Do we need to expand the Playoff?

[whobethis16]

The BCS get it straight up wrong (not having the two best teams) one time, but Auburn screwed themselves that year by playing the Citadel instead of some very low-level D1 team. There have been 14 semifinal games in the CFP. 4 (29%) of them have been decided by 17 or fewer points. That's it. It's just going to get worse adding more teams. This is nothing but a money grab and to not hurt the feelings of those not good enough to make the top 4.

 

[Vol8188]

If the goal is to reward the best team, we shouldn’t expand past 4

 

[1974Vol]

Would increasing the number of teams in the CFP solve a lot of the recent problems?

Or do they actually want a lot of anxiety.

.

Don't need to expand it to identify the best team; do need to expand it to keep the rest of the country (outside SEC) interested. It can and does change week to week but right now 3 out of 4 of the best teams in the country are SEC - Dawgs, Vols, LSU. On a neutral field I would take all three over Big 10 and those 3 plus Bama and ol' Miss too over TCU. So you get it to 12 all 5 conferences get a team in and it just doesn't come to be a SEC playoff which is where its headed based on quality of the teams.

 

[Palmetto_Exiled]

Expansion of the playoff will make the regular season meaningless. It already has to a certain extent: witness our recent discussions about whether it would have been better to win or lose to Georgia. This would have been unthinkable just ten years ago.

In reality there are usually at most three teams at the end of the season that have a legit claim at being worthy of playing for the NC. Sometimes there are four. Going beyond that dilutes the excitement and tension in the regular season and increases the likelihood that one of those top three teams gets knocked off by some fluke.

Six teams with no automatic bids would be tolerable. Eight teams with five auto bids would retain the importance of conference championships, but what happens when a dog pulls an upset in a CCG? Say that some three or four loss team knocks off undefeated Ohio State in the Big Ten CCG. Now what? You have a garbage team that gets an auto bid to play for the NC and some far more deserving at-large gets knocked out. And anything beyond eight makes the regular season nothing more than a qualification for the playoff.

 

[Vol8188]

Don't need to expand it to identify the best team; do need to expand it to keep the rest of the country (outside SEC) interested. It can and does change week to week but right now 3 out of 4 of the best teams in the country are SEC - Dawgs, Vols, LSU. On a neutral field I would take all three over Big 10 and those 3 plus Bama and ol' Miss too over TCU. So you get it to 12 all 5 conferences get a team in and it just doesn't come to be a SEC playoff which is where its headed based on quality of the teams.

It doesn’t have to be the actual top 4. Just the four teams who may be the best team.

Meaning TCU probably isn’t too 4 in reality. But if LSU has already lost 2 games, we know LSU is not the best team in the nation. TCU may be. Given they’ve not lost, they deserve a chance to prove themselves. LSU does not

 

[1974Vol]

It doesn’t have to be the actual top 4. Just the four teams who may be the best team.

Meaning TCU probably isn’t too 4 in reality. But if LSU has already lost 2 games, we know LSU is not the best team in the nation. TCU may be. Given they’ve not lost, they deserve a chance to prove themselves. LSU does not

That's the way its decided but based on the way LSU is currently playing I would take them over TCU if they played. Also, 2 losses or not LSU most likely wins the West and plays most likely Georgia in SECC. If the Tigers win the SECC they're top 4 . If you're a voter it comes down to, do you go with the team that's "earned it" or with the team that would win head to head if they played. I'm agnostic on that, my point was you don't need more than 4 to find the NC, but 12 will help keep national interest as all the power 5 will get a team in.

 

[Vol8188]

That's the way its decided but based on the way LSU is currently playing I would take them over TCU if they played. Also, 2 losses or not LSU most likely wins the West and plays most likely Georgia in SECC. If the Tigers win the SECC they're top 4 . If you're a voter it comes down to, do you go with the team that's "earned it" or with the team that would win head to head if they played. I'm agnostic on that, my point was you don't need more than 4 to find the NC, but 12 will help keep national interest as all the power 5 will get a team in.

No one is putting in a 3 loss LSU over a one loss UT that destroyed them on their own field. Not a two loss

 

[Sudden Impact]

Would increasing the number of teams in the CFP solve a lot of the recent problems?

Or do they actually want a lot of anxiety.

.

going to 12 is the right solution and basically if that were the case this year all we would be doing is talking about Seeding and which 2 loss teams make it and which ones don't

 

[sami]

I want 16 or 8. 12 is stupid and inherently unfair to those that don't get a bye.

