College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
Moderators: greenyellow, Autzenoise, UOducksTK1
-
- Senior
- Posts: 2497
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:05 pm
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
My ideal # is still 6. 5 conference champs and an at large best team.
2 Byes to reward the regular season.
2 Byes to reward the regular season.
-
- All-American
- Posts: 10565
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
- Contact:
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
GrantDuck wrote:My ideal # is still 6. 5 conference champs and an at large best team.
2 Byes to reward the regular season.
That seems less than ideal. Basically you would ensure the top 2 teams make the finals every year with that model imho. 8 seems like a solid compromise or 16. No team deserves a bye, since none of us are playing the same teams enough to come up with a real idea of who I deserves the bye. Look at basketball this year. The east coast ESPN medi crapped all over the pac 12, and we paid for it with low seeds. The same would happen in a 6 or 12 model. It will allow the media to push the narrative of who is better based on where the money comes from.
-
- Senior
- Posts: 3100
- Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:48 pm
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
Agreed byes suck for the reason you stated. 8 is best with 5 conference champs, the best non-power 5 and next 2 highest ranked teams. 16 is too many games if you keep conference championship games. Eliminate the conference championship games, and going 16 would work. If two P5 teams tied for first in a conference regular season, put them both in the round of 16.buckmarkduck wrote:GrantDuck wrote:My ideal # is still 6. 5 conference champs and an at large best team.
2 Byes to reward the regular season.
That seems less than ideal. Basically you would ensure the top 2 teams make the finals every year with that model imho. 8 seems like a solid compromise or 16. No team deserves a bye, since none of us are playing the same teams enough to come up with a real idea of who I deserves the bye. Look at basketball this year. The east coast ESPN medi crapped all over the pac 12, and we paid for it with low seeds. The same would happen in a 6 or 12 model. It will allow the media to push the narrative of who is better based on where the money comes from.
-
- Four Star Recruit
- Posts: 782
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:15 pm
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
This feels like it's getting out of hand a bit.
There were 2 main reasons that we left the BCS system and went with a 4 team playoff:
- 1. The BCS system was a computer algorithm and it obviously left out a #3 or #4 which in some years would be undefeated and could make a plausible argument that they could have beaten whoever the winner of the #1/#2 game was
- 2. Alabama/LSU 2012 championship game - this game highlighted the issues of SEC bias in the BCS system and again, was the best team in the nation really limited to the SEC conference [ie. could a #3 or #4 have beaten the top team in the SEC]
Once you expand to 8 teams, these arguments for leaving the BCS system start to fall apart. It's blatantly obvious that #6-8 aren't as good as #1-4. Why even include them in the hunt for a national championship if we already know that they're not as good as the top 3. As I mentioned previously, there's a pretty obvious drop-off in competitiveness past Alabama/Ohio State/Clemson. This is proven by the margin with which the top 3 demolish their highly ranked conference foes. In any given year, I can easily see the SEC taking 2/3 at large spots. The other options are Notre Dame, a UCF or MWC team, or a #2 in a conference [possibly Big 10]. That's just going to potentially lead to more SEC dominance in these playoffs and now we'll have an entire conference that will be above the rest of the conferences. Year in and year out, the SEC gets some of the best recruiting classes (Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M [post Jimbo], kind of Florida). I'm not pulling the SEC dominance argument out of thin air.
If Oregon isn't good enough to be included in the 4 team playoff, Oregon more likely than not is not good enough to win the entire thing. As in real life, losers can try to change the rules, but at the end of the day they will still be losers. The current system is fine.
There were 2 main reasons that we left the BCS system and went with a 4 team playoff:
- 1. The BCS system was a computer algorithm and it obviously left out a #3 or #4 which in some years would be undefeated and could make a plausible argument that they could have beaten whoever the winner of the #1/#2 game was
- 2. Alabama/LSU 2012 championship game - this game highlighted the issues of SEC bias in the BCS system and again, was the best team in the nation really limited to the SEC conference [ie. could a #3 or #4 have beaten the top team in the SEC]
Once you expand to 8 teams, these arguments for leaving the BCS system start to fall apart. It's blatantly obvious that #6-8 aren't as good as #1-4. Why even include them in the hunt for a national championship if we already know that they're not as good as the top 3. As I mentioned previously, there's a pretty obvious drop-off in competitiveness past Alabama/Ohio State/Clemson. This is proven by the margin with which the top 3 demolish their highly ranked conference foes. In any given year, I can easily see the SEC taking 2/3 at large spots. The other options are Notre Dame, a UCF or MWC team, or a #2 in a conference [possibly Big 10]. That's just going to potentially lead to more SEC dominance in these playoffs and now we'll have an entire conference that will be above the rest of the conferences. Year in and year out, the SEC gets some of the best recruiting classes (Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M [post Jimbo], kind of Florida). I'm not pulling the SEC dominance argument out of thin air.
