Did I say USC. I believe I said the USC fans. @trojanfan12 @socaljim242 can you get Lynn Swann on the phone. So we can tell him we're in favor of expansion.I didn't realize we could make that call
I don't see any reason why the play offs shouldn't be expanded. In the end if you actually read through these debates. Its beneficial to the game. As far as waiting for answers. This is a debate that just runs in circles. Where the people who fear change. Just spin their tires .And make every excuse possible with no valid reason. Other than what amounts to fear. Put the championships on the field. Not in the voting imo
Did I say USC. I believe I said the USC fans. @trojanfan12 @socaljim242 can you get Lynn Swann on the phone. So we can tell him we're in favor of expansion.I didn't realize we could make that call
SEems to me the reason you're so vehemently opposed to play off expansion.Is because you're afraid of the competition level rising. Simple logic states USC has a legitimate chance at the play offs regardless. By increasing the amount of teams. That only makes the path more difficult. But again this isn't about USC,Alabama,etc.......Its about the sport which spans much further than a few teams. And teams earning a championship at the highest competition level possible.Let teams earn it.Put the best teams on the field imo
So your answer to everything is Alabama? Opportunity doesn't equal success. You have to work for it. I don't prefer the easy route. I prefer the competitive route.And whats best for the sport as a whole.Which is why my answers aren't but USC............
@ trying to claim you don't have USC in mind and that you are just worried about the purity of the sport.
It's not a claim it's an observation. Of course I want to see SC in the play offs. But in the end it comes down to crowning the best possible champion. Even if it comes down to Ohio State, Oklahoma, Washington, LSU , Clemson and Boise State. What matters most is that the best teams compete. It's not about what's best for my favorite team. But what the best formula is. My stance is not reliant on the benefits or negative effects it holds on my favorite team. It's geared around the best format instead.You claimed I was scared of the competition level rising.
And
You want extra spots and AQ because your conference doesn't have what it takes to get it done on a consistent basis. You already can't handle the level of competition required to make the playoffs and that is why you want to expand it and make it easier for teams to get in.
Divisions are fine. But the conferences would need to be on the same page. All conferences to a 9 game conference schedule imo. Expand the play offs and go with 5 auto bids. Take the question marks out of the format. Go with the best teams on the field. Rather than biased polls and committees. And use the polls for the other bowls. Raise the competition level in the play offs. Add more meaningful bowls by adding o the play offs. And cut down on meaningless bowls. That could hold so much more impact.And put the best formula possible forward.I understand an expanded play off system doesn't sit well with some teams. However it progresses the sport as a whole
I quit reading after....But Alabama
I'm going to be busy for a little bit. Perhaps @AlaskaGuy .Can help you understand how a 9 game schedule effects rankings.The effects of a balanced schedule that doesn't manipulate bye weeks and rankings. As well as the format of the current play off system. That would benefit from expansion by reducing the dependence on biased polls and human error 
I would be more than happy to expound on this topic.I quit reading after....But Alabama
I quit reading after....But Alabama
This is why I laughed. When the claim the regular season would be watered down. With play off expansion .More meaningful games works for meI would be more than happy to expound on this topic.
The 14 member SEC avoids playing its own conference members so that it can schedule more sisters of the poor, including the ones they play in mid November. Last season the PAC teams average 10.25 P5 teams and the SEC played an average of 9 P5 teams. That's like having half the NFL play a 16 game schedule and the other half play a 15 game schedule.
I would be more than happy to expound on this topic.
The 14 member SEC avoids playing its own conference members so that it can schedule more sisters of the poor, including the ones they play in mid November. Last season the PAC teams average 10.25 P5 teams and the SEC played an average of 9 P5 teams. That's like having half the NFL play a 16 game schedule and the other half play a 15 game schedule.
