College Football Has Window to Expand Playoff to Eight Teams Next Year
I don’t have an The Athletic membership but an interesting headline just went up. I’ve assumed playoff expansion would have to wait because of the current contract but Barry Alvarez is saying that the current contract has a window to expand next year.
It'll happen soon because people who are making money off the current system can make even more with expansion.
Am I the only one who thinks that it should be 6? P5 Champions and a wildcard. Top 2 teams get a bye.
P5 champions and 3 wildcards seem a little excessive, but it's still better than what we got now.
NCAA basketball has a 68 team tournament (68/351 = 19.3% of teams in playoff).
NCAA baseball has a 64 team tournament (64/299 = 21.4%).
NCAA hockey has a 16 team tournament (16/60 = 26.6%).
Sure, in these sports they play more games over the course of a season. But, every other level of college football has a 16+ team tournament, and it's awesome.
More teams making playoffs = more parity for the sport, and that is a good thing.
EDIT:
After further research, all of the lower leagues have expanded their tournaments.
FCS: 24/125 (19.2%)
D2: 28/167 (16.7%)
D3: 32/250 (12.8%)
FBS: 4/129 (3.1%)
I'm going to disagree.
What fun is it to watch Alabama destroy a 16 seed, Or even an 8 seed in the first round?And Clemson would also beat a 7 or 15 seed by 30 points.
Let's face it there really are only about 3-4 teams each year that can win the thing. If you think there are 8 or even 16 you are mistaken.
Either leave it at 4 or dissolve it completely and go back to the old way.
I agree that Bama and Clemson would destroy lower seeds. If the expanded playoff occurred next year, I also think you would likely see the same teams (Bama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia) running the table for a few seasons, as based on recruiting, they have generally better overall talent.
The hope is that as more teams are in the playoff, the best recruits will diversify where they go to school because there are far more teams that legitimately have a shot at a title. You are always going to have powerhouses that will be good no matter what, but overall, I think parity would greatly increase.
In basketball, although upsets happen in the tournament, it is very rare for a seed lower than 4 to win the whole thing. A top 4 seed would likely win the football playoff yearly as well. But that wouldn't make watching it any less fun for fans, especially for those 16 schools.
I'm tired of watching Bama and Clemson play in the current system. I'm not going to judge the merits of a different system off of their games.
Because you would then have fewer MEANINGLESS games, and yes, the top 4 seeds should beat the 13 - 16 seeds, but no guarantee in that.
So to use your logic, cut the NCAA BB tournament back to only the top 32 teams and do not give automatic bids to the Big Sky Conference of Southeastern Missouri.
Because of the physical nature of football a bye week in a playoff would be a huge unfair advantage. Eight teams would be perfect.
Agree. There should be no BYE week in a football playoff.
It would be too much of an advantage. We would have similar controversy as now over the same teams "perceived" as better awarded the BYE position annually and it'd end up being a self-fulfilling perception as that "benefit" would allow them to win the championship more often. It has to be a similar path for all.
Yeah, but it isn't really a bye week in the traditional sense.
The teams that didn't get a "bye" would still have a full month off between the conference championship games and the CFP. Might even be a slight advantage to get an actual game under their belt going into the semis.
Never really thought about it that way. I've been a fan of a 6-team playoff for quite a while, but if you think about it, all that really does it probably make it even easier for your Alabamas and Clemsons to make their way in to the title game.
Depth is already a huge advantage for those teams, and you're giving their depth more rest while providing one less opportunity for someone to upset them.
April 15th, 2019 at 12:11 PM ^
The NFL playoffs have bye weeks as do FCS and DII. It's not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound
No team in a 12 or so game regular season with over 100 teams can be proven "better than the rest" to such a definitive degree to earn a reward as substantial as a playoff bye.
That's why an 8 team playoff is the best system. If 64 teams can play for the national title in basketball, surely 8 teams can play for it in football without complaints.
It will still be one wild card.
P5 champs, SEC runner up, SEC 3rd place team, and one wild card.
Only slightly sarcastic.
April 14th, 2019 at 10:51 PM ^
Haha. Facts.
Yep, top 2 teams get a bye and you play the extra round at campus sites. If you're gonna tell me that nobody wants to see Georgia and Bama play in Ann Arbor or Columbus in late December, I would call you a liar
I don't like giving power 5 champions an automatic spot. What if the Pac 12 champion is ranked lower than the second best Big 10, SEC or Big 12 team? If you win a bad conference with 3 or 4 losses, you should be out of the top 10.
