Possible end of football conference divisions (link)

[CoralKnight]

Report: College Football Divisions Could Be In Jeopardy

College football is on the brink of playoff expansion, but that could end up meaning the end of conference divisions. Per college football insider Pete

thespun.com

With the 12 team CFP format it would allow conference championship game to be played between a league's 2 best teams.

Would be a positive for RU

 

[i'vegotwinners]

idiots are in charge.

4 teams was beyond idiotic, as you can't objectively call the winner a true champ if all major conferences aren't allowed to participate in the playoff.

therefore it's still just a "mythical" champion, just as much as it ever was.

secondly, 12 teams takes the same number of weeks to play out as 16 would, so beyond idiotic not to just go to 16 now instead of a few yrs after going to 12, and the btching over the much greater unfair subjectivity of 12 vs 16.

is it just not possible to have non idiots in charge of things?

 

[beaced]

Report: College Football Divisions Could Be In Jeopardy

College football is on the brink of playoff expansion, but that could end up meaning the end of conference divisions. Per college football insider Pete

thespun.com

With the 12 team CFP format it would allow conference championship game to be played between a league's 2 best teams.

Would be a positive for RU

Hi Leon, nice to see you are around and still a great RU Fan.Hard to believe that it has been 14 years since we watched the RU/Buffalo game together.

 

[CoralKnight]

Hi Leon, nice to see you are around and still a great RU Fan.Hard to believe that it has been 14 years since we watched the RU/Buffalo game together.

Bert
You're the model for us AK fans.

 

[dconifer]

idiots are in charge.

4 teams was beyond idiotic, as you can't objectively call the winner a true champ if all major conferences aren't allowed to participate in the playoff.

therefore it's still just a "mythical" champion, just as much as it ever was.

secondly, 12 teams takes the same number of weeks to play out as 16 would, so beyond idiotic not to just go to 16 now instead of a few yrs after going to 12, and the btching over the much greater unfair subjectivity of 12 vs 16.

is it just not possible to have non idiots in charge of things?

You have to keep in mind that it's an incremental evolution from the days where there was NO champion decided on the field, and in many years there was no agreement among pundits either. Viewed from that perspective, selecting the four best (still flawed and subjective) and letting them decide on the field was a huge improvement, if one cares which perennial helmet school is declared national champion.

I agree of course, that expanding the playoff field is inevitable. My preference would be to let every legit conference choose their champion their own way, include no wild-cards to take the subjectivity out of it, and have a bracket of however many teams that is (so long as it's not >16; I don't know how many D1 conferences there are)...

 

[ScarletDave]

Sad to see college football being eaten alive for the sake of money and TV eyes (aka also money) only. Should Duke basketball be playing in a 3,000 seat arena, no they could sell out a 10,000 seat arena. But they don’t because some things are more important. Our sport is being destroyed by TV money

 

[knightfan7]

Report: College Football Divisions Could Be In Jeopardy

College football is on the brink of playoff expansion, but that could end up meaning the end of conference divisions. Per college football insider Pete

thespun.com

With the 12 team CFP format it would allow conference championship game to be played between a league's 2 best teams.

Would be a positive for RU

I don't like a format where the schedules aren't equal. If there was just the conference level even with a 10 game conference schedule, it's not out of the realm of possibility you could make the championship never playing the 3 best overall teams.

 

[ScarletDave]

I don't like a format where the schedules aren't equal. If there was just the conference level even with a 10 game conference schedule, it's not out of the realm of possibility you could make the championship never playing the 3 best overall teams.

That already happens every year in the B1G west

 

[HeavenUniv.]

All for doing away with the divisions. Everyone gets a couple rival annual games and rest of games are on a rotating basis.

 

[anon_yoo6z3typpaw2]

idiots are in charge.

4 teams was beyond idiotic, as you can't objectively call the winner a true champ if all major conferences aren't allowed to participate in the playoff.

therefore it's still just a "mythical" champion, just as much as it ever was.

secondly, 12 teams takes the same number of weeks to play out as 16 would, so beyond idiotic not to just go to 16 now instead of a few yrs after going to 12, and the btching over the much greater unfair subjectivity of 12 vs 16.

is it just not possible to have non idiots in charge of things?

what an unbelievably pessimistic perspective.. jeez

 

[robcac26]

Terrible idea. Within the division is the only place we have balanced scheduling, and is the only fair way to determine who advances to the next level--the conference championship game. Without the divisions, the teams playing in the conference championship games would be decided either by standings that are skewed by unbalanced schedules or even worse, more teams having their seasons continue or end at the whim of pollsters in a conference room.

