ADVERTISEMENT

Expanding the college football playoff system

Using end of regular season final rankings how many times would we have made the playoff this century? 4? I’ll take it.
 
The 12 team scenario means a team could place 17 games (or theoretically even 18). The teams in the NC game will usually be in at least their 16th game. There’s a part of me that thinks that’s too many. Most of these kids are supposed to be students first, and they’re not getting compensated enough to get their heads kicked in 15-18 times so that the corporate sponsors can make a couple extra million.

It would probably eliminate some lesser bowls. There would have to be early round playoff matchups that conflicted with the early games (pre-Christmas), so they’d be ignored.

Rather than seeding the field, I think it should be regionalized in the first round, maybe 2. That improves access for the actual fans. Also reduces the odds of conference opponents meeting in the title game. The 3rd round games could work into the existing bowl system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedCrimsonandGray
The 12 team scenario means a team could place 17 games (or theoretically even 18). The teams in the NC game will usually be in at least their 16th game. There’s a part of me that thinks that’s too many. Most of these kids are supposed to be students first, and they’re not getting compensated enough to get their heads kicked in 15-18 times so that the corporate sponsors can make a couple extra million.

It would probably eliminate some lesser bowls. There would have to be early round playoff matchups that conflicted with the early games (pre-Christmas), so they’d be ignored.

Rather than seeding the field, I think it should be regionalized in the first round, maybe 2. That improves access for the actual fans. Also reduces the odds of conference opponents meeting in the title game. The 3rd round games could work into the existing bowl system.
I will always come back to this:
  • Eight conferences - join one or STFU
  • Conference champs move to playoffs
  • Conference can determine whatever they want to name a champion - but you’re only getting one team in
  • Seed them and let have at it
I suppose you can play the first round a week after regular season ends. New Years Day for round two. Championship the week after.

The main point is win your conference or forget about it.

A side benefit is that out of conference scheduling is irrelevant to your playoff chances. You want cup cakes then so be it. You want to test yourself then have at it.
 
Last edited:
How many years has it taken them to figure out that all of the P5 conference champions should earn an automatic playoff invitation? Hopefully, of the 6 at large births, the top G5 conference champs also get picked.
 
The 12 team scenario means a team could place 17 games (or theoretically even 18). The teams in the NC game will usually be in at least their 16th game. There’s a part of me that thinks that’s too many. Most of these kids are supposed to be students first, and they’re not getting compensated enough to get their heads kicked in 15-18 times so that the corporate sponsors can make a couple extra million.

It would probably eliminate some lesser bowls. There would have to be early round playoff matchups that conflicted with the early games (pre-Christmas), so they’d be ignored.

Rather than seeding the field, I think it should be regionalized in the first round, maybe 2. That improves access for the actual fans. Also reduces the odds of conference opponents meeting in the title game. The 3rd round games could work into the existing bowl system.
I dunno. Say you play 12 and get to the conference championship. Now you have 13. I assume there are 4 first round byes. The seeds 5-12 play, eliminating half. If you are in that group you are up to 14, if not - still at 13. Then you play the elite 8 game. You now are either at 15 or 14. Now the final 4, putting the total at 16 or 15. If you make the championship game it's at most 17 - which IS alot, granted. But suppose you are an SEC team (Alabama) that didn't make the SEC championship game so you don't even get that initial 13th game! It could theorectically happen to other major5 conference members.

But it ultimately only affects 2 teams in the end. College hoops final contenders play 7 extra games extending over 3 additional weeks and not too many complain about that and academics. Going back to 11 regular season games could further mitigate the toll.

I would LOVE to see them do it. It would create so much more interest in so many more regular season games throughout all the major and secondary conferences and with 4 byes in the mix, still much to play for regarding ceeding. That's all I have to say about that.
 
I think they need to go back to 11 regular season games if we go to a 12 team playoff. The revenue (all the revenue) from the playoffs gets divided between all the conferences to offset the revenue loss of going back to 11 games.
 
12 team playoff isn't enough. Needs at least 32 years. Possibly 64. Eliminates the need for conference championship weeks. Could also drop the body bag FCS games everyone schedules now.
 
Conference Championship games dont seem to move the needle

Something like FCS model
*24 teams playing in sold out stadiums

First Weekend
*top 8 byes
*next 8 host

2nd Weekend
*top 8 host

3rd Weekend
*four games at regional sights
 
I'm all for a playoff, and I think 12 teams is plenty. You have to make the conference regular season games mean something.

All five P5 champs get in, and hopefully at least two of the G5 champions as well. That'll leave 5 at large bids. Beyond that, the intrigue seriously starts to wane.
 
