Only 2 of the 32 NFL teams haven't made the playoffs in the past 10 years.
12 of the 32 teams have made the playoffs 5 times or more in the past 10 years.
8 different teams have won the Super Bowl in the past 10 years.

If we can get the same kind of parity in CFB, the new format would be wildly successful.

Let's say...50 different teams participating in 10 years. 25 teams making it 5 times or more. 8 different teams winning the whole thing.

That would make the arms race much more competitive...instead of this ridiculous Bama/UGA/OSU/Clemson glut we've currently got going on.

(06-30-2021 11:42 PM)micahandme Wrote:  Only 2 of the 32 NFL teams haven't made the playoffs in the past 10 years.
12 of the 32 teams have made the playoffs 5 times or more in the past 10 years.
8 different teams have won the Super Bowl in the past 10 years.

If we can get the same kind of parity in CFB, the new format would be wildly successful.

Let's say...50 different teams participating in 10 years. 25 teams making it 5 times or more. 8 different teams winning the whole thing.

That would make the arms race much more competitive...instead of this ridiculous Bama/UGA/OSU/Clemson glut we've currently got going on.

And yet in 2019, before the pandemic, NFL attendance hit a 15-year ... low. Go figure, right?

As for CFB and more teams in the playoffs, who would it be "wildly successful" for?

Any time significant change occurs, there are winners and losers. In this case, if your scenario pans out, the dominant teams would lose as they would be less dominant. Those who aren't currently dominant but who rise to dominance would win, as they would rise to dominance. That's bad/good for the teams involved, but doesn't mean much to anyone else.

As for college football overall, this is a sport that is extremely popular. A look at the amount of money in the CFP and in the TV contracts for the major conferences, and in the blizzard of games that are televised during the fall tells us that. CFB attendance is typically around 46 million. That is way more than any league except MLB. Sure we can quibble about ticket prices and butts in the seats, but that's true for every sport. In national polls, CFP often comes in third in popularity, behind the NFL and MLB but ahead of the NBA and NHL.

CFB is extremely popular *as it is*. It has always been very popularity despite having a hierarchy of dominant blue-bloods. The most dominant teams change from decade to decade - the past 10 years its been the teams you mention. In the 2000s it was USC and LSU and Florida. In the 90s it was Nebraska and FSU and Florida. In the 80s it was Miami and Notre Dame and Penn State and Oklahoma, etc. But it's always been that way.

I'm not sure there is some deep untapped well of additional support out there.

(06-21-2021 08:28 PM)micahandme Wrote:  I keep hearing "outcry" about all the added games that this new system will create..."some teams will play 17 games...that's a travesty..." they say.

Let's look at numbers.

130 FBS teams. Let's round off at 100 players per team.
12 game season equals 1560 regular season games
10 conference championship games (x2 FBS participants) equals 20 more games played

Nothing changes there.

In the old system, we had...
37 bowl games (x2 FBS participants)
3 playoff games (2 bowls, plus 1 neutral site playoff championship) (x2 FBS participants)
(TOTAL GAMES=1660)

In the new system, we will have...
33 bowl games (x2 FBS participants)
11 playoff games (assuming 6 bowls are used, four home-field first round games, plus one neutral site playoff championship) (x2 FBS participants)
(TOTAL GAMES=1668)

So, in the old system, the average team played 12.77 games per season.
In the new system, the average team will play 12.83 games per season.

******
To look at the numbers a different way, let's say all four of the semifinal participants played 16 games at the end of the season. (Very likely with 1st round byes, and two teams losing in the semis). Those four teams played 64 games.

That means, 400 of the 13,000 FBS players will play 16 games in the season. (.03% of FBS players)
12,600 of the remaining FBS players will average 12.73 games in the season. (99.97% of FBS players)

The argument begins and ends with: If the FCS, where players have almost zero shot at playing professionally, can manage their season, then the subdivision that is basically running an NFL internship program should be able to manage.

(07-01-2021 08:12 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  The argument begins and ends with: If the FCS, where players have almost zero shot at playing professionally, can manage their season, then the subdivision that is basically running an NFL internship program should be able to manage.

The bolded take is wildly inaccurate. Would think an ECU fan would understand that firsthand. Weird ignorant FCS potshots aside, your larger point is correct.

(07-01-2021 09:41 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  

(07-01-2021 08:12 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  The argument begins and ends with: If the FCS, where players have almost zero shot at playing professionally, can manage their season, then the subdivision that is basically running an NFL internship program should be able to manage.

The bolded take is wildly inaccurate. Would think an ECU fan would understand that firsthand. Weird ignorant FCS potshots aside, your larger point is correct.

On current NFL Rosters (including all the undrafted rookies), ECU has 6 (most UDFA)

7 FCS schools have as many or more, with another dozen with 4 or 5.

The overwhelming majority are from P5 programs

Argument that FCS is just as dangerous as FBS or pee wee league for that matter because of pitting equal competition together doesn’t hold weight for me. I’d need to get some numbers to support that, but the fact that speed*weight = momentum means FBS is inherently more dangerous. Likewise, NFL likely way more dangerous than FBS apportioned. So extra week or two of high intensity games is potentially threatening dozens of athletes in terms of draft position every year. Does this matter to TV execs? No… but like I said, it’s an excuse the Presidents and old Bowl Guard will use to kill or at least limit expansion.

That said I do like the proposal, but it seems a bit overkill in terms of the regular season being marginalized among other reasons.

(07-01-2021 07:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-30-2021 11:42 PM)micahandme Wrote:  Only 2 of the 32 NFL teams haven't made the playoffs in the past 10 years.
12 of the 32 teams have made the playoffs 5 times or more in the past 10 years.
8 different teams have won the Super Bowl in the past 10 years.

If we can get the same kind of parity in CFB, the new format would be wildly successful.

Let's say...50 different teams participating in 10 years. 25 teams making it 5 times or more. 8 different teams winning the whole thing.

That would make the arms race much more competitive...instead of this ridiculous Bama/UGA/OSU/Clemson glut we've currently got going on.

And yet in 2019, before the pandemic, NFL attendance hit a 15-year ... low. Go figure, right?

As for CFB and more teams in the playoffs, who would it be "wildly successful" for?

Any time significant change occurs, there are winners and losers. In this case, if your scenario pans out, the dominant teams would lose as they would be less dominant. Those who aren't currently dominant but who rise to dominance would win, as they would rise to dominance. That's bad/good for the teams involved, but doesn't mean much to anyone else.

As for college football overall, this is a sport that is extremely popular. A look at the amount of money in the CFP and in the TV contracts for the major conferences, and in the blizzard of games that are televised during the fall tells us that. CFB attendance is typically around 46 million. That is way more than any league except MLB. Sure we can quibble about ticket prices and butts in the seats, but that's true for every sport. In national polls, CFP often comes in third in popularity, behind the NFL and MLB but ahead of the NBA and NHL.

CFB is extremely popular *as it is*. It has always been very popularity despite having a hierarchy of dominant blue-bloods. The most dominant teams change from decade to decade - the past 10 years its been the teams you mention. In the 2000s it was USC and LSU and Florida. In the 90s it was Nebraska and FSU and Florida. In the 80s it was Miami and Notre Dame and Penn State and Oklahoma, etc. But it's always been that way.

I'm not sure there is some deep untapped well of additional support out there.

I don't think there's much that can happen that can make the fan support of "gladiator sports" go down. Football, rugby...these are physical, high excitement team games that are exciting for fans even of winless teams squaring off.

Where the fan support can increase is in November and December/Jan 1. Tell Philly Bob that Penn State (7-2) is playing Michigan State (6-3) in the current system...and he doesn't care much. Probably not a Big Ten title on the line. At best, they're playing to get a New Year's Six bowl. But tell Philly Bob about that game with an at-large bid on the line...and he might turn on the TV.

And then, if Penn State gets into the playoff, and they're playing a game in mid-December against--let's say--Texas A/M...that's a newly created game that Philly Bob also wants to watch. He didn't care much about an Outback Bowl against Texas A/M, which was only for bragging rights.

The regular season should be marginalized, because, well, it’s regular!

A playoff showcases the hottest teams at the end of the season. I don’t know if Carolina would have made a 12 team playoff or not, but they were smoking at the end of the regular season. Had they been in a playoff, the best players wouldn’t have opted out.

(07-01-2021 08:12 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 08:28 PM)micahandme Wrote:  I keep hearing "outcry" about all the added games that this new system will create..."some teams will play 17 games...that's a travesty..." they say.

Let's look at numbers.

130 FBS teams. Let's round off at 100 players per team.
12 game season equals 1560 regular season games
10 conference championship games (x2 FBS participants) equals 20 more games played

Nothing changes there.

In the old system, we had...
37 bowl games (x2 FBS participants)
3 playoff games (2 bowls, plus 1 neutral site playoff championship) (x2 FBS participants)
(TOTAL GAMES=1660)

In the new system, we will have...
33 bowl games (x2 FBS participants)
11 playoff games (assuming 6 bowls are used, four home-field first round games, plus one neutral site playoff championship) (x2 FBS participants)
(TOTAL GAMES=1668)

So, in the old system, the average team played 12.77 games per season.
In the new system, the average team will play 12.83 games per season.

******
To look at the numbers a different way, let's say all four of the semifinal participants played 16 games at the end of the season. (Very likely with 1st round byes, and two teams losing in the semis). Those four teams played 64 games.

That means, 400 of the 13,000 FBS players will play 16 games in the season. (.03% of FBS players)
12,600 of the remaining FBS players will average 12.73 games in the season. (99.97% of FBS players)

The argument begins and ends with: If the FCS, where players have almost zero shot at playing professionally, can manage their season, then the subdivision that is basically running an NFL internship program should be able to manage.

Well, most seasons FCS teams only play 11 regular season games and 4 playoff games. Theres not 12 regular games + CCG like in FBS. And when they do play more games the max they play is 16 games. 15 games more often than not.

Thats the finalists.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...mack-brown

UNC lobbies against 12-team playoff.

Just as I suspected, the Presidents will cite concerns from “players” (bowl reps and ESPin execs exclusively) and get more players and coaches on record with similar sentiment. 12-team playoff will be tabled I suspect.

(07-08-2021 01:10 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...mack-brown

UNC lobbies against 12-team playoff.

Just as I suspected, the Presidents will cite concerns from “players” (bowl reps and ESPin execs exclusively) and get more players and coaches on record with similar sentiment. 12-team playoff will be tabled I suspect.

Yeah, I’ve been highly doubtful this awesome model would actually get across the finish line. And I think it getting floated out there so the actual stakeholders, the schools, can nix it would be purposeful, too. Get it to creep to 6 or 8, and then sit on that number for as long as they can milk the argument that at one time, 12 was deemed too much.

I’m already out on the current level because of how badly broken it is. It’s going to take either that 12-team field or AQ for the top six conference champs to get me back. Have it looking more like the FCS model, who’s strangely fine with a larger field? AQ’s to top four CCG champs and at-large’s for another 2-4 teams is just more of the same BS.

I think it’s more likely to be 6+2 vs 4+4 if they dial back the number, but then it becomes SEC and B1G ND vs G5 given only 2 At-Large spots, and we know who wins that argument. 6+2 may not be tenable. No chance a G5 would ever be in the mix for an At-Large with only two spots up for grabs.

This 12 team model works fine. The problem is the calendar and the Rose/Sugar Bowl on a fixed date every year. Until they sort that out, I don’t see this model working on any level. In fact, the calendar isn’t completely solved with 8 teams unless they play that 1st round at campus sites as outlined for seeds 5-12, with no byes. The Rose Bowl will reject the proposal.

(07-08-2021 08:19 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I think it’s more likely to be 6+2 vs 4+4 if they dial back the number, but then it becomes SEC and B1G ND vs G5 given only 2 At-Large spots, and we know who wins that argument. 6+2 may not be tenable. No chance a G5 would ever be in the mix for an At-Large with only two spots up for grabs.

There's little difference between the negligible chance of a Go5 getting an at-large spot with the 6+6 model and the even MORE negligible chance of a Go5 getting an at-large sport with a 6+2 model. The odds in either case are lower than the odds of two Go5 champions being in the 6, and that is a once in a decade or less long shot.

IOW, to pick arbitrary numbers, 0.4% might be four times the odds of 0.1%, but the absolute odds makes the proportional difference irrelevant.

The Go5 conferences and the CFP management committee are going to vote for the 6+6 or 6+2 if it comes up for a vote on a new structure in a contract extension, but they are only one among many set of parties that the CFP has contractual commitments with. If the 6+6 ends up having a blocking veto from some contractual party to the current CFP that cannot be fixed by fiddling with the payment structure, then seeing whether a 6+2 can be worked out that can buy off any blocking vetoes would become the next order of business.

And if that cannot be worked out, it starts over at 6+6 in the next round of the CFP contract negotiations.