College Football Playoff Looking At Expanded Field Options

[Hogoff]

As I have stated...the national title in football is not the big chase it is in basketball....it is secondary to most teams...only 4 play for it.

It would be like basketball seeding for the Final Four only....and that's it.

The national title has never been relevant for other than the few top rated teams.

I would argue that the national title didn’t used to be relevant, but now going to the playoffs and playing for a national championship is quite relevant. That’s why kids go to Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State. Sure, SEC fans care about winning conference championships, but do you think Clemson fans care more about their ACC championships or national championships?

 

[billybud]

Oh...Clemson cared very much when FSU was whipping them every year...yeah, win six straight conference championships and the goal moves up...Ask Michigan fans about winning the conference championship, or any PAC fans or Big 12 fans..

Or read the Miami boards where they moan over never winning the ACC...

Yeah for Clemson and Bama...but as I posted..it is relevant for a few top teams...but not most.

 

[billybud]

Alabama has played in 4 of the last seven Finals and Clemson has played in 4....Sure they have aspirations that most teams do not....

 

[Hogoff]

Oh...Clemson cared very much when FSU was whipping them every year...yeah, win six straight conference championships and the goal moves up...Ask Michigan fans about winning the conference championship, or any PAC fans or Big 12 fans..

Or read the Miami boards where they moan over never winning the ACC...

Yeah for Clemson and Bama...but as I posted..it is relevant for a few top teams...but not most.

Not the Clemson fans I know. They care way more about their nattys then they do there ACC championships. Living in an area where about half the people are Clemson fans and the other half are gamecock fans, i have the “luxury” of talking to Clemson fans every day. When I ask them they say they care more about their National championships.

 

[Husky25]

If conference titles were more important, They wouldn't have come up with the Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, BCS, or CFP. Notre Dame would not post their #1 seasons in the stairwell and wouldn't fight to keep their Independent status while still demanding special rules to be included in the selection process.

It's a nonsensical argument. Not surprised it's being made though.

 

[ScottVib]

The counter argument to the no AQ stance is always this: If you're not good enough to be recognized as the champion of your conference; why should you be good enough to be recognized as the national champion? (Schools care about conference championships if & when the national championships are fewer/far between (or non-existent))

A merit (or as close as you'll get with the selection committee)-based approach has enough room for both AQ teams and at large selections. If the goal is to address concerns with the "lack of geographic diversity" there will certainly be AQs for each P5. If they are going to 12 (which increases the inventory greatly and brings in more dollars at a time where they are approaching a need to pay the players) then they'll through the G5 a bone with a single AQ for their highest ranked champion. That leaves 6 more spots to primarily go to other P5 schools.

If they go to 12, a move to 16 won't be that much further away (more inventory and no extra weeks); but that move won't come with greater G5 access (except as a potential at large selection), as you're not going add 4 more playoff spots and immediately grant all 4 as G5 AQ... it won't be until there is a move to 20 or 24 (which is when the FCS made the move) that you'd see AQs for all FBS conferences.

 

[CL82]

As I have stated...the national title in football is not the big chase it is in basketball....it is secondary to most teams...only 4 play for it

So, the national football playoffs shouldn’t be expanded because only four teams play for it currently?

LOL, well that’s not circular reasoning.

 

[UCFBfan]

Three fourths of the P5 will not be contenders for a NC...

Ding ding ding.....and we have our winner finally for why the playoffs stink and why CFB has become a joke. Why do the rest of the teams in FBS even bother to play if only the top 10% (I think your 1/4 was a high estimate) actually have a shot?

 

[BlueDogs]

So, the national football playoffs shouldn’t be expanded because only four teams play for it currently?

LOL, well that’s not circular reasoning.

It’s like Hong Kong elections. You can vote for anybody you want that Beijing picks for you.

 

[billybud]

Ding ding ding.....and we have our winner finally for why the playoffs stink and why CFB has become a joke. Why do the rest of the teams in FBS even bother to play if only the top 10% (I think your 1/4 was a high estimate) actually have a shot?

Like basketball...where half the seeds have no shot at all....and the #1-#3 win almost 90% of the championships?

 

[billybud]

Football isn't really a national championship

The counter argument to the no AQ stance is always this: If you're not good enough to be recognized as the champion of your conference; why should you be good enough to be recognized as the national champion? (Schools care about conference championships if & when the national championships are fewer/far between (or non-existent))

A merit (or as close as you'll get with the selection committee)-based approach has enough room for both AQ teams and at large selections. If the goal is to address concerns with the "lack of geographic diversity" there will certainly be AQs for each P5. If they are going to 12 (which increases the inventory greatly and brings in more dollars at a time where they are approaching a need to pay the players) then they'll through the G5 a bone with a single AQ for their highest ranked champion. That leaves 6 more spots to primarily go to other P5 schools.

If they go to 12, a move to 16 won't be that much further away (more inventory and no extra weeks); but that move won't come with greater G5 access (except as a potential at large selection), as you're not going add 4 more playoff spots and immediately grant all 4 as G5 AQ... it won't be until there is a move to 20 or 24 (which is when the FCS made the move) that you'd see AQs for all FBS conferences.

The counter is that an Alabama, who lost only their conference game, and yet beat two of the top four ranked teams in the CFP was indeed stronger than almost all conference champs....A conference game was only one game.

Alabama, on strength merit, deserved to play.

If Basketball moved to a limited 16 game tourney....do you think they would abandon seeding the national 16 on strength and place AQ's in the 16 regardless of strength?

