???
But yet every March they find 68 teams to put on the most exciting tournament in all of sports…
Playoffs not expanding before end of current contract (‘25-26 season)
- Thread starter Morrischiano
- Start date
But yet every March they find 68 teams to put on the most exciting tournament in all of sports…
The top 4 conference champs, not necessarily the top 4 teams. Most likely they would be ranked top 10-12 though as conferences have gone or have hinted at going divisionless in the future.
If you like more parity (which I do) or if you complain about NIL/portal (which I dont), I’m not sure why you wouldn’t like one of the very few mechanisms in the sport that helps promote a little more parity.
I was agreeing with you. If you notice I liked your post. I’m saying the expanded playoff (not the current bowl system) is one of the few mechanisms that promotes a little more parity. If you complain about NIL and portal as not “fair” why wouldn’t you like something that opens up a little more opportunity for the lower status schools.
If the Rose Bowl was smart, it would take its unlimited pile of cash reserves and pull a Fiesta Bowl and just outbid the playoffs for the #1 and #2 ranked teams in the country every year. They'd still have their prime TV spot. They'd be the real National Championship game every year. And they'd completely undercut the playoffs because those games would happen after the national champion had already been decided.
Not the most exciting. The most bet on. Basketball is easier for parity. College Football is not. This isn't about parity, this, like every sport expanding playoffs, is about money. Watering the sport down. Making regular season games meaningless.
Last edited:
We disagree.
I’ll cite the NFL this year, there’s very little parody particularly in the NFC this year. Basically at this point it’s a forgone convulsion it will be one of Philly, Dallas or San Fran coming out of the NFC, but yet when the playoffs start you know that people will tune in for all the games. Minnesota and the giants for example have no shot at a SB, but yet if they met in the playoffs people absolutely would tune in..
You disagree because you don’t care about the regular season. This new format will have teams that didn't play in a conference championship making the playoffs. Possibly a team beating a school twice already having to play them a 3rd time to advance. Teams with 4 losses making it in.
Same with the NFL. Teams with losing records making the playoffs. I don't know how you can say that playoffs aren't being watered down.
Thing is it works well in every other American sport including professional football. Teams progress as the season moves along. How many times have we seen teams in the nfl lose to an opponent in the regular season and beat them in the playoffs? The atmosphere a playoff game produces is unlike anything g in sports, literally every other ncaa sport crowns a champion in an expanded tournament (playoff). Cfb has too much money wrapped up in the bowl system currently, however most agree that an expanded playoff would ultimately be better for all.
Imo a regular season game matters, but not like a playoff game. That’s true of all sports. Not to mention with an expanded playoff maybe just maybe sometime in the next 50 years I’ll see Rutgers pull a miracle and make one…. I genuinely don’t believe that would happen in my lifetime with only 4 teams
Turning college football into all the others is watering it down. That is what made college football regular season special. Every game was a big game. Every game was must win. For the top teams every game, your season was on the line each week. If you find the NBA. NHL regular season games exciting god bless you. No reason to watch 6 months of meaningless games.
I agree with what you said above that it's about money but it also helps parity. It's not mutually exclusive. I want teams lower down the totem pole to have opportunity. That's how you get Gonzagas, Creightons, Wichita States, Villanovas etc...repeated opportunities in the tourney can help lift them up.
As to regular season, I still think it has importance because they're only 12 games, not 30 or 80 or 100+ so each game still has a lot of importance. You could have 3peats of teams with regular season, conf champ, playoff happening in the same year, It happens in the NFL too and if it happens here, well the chips fall where they fall. You talk about importance of the regular season but you know OSU still has a chance to get in this year despite their loss to Michigan. Before the LSU A&M loss, people thought they had a chance, with 2 losses, if they beat UGA in the title game. So even in the current scenario regular season isn't always do or die. It will be less so in the future but on balance I'll take that for one of the few opportunities afforded for lower status teams on the landscape to lift themselves up.
