Jump to content

CFP panel recommends expanding to 12


Unknøwn
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Carter said:

I would rather just see a field of 8. We have enough blowouts in the regular season and usually one or two in the playoff as it is with four teams.

I'm firmly in the 6 or 10/12 category myself. Gives substantial value to the regular season to try and get a bye week or at least secure home field advantage if you have to play in the opening round. 6 makes a ton of sense to me, as there simply aren't more teams deserving of a shot than that at the end of the season IMHO, but the pressure to include all P5(4?) conferences along with a G5 standout might make that number tough to stomach. So if 6 isn't a number that the powers that be can live with long term, then go to 10 or 12 with byes/play ins and lock it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should have never been 4 to begin with. It always should have been 8. Polls show that the vast majority of fans prefer it to be 8 as well.

I hate the idea of bye weeks, and I hate the idea of automatic ins. All of that is pointless and silly, and needlessly complicated.

8 teams play each other; the 4 winners play each other; the 2 winners play each other; simple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, fibonaccisquared said:

I'm firmly in the 6 or 10/12 category myself. Gives substantial value to the regular season to try and get a bye week or at least secure home field advantage if you have to play in the opening round. 6 makes a ton of sense to me, as there simply aren't more teams deserving of a shot than that at the end of the season IMHO, but the pressure to include all P5(4?) conferences along with a G5 standout might make that number tough to stomach. So if 6 isn't a number that the powers that be can live with long term, then go to 10 or 12 with byes/play ins and lock it in.

I think 8 is perfect. Playing first round byes into the format is just asking for huge backlash imo. I see no need for byes in a college playoff. Just play. Earn it in the regular season and play.

The inherent “problem” with the system is the imbalance of conferences and the need for subjective decision making. We can’t pretend there is currently an objective way to choose teams. There is also absolutely no reason every conference champion should get an automatic playoff spot. None. If that happens let’s just admit it’s all about money.

Unless cupcake games are eliminated and every conference is required to play each other in relevant regular season matchups, a conference championship is not relevant. That should be said plainly. You can have a 3 or 4 loss team win a division and potentially pull off an upset. Some conferences are just not good. If we want the regular season to be meaningful we should have more meaningful matchups in the regular season.

I feel people want to make it more like the NFL format, but college football is not like the NFL where there is genuine parity and your division champs have a boatload of close wins. This is one thing I love about the talk of the SEC moving to pods with Texas and OU coming in. It’s going to be hard to win the SEC. A lot harder than other conferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Carter said:

I think 8 is perfect. Playing first round byes into the format is just asking for huge backlash imo. I see no need for byes in a college playoff. Just play. Earn it in the regular season and play.

The inherent “problem” with the system is the imbalance of conferences and the need for subjective decision making. We can’t pretend there is currently an objective way to choose teams. There is also absolutely no reason every conference champion should get an automatic playoff spot. None. If that happens let’s just admit it’s all about money.

Unless cupcake games are eliminated and every conference is required to play each other in relevant regular season matchups, a conference championship is not relevant. That should be said plainly. You can have a 3 or 4 loss team win a division and potentially pull off an upset. Some conferences are just not good. If we want the regular season to be meaningful we should have more meaningful matchups in the regular season.

I feel people want to make it more like the NFL format, but college football is not like the NFL where there is genuine parity and your division champs have a boatload of close wins. This is one thing I love about the talk of the SEC moving to pods with Texas and OU coming in. It’s going to be hard to win the SEC. A lot harder than other conferences.

We can agree to disagree. My preference toward a system with byes is irrespective of the NFL. In fact, I believe the byes in the NFL make *less* since because of the relative parity, but I'll admit that I don't watch anywhere near as much NFL as I do college. I think that a flat 8 does not reward what typically amounts to the most deserving teams over the course of the regular season and will let certain teams and media darlings back their way into chances that they didn't earn on the field. I really can't think of a single season where the final CFP rankings had a team at 7-8 that was truly deserving of a shot at a national championship (and no UCF in 18 doesn't count.

Not gonna do it for every season, but let's do last year and the year before (non-covid):

2019

2021-09-24-19-12-32.png

Despite a 1 point win, Oregon mercy kneed from first and goal against Wisconsin in their bowl game. Georgia obviously took out Baylor in their bowl fairly comfortably.  Outside of Auburn though, do we really think there was a clear delineation of the teams between 7-11? I do think that the season points to teams 5-6 being better than the next grouping there.

 

2020

2021-09-24-19-11-09.png

Covid season and all that jazz, so comparing some wildly different resumes, but again... I would say that 5-6 were clearly better than the group below but 7-12 I'm not sure you can reasonably distinguish much difference other than maybe UF, who without the shoe throw may have been sitting above Oklahoma (I'll avoid trying to read anymore into the outcome of that bowl game than I did the UGA/Texas bowl game much for the same reasons...)

