forums

Upcoming playoff expansion vote (12 Team Playoff Chosen, 9.2)

Advertisement
canesstevealum08 said:
www.si.com

College Football Playoff expansion could be possible for 2024 - Sports Illustrated

A potential Friday vote could make huge progress in the push for an expanded postseason.
www.si.com www.si.com
Click to expand...
The concern about playing too many games with an expanded CFP is legit and I think needs to get addressed in a serious way before this happens, which likely puts it into 2026 is my guess. Getting rid of the conference championships sounds good to me, but should be coupled with some rule changes to make the games a bit faster, and actual player financial comp. /hottake
 
305_separatist said:
The concern about playing too many games with an expanded CFP is legit and I think needs to get addressed in a serious way before this happens, which likely puts it into 2026 is my guess. Getting rid of the conference championships sounds good to me, but should be coupled with some rule changes to make the games a bit faster, and actual player financial comp. /hottake
Click to expand...
If # of games is a point of emphasis, they can easily drop 3, and keep the conference title games so that the regular season is 10 games.

1 non-conference game and 8 conference games.....or 2 non-conference games and 7 conference games.

Either way, it can be done and the team crowned Champ can still be done in less than 15 which is what it could take now if a team goes 12-0 reg season, 1 conference title game, and 2 CFP games if they win it all.

That's a 16 team playoff model right there with a champion crowned in 14 games. And I did it in all of 3 minutes.
 
Although I don’t agree w/ 12, here’s my solution:

-11 regular season games (1 FCS or G5 opponent, 1 OOC opponent, 9 games in conference to determine to champion w/o a conference championship game)

-Bye weeks given to top 4 seeds voted by CFP committee

5 v. 12 (round 1)
6 v. 11 (round 1)
7 v. 10 (round 1)
8 v. 9 (round 1)

1 faces winner of 5/12 (round 2)
2 faces winner of 6/11 (round 2)
3 faces winner of 7/10 (round 2)
4 faces winner of 8/9 (round 2)

Winner of 1/5/12 faces winner of 4/8/9 (round 3)
Winner of 2/6/11 faces winner of 3/7/10 (round 3)

Winner of aforementioned games square off in title game (round 4)

At the most, a team would play 15 games, & if they r a top 4, 14 games.

Incorporate a rotation of 3 of the NY6 bowls for the semi finals & championship games, while rotating tier 1 bowls for rounds 1 - 2.
The 3 NY6 bowls not used in rotation will be at large bids to those who just missed the top 12.

Imo, while some refined details can be incorporated, this solves:

-The amount of games played issue (once upon a time, teams played 11 games in season & the bowl game was the 12)

-Bowl game prestige restoration; since Tier 1 & NY6 bowls will be in rotation, when a team doesn’t make the CFP but gets an opportunity to play in a bowl assigned to the CFP, it won’t be looked at “as” meaningless.

Once upon a time, conference champions were crowned w/o a championship game, so that wouldn’t or shouldn’t be an issue.
 
FCS plays a 12 game schedule, plus conference championship games, AND a 16 team playoff where the championship game is played in early Jan (around the same time as FBS championship game). It's always funny how FBS powers act as if implementing a true playoff is some insurmountable task.
 
Advertisement
I don’t think any league has ever reduced a regular season for all teams to accommodate an extreme minority of playoff teams. TV 📺 money for everyone is too important. We only add games. Playoff teams will all be professional. So, keep the regular season and add the playoffs.
 
12 is too many. It diminishes the impact of the regular season too much. Teams at 9-3 are going to be making the playoff, so that late season conference game between a 10-0 team and a 9-1 team now means far less. It used to be essentially a de facto playoff game. Now it’s just another game. I don’t like 12. I prefer 6 or, at most, 8. The same teams are gonna win as they do now, and yes the playoff games will be exciting, but CFB is the most unique sport in the world in the sense that every single Saturday is so important and has national championship ramifications. Now, if you start 9-0, your last few games are essentially meaningless. Or close to it. That’s not how it should work.
 
