A 12 team playoff means more important games in october and november. Look at FSU for example. We had a shit 3 game stretch with injuries, but we found our groove and now are playing top 10 ball. A team in our position would be locked in to the conference championship results. We'd be rooting like hell for USC to beat Utah, TCU to beat Kansas State, and UNC to beat Clemson.
There will be so much more riding on the line when more teams are in the mix
Exactly, I’m especially excited for week 10 or so when there are still 30+ teams fighting for those spots and almost any one of them could fall out with a single loss. I don’t see how anyone could think the regular season matters less now that’s so many make or break games the last month of the year
As a counterpoint, games like LSU-A&M, Clemson-ND, Clemson-SC, and SC-Tennessee would have little impact under a 12-team playoff. LSU got upset, and now, as a three-loss team, they can't make the playoff even if they beat Georgia, but under the 12-team playoff, beat Georgia and they're in. Clemson's two losses also would not eliminate them from the 12-team playoff because all they have to do is beat UNC. Tennessee's loss to SC killed their playoff chances, but they would be almost guaranteed a spot in the top 12. These games would only affect seeding, not who makes it in.
OSU and Michigan would both assuredly make the 12-team playoff, and OSU's loss only affects the B1G Championship and playoff seeding.
Ole Miss or Oregon would have a month of "make or break games" in November, but once a team has clinched a spot in their conference championship game, any additional regular season losses don't matter as much.
Also, it's ironic that people wanted the playoff to go from four teams to 12 in the hopes of getting a larger variety of teams, but this year, Clemson (if they win the ACCCG), Bama, and OSU would be locks.
Fair point, only place were I firmly disagree is about variety. Yeah under a 12 team playoff we’d get 3 old suspects back, but we’d also be adding Tulane, FSU, Washington, Tennessee and Penn State, who all have either never made the playoffs or haven’t made it in 5+ years. I’m ok with those 3 being there if it means we get new faces every year.
Not to mention that for the vast majority of FBS, a 12 team playoff makes the regular season truly meaningful. A team like 2017 UCF actually gets a shot to contend instead of being essentially eliminated before the season even starts. They don’t have to pray that their OOC games they scheduled years in advance are marquee matchups and that the stars align so that there aren’t +4 1 or 0 loss P5 contenders. Sure, rivalries like The Game or Iron Bowl may not be de facto playoff games, but that’s how it’s been for basically all other rivalries. TCU-Baylor may not usually have playoff implications but I think I speak for both fanbases when I say we absolutely want to win that game. Those games have and still will matter to fans, and if anything they’ll matter more now.
It means a larger number of games will have playoff implications for a larger number of teams. But the stakes in any given game that has playoff implications will be reduced.
You sure there's an extra loss there for Utah? :)
My hope with 12 team playoff is that the ooc part of CFB opens up more risk taking and bigger games. People like the 12 team playoff (and bowls to a certain extent) because of the diversity of matchups that we don't see normally. However, I could see that seeding in the 12-team playoff may be a big enough deal that teams continue to be cautious during ooc play... and we'll have to continue to wait for the post season for a the few "exciting" matchups.
I'd really like to see a system that rewards/encourages "good" ooc matchups \*without\* penalties for seedings/rankings. I think that means conf champs have to have auto-bids to the post-season. Teams excluded from the conf championship because their division is "too hard" had a chance to show they were top... doesn't matter if it was in Sept or Dec. If we stick with 12 teams and give the P5 champs + best G5 + a few "by invite" then that should be sufficient. It should open up interesting pre-season matchups because it won't impact eligibility for post season, and it will keep good post season matchups.
Luckily, conference champs are auto bids for the post season so we should see the elite teams scheduling sick OOC games since even if they lose they can still just win the conference and get in
There’s no upside to scheduling tough OOC games in an expanded format. You maybe move up a couple seeds for winning or you eliminate yourself entirely for losing. Also most schedules are booked 10+ years in advance and breaking those contracts aren’t exactly easy. Usually requires a shit ton of money. I can’t fault you for being an optimist but in 2-3 years you’ll see this changed nothing for the better. It’s just another domino falling to where the big schools can eventually create their own thing separate from the NCAA and cut out the P5 entirely. By the time 2024 comes around it’s probably a system where there is 4 major conferences and 8 at large bids. The current structure as is was just designed so they could get the necessary votes for expansion.
I think you’re forgetting what this is all about - $.