 

[scarletbergen]

Terrible idea. Within the division is the only place we have balanced scheduling, and is the only fair way to determine who advances to the next level--the conference championship game. Without the divisions, the teams playing in the conference championship games would be decided either by standings that are skewed by unbalanced schedules or even worse, more teams having their seasons continue or end at the whim of pollsters in a conference room.

Big 10 east is unbalanced.

 

[robcac26]

Big 10 east is unbalanced.

The Big Ten East is tougher than the West, which I assume is what you were trying to say, but at least the division standings are pretty fair because the teams within a division play almost the same schedule in-conference except for a couple crossover games against the other division.

 

[kupuna133]

Sad to see college football being eaten alive for the sake of money and TV eyes (aka also money) only. Should Duke basketball be playing in a 3,000 seat arena, no they could sell out a 10,000 seat arena. But they don’t because some things are more important. Our sport is being destroyed by TV money

You do realize that Cameron Indoor seats 9500 and standing room only goes to 10k+

 

[cicero grimes]

For all the criticism the current system gets, can anyone argue that the 4 best teams have not been in it each year? You could argue that the 1st year of the playoff the 2 B12 teams got screwed by OSU's inclusion but then OSU went out and won as a 4 seed. The current format made the regular season that much more important.

 

[Groz]

Sad to see college football being eaten alive for the sake of money and TV eyes (aka also money) only. Should Duke basketball be playing in a 3,000 seat arena, no they could sell out a 10,000 seat arena. But they don’t because some things are more important. Our sport is being destroyed by TV money

Duke's Cameron Indoor Stadium holds 9200. Not sure what you mean.

Best of Luck,
Groz

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

For all the criticism the current system gets, can anyone argue that the 4 best teams have not been in it each year? You could argue that the 1st year of the playoff the 2 B12 teams got screwed by OSU's inclusion but then OSU went out and won as a 4 seed. The current format made the regular season that much more important.

You can say you KNOW the 4 best teams are in it.. but until we see 8 we'll never have the data to KNOW.

Remember.. that first year it was 4.. OSU was thought to be a 5.. not the 4.. came in as 4 and won it all. And I'm sure there were people then saying the TWO best teams were in the championship every year prior to that.

Not a fan of 12.. don't think BYEs make any sense.. they just help the so-called top 4 teams win it all. If you want 12.. just go to 16 and the top 4 will play the bottom 4 in the first round and if that is a threat to them.. should they really be the top 4?

 

[cicero grimes]

You can say you KNOW the 4 best teams are in it.. but until we see 8 we'll never have the data to KNOW.

Remember.. that first year it was 4.. OSU was thought to be a 5.. not the 4.. came in as 4 and won it all. And I'm sure there were people then saying the TWO best teams were in the championship every year prior to that.

Not a fan of 12.. don't think BYEs make any sense.. they just help the so-called top 4 teams win it all. If you want 12.. just go to 16 and the top 4 will play the bottom 4 in the first round and if that is a threat to them.. should they really be the top 4?

For the most part the semi finals have been non competitive blowouts and that's only with 4 teams. Can you honestly say if we included the next 4 to get to 8 the results would be any different? Do you really want to see 1vs16? Bama vs Coastal Carolina for example. I would rather have a regular season where each week means something and the stakes get progressively higher until you reach the conf. championship games.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

For all the criticism the current system gets, can anyone argue that the 4 best teams have not been in it each year?

absolutely yes i can argue that, or that we have zero objective way of discerning that..

there isn't enough non conf play between major conferences to come close to an objective comparison of conferences, thus of the champions of said conferences.

that said, if you expand the playoffs to 16, (which is just as easy as 12), you much better insure the best 4 get in.

i fail to see any downside in going to 16. only upside.

