12 Team CFP

[butchna]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

it's killing college sports.

It’s always been there. Way more interesting than the original preseason favorite coronation vs opponent not tied into conference obligated bowl. Could see actual upsets and teams getting hot at the right moment winning it all.

 

[05_never_again]

Agreed the playoffs will do nothing to increase parity. I don’t care if it is 32 teams.

The parity problem is one of rule enforcement and disproportionate resources at member schools and it is what it is. The richest schools that cheat the best will be on top.

The playoff problem is one of access. Some teams can get in with one loss, others can go undefeated in consecutive seasons and never sniff it.

CFB has never been a level playing field and the playoffs are not true playoffs if everyone doesn’t have an equal chance to get in. However, in its current state I think the parity is decreasing between the top 5-ish schools and the rest of the pack, but the parity is increasing among the rest of the pack.

It’s a boring product right now is all I know. I’ve even heard Bama fans say they don’t really get excited until conference championships and playoff time. A buddy at work with a kid in Clemson has said his kid says the same thing.

At least in the poll era there was some controversy and shared championships. While not ideal, in a sport where the playing field isn’t level, that at least made it interesting.

We've gone 15 rounds on this before - the issues you describe have always existed in CFB. If you think the CFP has access problems, then I can't imagine what you thought of the access problems the BCS, Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance had. The latter 2 systems didn't even have a mechanism to put #1 and #2 in a game together at the end of the season.

You are being kind to the poll era by saying there was "some" controversy. You sure as hell don't want to go back to that, with championships that weren't even decided on the field, do you? And there wasn't even more parity in that era anyway.

 

[rjd970]

We've gone 15 rounds on this before - the issues you describe have always existed in CFB. If you think the CFP has access problems, then I can't imagine what you thought of the access problems the BCS, Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance had. The latter 2 systems didn't even have a mechanism to put #1 and #2 in a game together at the end of the season.

You are being kind to the poll era by saying there was "some" controversy. You sure as hell don't want to go back to that, with championships that weren't even decided on the field, do you? And there wasn't even more parity in that era anyway.

What are you talking about? It’s an unfair system, which I think you would agree CFB is. No?

My point is attempting to put 1 vs 2 on the field will only increase the unfairness. In a subjective poll world, at least the unfairness is interesting and fun. The playoffs will only be interesting if the system is designed like the NFL and made to increase parity across the board year over year.

If CFB is loose, fast, and hypocritical with the rules, then a championship that is loose and fast with the rules fits better.

 

[05_never_again]

What are you talking about? It’s an unfair system, which I think you would agree CFB is. No?

My point is attempting to put 1 vs 2 on the field will only increase the unfairness. In a subjective poll world, at least the unfairness is interesting and fun. The playoffs will only be interesting if the system is designed like the NFL and made to increase parity across the board year over year.

If CFB is loose, fast, and hypocritical with the rules, then a championship that is loose and fast with the rules fits better.

Define "unfair." If by unfair you mean that some schools have more money/resources than others which gives them advantages over schools that don't have as much money/resources, then yes, the sport is unfair. That's also called life.

Your solution is absurd and essentially amounts to "the sport is currently stupid and unfair, so let's just decide everything purely on the basis of sportswriters voting on who the #1 team is." If the sport is so "unfair," who do you think they'd vote #1? Isn't it likely to be a 1 or 2 loss blue blood team who you would feel didn't earn it over an undefeated, small school team?

 

[rjd970]

Define "unfair." If by unfair you mean that some schools have more money/resources than others which gives them advantages over schools that don't have as much money/resources, then yes, the sport is unfair. That's also called life.

Your solution is absurd and essentially amounts to "the sport is currently stupid and unfair, so let's just decide everything purely on the basis of sportswriters voting on who the #1 team is." If the sport is so "unfair," who do you think they'd vote #1?

Since when does sports get compared to life? Is the NFL real life? Give me freaking break. Sports are supposed to be fair, almost by definition. That is a ridiculous take.

My point is not absurd. Pray tell, what is the point of trying to define a fair method of determining a champion in a sport that isn’t fair?

Either change the sport (which ain’t happening) or embrace it and at least make it interesting.

 

[05_never_again]

Since when does sports get compared to life? Is the NFL real life? Give me freaking break. Sports are supposed to be fair, almost by definition. That is a ridiculous take.

My point is not absurd. Pray tell, what is the point of trying to define a fair method of determining a champion in a sport that isn’t fair?

Either change the sport (which ain’t happening) or embrace it and at least make it interesting.

Define "fair" then.

