Sources: SEC, Big Ten building momentum to further expand College Football Playoff to 14 or 16 teams

[PurposePitch]

Here is is my fundamental point. I don't want weaker teams getting in simply because they won their conference. Obviously that is not an issue with the B10 and SEC. If you go to 16 that won't be an issue with the B12 and ACC champ either. Where I have the issue are all the other conferences and this G5 requirement. Bogus. That is why it is cleaner in my mind instead of saying the conf champs from the Power 4 are auto qualifiers and no one else just say no one is an auto qualifier and they are all "invited" in.

College basketball is unique. If they went to just a 16 team format with no auto qualifiers it would end up being whatever your top 16 are today in the rankings or at the end of the season. That would be a terrible model to adopt for college basketball. I get that. College football is different. You can't have 68 teams or whatever it is. The # of playoff spots is limited or "precious". So you need to get to the top 16 in the country.

With all due respect, your fundamental point sucks, and is the antithesis of true athletic competition. You want a beauty pageant that works in an exclusionary way, to increase the barriers to competition for all but a select few.

If you want that, then formally break free from the rest of the teams.

 

[joeaubie21]

It can be an issue with the Big 12 and ACC. The SEC and Big Ten are going to be playing themselves and the other power conference. Who are the Big 12 and ACC going to be playing?

The B12 and ACC will be playing with themselves.

 

[lazydave841]

then formally break free from the rest of the teams.

This is eventually going to happen. It's truthfully just a matter of what dominoes fall first and how it shakes out.

 

[PurposePitch]

This is eventually going to happen. It's truthfully just a matter of what dominoes fall first and how it shakes out.

At this point, it's likely for the best, since those in charge couldn't give a poop about the student portion of the student-athlete, and it may force the "also rans" to refocus on academics, while the minor league teams pretend to be affiliated with an institution of higher learning. The more universities that get back to that focus, and offer athletics as an extracurricular activity, the better.

 

[dailybuck777]

Name another sport that doesn't include conference winners..

Name another sport where the players are required to be in school. Name another sport where the fourth ranked team in the conference is clearly the best team in the playoffs.

 

[LandoComando]

Name another sport where the players are required to be in school. Name another sport where the fourth ranked team in the conference is clearly the best team in the playoffs.

Every college sport for your first question that's why I said conference not division
Stop losing to Michigan for no reason and they won't be 4th but that's why a large playoff matters...its not supposed to be about being perfect

 

[ryoder1]

Why 16 though? If it's 16 we obvious won't include all conference winners because the conferences that matter and TV networks aren't running a charity. This is also why 16 doesn't work in FBS today. Just like 12 wasn't enough.

I don't advocate for 16, just using that number. I would be happy with 8.

 

[PSUSignore]

Again just simply pick the top 16 teams. If a G5 team is in there great, if not that is reality and tough for them. There are metrics to help and strength of schedule to pick these teams. Just automatically allowing these conference champions from weak conferences in a playoff makes no sense.

It's an impossible task to pick the top 16 teams under the current CFB landscape, given all of the different conference affiliations, conference scheduling differences, lack of head to head matchups, etc. Impossible to get it right. IMPOSSIBLE. Anyone that thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. If you choose subjectively the likelihood of excluding an outstanding G5 team is extremely high, as everyone views them as inferior on paper and given their conference schedules they will never have a chance to prove they might be better than one of the P4 conference teams because they don't play each other. The subjective bar for a G5 time is considerably higher than that for a P4 team. The only way a G5 gets in is going undefeated and hopefully they did so in a year where they were fortunate to have a good non-conference win on their schedule, a schedule they probably made a decade earlier. It's objectively unfair to them.

The better format to ensuring the top teams are included is to take the best from each conference, where all teams competing in said conference share the same scheduling rules, and are more likely to have relevant head to head matchups, then let those conference winners battle it out.