OrangeBowlMagic said:
12 is too many. It diminishes the impact of the regular season too much. Teams at 9-3 are going to be making the playoff, so that late season conference game between a 10-0 team and a 9-1 team now means far less. It used to be essentially a de facto playoff game. Now it’s just another game. I don’t like 12. I prefer 6 or, at most, 8. The same teams are gonna win as they do now, and yes the playoff games will be exciting, but CFB is the most unique sport in the world in the sense that every single Saturday is so important and has national championship ramifications. Now, if you start 9-0, your last few games are essentially meaningless. Or close to it. That’s not how it should work.
Click to expand...
I think this argument is overplayed and tired. Only in the world of FBS cfb does this argument exist. Having 12 teams does not diminish the regular season because the better the record at the end of the season the more favorable of a playoff spot a team will secure. People make this argument as if with a 12-16 team playoff there will be a bunch of 3-4 loss teams getting in. You still will have 100+ teams from 10 conferences (plus independents) vying for 12-16 playoff spots, especially when a better record means better playoff rankings. In what way would that diminish the regular season? If a 9-3 team gets in and goes on a run to win the title then they deserved/earned it. Besides, for the second time in 4 years we've seen 2 teams from the same conference play for the title. Tell me what fans (outside of those respective schools) aren't growing weary of that? Also, folks complain about the same handful of teams being in the playoffs every year, a 12 (i think 16 is fine) team playoff severely reduces future occurrences of that.
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
Although I don’t agree w/ 12, here’s my solution:

-11 regular season games (1 FCS or G5 opponent, 1 OOC opponent, 9 games in conference to determine to champion w/o a conference championship game)

-Bye weeks given to top 4 seeds voted by CFP committee

5 v. 12 (round 1)
6 v. 11 (round 1)
7 v. 10 (round 1)
8 v. 9 (round 1)

1 faces winner of 5/12 (round 2)
2 faces winner of 6/11 (round 2)
3 faces winner of 7/10 (round 2)
4 faces winner of 8/9 (round 2)

Winner of 1/5/12 faces winner of 4/8/9 (round 3)
Winner of 2/6/11 faces winner of 3/7/10 (round 3)

Winner of aforementioned games square off in title game (round 4)

At the most, a team would play 15 games, & if they r a top 4, 14 games.

Incorporate a rotation of 3 of the NY6 bowls for the semi finals & championship games, while rotating tier 1 bowls for rounds 1 - 2.
The 3 NY6 bowls not used in rotation will be at large bids to those who just missed the top 12.

Imo, while some refined details can be incorporated, this solves:

-The amount of games played issue (once upon a time, teams played 11 games in season & the bowl game was the 12)

-Bowl game prestige restoration; since Tier 1 & NY6 bowls will be in rotation, when a team doesn’t make the CFP but gets an opportunity to play in a bowl assigned to the CFP, it won’t be looked at “as” meaningless.

Once upon a time, conference champions were crowned w/o a championship game, so that wouldn’t or shouldn’t be an issue.
Click to expand...

Looks good but doubt the greed will end conference championship games
 
Playoff expansion is most likely to happen at some point as the playoffs generate some great ratings. Personally, I'd love to see it expand to 8 teams. Look at this past season. The final 8 team rankings were:
UGA, Bama, Michigan, Cincy, Baylor, OSU, Okie St, and ND. All solid, and not one with more than two losses.
 
561Cane said:
Playoff expansion is most likely to happen at some point as the playoffs generate some great ratings. Personally, I'd love to see it expand to 8 teams. Look at this past season. The final 8 team rankings were:
UGA, Bama, Michigan, Cincy, Baylor, OSU, Okie St, and ND. All solid, and not one with more than two losses.
Click to expand...
Who were next 4 teams?
 
Gsugradcanefan said:
I think this argument is overplayed and tired. Only in the world of FBS cfb does this argument exist. Having 12 teams does not diminish the regular season because the better the record at the end of the season the more favorable of a playoff spot a team will secure. People make this argument as if with a 12-16 team playoff there will be a bunch of 3-4 loss teams getting in. You still will have 100+ teams from 10 conferences (plus independents) vying for 12-16 playoff spots, especially when a better record means better playoff rankings. In what way would that diminish the regular season? If a 9-3 team gets in and goes on a run to win the title then they deserved/earned it. Besides, for the second time in 4 years we've seen 2 teams from the same conference play for the title. Tell me what fans (outside of those respective schools) aren't growing weary of that? Also, folks complain about the same handful of teams being in the playoffs every year, a 12 (i think 16 is fine) team playoff severely reduces future occurrences of that.
Click to expand...