But how can you tell if an 11-1 B1G runner-up (or whatever) is better than a 10-3 Pac-12 Champ if they have zero common opponents?
The reason to give power 5 conference champions an automatic spot is to give conference races and the conference championship games meaning and maintain interest nationally. Not doing so would be a mistake.
Home field advantage in the first round would be an adequate advantage in my view. One problem with according any advantage in the playoffs is that there will be some very close decisions. Those always get made subjectively, with a fair dose of politicking. When #2 and #3 are close, how do you decide which one gets the bye? I'd rather not add that on top of their choosing wildcards.
Home field advantage could be done different ways. It could go to the top four teams, the top four conference champions or just rotate among the conference champions. Making wildcards start on the road feels right to me.
Nope put the 8 best teams (polls) into the playoffs.
Plenty of years we will see 7-5 teams win their half of a conference bracket.Those teams should not be allowed in the playoffs
2018 division winners looked like this
Pitt 7-7
Houston 8-5
Utah 9-5
Northwestern 9-5
Those teams should not be allowed in the playoffs
The entire fucking reason people love the NCAA Tourney in basketball is because they see it as merit-based. Nobody cares if Loyola has five losses in a trash conference--they're a deserving Final Four team if they win four games in a row in March.
So if 2018 Northwestern knocks off an 11-1 Ohio State to win the B1G, why don't they deserve a spot? They won their way in.
April 15th, 2019 at 12:21 PM ^
The entire fucking reason people love the NCAA Tourney in basketball is because they see it as merit-based.
I would not describe it that way. Actually, I think it's a significant injustice that small-conference champions get left out because they had a bad weekend at the beginning of March.
I enjoy the tournament because single-game elimination is incredibly compelling, but "merit" is not an argument for it IMO. Really, it's a crazy way to decide a national champion.
April 15th, 2019 at 12:21 PM ^
Double-post.
Right with you except the part about better than now. 8 would be worse than now, but 6 would be better IMO. Brian proposed 6 several years ago, and did a convincing job demonstrating that there weren't any years in the modern era where a 7th or 8th team deserved to be on the same field with a top 4 or 6.
Except for two issues with 6 teams.
How do they get chosen? I'd bet anything it wouldn't be the top 6 ranked teams like Brian proposed.
Other than the SEC and ACC, the other conferences don't like how 4 is working out. To get their votes, a proposal is going to include guaranteed spots for all Power 5 conferences and a Group of 5. That's 6 already and without wildcards, a top 4 team would be routinely left out. 8 takes care of that and Notre Dame.
Fans might not think power conferences getting left out in consecutive years is a major reason for expansion, but many of the schools that will cast votes do. Same with no Group of 5 team ever getting in.
2 teams would get a very large advantage. It's fairer to have them play the #7 and 8 teams. And it's not as if the byes would be awarded by some foolproof, objective method
I don't see it happening. The SEC is dominating it overall and its more lucrative for them to stay at 4. If anything, itll go to six with first round byes, which will most likely benefit the SEC most years as well. Just my .02
More games mean more $$$$$ which will mostly be split up among other conferences. The SEC can't outvote them. They don't have any special power. What are they going to do? Guaranteeing one spot to a Group of 5 school will win a lot of votes.
this is good, I can't wait to hear teams 9, 10, and 11 bitch about not getting in now.
Doesn’t matter how big the field is, somebody will be complaining. A big part of me doesn’t want to diminish the regular season but I also know I would love watching an expanded playoff. If they do this, I think the power 5 champs need to get auto bids to capture the country’s attention. If it ends up 5 SEC teams and a few other champs people will tune out.
All of the thumbs up are for you...you just cured college football
I kind of like this idea because it makes bowl games relevant again and they could be used as a defacto playoff extension, like a play in.
Interesting idea but you are trying to get good match ups for the bowls which might allow an easier path. Then again you would have had your chance to prove yourself.
April 15th, 2019 at 11:45 AM ^
The match ups would need to be "seeded" based on CFP rankings. The top 2 teams on the CFP rankings would get an auto bid and then the next 4 would have to face off in a bowl game for the last 2 spots.
Play the bowl games then select the top 4 teams.
In totally non-related news, the SEC has announced an exclusive bowl arrangement with the Sun Belt Conference. Beginning with the SEC Champ, each SEC school will select a Sun Belt School of their choosing to play in an on-campus bowl game. Effective immediately.
DO IT!!!!!!!!!