How is it unfair to give a bye to an unbeaten or 1-loss team that finished in the top four as opposed to a 3-loss team that squeezed in as the 12 seed? The byes will be the only real incentive for better teams late in the season unless the committee is smart enough to play the games at campus sites instead of some sterile dome, the way they do in March Madness. I've always felt that March Madness would be substantially better, especially in the first two rounds, if the games were in campus sites and all the energy that they bring.

But it's only ever about money, and every single decision regarding rules or playoffs in college and pro sports is made with the first, second, and third consideration being how the bottom line is affected. Every. Single. One.

 

[cbrown]

I think the playoffs should be expanded, and was of the opinion that 8 would be ideal. I was listening to Barrett Sallee last year and he convinced me that 12 is probably a good balance. I think the primary danger of expanding the playoffs to too many teams is diminishing the importance of the regular season. BS made the case that 12 teams with teams 1-4 getting a 1st round bye and teams 5-8 getting a 1st round home game maintains the value of the regular season. Teams would likely have stakes to play for all the way to the end - either trying to move up a tier or making the field at all. One of the main problems with the playoffs as they exist now is that most teams are out of contention fairly early in the season and the same handful of teams have dominated the field. Having more teams with a chance to get it just increases interest in the sport IMO.

 

[sami]

Doesn’t that help keep the relevancy of the regular season intact? Right now we wouldn’t get a bye because we lost to UGA, but we would host UCLA or someone at Neyland in the 5/12 game. That to me is the exciting part of all of this. I think the part where the 12 team cfp loses sight of things is in the quarterfinals where they make the 1-4 seeds play the first round winners at bowl sites and not their own home stadium. I find that to be ludicrous . If your team goes to the National title they are expecting fans to travel to 3 different big cities during the holidays? Get out of here w/ that. The games on college campuses will be huge when that time comes.

It should, in this case, be like the NFL. All the games should be at the higher seed's home stadium until the championship game, which is at a neutral site like the Super Bowl. The product would be worlds better, and it's another way of rewarding higher seeds.

They are hypnotized by this idea of making this like March Madness, when the cold reality is that no 'cinderella' 12-seed is going to win four, or even two games. Yeah, you'll get the occasional upset, but much more often it will be ugly blowouts with people tuning out at halftime.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

Why not 16 teams with the first two rounds played at home sites?

You can do that. I’m all for more football. At the same time I don’t need to see NC State go to UGA to get smoked. I think a lot goes into that decision to add that extra round . Do you do away w/ conference championships?

 

[sjt18]

How is it unfair to give a bye to an unbeaten or 1-loss team that finished in the top four as opposed to a 3-loss team that squeezed in as the 12 seed?

In part because it puts another burden on lower seeds with regard to fatigue and injuries. Why have them in at all if you're going to do that. Just play with 8 and go from there.

And also the polls aren't even close to perfect neither is the selection committee. We probably agree that UGA deserves to be #1 but how about after that? Did tOSU look like the 2nd best team in the country vs Northwestern? It is doubtful a 3 loss team will ever make the field. But there are two loss teams right now that are likely better than TCU.

The byes will be the only real incentive for better teams late in the season unless the committee is smart enough to play the games at campus sites instead of some sterile dome, the way they do in March Madness.

So winning a conference championship, going undefeated, getting a higher seed... aren't real incentives?

But it's only ever about money, and every single decision regarding rules or playoffs in college and pro sports is made with the first, second, and third consideration being how the bottom line is affected. Every. Single. One.

I know that's a comfortable cliche... but it isn't true for this any more than it is true for you personally. Are ALL of your decisions simply a matter of whether you are getting paid or not?

I personally think there is a LOT of value of determining your champion on the field rather than by pointy headed journalists.

 

[sjt18]

You can do that. I’m all for more football. At the same time I don’t need to see NC State go to UGA to get smoked. I think a lot goes into that decision to add that extra round . Do you do away w/ conference championships?

Actually if they're going to do this I think conference champs should get an automatic bid... and probably fill the top 5 spots.

In my ideal world, the FBS is made up of 4 sixteen team conferences. Conference championship games would be the first round of the playoff.

 

[sami]

You can do that. I’m all for more football. At the same time I don’t need to see NC State go to UGA to get smoked. I think a lot goes into that decision to add that extra round . Do you do away w/ conference championships?