 


At the end of the day, I don't even know that expanding beyond 4 is needed, but if we're expanding, I think the top 2 teams or the top 4 teams at the end of the season should be rewarded for that effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Another meeting on this happened today. The management committee has officially agreed to the recommendation with the higher seeds hosting the first round action. The biggest holdup is said to be autobids. The committee can't agree if P5 winners should be automatically awarded playoff spots. They meet again in January. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unknøwn said:

Another meeting on this happened today. The management committee has officially agreed to the recommendation with the higher seeds hosting the first round action. The biggest holdup is said to be autobids. The committee can't agree if P5 winners should be automatically awarded playoff spots. They meet again in January. 

I am sure they will eventually work it out in January.. Very excited about the changes myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, VA F.O. said:

I disagree with autobids. Don't reward teams for winning a bad conference and punish teams for not winning a great conference.

If 1 and 2 are both in the same conference, 2 shouldn't have to be traveling to 12. 12 shouldn't even get in at all

That’s how it works in the NFL a 12-5 team who’s second in the division can travel to a 8-9 team if they win their division. Why should it be any different? If you’re a champion you should win regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure we'll end up with autobids. The seeding might be left up to the committee. Like this year, if Cincy gets to 13-0 they shouldn't be seeded lower than Wake or Pitt just because those two are P5. 

They'll also have to work out the G5 bid. Is it best G5 Champ or just best G5? If Cincy loses to Houston do you put Houston in because they end the highest ranked G5 champ? Lot to figure out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ovie_Lover said:

That’s how it works in the NFL a 12-5 team who’s second in the division can travel to a 8-9 team if they win their division. Why should it be any different? If you’re a champion you should win regardless.

This isn't the NFL. Why should I care what the NFL does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Unknøwn said:

I'm pretty sure we'll end up with autobids. The seeding might be left up to the committee. Like this year, if Cincy gets to 13-0 they shouldn't be seeded lower than Wake or Pitt just because those two are P5. 

They'll also have to work out the G5 bid. Is it best G5 Champ or just best G5? If Cincy loses to Houston do you put Houston in because they end the highest ranked G5 champ? Lot to figure out. 

Yeah, but if a team beats one ranked opponent and goes undefeated, should they be ranked higher in the playoffs than an opponent who played 3 and lost to one of them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of me also really thinks that it should depend on the opponent.

A team who beats 20, shouldn't get privileges over a team who beats 6 and 12 and loses to 2.

This is just another example how we're not the NFL, and shouldn't try to emulate them. The NFL has 32 teams. They don't have the logistical issues that CFB as a whole does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Unknøwn said:

The playoffs has to be more than 4, everyone knows and agrees. It's just a matter of how much bigger and how do we get there. 

I said from before they went to 4, that should be 8, and just include 3 total rounds.

Polls shows most agree too, but their decision won't be based on what people want. There's too much money at stake, and too much power being thrown around

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Unknøwn said:

The playoffs has to be more than 4, everyone knows and agrees. It's just a matter of how much bigger and how do we get there. 

I think 8 is a good starting point. Higher seed has a home game the first round then the semi and champ game can be at bowl sites. With the top 4 seeds being the best conference champs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i hated the bcs and i hate the playoffs but i said from the start it should just be all the 11 conference winners. it hurts my brain that a team that didn't even win their own conference could be called 'national champions'.

that way it's settled on the field, not in a fecking boardroom or in the court of public opinion.

if schools are gonna whine about being in a strong conference, then switch conferences and make the fbs stronger across the board. 🤷‍♂️

Edited by JohnnyFranchise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnnyFranchise said:

i hated the bcs and i hate the playoffs but i said from the start it should just be all the 11 conference winners. it hurts my brain that a team that didn't even win their own conference could be called 'national champions'.

that way it's settled on the field, not in a fecking boardroom or in the court of public opinion.

if schools are gonna whine about being in a strong conference, then switch conferences and make the fbs stronger across the board. 🤷‍♂️

... This is a very NFL fan view of how to "fix" college football. The NFL is by design built to *attempt* to have parity across teams so that even the worst team is still at a level that is "competitive". This is manageable because of the reversed draft order, and the fact that there are FAR fewer pro teams than there are college, and roster sizes and salary caps make it prohibitive for teams to just stack talent to any substantial degree.

The simple reality is that the winner of the Mac or Sun-Belt conference is not, nor should they be considered, equally as deserving of a chance at the national championship as the top 2-3 teams from P5 conferences in most years. That isn't their fault, it's the fault of the athletic directors of these programs deciding that it is more valuable for them to be in the FBS than FCS despite not having equivalent resources/budget/commitment to success... There's a good case to be made to have a separate P5 and G5 playoff, where the P5 committee could in rare circumstances (see: Cincinatti this year) extend an offer to a G5 team to take a spot (which they could accept or decline), but otherwise, they probably should be competing amongst other G5 with more comparable roster talent.