 

[cicero grimes]

absolutely yes.

there isn't enough non conf play between major conferences to come close to an objective comparison of conferences, thus of the champions of said conferences.

that said, if you expand the playoffs to 16, (which is just as easy as 12), you much better insure the best 4 get in.

i fail to see any downside in going to 16. only upside.

The downside is you devalue the regular season which right now is the best in sports. You have not made the argument the best 4 have not gotten in every year so far. You really want to see an Alabama play a Coastal Carolina who I believe finished 14th in the poll last or a Liberty which was around there as well? As I mentioned previously, the semis with just 4 teams have not been that close. Now you want to add worse than the top 4? The current playoff is the objective comparison of conferences.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

…just speculation. Top-level off season crap, though!

 

[CranfordKnight]

For all the criticism the current system gets, can anyone argue that the 4 best teams have not been in it each year? You could argue that the 1st year of the playoff the 2 B12 teams got screwed by OSU's inclusion but then OSU went out and won as a 4 seed. The current format made the regular season that much more important.

Everyone can argue this, lol. It happens every year, it case you don't pay attention. Add to this fact the same 5 or 6 teams are in the playoff every year, with the unintended consequence of ruining competitive balance because recruits are being funneled to these select few teams.

 

[T2Kplus20]

idiots are in charge.

4 teams was beyond idiotic, as you can't objectively call the winner a true champ if all major conferences aren't allowed to participate in the playoff.

therefore it's still just a "mythical" champion, just as much as it ever was.

secondly, 12 teams takes the same number of weeks to play out as 16 would, so beyond idiotic not to just go to 16 now instead of a few yrs after going to 12, and the btching over the much greater unfair subjectivity of 12 vs 16.

is it just not possible to have non idiots in charge of things?

A 16-team playoff is as dumb as it gets. Let's all waste time by giving Bama, Clemson, and OSU 2 scrimmages.

4 teams are plenty. The CFP has a difficult time finding 4 legit teams in most years.

 

[Roy_Faulker]

This - expanding will, over time, help to decentralize recruiting past the top 5 teams.

It will also make the committees job a bit easier by taking some of the guesswork out.

Now Rutgers just needs to be ranked in the top 15 instead of the top 4 to be in striking distance.

 

[topdecktiger]

For the most part the semi finals have been non competitive blowouts and that's only with 4 teams. Can you honestly say if we included the next 4 to get to 8 the results would be any different? Do you really want to see 1vs16? Bama vs Coastal Carolina for example. I would rather have a regular season where each week means something and the stakes get progressively higher until you reach the conf. championship games.

Yes. A lot of times, these 5-12 teams are the ones who knock off the top 4 during the regular season.

The whole thing about the selection process is that the teams' records are compiled against such vastly different competition, you don't know for sure if some teams are really better than others.

Remember a couple of years ago Notre Dame was undefeated and lost to Clemson in the semifinals. Notre Dame might not have really been the 4th best team, but had a better record because of playing lesser teams.

On the flip side, a few years ago, UCF may have been the best team, but got overlooked because the didn't play a good schedule.

The bottom line is the reason for an expanded system (and this proposal is not the right one) is to ensure the integrity of your process, not whether more teams "deserve" to be included.

The downside is you devalue the regular season which right now is the best in sports. You have not made the argument the best 4 have not gotten in every year so far. You really want to see an Alabama play a Coastal Carolina who I believe finished 14th in the poll last or a Liberty which was around there as well? As I mentioned previously, the semis with just 4 teams have not been that close. Now you want to add worse than the top 4? The current playoff is the objective comparison of conferences.

The regular season isn't devalued by the playoffs expanding. The reason college football's regular season is so popular is because they only play 12 games, vs. 30+ for other sports. Same for the NFL vs other sports.

This idea that "every game matters" in college football isn't true. Remember the "Game of the Century " between Florida St. and Notre Dame in 1993? Florida St. lost that game and still won the MNC. Notre Dame won, and didn't even make the title game. That game didn't matter.

 

[robcac26]

You can say you KNOW the 4 best teams are in it.. but until we see 8 we'll never have the data to KNOW.

Remember.. that first year it was 4.. OSU was thought to be a 5.. not the 4.. came in as 4 and won it all. And I'm sure there were people then saying the TWO best teams were in the championship every year prior to that.

