I don’t think it was necessarily garbage. It did its job in finding the two best teams and usually got it right. You had 11 different national champions during the BCS years, and the BCS bowl games didn’t have star players sitting out either.
How can you possibly say it "usually" got it right? It "usually" put two good teams in the finals. No one has ANY idea if those were the BEST two teams.
With the radically different schedules everyone plays it is impossible to know who the "best" teams are without playing playoff games. Look at Basketball this year. Everyone said the Big Ten was the best, then they got crushed in the tournament.
Public Option does not mean "right".
Comparing the CFP selections over the years and the projected BCS have the same 4 in every year. Number 2 is different in 3 of the seasons, but it doesn’t seem all that controversial. That’s why I say the BCS usually got it right.
I think they would still be playing for the highest possible seed, so I can't imaging any team would want to bench their starters. With so few games in the regular season, every win or loss can be significant for the post-season.
And I certainly don't see either UM or OSU doing this for The Game. Hell, fans in Ohio would probably demand Day's head if he did something like this.
The more teams allowed into the meaningful post-season playoffs, the more the future NFLers might be apt to stay and play.
"My fear with with that is that you will then have teams with their divisions locked up who will start benching their starters at the end of the season."
Not necessarily... Seeding will play a big role, along with an opportunity to deny a rival any seat at the table.
If by some stretch of imagination Michigan would have a chance to deny a playoff bid to OSU, you think UM will bench players? If Alabama can prevent Auburn from getting a spot, you think they bench players?
No, I don’t think any team with an opportunity to deny a rival a playoff spot would sit their starters, but a team that is basically locked into a playoff spot very well may. Maybe a bye seed would factor in but maybe not. A team can’t do that now without likely losing a playoff spot, but it would be an option for a coach with an expanded playoff. I think it would likely happen somewhere and that would open a can of worms.
They devalued the bowls and we saw what happened. You can’t devalue the regular season without some consequences.
The current system had the unintended consequence of devaluing the non-playoff bowls.
Come on man. You really think the Alamo Bowl means anything different today than it did 10 years ago?
While the Alamo Bowl didn’t have a ton of value to lose, it, and all the other ones have lost value.
I was speaking more about the former BCS bowls. UNC had four of their top five players sit out last year’s Orange Bowl in the team’s first trip in school history. That stinks for the game and didn’t really happen before the playoff came around.
The horse is out of the barn now so I’m not sure how you go back to fix that. Maybe expanding will make things better, but the intensity of the regular season is going to start taking a hit at some point.
Tell me how the CFP has any relevance to an 8-4 UNC team having players sit out of a game. So pre-CFP/BCS, when the #4 team in the ACC would be playing in the Sun Bowl that would cause those players to reconsider sitting out to protect their health?
Yes actually. And even moreso for big bowls that aren't the playoffs.
"The current system had the unintended consequence of devaluing the non-playoff bowls. "
You say that as though it is bad...
MOST of the bowls are valueless, and SHOULD go away.
There were less than 20 Bowls in 1985.
There were 40 in 2019.
It’s bad for all fans when you have multiple players sitting out of the Orange, Sugar, and other major bowls. It’s bad when it’s your team with players sitting out any bowl.
I personally enjoy more bowl games. You don’t have to watch them. Most players and fans like them, and the host communities definitely like them. In late December I’ll take all the college football I can get. ?
Yet you haven't explained how the CFP "ruined" the bowl games. I can't imagine you are arguing that if there was no CFP this year, no one playing in the Orange Bowl would have sat out.
Even pre-CFP or BCS, all but 1 or 2 bowl games were "meaningless" and had no impact on the national championship team, so how is that any different now?
I don’t think I ever said that the CFP “ruined” the other bowl games. I did say that it devalued the other games, and I think a lot of people agree and have written about it. I don’t know for sure if the CFP is what ultimately caused all these player opt outs or not. I really don’t care enough to look any deeper. But the timing sure matches up
No one is going to sit players in a seeding system.
Going to 16 or so teams is going to give a lot of teams something to play for well into the last part of the season not alone increase viewership big time. This is a no brainer...always has been.
Yes please. I'm all for expansion. The playoff, while at its core has always been a great idea, has since its inception only further increased the divide between the true elites of college football and everyone else. Can anyone really dispute that Clemson, Alabama and OSU aren't all lightyears ahead of everyone else?
Not saying that's their fault. Everyone has to find a way to up their own game, but I think other teams getting in and having a shot will serve to increase the parity of the game. It will allow the teams a tier or two below the true elites, the Michigans, Penn States, Floridas, Wisconsins, the opportunity to sell to recruits "hey, we can get there, too. You'll have the opportunity to play for it all just the same as Alabama, Clemson and OSU do."
