Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

College Football Playoff Expansion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rogue219
    replied
    Originally posted by calvegas04 View Post
    I think they should do away with pre season rankings, I know they won't because that is how they get ratings but they should
    I have thought this for a very long time now. The better start you have out of the gate based on perception, the better off you will be. Makes it harder for the Power Five teams who are not usual suspects to get any kind of recognition if they have an upstart season. Somebody like Illinois or Wake Forest would be 10-0 before anyone actually noticed and would probably have one loss blue bloods ranked ahead of them.

    Right now Iowa State and Cincinnati are getting a lot of preseason chatter. It takes time for programs like that to build up that kind of equity.

    Nothing like getting a preseason ranking in the top ten and piss pounding a bunch of cupcakes out of conference, too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rogue219
    replied
    Originally posted by IrishLion View Post

    I don't think conferences can afford to do that, both from a monetary perspective AND a competition perspective. You could end up with a year where a conference has two different teams undefeated in conference play because they missed eachother in cross-division scheduling.
    Agreed. None of this ends with there being less games. It stays as is now and more games are added. 8 teams, 12 teams, doesn't matter. Conference championships won't be going anywhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rogue219
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

    You need a hug.
    A National Championship in South Bend would be fine. Otherwise, a little more excitement in the game would suffice.

    Leave a comment:


  • calvegas04
    replied
    I think they should do away with pre season rankings, I know they won't because that is how they get ratings but they should

    Leave a comment:


  • phork
    replied
    I think what we need to establish is, is this about crowning the best team or getting ND to the final? Objectively speaking the best team needs to win. Whether thats 12-0 Alabama or a team that stumbled in 1 game earlier in the season.

    12 team playoff would essentially guarantee that ND is in every year, given current standards. Where ND is seeded depends on how the schedule turned out. Frankly I am not for byes. Lesser teams beat each other up and catch a fresh juggernaut on 2 weeks rest. So count me in for 8 team playoff, but no AutoBids unless the conference champ is a 10 win+ team, 1 G5 so they can shut up and 2 at large.

    Lets face it, a #12 seeded ND is not going to win a NC.

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishLion
    replied
    Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post

    On the other hand, the chances of ND ever getting a favorable matchup to actually win a NC are now gone. For example, in 2012, if KSU takes care of their business, we're probably holding the trophy. With a twelve game system, we're probably facing that year's version of 2012 Bama no matter what happens. That's arguably good for the sport because it less likely to have a fraudulent winner, but it could be bad for the "on the cusp" teams that ND has headlined over the last few years.

    I pretty much hate 12 teams. 8 teams, with 5 auto-bids for the P5 and 3 at large spots was basically perfect. An auto-bid for the group of 5 is dumb. I think once they start getting exposed in the playoffs every year, in 20 years we'll be wondering what everyone was smoking by giving them an auto-bid.
    In terms of the auto-bid, the sport finds a way to self-correct. When the Big East went away and the AAC formed, the auto-bid for the leftovers went away. If G5 schools aren’t having any success after 5+ years, the committee will make seeding/hosting/selection changes that somehow leave the G5 auto-representative out again.

    Besides, we’ll probably see realignment and/or the elimination football as we know it by then anyway lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • greyhammer90
    replied
    Originally posted by IrishLion View Post
    I love it for two reasons:

    1. ND is in every time they're 10-2 or better lol

    2. ND might FINALLY get a favorable matchup in a 'big' game, rather than having to play whatever the current year's juggernaut is because of terrible luck and ratings. They couldn't help getting the short end of the stick in 2018 and 2020, but getting Ohio State in 2015 was bullshit. If they finally get a favorable matchup in the first round of a 12-team playoff, it could give the program some much-needed postseason confidence and momentum.

    (I'm banking on 10-2 this year with a favorable NY6 matchup against some chump upstart or overrated P5 team... but who are we kidding, they'll get 11-2 UGA with JT Daniels on a warpath or some such bullshit)
    On the other hand, the chances of ND ever getting a favorable matchup to actually win a NC are now gone. For example, in 2012, if KSU takes care of their business, we're probably holding the trophy. With a twelve game system, we're probably facing that year's version of 2012 Bama no matter what happens. That's arguably good for the sport because it less likely to have a fraudulent winner, but it could be bad for the "on the cusp" teams that ND has headlined over the last few years.

