College Football Playoff Expansion?

[IrishLax]

Looks like we may be heading towards a 12-team model --
[TWEET]https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1402134069002092545?s=20[/TWEET]

Jack Swarbrick appears to be one of the people heavily involved in shaping this playoff expansion:

Officials familiar with the CFP process stress that an entire process still needs to play out. The first step will come in Chicago on July 17 and 18 when the four-member working group, tasked for nearly the past two years with exploring expansion, reports its findings to the CFP management committee. The four-member working group will present the finding to a group made up of SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick and Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson.

The two days of discussion by the management committee are expected to yield a singular recommendation for the following week. That’s when the CFP board of managers, a group of 11 presidents and chancellors from the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame, will examine what’s put forward and likely determine the potential shape — although not the final details — of the playoff's future.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

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.

 

[tussin]

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.

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.

 

[IrishLax]

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.

 

[Riddickulous]

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.

 

[dublinirish]

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

 

[Huntr]

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.

 

[BobbyMac]

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.

 

[Rogue219]

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.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/CoachD178/status/1402295996902789129[/TWEET]
COACH D has thoughts.

 

[arrowryan]

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.

 

[Luckylucci]

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.

 

[dublinirish]

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

 

[GowerND11]

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.

 

[SouthSideChiDomer]

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.

 

[TorontoGold]

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.

 

[NorthDakota]

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.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

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".

 

[Rogue219]

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.

 

[Rogue219]

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.

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

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.

 

[TorontoGold]

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%.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

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.

 

[Rogue219]

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.

 

[Bishop2b5]

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?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

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.

 

[Rogue219]

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.

 

[pumpdog20]

Count me in, I love this 12 team format.

 

[Luckylucci]

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.

 

[TorontoGold]

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.