 

[PSUSignore]

Here is is my fundamental point. I don't want weaker teams getting in simply because they won their conference. Obviously that is not an issue with the B10 and SEC. If you go to 16 that won't be an issue with the B12 and ACC champ either. Where I have the issue are all the other conferences and this G5 requirement. Bogus. That is why it is cleaner in my mind instead of saying the conf champs from the Power 4 are auto qualifiers and no one else just say no one is an auto qualifier and they are all "invited" in.

College basketball is unique. If they went to just a 16 team format with no auto qualifiers it would end up being whatever your top 16 are today in the rankings or at the end of the season. That would be a terrible model to adopt for college basketball. I get that. College football is different. You can't have 68 teams or whatever it is. The # of playoff spots is limited or "precious". So you need to get to the top 16 in the country.

Your fundamental point revolves around assuming a team is weaker just because of the makeup of their roster and the conference they play in. There can be years where a G5 teams catches lightning in a bottle and has a better TEAM, even if they don't have the same level of individual talent, as teams in P4 conferences. But you would never even give those teams a chance to prove it because of your bias against the G5. The only objective way to settle it is to give all conference champs from the same division an opportunity to play in the playoffs.

 

[dailybuck777]

Every college sport for your first question that's why I said conference not division

There is no college sport remotely close to the way college football works. I thought you were referring to pro sports.

 

[ryoder1]

Your fundamental point revolves around assuming a team is weaker just because of the makeup of their roster and the conference they play in. There can be years where a G5 teams catches lightning in a bottle and has a better TEAM, even if they don't have the same level of individual talent, as teams in P4 conferences. But you would never even give those teams a chance to prove it because of your bias against the G5. The only objective way to settle it is to give all conference champs from the same division an opportunity to play in the playoffs.

Those teams are weaker year in and out. Is any G5 team seriously contending for a title? No. I guess Cincinnati made it a few years ago and then looked like they did not belong on the same field as Bama.

We should make the playoff smaller. Go to 8 teams. I don't want 4th place Power 4 teams in either.

Let the G5 teams compete in a separate playoff.

I like the idea of creating a division for the top 48 teams or maybe 40, not sure. This is basically the Big Ten and the SEC as we know it today. The best of the ACC and B12 and ND. It could just all fold into the B10 and SEC. The ACC and B12 go away but their stronger football programs get picked up by the B10 or SEC for example.

All the remaining schools including these G5 programs are in another division with their own playoff. I can see programs like Duke, Stanford, Cal, UVA, Kansas, etc not making the cut for the top 40 or 48.

 

[LandoComando]

There is no college sport remotely close to the way college football works. I thought you were referring to pro sports.

Start with FCS

 

[LandoComando]

I don't advocate for 16, just using that number. I would be happy with 8.

8 doesn't work. You can't go down. Playoffs will only expand

 

[ryoder1]

8 doesn't work. You can't go down. Playoffs will only expand

Oh I know. It will never go down but I think that is a good number. Eliminates fringe teams who have no shot.

 

[dailybuck777]

Start with FCS

Quality of play, effort required and money involved has absolutely nothing to do with Big Time college football.

 

[OzLion]

Those teams are weaker year in and out. ....

We should make the playoff smaller. Go to 8 teams. ....

I see your point, but the real problem is that the CF regular season does not provide enough data to determine who the strongest and weakest teams are because:

1) The OOC schedules are often jokes mostly feature non-competitive games

2) Teams are separated into conferences, and it's really hard to tell from year to year which conference has the strongest teams

3) Now with 16+ teams per conference, it is not even easy to determine the best team within a conference

4) College teams change with time, our ratings systems don't allow for a team like PSU '16, which started out slow but grew into an outstanding team.

There are also pros and cons to adding to the number of playoff teams. Experience showed that it was impossible with a typical college season to ask a committee or a computer system to pick two, or four, teams that were the obvious best four. Our first try with 12 I think captured the best four without dispute, but also brought in a couple that clearly weren't close to being top-four. If you bring in too many teams, you run the risk of one of the top four being knocked out due to a fluke upset, which is allot of fun but maybe not what you really want.