    I pretty much hate 12 teams. 8 teams, with 5 auto-bids for the P5 and 3 at large spots was basically perfect. An auto-bid for the group of 5 is dumb. I think once they start getting exposed in the playoffs every year, in 20 years we'll be wondering what everyone was smoking by giving them an auto-bid.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cackalacky2.0
    replied
    Make it 12 teams and be done with it. The controversey is never the top 3 teams, its always 4-8. So make it 12 and give 4 teams a shot they wouldnt normally have. Top 4 get a bye.

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishLion
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post
    Do away with conference championships. Puts more meaning back into the regular season and vying for a playoff spot.
    I don't think conferences can afford to do that, both from a monetary perspective AND a competition perspective. You could end up with a year where a conference has two different teams undefeated in conference play because they missed eachother in cross-division scheduling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rogue219
    replied
    8 teams is inevitable and likely next. The P5 Champions, they'll throw a bone to a G5 team and two at large. Does it ruin the regular season? I don't think so. Conference realignment put a dent in that by discontinuing so many good rivalries, and there are still some good ones left that matter to those programs even without national implications.

    An 8 team playoff likely means in a non ND year you'll get three SEC teams out of 8 until Michigan, Texas, FSU, etc. get their act together somehow. This selection process is subjective because there is no alternative for it not to be, so they're going to look to the same places every time. Even with midseason rankings you need momentum and need to have people talking about you. Right now in June 2021 Iowa State and Cincinnati have people talking about them. That helps their cause right out of the gate. Nobody is talking about West Virginia or Tulsa right now, so if they are both unbeaten by November 1st how seriously are they going to be considered versus UC and Iowa State who have been getting talked up all summer?

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish#1
    replied
    Do away with conference championships. Puts more meaning back into the regular season and vying for a playoff spot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rogue219
    replied
    Originally posted by Luckylucci View Post

    Yes, they are rarities. But what is the best way for increase the chances of those rarities, making them play more games against better teams. And it's pretty funny that the post I quoted has you saying that only thing teams could do would be hope for injuries but it still wouldn't matter. When called on that point you say at full strength they killed ND. Playing more games create more opportunities for injuries, mistakes, hot teams to get hot at the right time etc. Is it likely to matter? Probably not. But likely to matter and better than the present are two different things.
    You're going to get more lopsided football games. A two loss Washington team or unbeaten UCF would need 15 players suspended from Clemson for cheating on a ballroom dance class for there to be any kind of heartwarming NC State 1983 March Madness type of upset to happen. If a one loss Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State get in and they're healthy enough they're going to bounce really good teams like ND let alone a 12th ranked team with two losses.

    The sport is too top heavy for any rarity to happen right now. If you want upsets and chaos men's basketball March Madness and maybe even baseball is the route to go. Marshall made an unbelievable run to a Men's Soccer National Championship this season. You're not going to get a 1983 NC State situation with an expanded playoff. Football is a completely different animal. Even non blue blood P5 schools like Iowa State, Indiana and Kentucky are not going to get the benefit of the doubt because they're not usual suspects.

    8 teams, 12 teams, whatever. You're getting glorified bowl games that will end up being boring until you weed out down to the final four again. The expanded format hurts ND's chances in the long term, too. More landmines for a team searching for their first championship since 1988 with little margin for error.

    There isn't enough regular season chaos to justify anything right now. They had to scrap the BCS because there was enough chaos and justified debate. Do we have that now?

    Leave a comment:


  • SouthSideChiDomer
    replied
    Originally posted by Some Irish Bloke View Post
    Would an expansion cut down on the # of regular season games?

    I think asking student athletes to hypothetically play as many as 17 games (12 + CCG + 5-12 playoff + quarter final + semi-final + NCCG) is a bit much.
    I have already seen justifications for it ranging from the fact that FCS plays more than FBS to the fact that some states would have that many games for high school state champions. But really I think the justification will be $$$. As it stands, the CFP is not technically part of the NCAA. As such, they could technically give players money under the guise of NIL once that passes. And then there is the actual publicity that will come with it that will organically increase many players' NIL earnings.