I'm honestly not a huge fan of expansion personally... if it's done, I'd like 6 (or 12 if it has to go bigger), because I do believe that the top 2-4 teams at the end of the season have earned their way in at that point, and the group outside of that should have to do the same. I don't think we're doing college football any favors by saying... "great win Michigan, as a reward, you get to go play in the B1G championship while Ohio State gets to sit home and *know* that they have just as good of a chance at winning the natty as you, if not better since you could still lose to Iowa"... (or insert: UGA/Bama, etc). If the regular season wins stop mattering, then college football as we all know it, ceases to be as interesting pretty quickly. Show me the team at 10-12 that has been deserving of a shot at a *national title* in the last 10 years. We can't even agree that there are FOUR this year that are deserving. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems simple to me: 

All P5 champs make it, the best G5 champ makes it, then the remaining 6 seeds are filled by at-large teams regardless of P5/G5 designation. 

The way it is set up currently, we have a 130 team league where half of those teams have no chance at even making the playoffs even if they go undefeated (the CFP will screw Cincy). Of the other half, maybe 5-7% have a real shot at making the playoffs. ****, there's only been 11 different teams that have made the CFP since 2014, and 5 of those have multiple appearances. It's a bad product. I would also guarantee you that within 5 or so years of this format, the amount of parity in the FBS would increase significantly. 

Edited by dirtybirds233
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is the only way for college football to thrive and survive is to include as much of the country as possible when it comes to the playoffs.  You can't continue to have just a few regions have any interest so whatever they do IMO is a huge positive since the current 4 team format just won't work long term.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fibonaccisquared said:

... This is a very NFL fan view of how to "fix" college football. The NFL is by design built to *attempt* to have parity across teams so that even the worst team is still at a level that is "competitive". This is manageable because of the reversed draft order, and the fact that there are FAR fewer pro teams than there are college, and roster sizes and salary caps make it prohibitive for teams to just stack talent to any substantial degree.

The simple reality is that the winner of the Mac or Sun-Belt conference is not, nor should they be considered, equally as deserving of a chance at the national championship as the top 2-3 teams from P5 conferences in most years. That isn't their fault, it's the fault of the athletic directors of these programs deciding that it is more valuable for them to be in the FBS than FCS despite not having equivalent resources/budget/commitment to success... There's a good case to be made to have a separate P5 and G5 playoff, where the P5 committee could in rare circumstances (see: Cincinatti this year) extend an offer to a G5 team to take a spot (which they could accept or decline), but otherwise, they probably should be competing amongst other G5 with more comparable roster talent.

I'm honestly not a huge fan of expansion personally... if it's done, I'd like 6 (or 12 if it has to go bigger), because I do believe that the top 2-4 teams at the end of the season have earned their way in at that point, and the group outside of that should have to do the same. I don't think we're doing college football any favors by saying... "great win Michigan, as a reward, you get to go play in the B1G championship while Ohio State gets to sit home and *know* that they have just as good of a chance at winning the natty as you, if not better since you could still lose to Iowa"... (or insert: UGA/Bama, etc). If the regular season wins stop mattering, then college football as we all know it, ceases to be as interesting pretty quickly. Show me the team at 10-12 that has been deserving of a shot at a *national title* in the last 10 years. We can't even agree that there are FOUR this year that are deserving. 

fair and valid points. i feel like we at least agree that non-conference champions shouldn't be in the playoffs (unless i competely misread your past paragraph there 😅). i think that's my biggest problem with the playoff system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dirtybirds233 said:

This seems simple to me: 

All P5 champs make it, the best G5 champ makes it, then the remaining 6 seeds are filled by at-large teams regardless of P5/G5 designation. 

The way it is set up currently, we have a 130 team league where half of those teams have no chance at even making the playoffs even if they go undefeated (the CFP will screw Cincy). Of the other half, maybe 5-7% have a real shot at making the playoffs. ****, there's only been 11 different teams that have made the CFP since 2014, and 5 of those have multiple appearances. It's a bad product. I would also guarantee you that within 5 or so years of this format, the amount of parity in the FBS would increase significantly. 

i could jive with that but it'd be tough to determine the best g5 champ. maybe they do a playoff throughout december to decide it.

again, my biggest thing is decide it on the field, not in a boardroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SacFalcFan said:

The bottom line is the only way for college football to thrive and survive is to include as much of the country as possible when it comes to the playoffs.  You can't continue to have just a few regions have any interest so whatever they do IMO is a huge positive since the current 4 team format just won't work long term.  

a million percent agree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JohnnyFranchise said:

i could jive with that but it'd be tough to determine the best g5 champ. maybe they do a playoff throughout december to decide it.

again, my biggest thing is decide it on the field, not in a boardroom.

It's typically pretty obvious each year. In reality, you're really only picking from three conferences (barring an odd year) since CUSA and MAC are significantly behind the Sun Belt, MWC, and AAC. This year, it's pretty much between Cincy, Louisiana, and UTSA. Even if Cincy loses their championship game meaning all three teams are 12-1, they'll still have more top 25 wins and are coming from the better conference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...