Quote Originally Posted by Sylven View Post
I don't see what other problems it would create. Certainly it would help clear up where the AUS champion stands in the mix and make sure we get competitive, tight and fun to watch bowl games with the four best teams to play them.
Off the top of my head:

* Adds an extra week to the season
* Renders conference championships meaningless
* Increased travel costs
* Doesn't do anything to fix parity, just moves the blow-out game one week earlier
* Allows for Bowl or Vanier games with participants from only one conference, which means they'd be a rematch of an earlier playoff game and would have limited national appeal

And, depending on how they determine the extra participants:

* Uses faulty rankings in a league with no interlock to determine playoff participants, rather than results on the field
* Requires a contentious debate about which conferences get how many berths in the expanded playoff

There is also the question as to whether further marginalising AUS is ultimately the best solution to the problem. As it stands, 2/3 of the national playoff games are between competitive teams, including the only one that draws any ratings at all (the Vanier). I really don't love the trade-offs involved with adding an 8 team playoff just to make one semi-final game more competitive in the short term.

The ideal solution would be to find a way to get AUS competitive again. Barring that, I would prefer that they look at options that'd be more than a band-aid. One way to expand to a full 12 team playoff. Another would be interlock, perhaps an N8 style interlock (additional playoff teams could be determined through N8 standings, but even if not, just having interlock play would improve the rankings). I'd like to see something that could actually draw interest to the sport and improve things for all teams, rather than this all encompassing fixation on breaking a bunch of things to fix a single semi-final game.