    Leave a comment:


  • SouthSideChiDomer
    replied
    Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post

    There have been 7 CFB Playoffs, all with only four teams selected, and we've already gotten in twice. I wouldn't call a ~30% chance of being seeded top-four as "never".
    When the difference between 4 and 5 is leaving Notre freaking Dame out of the playoffs, we probably get the benefit of the doubt. When its the difference between us getting a bye or sending a team to play at Notre Dame Stadium, well, its a lot easier to justify a 12-1 conference champion over us, especially because we already have a "bye" by not having to play conference championship week.

    I'm not saying it won't happen, but I think its less likely than us making the 4 team playoff.

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishLion
    replied
    I love it for two reasons:

    1. ND is in every time they're 10-2 or better lol

    2. ND might FINALLY get a favorable matchup in a 'big' game, rather than having to play whatever the current year's juggernaut is because of terrible luck and ratings. They couldn't help getting the short end of the stick in 2018 and 2020, but getting Ohio State in 2015 was bullshit. If they finally get a favorable matchup in the first round of a 12-team playoff, it could give the program some much-needed postseason confidence and momentum.

    (I'm banking on 10-2 this year with a favorable NY6 matchup against some chump upstart or overrated P5 team... but who are we kidding, they'll get 11-2 UGA with JT Daniels on a warpath or some such bullshit)

    Leave a comment:


  • TorontoGold
    replied
    Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post

    And I don't want to minimize the accomplishment of a team that gets to the playoffs and was a legit contender (I thought they did a good job this past season and picked the four best teams, all of whom deserved to be there). By participation trophy I mean that if the field is expanded too much, we all know that some of those teams are in no way, shape or form the best team in the country. They're there for the same reason some team outside the top 25 is in a bowl game. It's a participation trophy type of thing just to let a lot of also-rans say they went to the party. We have 64+ teams in the BB tourney. At least 80% of those teams have NO legit chance of winning it. They're just happy to have gotten an invite. That's what I mean by a participation trophy and what I don't want to see in football. We're trying to find the best team, not give everyone a trophy for having a good season and getting invited to the party. That's what the rest of the already bloated bowl season is for.
    I think at 8/12 teams it wouldn't be diluting it too much, anything further then I agree. Looking at the programs in the top 12 in 2019, Minnesota and maybe Wiscy treat a playoff invite as a huge success. The rest of the teams would be happy with the result for a year, and then every following year the goal is progressively higher. That's without Texas/USC, so if you add them into the top 12 it's hardly a group of Wake Forest, Toledo, and Michigan.

    Leave a comment:


  • MNIrishman
    replied
    Originally posted by House16 View Post
    From a purely ND perspective, I think we should be rooting very, very hard against an 8-team playoff. Staying at 4 is okay and expanding to 12 is okay. But 8 is a death knell to independence.

    An 8-team playoff would almost certainly involve an auto bid for each P5 champion, one for the best G5 team, and 2 at-large bids. With just 2 at-large bids, ND would have a much, much more difficult time getting in than teams from most power conferences. If we finish the year at number 7, all it takes is any of the P5 champs not being in the top 6 to knock us out of the playoffs. Especially with how down the Pac 12 has been, that could easily happen. Being one of the two best non-conference champions is extremely difficult. It's almost as difficult as making the current playoff, except you then need to win 3 games for the national championship instead of 2 in the current system. If that happened, I really think we'd have no choice but to jump ship to the ACC in search of a more clear playoff path. God forbid we go 11-1, finish #6 in the country, and Bama, Georgia, and LSU are all in the top 5, knocking us out of the playoff. To put it another way, we'd have to watch every conference championship weekend knowing that a couple of upsets could knock us out of the playoffs because low ranked P5 champs would become bid thieves.

    Under a 12-team playoff, that issue is lessened considerably. Most years, every P5 champ will be in the top 12 after the championship game. Big thieving would still be possible, but there would be 6 at-large bids up for grabs instead of 2, making life for an independent way easier.
    Any autobid system is likely going to include some criteria to prevent nonsense like five loss conference champions making it in over one-loss teams. Ideally, it would be something like---must be minimum 10 wins, minimum 10 P5 games, minimum 12 D1/FBS games. That'd help make sure only "good" teams made it and we don't have to watch Ohio State rip the heart out of a six win UCLA team while an 11 win ND sits at home.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish#1
    replied
    Originally posted by Rogue219 View Post

    There isn't any give and take within the rivalries anymore, whichever ones that are left and still matter anyway. Florida State vs Miami lately is the equivalent of watching Minnesota play Iowa.