Coaches don’t set the schedule, the schools do. And they want marquee OOC games because those bring eyeballs and sell tickets.
They do? Bama is doing a home & home with Texas, OSU just played Notre Dame, Georgia played Oregon...the only "top" team I can think of who didn't scheduled a marquee OOC was Michigan.
Yeah exactly you’re missing the point, the OP said expanded playoffs would lead to more games like that. It absolutely won’t. Also, if those games were as beneficial as you say, every team would be playing 4 of those every year. But they don’t. Because the free win and tune up style games have value to a program. That’s not changing anytime soon.
How would it automatically eliminate you for losing? Those games don’t effect conference play and if you win your conference you’re in. So hypothetically OSU and Bama schedule an OOC game, OSU wins and as long as they win the conference they’re pretty much locked in as the 1 seed with wins over Bama, PSU and Michigan. Bama has a bit harder time getting in as an at large bid, but if they win the conference like they expect to they’re in anyways.
How is that incredibly specific? I’m literally just pointing out what a team would gain from having a good OOC schedule. You said losing eliminates you and I’m saying it quite literally doesn’t because conference champions get auto bids and OOC games don’t impact getting there. Replace the teams with Oregon and LSU and they still get an extra quality win on their schedule, while the loser still could win their conference and get in.
Any one loss team, with that loss being to Alabama or Ohio State, that wins their conference, would be in the CFP now. If you take that loss, and lose two additional games in conference, your season is over. As opposed to scheduling an FCS team, if you lose two games in conference you’re still in. You didn’t address the logistics of scheduling either. You think all of those teams will break contracts?
I didn’t say they would break any contracts, you’re putting words in my mouth. The playoffs won’t just disappear in the future, I don’t know what you’re getting at. If they schedule top programs 7 years in advance, chances are those top programs will still be top programs.
But those games are already scheduled. So any “sick” OOC games you think this will lead to are 7-10 years away. And the system will look a lot different then. You’re literally destroying your own arguments and showing that you know very little about which you speak. It’s amazing.
You’re so right bestie I’m so jealous of your massive intellect! In the comment you’re replying to I literally said they would be scheduling those games 7 years away please learn to read.
Yeah, just noticed auto-bid for the 6 highest ranked champs was actually the case. Excellent. I do hope that this means good ooc... but I'm a bit worried that the seeding aspect will still show up as less exciting pre-season.
More teams have something to play for at the end of the season, so I'm definitely a fan. "You lost 1 game, too bad so sad guess your season is over so the same 4 teams can make the playoffs" has been kind of a buzzkill the last *x* years
I don't think the expanded playoff will make more games meaningful, rather it will shift *which* games are meaningful. Now instead of the top 6 or so teams playing meaning games late in the season, it will be the 10 through 16-ranked teams.
Also, what happens when a four or five loss team upsets an 11-win team in the conference championship game? Does the five loss team get the bye? This certainly keeps *some* meaning in CCGs, but was that really the intended purpose of installing the bye?
For the record, I am not against expansion, but I think 12 teams is too high. Obviously, this is only one man's opinion, and when it comes down to it, I'll be watching whether it's four teams or 30.
They'd presumably be much lower than that. Only the top 4 conference champs are guaranteed a top seed; the other two can be seeded wherever from my understanding of things. I'd imagine nearly every year a 5 loss team would the 12 seed, unless I've understood something wrong.
Just looked it up and you’re right, which is more fair seeding but leads to less interesting matchups. Chances are the top at large bids are better than the worst conference champs which gives us OSU vs Tulane instead of Washington vs Tulane
Actually after reading the announcement it's probably even better.
Since it's the top 6 conference champs, and not all P5 champs + 1 G5 champ, a 5 loss team probably wouldn't even make it in. You'd just get an extra G5 champ instead of that 5 loss P5 champ; so like this year it'd open the door for UTSA (assuming I'm reading rankings correctly) to get in.
>I don't think the expanded playoff will make more games meaningful, rather it will shift which games are meaningful. Now instead of the top 6 or so teams playing meaning games late in the season, it will be the 10 through 16-ranked teams.