Not a fan of 12.. don't think BYEs make any sense.. they just help the so-called top 4 teams win it all. If you want 12.. just go to 16 and the top 4 will play the bottom 4 in the first round and if that is a threat to them.. should they really be the top 4?

But all that does is kick the can down the road. We weren't sure we were getting the best 2 teams with the BCS, so they expanded to 4. Now we are pretty sure we get the best 2, but there are valid arguments over whether or not we're getting the best 4. If you expand to 8, yeah you'll probably get the best 4 teams, but you can have the same argument over whether or not the best 8 were chosen. Until you have everyone making the playoffs by winning their way in via conference championship rather than by being chosen by committees, you will always have debates over whether the right teams were picked. It's not about the number of teams, it's about how they get there.

The downside is you devalue the regular season which right now is the best in sports. You have not made the argument the best 4 have not gotten in every year so far. You really want to see an Alabama play a Coastal Carolina who I believe finished 14th in the poll last or a Liberty which was around there as well? As I mentioned previously, the semis with just 4 teams have not been that close. Now you want to add worse than the top 4? The current playoff is the objective comparison of conferences.

You can also argue that it's the worst regular season in sports. What other regular season has such a high percentage of massive blowouts? Are you really looking forward to this year's mid-late November matchups between Texas A&M and Prairie View A&M, or Florida & Samford? Yes, I would prefer to see the top dogs have to get through more ranked opponents to get to the final.

A 16-team playoff is as dumb as it gets. Let's all waste time by giving Bama, Clemson, and OSU 2 scrimmages.

4 teams are plenty. The CFP has a difficult time finding 4 legit teams in most years.

If having to play teams ranked between 13 and 16 in the first round, and then either teams ranked 5-8 in the quarterfinals (or a 13-16 team that upset one of the top 4) is a scrimmage, then why even bother having Alabama and Clemson play a regular season? Those first two playoff games would be tougher matchups than almost all of their other games. If those aren't worth playing, then we might as well just skip the formalities and have them start their season in the semifinals.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The downside is you devalue the regular season which right now is the best in sports. You have not made the argument the best 4 have not gotten in every year so far. You really want to see an Alabama play a Coastal Carolina who I believe finished 14th in the poll last or a Liberty which was around there as well? As I mentioned previously, the semis with just 4 teams have not been that close. Now you want to add worse than the top 4? The current playoff is the objective comparison of conferences.

idiot argument.

can you prove the 4 playoff teams have been the 4 best every yr?

absolutely zero way you can, and to spout off you can is living in your own fantasy reality.

as for some team getting in you think is unworthy, i couldn't care less, nor can anyone else.

as for expanding the playoffs devaluing the regular season, that's beyond ridiculous.

can you PROVE harm has been done. of course not.

there is zero harm in a team getting in that has a very slim chance to win.

there is great harm in a conf champ not getting in, even if you think that team isn't one of the best four according to non totally objective criteria such as polling.

and the competitive balance isn't always as top heavy some yrs as it is others, so you can't make policy on the notion that there are always 4 teams, and zero more, with a chance to win, and that pollers can always objective know the 4 best..

 

[wheezer]

After seeing the input here, I would think 8 playoff teams are enough

As someone mentioned a 1 versus a 16 is not compelling and probably should not happen

Within the top eight however, you can make an argument for even the eighth team deserving a shot at the title

 

[Scarlet16E]

The thing is. I don’t really care who the so called best team is. What I enjoy is seeing teams get a chance to be David vs Goliath.

 

[tico brown]

A 16-team playoff is as dumb as it gets. Let's all waste time by giving Bama, Clemson, and OSU 2 scrimmages.

4 teams are plenty. The CFP has a difficult time finding 4 legit teams in most years.

It’s Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State every year. Rotate between Oklahoma, Georgia, and a surprise P5 team for the 4th spot.

Although I do agree that 12 is too much. I would’ve been good with a 6 or 8 team playoff.

 

[T2Kplus20]

It’s Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State every year. Rotate between Oklahoma, Georgia, and a surprise P5 team for the 4th spot.

Although I do agree that 12 is too much. I would’ve been good with a 6 or 8 team playoff.

