re: [The Athletic] What An Expanded Playoff May Look Like

quote:

---

know you didn’t but that was one of the things that were laid out in the OP and I was mostly arguing against.

Also most years it wouldn’t be like that. BYU might be intriguing (though they did struggle against the only ranked team they played in the regular season) because you want to see how they might do versus a top P5 team. But if you look at most year’s polls, the lower rank of the top 16 teams would be 3 loss P5 teams. Like Iowa in 2019. I just don’t think a team that lost 1/4 (30% under your reduced scenario) of their games deserves to be in. That’s a significant chunk of games to lose and still be in. Especially for a sport where there’s so many give me wins already. So basically teams have to show up for 5 games a year and they’re in

---

I dont disagree with that in totality. Yes there will be blowouts, but from an interest standpoint, it keeps the fans from those 16-25th ranked teams, interested in the season. Again, thats GOOD for college football. Nobody is arguing that a 16 would ever beat a 1...but never say never. The point is, the more teams are still engaged to try and make that top 16...the better for college football.

quote:

---

The TaxSlayerDot.Com bowl is what some of you want back?

---

frick yeah! Give me some 7-5 MAC team versus a 8-4 sunbelt team in a random Wednesday before Christmas. It was awesome.

quote:

---

A 16 over a 1? Highly doubtful

---

Once again! A 16th seed in CBB is 64th to 68th overall seed. It’s much more likely that a top 16 team (based on the AP poll) in CBB beats a top 3 team. In CFB, the top 3 teams are usually blowing out even ranked teams.

quote:

---

Which is why we're talking about just 16 not 64

---

Blowouts are seen even with 16 teams. Because that’s my point. CBB and CFB are not similar. The gap between teams is much smaller in CBB overall.

quote:

---

Auto bids for the G5 maybe but P5 chances are extremely unlikely

---

I was referring to auto bids for the G5 teams not happening, not the P5 teams

quote:

---

And your point? Having three at large bids in an 8 team or 11 at large in a 16 team playoff gives the G5 teams a far better chance then now

---

Seriously? How do you not understand? You keep missing my point. I said 3 to 4 loss teams would get in. You said no because of G5 auto bids, and laid out a 2019 hypothetical showing no 3-4 loss teams getting.

What I’m saying is that your hypothetical is BS. They won’t go that route of G5 auto bids because in doing so would be to give G5 teams a lot of respect. So the much more likely 16 team scenario involves 3-4 loss teams getting in since there would be numerous at large bids probably based off a playoff like poll.

quote:

---

Obviously this is done for ratings but expansion will help the G5 teams that's not even up for debate.

---

I’m not debating that. I’m saying 16 teams is too much because what will happen will be 3-4 loss teams getting in. So it’s too many team that don’t deserve in. I didn’t say anything about a highly ranked G5 team getting in.

quote:

---

Not if all the conference commissioners and presidents agree to it. Its 100% doable.

---

Bill Hancock said himself, there is no timetable for an extended playoff because they are locked in obligated contracts with TV, schools and others. 2025 would be the earliest movement for an expansion.

quote:

---

I didn’t say it would, but now that you asked; there is so much emphasis placed on making the playoffs that top programs that don’t make it basically have their season over once they are out of contention. Let’s say a 2 loss Oregon and a 2 loss Michigan win their conferences (Michigan may be a bridge too far. They ain’t winning shite). Well those two may be invited to the rose bowl, and in years past, that was HUGE! Today, half the team will opt out because the game isn’t a goal for them. It’s not a target. The don’t care.

Taking the emphasis off the playoffs is one way to do that.


Now I’m not anti playoff or even anti expansion, but what I don’t want are average to slightly above average teams getting a shot at a national title.

---

AGAIN, how would expanding to a 16 team field do that? You yourself have said that a 16 seed would NEVER beat a 1 seed. So how does that give them a "shot at a national title"? Does the 16 seed in the NCAA tournament have a shot at the national title? This is literally making college football more competitive. Maybe, if the teams that have 2 losses, still knew they had a shot, maybe they would keep practicing hard and make the product better. I could argue that, once a team loses 2 games, the season becomes meaningless to them in the current system. NOTHING of the current or past status quo is going to fix opt-out culture...people need to really start understanding that. The only thing that will mininumize it is MORE teams in the playoffs.

quote:

---

I gets rid of 7-5 or 6-6 teams making a bowl game they dont deserve to be in.

---

Why do you think a lot of teams would agree to this? First you proposed to reduction to 10 regular season games. Now you also talk about less teams making bowl games. In both cases athletic departments are going to be missing out on a lot of money. The playoffs helps the teams getting, but the vast majority they’re not getting in.

It doesn’t matter what they think regarding fewer bowl spots, but I can’t see even a lot of teams (even most P5 ones) agreeing to reducing regular season by 2 games. That’s a lot of revenue lost.

quote:

---

Why do you think a lot of teams would agree to this? First you proposed to reduction to 10 regular season games. Now you also talk about less teams making bowl games. In both cases athletic departments are going to be missing out on a lot of money. The playoffs helps the teams getting, but the vast majority they’re not getting in.

It doesn’t matter what they think regarding fewer bowl spots, but I can’t see even a lot of teams (even most P5 ones) agreeing to reducing regular season by 2 games. That’s a lot of revenue lost.

---

You're probably right about the 10 game schedule. I said the presidents would never agree to it. But i stick to what i have said about the playoff expanding to 16. Make the playoff and you dont have to worry about that revenue being lost right? Again, that puts MORE pressure on teams to win...which is GOOD for college football. I keep hearing these arguments which are rewarding mediocrity. I thought we wanted to get that out of sports?

All we have ever heard from SEC fans over the years is "our conference is so strong", we beat up on each other (which i dont disagree with btw). Well wouldn't that be the very 3-4 loss teams you are describing? Maybe a 12th seed 4 loss LSU team goes into a 5th seeded 2 loss Wisconsin team in Camp Randall and wins? THAT would be a great scene. I figured SEC fans would love this?

quote:

---

Don't lump us all together

---

LOL Of course not, but you see my point right? This is not only good for College Football, but particularly good for the SEC. This would be a true gauge of conference strength in my opinion. Some of those past SEC West seasons? Just brutal. This doesn't take away from the regular season at all. It creates more oppurtunity IMO.

I have been wanting 6 conference Champs plus 2 at large teams for years. I have never read a argument to keep the BCS/4 -team playoffs that makes logical sense.