Do you really think a G5 school getting a spot in the playoffs will spark them into a full time powerhouse???And this isn't solely directed at you but there is no comparison between college basketball vs college football. They are drastically different sports programs with dramatically different rosters and recruiting requirements. People keep bringing up small school basketball teams success as analogy for what they think can happen in college football. A laughable comparison and a very weak argument. Comparing 15 team player programs to 100 player programs is bizarre. Cincinnati Bearcats Football is the comparison. In the playoffs last year and just 3rd in the AAC this season.
Powerhouse? I didn't say that. I said lift themselves up on the landscape. Look at Cincy, getting to BCS/NYC6 games with Kelly and Fickell helped them to raise themselves up become a ranked team more often. UCF now the same with more chances a BCS/NY6 helped them become a ranked team more often. Utah similar. TCU too. Now replace that with a more meaningful playoff appearances and you can sell hey we can do meaningful things here too and that's how a program gets better over time.
TCU? They are a Big 12 team. Going undefeated in the Big 12 easily gets a team into the playoffs. Cincinnati was in the playoffs last year and fell to 3rd this year.
Yea but they weren’t a B12 team before and they weren’t what they are now and same for Utah in the PAC12. It was built over time from G5 to P5 and now to where they’ve become respectable P5 teams. You see a Cincy or UCF possibly doing similar now. Even then they’re not some blue bloods. They’re lower status P5 teams but because you had some opportunities at accomplishments like BCS/NY6 bowls they could raise themselves up. Now playoff appearances are even a more meaningful accomplishment for them and teams lower down the totem pole (including RU) to raise profiles and lift themselves on the landscape. You need opportunity and even more specifically reachable opportunity for these kind of things to happen.
The point wasn’t you become perennial contender or ranked every year, that doesn’t even happen with higher profile P5 teams. It’s just that you have a chance to become more on the national landscape.
I don't understand your point how an
playoff system will get Cincy or UCF higher rankings. Both have had high ranking for awhile. A playoff system isn't adding to that. Hell Cincy made BCS bowls when there was just two teams playing for a Championship. TCU has been in the Big 12 for 10 years. Got votes because they won the conference. Great team. Nothing to do with any playoff format. I don't understand your thinking that a larger playoff system changes rankings.
I'm saying if Cincy/UCF/Utah/TCU etc..didn't have chances at the exposure and profile raising moments that come with BCS/NY6 games they probably wouldn't be able to climb up the way they have. Undefeated Utah playing in the Weedeater bowl against some nobody wouldn't have the same effect as undefeated Utah playing Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Same thing can be said for the others. If they were locked out of those higher profile games, I don't think you'd see as much of a rise from these programs as you have. They were given access to what were meaningful accomplishments in those days and those high profile games against big name teams help to raise their stature on the landscape. It's not just G5, it's just any lower profile school.
Similarly now getting access to a playoff and having a shot at a championship (forget about the odds of winning it) is another mechanism for the programs to get better. You can say hey come here and we can make the playoffs and win championships (again forget about how realistic). You're out there as program on the national stage with millions watching and you get more attention and talent and coaches that believe hey I can do things at that program etc...You don't have to go to a high profile program to do these things, hey you can also do it here at this lower profile school. And while you may not realistically win championships at said lower profile school, you may end up getting some better players, coaches and become ranked more often, get more fans interested etc.. If you don't have opportunity at reachable meaningful accomplishments on the national stage with some stakes, it's a much tougher job to lift yourself up.
I agree past success gets you in the spotlight. I do not see the correlation between that and a playoff system. The teams above proved they can become successful without a 12 team or even a 4 team playoff.
It's fine that you think this might improve some schools. I just see more of the same going forward. It's just a money grab. Enjoy the championships weekend.
The flip side of every game is a must win is after one loss essentially the rest of the games are meaningless. The majority of games very quickly become meaningless.