For math geeks, a plot of P (probability of having a "final four" with the a best four teams) as function of N (number of teams in the playoffs) has a maximum or optimum value. When N is too small, you are likely to fail to pick the best four, when N is too larger, you are likely to have one of the best teams knocked out early by bad luck (like Oregon this year, maybe). We don't know where the optimum is, but between 8 and 12 is likely. I would keep the playoffs at 16 or less.

 

[ryoder1]

I see your point, but the real problem is that the CF regular season does not provide enough data to determine who the strongest and weakest teams are because:

1) The OOC schedules are often jokes mostly feature non-competitive games

2) Teams are separated into conferences, and it's really hard to tell from year to year which conference has the strongest teams

3) Now with 16+ teams per conference, it is not even easy to determine the best team within a conference

4) College teams change with time, our ratings systems don't allow for a team like PSU '16, which started out slow but grew into an outstanding team.

There are also pros and cons to adding to the number of playoff teams. Experience showed that it was impossible with a typical college season to ask a committee or a computer system to pick two, or four, teams that were the obvious best four. Our first try with 12 I think captured the best four without dispute, but also brought in a couple that clearly weren't close to being top-four. If you bring in too many teams, you run the risk of one of the top four being knocked out due to a fluke upset, which is allot of fun but maybe not what you really want.

For math geeks, a plot of P (probability of having a "final four" with the a best four teams) as function of N (number of teams in the playoffs) has a maximum or optimum value. When N is too small, you are likely to fail to pick the best four, when N is too larger, you are likely to have one of the best teams knocked out early by bad luck (like Oregon this year, maybe). We don't know where the optimum is, but between 8 and 12 is likely. I would keep the playoffs at 16 or less.

I struggle with the contention that we really don't know if a non power 4 team is good or not and could beat the top power 4 teams. We do know this. They play weak schedules and are not as good. Good defined by an elite team making an 8 team playoff. Certainly not top 8 good.

This year I don't see a Boise State escaping a B10 schedule or SEC schedule no better than 3 losses. Could very well be 4. This is not a playoff team.

If it is a 16 team playoff then yeah Boise could get in but you can't add all these G5 champions. Who were they this year?

Army
Jacksonville State
Ohio
Oregon State
Marshall

No way do any of them need to be in a playoff with the likes of Penn State, Ohio State, Texas, Georgia, ND, etc.

 

[Obliviax]

Reports are B1G and SEC is creating a super conference for football. No word if NCAA is involved

 

[dailybuck777]

I see your point, but the real problem is that the CF regular season does not provide enough data to determine who the strongest and weakest teams

With 12 teams, virtually always, you will include the best team for that year. Because ascertaining how good the teams from the lesser conferences are cannot be done perfectly does not mean that it cannot be done well. We have enough data over the last 20 years or so to have a good idea of whether any of the lesser teams are deserving of being in the playoffs. Can you name any lesser team ranked outside of the top 12 that realistically had a shot of winning

 

[Lion_Backer]

Size matters. And that's why I believe that the smaller FBS schools will not be competitive.

With the way that talent is being distributed between the 2 power conferences and the smaller FBS programs particularly along the offensive and defensive lines, the smaller conference programs are going to have problems competing barring an opening round upset.

Maybe this will change, but there doesn't appear to be enough quality 'bigs' to make them legitimate contenders beyond a one game winner take all scenario like a BYU had in 1984. And even then, they won by defeating a 6-5 Michigan team as opposed to another MNC contender to remain the nation's only undefeated team that year.

A coach can only do so much schematically when his team is being beaten in the trenches. And the scenario that benefitted BYU in '84 does not exist under the current and proposed CFP format.

JMO as I observe the college football landscape continue to evolve.

