New playoff model

[cpf2001]

If nobody's willing to move back to smaller conferences so you can play everyone in your division, and only have 2 divisions, "championship games" are kinda dumb.

 

[WreckinGT]

I don’t know what sport you’ve been watching the past 50 years but this is the closest to parity this sport has ever been. Unless you think watching an Alabama win 6 titles over a decade is parity. Or watching UGA buy player after player under the table to win back to back is parity.

What you are really saying is that you would rather watch a Texas team filled with bought for players under the table play Kennesaw who would immediately be put on probation and stripped of scholarships if the NCAA found out they took 5 recruits to Ruth’s Chris.

You are the fan who had his head stuck in the sand and believe this sport was ever legit. You watched decades of paid rosters beating non-paid rosters but now that the little guy can buy a player you don’t like it? Just weird.

And conferences and divisions are nonstarters. Play the games your AD schedules and win enough to get invited. We could have done it except for an egg against Pitt which was totally a GT problem.

I think you misunderstand me. I know the sport wasn't legit in the past. You seem to think it is legit now because the little guys can buy one or two players. It isn't. Aside from Indiana doing the impossible, the rest of the top 10 is basically blue bloods with money. Indiana is playing a team willing to spend 5+ million on QBs every year. The top 10 in recruiting rankings look pretty much the same as they always have. The top 10 in the transfer portal? Just the same money teams. There is no parity. The same teams that spent under the table are now spending over the table. We are going to see Oregon, UGA, Ohio St, and Alabama in the playoffs every year. Texas, LSU, Penn St, Texas A&M, Miami, and Oklahoma will be there most years as well. They aren't going to be replaced by Wake Forest because of NIL.

Who really benefits from the new NIL world? Teams like Texas Tech and Oklahoma St. Teams that have tons of money to spend but don't have the history or infrastructure of the real blue bloods. They can buy there way up to that level. Everybody else is buying the blue bloods throw away players. So what do you get if you expand the playoffs? A couple of legit teams with a small chance to win it all. A few mediocre P4 teams that will get slaughtered. And another G5 team or two that will also get slaughtered. Imagine Houston and UVA in the playoffs this year.

Meanwhile also, probably a third of those teams are dealing with coaching changes, opt outs, and transfers. How exciting.

 

[bke1984]

1. It’s foolish to pretend that the 24th best team has any chance against the #1 team.

This statement is foolish. It’s unlikely, sure. But the #1 team often plays very close games with even unranked teams, let alone teams in the top 25.

 

[UgaBlows]

Get rid of conference championship games. Have two 16-team national championship playoff brackets - one for P4 and one for G6. Seems too simple, but I would watch both tournaments, because I love college football (even with my love being dampened by all of this NIL and portal nonsense).

G6 playoffs would absolutely be some really entertaining, good football. I would watch the hell outta that

 

[Richard7125]

Suck it up or watch on TV. I bet the fans go to the games.

Edit: not telling you to suck it up, but those fans that don’t want to travel to watch their team play in the CFP.

serious question, what's your affinity for neutral sites?

 

[TampaBuzz]

I would imagine Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Miami, Orlando, New Orleans would be potential sites for a Southeast regional. Those could all be expensive unless you already live there.

You got something against Tampa?

 

[Root4GT]

So at 16 it would have added Notre Dame, BYU, Texas and Vanderbilt.

That is an improvement. The difference in those 4 and the teams is is marginal. 16 with no byes is a better model. I would have Conference Champions get Auto bids though so Duke, as painful as it would be would have gotten in.

Apparently the SEC wants 16 teams and the B1G wants a future guarantee that in a few years the CFP will go to 24 teams.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

I think you misunderstand me. I know the sport wasn't legit in the past. You seem to think it is legit now because the little guys can buy one or two players. It isn't. Aside from Indiana doing the impossible, the rest of the top 10 is basically blue bloods with money. Indiana is playing a team willing to spend 5+ million on QBs every year. The top 10 in recruiting rankings look pretty much the same as they always have. The top 10 in the transfer portal? Just the same money teams. There is no parity. The same teams that spent under the table are now spending over the table. We are going to see Oregon, UGA, Ohio St, and Alabama in the playoffs every year. Texas, LSU, Penn St, Texas A&M, Miami, and Oklahoma will be there most years as well. They aren't going to be replaced by Wake Forest because of NIL.

