Alabama was clearly the best team in the nation this year. So why the need to expand the playoff. Should they have to win three more games to prove that.

I know other years etc.

(01-31-2021 04:35 PM)texoma Wrote:  Alabama was clearly the best team in the nation this year. So why the need to expand the playoff. Should they have to win three more games to prove that.

I know other years etc.

An 8 team playoff would've only meant 1 more game. It's only a small percentage of people who are pushing for anything more than that.

(01-31-2021 04:35 PM)texoma Wrote:  Alabama was clearly the best team in the nation this year. So why the need to expand the playoff. Should they have to win three more games to prove that.

I know other years etc.

While I agree Bama was clearly the best team, expansion of the playoff is going to be necessary at some point to keep the sport from drying up. Even if teams 5-8 never win a CFP game, you are engaging more people in different parts of the country for a little while longer.

alabama is where all the kids want to play becouse of the way it’s set up but if it changes to a real playoff then the recruiting talent will spread out across the country and schools like houston would dominate little bitty schools like a alabame, even with a banjo on its knee

of course the “ pay for players “, is why all bets are off!
this could bring the whole cfp house of cards crashing down real soon so i don’t want to speculate actually at this time, i mean we all have to take it into account when talking about this subject or any college sports related conversations
the pay for players is the 80,000lb elephant interring the room through a 36” door and is clearly too small and is obviously going to destroy everything as it enters

(01-31-2021 04:35 PM)texoma Wrote:  Alabama was clearly the best team in the nation this year. So why the need to expand the playoff. Should they have to win three more games to prove that.

I know other years etc.

Ratings are going down because we're sick of seeing the same 5-6 teams making the playoff every year. Eventually, only fans of those schools will care much about the CFP. There needs to be more representation from other regions and conferences if the CFP is going to grow its audience and gain near-universal support as true college football championship. The current model is a farce when half of the FBS is basically disqualified from sniffing the playoff due to conference affiliation. Unless you're a fan of Alabama, OSU, Clemson, Oklahoma, and maybe a few others like LSU, ND, and Georgia, you should be in favor of expansion.

Also, not expanding the playoff won't just negatively impact the TV ratings of the playoff itself. The current model continues to push a further divide from the haves and the have-nots. If the current systems continues to remain in place, the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world will just continue to widen the gap between them and everyone else, and college football will become less and less competitive -- and less interesting. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. College football is shooting itself in the foot long term by trying to shove only a small handful of big name schools down our throats in the short term.

(01-31-2021 06:08 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Also, not expanding the playoff won't just negatively impact the TV ratings of the playoff itself. The current model continues to push a further divide from the haves and the have-nots. If the current systems continues to remain in place, the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world will just continue to widen the gap between them and everyone else, and college football will become less and less competitive -- and less interesting. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. College football is shooting itself in the foot long term by trying to shove only a small handful of big name schools down our throats in the short term.

when the bidding starts for new recruits all this cfp nonsense will disappear and a new set of problems will emerge

I don't want more than 8 teams. The depth of quality in football simply isn't there. Those that follow FCS, D2 and D3 know how small the pool of actual title contenders is. This thought that an expanded playoff will spread out the talent has proven to be inaccurate at those levels. I'm a HUGE fan of FCS yet a major gripe I have is the playoff system. There's so many meaningless games with 24 teams its' become rather depressing. Having the true 2 or 3 contenders (those that can compete with NDSU aka the Alabama of FCS) risk injury against a bunch of participation trophy bracket fillers does nothing to improve the process of crowning a champion. As others have said, football is not basketball. You can go from 64 teams to 16 in what amounts to a long weekend. The risk of injury, while there, is no where close to what it is in football.

The old voting/BCS system was easily the most favorable for smaller programs. Public sentiment and the desire to see the underdog succeed carried weight back in the day. The final rankings for TCU, Boise State, Utah, BYU etc. prior to the playoff help to solidify that point.

(01-31-2021 06:08 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Also, not expanding the playoff won't just negatively impact the TV ratings of the playoff itself. The current model continues to push a further divide from the haves and the have-nots. If the current systems continues to remain in place, the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world will just continue to widen the gap between them and everyone else, and college football will become less and less competitive -- and less interesting. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. College football is shooting itself in the foot long term by trying to shove only a small handful of big name schools down our throats in the short term.

Professional sports would not stand for a model like this. They would look at this and blow it up immediately. We would have a much larger playoff because they know that having a select few dominant teams is unhealthy for the sport. They want as much parity as possible.

Expanding it incrementally to six or eight is not going to do much of anything but prolong the inevitable. It’s going to continue to expand over time. The goal should be to eliminate as much disputes as possible, not just get it right. No one would dispute that Alabama was clearly the best team this year, but there was a dispute over Cincy and how the G5 has been getting left out. So when we get to six teams or eight, there will just be more disputes and they’ll expand again in a few years. Wait and see.