I don't know that the final result of who wins it all would change, but it would certainly increase the variability and offer up a chance for someone else to take the throne in a given year.
I know I'm Debbie Downer in pointing this out but doesn't this just delay the inevitable? It's still just a couple teams that will continue to get the same dominant, talented players that are head and shoulders above the rest. What we'd be getting is a few more interesting games before we reach the same damn rerun in the championship game that got old long ago, with Alabama hoisting the trophy.
And to add insult to injury, Nick Saban just signed a contract extension through 2028. That's, at minimum, another 4 national titles between now and then.
Those "new" teams that make an expanded playoff system will benefit per recruiting in the long run. Meaning that after a period of about 5 years, those teams that make an expanded 8 or 12 team playoff will get traction on the Big 3 you mention above.
Given how NCAA football has changed over the past 20 years, I can envision more parity, but it will will take several years and rounds of playoffs for that to show up or have an impact.
How appetizing. The possibility of FINALLY having some parity outside of Bama and Clemson.
All we have to do it wait another 7 years. Yay?
You may not be wrong, and I've got the same reservations about it as well, but at least this way you are introducing some variability and increasing the possibility that someone else might be able to hoist that trophy. Its almost like a "hey, what do we have to lose by doing this?" kind of deal. Yeah, Alabama, Clemson or OSU are probably still going to be the ones left standing in the end, but hey, you never know.
And this would also serve to benefit Michigan on the recruiting trail. This kind of expansion would put reaching the playoffs well within Michigan's sights, loss to OSU or not, and you can sell that to recruits. You can sell them on a legitimate chance to be in a position come late December/early January to be playing for it all. And then depending on who you're matched up with, who knows what happens. You get a Michigan, Penn State or Wisconsin into the playoffs for a couple of years, it allows them to bolster their recruiting and catch up to elites. Enough to where maybe you can get into striking distance, take one of them down, and then boom, everything changes overnight.
I'm a cynic on this subject too, but I feel like you'd have to at least try. Otherwise you know for sure that nothing is going to change. At least with this option, there's a chance to break the logjam.
I'm honestly not sure what the answer is. IMO the problems caused by the current system are:
- Increased recruiting inequity due to the same few teams making it every year (and players wanting to play for those teams)
- Made non-playoff bowls (even New Years bowls) pretty meaningless, and increased elite players for non-playoff teams shutting things down for the season
- Didn't really solve the last team in debate, because the difference between #4/5 is usually not very big and also still results in the G5 feeling like they got shafted
I think #1/#3 can be mostly solved by an 8 team playoff, because it will increase access to the playoff and the field is large enough that if a team doesn't make it they really have no-one to blame but themselves. Also it can solve the G5 problem with an auto-bid, without taking away opportunity for 1 loss P5 teams.
I think #2 really needs to be solved by fair and standardized NIL + compensation for athletes. Basically make sure players (especially elite ones) get enough $ to make the entire season worthwhile, and also you could stipulate that some significant portion of money is automatically forfeit if a player chooses to shut things down for the season early, including the bowl game (barring legitimate medical concerns).
Not personally convinced a 12-team playoff has benefits over an 8 team playoff, but there could be good reasons.
The number of teams in the playoffs isn't going to change how good Alabama is. There could be 32 teams in the playoffs. Alabama will still be the highest quality team where excellent players will go.
If Nick Saban retires then that would change that team.
Better coaching staffs, not more playoff teams, will change a teams fortunes.
12 would probably be too many . But it would help make the post season games more meaningful . So im all for it .
They only need 8. There is no need to load the playoff with 3 lose SEC teams. You know that is what will happen.
Yep. Get ready for more rematches in December and January.
For me, the excitement of college football is generated by making a perfect or near-perfect run to win a National title. Before the Playoff, a loss in September might cost you a chance, and every game mattered.
With 12 playoff spots and 6 at-large bids, that’s just not going to happen any longer. I’d be okay with a larger field if it was required to win your conference , so your spot is earned, but with at-large bids, we’re almost assured to see multiple teams with two losses and probably even some with three. This feels like a slightly altered version of the NFL playoffs.
I will tune in for the playoffs, but this will diminish the luster of the regular season, and will lead to me watching less games, because they just won’t be as important. Oh, Vandy upset #1 Alabama? But it’s their only loss, so what does it really matter? While expansion isn’t any surprise, this really bums me out as a fan.
I agree with the thought of 8 is best, but I'll gladly take 12 instead of 4. I think the current model has done nothing but create a huge inequality in college football. Will this fix that? Not immediately but over time I think the gap will close some as it helps with teams recruiting. Right now top players really want to go to Alabama, Clemson, OSU and perhaps Georgia, LSU or Oklahoma for the most part. All teams that have dominated the 4 team playoff model.