I guarantee you what whatever definition you come up with, the sport has never actually existed in that state. You are pining for a past that never existed.

 

[rjd970]

Define "fair" then.

I guarantee you what whatever definition you come up with, the sport has never actually existed in that state. You are pining for a past that never existed.

Really? When have I ever argued CFB was fair? I’ve argued that I think it is getting more unfair, which as you’ve said we’ve gone 15 rounds on. But I have never argued it actually was ever fair.

Fair in college football would be like any other sport. Every team at the beginning of the year at least has the hope they can win it all. That has never been CF and I have never argued otherwise.

I don’t know how to make it more clear. Determining a “fair” way to name a champion (playoff, computers, etc) in an unfair system makes for a less interesting season and sport.

 

[05_never_again]

Really? When have I ever argued CFB was fair? I’ve argued that I think it is getting more unfair, which as you’ve said we’ve gone 15 rounds on. But I have never argued it actually was ever fair.

Fair in college football would be like any other sport. Every team at the beginning of the year at least has the hope they can win it all. That has never been CF and I have never argued otherwise.

I don’t know how to make it more clear. Determining a “fair” way to name a champion (playoff, computers, etc) in an unfair system makes for a less interesting season and sport.

That does not exist in any sport, college or pro. It sure has hell has never existed in college football.

You are pining for a past in which the sport was "fair" or "fairer," which is a past that didn't exist. 40 years ago, for example, the sport was way more "unfair" than it is today. Things like scholarship limits and TV money have leveled the playing field.

 

[rjd970]

That does not exist in any sport, college or pro. It sure has hell has never existed in college football.

I don’t know what this means. Name one NFL team that is disqualified from winning a Super Bowl before the season starts?

Literally half of Division-1 CFB is like that.

Equating the fairness of the NFL and CFB is just silly. And I’m not pinning for anything. My point, again, is it was more interesting and fun. Even when UT was bad I watched because I wanted to see how it was all going to play out and I was hoping for certain teams to win and lose. I don’t do any of that anymore. I can tell you now what the playoff picture will look like with 95% confidence. In the bowl system I had no idea how it was going to shake out and who got paired with who in the post season and what kind of controversy it would create.

 

[05_never_again]

I don’t know what this means. Name one NFL team that is disqualified from winning a Super Bowl before the season starts?

Literally half of Division-1 CFB is like that.

Equating the fairness of the NFL and CFB is just silly. And I’m not pinning for anything. My point, again, is it was more interesting and fun. Even when UT was bad I watched because I wanted to see how it was all going to play out and I was hoping for certain teams to win and lose. I don’t do any of that anymore. I can tell you now what the playoff picture will look like with 95% confidence. In the bowl system I had no idea how it was going to shake out and who got paired with who in the post season and what kind of controversy it would create.

Oh, so a team has to be formally disqualified before the season starts to have no chance of winning a championship? Did the Jaguars really think they had a chance to compete for a Super Bowl before last season started? Do the Pittsburgh Pirates think they can compete for a World Series this year?

Besides, comparing college and pro sports in this regard is apples and oranges. Pro sports are 30-32 team leagues with specific mechanisms (salary cap/luxury tax, worst team gets #1 overall draft pick the next year, revenue sharing, etc.) to encourage parity. And are those things really "fair" anyway? If a team has money, why shouldn't they be able to spend it on players? Why does the worst team in the league get a bail out by getting to pick first in the draft? Why should the Cowboys' revenue be shared with the Jaguars?

What exactly would you change about CFB to ensure that Eastern Michigan has realistic hopes of competing for the national championship every year?

 

[peaygolf]

It’s always been there. Way more interesting than the original preseason favorite coronation vs opponent not tied into conference obligated bowl. Could see actual upsets and teams getting hot at the right moment winning it all.

I get it. I really do. I know I’m the “old man” yelling “get off my lawn,” but the regular season in college football used to really mean something. Striving for a Bowl game and school/team pride.....
Now days, it seems that if your school isn’t in the playoff hunt, nobody cares. Bowls don’t mean squat. 7,8,9 wins just means you’re average. I really do miss the days that the goal in the SEC was the Sugar Bowl. With a 130 odd teams, it’s impossible to really say who the best team is, because of the different schedules and such......

I need to adapt and embrace it........

 

[rjd970]

Oh, so a team has to be formally disqualified before the season starts to have no chance of winning a championship? Did the Jaguars really think they had a chance to compete for a Super Bowl before last season started? Do the Pittsburgh Pirates think they can compete for a World Series this year?