I wouldn't freak out with 6. I believe the best regular season teams should be rewarded with a bye.

 

[Plum Street]

The thing is. I don’t really care who the so called best team is. What I enjoy is seeing teams get a chance to be David vs Goliath.

Yeah but is that really gonna happen? An 8 tpenseed would have gotten blown out by lsu and alabama the last couple years.

 

[cicero grimes]

idiot argument.

can you prove the 4 playoff teams have been the 4 best every yr?

absolutely zero way you can, and to spout off you can is living in your own fantasy reality.

as for some team getting in you think is unworthy, i couldn't care less, nor can anyone else.

as for expanding the playoffs devaluing the regular season, that's beyond ridiculous.

can you PROVE harm has been done. of course not.

there is zero harm in a team getting in that has a very slim chance to win.

there is great harm in a conf champ not getting in, even if you think that team isn't one of the best four according to non totally objective criteria such as polling.

and the competitive balance isn't always as top heavy some yrs as it is others, so you can't make policy on the notion that there are always 4 teams, and zero more, with a chance to win, and that pollers can always objective know the 4 best..

You insult me because you cannot make coherent arguments so I forgive you. Expanding the playoff absolutely devalues the regulars season because with a 12-16 playoff teams with 3-4 losses are going to get in. Right now every game in essence is a playoff game starting from the 1st week.
Further, you did not answer the question in what year were the 4 best teams not included? The answer is never. That is not my opinion, that is the results on the field. If you actually watched the games you would realize for the most part the semi finals have not been competitive. How is adding worse teams going to make it better as you suggest? Why not just award participation trophies to all of the approximately 130 FBS teams and forego the playoff.
Finally, what is the great harm of a conference champion not getting in? They still share in the money as a P5 conference. Do you want to see an 8-4 team in just because they won a conference that was down that year? If you are going to allege harm at least have some facts to back it up.
The playoff as structured is not a popularity contest despite what you might believe. It was designed to be exclusive, reserved for the best of the best. Is there an element of subjectivity in deciding who gets in? Yes, there is, but for the most part subjectivity is secondary to on the field results. You have to earn entry on the field by winning all or nearly all of your games to participate. Losing multiple games should not be rewarded with a playoff trip.

 

[Plum Street]

I like 4 because I like the bowls and I also think the best team has won every year under this system . No one got screwed.
But I think part of this is that big time players are opting out for the meaningless bowl games. Playoff expansion adds some more meaningful games and I am ok with that.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

You insult me because you cannot make coherent arguments so I forgive you. Expanding the playoff absolutely devalues the regulars season because with a 12-16 playoff teams with 3-4 losses are going to get in. Right now every game in essence is a playoff game starting from the 1st week.
Further, you did not answer the question in what year were the 4 best teams not included? The answer is never. That is not my opinion, that is the results on the field. If you actually watched the games you would realize for the most part the semi finals have not been competitive. How is adding worse teams going to make it better as you suggest? Why not just award participation trophies to all of the approximately 130 FBS teams and forego the playoff.
Finally, what is the great harm of a conference champion not getting in? They still share in the money as a P5 conference. Do you want to see an 8-4 team in just because they won a conference that was down that year? If you are going to allege harm at least have some facts to back it up.
The playoff as structured is not a popularity contest despite what you might believe. It was designed to be exclusive, reserved for the best of the best. Is there an element of subjectivity in deciding who gets in? Yes, there is, but for the most part subjectivity is secondary to on the field results. You have to earn entry on the field by winning all or nearly all of your games to participate. Losing multiple games should not be rewarded with a playoff trip.

i insult you because you claim we have and can objectively pick the 4 best teams every yr, even with minimal inter conf play every yr.

that's just crazy.

if we could do that, then we don't need a playoff at all, and can just declare a champ, a runner up, and 3rd and 4th place, without any games at all.

that said, if you posses that skill, you shouldn't be wasting time here, and should be on some sports betting site all day making your billions.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I like 4 because I like the bowls and I also think the best team has won every year under this system . No one got screwed.
But I think part of this is that big time players are opting out for the meaningless bowl games. Playoff expansion adds some more meaningful games and I am ok with that.

you can do the playoffs regardless of number of teams, without killing any bowls at all.

please stop promoting a false choice between bowls and a playoff.

if you mean you only like bowls with no playoff association, what exactly is better about that?

if Wisconsin plays UGA in the Whatever Bowl, the winner advancing to the ACME Bowl the next week to play another bowl winner, doesn't diminish the Whatever Bowl in any way.