    It's a boring time in the sport right now, and Covid has exposed flaws in every sport, but it's not as interesting as it could be. I will watch ND, but I don't go out of my way to watch other games as a neutral like I used to. They don't seem to matter. Bama, Clemson, OSU and OU need to get bumped off and a new cycle needs to start soon.
    You need a hug.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish#1
    replied
    Originally posted by arrowryan View Post
    There is too much money to be made by the NCAA and universities for there not to be a playoff expansion. I was expecting a 6 or 8 team playoff, but I like 12 as well.
    12 = more games = more fans = more revenue. Math is simple.

    Leave a comment:


  • House16
    replied
    From a purely ND perspective, I think we should be rooting very, very hard against an 8-team playoff. Staying at 4 is okay and expanding to 12 is okay. But 8 is a death knell to independence.

    An 8-team playoff would almost certainly involve an auto bid for each P5 champion, one for the best G5 team, and 2 at-large bids. With just 2 at-large bids, ND would have a much, much more difficult time getting in than teams from most power conferences. If we finish the year at number 7, all it takes is any of the P5 champs not being in the top 6 to knock us out of the playoffs. Especially with how down the Pac 12 has been, that could easily happen. Being one of the two best non-conference champions is extremely difficult. It's almost as difficult as making the current playoff, except you then need to win 3 games for the national championship instead of 2 in the current system. If that happened, I really think we'd have no choice but to jump ship to the ACC in search of a more clear playoff path. God forbid we go 11-1, finish #6 in the country, and Bama, Georgia, and LSU are all in the top 5, knocking us out of the playoff. To put it another way, we'd have to watch every conference championship weekend knowing that a couple of upsets could knock us out of the playoffs because low ranked P5 champs would become bid thieves.

    Under a 12-team playoff, that issue is lessened considerably. Most years, every P5 champ will be in the top 12 after the championship game. Big thieving would still be possible, but there would be 6 at-large bids up for grabs instead of 2, making life for an independent way easier.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bishop2b5
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

    It's quite clear what the goal is - the best team. Adding more layers to the analysis of which team is the "best" should be welcomed, not run from. Imagine if ND clowned Kansas State instead of being decimated by Bama because at the time there was only 1 game.

    Only 1 trophy is handed out at the end. The teams that have gotten to the playoff don't get a "participation trophy", it's a nice recruiting bump and adds to their national profile. Calling it a participation trophy takes away from the opportunity that was earned.
    And I don't want to minimize the accomplishment of a team that gets to the playoffs and was a legit contender (I thought they did a good job this past season and picked the four best teams, all of whom deserved to be there). By participation trophy I mean that if the field is expanded too much, we all know that some of those teams are in no way, shape or form the best team in the country. They're there for the same reason some team outside the top 25 is in a bowl game. It's a participation trophy type of thing just to let a lot of also-rans say they went to the party. We have 64+ teams in the BB tourney. At least 80% of those teams have NO legit chance of winning it. They're just happy to have gotten an invite. That's what I mean by a participation trophy and what I don't want to see in football. We're trying to find the best team, not give everyone a trophy for having a good season and getting invited to the party. That's what the rest of the already bloated bowl season is for.

    Leave a comment:


  • Polish Leppy 22
    replied
    Originally posted by Pops Freshenmeyer View Post
    I realize that I'm in the minority but I hate it. I'm an old who still remembers when every game was (figurative) life or death because one loss could derail a season.

    Conference championships have sucked a lot of the interest out of the CFB regular season for me.

    A 12 team setup is going to be sending three loss teams on a regular basis.
    Yeah, I'm with you and will die on this hill for several reasons:

    1. The best part about college football is the regular season. This dissolves the regular season.

    2. College kids shouldn't be playing 14-16 games. The season is long enough.

    3. Adding a few girls to the pageant who ain't so pretty doesn't make the pageant better or more competitive.

    4. Most years the semifinal games aren't even close. Adding other teams who aren't as good doesn't improve anything.

    5. High school kids (if given the choice) aren't going to pick UCF, Memphis or Arizona State with the idea of "knocking off Clemson, Bama, Ohio State." It just isn't gonna happen.