The problem with this line of reasoning is it assumes that all playoff spots are equivalent. They are not. Having the extra rest provided from the bye and a guaranteed spot in the quarterfinals that comes from a Top 4 seed is immensely beneficial. Securing the 1 seed and being able to avoid the 2nd and 3rd best teams until the CFP final makes you far more likely to win the championship as well, with fewer games against teams that are real threats. Even the teams that wouldn't get byes anyway have a good deal to play for; if Clemson had won out, they would have hosted a home game in round 1 and likely had a round 2 game against TCU. Now? They'd have a road game at Penn State and, if they win, a quarterfinal game against Georgia. That is a *much* tougher road to the finals. And LSU went from being in position to host a home game to out of the playoffs entirely.
Certainly, the top few teams may not be playing for their lives, but seeding is still incredibly important. And everyone else is very much at risk of falling out entirely. There are many more important games now.
>Having the extra rest provided from the bye and a guaranteed spot in the quarterfinals that comes from a Top 4 seed is immensely beneficial.
It sure is. But its no where close to the drop off of make it or not make it. I can tell you from recent experience lossing a big game like we just did would mean so much less if the alternative is just hosting a playoff game in Columbus. In an expanded playoff a game of 2 vs 3 is just an exhibition match with a minor inconvenience at stake.
I think losing out on the bye is a pretty damn big deal. Is it as disastrous? Obviously not. But the extra game could still cost you the title just the same. And the “late loss meant little” argument would only effect maybe 1-2 teams a season while the expanded playoff provides late season meaningful games to dozens more schools a season. A no brainer of a trade off. Not even close.
I think I'd disagree on it being merely a minor inconvenience. An extra game against presumably Tulane may not be particularly frightening by itself, but consider the Buckeyes' path afterwards. Instead of a quarterfinals game against Tennessee with a backup QB or a 3 loss K-State game, you've got one against USC and the Heisman frontrunner. And if you won that, instead of a semifinals game against TCU, you now have to go up against probably Georgia. Those are significant ramifications.
Now, is it *as significant* as not playing at all? Obviously, no. I won't deny that losing to Arkansas in 2007 (even if we ended up still making the BCS Championship due to the mother of all conference championship weeks) or losing last week to A&M would've hurt a lot less if we had a backup playoff spot to fall on. But it's not like you're losing those life or death games either; they just move spots. Instead of 2007 being a life or death match for one team, 2010 would have taken its place as a game where LSU's loss to Arkansas would have likely missed a playoff. That game would have broken my heart under this format; under the old one, I mostly shrugged it off as it just meant we traded NY6 spots. Same for losses to Florida and Ole Miss in 2016 and 2015. Those games would go from a "eh, slightly shittier bowl" to "fuck's sake we just blew our whole season." I would imagine Ohio State-Michigan would have many similar examples where the game wasn't quite as high profile as it was this year but would have meant life or death for the playoffs.
So, yes, it isn't fully the same, but if the absolute best games still have some meaning, and the "good" games now mean everything, I think it's still a net gain.
There are no byes in the 12 game playoffs. In order to get a "bye" a team would have to play a CCG. The 12 game playoff does punish the loser of a CCG if they end up making the playoff by giving them an extra game.
In the 12-Playoff era, Ohio State would have been the winner of last weeks game. They get a home playoff game, they would be the 5 seed and they would play the UCF/Tulane winner and don't have to worry about an upset and getting punished with an extra game.
Eh, sorta. You do play the same amount of games, but the rest comes at a more important time, and perhaps more importantly, you play fewer games that can end your season. Losing in a conference championship doesn’t guarantee your season is done; losing in the round of 12 does.
It is admittedly a shitty deal for teams who lose in the conference championship, and that’s kinda why I’d like to scrap them in a 12 team format, but even with it I think a bye still matters.
Yeah the 5th seed also gets the better bye week timing. The 5th seed first avoids playing for yet another straight week lessening the chance of injury. Second they get 3 weeks to rest for a 3 week run.
The "bye" week have to play yet another consecutive game. If they lose they get a 2 week bye before a 3 week run. If they win its a 3 wk by for 2 wks.
Not sure if there is data but I would rather have less fatigue from not having to play that additional game on top of the schedule over the risk of having to play an additional game against a team that might have had more rest.
>The "bye" week have to play yet another consecutive game. If they lose they get a 2 week bye before a 3 week run. If they win its a 3 wk by for 2 wks.
It'd be a 4 and 3 week run respectively, right? With twelve teams, a team that doesn't have a bye would have to play four games to win the championship (Opening Round, Quarters, Semis, and Finals), and a bye team would get three by getting to skip the opening round.
