CFP Playoff Expansion
Interesting conversation with Joel Klatt on Cowherd’s show today. Klatt said he’s spoken with multiple higher ups and people “in the know” that have told him the CFP will be expanding to 8 teams sometime in the next 3-4 years. He also mentioned auto bids for conference champs. I for one am a huge proponent of this. I’m hoping for the following:
- auto bids for P5 champs
- 3 at large selected by CFP Committee. 1-5 are also ranked by the Committee
- #1,#2 get first round byes with the remaining games at the better seed’s home field
I do hope they don’t include a G5 provision for the simple fact that most years a G5 team hasn’t earned a spot. If you have last years UCF scenario then the Committee ranks them as they see fit between #6-8. This system would force better scheduling, which means better games for fans plus it would finally force some of these southern teams to head north of the Mason-Dixon line.
November 6th, 2019 at 1:37 PM ^
How would there be first round byes for the top 2 teams in an 8-team setup?
November 6th, 2019 at 1:42 PM ^
Easy solution,
After the first week of games, 5 teams remain. If the #1 seed is an SEC team, that team is automatically declared the champion.
/s
November 6th, 2019 at 1:49 PM ^
I just wasted 5 minutes trying to figure out a single way that could be possible, only way is #1 gets the double bye week lol
November 6th, 2019 at 2:38 PM ^
Actually they would have to get a triple bye, right into the Championship game.
November 6th, 2019 at 4:27 PM ^
You could give teams 1-2 a double bye, and give teams 3-4 a bye. So you have four teams playing in each round until the final.
November 6th, 2019 at 3:37 PM ^
One field. Three endzones.
Three teams enter. Only one leaves.
November 6th, 2019 at 7:26 PM ^
Either way...it'll be the 5 P5 champs and 3 at-large SEC teams.
November 6th, 2019 at 10:09 PM ^
How about this: Top six get first round byes.
Start with #7 vs. #8
Winner plays #6
Winner plays #5
Winner plays #4
Winner plays #3
Winner plays #2
Winner plays #1, winner of that game is the Champ.
This way Alabama can avoid getting upset by #8 unless they beat six other playoff teams first, and protecting Alabama is what college football is all about.
November 6th, 2019 at 1:37 PM ^
I figured this was inevitable once the playoff began.
I may be in the minority here, but I'd rather it stay at 4 teams, or MAYBE 6 if they want to have auto bids for P5 conferences. I feel like a smaller number still preserves the spirit of college football and how important each and every game is. The games lose their excitement when less is riding on them. With an 8 team playoff, we would still easily be in the running, which would be awesome, but would greatly reduce the buildup and excitement of each and every game.
November 6th, 2019 at 1:45 PM ^
I kinda agree, but college football is one of those sports where I love to see the name brand teams play each other. I think we could more easily get a home and home with Alabama or LSU if they knew that conference champs get an auto bid. Why not play the best competition to get ready for conference season?
With the unbalanced divisions, you may have to go with an 8-team playoff. You could make an argument that the runner up from the B1G East and SEC West deserve a spot in the playoff this year, along with the champs of the Power 5 conferences.
November 6th, 2019 at 1:47 PM ^
I disagree. I don't think an 8 team playoff would lessen the excitement of individual games. If anything it would potentially raise the excitement level of more games.
This year for instance, the narrative could be that Michigan has transformed their team in the second half of the season with a shot at the playoffs if they can finally over come the OSU hurdle.
More games would have more stakes for more teams late in the season.
November 6th, 2019 at 2:05 PM ^
Exactly. By week seven or eight, the season is effectively over for all but 8-10 teams.
November 6th, 2019 at 2:09 PM ^
Yeah, but you lose all of the wonderful November chaos of a top team losing and wondering if it can still make it to the playoff. Now an undefeated loses in the 2nd/3rd week of November- who cares? They will still get in the playoff.
November 6th, 2019 at 3:08 PM ^
Alabama lost the last game of the regular season and still won the CFP a few years ago. Odds are, we would've gone to the CFP in 2016 if we had only lost to OSU. Right now, if the loser of LSU/Alabama wins out, they're likely going to the CFP, provided the winner finishes undefeated. This thing is so heavily tilted to the SEC, that you basically have to lose twice to be eliminated from that conference.
November 6th, 2019 at 3:13 PM ^
Yeah, but think of it this way- every game Oklahoma plays from now on is a playoff game. They lose 1 game to anyone and they are out of the playoff, even if they win the Big 12. That is drama that will be carried over the next 4+ weeks and even against teams that have nothing else to play for. I agree the rules seem to be different for the SEC, but part of the drama for the Big 12 is knowing that the SEC gets undeserved credit, they have zero margin for error.