    6. I am thrilled that Saban signed on through 2029 and laughs the whole way through a few more Natty's. No italics. This plan just gives Bama and Clemson a few more pigs to slaughter in January and it's completely unnecessary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Whiskeyjack
    replied
    Originally posted by Rogue219 View Post
    They don't seem to matter. Bama, Clemson, OSU and OU need to get bumped off and a new cycle needs to start soon.
    It's always been cyclical. But the cycles are long, so you end up with decades where the sport is dominated by the same few teams. Look through all the past CFB champions and try to find a decade which didn't include at least two different teams winning it all twice.

    Leave a comment:


  • TorontoGold
    replied
    Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post

    Is that necessarily a good thing, though? What's the goal of a playoff? Is it to crown the team that got hot or lucky at the right time, or is it to determine the best team that season? I totally get that teams who aren't regular fixtures in the playoffs or NC game want the field expanded so they have a better chance to get there. OTOH, though, expansion lowers the chances that the actual best team will win it all. Do we want to crown the best or give more teams participation trophies?
    It's quite clear what the goal is - the best team. Adding more layers to the analysis of which team is the "best" should be welcomed, not run from. Imagine if ND clowned Kansas State instead of being decimated by Bama because at the time there was only 1 game.

    Only 1 trophy is handed out at the end. The teams that have gotten to the playoff don't get a "participation trophy", it's a nice recruiting bump and adds to their national profile. Calling it a participation trophy takes away from the opportunity that was earned.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luckylucci
    replied
    Originally posted by Rogue219 View Post

    Clemson has won 6 ACC Championships in a row. Alabama has won 7 of the last 12 SEC Championships and has won 9 of the last 13 Western Divisions. Ohio State has won 4 Big Ten Championships in a row. Oklahoma has won 6 Big 12 Championships in a row. Those three schools have dominated the current format. Their losses in the regular season are rarities. Clemson at full strength whipped ND's ass on a neutral field. It's boring. People have the options now of Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Apple, Disney Plus, HBO Max, YouTube. There is nothing new, no intrigue. I'd rather watch college hoops or college baseball right now.

    The SEC, ACC and Big Ten have been dominated by those three respective schools. The Big 12 and Pac 12 are weak. Nobody takes the G5 schools seriously as evidenced by UCF just within the last few years. I don't want to see more of what we already have unless there is more parity among P5 schools and G5 either get serious consideration or they break off and form their own playoff, which at this point seems like a far more viable option for them considering what UCF accomplished only to be laughed away by the blue bloods and elites (then did themselves even less favors by awarding themselves an NC).

    I don't see what expansion does without parity. For me that means more unbeatens and more one loss teams at the end. I also don't think an expanded playoff favors Notre Dame's chances right now seeing as how they can't get out of one of these big games without getting their doors blown off.
    Yes, they are rarities. But what is the best way for increase the chances of those rarities, making them play more games against better teams. And it's pretty funny that the post I quoted has you saying that only thing teams could do would be hope for injuries but it still wouldn't matter. When called on that point you say at full strength they killed ND. Playing more games create more opportunities for injuries, mistakes, hot teams to get hot at the right time etc. Is it likely to matter? Probably not. But likely to matter and better than the present are two different things.

    Leave a comment:


  • pumpdog20
    replied
    Count me in, I love this 12 team format.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rogue219
    replied
    Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post

    Yes, we often get embarrassed by the big three, but we're not special in that regard. The other 4-8 teams we'd be facing in an expanded playoff would be manageable.

    You're not wrong about the lack the parity, but that's how the sport has always been. I can't think of any effective reforms that the blue bloods would voluntarily sign on for.

    Selfishly, I'd like to see the playoff expanded to 8, because that's just enough to ensure we're basically guaranteed a spot in any year that we're decent, without adding too many reach teams or increasing the risk of injury unnecessarily.
    There isn't any give and take within the rivalries anymore, whichever ones that are left and still matter anyway. Florida State vs Miami lately is the equivalent of watching Minnesota play Iowa.