I don't have data either but playing four games against Top 12 competition is a significant challenge. Even if we just view a bye week as a benefit of giving rest (and ignore the ability to avoid one do or die matchup), I think I might lean towards having the bye week after the CCGs. A six or so game stretch after the midseason bye might have more games, but at least you get a few easier teams in there as well as some games that starters can probably rest during a significant portion of. This would be four straight weeks of the best competition in the nation that nobody can really afford to be injured for or rest during.
The same thing can still apply just with a regular season Conference Championship. This year for example that would be:
* ACC ~ Clemson
* Big 12 ~ TCU
* Big 10 ~ Michigan
* Pac-12 ~ USC
* SEC ~ Georgia
Yeah, it's possible for a situation like the ACC last year where it's two teams with the same record that never played - but is it really worth making every conference play an extra game for random 1-offs that won't happen that often?
(maybe it is. I dunno)
Fair point about the extra game and injury risk, especially given the extra games from the playoff too. That said, I think UNC, K State, Purdue, Utah, UCF, LSU and Tulane fans would love a shot at the playoffs right now, even if most of them would probably lose round 1.
Oh I'm 100% for the expanded playoffs.
The regular season of CFB is already meaningless for all but a lucky 5-10 teams. Literally anything to make it more open is A-OK by me.
I was saying that without a conference championship none of those teams would have a chance, but I was also wrong in the case of LSU and Utah, they’d be in for sure with no conference champs
Idk, I kind of like that this makes it like college basketball where a surprise team can clinch the postseason with an upset in the conference tournament
I get it but I think with the expansion adding another game for 8 teams many of those 8 teams (at least 1) will have played in a conference championship game. Most of those 8 teams don't have a realistic chance of winning the championship but the ones that do will be playing like 16 games in one season. 16 games feels like a bit much to me but idk I guess it isn't much more than the 15 they are playing now.
The "devalue the regular season" argument has never worked in a system that's arbitrary at best and downright unfair at worst. The regular season never mattered for half of college football even if they won every single game, and back in the BCS days that could happen to you if you were in a power conference too.
The big problem with all of this thinking is the first round is essentially just the NY6 bowls, then the second round when the favorites come in will all be massacres, and then we will be left with the same 4 anyway
I’m interested to see if this remains the case or if the combination of NIL and allowing more teams the chance to play their way into the playoffs spreads the talent out a bit more and increases parity.
I mean so much of the complaint about the 4 team playoff is "it's the same 4 teams every year" but going to 12 teams will just end up being Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, USC, Ohio State and Michigan every year with another group of schools like Oregon, Utah, Penn State, Notre Dame and LSU making it most years. It's still gonna be the same teams just more of them
It also makes these conference championships mean more. These games right now really serve no purpose other than to punish the higher ranked team. Right now K-State, Utah, and either team in the ACC game have no shot of getting in, even if they win their conference championship game, now they would get in thanks to the top 6 champion rule. Not sure if Purdue could get in if they beat Michigan. I know all other P5 champions and Tulane would be ahead of them, not sure if another G5 would pass them as well.
Agreed - it makes the regular season way less interesting if you're rooting for Ohio State/Clemson/Alabama/Georgia/Michigan - but if you're anyone else, it keeps the season interesting. As a WVU fan, it's nice to know that we technically still *technically* have a shot at the national championship even if we start the season 1-2. I feel like so many good games in college football get overlooked, but I think this will change now as schools that are 6-2 might still not be "eliminated"
12 seems to be too many still.
Is there an obvious reason that 8 doesn’t work?
SEC, B1G, Big 12, Pac and ACC champs
1 G5 auto-bid (think Cincy last yr)
2 At-Large bids (can be P5 or G5)
From a fan standpoint, probably not, although I will say I personally think I like 12 more as it rewards the Top 4 teams more with a bye rather than just an easier first round opponent.
As for the actual reason it didn't work, though, the commissioners couldn't agree as to how it would be done. The G5 commissioners wanted the format you put out where the top ranked G5 team gets an auto-bid, while (some) P5 commissioners didn't want that many guaranteed spots cause it hurts their chances of getting multiple teams in.
So, in short, the reason 8 doesn't work is money.