If Oregon isn't good enough to be included in the 4 team playoff, Oregon more likely than not is not good enough to win the entire thing. As in real life, losers can try to change the rules, but at the end of the day they will still be losers. The current system is fine.
-
- Freshman
- Posts: 1495
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:54 pm
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
Respectfully disagree. In 2018, Ohio State won the Big-10 and finished 12-1 and was left out of the playoff. TCU and Baylor have also won their conference with 1-loss and been left out, while a second 1-loss team non-conference champion was included. With 4 teams, there are teams with a legit shot to win that are left out.ducks5ever wrote:This feels like it's getting out of hand a bit.
There were 2 main reasons that we left the BCS system and went with a 4 team playoff:
- 1. The BCS system was a computer algorithm and it obviously left out a #3 or #4 which in some years would be undefeated and could make a plausible argument that they could have beaten whoever the winner of the #1/#2 game was
- 2. Alabama/LSU 2012 championship game - this game highlighted the issues of SEC bias in the BCS system and again, was the best team in the nation really limited to the SEC conference [ie. could a #3 or #4 have beaten the top team in the SEC]
Once you expand to 8 teams, these arguments for leaving the BCS system start to fall apart. It's blatantly obvious that #6-8 aren't as good as #1-4. Why even include them in the hunt for a national championship if we already know that they're not as good as the top 3. As I mentioned previously, there's a pretty obvious drop-off in competitiveness past Alabama/Ohio State/Clemson. This is proven by the margin with which the top 3 demolish their highly ranked conference foes. In any given year, I can easily see the SEC taking 2/3 at large spots. The other options are Notre Dame, a UCF or MWC team, or a #2 in a conference [possibly Big 10]. That's just going to potentially lead to more SEC dominance in these playoffs and now we'll have an entire conference that will be above the rest of the conferences. Year in and year out, the SEC gets some of the best recruiting classes (Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M [post Jimbo], kind of Florida). I'm not pulling the SEC dominance argument out of thin air.
If Oregon isn't good enough to be included in the 4 team playoff, Oregon more likely than not is not good enough to win the entire thing. As in real life, losers can try to change the rules, but at the end of the day they will still be losers. The current system is fine.
I think you could make an argument that 6 is probably sufficient.
-
- Senior
- Posts: 3100
- Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:48 pm
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
The year 2015 is a perfect example. With Ohio State's 2 quarterback injuries, both TCU and Baylor could have been argued as better choices than Ohio State and bumped them. OSU the politically squeezed in #4, won handily over the sure thing top 3 seeds. At the end though either TCU or Baylor, both slightly unconventional teams might have beaten OSU. Or if the 4th seeding was more fair, OSU the winner, may not have even gotten a chance though they were obviously worthy in hindsight.northbeachsf wrote:Respectfully disagree. In 2018, Ohio State won the Big-10 and finished 12-1 and was left out of the playoff. TCU and Baylor have also won their conference with 1-loss and been left out, while a second 1-loss team non-conference champion was included. With 4 teams, there are teams with a legit shot to win that are left out.ducks5ever wrote:This feels like it's getting out of hand a bit.
There were 2 main reasons that we left the BCS system and went with a 4 team playoff:
- 1. The BCS system was a computer algorithm and it obviously left out a #3 or #4 which in some years would be undefeated and could make a plausible argument that they could have beaten whoever the winner of the #1/#2 game was
- 2. Alabama/LSU 2012 championship game - this game highlighted the issues of SEC bias in the BCS system and again, was the best team in the nation really limited to the SEC conference [ie. could a #3 or #4 have beaten the top team in the SEC]
Once you expand to 8 teams, these arguments for leaving the BCS system start to fall apart. It's blatantly obvious that #6-8 aren't as good as #1-4. Why even include them in the hunt for a national championship if we already know that they're not as good as the top 3. As I mentioned previously, there's a pretty obvious drop-off in competitiveness past Alabama/Ohio State/Clemson. This is proven by the margin with which the top 3 demolish their highly ranked conference foes. In any given year, I can easily see the SEC taking 2/3 at large spots. The other options are Notre Dame, a UCF or MWC team, or a #2 in a conference [possibly Big 10]. That's just going to potentially lead to more SEC dominance in these playoffs and now we'll have an entire conference that will be above the rest of the conferences. Year in and year out, the SEC gets some of the best recruiting classes (Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M [post Jimbo], kind of Florida). I'm not pulling the SEC dominance argument out of thin air.
