Printable View
Nicole Auerbach from The Athletic is reporting that the CFP working group will recommend a 12-team playoff. Six conference champs and six at-large. Top four teams get a bye. First round games to be played on campus.
https://twitter.com/nicoleauerbach/s...096233473?s=21
I could get behind that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripping William
Now we’ll hear kvetching from Team 13 instead of Team 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
Hopefully no more than 2 teams allowed from any conference. I’d also like some minimum of non-power five conference teams (2+) allowed and some clear criteria on non-automatic qualifiers (e.g only one loss, only losses to automatic qualifiers).
Have also heard that the 2nd round games (quarterfinals) might be played on the campuses of the top four teams, though there are advocates for incorporating bowls somehow, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripping William
Exactly. Especially considering in basketball we hear kvetching from Teams 69, 70, 71 etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripping William
And now with this format, meaning teams 5-12 would need to win four games to win this tournament, this would mean their season would extend to how many total games? 18? Is that right? 17? As long or longer than an NFL season? Just keep feeding em into the meat grinder . . .
David Tell is also tweeting that "As an independent, Notre Dame would not be eligible for a first-round bye. Irish would have to survive four playoff games to win a national championship."
That might induce some real cogitation in South Bend.
Would rather see eight and have always thought that was the “right” number. One champ from each P5 conference and 3 at large with minimum 2 from non-P5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripping William
More kvetching?! Oy. I like the sound of this though (purely as a fan.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripping William
My heart bleeds for them then (sounds of a nano violin in the background.)Quote:
Originally Posted by hallcity
From the article (which I was able to access without a subscription):
"Six highest-ranked conference champions" is probably intended to mean the Power 5 conference champions (ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-12, SEC) plus a sixth conference champion from elsewhere. But you can imagine a situation where an unranked or low-ranked Power 5 team beats the favorite in the conference championship, and still isn't one of the six highest ranked conference champions in whatever polling system they use.Quote:
The 12-team format would include the six highest-ranked conference champions and six at-large spots.
Also, "six at-large spots" is incredibly vague. You would think "highest-ranked" would be used here, but it isn't. Who will be included? Undefeated teams not among the top 6 conference champions? One-loss Power 5 teams not in a conference championship game? Notre Dame and 5 others?
I could easily see this get compromised down to 8. The best way to expand to 8 is to ask for 12.Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie
Quote:
Originally Posted by hallcity
I am sorry/not sorry to hear about this much like Notre Dame is in/not in the ACC.
I agree with arnie the “right” number is eight.Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie
Wow, I can't believe they may actually get it right after so many decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripping William
Yes please. Ditch all the useless bowls. Get them completely out of the sport. Love it!Quote:
Originally Posted by luvdahops
I'd agree with you except that 8 doesn't get Notre Dame fully in the ACC while 12 probably does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Green
So this means that
Alabama
Clemson
Ohio State
Oklahoma
get permanent invitations to the playoffs :)
This makes sense to me. All I know is that recently it has felt some very deserving teams are getting left out. And then someone ends up, er, pooping the bed against good competition, making the frustration even stronger.Quote:
Originally Posted by brevity
Of course there will be whining from team #9, #13, #17 - whatever.
Maybe we can get Lunardi to spend all season making predictions and deciding on "locks."
I never understood why eight wasn't the number they started with. It seemed obvious. Eight teams play the traditional four big bowl games on New Year's Day, just the way we always used to do, except now the games mean something. The winners play in the semifinals the next week , which should still be before the NFL playoffs begin, and the NC game comes the week after that, scheduled in the Monday Night Football slot to avoid the NFL playoffs. You can rotate the sites of the later games around as needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie
I was always shocked they just completely bypassed the long-standing New Years games and made them entirely irrelevant.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phredd3
Given how physically demanding college football is, I just cannot see giving a team(s) a bye. Just too much of a competitive advantage. Eight has always made the most sense to me. But 16 is better than 12, IMO.