 

[wilbury]

It's an impossible task to pick the top 16 teams under the current CFB landscape, given all of the different conference affiliations, conference scheduling differences, lack of head to head matchups, etc. Impossible to get it right. IMPOSSIBLE. Anyone that thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. If you choose subjectively the likelihood of excluding an outstanding G5 team is extremely high, as everyone views them as inferior on paper and given their conference schedules they will never have a chance to prove they might be better than one of the P4 conference teams because they don't play each other. The subjective bar for a G5 time is considerably higher than that for a P4 team. The only way a G5 gets in is going undefeated and hopefully they did so in a year where they were fortunate to have a good non-conference win on their schedule, a schedule they probably made a decade earlier. It's objectively unfair to them.

The better format to ensuring the top teams are included is to take the best from each conference, where all teams competing in said conference share the same scheduling rules, and are more likely to have relevant head to head matchups, then let those conference winners battle it out.

In reality, who cares if you get the top 16 correct because 8 on up won't matter in most years. The more important thing is correctly ranking the top 4-8 teams which has a more significant impact on who can win it all.

 

[LandoComando]

Quality of play, effort required and money involved has absolutely nothing to do with Big Time college football.

FCS has a great quality of play...the money is more reason to do it. You just dont want it to happen as opposed to thinking there's reasons it shouldn't as this shows.

 

[Obliviax]

In reality, who cares if you get the top 16 correct because 8 on up won't matter in most years. The more important thing is correctly ranking the top 4-8 teams which has a more significant impact on who can win it all.

Agree. I think 8 is enough. I know that 8 won the national championship this year so am inclined to go with a bigger number but don't like the bye week so to me, it is 8 or 16. However, I tend to go 8 because the season needs to be shortened to accommodate the school's semester schedules for transfers. But if they go 8, they need to get rid of the automatic bids because 8 can't accommodate the AZ States, and SMU's. It has to be the best 8 teams.

And to pick the top 8, I'd do it via computer with some kind of published mathematical equation. It would take into consideration SOS, home/away records, conference performance, etc. I get this can be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy (if SEC is overrated, and only SEC teams play SEC teams, you get an inflated SOS).

In this case, you are probably looking at both SEC and B1G having AT LEAST two schools and probably 3 in good years.

 

[LandoComando]

Agree. I think 8 is enough. I know that 8 won the national championship this year so am inclined to go with a bigger number but don't like the bye week so to me, it is 8 or 16. However, I tend to go 8 because the season needs to be shortened to accommodate the school's semester schedules for transfers. But if they go 8, they need to get rid of the automatic bids because 8 can't accommodate the AZ States, and SMU's. It has to be the best 8 teams.

And to pick the top 8, I'd do it via computer with some kind of published mathematical equation. It would take into consideration SOS, home/away records, conference performance, etc. I get this can be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy (if SEC is overrated, and only SEC teams play SEC teams, you get an inflated SOS).

In this case, you are probably looking at both SEC and B1G having AT LEAST two schools and probably 3 in good years.

Not sure why people hate more football. If Penn State was 14 or 18 after going 9-3 I'd much rather a playoff game than a bowl game. In all sports there's non-competitive playoff games but they're worth it for the occasional upset or shocking run. I want to see kids like Skatterbo and Jeantty on the big stage.

 

[ryoder1]

Agree. I think 8 is enough. I know that 8 won the national championship this year so am inclined to go with a bigger number but don't like the bye week so to me, it is 8 or 16. However, I tend to go 8 because the season needs to be shortened to accommodate the school's semester schedules for transfers. But if they go 8, they need to get rid of the automatic bids because 8 can't accommodate the AZ States, and SMU's. It has to be the best 8 teams.

And to pick the top 8, I'd do it via computer with some kind of published mathematical equation. It would take into consideration SOS, home/away records, conference performance, etc. I get this can be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy (if SEC is overrated, and only SEC teams play SEC teams, you get an inflated SOS).

In this case, you are probably looking at both SEC and B1G having AT LEAST two schools and probably 3 in good years.