Besides, comparing college and pro sports in this regard is apples and oranges. Pro sports are 30-32 team leagues with specific mechanisms (salary cap/luxury tax, worst team gets #1 overall draft pick the next year, revenue sharing, etc.) to encourage parity. And are those things really "fair" anyway? If a team has money, why shouldn't they be able to spend it on players? Why does the worst team in the league get a bail out by getting to pick first in the draft? Why should the Cowboys' revenue be shared with the Jaguars?

What exactly would you change about CFB to ensure that Eastern Michigan has realistic hopes of competing for the national championship every year?

Yes - the G5 is disqualified at the beginning of every season.

Every. Season. Period.

literally half the field or more can go undefeated and never get there. That is the way CFB is and I’m not arguing otherwise or that it necessarily should be any different.

The pirates, Jaguars, etc at least have a prayer of eventually making it at some point because the system allows it. The playoff is a great method in that system.

Western Michigan plays in a system where it is impossible for them to win it all, or at the very least, makes it several orders of magnitude harder than another system.

And for the last time, I’m not arguing CFB should be fair. Geezus. I NEVER HAVE.

I’m saying a playoff system, BCS, etc doesn’t fit or make the CFB system as fun or interesting as the bowl system. If it’s the Wild West with the rules and resources and recruiting I think it makes it more interesting if the championship method is the same.

 

[05_never_again]

I’m saying a playoff system, BCS, etc doesn’t fit or make the CFB system as fun or interesting as the bowl system. If it’s the Wild West with the rules and resources and recruiting I think it makes it more interesting if the championship method is the same.

I just figured I'd ask. You do a lot of complaining about the current system. How would you make it better? Go back to purely a poll system?

 

[rjd970]

I just figured I'd ask. You do a lot of complaining about the current system. How would you make it better? Go back to purely a poll system?

I think with the way CFB is structured, the poll system is more interesting and fun, yes.

 

[bamawriter]

I’m saying a playoff system, BCS, etc doesn’t fit or make the CFB system as fun or interesting as the bowl system. If it’s the Wild West with the rules and resources and recruiting I think it makes it more interesting if the championship method is the same.

I pretty much agree with this, though for a different reason. The bowls became less interesting when they started locking in contracts with specific conferences. It used to be that the SEC champ went to the Sugar, but could rotate out to the Orange if the matchup allowed for a national title opportunity. The SWC, the ACC, and the Big 8 had similar deals with the Orange and Cotton. The Pac 10 and Big 10 had the Rose. Successful independents often wound up in the Fiesta. After that, the bowls would basically bid on teams. It made for better, and certainly more varied, pairings every year. Once everything got locked in, and since there are now only two relevant independents (and even they have bowl contracts), it's not nearly as exciting.

 

[05_never_again]

I think with the way CFB is structured, the poll system is more interesting and fun, yes.

But wouldn't that favor the big teams anyway? Wouldn't the same bias that gets a 1-loss Alabama in the CFP when you think they don't deserve it rank them #1 in a poll when they don't deserve it?

We're starting to run into the reason why Bo Schembechler referred to it as a "mythical national championship." I think the fact he never won one might have something to do with it too, but he had a point. It is hard to come up with a great way of doing this in a sport with 120+ teams spread across a bunch of different conferences that all govern themselves.

 

[butchna]

I get it. I really do. I know I’m the “old man” yelling “get off my lawn,” but the regular season in college football used to really mean something. Striving for a Bowl game and school/team pride.....
Now days, it seems that if your school isn’t in the playoff hunt, nobody cares. Bowls don’t mean squat. 7,8,9 wins just means you’re average. I really do miss the days that the goal in the SEC was the Sugar Bowl. With a 130 odd teams, it’s impossible to really say who the best team is, because of the different schedules and such......

I need to adapt and embrace it........

Lot of great teams never got a chance to even compete for the NC in the old system. Predicted the playoffs would end up with 16 teams by the time this played out...12 is a good start. Regular season is vital towards that. Sugar Bowl rarely delivered a NC after Bama regressed...and unless the Canes were involved.

 

[wmcovol]

1. The bowls outside the CFP are getting killed
2. No measurable TV ratings for most bowl games now = reduced revenue soon
3. Not good competitive balance right now.

I don’t like teams getting byes in a playoff while others have to play. That’s a big advantage IMO.

I’d just as soon we go back to Ole bowl system with a +1 game between the top two teams left but it will never happen.

 

[Dudleys87]

In a normal year they put teams in that don’t deserve to play in a bowl now you’ll have teams in the big one.

You’ll have team 13 whining about how 12 didn’t deserve it and not motivated to play in another game.