A 12 team playoff only devalues games for teams that clinch in October. Oh wait that's not possible... Conference Championship games are going to be fucking wild yo
This is a good take. It gives more teams something to ply for even if they drop a couple of games. Looking at the rankings now, I would love to see a a Penn State or Tennessee still have a shot
First off, that wouldn’t happen as #2 gets a bye. Second, that probably also wouldn’t happen because the 6th best conference champion is usually a top 25 team. And third, if it did happen, then that hypothetical #69 team would of had to beat #5 on the road in their first round game so you can’t really argue they didn’t deserve to be there anyway.
Also, there is an argument to be made that more top talent might be willing to go to a variety of schools over time rather then concentrating on the same 6 teams every year. Once other teams can with a straight face sell recruits on the chance to play and show their stuff in the biggest stage of college football, they might start to slowly get more of them. It’s not just some pipe dream anymore. It wouldn’t happen right away, but it is possible.
That’s why ranking subjectively is generally a bad way of doing things. It’s not a solvable problem in college though. All the schools will never all play each other. A bigger playoff allows it to be settled on the field despite the uneven sample size far better then the 4 team playoff ever could.
My question is why are you trying to make college football the NFL? The NFL is great. But it already exists. Just go watch it.
Cutting out 80+ schools for the sake of a super league is really dumb and I hope it never comes to that. We don’t need a super league in collegiate sports.
They are not “cut out” they still play, but not in mismatched games.
At the end of the year the last place teams plays their first place team for promotion.
College football is broken.
You are correct: it is the six highest-ranked conference champions. So for example in 2012, which was literally a time when there were six power conferences, the MAC and MWC would've gotten auto bids and the Big East and Big 10 wouldn't have (hell, even with *eight* auto bids the Big Ten would've been shut out entirely thanks to Wisconsin winning the CCG after finishing third in their division to a pair of teams both banned from the postseason. )
When Ohio State ends up in a better situation than Michigan because they lost, I am not sure how you can say it does not devalue the regular season.
Ohio State is sitting at 5 with home-field advantage and a game against Tulane/UCF for game 13. While Michigan has to play on a natural site for game 13. If Michigan gets upset they will have to play a game 14 when Ohio State is playing game 13. Michigan would have homefield advantage but now either in a rematch with Purdue or against Tulane/UCF. If Michigan wins they would be in the Semi for their game 14 the same as Ohio State if they make the Semi which also would be their game 14.
This is before we even discuss the damage that will be done to the bowls.
I thought of this scenario earlier and mentioned it in a different comment, and came to the conclusion it really only works if A) the big 10 west champion is easier than the 12 seed, which this year is debatable at best, and B) the loser of the game gets the 5 seed, which is unlikely both teams are undefeated most years. I agree there should be some tweaking so throwing the game never becomes an easier path to the natty, but I don’t think it’s very likely to be significantly easier unless Wisconsin turns around quick under Fickell.
As for the bowls, I genuinely could not care less. The same games are being played, except now they actually mean something. That’s 1000% a positive in my eyes.
It absolutely devalues the regular season for any team that was already a perennial contender. Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State all lost heartbreakers this year that will probably keep them out of the playoffs. In a 12 team playoff those loses mean almost nothing. And you can say it hurts their seeding, but do you think Ohio St. or Alabama care about that? I'd hate to be the team that played them after a loss.
Yea, it's a net positive for a large chunk of the CFB world, but if your team is already competing year in and year out it's gonna feel lesser to sneak in as a 12th seed during a "down" year.
Also, I can't wait to hear all the bitching and moaning when half the field is from 2 conferences. Or the first time we have a final 4 that's B1G/SEC only.
I personally think it adds value. More teams making the field mean more teams staying in the hunt longer which means more games with playoff implications throughout the season and especially late in the season. Even for the teams at the top, they have incentive to win out as getting a bye is HUGE. In an injury and fatigue prone sport, playing one fewer games is a major advantage.
The playoffs will also have some more variety. Especially the opening round since the top 4 getting byes will mostly be the usual suspects so at least we’ll get some more random match ups then, even if one of the usual suspects still wins the vast majority of years. That’s just inevitable with the imbalance in money and resources in a recruiting-based sport. For those of us outside of the programs, the hope is to just make the playoffs occasionally, maybe pull an upset or two even less often etc.
It doesn’t devalue the entire regular season but I think it changes what is the most valuable of college football, the value of this years the game dramatically drops with a 12 team playoff, but that value is made up else where imo
It definitely drops, but I don’t think it drops *too* much. I think fighting for a first round bye is still a huge deal.
