Share Posted October 28, 2021 Lose Divisions? Not just 'yes' but 'heck yes!' I know this to a certainty. And I am neither the Egg Man; nor, The Walrus. But when on Abbey Road in London I do know not to go barefoot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph No. 4 Share Posted October 29, 2021 On 10/28/2021 at 7:56 PM, HappyToBeADuck said: 30duck as you know many people are uncomfortable with change. Others don't care. .. Many pros and cons to this. If the PAC has any plans to expand then consider leaving it alone. If it could make more money for each school then go for it. Having your top 2 teams by record play for the title makes a great deal of sense. However, strength of schedules will not be equal. Someone will cry, unfair! Go to an 8 game conference schedule, play your 2 alliance partner games and get after it. Just don't change for the sake of change. For once the PAC needs to make quality decisions that enhance the conference profile. Great take. But 1 of the only certain things in life is change. Going to 8 games but playing 2 P5 teams OOC is playing with Playoff as currently structured, fire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph No. 5 Share Posted October 29, 2021 The CFB Playoff Powers That Be will soon be revisiting the issue of an expanded Playoff field. The G5, undergoing massive change since OK/UT to the SEC started conference realignment rolling again, want a 12 team field. Ditto the SEC and Notre Dame. It appears that the ACC, B1G and Pac-12 (so-called Alliance) favor an 8 team field with all P5 champs guaranteed a spot in the field. Also, these 3 appear to want Notre Dame in a conference or playing 13 regular season games as an independent. And these 3 do not want ESPN to have any kind of exclusive when it comes to broadcasting the Playoff. I do not believe there is enough consensus for the field to expand before 2026, if then? I still believe there is a chance for the ACC, B1G and the Pac-12 to take 'the academic high road' and abandon the existing PO in favor of the 3 conferences competing for a title of some kind in the post season. There are zero antitrust problems now with the B1G and the Pac-12 contracted to play in the RB 2 out of 3 years and I do not see any antitrust issues if 3 conferences were to agree to compete for the 2 RB spots? HOWEVER and it is a big $ however, the Alliance going it alone in the post season will be profitable but nowhere near as profitable without the SEC in the mix. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