I like the computer idea. At least computers to augment the human side of it. 8 seems appropriate to me. Yeah sucks if you are #9 or 10 but that is the way it goes. Be good enough to be in the top 8.

I don't think the NC game should be on Jan 20th or whenever it was this year. Too late. That is NFL playoff time and CFB at that time becomes this "oh by the way are they still playing?" Have the quarterfinals the Fri night and Saturday before Christmas or a week before if Christmas is on a Saturday. Timing like this year. Semi finals on New Years Day, 4pm and 8pm. Then put the championship game on a Saturday night a week later or 10 days later whatever it is. You could work it into the NFL wildcard weekend. Saturday you have a 1pm and 4pm NFL wildcard game then at 8pm is the NC game. Sunday three more NFL wildcard games. Monday night final NFL wildcard game. This schedule does a couple things; 1) keeps the college game on a Saturday which is traditionally the day for cfb; and 2) minimizes the overlap with the NFL and will be over by the time the division playoffs start. Also, if the NFL adds a game then the NC game can be played the final weekend of the regular season and won't interfere with the wildcard weekend.

For those people in the "more the merrier" and "give everyone and their brother a shot" camps I say that is unnecessary. Albeit fun and different and cool to have all these playoff games but at the end of the day unnecessary. Your national champ will come from one of the top 8 every year if you went to 16 or 24 or 32...gulp. It just is the way it is. You can argue all you want about upsets can happen and the little guys deserve a shot and it is so exciting to see a lot of teams have a shot at winning it all, etc. That's great but the fact of the matter is no low seed team is winning it all. I just don't see a 14 seed for example waltzing into a 3 seed's home field and winning then beating a 6 seed (potentially again on the road) then beating a 2 seed then beating a 1 seed. What about a 10 seed? Okay maybe they beat a 7 seed on the road. Maybe. Then they are going to beat a 2 seed? Yes I know other upsets could happen to make the path easier or versus lower seeds but you see the gauntlet. We know college football. The national champion comes from one of these top teams that have shown it over the course of the season that they are one of the best teams. Eight teams will include the teams that have a realistic shot. This also keeps the regular season more "do or die" versus simply playing to get a good seed in a over expanded playoff.

 

[LandoComando]

I like the computer idea. At least computers to augment the human side of it. 8 seems appropriate to me. Yeah sucks if you are #9 or 10 but that is the way it goes. Be good enough to be in the top 8.

I don't think the NC game should be on Jan 20th or whenever it was this year. Too late. That is NFL playoff time and CFB at that time becomes this "oh by the way are they still playing?" Have the quarterfinals the Fri night and Saturday before Christmas or a week before if Christmas is on a Saturday. Timing like this year. Semi finals on New Years Day, 4pm and 8pm. Then put the championship game on a Saturday night a week later or 10 days later whatever it is. You could work it into the NFL wildcard weekend. Saturday you have a 1pm and 4pm NFL wildcard game then at 8pm is the NC game. Sunday three more NFL wildcard games. Monday night final NFL wildcard game. This schedule does a couple things; 1) keeps the college game on a Saturday which is traditionally the day for cfb; and 2) minimizes the overlap with the NFL and will be over by the time the division playoffs start. Also, if the NFL adds a game then the NC game can be played the final weekend of the regular season and won't interfere with the wildcard weekend.

For those people in the "more the merrier" and "give everyone and their brother a shot" camps I say that is unnecessary. Albeit fun and different and cool to have all these playoff games but at the end of the day unnecessary. Your national champ will come from one of the top 8 every year if you went to 16 or 24 or 32...gulp. It just is the way it is. You can argue all you want about upsets can happen and the little guys deserve a shot and it is so exciting to see a lot of teams have a shot at winning it all, etc. That's great but the fact of the matter is no low seed team is winning it all. I just don't see a 14 seed for example waltzing into a 3 seed's home field and winning then beating a 6 seed (potentially again on the road) then beating a 2 seed then beating a 1 seed. What about a 10 seed? Okay maybe they beat a 7 seed on the road. Maybe. Then they are going to beat a 2 seed? Yes I know other upsets could happen to make the path easier or versus lower seeds but you see the gauntlet. We know college football. The national champion comes from one of these top teams that have shown it over the course of the season that they are one of the best teams. Eight teams will include the teams that have a realistic shot. This also keeps the regular season more "do or die" versus simply playing to get a good seed in a over expanded playoff.

