College Football Playoff Expansion?

[phork]

Personally I think they should they should stick with 4 teams but do the playoff selection after the bowl season. Bring back the old traditional bowl system pre-BCS. Make getting to the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton, etc bowl meaningful again. Keep players going pro from opting out of bowls and keep fan bases interested in the bowls (score watching other the games, things like that). Play major bowls January 1. Playoff selection January 2. Maybe adding extra week onto the college football season is too much, but that's what I would do.

This expands the playoff in a way but at the same time you can't expect to finish 10-3 and have a shot to win the championship.

I could get behind this. I am against first round byes and auto bids for conference champions. Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Peach. Winners seeded by ranking after games, top4 move into playoff.

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

So asking a question. Does the NFL playoffs produce the best team over the season? I don’t think so but what does that matter? The difference in CFB is we are so attached to rankings. Preseason rankings are a joke and meaningless and then we constantly bitch and worry about the rankings all season only to get three different rankings only one of which matters and still doesn’t achieve a satisfying result. I’d much rather have a 12 team playoff and let them play each other. Generally a Top 10-12 is easier to pick than a top 4. Get the 12 teams, re-seed them and let them play.

Well said, Cack.

And to add to Chicago's point, why not make the NY6 games the defacto playoff, collectively? You have 6 games = 12 teams; top four get a bye, and your rotate the four "wild-card" games for seeds 5-12.

This adds more weight to each of the NY6 games.

 

[chicago51]

I would argue putting aside lack of parity in certain matchups the college football regular season is a better product than the NFL regular season product. So being like the NFL isn’t always the way to go.

No making NY6 Bowls the playoff games doesn’t necessarily enhance them. If the Rose Bowl is still getting the Big 10’s # 2 because the #1 Big 10 had a buy it is not enhanced.

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

I would argue putting aside lack of parity in certain matchups the college football regular season is a better product than the NFL regular season product. So being like the NFL isn’t always the way to go.

No making NY6 Bowls the playoff games doesn’t necessarily enhance them. If the Rose Bowl is still getting the Big 10’s # 2 because the #1 Big 10 had a buy it is not enhanced.

How is it not enhanced if it's a playoff game? The winner would be advancing to the quarter final. What does the B1G #1 or #2 have to do with any of it?

Whether or not it's the B1G #1 or #2 is irrelevant if the B1G #1 earned a bye. As it currently stands, it's just an exhibition game.

 

[Irish#1]

So asking a question. Does the NFL playoffs produce the best team over the season? I don’t think so but what does that matter? The difference in CFB is we are so attached to rankings. Preseason rankings are a joke and meaningless and then we constantly bitch and worry about the rankings all season only to get three different rankings only one of which matters and still doesn’t achieve a satisfying result. I’d much rather have a 12 team playoff and let them play each other. Generally a Top 10-12 is easier to pick than a top 4. Get the 12 teams, re-seed them and let them play.

The rankings do matter to an extent. They may not admit it, but I believe the committee uses that for a starting point. I'm for expanding to 8, but regardless of what the number is, there will always be some complaining on who gets left out.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

The rankings do matter to an extent. They may not admit it, but I believe the committee uses that for a starting point. I'm for expanding to 8, but regardless of what the number is, there will always be some complaining on who gets left out.

Rankings only matter because they are used in the first place. There is likely a better way that only involves actual wins losses IMO. Rankings are highly subjective and biased.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Rankings only matter because they are used in the first place. There is likely a better way that only involves actual wins losses IMO. Rankings are highly subjective and biased.

The NFL can only do that because it has a bunch of mechanisms to ensure relative parity among the teams--salary caps, the draft, sufficient interconnectivity between the schedules of all 32 teams, etc.

CFB has always relied on subjective measures like polls, the "eye ball" test, perceived SoS, etc. because there is no parity, so there's no other choice. I can't imagine a way to enforce NFL-like parity on CFB that wouldn't deform the sport beyond recognition.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

The NFL can only do that because it has a bunch of mechanisms to ensure relative parity among the teams--salary caps, the draft, sufficient interconnectivity between the schedules of all 32 teams, etc.