Take Penn State for example. Under the current system after October 29 the rest of the season is meaningless because it has no play off implications. Under this Penn State had to win out or else they are out of the playoffs.
Take Georgia for example. Yes they could lose to LSU and still be in under the new system but it still a very meaningful game. They lose they also lose the bye week.
Take Clemson for example. Essentially when they got blown out by ND under the current system their season was meaningless. Now every game still matters. For example when they loss to USC they dropped to 9 in the rankings. Now the game against NC is a win or out game and they lost home field advantage in the first round.
I think it increase the amount of meaningful games that playoff implications because now you have teams worrying about getting byes and homefield advantage. As we entered last week under the current system you had about 6 teams playing games that had real play off implications. Under the new system you have about a dozen. Even the p5 championship games feature at least 1 team that must win or they are out in a 12 team playoff. On top of that all 4 of the teams must win or they will lose the bye.
Do you really think I'd be in favor of any playoff system that improves Penn State getting in the playoffs???? 😉
The new system is actually worse for exposure and going to seed resentment among CFB fans.
As you said, Utah and Cincy proved they belonged by actually earning it by winning and had CFB fans behind them getting included.
Wait until an 8-4 Temple wins the watered down AAC in 2024 and makes the CFP as after being ranked 24th (or even lower).
Expecting 4 years after 12 team playoff starts the cry of unfair heard demanding change to 16.
I would support that movement because I believe every conference champion ( believe 10 now) deserves a shot and add 6 at large to make the 16
Or have it the 10 conference title holders and 2 at large.if 12 is to be kept as the magic number
I would support that movement because I believe every conference champion ( believe 10 now) deserves a shot and add 6 at large to make the 16
Or have it the 10 conference title holders and 2 at large.if 12 is to be kept as the magic number
The possibility of an opportunity being provided to one team that clearly wasn’t the most successful this season doesn’t support the idea that 8 more teams that clearly aren’t the most successful needed to be provided an opportunity.
I only believed that was media hyping it. I’d have believed the committee would have done it when it happened. I think LSU would have needed a 2007 repeat, but we’ll never know.
If done correctly there wouldn’t be meaningless games.
We simply disagree here and that’s ok. I personally think an expanded college football playoff would be amazing, they’ve have to eliminate some OOC games of course but tbh does anyone really enjoy watching us play Wagner?
Like I said, just imagine a time where Rutgers qualifies for the playoffs… it could happen with an expanded playoff
I enjoy us playing Wagner. We need the win. In my lifetime (61) there is zero chance to make the playoffs. Thinking that way is just fantasy hope. Not reality. I was busting chops above but this helps Penn State way more then Rutgers. You ok with Penn State making the playoffs?
I think that is true, it does help a PSU and a Wisconsin too. I heard on pod awhile back and how would Franklin and Chryst tenures look if it was 12 teams and they both had multiple playoff appearances. I’ll take that if it means you’ll see the KSUs, Utahs, WFs, TCUs, Baylor’s, IUs of the world also having more opportunity.
We beat K State. No chance for them. TCU has been a legit program for a long time. This is their 2nd Big 12 title. Why do you consider them one of the lowly programs? They have 9 conference titles since 1999. Great history, big money.
Most teams have NO shot at a top 4 spot.
So majority of schools feel Equally left out.
& That's parity
Completely agree with this. Truthfully I could give a rat's arse about an expanded playoff, it continues to take away from what was college football.
In a 12 team playoff, KSU would have a chance this year if they beat TCU. You know even as bad as Colorado is now, they would have made a 12 team playoff some years ago when they had a 10 win season. That’s the kind of stuff I like to see. Take it to 16 teams (which I think will happen somewhere down the line 10-20 years but that’s my limit, even I have limits lol) and you get even more those kind of things.
TCU isn’t lowly in the sense of accomplishment but more in terms of status. Patterson did a good job bringing them up and they went from the WAC to CUSA to the MWC and now the B12. They have good accomplishments but that history isn’t one of a high status program like any of the blue bloods or probably even the tier below in terms of status.
