College Football Playoff Expansion?

[NDPhilly]

The best thing about college football is that every regular season game matters. Anything more than 4 just further dilutes that. I don't want the NFL where i'm apathetic towards my team losing a few games a year.

Has there been a year where the team that was 5th in the CFP rankings deserved a shot at the title? Don't really think ND did based on how we played this year.

I don't see why we can't do bowl games with a four team playoff after. I think that would make most people happy. Much better than diluting the regular season.

 

[StPaul_Irish]

The best thing about college football is that every regular season game matters. Anything more than 4 just further dilutes that. I don't want the NFL where i'm apathetic towards my team losing a few games a year.

Has there been a year where the team that was 5th in the CFP rankings deserved a shot at the title? Don't really think ND did based on how we played this year.

I don't see why we can't do bowl games with a four team playoff after. I think that would make most people happy. Much better than diluting the regular season.

Lets just say:

Notre Dame plays: OSU, Clemson, NCST, Purdue, UVA, WISC, Ball ST, and 4 more FBS teams. Goes 10-2

Alabama plays: UGA, Ole Miss, A&M, Paw Patrol, Bubble Guppies, Vanderbilt, East Carolina State of Nebraska, and a few others... Goes 12-0

Only one of these teams gets in....

 

[irishog77]

Lets just say:

Notre Dame plays: OSU, Clemson, NCST, Purdue, UVA, WISC, Ball ST, and 4 more FBS teams. Goes 10-2

Alabama plays: UGA, Ole Miss, A&M, Paw Patrol, Bubble Guppies, Vanderbilt, East Carolina State of Nebraska, and a few others... Goes 12-0

Only one of these teams gets in....

Except they don't. Saban started adding big games to start the season years ago. They have a home and home with Texas starting next year. Then they're adding Florida State, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Notre Dame in the next few years. A couple of those years, they will double dip on those opponents. And they have their full sec slate. And then (usually) the sec championship game. And then the sec is adding Texas and OU. Alabama will definitely be adding one of those teams, if not both to their annual schedule. And the sec will likely move to a 9-game schedule.

There are some random years where ND's schedule may end up being tougher than Alabama's, but by and large, Alabama's is at least as tough as ND's, and usually tougher. Especially when you throw in a quality team in the championship game that ND doesn't play.

Also not sure why NCST, Purdue, UVA, Wisc, and Ball ST would be considered "quality" opponents, but Arkansas, Tennessee, Miss St., Auburn, and LSU would not.

 

[Rogue219]

The system now is just BCS 2.0. I don't know what expanding it to include more teams does for you other than provide more lopsided games and make people money who are not us.

I was not at all excited about that game whereas if Cincinnati or Michigan had been playing I would have been way more engaged.

 

[Bishop2b5]

The system now is just BCS 2.0. I don't know what expanding it to include more teams does for you other than provide more lopsided games and make people money who are not us.

That's my view too. In the 8 years of the playoffs, was there ever a team ranked 5-8 that anyone other than their fans thought was actually the best team? There have been a couple of #4 teams that won it all, but I can't think of a single team that got left out that had a legit shot of winning it all. Expanding the field does nothing but award a participation trophy to a few sacrificial lambs and produce more boring non-competitive games.

 

[Trait Expectations]

That's my view too. In the 8 years of the playoffs, was there ever a team ranked 5-8 that anyone other than their fans thought was actually the best team? There have been a couple of #4 teams that won it all, but I can't think of a single team that got left out that had a legit shot of winning it all. Expanding the field does nothing but award a participation trophy to a few sacrificial lambs and produce more boring non-competitive games.

This is silly. The #4 teams that won it all, did so because they had a chance. How would you know if the #5 or #8 team would compete? You have to play the games, it's why Bama almost lost to Auburn. Expansion allows more teams to take their shot at the giants. I'm all for expansion, I just wish we'd get rid of ConferenceCGs. They serve literally no purpose. Blow it up and restructure the bowls so there aren't tie-ins.