CFB has always relied on subjective measures like polls, the "eye ball" test, perceived SoS, etc. because there is no parity, so there's no other choice. I can't imagine a way to enforce NFL-like parity on CFB that wouldn't deform the sport beyond recognition.

NCAA football is pretty much there already just with a pretense of amateurism. The tv contracts are market based on consumption and eyeballs and now players are allowed to monetize themselves with little to no oversight by a govern agency. Only thing left is for the players to unionize and collectively bargain.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

NCAA football is pretty much there already just with a pretense of amateurism. The tv contracts are market based on consumption and eyeballs and now players are allowed to monetize themselves with little to no oversight by a govern agency. Only thing left is for the players to unionize and collectively bargain.

The commercialization has certainly advanced rapidly, but the integration necessary to enforce enough parity to move away from polls and rankings is still a long way off. To get there, you'd need to look at the endgame that ESPN and the SEC want. A single "super-conference" of the 32 best teams, mostly from the South, that move to a semi-pro model and consciously look to become the NFL-lite.

But there are 98 other FBS schools, and a ton of wealthy stakeholders who don't want to see CFB end that way. I'm very cynical on this front, but I doubt we get there any time soon.

 

[chicago51]

I guess you could do a point system to take away subjectivity. Every win = 10 points (5 point for FCS), every win by one of your opponents for the year = 1 point (half point for FCS wins), every win by one of the teams you beat for the year = 1 point (0.5 point for FCS).

Teams with most points get in the playoffs. Gives advantage to teams that play that 13th game. Numbers I have would need to be tweaked a bit, just throwing out hypothetical example. It would take a lot of analysis and number crunching to see what works. But I guess it could be done.

Not that I am in favor of college football rankings being a math equation.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

The commercialization has certainly advanced rapidly, but the integration necessary to enforce enough parity to move away from polls and rankings is still a long way off. To get there, you'd need to look at the endgame that ESPN and the SEC want. A single "super-conference" of the 32 best teams, mostly from the South, that move to a semi-pro model and consciously look to become the NFL-lite.

But there are 98 other FBS schools, and a ton of wealthy stakeholders who don't want to see CFB end that way. I'm very cynical on this front, but I doubt we get there any time soon.

I’m not arguing the difficulties of switching the status too quickly… but my cynicism in subjective rankings is ultimately leading me to a conclusion a semipro model/ status in CFB inevitable and ultimately more fair than the current one

 

[Bishop2b5]

Rankings only matter because they are used in the first place. There is likely a better way that only involves actual wins losses IMO. Rankings are highly subjective and biased.

Any system is likely to be subjective to a large extent. The alternative to coaches (or SID's really) or the press ranking teams is some sort of algorithm that crunches stats and all the other objective data. The problem there, as we saw with the BCS computer systems, is that what data and how you weight it and how you crunch it is just as subjective as the polls... and it's often significantly less accurate. It's why we saw the BCS computer rankings often differ from each other by large amounts, and sometimes had a ranking anomaly where some team who clearly wasn't all that good got ranked very highly due to a fluke in the data. Go with that type of system and you'll see teams using statisticians to tell them how to manipulate their stats in order to maximize their ranking instead of focusing more on simply playing well.

 

[irishff1014]

So asking a question. Does the NFL playoffs produce the best team over the season? I don’t think so but what does that matter? The difference in CFB is we are so attached to rankings. Preseason rankings are a joke and meaningless and then we constantly bitch and worry about the rankings all season only to get three different rankings only one of which matters and still doesn’t achieve a satisfying result. I’d much rather have a 12 team playoff and let them play each other. Generally a Top 10-12 is easier to pick than a top 4. Get the 12 teams, re-seed them and let them play.

Imo if you have 3 losses you shouldn't be in the running for playoff spot unless its weird year and the top teams have 2 losses. And i could see that happening in the Pac 12 and Big 12

 

[irishff1014]

I guess you could do a point system to take away subjectivity. Every win = 10 points (5 point for FCS), every win by one of your opponents for the year = 1 point (half point for FCS wins), every win by one of the teams you beat for the year = 1 point (0.5 point for FCS).