I'm all for a playoff, and I think 12 teams is plenty. You have to make the conference regular season games mean something.

All five P5 champs get in, and hopefully at least two of the G5 champions as well. That'll leave 5 at large bids. Beyond that, the intrigue seriously starts to wane.
The intrigue of the NCAA basketball tournament didn't wane as the field expanded. More teams means more sets of fans have their eyes on how their team is doing. That increases the likelihood of keeping interest throughout the tournament.
 
The intrigue of the NCAA basketball tournament didn't wane as the field expanded. More teams means more sets of fans have their eyes on how their team is doing. That increases the likelihood of keeping interest throughout the tournament.
Having a tournament that is too deep will lessen the value of the regular season; look at the NBA, and they have an 82 game season as opposed to the 13 games NCAA FB plays. Whether that is good or bad, idk.
 
Having a tournament that is too deep will lessen the value of the regular season; look at the NBA, and they have an 82 game season as opposed to the 13 games NCAA FB plays. Whether that is good or bad, idk.

It will lessen the importance of the regular season. Playoffs do that in every sport. In terms of drawing eyeballs to sell adds, playoffs always draw in new viewers who half tuned in during the regular season.
 
The intrigue of the NCAA basketball tournament didn't wane as the field expanded. More teams means more sets of fans have their eyes on how their team is doing. That increases the likelihood of keeping interest throughout the tournament.
Also allows more of an opportunity for a Cinderella, which also keeps people interested. I’m sick of Alabama/Clemson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: etowncoug
Having a tournament that is too deep will lessen the value of the regular season; look at the NBA, and they have an 82 game season as opposed to the 13 games NCAA FB plays. Whether that is good or bad, idk.
But not really. You still have to get in/get seeded. The NBA isn’t the example I’d use because it sucks anyway you slice it.
 
Having a tournament that is too deep will lessen the value of the regular season; look at the NBA, and they have an 82 game season as opposed to the 13 games NCAA FB plays. Whether that is good or bad, idk.
In theory, that’s true. But I don’t think it applies to CFB.

The problem is that the ranking system sucks. It’s inherently biased, and every season there are instances of outright corruption - where voters inflate their favorite team’s ranking and downgrade others to try to gain an advantage. There’s also the obvious scheduling disparities between schools.

Basketball has the advantage of playing 30 games (or 82 in the NBA) so even with some ratings bias there’s ample opportunity for the best teams to emerge. There’s some room for debate surrounding the bubble teams, and with exact seeding, but most years it’s pretty clear which teams belong in the top half - and history has shown that those are the teams with a realistic shot at a title.

A 12 game regular season gives enough of a sample to show who the best teams are, but it doesn’t necessarily provide enough to overcome ratings bias. A couple of voters can make the difference between a team being #4 or #5, getting into the playoff or not. Every year a very good team sits at #5 and ends up with no shot. Often those are teams that probably could win the NC if they got the right bounce. We’ve been near that conversation ourselves (before shooting ourselves in the foot in AC).

Opening the playoff to 12 teams - or even 8 - most likely includes all of the teams that have a realistic chance of winning. It does it with much more certainty than just picking 4 teams. It’ll be rare that anyone outside the top 5 wins a title, but it will end the days where #5 can complain about being left out.

It’s also harder to have Cinderellas in football than it is in basketball. One player can get hot in basketball and skew the result of a game. That’s much more rare in football. This also lessens the impact of early losses. In the current system, if you lose in week 2 or 3, you stand a good chance of missing the top 4 based on that alone. With the expansion, you can overcome an early loss (or even 2) and be well within the top 12. That flexibility also - at least in theory - makes it less sensible to schedule a bunch of cupcakes in the non conference schedule. You can afford to play good teams, because losing isn’t an automatic disqualifier, and winning might give you an edge.

Overall, I think it legitimizes the ultimate claim to the NC. And I think from a revenue perspective, a playoff has always been a better idea than the proliferation of bowls. I’m not convinced it’s best for the players - with respect to player safety or academics. I also think it increases the disparity between how much money the players are pulling in for the schools and the NCAA compared to how they’re being compensated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KRUSTYtheCOUG
I like the FCS playoff format. It has been shown to work quite well. We all know that in reality only a handful of teams have a real shot at winning the NC. In my opinion no team rankEd
out of the top 8, maybe 6 can win it. But having more teams will be better for all fans and will on occasion give us that BSU upset over OK. I’ll take that as being a lot more fun and fully entertaining.
 
  • Like
Reactions: justinbgocougs
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT