menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: NCAA National Champions--UCF Knights
Page: 1 of 2
Kevin Finnegan
General User
KF
Member Since: 2/4/2005
Location: Rockton, IL
Post Count: 1,214
person
mail
Kevin Finnegan
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 3:56 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Man, if I were a voter for the Coaches Poll or any other, I'd be tempted to vote for UCF as the national champion. The two teams in the declared national championship game next week lost to only one team this year: Auburn. Yesterday, UCF defeated Auburn to complete a perfect season. They couldn't have done anything more this year as a team and they deserve to be called the National Champions of College Football.
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 4:02 PM
settings_applications edit_note
For once, we agree.
spongeBOB CATpants
General User
Member Since: 8/16/2016
Post Count: 1,348
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 4:09 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Way back when the NCAA started the playoff, wasn't the purpose to give the little guys an opportunity? I may be mistaken but I thought this was a selling point for the switch.

With the current format, no way a smaller school is getting in...ever. Not unless they expand the format to 8 teams. If conference championship wasn't enough to get the Evil Empire in this year, I can't see how UCF ever gets in.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 4:15 PM
settings_applications edit_note
UCF went 0-11 as a member of the MAC in 2004.
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,819
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 4:17 PM
settings_applications edit_note
spongeBOB CATpants wrote:expand_more
Way back when the NCAA started the playoff, wasn't the purpose to give the little guys an opportunity? I may be mistaken but I thought this was a selling point for the switch.

With the current format, no way a smaller school is getting in...ever. Not unless they expand the format to 8 teams. If conference championship wasn't enough to get the Evil Empire in this year, I can't see how UCF ever gets in.
To think the Playoff was created to give more opportunity to the little guy is naive. It was created because in almost every season of the BCS, the #3 and #4 teams bitched they didn't get a chance to the play for the title, and more often than not those teams were from the Power Five.

The only way it made it better for the Group of Five is because now instead of having a loophole in the system (which the BCS had), they have a guaranteed spot in a New Year's Six Bowl. Yippee.

Really, the Playoff was created to prevent what happened in 2011-12 when LSU and Alabama played in a rematch for the title. And look what happened this year anyway, two teams from the same conference playing for the title.

I actually don't disagree with who the committee put in the Playoffs this year. Alabama didn't really beat anyone, but they also didn't surrender 55 points to Iowa and lose by three touchdowns. They got in because they are Alabama, and the committee basically said that without saying it.

Is that fair? No. But...it is what it is until the Group of Five conferences band together and actually do something about it. They hold more power than they realize.

I'm beginning to come around to the idea of expansion, but not eight. Make it six. Five power conference champions and one at-large bid. Make the #1 and #2 seeds meaningful and give them byes.

In a perfect world, every conference champ big or small would get in, but that ain't happening in the foreseeable future of this college football landscape. That would mean at least a 12-team playoff. Then everyone would holler for 16 teams, and so-on.
Last Edited: 1/2/2018 4:21:48 PM by GoCats105
spongeBOB CATpants
General User
Member Since: 8/16/2016
Post Count: 1,348
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 4:31 PM
settings_applications edit_note
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
Way back when the NCAA started the playoff, wasn't the purpose to give the little guys an opportunity? I may be mistaken but I thought this was a selling point for the switch.

With the current format, no way a smaller school is getting in...ever. Not unless they expand the format to 8 teams. If conference championship wasn't enough to get the Evil Empire in this year, I can't see how UCF ever gets in.
To think the Playoff was created to give more opportunity to the little guy is naive. It was created because in almost every season of the BCS, the #3 and #4 teams bitched they didn't get a chance to the play for the title, and more often than not those teams were from the Power Five.

The only way it made it better for the Group of Five is because now instead of having a loophole in the system (which the BCS had), they have a guaranteed spot in a New Year's Six Bowl. Yippee.

Really, the Playoff was created to prevent what happened in 2011-12 when LSU and Alabama played in a rematch for the title. And look what happened this year anyway, two teams from the same conference playing for the title.

I actually don't disagree with who the committee put in the Playoffs this year. Alabama didn't really beat anyone, but they also didn't surrender 55 points to Iowa and lose by three touchdowns. They got in because they are Alabama, and the committee basically said that without saying it.

Is that fair? No. But...it is what it is until the Group of Five conferences band together and actually do something about it. They hold more power than they realize.

I'm beginning to come around to the idea of expansion, but not eight. Make it six. Five power conference champions and one at-large bid. Make the #1 and #2 seeds meaningful and give them byes.

In a perfect world, every conference champ big or small would get in, but that ain't happening in the foreseeable future of this college football landscape. That would mean at least a 12-team playoff. Then everyone would holler for 16 teams, and so-on.
Wasn't saying that this was the sole reason, just a major selling point to get fans on board. Thought I remember Boise st being thrown around as if they would actually get a shot under the new format.

I want 8 because you give out the power 5 slots and 3 at large bids. I think this would allow room for a smaller school that had a historic season a shot. I think this would give more meaning to conference championships as well.
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 4:32 PM
settings_applications edit_note
16 sounds good to me.
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 4:49 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
16 sounds good to me.
If every conference champ gets in and the at large teams are seeded 16, 15, 14, etc.
89Cat
General User
C89
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Post Count: 65
person
mail
89Cat
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 4:50 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I got online to post this same statement. Regardless of the outcome of the Game next week, UCF is the Undisputed National Champion. All the coaches talk about why the 4 team format is best because it keeps the regular season important. In the important regular season, Auburn beat both contenders and of course they then lost to The University of Central Florida.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 5:04 PM
settings_applications edit_note
spongeBOB CATpants wrote:expand_more
I want 8 because you give out the power 5 slots and 3 at large bids. I think this would allow room for a smaller school that had a historic season a shot. I think this would give more meaning to conference championships as well.
This format STILL wouldn't have solved UCF's dilemma, based on the final CFP rankings. Going out to 8 slots would've had:

8 USC at 1 Clemson
7 Auburn at 2 Oklahoma
6 Wisconsin at 3 Georgia
5 Ohio St. at 4 Alabama

Nice matchups, but still wouldn't solve UCF's problem unless there was a mandatory slot for a G5 team.
allen
General User
A
Member Since: 1/24/2006
Post Count: 4,638
person
mail
allen
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 5:57 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
I want 8 because you give out the power 5 slots and 3 at large bids. I think this would allow room for a smaller school that had a historic season a shot. I think this would give more meaning to conference championships as well.
This format STILL wouldn't have solved UCF's dilemma, based on the final CFP rankings. Going out to 8 slots would've had:

8 USC at 1 Clemson
7 Auburn at 2 Oklahoma
6 Wisconsin at 3 Georgia
5 Ohio St. at 4 Alabama

Nice matchups, but still wouldn't solve UCF's problem unless there was a mandatory slot for a G5 team.

They should get a share. Auburn beat two teams in the college football championship
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 6:51 PM
settings_applications edit_note
[QUOTE

Is that fair? No. But...it is what it is until the Group of Five conferences band together and actually do something about it. They hold more power than they realize.

[/QUOTE]I’m not seeing what power the G-5 has. The football playoff system is not a NCAA controlled system. It’s controlled by the P-5. There’s been suggestions that the G-5 boycotts the P-5 in scheduling, but that’s not to happen for money reasons. Please give me some realistic options that the G-5 has to change the rules to their favor.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 6:58 PM
settings_applications edit_note
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
Way back when the NCAA started the playoff, wasn't the purpose to give the little guys an opportunity? I may be mistaken but I thought this was a selling point for the switch.

With the current format, no way a smaller school is getting in...ever. Not unless they expand the format to 8 teams. If conference championship wasn't enough to get the Evil Empire in this year, I can't see how UCF ever gets in.
To think the Playoff was created to give more opportunity to the little guy is naive. It was created because in almost every season of the BCS, the #3 and #4 teams bitched they didn't get a chance to the play for the title, and more often than not those teams were from the Power Five.

The only way it made it better for the Group of Five is because now instead of having a loophole in the system (which the BCS had), they have a guaranteed spot in a New Year's Six Bowl. Yippee.

Really, the Playoff was created to prevent what happened in 2011-12 when LSU and Alabama played in a rematch for the title. And look what happened this year anyway, two teams from the same conference playing for the title.

I actually don't disagree with who the committee put in the Playoffs this year. Alabama didn't really beat anyone, but they also didn't surrender 55 points to Iowa and lose by three touchdowns. They got in because they are Alabama, and the committee basically said that without saying it.

Is that fair? No. But...it is what it is until the Group of Five conferences band together and actually do something about it. They hold more power than they realize.

I'm beginning to come around to the idea of expansion, but not eight. Make it six. Five power conference champions and one at-large bid. Make the #1 and #2 seeds meaningful and give them byes.

In a perfect world, every conference champ big or small would get in, but that ain't happening in the foreseeable future of this college football landscape. That would mean at least a 12-team playoff. Then everyone would holler for 16 teams, and so-on.
The reason that we have a playoff system now is because the money is much bigger. The G-5 benefits from the new playoff money wise. We get the dregs, but it’s better than before.

Actually, before the old BCS, BYU won a national championship as a non-major. How times have changed.
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,819
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 1/2/2018 6:59 PM
settings_applications edit_note
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
[QUOTE

Is that fair? No. But...it is what it is until the Group of Five conferences band together and actually do something about it. They hold more power than they realize.
I’m not seeing what power the G-5 has. The football playoff system is not a NCAA controlled system. It’s controlled by the P-5. There’s been suggestions that the G-5 boycotts the P-5 in scheduling, but that’s not to happen for money reasons. Please give me some realistic options that the G-5 has to change the rules to their favor. [/QUOTE]I was referring to the scheduling. Stop scheduling them or force them to pay you more. But yes, that's probably unrealistic.
Last Edited: 1/2/2018 7:00:14 PM by GoCats105
roger
General User
R
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: durham, NC
Post Count: 127
person
mail
roger
mail
Posted: 1/3/2018 2:40 AM
settings_applications edit_note
For what it’s worth the G-5 won 4 of 7 bowl matchups with the P-5 this year.
rpbobcat
General User
R
Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,661
person
mail
rpbobcat
mail
Posted: 1/3/2018 7:08 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
16 sounds good to me.
Going to 16 teams could be tough.

Without the playoff,the four teams would still be in a bowl.
So the 4 team format adds 1 game beyond that,for the 2 finalists.

Go to 8 teams and its now 1 more game to get to the semis.Another for the finals.

Go to 16 teams and it goes up again.

16 teams also stretches out the schedule another week.
Either you start the first round right after the conference tournaments,or you're well into January for the Championship.

Personally,I think an 8 team format could work.

Go with P5 Conference Champions,1 P5 "wild card" and 2 G5 teams.

Based on economics,if you go to 8 teams,I would think the first round games would be at the higher seeded team's home field.

Have the first round games in December.
Then use the bowls like they do now.

This format also addresses the issue of "rust".

WFAN spends a lot of air time on this every year.
The consensus of pretty much everyone at the station,and fans that call in,is that they should go to 8 teams "sooner then later".
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,819
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 1/3/2018 7:50 AM
settings_applications edit_note
roger wrote:expand_more
For what it’s worth the G-5 won 4 of 7 bowl matchups with the P-5 this year.
Also 3-1 in the New Year's Six era, with the only loss being Wisconsin over WMU 24-16 last year.
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,819
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 1/3/2018 7:54 AM
settings_applications edit_note
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
16 sounds good to me.
Going to 16 teams could be tough.

Without the playoff,the four teams would still be in a bowl.
So the 4 team format adds 1 game beyond that,for the 2 finalists.

Go to 8 teams and its now 1 more game to get to the semis.Another for the finals.

Go to 16 teams and it goes up again.

16 teams also stretches out the schedule another week.
Either you start the first round right after the conference tournaments,or you're well into January for the Championship.

Personally,I think an 8 team format could work.

Go with P5 Conference Champions,1 P5 "wild card" and 2 G5 teams.

Based on economics,if you go to 8 teams,I would think the first round games would be at the higher seeded team's home field.

Have the first round games in December.
Then use the bowls like they do now.

This format also addresses the issue of "rust".

WFAN spends a lot of air time on this every year.
The consensus of pretty much everyone at the station,and fans that call in,is that they should go to 8 teams "sooner then later".
I'd be OK with a 16 team playoff if they got rid of the bowl system.

These sports networks like ESPN, Fox Sports and CBS aren't going to be able to pony up to put these on TV for much longer. They're all losing money fast. And the sponsorship dollars are already scraping the bottom of the barrell to find anyone to sponsor the games.

If you go 16, get rid of the bowls, give every conference champ an automatic bid and let's do this thing. The problem is, how do you convince letting these athletes play that many more games?

Can you imagine the outcry for never winning a MAC title if it actually meant getting a shot at winning a national title?
spongeBOB CATpants
General User
Member Since: 8/16/2016
Post Count: 1,348
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
mail
Posted: 1/3/2018 10:04 AM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
I want 8 because you give out the power 5 slots and 3 at large bids. I think this would allow room for a smaller school that had a historic season a shot. I think this would give more meaning to conference championships as well.
This format STILL wouldn't have solved UCF's dilemma, based on the final CFP rankings. Going out to 8 slots would've had:

8 USC at 1 Clemson
7 Auburn at 2 Oklahoma
6 Wisconsin at 3 Georgia
5 Ohio St. at 4 Alabama

Nice matchups, but still wouldn't solve UCF's problem unless there was a mandatory slot for a G5 team.
This is correct but I also think the committee would have voted them in the top 8 if there were 8 slots.
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 1/3/2018 11:03 AM
settings_applications edit_note
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
16 sounds good to me.
Going to 16 teams could be tough.

Without the playoff,the four teams would still be in a bowl.
So the 4 team format adds 1 game beyond that,for the 2 finalists.

Go to 8 teams and its now 1 more game to get to the semis.Another for the finals.

Go to 16 teams and it goes up again.

16 teams also stretches out the schedule another week.
Either you start the first round right after the conference tournaments,or you're well into January for the Championship.

Personally,I think an 8 team format could work.

Go with P5 Conference Champions,1 P5 "wild card" and 2 G5 teams.

Based on economics,if you go to 8 teams,I would think the first round games would be at the higher seeded team's home field.

Have the first round games in December.
Then use the bowls like they do now.

This format also addresses the issue of "rust".

WFAN spends a lot of air time on this every year.
The consensus of pretty much everyone at the station,and fans that call in,is that they should go to 8 teams "sooner then later".
I'd be OK with a 16 team playoff if they got rid of the bowl system.

These sports networks like ESPN, Fox Sports and CBS aren't going to be able to pony up to put these on TV for much longer. They're all losing money fast. And the sponsorship dollars are already scraping the bottom of the barrell to find anyone to sponsor the games.

If you go 16, get rid of the bowls, give every conference champ an automatic bid and let's do this thing. The problem is, how do you convince letting these athletes play that many more games?

Can you imagine the outcry for never winning a MAC title if it actually meant getting a shot at winning a national title?
Agree, RP, that 16 teams creates a scheduling challenge. But in my mind, it's the only equitable solution that doesn't put the P5 teams on a pedestal. If there are eight teams, at least 6 of those seats are going to the P5--probably in most cases 7 teams. That may leave 1 slot for all of G5. That's creating a system that says "the P5 is superior" and "the P5 will ALWAYS be superior."

With 16 teams, each conference champ is in and it allows for a few wild cards to acknowledge other great teams. As someone said, the conference championship becomes truly meaningful.

As for scheduling, 16 teams requires 4 weeks to complete and 15 bowl games. For this past year, start the process on December 11 and the whole thing wraps up on January 8, just like this year.
Kevin Finnegan
General User
KF
Member Since: 2/4/2005
Location: Rockton, IL
Post Count: 1,214
person
mail
Kevin Finnegan
mail
Posted: 1/3/2018 11:14 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
16 sounds good to me.
Going to 16 teams could be tough.

Without the playoff,the four teams would still be in a bowl.
So the 4 team format adds 1 game beyond that,for the 2 finalists.

Go to 8 teams and its now 1 more game to get to the semis.Another for the finals.

Go to 16 teams and it goes up again.

16 teams also stretches out the schedule another week.
Either you start the first round right after the conference tournaments,or you're well into January for the Championship.

Personally,I think an 8 team format could work.

Go with P5 Conference Champions,1 P5 "wild card" and 2 G5 teams.

Based on economics,if you go to 8 teams,I would think the first round games would be at the higher seeded team's home field.

Have the first round games in December.
Then use the bowls like they do now.

This format also addresses the issue of "rust".

WFAN spends a lot of air time on this every year.
The consensus of pretty much everyone at the station,and fans that call in,is that they should go to 8 teams "sooner then later".
I'd be OK with a 16 team playoff if they got rid of the bowl system.

These sports networks like ESPN, Fox Sports and CBS aren't going to be able to pony up to put these on TV for much longer. They're all losing money fast. And the sponsorship dollars are already scraping the bottom of the barrell to find anyone to sponsor the games.

If you go 16, get rid of the bowls, give every conference champ an automatic bid and let's do this thing. The problem is, how do you convince letting these athletes play that many more games?

Can you imagine the outcry for never winning a MAC title if it actually meant getting a shot at winning a national title?
Agree, RP, that 16 teams creates a scheduling challenge. But in my mind, it's the only equitable solution that doesn't put the P5 teams on a pedestal. If there are eight teams, at least 6 of those seats are going to the P5--probably in most cases 7 teams. That may leave 1 slot for all of G5. That's creating a system that says "the P5 is superior" and "the P5 will ALWAYS be superior."

With 16 teams, each conference champ is in and it allows for a few wild cards to acknowledge other great teams. As someone said, the conference championship becomes truly meaningful.

As for scheduling, 16 teams requires 4 weeks to complete and 15 bowl games. For this past year, start the process on December 11 and the whole thing wraps up on January 8, just like this year.
What about 12 teams, with the G5 teams ending up in a play-in situation? Set stipulations that these teams have to have at least 8 wins. If the thought is that they can’t run the table, they’re not throwing in another game.
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 1/3/2018 11:51 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I don't know if I see the advantage of 12 teams over 16. Would all conference champs be in? Two wild card spots? You'd have to have a somewhat confusing play-in scenario, right?
DelBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/27/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135
mail
DelBobcat
mail
Posted: 1/3/2018 12:09 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I think Nate Silver has some good, relevant thoughts on this. He argues for a six-team or eight-team version.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/expand-the-college-f... /
mf279801
General User
M279801
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,486
person
mail
mf279801
mail
Posted: 1/3/2018 12:38 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
16 sounds good to me.
Going to 16 teams could be tough.

Without the playoff,the four teams would still be in a bowl.
So the 4 team format adds 1 game beyond that,for the 2 finalists.

Go to 8 teams and its now 1 more game to get to the semis.Another for the finals.

Go to 16 teams and it goes up again.

16 teams also stretches out the schedule another week.
Either you start the first round right after the conference tournaments,or you're well into January for the Championship.

Personally,I think an 8 team format could work.

Go with P5 Conference Champions,1 P5 "wild card" and 2 G5 teams.

Based on economics,if you go to 8 teams,I would think the first round games would be at the higher seeded team's home field.

Have the first round games in December.
Then use the bowls like they do now.

This format also addresses the issue of "rust".

WFAN spends a lot of air time on this every year.
The consensus of pretty much everyone at the station,and fans that call in,is that they should go to 8 teams "sooner then later".
I'd be OK with a 16 team playoff if they got rid of the bowl system.

These sports networks like ESPN, Fox Sports and CBS aren't going to be able to pony up to put these on TV for much longer. They're all losing money fast. And the sponsorship dollars are already scraping the bottom of the barrell to find anyone to sponsor the games.

If you go 16, get rid of the bowls, give every conference champ an automatic bid and let's do this thing. The problem is, how do you convince letting these athletes play that many more games?

Can you imagine the outcry for never winning a MAC title if it actually meant getting a shot at winning a national title?
Agree, RP, that 16 teams creates a scheduling challenge. But in my mind, it's the only equitable solution that doesn't put the P5 teams on a pedestal. If there are eight teams, at least 6 of those seats are going to the P5--probably in most cases 7 teams. That may leave 1 slot for all of G5. That's creating a system that says "the P5 is superior" and "the P5 will ALWAYS be superior."

With 16 teams, each conference champ is in and it allows for a few wild cards to acknowledge other great teams. As someone said, the conference championship becomes truly meaningful.

As for scheduling, 16 teams requires 4 weeks to complete and 15 bowl games. For this past year, start the process on December 11 and the whole thing wraps up on January 8, just like this year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_nuMEtwUW4
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 1/3/2018 12:50 PM
settings_applications edit_note
spongeBOB CATpants wrote:expand_more
I want 8 because you give out the power 5 slots and 3 at large bids. I think this would allow room for a smaller school that had a historic season a shot. I think this would give more meaning to conference championships as well.
This format STILL wouldn't have solved UCF's dilemma, based on the final CFP rankings. Going out to 8 slots would've had:

8 USC at 1 Clemson
7 Auburn at 2 Oklahoma
6 Wisconsin at 3 Georgia
5 Ohio St. at 4 Alabama

Nice matchups, but still wouldn't solve UCF's problem unless there was a mandatory slot for a G5 team.
This is correct but I also think the committee would have voted them in the top 8 if there were 8 slots.
The committee should be voting on the top 8 teams regardless of whether it involves a playoff berth or not.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 38
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)