 

[Plum Street]

you can do the playoffs regardless of number of teams, without killing any bowls at all.

please stop promoting a false choice between bowls and a playoff.

if you mean you only like bowls with no playoff association, what exactly is better about that?

if Wisconsin plays UGA in the Whatever Bowl, the winner advancing to the ACME Bowl the next week to play another bowl winner, doesn't diminish the Whatever Bowl in any way.

If playoffs become too big , the other bowls will suffer . Look at the ncaa men’s basketball tournament . No one out there cares about the NIT except for a few Gary waters fans on the men’s basketball board.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

It’s Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State every year. Rotate between Oklahoma, Georgia, and a surprise P5 team for the 4th spot.

Although I do agree that 12 is too much. I would’ve been good with a 6 or 8 team playoff.

the only debate should be between 8 or 16 teams.

6 teams takes the same number of weeks as 8 teams, and 12 the same number of weeks as 16 teams.

there is no valid reason to do 6 or 12.

as for 8 vs 16, what exactly is the downside of 16 vs 8, if the powers that be have already deemed we have enough weeks to do 12, thus 16 as well.

and a lot of the discussion here has been distorted by Bama's unusual dominance recently.

that's not always going to be the case..

i remember when UCLA won the NCAA in bball 10 yrs out of 12, and when they were easily 30 points better than the next best team in the country if they played all out. (Alcindor).

those things don't last, and you don't see anyone touching UCLA's 10 in 12 yrs, or any team actually being 30 points better than the 2nd best..

and the new transfer rules will likely level the playing field some as well, as Bama and OSU stockpiling four 5 stars each at left tackle and DE is less likely with the new transfer rules.

don't be so sure an 8 or even a 12 seed being able to take down a 1 isn't in the near future, as past performance isn't always indicative of future performance.

the recent Bama dominance isn't the norm, and won't be in the future either, so don't make policy assuming it will be.

 

[tico brown]

6-8 teams is enough balance between regular season importance and playoffs.

In a 6 team playoff, Top 2 get byes, 3 and 4 seeds hosts first round games with winners going to either NY6 Bowl locations or even on the road to top two seeds. Have the championship game in some $2 Billion domed stadium. Or you can have an 8 team playoff with first round at higher seeds and second round at the NY6 locations.

I know Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State is a generational thing. So in the 5 years after Saban and Dabo retires, The generational teams would be Texas, Florida, who the hell knows… But it’s the same crap with having top 3-5 teams dominating every 10-20 years. Or with the new transfer rules, Ed OBannon rules, and whatever other rule admin can think of that will taken effect in the future, it’s still going to be the sos with 3-5 teams dominating any sport.

But 6-8 teams will be enough for a playoff

 

[rucoe89]

the only debate should be between 8 or 16 teams.

6 teams takes the same number of weeks as 8 teams, and 12 the same number of weeks as 16 teams.

there is no valid reason to do 6 or 12.

as for 8 vs 16, what exactly is the downside of 16 vs 8, if the powers that be have already deemed we have enough weeks to do 12, thus 16 as well.

and a lot of the discussion here has been distorted by Bama's unusual dominance recently.

that's not always going to be the case..

i remember when UCLA won the NCAA in bball 10 yrs out of 12, and when they were easily 30 points better than the next best team in the country if they played all out. (Alcindor).

those things don't last, and you don't see anyone touching UCLA's 10 in 12 yrs, or any team actually being 30 points better than the 2nd best..

and the new transfer rules will likely level the playing field some as well, as Bama and OSU stockpiling four 5 stars each at left tackle and DE is less likely with the new transfer rules.

don't be so sure an 8 or even a 12 seed being able to take down a 1 isn't in the near future, as past performance isn't always indicative of future performance.

the recent Bama dominance isn't the norm, and won't be in the future either, so don't make policy assuming it will be.

FCS does it with 16 and it works well..