 

[irishog77]

This is silly. The #4 teams that won it all, did so because they had a chance. How would you know if the #5 or #8 team would compete? You have to play the games, it's why Bama almost lost to Auburn. Expansion allows more teams to take their shot at the giants. I'm all for expansion, I just wish we'd get rid of ConferenceCGs. They serve literally no purpose. Blow it up and restructure the bowls so there aren't tie-ins.

We know because out of 16 semifinal games played to date, with 4 teams, 13 have been blow outs. We also know because we watch games. And in college football, for the most part, wins and losses still matter. Maybe ohio state could have played well, as say a 6, 7, or 8 seed and ran off 3 wins in a row to win the natty. But the vast majority of people are fine with them not having the chance because they lost to Oregon and to michigan, and didn't really deserve a chance. And let's be honest, ohio state would be the only team left out that had the chance. They, along with alabama, and georgia have way more talent and better players than every other team. ND, oklahoma state, oregon, or baylor weren't going to rip off 3 wins.

If people like the idea of anybody having a chance to win it all and having the hottest/luckiest team win the natty, then they should tune into March Madness. I still like the idea of the regular season mattering and, by and large, the best team hoisting the trophy.

 

[NDRock]

Teams outside the top 4 beating top 4 teams used to happen quite frequently in the old bowl system. I looked through the 80's, the heyday of the old system and found there were 22 bowl matchups of teams outside the top 4 playing top 4 teams. Each side won 11 times. I know things are different than they were back then but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more upsets than people expect.

 

[GowerND11]

Teams outside the top 4 beating top 4 teams used to happen quite frequently in the old bowl system. I looked through the 80's, the heyday of the old system and found there were 22 bowl matchups of teams outside the top 4 playing top 4 teams. Each side won 11 times. I know things are different than they were back then but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more upsets than people expect.

That's more to do with lack of national exposure of games, lack of national recruiting services to know JUST how good recruiting classes were, and a general equilibrium in the sport IMO.

 

[NDFAN2008]

Playoff needs expanded to 8 this will limit the amount of guys skipping out on bowl games. You think if we make the playoff Williams or Hamilton sit still? Highly unlikely.

 

[Irishize]

This is silly. The #4 teams that won it all, did so because they had a chance. How would you know if the #5 or #8 team would compete? You have to play the games, it's why Bama almost lost to Auburn. Expansion allows more teams to take their shot at the giants. I'm all for expansion, I just wish we'd get rid of ConferenceCGs. They serve literally no purpose. Blow it up and restructure the bowls so there aren't tie-ins.

I disagree. You know why Bama got upset by TAMU this season? They were sleep walking through a mid-season matchup w/ little to no hype against a team they play every year. I believe that game was an 11 am start as well so good luck getting a bunch of college kids (who are used to dominating) hyped up for that game vs a semi-final game where the entire nation is watching in prime time against an allegedly great team that they’ve never faced. Not to mention they had 3 weeks to prepare.

Additionally, Bama simply wasn’t as good as last year’s team. By default, they were a contender b/c Clemson, tOSU & OU were down this year so Bama didn’t have to be their usual elite selves to make the CFP. Anyone could tell by Saban’s body language that he knew they were playing w/ house money. I think he was just as surprised they were in the NC game as anyone else…maybe more so. Has anyone ever seen him so mellow to the press after a loss?

I do agree with you about the conf CG. They are a waste and have no business continuing if they truly want to expand the CFP. IMO, they’ll never go away b/c they’re a cash cow for the conferences. It seems the CFP is simply the BCS with two extra games.

 

[NDdomer2]

Playoff needs expanded to 8 this will limit the amount of guys skipping out on bowl games. You think if we make the playoff Williams or Hamilton sit still? Highly unlikely.

duh

 

[Trait Expectations]

We know because out of 16 semifinal games played to date, with 4 teams, 13 have been blow outs. We also know because we watch games. And in college football, for the most part, wins and losses still matter. Maybe ohio state could have played well, as say a 6, 7, or 8 seed and ran off 3 wins in a row to win the natty. But the vast majority of people are fine with them not having the chance because they lost to Oregon and to michigan, and didn't really deserve a chance. And let's be honest, ohio state would be the only team left out that had the chance. They, along with alabama, and georgia have way more talent and better players than every other team. ND, oklahoma state, oregon, or baylor weren't going to rip off 3 wins.