November 7th, 2019 at 12:00 PM ^
You don't want to penalize teams that are in tougher conferences and reward teams in weaker conferences like Clemson with the ACC. And even with an auto-bid, OU still has to win out to get to the title game, one more loss and it's probably Baylor and K-State or Texas. So OU's games would still be important. And there could be a scenario where all five conf champs have 1-loss, what do you do then? The less the committee decides the better, so choosing 3/8 is better than 4 out of 4.
November 6th, 2019 at 2:24 PM ^
Only under the assumption that the national championship is the only thing worth having in college football. The obsession with crowning one is a modern-day fascination. Even more modern-day is the notion that "bowls are meaningless" (a conceit not shared by the exuberant winning players in each and every one.) Granted, realignment greed has killed off a lot of rivalries, but the ones that play at the end of the year lend meaning to every season. So do bowls.
As for the national championship, the notion that you couldn't afford even a single slip-up is what made seasons past so interesting. If you had an 8-team playoff, Alabama vs. anyone at all is a stupid pointless game that's not worth paying attention to because nobody cares if Alabama loses anymore.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:26 AM ^
75% of the college football teams out there know they won’t make it into the playoffs before the season starts. They don’t think that means their season is over. Does Michigan right now think their season is over just because we’re not making it to the playoffs? Give me a break
November 6th, 2019 at 4:17 PM ^
Plus: On. Campus. Playoff. Games.
The thought of an SEC or ACC school traveling to Ann Arbor in December is too amazing to turn down.
6.3.6November 6th, 2019 at 1:47 PM ^
Exactly.
Play the non-conference schedule and go right into a 64 team playoff. There's nothing the NCAA can create that they can't ruin.
November 6th, 2019 at 1:51 PM ^
I don't think it would. Not an 8 team playoff. A 16 team playoff and I think you would probably be correct.
It needs to be more than 4, particularly with the current Alabama and Clemson situation. Essentially every team in the country is playing for 2 spots in a Playoff. I think it is quickly starting to kill college football the way it is right now, actually.
November 6th, 2019 at 1:55 PM ^
I like 6 fwiw.
The more you add, the more it cheapens the playoff. But Top 6 would be pretty good in terms of ensuring you have the best team in one of those slots (best meaning hottest).
November 6th, 2019 at 2:54 PM ^
6 is awful. There should be no byes.
November 6th, 2019 at 3:05 PM ^
Agreed. A bye would be a huge benefit, and that would still be determined by human biases and computers. At least in the NFL the playoff byes are determined by rules and logic.
November 6th, 2019 at 1:56 PM ^
That is a good point about the top tier teams killing the fun.
To play devil's advocate, this would be easily solved with an open image and likeness policy and actual enforcement of rules.
November 6th, 2019 at 7:10 PM ^
I don't agree with you very often, but on this I'm 100% with you.
November 6th, 2019 at 2:19 PM ^
My issue with the 6 team playoff is that Alabama or 2nd SEC team is going to always be the 6th team.
November 6th, 2019 at 3:10 PM ^
I tend to think the games are important regardless. We've lost 2 games with no shot at b1g champ or playoffs but the remaining games are still as important as usual. They would actually be more important if the playoff was 8 teams.
November 6th, 2019 at 3:35 PM ^
I think a simple solution to that problem is to guarantee one of those 8 slots goes to the best G5 team. That would mean their are two wildcard slots up for grabs, and therefore at least three P5 conferences can only send one team.
Under this format, it makes G5 competition more meaningful while also giving the lower guys a chance.
It also makes the other playoff spots more competitive. Not just because there are only two wildcard slots, but it would make seeding more important as someone would want to make sure they get to play a G5 team rather than a Georgia or Oregon.
November 6th, 2019 at 4:22 PM ^
What if the "best G5" team is ranked like 15th or even worse one year? I don't like that.
November 6th, 2019 at 4:27 PM ^
I actually dont like the idea of any auto bid for conference championship. Not all P5 conferences are created equal every year.
November 6th, 2019 at 5:56 PM ^
I was against the playoff but I'd say put it at 6 or 8 because otherwise you get such a recruiting advantage for the top 6 programs because other teams have so little chance to get in. Expanding to 8 gives you 15 teams that can make it in instead of 6.
November 7th, 2019 at 6:22 AM ^
I can’t believe this comment hasn’t been upvoted yet. Currently, the best talent is being stockpiled at Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Ohio St., and Clemson. 3 of these teams will make the CFP this year. Bama and Clemson make it every year and the others make it about half the time. Maybe some of the more elite talent starts considering other schools if they feel there is a chance to go to the playoffs with 8 teams.
November 6th, 2019 at 9:14 PM ^
I wouldn't be mad at sticking with 4 o ly because if you go back and look at teams 5-8 in any given year, very few of them are really playoff/championship caliber.
At the same time, the lack of consistency from the committee makes me think there should be more concrete qualifications
November 6th, 2019 at 10:18 PM ^
I think the fact that #4 has won it a couple times is enough validation to expand to eight.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:27 PM ^
but the gap between 1 and 4 is usually not as wide as the gap from 4 to 5.