    It's a boring time in the sport right now, and Covid has exposed flaws in every sport, but it's not as interesting as it could be. I will watch ND, but I don't go out of my way to watch other games as a neutral like I used to. They don't seem to matter. Bama, Clemson, OSU and OU need to get bumped off and a new cycle needs to start soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cackalacky2.0
    replied
    I love that Coastal Carolina Chanticlears are now popping up in major sport program discussions. LOL. 10 years agao it might as well have been called the South Harmon Insttute of Technology. It was a trash can of a campus and school located in the worst part of the Redneck Riviera. It becomes a destination spot ofr Pensyltuckohians and they win a College World Series and finish in the Top 15 of football. Crazy. Its also a massive pasrty school too. Lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bishop2b5
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post
    Statistically it reduces the usual suspects chances of winning, that's fact. Even if you only give an 7/8 seed a 5/10% chance of an upset that still reduces the chances of Bama/OSU/Clemson winning.
    Is that necessarily a good thing, though? What's the goal of a playoff? Is it to crown the team that got hot or lucky at the right time, or is it to determine the best team that season? I totally get that teams who aren't regular fixtures in the playoffs or NC game want the field expanded so they have a better chance to get there. OTOH, though, expansion lowers the chances that the actual best team will win it all. Do we want to crown the best or give more teams participation trophies?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rogue219
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

    Both those teams have a non-zero chance of an upset though, and that is still better than 0%.
    Great. So I record it, check the blowout score later and delete it from my DVR.

    Leave a comment:


  • Whiskeyjack
    replied
    Originally posted by Rogue219 View Post
    I don't see what expansion does without parity. For me that means more unbeatens and more one loss teams at the end. I also don't think an expanded playoff favors Notre Dame's chances right now seeing as how they can't get out of one of these big games without getting their doors blown off.
    Yes, we often get embarrassed by the big three, but we're not special in that regard. The other 4-8 teams we'd be facing in an expanded playoff would be manageable.

    You're not wrong about the lack the parity, but that's how the sport has always been. I can't think of any effective reforms that the blue bloods would voluntarily sign on for.

    Selfishly, I'd like to see the playoff expanded to 8, because that's just enough to ensure we're basically guaranteed a spot in any year that we're decent, without adding too many reach teams or increasing the risk of injury unnecessarily.

    Leave a comment:


  • TorontoGold
    replied
    Originally posted by Rogue219 View Post

    Who are the seeds, though? A two loss Wisconsin team or an ubeaten Coastal Carolina?

    If the higher seeds host on campus or even on a neutral field, what changes? Unless the neutral field is Juneau, Alaska and not a warm bowl destination site or an indoor field.
    Both those teams have a non-zero chance of an upset though, and that is still better than 0%.

    Leave a comment:


  • Some Irish Bloke
    replied
    Would an expansion cut down on the # of regular season games?

    I think asking student athletes to hypothetically play as many as 17 games (12 + CCG + 5-12 playoff + quarter final + semi-final + NCCG) is a bit much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rogue219
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post
    Statistically it reduces the usual suspects chances of winning, that's fact. Even if you only give an 7/8 seed a 5/10% chance of an upset that still reduces the chances of Bama/OSU/Clemson winning.
    Who are the seeds, though? A two loss Wisconsin team or an ubeaten Coastal Carolina?

    If the higher seeds host on campus or even on a neutral field, what changes? Unless the neutral field is Juneau, Alaska and not a warm bowl destination site or an indoor field.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rogue219
    replied
    Originally posted by Luckylucci View Post

    See, I disagree and love the idea of it. It may not change anything but it's one of the most immediate options at doing so. Those teams you mention are still losing games. Not a lot but it's still happening.

    From 2010 to 2019, Bama lost at least 1 game every year. Now some of those were to other elite programs but some of them were not. During that span Bama lost multiple games (2+), 4 times.

    During that same span, Clemson lost a game every year except for 1. And, lost multiple games, 6 times. We literally just beat that team under the scenario that you laid out but then turn around and said it couldn't be done.

    Ohio State during that time, lost a game every year except for 1. Again, some of these losses are to other elite teams but certainly not all. They lost multiple games 4 times.
    Clemson has won 6 ACC Championships in a row. Alabama has won 7 of the last 12 SEC Championships and has won 9 of the last 13 Western Divisions. Ohio State has won 4 Big Ten Championships in a row. Oklahoma has won 6 Big 12 Championships in a row. Those three schools have dominated the current format. Their losses in the regular season are rarities. Clemson at full strength whipped ND's ass on a neutral field. It's boring. People have the options now of Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Apple, Disney Plus, HBO Max, YouTube. There is nothing new, no intrigue. I'd rather watch college hoops or college baseball right now.