If people like the idea of anybody having a chance to win it all and having the hottest/luckiest team win the natty, then they should tune into March Madness. I still like the idea of the regular season mattering and, by and large, the best team hoisting the trophy.

I didn't say there wouldn't be blow outs. If you have more games, you increase the probability of an upset. If 3/16 semifinal games produced close games or upsets then what would 64 or 128 games have produced over a similar span? I'm not expecting the underdogs to rip off 3 wins in a row but I'm expecting some of them to win one game here and there and that chips away at the hegemony shared by a few teams with disproportionate talent.

I like more competition.

 

[Irishize]

This is what team have to compete against to make the CFP NC game:

Recent CFP Finals by 247 Talent Composite:
'21: Georgia (2) vs Bama (1)
'20: Bama (2) vs OSU (3)
'19: LSU (5) vs Clemson (9)
'18: Clemson (6) vs Bama (2)
'17: Bama (1) vs Georgia (4)

so while blue-chip ratio is nice, top-4 talent required or close with Heisman caliber QB

SOURCE: Michael Bryan, writer at 18 Stripes

 

[NorthDakota]

I didn't say there wouldn't be blow outs. If you have more games, you increase the probability of an upset. If 3/16 semifinal games produced close games or upsets then what would 64 or 128 games have produced over a similar span? I'm not expecting the underdogs to rip off 3 wins in a row but I'm expecting some of them to win one game here and there and that chips away at the hegemony shared by a few teams with disproportionate talent.

I like more competition.

The big thing is chipping away at hegemony. The BCS, for all its flaws, funneled elite talent to schools that had a legit shot at making it.

The CFP (NIL shenanigans notwithstanding) is gonna funnel the best kids to the small group of schools that can be counted on to consistently be in that discussion.

At 4 teams, that who? Alabama, OSU, UGA (maybe?) Clemson? Each of those schools is gonna recruit awesome regardless obviously, but they will get a bump whether consciously or subconsciously from kids who want to play in the playoff.

At 6-12 teams in the playoff, I think the talent gets diluted in a substantial way (again, ignoring NIL). If ND/USC/Michigan's likelihood of making the playoff goes from "we could make it once" to "we should make it most years", that has an impact on recruiting I would think.

I dont follow the recruiting stuff closely, this is just purely theoretical but I think it's practical. Kids who want a shot at a Natty have a very select group of schools to consider. Playoff expansion makes about 15-20 schools much more viable.

Kinda funny to me how the 4 team playoff has worked out. I still don't think more games in itself breaks beatdowns or the occasional upset changes anything, access to even getting to the games is a potential game changer though.

 

[NDRock]

That's more to do with lack of national exposure of games, lack of national recruiting services to know JUST how good recruiting classes were, and a general equilibrium in the sport IMO.

It could also be that top 4 teams never have to play non top 4 teams in the postseason like they did in the past. I have no doubt that upsets would occur if the playoff gets expanded. Playoff teams lose in the regular season all the time and mostly to teams that don’t make the playoffs that year.

 

[WaveDomer]

IMHO the problem with expansion is that there is no parity at all in college football. You have a handful of teams that are just minor leagues for the NFL and then other teams that have a number of NFL caliber and then the rest. The gap between the top 3 and 4 through 12 is very large, and so forth. March Madness works because you can have one great player on your team "go off" and win a few rounds.

Expansion is just going to mean the minor league NFL programs will get in with multiple losses. They will schedule and play with the goal of peaking for the playoff, even more than they do now. And the odds of an upset in the playoffs are too low to trade actual excitement of the regular season. For me, college football is becoming pretty uninteresting. I care about my teams and that's pretty much it. The quality of play has never been NFL level for obvious reasons, but that was fine because there used to be more balance across the landscape.

 

[GowerND11]

It could also be that top 4 teams never have to play non top 4 teams in the postseason like they did in the past. I have no doubt that upsets would occur if the playoff gets expanded. Playoff teams lose in the regular season all the time and mostly to teams that don’t make the playoffs that year.