2014 OSU - 4 vs Baylor at 5
2015 OU at 4, Iowa at 5
Also I think OSU is the only #4 to have won.
November 6th, 2019 at 1:41 PM ^
No idea how that bye set up works?
I like the rest. Eight team playoff, auto-bids for five Power 5 champs, three at-large bids. All eight re-seeded by the committee.
First round home games would be ideal for me. Then move to the NY6 bowl locations for semis like they currently do.
November 6th, 2019 at 1:43 PM ^
Seems too logical, so it wont happen.
November 6th, 2019 at 2:06 PM ^
This is exactly what they should do. Which means it will never happen.
November 6th, 2019 at 4:15 PM ^
It may be the best solution. The problem with autobids is conference schedules don't currently serve as a good season-long playoff. Unwieldy conference sizes mean (very) uneven competitive balance between divisions, and crucial scheduling crossover imbalances, meaning a much much easier path for some teams.
Upsets in conference championship games will almost automatically mean a conference gets more teams in, since the favored team will have a case as an at-large.
Plus divisions are decided by head-to-head tiebreakers -- but that contradicts one of the usual criteria for ranking teams, which is "better loss." E.g., OSU could theoretically lose all three non-conference games plus Rutgers, then edge Penn State at home to give PSU their only loss, and OSU would win the division.
November 6th, 2019 at 1:43 PM ^
C'mon man! You have the "Elite 8" every year in hoops and you can see the progression of how the games play out. No bye's in a field of 8. That is why if it expands, it will go from 4 to 8.
Other than that, I agree with the automatic bid for the P5 conf champ. It is silly that one, and sometimes two get left out under the current system.
November 6th, 2019 at 1:48 PM ^
Yeah, all that's fine except - no team ranked simply by polls deserves a bye. It's too good a benefit for the fine line between the percieved 2nd and 3rd ranked team in the country.
First round home games for the higher ranked team? Yes please. And 8 teams is the perfect number.
November 6th, 2019 at 1:48 PM ^
Not surprised by this news. I think there is a wave coming over college football to finally expand the CFP. I wish they would go to 16 teams though
November 6th, 2019 at 1:50 PM ^
Only way a G5 team should make the playoff is if it's expanded to more than 8 teams. On any given year there is a handful of likely better and more deserving P5 teams that belong in the playoff over the best G5 team.
I agree with others that a bye for the top 2 is stupid. In football it is a big advantage having to play one less game. And why do the two highest ranked teams need any more advantages? They're already getting home field advantage.
November 6th, 2019 at 2:09 PM ^
Yeah playoffs need to be expanded. 8 is probably enough. Then everybody gets a seat at the table.
November 6th, 2019 at 2:10 PM ^
IMO, it's not a TRUE college football playoff unless every team has a clear path to the tournament. That includes the Sun Belt and MAC teams. I think every conference champ should get a bid.
I mean, if we're going to consider Louisiana-Monroe as an FBS team - they should have access. Or, the bigger teams in FBS can go break off and join their own division. But the current setup is kind of dumb, where 50%+ of teams literally have no access.
It's not a college football playoff right now. It's a college football invitational. As I tell Buckeye fans: you weren't 2014 college football playoff champs. You were champions of a 4-team invitational some committee decided to invite you to (and not invite Baylor or TCU to), a decision that was made behind closed doors and for which they never gave concrete reasons.
As for Notre Dame and their access? Those elitists can get with everyone else and join a conference.
November 6th, 2019 at 2:36 PM ^
I hadn't thought of the "clear path" viewpoint, but it actually makes a lot of sense. You're right. Every team should have at least one deterministic path.
You know, I've always thought it would be a neat idea to introduce a soccer-ish promotion/relegation system between the "lower" FBS conferences and the "higher". Like, the MAC would be the lower tier for the Big Ten. Every year, at least one MAC team moves up and one Big Ten team moves down. Then you could still just have auto-bids for the higher conferences, and if you want to earn that deterministic path you first got to earn your place in the higher conference.
November 6th, 2019 at 3:01 PM ^
Promotion/relegation works for professional sports, but for college sports the problem is these kids don't have infinite eligibility.
Example: you get an amazing group of seniors at CMU that go 13-0. They just earned a "deterministic path" for next year's team that will suck once those seniors are gone.
November 6th, 2019 at 3:05 PM ^
I do wish promotion/relegation was a thing. UCF and Boise State have earned their way into a conference like the ACC and Pac-12. And I have no doubt they'd be fairly competitive there. Kansas and Oregon State, not so much.
Oh well, we can dream. There's a part of me that thinks if we had relegation, NDSU would have ascended to the MAC from FCS and then gone and won that. They would have been a bottom-tier B1G team and probably washed back out below, but for a couple years we could have had B1G teams visiting the FargoDome.