The regular season in your scenario is extremely important because you want to host games. It also makes far more games important as we saw last December

 

[lazydave841]

Quality of play, effort required and money involved has absolutely nothing to do with Big Time college football.

FCS Football Championship History | NCAA.com

The complete list of NCAA Football FCS champions from the first season to today.

www.ncaa.com

Only 5 separate teams have won the FCS title in the last 15 years. You can add a few others if you go back another 10-15 years, some of which have transitioned to FBS.

extremely important because you want to host games.

Keywords: games. All playoff games need to be at the higher seeds home field with only the championship at a bowl site. That needs fixed.

 

[LandoComando]

FCS Football Championship History | NCAA.com

The complete list of NCAA Football FCS champions from the first season to today.

www.ncaa.com

Only 5 separate teams have won the FCS title in the last 15 years. You can add a few others if you go back another 10-15 years, some of which have transitioned to FBS.


Keywords: games. All playoff games need to be at the higher seeds home field with only the championship at a bowl site. That needs fixed.

I'm not expecting a variety of championship. The Ohio States and Georgias of the world will continue to dominate.
And yes...any neutral site game prior to the title game is idiotic

 

[ryoder1]

The regular season in your scenario is extremely important because you want to host games. It also makes far more games important as we saw last December

Yes the regular season would be hugely important in an 8 team playoff format. Just like the 4 team.

Let's be real....we are never going back to 8 teams....at least I don't envision it. I do think it is the best format though.

With that said I am a CFB junkie so I like a 16 team or 24 team type playoff. A big reason is because we would be in it every year. If I put that aside and look at it objectively I would say eight teams is the right number.

Listen to the Pat Kraft presser that was just posted. He was asked about the expanded playoff to 14 or 16. He basically said he is supportive but needs to understand how the whole CFB calendar will work. He recognizes you can't just be adding more games and more games and playing into February. He used the word "frankenstein" on how the CFB calendar got to what is today. He said his football players are students and have to go to class. That could be challenged a little but it is true.

I hope they get rid of some of these dumb useless non conference patsy games and then get rid of the ccg. Maybe an 11 game regular season and the playoffs start around the beginning of December. Can't have these huge 3 plus week gaps between games.

 

[SheldonJoe2215]

I'm not expecting a variety of championship. The Ohio States and Georgias of the world will continue to dominate.
And yes...any neutral site game prior to the title game is idiotic

I would use the Cotton, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange for the semi-finals and then the Rose for the final game and hold it on NYD.

 

[dailybuck777]

I have made my reasons clear

FCS has a great quality of play...the money is more reason to do it. You just dont want it to happen as opposed to thinking there's reasons it shouldn't as this shows.

I have made my reasons clear, you just ignore them. I would also add that with nil money the lesser schools have even smaller chances of being able to compete with the big schools. The lesser schools cannot pay quality players or their whole roster.

 

[dailybuck777]

Several people here really like the idea of home games for the higher rated teams. I don't like that because you run the risk of horrible weather and a game where the score is something like 6 to 2. I think the day after Ohio State played Tennessee Columbus had really bad weather. In any event, if many home games are played there will be terrible games impacted by the weather.

 

[ryoder1]

Several people here really like the idea of home games for the higher rated teams. I don't like that because you run the risk of horrible weather and a game where the score is something like 6 to 2. I think the day after Ohio State played Tennessee Columbus had really bad weather. In any event, if many home games are played there will be terrible games impacted by the weather.

Yeah that's possible but I think there are compelling reasons to have the on campus games. Most notably the electric environment that a on campus game can provide that a neutral site cannot and less travel and expense for fans.