    The SEC, ACC and Big Ten have been dominated by those three respective schools. The Big 12 and Pac 12 are weak. Nobody takes the G5 schools seriously as evidenced by UCF just within the last few years. I don't want to see more of what we already have unless there is more parity among P5 schools and G5 either get serious consideration or they break off and form their own playoff, which at this point seems like a far more viable option for them considering what UCF accomplished only to be laughed away by the blue bloods and elites (then did themselves even less favors by awarding themselves an NC).

    I don't see what expansion does without parity. For me that means more unbeatens and more one loss teams at the end. I also don't think an expanded playoff favors Notre Dame's chances right now seeing as how they can't get out of one of these big games without getting their doors blown off.
    Last edited by Rogue219; 06-08-2021, 01:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Whiskeyjack
    replied
    Originally posted by SouthSideChiDomer View Post
    I love the 12 team idea and I didn't think they would go that far in a single step. I like that it gives teams all over the ranking something to fight for.

    There is a downside for us though. I doubt we will basically ever get one of those top 4 seeds with a bye unless we play a big time opponent in that group and beat them or play multiple playoff teams and beat them.
    There have been 7 CFB Playoffs, all with only four teams selected, and we've already gotten in twice. I wouldn't call a ~30% chance of being seeded top-four as "never".

    Leave a comment:


  • NorthDakota
    replied
    Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post
    Statistically it reduces the usual suspects chances of winning, that's fact. Even if you only give an 7/8 seed a 5/10% chance of an upset that still reduces the chances of Bama/OSU/Clemson winning.
    It would hurt their recruiting as well. More teams with a realistic shot at regularly making the playoff dilutes talent.

    Leave a comment:


  • TorontoGold
    replied
    Statistically it reduces the usual suspects chances of winning, that's fact. Even if you only give an 7/8 seed a 5/10% chance of an upset that still reduces the chances of Bama/OSU/Clemson winning.

    Leave a comment:


  • SouthSideChiDomer
    replied
    I love the 12 team idea and I didn't think they would go that far in a single step. I like that it gives teams all over the ranking something to fight for.

    There is a downside for us though. I doubt we will basically ever get one of those top 4 seeds with a bye unless we play a big time opponent in that group and beat them or play multiple playoff teams and beat them.

    Leave a comment:


  • GowerND11
    replied
    Wish we could abolish the playoffs tbh, but the genie is already out of the bottle.

    Abolish super conferences, abolish CCGs, blame the PSAC and make them pay (half kidding) for CCGs, and bring back computer models.

    Leave a comment:


  • dublinirish
    replied
    Not really interested in seeing 1 seed Bama take on 8 seed MAC champs like Toledo tbh

    Leave a comment:


  • Luckylucci
    replied
    Originally posted by Rogue219 View Post

    I used to think so, but I don't anymore, and honestly I don't think expanding the playoff is going to make things any more interesting for fans or difficult for the big three.

    I used to be in favor of a 16 team tournament like I-AA, II, III, NAIA. However there simply isn't enough parity to justify it in Division I-A/FBS. Things have shifted so much in the last 20 years that I think it would ultimately be a waste of time. Even if you do 8 or 12. The only possiblity of intrigue is if Alabama, Clemson or Ohio State suffer a serious injury to a key player in an early round, and even then, we've seen all three plug in the next guy and be absolutely fine when that happens. Even in I-AA back in the 90s, it was the same teams year after year: Youngstown State, Boise State, Marshall, Montana, Georgia Southern. They dominated the field and some of the early round games were beatdowns. Watch an 8-3 or 9-2 team go to Montana in the first round in late November/early December and play.... wasn't stimulating.

    I like the transfer portal but I don't think it will have as great of an impact with regards to who will be serious contenders. I like the idea of having a loss hurt you badly in the big picture like it did during the AP and BCS Era, where even then a two loss LSU team won a National Championship. I think it boils down to Texas, Michigan, USC, Miami, Florida State, Nebraska, etc. getting their damn acts together and making themselves relevant again. It comes down to coaching and recruiting better for them. The three usual suspects seem to have it down. No reason the others can't.
    See, I disagree and love the idea of it. It may not change anything but it's one of the most immediate options at doing so. Those teams you mention are still losing games. Not a lot but it's still happening.