I said it earlier, but the expanded playoffs not only devalues conference championship games, but makes them less attractive to even get to for the better teams.

Case in point - UGa is the best team in the country, and a certain #1 seed should they win out, while UT is in a good position to get a #4 seed. Would you rather play the SEC title game, which does nothing to help Georgia but can only hurt their seeding, or be able to rest and prepare for the playoff as an 11-1 team like UT will be if they win out? Give me the rest and preparation time.

 

[sami]

In part because it puts another burden on lower seeds with regard to fatigue and injuries. Why have them in at all if you're going to do that. Just play with 8 and go from there.

And also the polls aren't even close to perfect neither is the selection committee. We probably agree that UGA deserves to be #1 but how about after that? Did tOSU look like the 2nd best team in the country vs Northwestern? It is doubtful a 3 loss team will ever make the field. But there are two loss teams right now that are likely better than TCU.

So winning a conference championship, going undefeated, getting a higher seed... aren't real incentives?


I know that's a comfortable cliche... but it isn't true for this any more than it is true for you personally. Are ALL of your decisions simply a matter of whether you are getting paid or not?

I personally think there is a LOT of value of determining your champion on the field rather than by pointy headed journalists.

I'm sorry, but that is an incredibly naive point of view. Nice if it were so, but look at any rule change or playoff change in any sport in the last 30 or so years, and find a single one whose basis isn't financial. And comparing my personal decision making with a billion dollar industry is the same as the silly comparisons of everyday joe's to multimillionaire players with regard to how they live or contracts they sign. A completely different world.

Regarding incentives, why would a team care about even playing in a conference championship game and another week of wear and tear after a long season if the only incentive was a higher seed that didn't even offer a first round bye? You're looking at this with a 'pie in the sky' viewpoint that has little base of reality. I only wish the world was as you see it, but that horse left the barn and is long gone.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

I said it earlier, but the expanded playoffs not only devalues conference championship games, but makes them less attractive to even get to for the better teams.

Case in point - UGa is the best team in the country, and a certain #1 seed should they win out, while UT is in a good position to get a #4 seed. Would you rather play the SEC title game, which does nothing to help Georgia but can only hurt their seeding, or be able to rest and prepare for the playoff as an 11-1 team like UT will be if they win out? Give me the rest and preparation time.

True, but it’s been that way for a long time. See 2001. I think the value that it could bring is securing that bye and what I do think should be hosting a CFP game at their home venue.

 

[wesley21]

Don't need to expand it to identify the best team; do need to expand it to keep the rest of the country (outside SEC) interested. It can and does change week to week but right now 3 out of 4 of the best teams in the country are SEC - Dawgs, Vols, LSU. On a neutral field I would take all three over Big 10 and those 3 plus Bama and ol' Miss too over TCU. So you get it to 12 all 5 conferences get a team in and it just doesn't come to be a SEC playoff which is where its headed based on quality of the teams.

Exactly what I’m saying. The “best” teams don’t make it because of a shittier conference championship. Alabama would still roll Ohio state and Michigan. Hate to say that

 

[sami]

Actually if they're going to do this I think conference champs should get an automatic bid... and probably fill the top 5 spots.

In my ideal world, the FBS is made up of 4 sixteen team conferences. Conference championship games would be the first round of the playoff.

In a perfect world, the strength of those four conferences would be relatively equal. In the real world that is hardly the case.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

Actually if they're going to do this I think conference champs should get an automatic bid... and probably fill the top 5 spots.

In my ideal world, the FBS is made up of 4 sixteen team conferences. Conference championship games would be the first round of the playoff.

I think there should be some sort prereqs for a conference champion getting in. I know that would never happen, but it would be ridiculous if you have a terrible B1G West team at 7-5 or 8-4 and they’re playing undefeated Ohio State in the conference title game. Say CJ Stroud, half the OLIne and WR group get the flu and miss the game . The #24 B1G West team squeaks out a win and they get in the CFP? Nah. IMO in a 12 team CFP you should at least be top 15 or top 20 in a 16 team CFP. I’m not a huge fan of AQ bids. I want the best teams. I’m sure Kliavkoff and Jim Phillips strongly disagree.

 

[IndianaVol]

I agree with most of the rest here.
CFP expansion is good, but 16 is too many and 12 sets a weird week off for any random 4 teams (wanna bet who habitually gets that week off...cough, cough OSU, Bama, Clemson cough, cough).

