Tony Petitti finally speaks up
He had an interview with Joel Klatt, preaching the virtue the of AQ model.
Interesting watch (much better than Flugar lol)
Link:
Petitti and Klatt
7 Replies
H
HouClone
1y
gets 8 bids, Big 12 8 bids, SEC 6 bids, Big 10 5 bids.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
S
Stech
1y
Seriously, how dumb do they think we are!?!?! The lack of conscious is beyond belief for me.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
(In response to this post by Stech)
The lack of creative thinking and big picture prospect is scary bad.
(In response to this post by Stech)
6-4-12 model. NO AQs to non-champions.
6-4-12 model. NO AQs to non-champions. 6 top ranked champions, 4 top runners up (losers of conference championship games). The next 12 highest ranked teams that are NOT in a conference championship game will play 6 play-in games to be played the same weekend as the conference championship games. Championship/Play-in weekend will yield 16 teams for the first round.
Basically any team in the Top 20 would be able to play their way into the field of 16 on Championship/Play-in weekend. And 2 G6s would be great for the sport.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
First, guarantee each P4 champ a #8 seed or better which would yield a first--round home game. This would add more significance to the outcome of the conference championship game.
Second, have the 6 regular season G6 champs face each other on play-in weekend with the two highest-ranked among the three winners moving on to the playoff. This would require the G6 leagues to abandon their conference title games but would potentially allow each G6 conference more access to the playoff.
One question...would your play-in games on home fields or neutral sites ?
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
Good thoughts. Here's my response.
1. I would be good with this. And yes, I think anything that puts more juice in the title games is good. So yeah, I'd like this.
2. I am not sure it would be good to get rid of G6 championship games. I'd like to do away with ALL conference championship games, but I digress. That being said, I want to incorporate the G6 as much as possible.
To your question, I would have play-in games be ON campus.
Also, under this 6-4-12 plan, G6 teams not in their championship games could be eligible for the field of 12 in the pay-in games. BTW, I would cap the number of teams in the playoff from one conference at six, and also not have two teams from the same conference play.
If this plan was used, here is what the play-in games would have looked like last season (using the CFP Poll):
Syracuse at Notre Dame
Illinois at Tennessee
Missouri at Ohio State
South Carolina at Indiana
BYU at Alabama
Ole Miss vs. Miami
Assuming all the home teams won in the 12-team play-in, this is what the field might look like:
I'd make adjustments to avoid two straight home games by non-champions, and rewarding conference champs with a home game. Also gives SEC and B1G runners up (who played in a neutral sites conference title game) a deserving home game. As a side note, I would flip SMU and Alabama to avoid the SEC match-up of Alabama-Texas in the first round. So it would be Alabama at Penn State and SMU at Texas instead. It would also avoid having all four SEC teams in the bottom half of the bracket. So, it would look like this.
(15) Iowa State at (1) Oregon
(8) Indiana at (9) Boise State
(5) Notre Dame at (16) Army
(11) Alabama at (4) Penn State
(10) SMU at (3) Texas
(6) Ohio State at 14) Clemson
(7) Tennessee at (12) Arizona State
(13) Miami at (2) Georgia
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/1/2025, 3:33:17 PM
(In response to this post by cburgroop)