(01-31-2021 03:39 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:37 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  P5 champ auto bid and three at larges, but with the stipulation that we go back to the BCS rankings. If a G5 team isn't good enough to sneak into that then we probably don't need to see them in a likely 1st round game against Bama. It would likely be a blood letting.

BCS formula approach won't work anymore because the poll voters have been conditioned into all the strength of schedule, quality loss bull****. Look at how UCF was ranked in the polls in 2017/2018, when we would have been Top 5 in the AP in years past.

Here's the problem with that line of attack. Regarding computers, in 2017, UCF was ranked #9 in the Massey Composite before their bowl game. In 2018, UCF was ranked #8 at the same point.

In contrast, in 2009, "G5" TCU was ranked #4 in the MC before their bowl while Boise was #7. In 2010, TCU, still in the non-AQ camp, was #3 while Boise was #5 going in to the bowls.

So according to the computers alone, non-AQ teams like TCU and Boise were regarded as significantly better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018, or Cincy in 2019. The best G5 teams of today just are not as good as the best G5 teams of a decade ago, and that explains the lower human poll rankings, not some mystical influence of the CFP.

I prefer 16 teams (10 conference champs and 6 at large) with first round on campus, second round at NY6 sites, third round final four (Rose and Sugar) and then championship game. This would fun great TV and make it fair and open to everyone.

(01-31-2021 08:06 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I prefer 16 teams (10 conference champs and 6 at large) with first round on campus, second round at NY6 sites, third round final four (Rose and Sugar) and then championship game. This would fun great TV and make it fair and open to everyone.

I would take that in a heartbeat. People would say #1 would kill #16. Even if they did, I wouldn’t care. It would make regular season in all the conferences so much better, because a lot would be on the line if you lose, especially in the G5.

I'm with Kirby Smart, let's go to 12 ... or 16.

24 team playoff with all 10 conference champs getting an automatic bid.

Since there are currently a load of meaningless bowl games & ESPN controls most all of them (as well as the current CFP championship), I do not understand why ESPN doesn't build a structure that makes most of them a relevant part of a football playoff system. The games are being played anyway, this would make now-irrelevant games meaningful. That would greatly reduce the number of players opting out, increase viewers, increase revenue & provide a path, even if remote, to all FBS schools to an eventual championship game. Even make it 2-3 tiers if necessary to get P-5 buy-in but it would immediately make most all of the bowls relevant, substantially increase revenue for all parties, give those schools outside of the P-5 opportunity & result in a real national championship.

(02-01-2021 08:46 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Since there are currently a load of meaningless bowl games & ESPN controls most all of them (as well as the current CFP championship), I do not understand why ESPN doesn't build a structure that makes most of them a relevant part of a football playoff system. The games are being played anyway, this would make now-irrelevant games meaningful.

It seems to me that because the games are being played, someone at least does find them meaningful in some sense.

For my part, I *love* the "bowl mania" bowl season, I tune in to as many minor bowls as I can. Nothing better on say a December 23rd afternoon than watching a 7-5 CUSA team play a 6-6 MAC team in the Cherry Tart Cherry Bowl or whatever. Love it. And others must too, because ESPN keeps airing the games.

I do not want CFB to become like the NFL, and expanded playoffs will make CFB like the NFL. I love the NFL, but one NFL is enough, IMO. and copying the NFL will just turn CFB in to "minor league football", which I believe will hurt the sport not help it. College football is "big time" because it is different from the NFL.

(01-31-2021 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:39 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(01-31-2021 03:37 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  P5 champ auto bid and three at larges, but with the stipulation that we go back to the BCS rankings. If a G5 team isn't good enough to sneak into that then we probably don't need to see them in a likely 1st round game against Bama. It would likely be a blood letting.

BCS formula approach won't work anymore because the poll voters have been conditioned into all the strength of schedule, quality loss bull****. Look at how UCF was ranked in the polls in 2017/2018, when we would have been Top 5 in the AP in years past.

Here's the problem with that line of attack. Regarding computers, in 2017, UCF was ranked #9 in the Massey Composite before their bowl game. In 2018, UCF was ranked #8 at the same point.

In contrast, in 2009, "G5" TCU was ranked #4 in the MC before their bowl while Boise was #7. In 2010, TCU, still in the non-AQ camp, was #3 while Boise was #5 going in to the bowls.

So according to the computers alone, non-AQ teams like TCU and Boise were regarded as significantly better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018, or Cincy in 2019. The best G5 teams of today just are not as good as the best G5 teams of a decade ago, and that explains the lower human poll rankings, not some mystical influence of the CFP.