    From 2010 to 2019, Bama lost at least 1 game every year. Now some of those were to other elite programs but some of them were not. During that span Bama lost multiple games (2+), 4 times.

    During that same span, Clemson lost a game every year except for 1. And, lost multiple games, 6 times. We literally just beat that team under the scenario that you laid out but then turn around and said it couldn't be done.

    Ohio State during that time, lost a game every year except for 1. Again, some of these losses are to other elite teams but certainly not all. They lost multiple games 4 times.

    Leave a comment:


  • arrowryan
    replied
    There is too much money to be made by the NCAA and universities for there not to be a playoff expansion. I was expecting a 6 or 8 team playoff, but I like 12 as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cackalacky2.0
    replied

    COACH D has thoughts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rogue219
    replied
    Originally posted by Riddickulous View Post
    There's a lot to like about an expanded playoff IMO. Hopefully it makes it tougher for Bama/Clemson/OSU to win the title every year.
    I used to think so, but I don't anymore, and honestly I don't think expanding the playoff is going to make things any more interesting for fans or difficult for the big three.

    I used to be in favor of a 16 team tournament like I-AA, II, III, NAIA. However there simply isn't enough parity to justify it in Division I-A/FBS. Things have shifted so much in the last 20 years that I think it would ultimately be a waste of time. Even if you do 8 or 12. The only possiblity of intrigue is if Alabama, Clemson or Ohio State suffer a serious injury to a key player in an early round, and even then, we've seen all three plug in the next guy and be absolutely fine when that happens. Even in I-AA back in the 90s, it was the same teams year after year: Youngstown State, Boise State, Marshall, Montana, Georgia Southern. They dominated the field and some of the early round games were beatdowns. Watch an 8-3 or 9-2 team go to Montana in the first round in late November/early December and play.... wasn't stimulating.

    I like the transfer portal but I don't think it will have as great of an impact with regards to who will be serious contenders. I like the idea of having a loss hurt you badly in the big picture like it did during the AP and BCS Era, where even then a two loss LSU team won a National Championship. I think it boils down to Texas, Michigan, USC, Miami, Florida State, Nebraska, etc. getting their damn acts together and making themselves relevant again. It comes down to coaching and recruiting better for them. The three usual suspects seem to have it down. No reason the others can't.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobbyMac
    replied
    I like 8 but 12 does guarantee (as Lax mentioned above) warm weather programs are gonna be forced to play man ball in the elements.

    Lets see how many UGa fans come to South Bend in December.

    Leave a comment:


  • Huntr
    replied
    I just want to see the 8 best - no auto qualifiers. There are reliable computer rankings that do a good job. Use the mean rankings from some of those and there you go. It's too easy, so it won't happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • dublinirish
    replied
    Originally posted by Riddickulous View Post
    There's a lot to like about an expanded playoff IMO. Hopefully it makes it tougher for Bama/Clemson/OSU to win the title every year.
    unlikely

    Leave a comment:


  • Riddickulous
    replied
    There's a lot to like about an expanded playoff IMO. Hopefully it makes it tougher for Bama/Clemson/OSU to win the title every year.

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishLax
    replied
    Originally posted by tussin View Post

    75% of the conference championships are meaningless right now anyway. I think this format will actually increase interest level in conference championship games because of the prospect of auto bids to champions (way more interest in a Pitt vs Clemson scenario) and byes to the top 4.
    I thought 8 with 2 at-large and 6 AQs (Power 5 + highest ranked Gof5) was the sweet spot.

    A 12 team playoff where the bottom 8 teams host a game the week after the conference championships will be electric though. Can you imagine Florida or Georgia having to come play @Notre Dame in December?

    Right now we have meaningless conference championship games, and meaningless BCS games. More and more kids sitting out every year. If you're going to make it so that the playoff is "all that matters" then I think the powers at be are behooved to make the playoff more accessible to teams outside of SEC1, Clemson, and Ohio State who basically default three of the four spots on yearly basis with the current nonsensical setup.

    Leave a comment:

Adsense

Collapse
Working...
X