Who really benefits from the new NIL world? Teams like Texas Tech and Oklahoma St. Teams that have tons of money to spend but don't have the history or infrastructure of the real blue bloods. They can buy there way up to that level. Everybody else is buying the blue bloods throw away players. So what do you get if you expand the playoffs? A couple of legit teams with a small chance to win it all. A few mediocre P4 teams that will get slaughtered. And another G5 team or two that will also get slaughtered. Imagine Houston and UVA in the playoffs this year.

Meanwhile also, probably a third of those teams are dealing with coaching changes, opt outs, and transfers. How exciting.

What is your definition of bluebloods? I’m looking at the final top 10 rankings and I see 3 “bluebloods” - Ohio St, ND, and Oklahoma -winning history across multiple decades and multiple coaches. Indiana, Texas Tech, A&M, Ole Miss, and Oregon are definitely not bluebloods. UGA and Miami I wouldn’t consider bluebloods but they at least have some success in their history.

Sure, teams who paid under the table are still paying over the table. But now other teams are paying as well which is spreading the talent. If you can’t see how UGA, Bama, LSU, and others have been hurt by NIL and the portal then there is nothing we can say to change your mind. 4 years ago Bama and UGA were fielding teams full of 4 and 5 stars and they won Natty after Natty after Natty (8 out of 14 years).

Since NIL and the portal has come into existence the SEC hasn’t even made the Natty game and we have 2 teams in it that haven’t been relevant in 20 years and forever. Ole Miss made the Final 4 after decades of being average. Oregon hasn’t ever won a thing and now they made the Final 4.

GT bought a 5 star player last year who has said if it wasn’t for NIL he would have signed with either Clemson or UGA (for a bag). That has happened every recruiting cycle for 50 years against teams like GT. We all, on this board, watched guys flip and flop every signing day. It wasn’t because they changed their mind it was because when another player would flip that a bag became available to them , and poof, they were off to UGA, Auburn, FSU, or Clemson. We have thread after threads for years on this board discussing it.

NIL and the portal have made this sport much better and has opened it up to more fans. We all just witnessed the Indiana fanbase take over Mercedes Benz stadium which is what we use to see only from SEC fans.

 

[forensicbuzz]

serious question, what's your affinity for neutral sites?

My affinity is to not play a CFP game on someone else’s turf. The game is difficult enough without having to go into their house and beat them. Neutral site makes for a more level playing field. The way things are stacked today, there would be 4 SEC teams with 2 home games 3 B1G teams with 2 home games and 1 ACC/B12 (probably B12) team with 2 home games if the first 2 rounds were on campuses.

I’ll flip the question back to you…why are you interested in giving a team that much of an advantage in a playoff?

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

No one should have a home field advantage.

 

[doobie]

No one should have a home field advantage.

I agree it’s a big advantage, but the games are so much better when they are on a college campus. Worth it imo. I hate neutral site college games.

 

[gtcole]

getting a home playoff game is the award for doing well in the regular season in my opinion

 

[GTJackets]

No one should have a home field advantage.

No one should have a home field advantage as long as a committee is involved in determining seeding. I think it's great to be rewarded with a home field if you can have a way to award it that doesn't involve a popularity contest.

 

[Richard7125]

My affinity is to not play a CFP game on someone else’s turf. The game is difficult enough without having to go into their house and beat them. Neutral site makes for a more level playing field. The way things are stacked today, there would be 4 SEC teams with 2 home games 3 B1G teams with 2 home games and 1 ACC/B12 (probably B12) team with 2 home games if the first 2 rounds were on campuses.

I’ll flip the question back to you…why are you interested in giving a team that much of an advantage in a playoff?