You literally read nothing of what I said.

"Only in the world of FBS CFB does this argument exist"

Yes. I know. That's literally what I said. It's the most unique regular season in sports. It means more than any regular season in any sport, anywhere. It's one of the very few things that make CFB unique. So why water it down? We have essentially meaningless regular seasons in professional football, where an average team can get in and get hot and win a championship. We have it in college basketball, although of course the tournament is great, but that's their thing. Why go that route in college?

"If a 9-3 team gets in and goes on a run to win the title then they deserved/earned it"

Again, exactly what I said. I don't want a 9-3 team to get into anything. Why? Because the 1st, and 2nd, and 3rd losses should be so colossal, they should eliminate them from championship contention. Just the example I gave. For example, let's talk 2022. What if we go into Clemson 9-1, and they are 10-0. In a 4, or 6 team playoff, that game almost certainly have championship implications. The loser is probably eliminated from the playoff, or really close to it. The intensity would be incredible. If you have a 12 team playoff, yes the game would be great and very intense, but if you lose, eh, not the end of the world, we got a shot to get into the playoff. It's not the same. It takes away from the magnitude of that game. AKA diminishes and waters down the regular season.

So I do think an expansion is good. I love football, I love football games between good teams, I love important games late in the year. Another playoff game, or two, would be great. But 12 is too many. I think 6, or MAYBE 8 is the best route.

Lastly, your "9-3 team gets in and goes on a run" is very, very unlikely to happen. Look at the current system. The #3 and #4 teams get blown out annually. Cincinnati was the 4th best team last year. They lost by 100 to the team who didn't even win the championship. You think the #12 seed is going to go on some magical run and win 3 games in the playoffs against Bama, UGA, and Ohio State? Stop it. We're still going to get the same programs wearing the crown at the end of the season, but we're going to water down the regular season just for a couple more blowouts in playoff games.
 
Advertisement
OrangeBowlMagic said:
You literally read nothing of what I said.

"Only in the world of FBS CFB does this argument exist"

Yes. I know. That's literally what I said. It's the most unique regular season in sports. It means more than any regular season in any sport, anywhere. It's one of the very few things that make CFB unique. So why water it down? We have essentially meaningless regular seasons in professional football, where an average team can get in and get hot and win a championship. We have it in college basketball, although of course the tournament is great, but that's their thing. Why go that route in college?

"If a 9-3 team gets in and goes on a run to win the title then they deserved/earned it"

Again, exactly what I said. I don't want a 9-3 team to get into anything. Why? Because the 1st, and 2nd, and 3rd losses should be so colossal, they should eliminate them from championship contention. Just the example I gave. For example, let's talk 2022. What if we go into Clemson 9-1, and they are 10-0. In a 4, or 6 team playoff, that game almost certainly have championship implications. The loser is probably eliminated from the playoff, or really close to it. The intensity would be incredible. If you have a 12 team playoff, yes the game would be great and very intense, but if you lose, eh, not the end of the world, we got a shot to get into the playoff. It's not the same. It takes away from the magnitude of that game. AKA diminishes and waters down the regular season.

So I do think an expansion is good. I love football, I love football games between good teams, I love important games late in the year. Another playoff game, or two, would be great. But 12 is too many. I think 6, or MAYBE 8 is the best route.

Lastly, your "9-3 team gets in and goes on a run" is very, very unlikely to happen. Look at the current system. The #3 and #4 teams get blown out annually. Cincinnati was the 4th best team last year. They lost by 100 to the team who didn't even win the championship. You think the #12 seed is going to go on some magical run and win 3 games in the playoffs against Bama, UGA, and Ohio State? Stop it. We're still going to get the same programs wearing the crown at the end of the season, but we're going to water down the regular season just for a couple more blowouts in playoff games.
Click to expand...
You're using the 9-3 record example as the baseline for your argument when it's really an outlier, completely ignoring my statement about expanding the playoff to 12-16 teams means that you'd see more teams with great records as they jockeyed for playoff position. The likelihood that a 9-3 team would get in is low. The 9-3 statement is one of personal preference. We've already had a 2 loss national champion before, so a 9-3 team that goes on a crazy playoff run would be fine with me, they'd also would be talked about for years to come. Also, with 20-24 team super conferences on the way and the big boys getting rid of ooc cupcakes, 9-3 teams getting into the playoffs and winning a title will become the norm sooner rather than later. Spare me some faux purist argument about how it would "water down the meaning/significance of a championship." There's no more purism in college football. It's **** near WWE level at this point.
 