I’m 33, I have time to see RU right the ship.
I don’t really care if psu makes a playoff, good for them. Tbh the more Big 10 teams represented in the playoffs the better for Rurgers, we get a revenue share from that game as well as the added benefit of teams not named ohio state and Michigan finding national success. It ultimately bodes well for RU.
As for Wagner, it’s a meaningless game. Might as well just play a JV/Varsity tune up
I think what this kinda boils down to is some fans like change and others don’t. Neither are wrong. Though I do think it’s comical how PSU is getting brought up so it’s almost as though the only reason some don’t want an expanded playoffs is solely because it would benefit them, rather than looking at how it could possibly benefit RU…
People love to live in the past with Greg, in a 12 team playoff we make the playoffs in 06’. Think about that kinda year for a minute… a season like 06’ culminating in a Rutgers playoff birth? I’m fairly sure grown men on this board would cry
Last edited:
A birth in a 12 team playoff could be worse then a good bowl game. Playing on the road at the opponents sold out stadium of just their fans doesn't sound like fun to me. I'd rather go back to the Texas Bowl where we could all go and celebrate a great season. Playing at Alabama where no one could go doesn’t sound like a celebration of making an expanded playoff, people wont be crying over that. Although I know @AreYouNUTS would throw a great watch party somewhere!!
Last edited:
Actually we don't make the playoffs in 2006.
We were #16 going into bowl selections.
ACC Champ WakenForrest actually gets left out. They are the 7th ranked Conference Champ so they don't have an AQ.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_rankings
Seed (actual BCS ranking)
#1 (1) OSU (Big Ten Champ)
#2 (2)Florida (SEC Champ, AQ)
#3 (5) USC (PAC 10 Champ, AQ)
#4 (6) Louisville (Big East Champ AQ)
#5 (2) Florida
#6 (3) Michigan
#7 (7) Wisconsin
#8 (8) Boise State (WAC Champ, AQ)
#9 (9) Auburn
#10 (10) Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ, AQ)
#11 (11) Notre Dame
#12 (12) Arkansas
This is a nice paragraph describing how some teams had raised their profile while playing under previous and current formats
Now, think about this statement. It is the continued theme of helping teams to raise their profile.
Not once have you mentioned something to the effect of having a format that crowns the most successful team as the champion. Shouldn't that be the point of what the playoff is?
It’s not stopping anyone from being crowned champion and likely many of the same teams will still win. Not the point, I want to see more teams have an opportunity and in any given year who knows.
As to the old format helping teams raise their profiles, it’s less about the format and more about the access that allowed meaningful national accomplishments. Getting more access to the playoffs furthers that same theme, especially now when those big NY6 bowls don’t have the same meaning as they used to, players even sit out out of those games. They’re still nice accomplishments but nothing better and more meaningful than a playoff appearance and potential playoff advancement.
@WhiteBus Its a losing argument but I'm 100% in agreement with you. This basically destroys the relevance of the regular season. None of this weekends games would matter (spare me the seeding crap) and most of last weeks games don't matter either. I think it's terrible and gets rid of what's made CFB different.
I honestly prefer / miss the BCS
I honestly prefer / miss the BCS
This weekends games already don't matter.
About to have a CFP with at least 2 teams who didn't win their conference and potentially 3 if Purdue beats UM.
There was nothing wrong with the BCS for the championship game.
Peope complained about the other matchups but that wasn't the point of the BCS. It was just supposed to identify the 2 best teams and it did.
It worked fine many times. The biggest problem with it was the potential for 3+ unbeatens like ‘04 when Auburn got minimal credit when winning all their games. There were other years where 2/3 weren’t certain like ‘11 when 1-loss Bama got LSU rematch (which I agreed with) instead of 1-loss Okie State.
The safety plan format of 4 teams would have presented well this year had TCU just won today.
Similar threads