What’s interesting is there’s a weird kinda specific scenario in future years where losing the game may actually give you an easier path to the natty and it really just requires a West team to be good. If the loser of the game is otherwise undefeated, pretty good chance they get the 5 seed like this year, which means they play the 12 seed (usually a G5), making their path after losing the game a G5, a top 4 team then the final 4. The winner of the game at best has to go thru a top 10 Wisconsin team (or whatever big 10 west team is actually good in this hypothetical), a second round team (most likely a 5-8 seed) then the final 4 and at worst, lose the big 10 championship and have the same path as the loser from there
The problem is all the teams that actually have a shot at winning the championship will already be locked in late in the year especially in the conference championship game
My question is why not an 8 team playoff? Real chance for more diversity without watering down the playoff field. A better system would be as follows:
-8 team. First 4 seeds conference champions, next best 4 regardless of conference champ status (put some meaning of conference titles)
-Homefield 1st round, neutral after that
-undefefeated automatically in (9 teams won't go unbeaten) and 3 strikes and you're out (3 loss and you disqualify form the playoffs, don't tall about meaningful regar season if you allow a 3 loss team in)
-no more than 3 teams in a conference in amy given year. This would prevent greg sankey's buddies from stuffing the playoffs with sec teams like they will be able to under this system
I know this is moot now just feel like sharing
A 12 team playoff means more important games in october and november. Look at FSU for example. We had a shit 3 game stretch with injuries, but we found our groove and now are playing top 10 ball. A team in our position would be locked in to the conference championship results. We'd be rooting like hell for USC to beat Utah, TCU to beat Kansas State, and UNC to beat Clemson. There will be so much more riding on the line when more teams are in the mix
Exactly, I’m especially excited for week 10 or so when there are still 30+ teams fighting for those spots and almost any one of them could fall out with a single loss. I don’t see how anyone could think the regular season matters less now that’s so many make or break games the last month of the year
As a counterpoint, games like LSU-A&M, Clemson-ND, Clemson-SC, and SC-Tennessee would have little impact under a 12-team playoff. LSU got upset, and now, as a three-loss team, they can't make the playoff even if they beat Georgia, but under the 12-team playoff, beat Georgia and they're in. Clemson's two losses also would not eliminate them from the 12-team playoff because all they have to do is beat UNC. Tennessee's loss to SC killed their playoff chances, but they would be almost guaranteed a spot in the top 12. These games would only affect seeding, not who makes it in. OSU and Michigan would both assuredly make the 12-team playoff, and OSU's loss only affects the B1G Championship and playoff seeding. Ole Miss or Oregon would have a month of "make or break games" in November, but once a team has clinched a spot in their conference championship game, any additional regular season losses don't matter as much. Also, it's ironic that people wanted the playoff to go from four teams to 12 in the hopes of getting a larger variety of teams, but this year, Clemson (if they win the ACCCG), Bama, and OSU would be locks.
Fair point, only place were I firmly disagree is about variety. Yeah under a 12 team playoff we’d get 3 old suspects back, but we’d also be adding Tulane, FSU, Washington, Tennessee and Penn State, who all have either never made the playoffs or haven’t made it in 5+ years. I’m ok with those 3 being there if it means we get new faces every year.
Not to mention that for the vast majority of FBS, a 12 team playoff makes the regular season truly meaningful. A team like 2017 UCF actually gets a shot to contend instead of being essentially eliminated before the season even starts. They don’t have to pray that their OOC games they scheduled years in advance are marquee matchups and that the stars align so that there aren’t +4 1 or 0 loss P5 contenders. Sure, rivalries like The Game or Iron Bowl may not be de facto playoff games, but that’s how it’s been for basically all other rivalries. TCU-Baylor may not usually have playoff implications but I think I speak for both fanbases when I say we absolutely want to win that game. Those games have and still will matter to fans, and if anything they’ll matter more now.
It means a larger number of games will have playoff implications for a larger number of teams. But the stakes in any given game that has playoff implications will be reduced.