The safety first group will have a field day with this

It needs to stay at 4 and if you don’t make it tough ****. Stop catering to the new culture

 

[bamawriter]

1. The bowls outside the CFP are getting killed
2. No measurable TV ratings for most bowl games now = reduced revenue soon
3. Not good competitive balance right now.

I don’t like teams getting byes in a playoff while others have to play. That’s a big advantage IMO.

I’d just as soon we go back to Ole bowl system with a +1 game between the top two teams left but it will never happen.

The bowls are actually doing quite well. ESPN loves them. If anything, there will be more bowls in the future.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

It's always been ironic to me that the two biggest critiques of the CFP are 1) it should be 8 or 12 teams and 2) a lot of the games, especially the semifinal games, are not competitive.

If you don't like the CFP because the semifinal games of a 4 team playoff aren't competitive, then you'll really hate an 8 or 12 team playoff.

This right here.

Best case, you’d delay the semifinal beatdowns for a couple rounds.

 

[Dudleys87]

This right here.

Best case, you’d delay the semifinal beatdowns for a couple rounds.

It really doesn’t matter in the end unless you catch Bama, Clemson, or OSU on an off night and the stars align the outcome is just rinse, repeat.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

I’d prefer for it to be at 8. I’ve said that for a long time. I want on campus CFP games, I want a shorter window of time between conference title games and the quarterfinals . I think that each P5 should have a representative in the CFP, IF that conference champ is in the top 12. I think having top seeded teams host CFP quarterfinals keeps the integrity of the regular season by forcing those 1 or 2 loss teams to go on the road into potentially the craziest environments we’ve seen due to the matchups we would see. To me the most intriguing thing of expanding the CFP is having the matchups on campus. If Bama slips up to Ole Miss or loses on a freak play to Auburn congratulations Bama you’re going to Columbus or Norman in December . You’re not going to New Orleans, Miami or Dallas where you’re the lower seed and the stadium is still 70% Bama fans.

I think long term Playoff expansion will be better for the sport. I think the more meaningful games played the better. Whatever happens, I’m sure the Rose Bowl will find a way to **** it up anyway.

 

[ptcarter]

I think the 4 team thing sucks. Look at the conferences- The rich get richer and this 4 team thing pretty much guarantees it. tOSU has separated themselves for the pack in the big 10. Clemson in the ACC, Bama in the SEC and other than that, an Oklahoma or a Notre Dame might make it. Recruiting-wise, it's great for these 5 teams.

Also, during the "meaningless" bowl games, the half time coverage isn't crowing about *your* school, it's crowing about these schools and the playoffs. At halftime during *your* bowl game, you get to watch the Alabama plane arrive in Pasadena, the tOSU team eating pizza and bowling after the big parade, Clemson running a light practice at a high school field in shorts, shoulder pads and helmets. These teams get free advertising during the whole of bowl season.

Add a few more teams and perhaps one of these giants will have something happen to them similar to an Auburn "kick 6" against Saban, and actually kick one of these teams to the curb and maybe two teams not mentioned above will make the finals, and hence their recruiting will benefit and perhaps pull future good players away from these teams that win too much.

And one more thing.. the "meaningless" bowl games - players don't really care. I'm seeing a lot of the best players refuse to play in the bowl games because the don't want to get hurt. Not many players do this in a playoff situation.

Just saying.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

I think the 4 team thing sucks. Look at the conferences- The rich get richer and this 4 team thing pretty much guarantees it. tOSU has separated themselves for the pack in the big 10. Clemson in the ACC, Bama in the SEC and other than that, an Oklahoma or a Notre Dame might make it. Recruiting-wise, it's great for these 5 teams.

Also, during the "meaningless" bowl games, the half time coverage isn't crowing about *your* school, it's crowing about these schools and the playoffs. At halftime during *your* bowl game, you get to watch the Alabama plane arrive in Pasadena, the tOSU team eating pizza and bowling after the big parade, Clemson running a light practice at a high school field in shorts, shoulder pads and helmets. These teams get free advertising during the whole of bowl season.

Add a few more teams and perhaps one of these giants will have something happen to them similar to an Auburn "kick 6" against Saban, and actually kick one of these teams to the curb and maybe two teams not mentioned above will make the finals, and hence their recruiting will benefit and perhaps pull future good players away from these teams that win too much.

And one more thing.. the "meaningless" bowl games - players don't really care. I'm seeing a lot of the best players refuse to play in the bowl games because the don't want to get hurt. Not many players do this in a playoff situation.

Just saying.

I’m for more meaningful games. I don’t think the regular season will be compromised, although I believe an 8 team would be better.