Lots of food for thought in this extensive article on the CFP expansion. Some key points to consider when thinking about the conference championship games:

1. Too many championship games are blowouts -> Conference Championship Game History
2. #1 vs. #2 in conference only play each other 57% of the games in FBS
3. Future of the Championship games - each commissioner's thoughts
   

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...ious-risk/

The whole playoff thing sucks

How an Invitational works: we think you are good and lots of people will watch so come play in our tourney.

How a REAL Playoff works: win you CCG and advance. Don't win...then shut the hell up until next year.

Every conference in FBS should be represented with their champion.

Want to throw 6 "wild cards" in there, then fine. But Conference Champs should have automatic bids.

(12-02-2016 08:10 PM)UHRedcat96 Wrote:  How an Invitational works: we think you are good and lots of people will watch so come play in our tourney.

How a REAL Playoff works: win you CCG and advance. Don't win...then shut the hell up until next year.

Every conference in FBS should be represented with their champion.

Want to throw 6 "wild cards" in there, then fine. But Conference Champs should have automatic bids.

This is 100% correct

CCG's have partially jumped the shark and were almost never a good idea unless you were the SEC, Big 12 in its prime and B1G. Roy Kramer was a total genius when he came up with the concept but that's if you have the wow factor to pull it off. No one is gonna go out of their way to watch the C-USA title game tomorrow or when the Sun Belt adds one nor even the MWC title game (if Boise had gotten in, maybe).

They often smack of pretending to be big time, though occasionally offer a lower echelon team a chance for a/n (extra) big win. If you can't sell out a neutral site without a major power within 50 miles of the site, you shouldn't have a CCG.

For me, expanding the playoffs to the point that each conference has an auto bid for their champion makes the championship games MORE appealing. They become the defacto first round, instead of what we see right now where one team can win and then sits and waits while a group of people sit behind closed doors and considers their fate.

The best thing they could do for college football playoff is have it so the winner of each conference (p5 and g5) gets a spot so we have a 10 team playoff....yes, this would create first round games like Alabama vs WMU etc but so what. We have that now in the basketball tourney in 1v16 games.

It would give EVERY FBS team a chance (in theory) to win a national title (like in hoops) rather than just a handful of teams.

As for the P5 teams that finish second in their conference and say "that's not fair, we don't get to go to a playoff and Troy, who won the piddly Sunbelt did"....tough. To those teams we say, "Yeah but you have P5 resources. Its not Troy's fault you didn't maximize those resources and win your conference". It happens in hoops every year....a handful of basketball teams from the big boys who played a LOT tougher schedule than Campbell and Elon get left out of the ncaa because the were on the wrong side of the bubble. That's life. And it is accepted in college hoops.

Still not sure why the many comparison of the NCAA basketball tournament, where #1 goes against #16, theoretically giving each team a chance with FBS. It's not as physically demanding to play two games of basketball in a long weekend as to play a 16 team tournament in football.

Add to the fact that these are students as well as athletes. They have to prepare for finals as well.

Finally, while these kids do get a stipend, though not all conferences/teams offer that, they are not getting paid yet still increase their chances of injury. Some of these kids are going to play at the next level. A career ending injury due to playing when injured/fatigued is not going to go over well for those kids.

(12-03-2016 09:36 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  The best thing they could do for college football playoff is have it so the winner of each conference (p5 and g5) gets a spot so we have a 10 team playoff....yes, this would create first round games like Alabama vs WMU etc but so what. We have that now in the basketball tourney in 1v16 games.

It would give EVERY FBS team a chance (in theory) to win a national title (like in hoops) rather than just a handful of teams.

As for the P5 teams that finish second in their conference and say "that's not fair, we don't get to go to a playoff and Troy, who won the piddly Sunbelt did"....tough. To those teams we say, "Yeah but you have P5 resources. Its not Troy's fault you didn't maximize those resources and win your conference". It happens in hoops every year....a handful of basketball teams from the big boys who played a LOT tougher schedule than Campbell and Elon get left out of the ncaa because the were on the wrong side of the bubble. That's life. And it is accepted in college hoops.

The problem with a 10 team playoff is that the format requires a couple of teams to have a first-round bye...which will go to power conference teams and put the teams like Troy at a disadvantage. Best scenario is a 16-team playoff with 10 conference champions and 6 at-large teams to ensure there are no first-round byes.

(12-03-2016 10:11 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Still not sure why the many comparison of the NCAA basketball tournament, where #1 goes against #16, theoretically giving each team a chance with FBS. It's not as physically demanding to play two games of basketball in a long weekend as to play a 16 team tournament in football.

Add to the fact that these are students as well as athletes. They have to prepare for finals as well.

Finally, while these kids do get a stipend, though not all conferences/teams offer that, they are not getting paid yet still increase their chances of injury. Some of these kids are going to play at the next level. A career ending injury due to playing when injured/fatigued is not going to go over well for those kids.

First, a number of athletes at the highest levels aren't really students, some in any sense of the word and second they play multiple rounds at the lower levels, where 99% of the players have zero realistic NFL ambitions. In high school football here in Texas, teams play 4-6 rounds if they get deep into the playoffs, including having to prepare for finals on the academic side.

So I don't want to hear it. This rationale, though not necessarily your viewpoint, is just the beat of a drum of people who don't want to change things. In a 16 team playoff, only 2 teams would play 4 extra games and only 4 would play 3 playoff games. It's not as much of a demand as it's made out to be.