FBS makes it so unnecessarily hard for themselves here. I get that there's a lot of great tradition around the Rose Bowl and disputed national championships and all that, but now that we're away from that, we just need to do what some many other leagues do which is at least 12 teams, home playoff games, etc. Life will be ok if the crappy bowls vanish as long as you give everyone in FBS a reasonable path to play in the tournament
I prefer 16 or 24 but 12 is something I could settle for. 8 has the same problems as 4 IMO
Serious question. Does anyone think getting rolled by Bama Clemson or OSU as a #3-#12 seed and leaving the playoff with zero wins is going to help with recruiting? Is being the 11th seed and losing to Clemson 52-14 going to help get you with the big recruits? To be honest it will just be more selling points for the big 3.
Why are so many people assuming the #11 and #12 teams are so bad? Just last year Clemson struggled to beat unranked BC. In 2019, they beat unranked UNC by 1. In 2018 they barely beat Syracuse and Texas A&M. A&M finished #16 in the polls.
Call me crazy, but something tells me that a team in the top 12 just might be able to give them a run as well.
Call me crazy, but something tells me that a team in the top 12 just might be able to give them a run as well.
And every once in a while they might get an upset. Even the occasional upset would make the whole thing worth it, IMO. But it can't happen if they don't play the games.
We still wouldn’t make it with harbaugh
Why do you post the same shit in every...fucking...thread.
What a coincidence... 12 is my lucky number!
I see one problem with the 12-team formula where the #1-#4 teams earn a bye; the #5-#8 teams host the #9-#12 teams on campus. I don't see Gene Smith or Greg Byrne sitting idly by not having their teams play the first playoff week, while Michigan, Penn State, or whoever is raking in $7M+ in revenue by hosting a playoff game with Oklahoma, LSU, or whomever. You'd have to pool the revenue some way, creating something else to fight about.
We should drop the regular season and simply have a 125 (or whatever) team playoff. And every game should start in overtime. And the quarterback of every team should be a Heisman finalist. And we should have cake every night for dinner.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a cloud to go yell at!
Earning a participation trophy to a 12-team playoff invite would get us back to a level of satisfaction that the fanbase appeared to enjoy by virtue of, say, making the Rose Bowl. The EXCELLENCE NOW! crowd would like Harbaugh again.
It would be happy making the playoffs every year
Won't fix a damn thing. More teams will get in but the results will be the same. All three of Bama, Clemson and Ohio State will secure auto-berths to the semis along with one of Georgia/Notre Dame/Oklahoma. The monopoly on talent and elite coaching is too strong with their programs now, and the rest of the pack is too incompetent to catch up. LSU was really the only break in that pattern
Whats the fix you propose? Take the best teams out?
I've always loved college football and the emotion and enthusiasm that was part of so many games even if they had championship implications. I thought that the playoff would diminish college football and I think most people agree it did. The new system will diminish it further. Regular season games that don't have implications for the playoff will be regarded as most bowl games are now: worthless and uninteresting. (Probably those regular-season games will not even have the cache of the minor bowl games so may people hold in contempt.)
If we don’t start becoming more competitive it won’t matter how many teams they expand the playoff to.
Rich Rod wasn’t right about much, but one thing that he did say should be embraced: we will start winning more when we deserve to. This should be the mindset about how we get back in the playoff mix, not superimposing the everyone-gets-a-trophy onto the playoff format.
If it has to happen, the 8-team plan is the most logical and fair in terms of determining worthy participants and providing incentives to teams. Of course this means that the 8-team option will never happen.
If we don’t start becoming more competitive it won’t matter how many teams they expand the playoff to.
Rich Rod wasn’t right about much, but one thing that he did say should be embraced: we will start winning more when we deserve to. This should be the mindset about how we get back in the playoff mix, not superimposing the everyone-gets-a-trophy onto the playoff format.
If it has to happen, the 8-team plan is the most logical and fair in terms of determining worthy participants and providing incentives to teams. Of course this means that the 8-team option will never happen.
Just make it 16. I don't like byes.
But they'll make it a 12 team so there's plenty for sports talk shows to continue to talk and complain about.
I just want more teams in so there's more good games in January.
What concerns me is the discussions between taking a team that lost its conference championship and a team that lost its division. Both teams may have legitimate claims, but that's a lot of "not quite champion" to navigate.
With such short seasons relative to basketball, I am more in favor of a 16- or 32-team tournament with the conference championship games eliminated. This allows one more regular-season game (why not have 13, since the NIL discussion illustrates perfectly why these are professional athletes and compensation should go beyond a degree they may or may not value) and ten conference games is a better baseline for schedule strength.
The conferences, obviously, will reluctantly give up those championship games. It's a hurdle, but not an insurmountable one. It's also long past time to extinguish the smouldering anachronism of bowl games.