No Football Playoff expansion until at least 2025

#53
#53
RDU VOL#14 said:
So you don’t think the regular season would matter to more teams if there were 8 or 12 teams trying to make the CFP? What if teams are trying to get a CFP game on their home field instead of having to travel across the country or having to play in Ann Arbor or Columbus in December ? I think a CFP expansion would bring a greater interest for more teams later in the season .
Click to expand...
I realize it's inevitable, but it's gonna make what you do in the regular season less important, IMHO. See the NCAA tournament. Or the NFL. Or MLB. Or (hack-hack) the NBA.
Consider, if last year's SECCG had been UGA's (or Bama's) 2nd loss, it's likely neither would not have made the CFPCG. It was critical that the team with one loss win that game. When you expand the field to 8 (or 12), I would prefer my favorite one loss team skip the conference championship game to avoid risking another loss, thereby rendering the SECCG of no consequence. See 2017 Bama. As it stands now, the SECCG is the de facto play-in for the CFP. That's why it's arguably the most anticipated ($$-profitable-$$) game on the calendar, and not just for the the SEC. But, money will ultimately rule the day, as more games = more money.
 
#54
#54
BAMA-DAWG said:
I realize it's inevitable, but it's gonna make what you do in the regular season less important, IMHO. See the NCAA tournament. Or the NFL. Or MLB. Or (hack-hack) the NBA.
Consider, if last year's SECCG had been UGA's (or Bama's) 2nd loss, it's likely neither would not have made the CFPCG. It was critical that the team with one loss win that game. When you expand the field to 8 (or 12), I would prefer my favorite one loss team skip the conference championship game to avoid risking another loss, thereby rendering the SECCG of no consequence. See 2017 Bama. As it stands now, the SECCG is the de facto play-in for the CFP. That's why it's arguably the most anticipated ($$-profitable-$$) game on the calendar, and not just for the the SEC. But, money will ultimately rule the day, as more games = more money.
Click to expand...
I guess I just see it differently. I think if/when the CFP expands and they play the games at Bowl sites I will agree with you. However, if the CFP does the right thing and puts the first 2 rounds on college campuses I will be totally in favor. I think Home CFP game allows the regular season, and even the Conference title games to maintain its relevance by making the seeding that much more important. If UGA loses to USC jr during the regular season and still makes the CFP, there’s a pretty good chance they’re playing on the road or at least not getting a bye. IMO 1-4 should get a bye. I don’t think 1 should play 12 and so on. I think 5 through 12 games would be incredible and give us matchups we would not normally have during the regular season.
 
#55
#55
This is why I'm against expansion.

Using the model that seemed to have the most support, which is 6 conference champs and 6 at-large, here's the playoff for every year since it began in 2014 (and let's just pray that @RDU VOL#14 is right and they play the first round on campus):

2014, with the final CFP ranking:

#11 Kansas St (9-3) @ #5 Baylor (11-1)
#10 Arizona (10-3) @ #20 Boise St (11-2)
#9 Ole Miss (9-3) @ #6 TCU (11-1)
#8 Michigan St (10-2) @ #7 Mississippi St (10-2)

Byes: #1 Alabama (12-1), #2 Oregon (12-1), #3 Florida St (13-0), #4 Ohio St (12-1)


2015:

#11 TCU (10-2) @ #6 Stanford (11-2)
#10 North Carolina (11-2) @ #18 Houston (12-1)
#9 Florida St (10-2) @ #5 Iowa (12-1)
#8 Notre Dame (10-2) @ #7 Ohio St (11-1)

Byes: #1 Clemson (13-0), #2 Alabama (12-1), #3 Michigan St (12-1), #4 Oklahoma (11-1)


2016:

#11 Florida St (9-3) @ #7 Oklahoma (10-2)
#10 Colorado (10-3) @ #15 Western Michigan (13-0)
#9 USC (9-3) @ #3 Ohio St
#8 Wisconsin (10-3) @ #6 Michigan (10-2)

Byes: #1 Alabama (13-0), #2 Clemson (12-1), #4 Washington (12-1), #5 Penn St (11-2)


2017:

#11 Washington (10-2) @ #8 USC (11-2)
#10 Miami (10-2) @ #12 UCF (12-0)
#9 Penn St (10-2) @ #4 Alabama (11-1)
#7 Auburn (10-3) @ #6 Wisconsin (12-1)