Different time my man. How you cant see that is simply ignoring the basic facts of how the worst biases of the Committee have bled into the polls and computer models.

In 2009 TCU's best P5 win that season was a 14-10 squeaker over a 5 loss Clemson team. TCU only played two ranked teams in 2009---both G5's. TCU went 1-1 in those top 25 games (lost to Boise, beat Utah)---yet still finished at #6. Anyone think a one loss AAC team would finish at #6 today? Give me a freaking break.

Boise went undefeated in 2009 beating #16 Oregon (P5) in the first game of the season. Boise would not play another P5 or ranked team all year and would rise to #6 prior to the bowls. They defeated TCU (G5 at the time) to finish #4 at 14-0.

Now---contrast that to the CFP era. In 2017 UCF went undefeated, had 2 top 25 wins (both G5), and had a P5 win over Maryland. They entered bowl season ranked 10th. They defeated #7 Auburn (a P5) and finished the year at #7.

So--just to review, TCU lost a game, played a weaker schedule---and still finished ahead of UCF. Boise went undefeated and played a ranked G5 in their bowl (squeaking by the the aforementioned TCU) and was given the #4 rank at the end of the year. Meanwhile an undefeated UCF with 3 top 25 wins, 2 P5 wins--the best of which is a solid win over #7 Auburn in their bowl game---and yet UCF finished lower than a one-loss TCU in 2009?

Dont tell me its not different today because, objectively---its quite different. Today, that 2009 TCU team would finish more around where the 2018 UCF finished (#12--at best). That Boise team would be lucky to finish where UCF did in 2017 (#7).

(01-31-2021 06:08 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Also, not expanding the playoff won't just negatively impact the TV ratings of the playoff itself. The current model continues to push a further divide from the haves and the have-nots. If the current systems continues to remain in place, the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world will just continue to widen the gap between them and everyone else, and college football will become less and less competitive -- and less interesting. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. College football is shooting itself in the foot long term by trying to shove only a small handful of big name schools down our throats in the short term.

Bolded, I agree. And it will take a little more time for TV ratings to reflect that. I had zero cheering interest in any of those teams this year and didn't watch.

There were a number of reasonable explanations for why the Peach Bowl had such a large audience last month. But certainly among them, a traditional power such as Georgia taking on a highly ranked Cincinnati team that many college football fans may have never seen play and certainly believed couldn't battle the Bulldogs even up. Must see TV with the Bearcats holding a lead with five seconds remaining.

There are certainly a dozen excellent teams in any given year, yet we only get to see four compete for a "championship" and that group gets winnowed down to four from a very shallow pool historically. Imagine the absurdity of the NCAA Tourney inviting just sixteen schools as it was still doing in the 1960's? Too much talent today in basketball and football to be so limiting.

(02-01-2021 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 08:46 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Since there are currently a load of meaningless bowl games & ESPN controls most all of them (as well as the current CFP championship), I do not understand why ESPN doesn't build a structure that makes most of them a relevant part of a football playoff system. The games are being played anyway, this would make now-irrelevant games meaningful.

It seems to me that because the games are being played, someone at least does find them meaningful in some sense.

For my part, I *love* the "bowl mania" bowl season, I tune in to as many minor bowls as I can. Nothing better on say a December 23rd afternoon than watching a 7-5 CUSA team play a 6-6 MAC team in the Cherry Tart Cherry Bowl or whatever. Love it. And others must too, because ESPN keeps airing the games.

I do not want CFB to become like the NFL, and expanded playoffs will make CFB like the NFL. I love the NFL, but one NFL is enough, IMO. and copying the NFL will just turn CFB in to "minor league football", which I believe will hurt the sport not help it. College football is "big time" because it is different from the NFL.

Honestly, I'm fine with going back to a time before the BCS when there was often not a unanimous national champion and it was luck of the contractual draw about whether there would be a #1 vs #2 matchup. Part of the charm of CFB was the debate about national titles as well as the meaningfulness of bowl season. Although this really screwed me as a Florida State fan (and eventual alumnus) in 1996 when the Noles should have played Arizona State for the title instead of UF getting a rematch.

I agree with you that CFB is perhaps losing its luster because of the CFP, but I think that is driven more by the fact that we are in the worst possible playoff setup than it is by there being a playoff at all. All of the talent is now gravitating to about 6 or 8 programs, the only ones with real shots at winning the CFP every year. And near everyone except the fans of those teams (and maybe some of them as well) are tired of the same matchups every year.

An expanded playoff allows talent to gravitate back to multiple schools. Nothing would do more for AAC schools than to have an autobid. We can offer a lot of the amenities of P5 schools with a more realistic shot of playing for a playoff title than the mid-tier P5 schools to whom we currently lose recruits. Changing the playoff structure will fundamentally change the talent distribution from the clustering effect the CFP has caused.