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripping William
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripping William
I mean, sure, but I won't care nearly as much (just like I don't care as much about bubble teams in the NCAAs). The goal isn't to eliminate the kvetching, the goal is just to make sure all the teams that should have a real shot/have earned a shot are included (generally this means including a couple teams that don't really have a shot, just as we see in the NCAA tournament and most professional playoffs). Team #5 has a much better case for kvetching than team #13.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy
i'm pretty sure the goal is to make more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Acymetric
The bigger the field, the more lopsided games we'll see...I guess I could see eight as being a reasonable maximum...
I mean, most of the CFP games were already about as lopsided as it gets. I truly don't think it could be much worse. I do think that in the long run it will lead to less lopsided games, as the idea that you have to go to Alabama or whatever to play in the playoffs starts to dissipate with more teams cycling in and out.Quote:
Originally Posted by budwom
Edit: In terms of parity, I actually think 4 teams lead to more stratification among the top programs than the 2 team BCS did, and is probably the worst case scenario for encouraging competitive balance (although that is total hindsight, not something I would have expected at the time).
Quote:
Originally Posted by uh_no
Surely you jest uh no...
Good point, Jim. I always thought 8 made the most sense but I could deal with 16..Quote:
Originally Posted by jimsumner
But won't 16 teams mean that the teams in the championship game will play 4 playoff games? Plus the 13 regular season/conf championship games... that's a total of 17 games... just as much as the NFL. For that reason, I think 8 teams should be the max. FWIWQuote:
Originally Posted by wsb3
The 12 team playoff is practically a 17 or more team playoff. The championship of each power 5 conference is the first round with the championship of other leagues each year being required wins to get at large bids.
Except that a 12 team playoff would certainly sometimes include SEC Championship Game losers.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkD83
16-team playoff means teams will play 17 games. Seems like a lotQuote:
Originally Posted by wsb3
I don't like the bye for the top 4 teams. 16 teams is no different than in basketball when the Number 1 seed plays a 16 seed. And yeah, once every 30 years a 1 might be upset, and we'll love it.
Personally I think 8 teams provides everyone that has a shot at winning 3 straight against top teams an opptunity and doesn’t add the unfairness of byes or extend for a 4th playoff game.
Ideally (if $ not a factor), eliminate the worthless conference championship games. The uneven strength of conference divisions often results in one of the top 2 teams in a conference not playing and creates potential for an upset that creates more problems determining who gets the coveted playoff spots. IMHO the conference championship games are the worst development in recent years.
I am trying to think through how this expanded playoff might impact the growing trend of players skipping bowl games, etc. because they are entering the draft. Part of me thinks that if a player is in a bowl game that can help their team move towards a championship vs. a random bowl game that is not as meaningful they might be more interested in playing. The flip side is that every additional game they play is another chance to get hurt and not cash in. Also, is there more value in going to do training targeted towards the combine vs. giving scouts more actual game tape to watch?
If a team seeded 5 through 12, i.e. a team that doesn't get a bye, advances to the championship game, then they would play four playoff games.Quote:
Originally Posted by gep
Cut back to an 11-game season and/or eliminate conference title games. If the health and well-being of the players matters more than the bottom line.
Ha! Ha! I crack myself up. Yes, I'll be here all week.
I'll suggest (opposite of Jim) expanding to 32 teams and do like the NHL and play every other day ! No byes, survival of the fittest.
This was my thoughts and while we are at it since conference expansion was done so we could have a conference championship- (more $$$$$) Could we return to an 8 team conference? ;) I know I am old & get off of my lawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimsumner
I thought of the same thing with Jim’s post. Then we can get back to home-and-home basketball season😎Quote:
Originally Posted by wsb3
What if we went back to eight team conferences, full schedules against your conference, home and home in basketball. Seven conference games leaves plenty of room for two non-conference games and a sixteen team playoff.Quote:
Originally Posted by gep
I know it won't happen, but...