If Oregon isn't good enough to be included in the 4 team playoff, Oregon more likely than not is not good enough to win the entire thing. As in real life, losers can try to change the rules, but at the end of the day they will still be losers. The current system is fine.
I think you could make an argument that 6 is probably sufficient.
- DuckzRule
- Four Star Recruit
- Posts: 976
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:30 pm
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
TBH, the most I want the CFP to expand to is 8 teams.
- Zyme
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5396
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:35 pm
- GM: New York Knicks GM
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
I'v always wanted 12 but only if you get one team from each conf with 2 at large bids. Would the 1-12 be like a 16-1 in the NCAA tourney, sure but every once and a while cinderella makes it.
DASL1 Rings: '93, '94
K's HOF:
Mark "Wholly Mammoth" Eaton | Retired 2002, age 44: 24 min/8pts/8reb/1stl/2.5 blks/1 TO
Michael "Sweet Home" Ansley | Retired 2007, age 42: 33 min/16pts/8 reb/1.5stl/.5 blks/.5 TO Lifetime .550 shooting %
Gheorghe "Ghiţă (Ghitza, Little George)" Mureșan | Retired 2008, age 36: 35Min/16.2pt/12.2reb/2.1ast/1.6stl/2.9blk/1.3TO (.461/.715/.000)
K's HOF:
Mark "Wholly Mammoth" Eaton | Retired 2002, age 44: 24 min/8pts/8reb/1stl/2.5 blks/1 TO
Michael "Sweet Home" Ansley | Retired 2007, age 42: 33 min/16pts/8 reb/1.5stl/.5 blks/.5 TO Lifetime .550 shooting %
Gheorghe "Ghiţă (Ghitza, Little George)" Mureșan | Retired 2008, age 36: 35Min/16.2pt/12.2reb/2.1ast/1.6stl/2.9blk/1.3TO (.461/.715/.000)
- AutzenMember
- Five Star Recruit
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:47 pm
- Location: Camas, WA
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
8 is perfect IMO. Conference winners, top non power five team, two more based on rankings/committee. UCF deserved a chance a couple of years ago, Boise St. has been there too. Saying that it's "clear" that teams #5 through #8 don't deserve to be there is ridiculous and is only buying into the SEC bias.
-
- Senior
- Posts: 4311
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:29 am
- Location: Arizona, USA
- Contact:
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
I was torn for awhile, but I think 12 would be the most fair scenario.AutzenMember wrote:8 is perfect IMO. Conference winners, top non power five team, two more based on rankings/committee. UCF deserved a chance a couple of years ago, Boise St. has been there too. Saying that it's "clear" that teams #5 through #8 don't deserve to be there is ridiculous and is only buying into the SEC bias.
12 teams would include 5 conference champs, one highly ranked independent, one high ranked mid-major, and 5 at-large teams.
I know that seems like too many at-large teams, but with 8 that would only leave room for one, and that doesn't seem fair based on a one loss Power-5 team getting left out over an unbeaten mid-major, or a 2-3 loss Notre Dame.
John 3:36
- DuckzRule
- Four Star Recruit
- Posts: 976
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:30 pm
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
My question is, would all the big bowls (Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl. Peach Bowl and Cotton Bowl) be used as the semifinals?
It would make them lose their importance
It would make them lose their importance
-
- All-American
- Posts: 10565
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
- Contact:
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
The rose lost its importance anyways. Who outside of Oregon and Wisconsin cared about our game 2 years ago?DuckzRule wrote:My question is, would all the big bowls (Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl. Peach Bowl and Cotton Bowl) be used as the semifinals?
It would make them lose their importance
- Bud Lee
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5540
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:03 am
- Location: Da Boot
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
Is there a SEC bias or is there a Bama bias?nogerO wrote:"Hopefully this ends the college football monopolies and lowers the excessive and undeserved SEC bias."
No, it just means that 5 SEC teams would be in a 12 team playoff.
-
- Senior
- Posts: 2699
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:48 pm
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
Bud Lee wrote:Is there a SEC bias or is there a Bama bias?nogerO wrote:"Hopefully this ends the college football monopolies and lowers the excessive and undeserved SEC bias."
No, it just means that 5 SEC teams would be in a 12 team playoff.
yes both
-
- Junior
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:56 pm
- GM: Detroit Pistons GM
Re: College Football Playoff Expansion to 12 teams?
It's an ESPN bias. It's financially beneficial to them to push the narrative.duckfan22 wrote:Bud Lee wrote:Is there a SEC bias or is there a Bama bias?nogerO wrote:"Hopefully this ends the college football monopolies and lowers the excessive and undeserved SEC bias."
No, it just means that 5 SEC teams would be in a 12 team playoff.
yes both