Teams with most points get in the playoffs. Gives advantage to teams that play that 13th game. Numbers I have would need to be tweaked a bit, just throwing out hypothetical example. It would take a lot of analysis and number crunching to see what works. But I guess it could be done.

Not that I am in favor of college football rankings being a math equation.

By this you should get negative points for scheduling FCS schools.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Any system is likely to be subjective to a large extent. The alternative to coaches (or SID's really) or the press ranking teams is some sort of algorithm that crunches stats and all the other objective data. The problem there, as we saw with the BCS computer systems, is that what data and how you weight it and how you crunch it is just as subjective as the polls... and it's often significantly less accurate. It's why we saw the BCS computer rankings often differ from each other by large amounts, and sometimes had a ranking anomaly where some team who clearly wasn't all that good got ranked very highly due to a fluke in the data. Go with that type of system and you'll see teams using statisticians to tell them how to manipulate their stats in order to maximize their ranking instead of focusing more on simply playing well.

Is the NFLs system subjective? Premiere League Soccer? All the drama about preseason rankings and the playoff committees process is really just polishing a turd IMO. You can’t objectively justify the eye test. You can’t legitimately rationalize preseason rankings blah blah blah.

My point is that there is a better system out there and the current one is almost preordained and far too subjective. I’ve said it before but the NCAA football landscape lends its self to a relegation promotion type of system in my opinion. We already have a tiered system in place. It would require subdivisions for sure. I’d love to see a tiered system 24 or so teams where some teams get relegated to a lower tier and others can be promoted. I think that would be awesome but unlikely to happen.

 

[NDRock]

Is the NFLs system subjective? Premiere League Soccer? All the drama about preseason rankings and the playoff committees process is really just polishing a turd IMO. You can’t objectively justify the eye test. You can’t legitimately rationalize preseason rankings blah blah blah.

My point is that there is a better system out there and the current one is almost preordained and far too subjective. I’ve said it before but the NCAA football landscape lends its self to a relegation promotion type of system in my opinion. We already have a tiered system in place. It would require subdivisions for sure. I’d love to see a tiered system 24 or so teams where some teams get relegated to a lower tier and others can be promoted. I think that would be awesome but unlikely to happen.

Yeah I played with a promotion/relegation system once. Basically four 16 team super conferences with 8 team divisions (League 1). You play everyone in your division once. Division winners are your playoff teams. You could still do a CCG and then afterwards the 8 teams are seeded with teams in the same conference placed in opposite sides of the bracket (WC style).

The other teams (League 2) would have have a mirror system where they are partnered up with a conference and division at the top level, based on geography (MAC with Big 10 teams for example). Last place teams in each division of League 1 go to League 2, First place teams in League 2 go to League 1.

I would enjoy it but will never happen.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Is the NFLs system subjective? Premiere League Soccer? All the drama about preseason rankings and the playoff committees process is really just polishing a turd IMO. You can’t objectively justify the eye test. You can’t legitimately rationalize preseason rankings blah blah blah.

My point is that there is a better system out there and the current one is almost preordained and far too subjective. I’ve said it before but the NCAA football landscape lends its self to a relegation promotion type of system in my opinion. We already have a tiered system in place. It would require subdivisions for sure. I’d love to see a tiered system 24 or so teams where some teams get relegated to a lower tier and others can be promoted. I think that would be awesome but unlikely to happen.

Cack, you were talking about polls, not how the NFL determines who gets into their playoff. The NFL's scheduling and structure are very different from CFB and not particularly relevant to CFB rankings.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Cack, you were talking about polls, not how the NFL determines who gets into their playoff. The NFL's scheduling and structure are very different from CFB and not particularly relevant to CFB rankings.

 

[Irish#1]

Rankings only matter because they are used in the first place. There is likely a better way that only involves actual wins losses IMO. Rankings are highly subjective and biased.

That's kind of like saying I only put gas in my car because I want to drive it. What else are you going to use as a starting point? Rankings are far from perfect and we all know the committee isn't watching every game, but right now it's what we have.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

It’s the one we have but there are more efficient and less subjective modules out there as well which we know produce better results than the subjective whims of ever changing groups of people subjectively determining who the best team is.