We're also talking about college football. Forgive me for still believing it's a different animal than other sports and their playoffs. Ole Miss, Notre Dame, and Ohio State all had a chance to make their case against top 4 teams, and didn't do it. Expansion of playoffs is nothing more than money and sponsorships. Not integrity of the game, and to crown a "true NC." Go back to the original BCS or the Boal Alliance and start enforcing shit like only 1 FCS team per 4 years.

 

[Rogue219]

The FCS has a tournament. North Dakota State has won it 9 of the last 11 years. They've faced 8 different opponents during that stretch for the title game.

Honestly think FBS would be more of the same. If anything the title game would have less participants.

 

[dankgesang]

We're also talking about college football. Forgive me for still believing it's a different animal than other sports and their playoffs. Ole Miss, Notre Dame, and Ohio State all had a chance to make their case against top 4 teams, and didn't do it. Expansion of playoffs is nothing more than money and sponsorships. Not integrity of the game, and to crown a "true NC." Go back to the original BCS or the Boal Alliance and start enforcing shit like only 1 FCS team per 4 years.

You require no forgiveness for being right as hell. Everybody else tattoo it on your foreheads.

 

[NorthDakota]

The FCS has a tournament. North Dakota State has won it 9 of the last 11 years. They've faced 8 different opponents during that stretch for the title game.

Honestly think FBS would be more of the same. If anything the title game would have less participants.

The FCS isn't a fair comparison.

Its a division for state normal schools and small private schools to keep their football team and remain D1.

NDSU and maybe 2-3 others are rural state flagships/land grants that take football seriously. The Dakota State Universities and the Montana schools.

FBS has many more schools that put football first.

 

[NDRock]

For me, the best part of college football is the atmosphere. I love on campus games and all that goes with it. Neutral site games, bowls, and playoffs just aren’t the same. The only way I would like an expanded playoff is if the games are on campus. I’d love to see more match ups of big time programs that seldom play each other. I personally would like all games on campus except the championship game.

 

[Rogue219]

The FCS isn't a fair comparison.

Its a division for state normal schools and small private schools to keep their football team and remain D1.

NDSU and maybe 2-3 others are rural state flagships/land grants that take football seriously. The Dakota State Universities and the Montana schools.

FBS has many more schools that put football first.

What's a fair comparison then? As I see it there is a parity gap in both divisions when it comes to the postseason. An FBS expansion, whatever that looks like, isn't going to give us much more than what the four team format has so far. Most of the semifinal games have been lopsided. I don't know if I want more of that for the sake of hype and TV dollars that mean nothing to me.

In terms of the competition, FCS been the same team winning it over and over again with a few others in as legit contenders. It's a 24 team bracket I believe. Used to be 16. Conference champs get to go no matter what. James Madison, Villanova, Northern Iowa, Stephen F. Austin, Sam Houston take football seriously and have had bites at the apple. The majority of games in the first couple of rounds in the 24 team format have been one sided. Even in the 16 team bracket in the late 90s when I played, a lot of 8-3 teams got in as an at large and went to Montana to get their asses kicked.

Expanding FBS to me means 4-5 programs maybe have a chance to win the whole thing while the rest are just there and get t shirts before they get sent home in a boring lopsided affair. From a competition standpoint adding more teams and play in games and wild cards and physical challenges isn't the answer.

 

[Rogue219]

For me, the best part of college football is the atmosphere. I love on campus games and all that goes with it. Neutral site games, bowls, and playoffs just aren’t the same. The only way I would like an expanded playoff is if the games are on campus. I’d love to see more match ups of big time programs that seldom play each other. I personally would like all games on campus except the championship game.

Like Georgia going up to Ann Arbor in December?

Yeah, sign me up.

 

[NDRock]

Like Georgia going up to Ann Arbor in December?

Yeah, sign me up.

Exactly. Would be fun to see.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Expanding FBS to me means 4-5 programs maybe have a chance to win the whole thing while the rest are just there and get t shirts before they get sent home in a boring lopsided affair. From a competition standpoint adding more teams and play in games and wild cards and physical challenges isn't the answer.