(12-03-2016 10:32 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  The problem with a 10 team playoff is that the format requires a couple of teams to have a first-round bye...which will go to power conference teams and put the teams like Troy at a disadvantage. Best scenario is a 16-team playoff with 10 conference champions and 6 at-large teams to ensure there are no first-round byes.

You think the major conference teams don't want the advantage? They already have it here in the current setup. If we're being fair, then yeah, you're right but college football, much like life, isn't fair.

Why can't they just cut the regular season back to 11 games like it used to be in the old days? Everybody could just cut out that FCS game that they play in week one.

(12-04-2016 03:08 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 10:32 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  The problem with a 10 team playoff is that the format requires a couple of teams to have a first-round bye...which will go to power conference teams and put the teams like Troy at a disadvantage. Best scenario is a 16-team playoff with 10 conference champions and 6 at-large teams to ensure there are no first-round byes.

You think the major conference teams don't want the advantage? They already have it here in the current setup. If we're being fair, then yeah, you're right but college football, much like life, isn't fair.

I'm not saying they don't want the advantage.

(12-04-2016 03:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 10:11 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Still not sure why the many comparison of the NCAA basketball tournament, where #1 goes against #16, theoretically giving each team a chance with FBS. It's not as physically demanding to play two games of basketball in a long weekend as to play a 16 team tournament in football.

Add to the fact that these are students as well as athletes. They have to prepare for finals as well.

Finally, while these kids do get a stipend, though not all conferences/teams offer that, they are not getting paid yet still increase their chances of injury. Some of these kids are going to play at the next level. A career ending injury due to playing when injured/fatigued is not going to go over well for those kids.

First, a number of athletes at the highest levels aren't really students, some in any sense of the word and second they play multiple rounds at the lower levels, where 99% of the players have zero realistic NFL ambitions. In high school football here in Texas, teams play 4-6 rounds if they get deep into the playoffs, including having to prepare for finals on the academic side.

So I don't want to hear it. This rationale, though not necessarily your viewpoint, is just the beat of a drum of people who don't want to change things. In a 16 team playoff, only 2 teams would play 4 extra games and only 4 would play 3 playoff games. It's not as much of a demand as it's made out to be.

Exactly...it is 10 or 16 teams that deal with the "hardship" of extra games. That si out of 132 teams. So the other 122 teams can go study or goof off or whatever.

And only 0.05% of CFB athletes even make a roster. Throw in the fact that they live to play this game and they need to create a real CFB.

(12-02-2016 08:10 PM)UHRedcat96 Wrote:  How an Invitational works: we think you are good and lots of people will watch so come play in our tourney.

How a REAL Playoff works: win you CCG and advance. Don't win...then shut the hell up until next year.

Every conference in FBS should be represented with their champion.

Want to throw 6 "wild cards" in there, then fine. But Conference Champs should have automatic bids.

(12-02-2016 07:33 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  Lots of food for thought in this extensive article on the CFP expansion. Some key points to consider when thinking about the conference championship games:

1. Too many championship games are blowouts -> Conference Championship Game History
2. #1 vs. #2 in conference only play each other 57% of the games in FBS
3. Future of the Championship games - each commissioner's thoughts
   

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...ious-risk/

They are already meaningless. Penn St just won the Big 10 and beat OSU head to head and still was left out of the "playoff" in favor of OSU.

Why?? Bc urban Meyer and OSU get more tv eyeballs. Or some crap to that effect. What he have now is a sham.

The BCS was a sham and this 4 team playoff is a sham. Buds given by a committee. No way to win your way in.

The only way is a 16 team playoff with 10'conf champs and 6 world cards. Everyone gets a shot. Anything else is a joke and not a true champion.

All FbS conference championships would mean a lot of each received auto bids. It would be awesome

(12-04-2016 06:47 PM)UHRedcat96 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 03:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 10:11 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Still not sure why the many comparison of the NCAA basketball tournament, where #1 goes against #16, theoretically giving each team a chance with FBS. It's not as physically demanding to play two games of basketball in a long weekend as to play a 16 team tournament in football.

Add to the fact that these are students as well as athletes. They have to prepare for finals as well.

Finally, while these kids do get a stipend, though not all conferences/teams offer that, they are not getting paid yet still increase their chances of injury. Some of these kids are going to play at the next level. A career ending injury due to playing when injured/fatigued is not going to go over well for those kids.

First, a number of athletes at the highest levels aren't really students, some in any sense of the word and second they play multiple rounds at the lower levels, where 99% of the players have zero realistic NFL ambitions. In high school football here in Texas, teams play 4-6 rounds if they get deep into the playoffs, including having to prepare for finals on the academic side.

So I don't want to hear it. This rationale, though not necessarily your viewpoint, is just the beat of a drum of people who don't want to change things. In a 16 team playoff, only 2 teams would play 4 extra games and only 4 would play 3 playoff games. It's not as much of a demand as it's made out to be.

Exactly...it is 10 or 16 teams that deal with the "hardship" of extra games. That si out of 132 teams. So the other 122 teams can go study or goof off or whatever.

And only 0.05% of CFB athletes even make a roster. Throw in the fact that they live to play this game and they need to create a real CFB.

Absolutely. This crap of "student athletes can't play 4 more games" is complete hogwash. We used to play 11 games. Right now some teams play 14. No one seems too concerned.

Every other division has a 16 team playoff. Only 2 teams play an extra 4 games. 90% of the teams in D1 will play the same amount they are playing now.

Reduce the regular season back to 11 if you want.