forums

Question about this 24 [playoff] team absurdity.

Cane_Mutiny said:
One of the defining characteristics of college football is that the regular season is high stakes. This would effectively sacrifice that to create more high stakes playoff games.
Click to expand...


This is bull****.

The ONLY reasons for the college football regular season being "high stakes" were that there were fewer regular season games of any sport at any level, and because there was no playoff system. All we had were 10 or 11 or 12 regular season games and then a never-ending landscape of ****** bowl games. Therefore, you "had to" go undefeated, because it was nearly impossible for the two best teams to play each other, due to conference-mandated bowl tie-ins.

The game that changed everything was the 1987 Fiasco Bowl, when Miami played Pedo State. Outside of Halley's-Comet-frequency 1 vs. 2 matchups, this was the first intentionally engineered "championship" game between a 1 and a 2, including moving the game away from its normal day and timeslot.

The bowl system has always been, and will always be, a joke. The motivation levels have never been there, and it's being made worse with player opt-outs, the Portal, and coaching changes.

The best way to crown a champion is, and always has been, on the field of play. Let the players play, and if there are some upsets, so be it.

The regular season will continue to be high stakes, especially since more and more of the regular season has become "conference games". Those games matter for conference standings, and for seeding. As we have seen, seeding makes a huge difference. Matchups make a huge difference. The best way to insure one's chances in the CFP is to win as many regular season games as possible.

In every sport, at every level, both the regular season and the playoffs are high stakes. Quite frankly, I'm not sure why anyone would argue for making "regular season" more important than "the playoffs". Quite frankly, it's un-American.

But, yeah, maybe we should go back to the "good old days". Grind out that regular season, and then send all the best teams to contractual-matchup bowl games. What an idiotic idea.

Somehow, every other football league at every other level manages to have multi-round playoffs. And football is pretty much the most popular sport in America (discounting the interminable 162-game MLB schedule, which is gross quantity over quality).
 
Advertisement
Bringing up the Big Four playoff formats to support a 24-team CFP expansion is a weak argument. People forget these are professional leagues made up of the best players in the world, where the talent gap between the best and worst teams is much smaller than it is in college football. In college football, the gap between the top 5 teams and the 20th-24th ranked teams can be massive.

At the end of the day, my opinion doesn’t matter. Whether we like it or not, this is likely the direction college football is heading. I’m still going to watch my Canes every Saturday
 
CaneinBroward said:
That's my point, the $EC wants a 16 team playoff and all the other conferences want 24 teams now. The $EC knows they will get the lion's share of at-large bids. The ACC & Big XII know they will get 1 participant in most years in a 16 team playoff and the B1G knows they will more often than not have fewer participants than the $EC.

Frankly, I'm surprised the B1G would even sign off on a 1+23 model if they thought about it because $EC dominance through media bias will appear more often than not. As an example, the $EC would have had 8 participants in a 24 team playoff this past year.
Click to expand...
SEC would’ve had 7 last year, and only two extra who didn’t get into the 12 team playoff (Texas, Vanderbilt). B1G would have gone from 3 to 6 (USC, Michigan, Iowa). Texas and Vandy would’ve gotten in at 16 teams; none of the B1G teams would’ve (ND, BYU, Texas, Vandy, and Utah were the next 5 up; possibly ACC champion Duke ahead of USC too).

B1G wants 24 because Fox can bid on the games and more of their teams will get access. The extra revenue will be good for them as costs go up. And moreover, after going on three straight seasons of B1G national champions without an SEC team even making the game, the facade of it just means more is meeting reality.
 
Last edited:
24 is too many. I like 12. Regular season still matters, and rematches are reduced. No one cares about #24 vs. 13 in round 1.
 
ICANEDOIT said:
24 is too many. I like 12. Regular season still matters, and rematches are reduced. No one cares about #24 vs. 13 in round 1.
Click to expand...
While I agree on your points, one thing I think expanding to 24 may allow is some marquee out of conference games to be brought back. Scheduling for most team OOC has become a joke for fear of a lose costing a playoff berth. If they go to 24 it may bring back the big matchups because that possible loss won't mean missing the playoffs.
 
kill the regular season (or NFL-ify it, whatever your POV is) and you effectively kill the sport. or at best, take away what makes it's regular season so passionate and special compared to every US sport

F@(K Tony Petitti and anyone who lets this 24 team playoff team
 
Advertisement
Comparing college football to Pro sports is comparing apples to oranges.

The NFL for the most part has parity. Yes, there are 2-3 teams per year that are clearly weaker than the rest of the league, but overall, it’s any given Sunday. And they all play an almost equal schedule.

CFB does not. There is no parity. When a bottom 70+ team beats a top 20 team it’s a fluke. Unlike the NFL, the strength of schedule is not even remotely similar.

These are also college kids. We’ve already seen the attrition on playing 16 games. Add two more games and it’s going to be not necessarily the best team winning the Natty, but a Top 10 team avoiding injuries.

There is no reason for a 4 loss team to be in a playoff.
 
Back
Top