 

[billybud]

Actually...I'd like an answer from a basketball oriented fan base....

If basketball had a 12 game season, and a 16 team tourney....would abandoning the current seeding the top 16 and instituting the placement of AQ's into the Sweet Sixteen be a problem?

 

[billybud]

So, the national football playoffs shouldn’t be expanded because only four teams play for it currently?

LOL, well that’s not circular reasoning.

Again...you play your game....What I actually said was that there has never been the big title chase in football as it is in basketball, it is secondary to most teams....the rest is your twisting, as usual.

You don't state opinions...you play your games....

I just stated a fact....Again, I don't give a rat's hind end about whether there is an expansion of the CFP.....I do believe 16 is doable .....I do not believe a basketball 64 team tourney would make football a better product..but that is me........and I do not think that AQ's should play in that 16 team format...the strongest teams should be seeded....just as there are national #1-16 seeds in basketball.

 

[CL82]

Again...you play your game....What I actually said was that there has never been the big title chase in football as it is in basketball, it is secondary to most teams....the rest is your twisting, as usual.

You don't state opinions...you play your games....

I just stated a fact....Again, I don't give a rat's hind end about whether there is an expansion of the CFP.....I do believe 16 is doable .....and I do not think that AQ's should play in that format...the strongest teams should be seeded....just as there are national #1-16 seeds in basketball.

Geesh relax will you? I feel like you are going to have a stroke or something.

I quoted your post:

So now you don't give a rat's butt whether or not the NCFP is expanded? SMH, your numerous posts in this thread sure seem to contradict that.

 

[billybud]

I am relaxed...iit is your style of twisting..playing games....I made a plain statement....The national title is not the big chase that it is in basketball...and illustrated that by stating that only four teams play for it.

I do post that I do not think that a large format basketball type tourney is good for football with their 12 game season....in basketball, I have opined, that it is really all about March. And I do post that AQ's should have no place in a 16 team format.

Now..feel free to post your beliefs...

 

[kingdobbs]

Actually...I'd like an answer from a basketball oriented fan base....

If basketball had a 12 game season, and a 16 team tourney....would abandoning the current seeding the top 16 and instituting the placement of AQ's into the Sweet Sixteen be a problem?

If basketball had a twelve game season and a sixteen game tournament with over 30 conferences and almost 350 participants, it has bigger structural problems than whether its tournament allows automatic qualifiers or seeds based on “merit”.

Kinda like the exact structural problems football has now. Funny how that works out.

 

[billybud]

So....no answer to my question...?

 

[billybud]

Truth is...that basketball seeds it's 16 national seeds.....and football should do the same in a 16 team tourney...

 

[CL82]

I am relaxed...iit is your style of twisting..playing games....I made a plain statement....The national title is not the big chase that it is in basketball...and illustrated that by stating that only four teams play for it.

I do post that I do not think that a large format basketball type tourney is good for football with their 12 game season....in basketball, I have opined, that it is really all about March. And I do post that AQ's should have no place in a 16 team format.

Now..feel free to post your beliefs...

You don't seem relaxed. You seem upset. It's okay. You are safe here.

 

[Husky25]

Actually that how the basketball tournament sort of used to be.

Until 1975, only one team per conference. USC was routinely one of the best programs in the nation, but UCLA was the PAC-#'s representative.

And if a national title is not so important, why do the 5* players always seem to get funneled to the top 5 of the prior year?

 

[DoctorWho85]

Plain and simple 10 AQ's and 6 at large bids means you're going to get the best teams in the country in the playoffs regardless. Not including conference champs of all conferences just means that the P5 wants all the money and doesn't want to share. Every other level of collegiate football has at least a 24 team playoff. And they make significantly less money than DI does. People are getting bored with the same 4 teams in the playoffs every year. If Clemson and Bama make it to the championship game by means of a 16 team playoff then you're getting the 2 best teams playing in the title game. You can't declare yourself a national champion by excluding 5 of the conferences playing at the same level as the P5. The basketball tournament is apples to oranges compared to a football playoff.

 

[LBird33]

This conversation is losing steam.

 

[Hogoff]

Like basketball...where half the seeds have no shot at all....and the #1-#3 win almost 90% of the championships?

The 10% are what make it exciting.

 

[NE Football]

My guess is they go to 8 with no automatic bids. That gives the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton,Fiesta & Chik fil something playoff games every year.

The problem with 16 teams is the lack of control over the money that the P5 will have. They don’t want to share anything with the G5.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think most people agree with this. The bowl attendance and ratings are going to drop significantly because all anyone will care about is the playoffs. It will be 8 teams sooner than later.

I posted that in October 2014. I am surprised it took this long to start seriously looking at expanding the playoffs. The bowls' have deep hooks into the administrations at the P5 schools.

I did not appreciate at the time how much a 4 team playoff would concentrate talent in college football. With only 4 playoff spots, either a top player is on one of a handful of teams, or he is probably not getting in the playoffs. A 4 team playoff means that maybe 8 to 10 teams have a realistic shot of making the playoff any given season. An 8 team playoff probably expands that range to 20 to 30 teams.

Every Athletic Director in the P5 is an idiot if he/she does not look at what happened to the G5 schools and know that some version of that could happen to their school. How long are Clemson or tOSU or Texas/Oklahoma going to carry their leagues before demanding a bigger and bigger share of the pie?

Greater access to the playoffs is better for everyone, especially the non-Clemson/Alabama P5 schools. "Greater access" to the playoffs really means 4 more P5 schools going to the playoffs. That is a win for everybody (that matters).