I hope they do it. With the way the bowl system is these days, bring on the bigger playoff.
As meaningless as most non-playoff bowl games have become, I'd rather see the playoffs expanded AND capped at 8 teams.
-Five "Power 5" champions, two wildcards for the best two other teams, and the last spot reserved for the best "group of whatever" team as long as they don't have two or more losses.
-Penalty points assessed for having any non-division I games on the schedule.
-Notre Dame has to join a power 5 conference, otherwise get lumped in with the "group of whatever" teams, meaning that they don't get in if they have more than one loss. No more special privileges for the Irish.
-1st round games on the home fields of the four highest seeds. This rewards the season ticket holders AND forces SEC teams to finally have to travel north out of their protective cocoons.
I much prefer a system which eliminates any favoritism. And a bye is just that.
8 teams. Power 5 + whatever other conference champions are needed to fill out the slate. F@ck the 2nd place SEC. And the runner up Big 10.
Rotate the matchup on a predetermined schedule. Round 1 is BIG10 v SEC year 1, BIG 10 PAC year 2, BIG ACC year 3.
Eliminate all of the BS with rankings.
Encourages scheduling non-conference big games since they have ZERO influence on making the playoff.
2006 is the best example of why this makes sense. If UM-OSU rematch had been a NC game, the BIG would have had another NC. But it didn’t happen. But the same argument against that rematch doesn’t stop the SEC from having multiple teams kn llayoff or NC game.
Get rid of all the BS. Settle it on the field, not in a closed door meeting.
Please don't! I'd like to cut out half of the bowls as it is, but I'd settle for not expanding the playoff. LSU, Florida, Michigan, and UCF were not playoff teams last year. Georgia and Ohio State had a case, but tough. Happens.
I actually liked the BCS. I thought it was funny how so many people hated the BCS, so we went away from it, and people are upset that there are biased people making the playoff decisions, as opposed to....computers.
I think people will never be happy, regardless of what the system is.
April 14th, 2019 at 11:55 PM ^
The right choice for the 3 and/or 4 seed might not always be made, but I still think the best team has won every year. Besides, there have been two 4-seeds win the CFP (OSU in 2014-2015, & Bama in 2017-2018).
I'm not completely sold on the idea of an 8-team playoff yet, largely due to the fact that I don't wanna ever see two OSU-Mich games in the same season, but I like the 4-team playoff a lot better than the BCS.
So the 8 team playoff will look like...
1. Alabama
2. Georgia
3. LSU
4. Florida
5. SEC at large team
6. Clemson
7. OU
8. Big 10/Pac 12 team
8 teams is fine with me, but personally, I don't mind 4. Or even 2.
But if we go to 8, that should be it. No more than that, as it will take away from the regular season.
Reason I like the 4 team format:
Most years, there are only 2 teams that are championship caliber. But some years, there are 3 teams. So the 4 team format includes those teams automatically.
But there are never 5 or more teams that are truly championship worthy.
In any sport there are typically 3-4 teams that are better than everyone else and in a series would ultimately come out on top. Would you also be in favor of reducing NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB playoffs to 4 teams?
The 'best' on paper team doesn't win every year. That makes sports, particularly playoffs, fun and intriguing to watch.
16/129 teams (or 12.4%) would still be among the lowest percentage of teams in the playoffs across sports.
Professional sports? With salary caps, drafts, etc? Massive false equivalence.
College football, with it being a full-contact sport, along with some teams hoarding most of the top talent, makes it so that there is a stark dichotomy between the top couple teams and the rest. And it's been this way for a very long time.
There have been 10 college football semifinal games:
- 1 Seeds are 3-2 (the 4 seed winners - OSU & Bama)
- 2 Seeds are 5-0
- Average margin of victory for all 10 games? 22 points
- 8/10 were double digit games
- 7/10 were won by 3 or more scores
We don't really need much expansion.
April 14th, 2019 at 10:17 PM ^
All other full-contact college football divisions have 24-32 team playoffs, and they manage to do just fine.
I agree with you that currently, there is a massive talent gap between top teams and everybody else. But, I believe an expanded playoff would help increase parity as more teams would have a realistic shot at a championship, increasing the likelihood of top recruits going to a wider variety of schools.
Also, upsets happen. Was Purdue better than OSU last year? No, but they were for 1 night. Games aren't played on paper and weird things happen.
Regarding talent level: The BCS had 11 different champions in 16 seasons. College football blue bloods will always get their talent, but this massive difference in talent between the top programs and other 'good' programs is much more recent.