Rellyrell said:
Although I don’t agree w/ 12, here’s my solution:

-11 regular season games (1 FCS or G5 opponent, 1 OOC opponent, 9 games in conference to determine to champion w/o a conference championship game)

-Bye weeks given to top 4 seeds voted by CFP committee

5 v. 12 (round 1)
6 v. 11 (round 1)
7 v. 10 (round 1)
8 v. 9 (round 1)

1 faces winner of 5/12 (round 2)
2 faces winner of 6/11 (round 2)
3 faces winner of 7/10 (round 2)
4 faces winner of 8/9 (round 2)

Winner of 1/5/12 faces winner of 4/8/9 (round 3)
Winner of 2/6/11 faces winner of 3/7/10 (round 3)

Winner of aforementioned games square off in title game (round 4)

At the most, a team would play 15 games, & if they r a top 4, 14 games.

Incorporate a rotation of 3 of the NY6 bowls for the semi finals & championship games, while rotating tier 1 bowls for rounds 1 - 2.
The 3 NY6 bowls not used in rotation will be at large bids to those who just missed the top 12.

Imo, while some refined details can be incorporated, this solves:

-The amount of games played issue (once upon a time, teams played 11 games in season & the bowl game was the 12)

-Bowl game prestige restoration; since Tier 1 & NY6 bowls will be in rotation, when a team doesn’t make the CFP but gets an opportunity to play in a bowl assigned to the CFP, it won’t be looked at “as” meaningless.

Once upon a time, conference champions were crowned w/o a championship game, so that wouldn’t or shouldn’t be an issue.
Click to expand...
Only tweak here is I think the higher seeds should have home field advantage up until the semifinals....then it transitions to the current CFP model.

Also, have a playoff revenue sharing system for the TV money and ticket sales etc generated...this way the away team can benefit from making the playoffs.
 
CaneThang2020 said:
Only tweak here is I think the higher seeds should have home field advantage up until the semifinals....then it transitions to the current CFP model.

Also, have a playoff revenue sharing system for the TV money and ticket sales etc generated...this way the away team can benefit from making the playoffs.
Click to expand...

The only reason I brought in bowl games is b/c bowl games have lost some luster, & they r a revenue generating product. So incorporating them into the entire CFP would benefit or change the bowl games’ perception, as well.

But I definitely wouldn’t mind seeing home field advantages incorporated.
 
Advertisement
Sounds like it will be 16 teams. I think that is great. I would assume they play the Championship on the Saturday between the NFL Semis and Superbowl.
 
Gsugradcanefan said:
You're using the 9-3 record example as the baseline for your argument when it's really an outlier, completely ignoring my statement about expanding the playoff to 12-16 teams means that you'd see more teams with great records as they jockeyed for playoff position. The likelihood that a 9-3 team would get in is low. The 9-3 statement is one of personal preference. We've already had a 2 loss national champion before, so a 9-3 team that goes on a crazy playoff run would be fine with me, they'd also would be talked about for years to come. Also, with 20-24 team super conferences on the way and the big boys getting rid of ooc cupcakes, 9-3 teams getting into the playoffs and winning a title will become the norm sooner rather than later. Spare me some faux purist argument about how it would "water down the meaning/significance of a championship." There's no more purism in college football. It's **** near WWE level at this point.
Click to expand...
Also, what if a team say had critical players hurt to start their season and say go 1-3. But then that key player(s) are back and the team gets hot and finishes out 6-0. They would be interesting going into a potential high seed playoff game and might win. That would make good theater. But I suppose the counter to that is a great team should have the depth necessary to not go 1-3 to start the season. I like your idea tho
 
305_separatist said:
The concern about playing too many games with an expanded CFP is legit and I think needs to get addressed in a serious way before this happens, which likely puts it into 2026 is my guess. Getting rid of the conference championships sounds good to me, but should be coupled with some rule changes to make the games a bit faster, and actual player financial comp. /hottake
Click to expand...
The best number of games for players will turn out to be the number of games that maximizes profit.
/hottake
 
Advertisement
Back
Top