I would even vote for a 10 team conference. 9 game home-and-home basketball… 18 games… and 9 of 12 football games in-conference. But NO MORE THAN 10. Maybe the Big 10 and eventually the PAC 10 had it right all along…
There was an article advocating for this in the Sporting News a few years ago. It went as far as to redraw the conferences. Doing this from memory, so may not be 100% accurate:Quote:
Originally Posted by gep
Had the ACC as Big 4 plus Maryland, UVA, Clemson, [South Carolina], GT and FSU
SEC, Big 10 and Pac-10 all back to pre-expansion (ex South Carolina/Arkansas/Missouri/Texas A&M, Penn State/Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers and Utah/Colorado, respectively)
Big East was Penn State, Pitt, WVU, Virginia Tech, BC, Syracuse, UConn, Rutgers, Miami and...Notre Dame
New "Southwest" was Texas, A&M, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas
New "Mountain West" was Nebraska, K-State, Iowa State, Colorado, Utah, BYU, Colorado State, Air Force, Wyoming and [Boise State]
No divisions or championship games, just a full round robin in football and full home and home schedule in basketball. Restore more traditional rivalries and geographic integrity/sensibility. Won't ever happen for economic and other reasons, but I think it would be far better for fans personally.
The FCS Playoffs expanded to 12 teams with the top 4 getting byes in 1982. The playoff is now 24 teams with the top 8 receiving first round byes. North Dakota State played 16 games in 2019 with a 12 game regular season and won 4 playoff games. Seems like the FBS could do something similar and be just fine. If they are concerned with the length of the season and want to keep conference championship games then just cut out a regular season game or two that most teams schedule an FCS or low tier FBS team anyways.
External economic forces compelled a merger into five conferences. Sure it was money -- but it was actually "survival." The ACC could have potentially withered through the loss of Clemson, FSU and UNC. The Big 12 just barely survived -- I mean, who wants to be in a conference with Texas and Oklahoma? (I keed, I keed.) It turns out that FIVE is the right number of conferences supported economically, given the media outlets and dollars. It would be four (with 16 each) plus Notre Dame as an independent except the PAC-12 can't really have 16 teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by luvdahops
The "Big 12's" bare survival evidenced that they only have ten teams, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by sagegrouse
Maybe but who are we keeping? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by gep
Not BC, Pitt, VaT or UNCheat. Assume ND not part of this either.Quote:
Originally Posted by wsb3
And FCS teams have fewer players on scholarship.Quote:
Originally Posted by mo.st.dukie
Louisville 's actions on and off the court/field have earned them an exit visa, IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie
I find it hilarious that this proposal is coming out at the same time the NCAA is desperately trying to restrict the impact of NIL rights, because it's willfully sacrificing the ability of players on these teams to make the most value from their education. In the current system, only one academic semester is impacted by football, spring practice not taking nearly as much time in the spring semester. Even a team that makes the championship game will only go a few days into the new semester, so students can underload in football season, take classes in summer and still graduate in four years. If the playoffs bleed into mid-late January, players on the last few teams will spend the rest of the semester catching up on academic work they missed. I never seriously thought that the playoffs would expand because it completely kills the student-athlete argument, but no one seems to be talking about the academic issues this expansion proposes. It looks like neither the NCAA nor the media really cares about academics except if they can get publicity out of it.
Academics!?!?
We are talking about FOOTBALL here!
Speaking of...Quote:
Originally Posted by rsvman
ESPN: North Carolina players not in favor of proposed 12-team College Football Playoff, says coach Mack Brown
Quote:
North Carolina coach Mack Brown said Thursday that during a team discussion about the expanded 12-team College Football Playoff, his players were against the format and preferred six to eight teams. "They said twelve is too many, and I understand. Most of my players can't count past ten without taking off their socks," Brown said.
During a wide-ranging Zoom with reporters, Brown mentioned that ACC commissioner Jim Phillips had asked all coaches to get feedback from players about playoff expansion.
Nice one!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by brevity
My question: who asked?Quote:
Originally Posted by brevity
Ugh.
I saw this on the ESPN front page before I saw it here and had the exact same reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15