I think 8 is ideal.
It only adds one week to the schedule.
Just about every year, there is a marked drop in 'competition' (for lack of a better word) at around that 8 to 10 spot.
It gets more bowl games involved in the CFP, which boosts ratings and draws bigger crowds.

About the only thing I can find fault with 8 is that with the SEC and B1G getting bigger (and others likely to follow) with that extra week this is likely going to end the conference championship games and that will be decided via the old way of records and polls.
That takes a 'deciding factor' away from the CFP committee if they can't do an 'automatic bid' for an SEC Champ.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

One problem is that a very good team, Tennessee, is going to be left out of the playoffs.

Friend, the Volunteers are not going to be left out of the playoffs.

100%. 100%.

 

[sjt18]

I'm sorry, but that is an incredibly naive point of view.

I have plenty of life experience to assure you that it is not.

Nice if it were so, but look at any rule change or playoff change in any sport in the last 30 or so years, and find a single one whose basis isn't financial.

The RESISTANCE to ANY playoff was 100% financial. Eventually that thinking was defeated.

And comparing my personal decision making with a billion dollar industry is the same as the silly comparisons of everyday joe's to multimillionaire players with regard to how they live or contracts they sign. A completely different world.

Now... you have demonstrated who is naive. There comes a point for the truly rich... the kinds of people you seem to be referencing... where money is nothing more than a measuring stick of their success. A scoreboard. They have everything materially they want and it is secured multiple times over through diversification.

And who exactly do you think benefits financially from playoffs vs bowls or whatever other system?

Regarding incentives, why would a team care about even playing in a conference championship game and another week of wear and tear after a long season if the only incentive was a higher seed that didn't even offer a first round bye?

Please for goodness sake tell me you aren't that ignorant. Why do Jr High players want to play another game to win a championship? Why do soldiers want to have the top PT score in their company?

And you ignored the higher seeding which is also important.

You're looking at this with a 'pie in the sky' viewpoint that has little base of reality.

LOL. Hardly. You are trying to make human emotions, ambition, and motivation simple... you're trying to redefine it in a way that (unfortunately) seems to make sense to YOU. Having led people as as part of the military and several large and small companies... 4 among the largest and most successful in their markets... I know that ALL people have strong motives that override financial concerns. I have known and worked for several extremely wealthy men. NONE were motivated by money in the way that seems to make sense to you.

The company I work for now is privately held. The primary owner is extraordinarily rich and financially secure. Money in the way you think of it... wouldn't make his top 10 list of motivators. He believes in what he's building. He's very generous with those who work for him. He places a priority in being charitable to the communities in which we operate. He funds missions and charities across the 3rd world. He believes his products and services make the world better.

I only wish the world was as you see it, but that horse left the barn and is long gone.

People who are motivated by wealth in the way you seem to think is "the world"... fail. They fail 100% of the time. Not just at life but at business too. People who think like you believe "the rich" do... are why lottery winners generally have nothing left after a few years.

I am glad that the whole world isn't the way you see it... and that I've been blessed to live in it.

 

[Illinoisvolfan2]

Well, it’s happening in 2025. Going to 12.

 

[JoAllan]

How is it unfair to give a bye to an unbeaten or 1-loss team that finished in the top four as opposed to a 3-loss team that squeezed in as the 12 seed? The byes will be the only real incentive for better teams late in the season unless the committee is smart enough to play the games at campus sites instead of some sterile dome, the way they do in March Madness. I've always felt that March Madness would be substantially better, especially in the first two rounds, if the games were in campus sites and all the energy that they bring.

But it's only ever about money, and every single decision regarding rules or playoffs in college and pro sports is made with the first, second, and third consideration being how the bottom line is affected. Every. Single. One.

The mandatory 4 with a bye is dumb.

I have no problem whatsoever with the top 4 teams having a bye; however doing a “mandatory” 4, this is utterly ridiculous.

We will see at least a 2 loss team ranked around 8th getting into the top 4. All it takes is some weaker seasons in say the PAC and ACC then someone upsets someone else on championship Saturday.

We will see at least 2 11-1 or an 11-1 & 12-1 teams being ranked like 3rd and 4th (or so) being kicked to 5th and 6th and playing the first game………while some underachieving team who beat no one all season finally put it together to beat someone gets in the top 4.

It’s usually extremely clear who the top teams are. There is literally zero need to make sure the PAC, the B12 or someone else gets their champion in on a bye.