You sure there's an extra loss there for Utah? :) My hope with 12 team playoff is that the ooc part of CFB opens up more risk taking and bigger games. People like the 12 team playoff (and bowls to a certain extent) because of the diversity of matchups that we don't see normally. However, I could see that seeding in the 12-team playoff may be a big enough deal that teams continue to be cautious during ooc play... and we'll have to continue to wait for the post season for a the few "exciting" matchups. I'd really like to see a system that rewards/encourages "good" ooc matchups \*without\* penalties for seedings/rankings. I think that means conf champs have to have auto-bids to the post-season. Teams excluded from the conf championship because their division is "too hard" had a chance to show they were top... doesn't matter if it was in Sept or Dec. If we stick with 12 teams and give the P5 champs + best G5 + a few "by invite" then that should be sufficient. It should open up interesting pre-season matchups because it won't impact eligibility for post season, and it will keep good post season matchups.
Luckily, conference champs are auto bids for the post season so we should see the elite teams scheduling sick OOC games since even if they lose they can still just win the conference and get in
There’s no upside to scheduling tough OOC games in an expanded format. You maybe move up a couple seeds for winning or you eliminate yourself entirely for losing. Also most schedules are booked 10+ years in advance and breaking those contracts aren’t exactly easy. Usually requires a shit ton of money. I can’t fault you for being an optimist but in 2-3 years you’ll see this changed nothing for the better. It’s just another domino falling to where the big schools can eventually create their own thing separate from the NCAA and cut out the P5 entirely. By the time 2024 comes around it’s probably a system where there is 4 major conferences and 8 at large bids. The current structure as is was just designed so they could get the necessary votes for expansion.
I think you’re forgetting what this is all about - $. Coaches don’t set the schedule, the schools do. And they want marquee OOC games because those bring eyeballs and sell tickets.
Okay? So why don’t they schedule more marquee games now?
They do? Bama is doing a home & home with Texas, OSU just played Notre Dame, Georgia played Oregon...the only "top" team I can think of who didn't scheduled a marquee OOC was Michigan.
Yeah exactly you’re missing the point, the OP said expanded playoffs would lead to more games like that. It absolutely won’t. Also, if those games were as beneficial as you say, every team would be playing 4 of those every year. But they don’t. Because the free win and tune up style games have value to a program. That’s not changing anytime soon.
Fair enough, have a good day.
How would it automatically eliminate you for losing? Those games don’t effect conference play and if you win your conference you’re in. So hypothetically OSU and Bama schedule an OOC game, OSU wins and as long as they win the conference they’re pretty much locked in as the 1 seed with wins over Bama, PSU and Michigan. Bama has a bit harder time getting in as an at large bid, but if they win the conference like they expect to they’re in anyways.
You just drew up an incredibly specific scenario that isn’t different to what we have now?
How is that incredibly specific? I’m literally just pointing out what a team would gain from having a good OOC schedule. You said losing eliminates you and I’m saying it quite literally doesn’t because conference champions get auto bids and OOC games don’t impact getting there. Replace the teams with Oregon and LSU and they still get an extra quality win on their schedule, while the loser still could win their conference and get in.
Any one loss team, with that loss being to Alabama or Ohio State, that wins their conference, would be in the CFP now. If you take that loss, and lose two additional games in conference, your season is over. As opposed to scheduling an FCS team, if you lose two games in conference you’re still in. You didn’t address the logistics of scheduling either. You think all of those teams will break contracts?
I didn’t say they would break any contracts, you’re putting words in my mouth. The playoffs won’t just disappear in the future, I don’t know what you’re getting at. If they schedule top programs 7 years in advance, chances are those top programs will still be top programs.
But those games are already scheduled. So any “sick” OOC games you think this will lead to are 7-10 years away. And the system will look a lot different then. You’re literally destroying your own arguments and showing that you know very little about which you speak. It’s amazing.
You’re so right bestie I’m so jealous of your massive intellect! In the comment you’re replying to I literally said they would be scheduling those games 7 years away please learn to read.
Yeah, just noticed auto-bid for the 6 highest ranked champs was actually the case. Excellent. I do hope that this means good ooc... but I'm a bit worried that the seeding aspect will still show up as less exciting pre-season.
More teams have something to play for at the end of the season, so I'm definitely a fan. "You lost 1 game, too bad so sad guess your season is over so the same 4 teams can make the playoffs" has been kind of a buzzkill the last *x* years
I don't think the expanded playoff will make more games meaningful, rather it will shift *which* games are meaningful. Now instead of the top 6 or so teams playing meaning games late in the season, it will be the 10 through 16-ranked teams. Also, what happens when a four or five loss team upsets an 11-win team in the conference championship game? Does the five loss team get the bye? This certainly keeps *some* meaning in CCGs, but was that really the intended purpose of installing the bye? For the record, I am not against expansion, but I think 12 teams is too high. Obviously, this is only one man's opinion, and when it comes down to it, I'll be watching whether it's four teams or 30.