Byes: #1 Clemson (12-1), #2 Oklahoma (12-1), #3 Georgia (12-1), #5 Ohio St (11-2)


2018:

#12 Penn St (9-3) @ #8 UCF (12-0)
#11 LSU (9-3) @ #9 Washington (10-3)
#10 Florida (10-3) @ #3 Notre Dame (12-0)
#7 Michigan (10-2) @ #5 Georgia (11-2)

Byes: #1 Alabama (13-0), #2 Clemson (13-0), #4 Oklahoma (12-1), #6 Ohio St (12-1)


2019:

#11 Utah (11-2) @ #6 Oregon (11-2)
#10 Penn St (10-2) @ #17 Memphis (12-1)
#9 Florida (10-2) @ #5 Georgia (11-2)
#8 Wisconsin (10-3) @ #7 Baylor (11-2)

Byes: #1 LSU (13-0), #2 Ohio St (13-0), #3 Clemson (13-0), #4 Oklahoma (12-1)


2020:

#11. Indiana (8-3) @ #8 Cincinnati (9-0)
#10 Iowa St (8-3) @ #12 Coastal Carolina (11-0)
#9 Georgia (7-2) @ #4 Notre Dame (10-1)
#7 Florida (8-3) @ #5 Texas A&M (8-1)

Byes: #1 Alabama (11-0), #2 Clemson (10-1), #3 Ohio St (6-0), #6 Oklahoma (8-2)


2021:

#10 Michigan St (10-2) @ #11 Utah (10-3)
#9 Oklahoma St (11-2) @ #12 Pitt (11-2)
#8 Ole Miss (10-2) @ #3 Georgia (12-1)
#6 Ohio St (10-2) @ #5 Notre Dame (11-1)

Byes: #1 Alabama (12-1), #2 Michigan (12-1), #4 Cincinnati (13-0), #7 Baylor (11-2)
 
#56
#56
So, for seven out of eight years we'd have at least one 3-loss team with a shot at winning the national title.
 
#57
#57
bamawriter said:
So, for seven out of eight years we'd have at least one 3-loss team with a shot at winning the national title.
Click to expand...
I am really hoping that there’s not 6 conference champions included. I know you and I have differing opinions on the CFP, but don’t confuse what I want with the idea of inclusiveness. I couldn’t care less if Boise, Cincy or Houston had an opportunity. I want the best 12 teams. If there is an AQ tie in, I hope there is a stipulation that’s says you have to at least be a top 15 team to be allowed in the CFP.
 
#59
#59
RDU VOL#14 said:
I want the best 12 teams.
Click to expand...

But even then you have a problem. The top 12 teams would have made the playoff in 2017 and 2021, and both would include a 3-loss team. Same for 2020 with three 3-loss teams and 2018 with four.

2014 already had three 3-loss teams. Cutting out Boise St would have added a fourth with 10-3 Georgia Tech.
2015 managed to have no 3-loss teams, but cutting out Houston would have added 9-3 Ole Miss.
2016 would already had four 3-loss teams, and cutting out WMU would have meant adding a fifth (9-3 Okie Lite).
2019 went in with only one 3-loss team, but cutting Memphis would have brought in 9-3 Auburn.

My point is that there is no 12 team model that doesn't seriously undermine the regular season.
 
#60
#60
One point I'll make that I think is lost on a lot of people is that the reason the college football regular season is so meaningful is because of the various postseason systems the sport has run over the years that people eventually grew to hate. It's directly connected.

The regular season was ultra, ultra meaningful in the Poll/Bowl Alliance/Bowl Coalition/BCS era because polls decided national champs and there wasn't even a mechanism to match up #1 vs. #2 until the BCS. In many years you couldn't withstand even one loss. If you weren't ranked #1 in a poll, you weren't the champ, and when the BCS came along if you weren't #1 or #2 then you didn't have a chance to be the champ. It's still pretty meaningful in the CFP era; not quite as much as it used to be, but it is still more meaningful than the regular seasons in professional sports.

The stuff that people complain about with respect to the playoff would just get worse with an expanded playoff. You see people decrying the fact that the regular season has less meaning than it used to, rivalry games or conference title games don't mean as much as they used to, but want an expanded playoff. You see people complaining about blowouts in CFP games, but want an expanded playoff. You see people complaining about too many SEC teams in the playoff, but want an expanded playoff. It's hilarious to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDU VOL#14 and bamawriter
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top