I agree there is an advantage to playing at home, but I don’t think it’s huge. I think Vegas gives it about 3 points. Most of the time the better teams just win. This year the road teams Alabama and Miami beat Oklahoma and A&M, respectively. The two Home wins were Oregon over JMU and Ole Miss over Tulane (and I don’t think you will find anyone saying those wins were due to home field advantage).

Most football playoffs are played at the higher seeded team’s home field. Not sure why college football should be different. It was originally done to accommodate the existing bowl games, but that should be revamped. Again, I’m just talking about the first few rounds so the people who support the program aren’t dropping $10k each week to travel to neutral site games. Play the semis and finals at a neutral site.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I agree there is an advantage to playing at home, but I don’t think it’s huge. I think Vegas gives it about 3 points. Most of the time the better teams just win. This year the road teams Alabama and Miami beat Oklahoma and A&M, respectively. The two Home wins were Oregon over JMU and Ole Miss over Tulane (and I don’t think you will find anyone saying those wins were due to home field advantage).

Most football playoffs are played at the higher seeded team’s home field. Not sure why college football should be different. It was originally done to accommodate the existing bowl games, but that should be revamped. Again, I’m just talking about the first few rounds so the people who support the program aren’t dropping $10k each week to travel to neutral site games. Play the semis and finals at a neutral site.

And I'm okay with the first round, but prefer neutral sites after that. Neutral sites are not $10k each week, so I'm not sure where that comes from. That's about 3-4X too high.

 

[Mandingo Finkelstein]

getting a home playoff game is the award for doing well in the regular season in my opinion

Yes. And, in March Madness, if you are a 1-seed definitely and perhaps a 2-seed, you often are placed in a nearby location. When they changed the location format about 10 years or so ago to place teams from different regionals in nearby venues, it has led to the Duke's and UNC's of the world - even though in a different regional - playing games at places like Greensboro or Charlotte. Talk about a "home" crowd advantage and huge challenge for whoever might face them.

But, it is a game and even with that advantage, upsets do happen. For instance, 12 years ago, Mercer upset Duke in Raleigh in the first round. Those examples are few and far between though.

 

[LT 1967]

B1G makes another proposal for 24 Team Playoff. See excerpt and CBS article below.

As College Football Playoff executives prepare for their annual meeting ahead of the national championship game in Miami, the sport's two power brokers remain locked in a standoff over the future of the postseason, which could leave the playoff frozen in its current format for at least one more season.

But behind the scenes, the Big Ten is floating a compromise it believes could potentially break the stalemate as the clock nears midnight on the CFP's Jan. 23 deadline for a decision.

The conference prefers a 24-team playoff, with or without automatic qualifiers, but is willing to temporarily accept a 16-team field if the rest of the sport commits to expanding to 24 teams within three years, industry sources told CBS Sports.

CFP expansion: Big Ten floats temporary 16-team field as stopgap amid stalemate with SEC

The Big Ten and SEC remain locked in a standoff over the future of the College Football Playoff as executives meet ahead of the national championship game

www.cbssports.com

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

I don’t want the SEC and Big getting 12 of the 16 teams. Then playing in their own stadium.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

If your going to have 16 teams, them there will be multiple teams in the same conferences. Why not let CCG’s be the first round or two? It’s basically what we had a couple times this year with OU-Bama, UGA-Ole Miss, and IU-Oregon.

If it can be incorporated into the "championship games", then great. I just believe the total number of games that have to be played to win the Natty should be capped at 16 (I would be okay with 15).

 

[stinger78]

Yes. And, in March Madness, if you are a 1-seed definitely and perhaps a 2-seed, you often are placed in a nearby location. When they changed the location format about 10 years or so ago to place teams from different regionals in nearby venues, it has led to the Duke's and UNC's of the world - even though in a different regional - playing games at places like Greensboro or Charlotte. Talk about a "home" crowd advantage and huge challenge for whoever might face them.

But, it is a game and even with that advantage, upsets do happen. For instance, 12 years ago, Mercer upset Duke in Raleigh in the first round. Those examples are few and far between though.

And happen more often in basketball than football.