I could be misremembering, but I think I've been told that teams need more than a week to prepare (also logistics), but I seen the FCS playoffs have their selection show today with their 1st round starting on Saturday (a 6 day turnaround for 16 teams) and have been doing this since the FCS playoffs expanded to 24 teams in 2013 without issue besides Covid. To me, if they can do it, I don't see what it should be an issue for FBS teams to start the CFP the week after CCG weekend (allowing the top 4 to host on campus) or add a round of a couple play-in games featuring non-CCG teams starting in 2026 in a 12 team CFP. Maybe there's stuff I'm missing, but figured this thread could be for discussion.

My high school's team started playoffs the week after the regular season ended.

If high school players can do it, college players can do it.

It's going to be a mess as long as bowls are involved.

I think it has more to do with ticket sales and TV schedules. In FCS and hs football, none of that really matters, at least not very much. CFP games are an event, more akin to the Super Bowl than a local high school or FCS playoff game.

Yes, its all about accommodating the fans more than the teams themselves. That's why it was so easy to schedule and re-schedule games at the last minute during the Covid season season. Because there were no fans at the game.

(11-19-2023 01:04 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I think it has more to do with ticket sales and TV schedules. In FCS and hs football, none of that really matters, at least not very much. CFP games are an event, more akin to the Super Bowl than a local high school or FCS playoff game.

Agreed. Make no mistake that there is one single reason why the CFP expanded in the first place: to make the most money possible.

At the same time, from a pure competitive standpoint, there will likely be a mix of CCG losers and non-CCG participants (and even a CCG winner from the G5) playing in the first round. A fair system shouldn’t be disadvantaging the CCG losers with a 1-week turnaround having to play non-CCG participants that got an extra week of rest. That issue is mitigated/eliminated if you guarantee that every team in the first round has had at least 10 or so days of rest.

Just another game, right? There's film out there on anybody. I doubt that there's somebody out there that doesn't know what you're going to get with the other teams.

It's too important for a single week turnaround. And it would disadvantage schools who made their CCGs to have to play right away against those with an extra week or two off (e.g., Notre Dame or 3rd place schools from the B1G or SEC). It's not just scouting and game prep, but recovering from injuries and conditioning imbalances. Pro football and FCS (no CCGs) do not have the last week off issue FBS does. Can you imagine, the incentive would be there for Alabama, Ohio State and others to end their schedule a week early to have two weeks off before the playoff.  

Between the competitive unfairness an immediate playoff game would cause, combined with lack of promotional time, ticket sales, travel plans, etc, it's just a bad idea all around.

(11-19-2023 03:59 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  ... It's not just scouting and game prep, but recovering from injuries and conditioning imbalances. Pro football and FCS (no CCGs) do not have the last week off issue FBS does. ...

The competitive imbalance is part of the argument, though I reckon accommodating fans was the decisive factor. There is a much bigger relative difference in recovery from pulls and strains between 1 and 2 weeks off versus 2 and 3 weeks.

FBS does 1-week turn around on CCGs, so the gap is not necessary for the sport. It is the calendar. Early December is Finals (remember those?) and the beginning of breaks and campuses may not be suited for a quick turn around, at least not for that many people.

Neutral sites would help. Experience from a few years of doing it would help. A shame the first years on the new contract are the tightest, calendar-wise.