Exactly. We all want to see more good teams with a shot at winning instead of seeing the same small group of teams in the playoffs every year... and I say that as a Bama fan. Even I'm tired of it always being the same few teams fighting for one of the 4 spots. The solution isn't expanding the field to 8 or 12 or 16. All that does is serve up some sacrificial lambs who get a t-shirt/participation trophy. The solution, I believe, is finding a way to spread the talent out more amongst other teams. That's why the NFL is closer to parity and their larger playoff pool works. How do we do that? I don't know yet, but I believe that's the solution for having more teams with a legitimate shot at winning it all. If you have 5-10 really good teams most years instead of just 2 or 3, THEN expanding to an 8-team playoff makes more sense.

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

Playoff needs expanded to 8 this will limit the amount of guys skipping out on bowl games. You think if we make the playoff Williams or Hamilton sit still? Highly unlikely.

Can't believe people are still griping about this. Players sitting out is not a viable reason to expand the playoff. To get rid of the ultra-subjectivity of the top 4 is.

Look what happened to Williams on Alabama as the latest example. I'm not implying he should have sat out the playoff, but there are real life repercussions to playing in these bowl games, especially if it's a non-playoff game. He might have just lost out on tens of millions as a top 15 lock, now with a blown ACL he could fall God knows how far. I think it's hilarious that fans sit here and act like they know what's best for these kids. You've never stared down the opportunity to make life-changing money like this. They fell short of their ultimate goal as a team, so why not focus on their own future.

If the coaches and teammates can forgive/understand their "selfishness" then what the hell do they owe the fans? It's mere entertainment for us. It's literally a lucrative, life changing opportunity for them. I can guarantee you Freeman, Rees, and the teammates don't think any less of KH or KW.

 

[TorontoGold]

Exactly. We all want to see more good teams with a shot at winning instead of seeing the same small group of teams in the playoffs every year... and I say that as a Bama fan. Even I'm tired of it always being the same few teams fighting for one of the 4 spots. The solution isn't expanding the field to 8 or 12 or 16. All that does is serve up some sacrificial lambs who get a t-shirt/participation trophy. The solution, I believe, is finding a way to spread the talent out more amongst other teams. That's why the NFL is closer to parity and their larger playoff pool works. How do we do that? I don't know yet, but I believe that's the solution for having more teams with a legitimate shot at winning it all. If you have 5-10 really good teams most years instead of just 2 or 3, THEN expanding to an 8-team playoff makes more sense.

Forced parity is mickey mouse. Dynasties give the sport more eyeballs. This is why the NHL will be a smalltime league because they've insisted on parity for the sake of parity. Further, the NBA playoffs seem like they're doing just fine even if the majority of first round series are blowouts (completely anecdotal evidence on my part).

Why hold the Masters and invite that many people if we know that only really only 30-40 guys have a shot at winning it, because the story of an unknown making some noise is great for the sport.

 

[Trait Expectations]

Can't believe people are still griping about this. Players sitting out is not a viable reason to expand the playoff. To get rid of the ultra-subjectivity of the top 4 is.

Look what happened to Williams on Alabama as the latest example. I'm not implying he should have sat out the playoff, but there are real life repercussions to playing in these bowl games, especially if it's a non-playoff game. He might have just lost out on tens of millions as a top 15 lock, now with a blown ACL he could fall God knows how far. I think it's hilarious that fans sit here and act like they know what's best for these kids. You've never stared down the opportunity to make life-changing money like this. They fell short of their ultimate goal as a team, so why not focus on their own future.

If the coaches and teammates can forgive/understand their "selfishness" then what the hell do they owe the fans? It's mere entertainment for us. It's literally a lucrative, life changing opportunity for them. I can guarantee you Freeman, Rees, and the teammates don't think any less of KH or KW.

What is the real risk here? This is a serious, non-snark question. You believe Williams earnings will no longer be life changing? Or you believe he'll go from a top 15 lock to out of the 3rd rd? What is the serious implication of a bad injury? Even Jaylon, who had one of the most horrific injuries fell from a top 15 to early 2nd round. Then managed to stack much more cash on top of it.

Are there examples of players being injured in bowl games that drastically altered their financial future? I'm interested in any data you have.

 

[ACamp1900]

Being a teacher you get to know right away when someone is making the wrong choices but they aren’t mature enough to hear you out or stop making the same mistakes over and over,…

this thread feels like that.