The one neutral site bowl game I still want played every year is the Rose Bowl.

 

[LandoComando]

Yes the regular season would be hugely important in an 8 team playoff format. Just like the 4 team.

Let's be real....we are never going back to 8 teams....at least I don't envision it. I do think it is the best format though.

With that said I am a CFB junkie so I like a 16 team or 24 team type playoff. A big reason is because we would be in it every year. If I put that aside and look at it objectively I would say eight teams is the right number.

Listen to the Pat Kraft presser that was just posted. He was asked about the expanded playoff to 14 or 16. He basically said he is supportive but needs to understand how the whole CFB calendar will work. He recognizes you can't just be adding more games and more games and playing into February. He used the word "frankenstein" on how the CFB calendar got to what is today. He said his football players are students and have to go to class. That could be challenged a little but it is true.

I hope they get rid of some of these dumb useless non conference patsy games and then get rid of the ccg. Maybe an 11 game regular season and the playoffs start around the beginning of December. Can't have these huge 3 plus week gaps between games.

No...in a 24 team playoff the regular season has far more games that impact the post season.

I don't see how 8 teams in a league of 130-something can feel right

An 11 game season with the post season start immediately after ends the year in the first week of January.

 

[LandoComando]

I would use the Cotton, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange for the semi-finals and then the Rose for the final game and hold it on NYD.

It's just too much travel. I do 100% agree about the Rose being the title game on the 1st every year.

 

[LandoComando]

I have made my reasons clear
I have made my reasons clear, you just ignore them. I would also add that with nil money the lesser schools have even smaller chances of being able to compete with the big schools. The lesser schools cannot pay quality players or their whole roster.

I'm not ignoring them. You keep talking about "being able to compete"...the surest way to make sure they dont compete is to not leg them play. They don't need to same roster. Using your logic FBS should be 12 teams that play a round robin then a playoff

 

[ryoder1]

No...in a 24 team playoff the regular season has far more games that impact the post season.

I don't see how 8 teams in a league of 130-something can feel right

An 11 game season with the post season start immediately after ends the year in the first week of January.

8 teams and every game is critical. Lose two and you could very well be out of the playoff. 24 teams and the regular season is jockeying for a seed. I guess if you find that thrilling then you would like that.

 

[LandoComando]

8 teams and every game is critical. Lose two and you could very well be out of the playoff. 24 teams and the regular season is jockeying for a seed. I guess if you find that thrilling then you would like that.

8 games and almost no games mean anything. I don't understand how that people refuse to accept that.
Every game isn't critical because most teams are done after September. Almost everyone is done by the end of October. It means almost NO games have any meaning.

 

[PSUSignore]

In reality, who cares if you get the top 16 correct because 8 on up won't matter in most years. The more important thing is correctly ranking the top 4-8 teams which has a more significant impact on who can win it all.

If that's all that matters then stop with the expanded playoff nonsense and just keep it at 4 teams which protects the regular season in college football, one of the historical things that made it different and great. I'm sick of the half measures because money is making all of the decisions. If the goal is to have a playoff only of teams with an argument to be the best in the country then there's no need for more that 6-8 teams, max. If the goal is an expanded playoff to 16+ teams then stop the subjective crap and decide championships objectively on the field like every other sport in existence, by inviting the winner of every conference to the party.

 

[ryoder1]

8 games and almost no games mean anything. I don't understand how that people refuse to accept that.
Every game isn't critical because most teams are done after September. Almost everyone is done by the end of October. It means almost NO games have any meaning.

The teams that have a realistic shot like the top 25 or 30 it does matter. #48 in the country? Who cares. Yep as you get down to November there will be about 15-20 teams vying for 8 spots. It weeds out the weaker teams who never were going to win anything. The best teams playing games that matter. Not mediocre teams trying to get spot #23 in the playoff so they can get crushed on the road by a top 8 team in the first round of a playoff.