forums

CFP moving to 24 teams

Hufftwoseven said:
Trash. And it’s all ESPN to blame
Click to expand...

ESPN isn’t the one who wanted this bs. The push for 24 came entirely from Tony Petitti and the B1G (FOX). I guess FOX figures with more playoff games they will be able to subcontract (or whatever they call it) more playoff games from ESPN.

The biggest culprit here surprisingly isn’t the networks. It’s the conferences, lead by the B1G, and universities who are desperate to bring in more money.
 
Hoyacane1620 said:
How does that help the ACC? At best, 1 team will get ranked that high
Click to expand...
we have had multiple teams inside the top 24 at various times this year, and some weeks 3. It will obviously be SEC and B1G heavy, but ACC should place 2-3 per year, which is way better than the ACC can expect in the current model.
 
canesbaby said:
I get the arguments on both sides.




The second tier teams want Hope/access otherwise what are they spending all of this NIL money on.

But these are teenagers. I am not convinced that these kids can handle a potentially 17 game season.

The train isn’t stopping so there’s not much use in complaining. We will see how it plays out.
Click to expand...

They can this isnt nfl with 53 man rosters ..most of these vplleges have 85+ players....play them.
 
Personally I like the idea of 16 teams with no conference championships. Everyone is highlighting the byes but it has not been a boon in the 12 team era. They have a terrible record coming in all rusty and fattened on the Christmas goose. There will still be benefit to being highly ranked so you can play a scrub from the bottom of the bracket

The way I see it there are three pretty clear tiers. 1-8 are the real contenders. 9-15 are teams that have some potential but aren’t quite there. Beyond 15 there are just a bunch of Joes that could switch uniforms and nobody would notice.

The non playoff mid tier bowls have become a joke so you might as well make them mean something
 
With the change to 24 teams, does that give us another option as it pertains to conference membership?

Could it make sense to go back to independence? Work out a scheduling agreement and get our own media rights deal (Netflix, Apple or Amazon)?

We keep all of our own playoff money.

Or does the economics not make sense?
 
I’m sorry but a team like Texas is going to be rewarded every single year for spending $40-$50 million on its roster to lose four games a year and be above average? Makes no sense.
 
kmoj9kmo said:
We already saw the discourse with them constantly propping up half of the SEC making the 12 team the B1G/SEC invitational with an invite to the “outcast” P4 conferences and ND. At least with this we’ll get more conference parity and having a few from each without Sankey throwing a fit. Still think it’ll be years before an 8-4 team gets invited
Click to expand...
One thing it will do is lend legitimacy to these discussions about the conference comparisons. No more 1st week matchups that end up being poor representationsof either teams quality and/or crappy bowl games with spring game rosters.

Every year in the playoffs SEC and B1G teams still have to man up and beat the best of the ACC and Big 12 H2H. May only be a handful in there and most of em playing on the road but Ill give Wake Louisville or SMU a punchers chance in a matchup with anyone outside the top 8 this season.
 
bathtubgin said:
ESPN isn’t the one who wanted this bs. The push for 24 came entirely from Tony Petitti and the B1G (FOX). I guess FOX figures with more playoff games they will be able to subcontract (or whatever they call it) more playoff games from ESPN.

The biggest culprit here surprisingly isn’t the networks. It’s the conferences, lead by the B1G, and universities who are desperate to bring in more money.
Click to expand...
and no one stepped up and stopped him.
 
Back
Top