 

[Irish#1]

I guess you could do a point system to take away subjectivity. Every win = 10 points (5 point for FCS), every win by one of your opponents for the year = 1 point (half point for FCS wins), every win by one of the teams you beat for the year = 1 point (0.5 point for FCS).

Teams with most points get in the playoffs. Gives advantage to teams that play that 13th game. Numbers I have would need to be tweaked a bit, just throwing out hypothetical example. It would take a lot of analysis and number crunching to see what works. But I guess it could be done.

Not that I am in favor of college football rankings being a math equation.

This isn't a bad idea, but would have to be tweaked. Indiana first implemented playoffs in 1973, but only four schools from each classification made it. Then they put all teams in clusters and used a point system to determine who made it. Each team had to play the teams in their cluster. They had a lot of 3 team ties and used a "cluster buster" to determine which team got into the playoffs. It was basically like OT where each team got a chance to score from the 10 yard line. Still a lot of the better teams missed the playoffs, so they eventually scrapped it and put everyone in the tournament.

 

[Bishop2b5]

It’s the one we have but there are more efficient and less subjective modules out there as well which we know produce better results than the subjective whims of ever changing groups of people subjectively determining who the best team is.

So tell us about this better system that isn't subjective and is more accurate. I'm very open to a better, more accurate system, but every one I've heard of being proposed is just as bad or worse, actually. If there's one that's actually better, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[NDohio]

Another round of meetings and another failure to come to any agreement on playoff expansion.

https://thespun.com/more/top-storie...knBMPXipV5Z_nEKCAl5BK3CZtdztpfaFbWUp305Wo8HG8

 

[IrishRazor82]

Another round of meetings and another failure to come to any agreement on playoff expansion.

https://thespun.com/more/top-stories...FbWUp305Wo8HG8

That's ok though if the expansion ideas are really dumb, like 12+ teams. I still firmly believe 6 is the right number and no conference auto-bids. IMO:

6 > 4 > 8 >>>>> 12.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

That's kind of like saying I only put gas in my car because I want to drive it. What else are you going to use as a starting point? Rankings are far from perfect and we all know the committee isn't watching every game, but right now it's what we have.

Except there are now ev and hydrogen cars.

 

[Irish#1]

Another round of meetings and another failure to come to any agreement on playoff expansion.

https://thespun.com/more/top-storie...knBMPXipV5Z_nEKCAl5BK3CZtdztpfaFbWUp305Wo8HG8

I can't remember who said it, but back in November I heard on the radio that if there wasn't a general agreement in place by December, it would be '24 at the earliest before any change would be implemented.

Apparently Bowlsby walked out of the meetings, because there are some that are dug in. They hang up is "whether conferences should have automatic qualification into an expanded field, and which ones; how bowls will be used as sites." I would love to know who is insisting on what.

 

[Rasputin]

Another round of meetings and another failure to come to any agreement on playoff expansion.

https://thespun.com/more/top-storie...knBMPXipV5Z_nEKCAl5BK3CZtdztpfaFbWUp305Wo8HG8

Not directing this at you, but that article is probably the least informative piece of journalism in the history of news. No exaggeration.

 

[ShamrockOnHelmet]

That's ok though if the expansion ideas are really dumb, like 12+ teams. I still firmly believe 6 is the right number and no conference auto-bids. IMO:

6 > 4 > 8 >>>>> 12.

Meh, I think byes are a remarkably bad idea. 8 is the right number. Will some klunky teams get ”in”? yeah, and so what? Maybe once a decade we get a colossal upset.

 

[NDohio]

Not directing this at you, but that article is probably the least informative piece of journalism in the history of news. No exaggeration.

I actually agree. It was the first one that popped up. Being first is better than quality and accuracy these days in media - right?

 

[fightingirish26]

Meh, I think byes are a remarkably bad idea. 8 is the right number. Will some klunky teams get ”in”? yeah, and so what? Maybe once a decade we get a colossal upset.

If a team sneaks in as the lowest seed and then goes on a three game winning streak against top 5 teams, I personally would have zero issue with them being crowned champs.