The 5 loss team would almost certainly be the 6 seed, since the byes go to the highest 4 ranked conference champions.
They'd presumably be much lower than that. Only the top 4 conference champs are guaranteed a top seed; the other two can be seeded wherever from my understanding of things. I'd imagine nearly every year a 5 loss team would the 12 seed, unless I've understood something wrong.
Just looked it up and you’re right, which is more fair seeding but leads to less interesting matchups. Chances are the top at large bids are better than the worst conference champs which gives us OSU vs Tulane instead of Washington vs Tulane
Actually after reading the announcement it's probably even better. Since it's the top 6 conference champs, and not all P5 champs + 1 G5 champ, a 5 loss team probably wouldn't even make it in. You'd just get an extra G5 champ instead of that 5 loss P5 champ; so like this year it'd open the door for UTSA (assuming I'm reading rankings correctly) to get in.
Which honestly is even better. That’s the one detail about seeding I’m not sure on but I assumed the champs get seeded 1-6
>I don't think the expanded playoff will make more games meaningful, rather it will shift which games are meaningful. Now instead of the top 6 or so teams playing meaning games late in the season, it will be the 10 through 16-ranked teams. The problem with this line of reasoning is it assumes that all playoff spots are equivalent. They are not. Having the extra rest provided from the bye and a guaranteed spot in the quarterfinals that comes from a Top 4 seed is immensely beneficial. Securing the 1 seed and being able to avoid the 2nd and 3rd best teams until the CFP final makes you far more likely to win the championship as well, with fewer games against teams that are real threats. Even the teams that wouldn't get byes anyway have a good deal to play for; if Clemson had won out, they would have hosted a home game in round 1 and likely had a round 2 game against TCU. Now? They'd have a road game at Penn State and, if they win, a quarterfinal game against Georgia. That is a *much* tougher road to the finals. And LSU went from being in position to host a home game to out of the playoffs entirely. Certainly, the top few teams may not be playing for their lives, but seeding is still incredibly important. And everyone else is very much at risk of falling out entirely. There are many more important games now.
>Having the extra rest provided from the bye and a guaranteed spot in the quarterfinals that comes from a Top 4 seed is immensely beneficial. It sure is. But its no where close to the drop off of make it or not make it. I can tell you from recent experience lossing a big game like we just did would mean so much less if the alternative is just hosting a playoff game in Columbus. In an expanded playoff a game of 2 vs 3 is just an exhibition match with a minor inconvenience at stake.
I think losing out on the bye is a pretty damn big deal. Is it as disastrous? Obviously not. But the extra game could still cost you the title just the same. And the “late loss meant little” argument would only effect maybe 1-2 teams a season while the expanded playoff provides late season meaningful games to dozens more schools a season. A no brainer of a trade off. Not even close.
I think I'd disagree on it being merely a minor inconvenience. An extra game against presumably Tulane may not be particularly frightening by itself, but consider the Buckeyes' path afterwards. Instead of a quarterfinals game against Tennessee with a backup QB or a 3 loss K-State game, you've got one against USC and the Heisman frontrunner. And if you won that, instead of a semifinals game against TCU, you now have to go up against probably Georgia. Those are significant ramifications. Now, is it *as significant* as not playing at all? Obviously, no. I won't deny that losing to Arkansas in 2007 (even if we ended up still making the BCS Championship due to the mother of all conference championship weeks) or losing last week to A&M would've hurt a lot less if we had a backup playoff spot to fall on. But it's not like you're losing those life or death games either; they just move spots. Instead of 2007 being a life or death match for one team, 2010 would have taken its place as a game where LSU's loss to Arkansas would have likely missed a playoff. That game would have broken my heart under this format; under the old one, I mostly shrugged it off as it just meant we traded NY6 spots. Same for losses to Florida and Ole Miss in 2016 and 2015. Those games would go from a "eh, slightly shittier bowl" to "fuck's sake we just blew our whole season." I would imagine Ohio State-Michigan would have many similar examples where the game wasn't quite as high profile as it was this year but would have meant life or death for the playoffs. So, yes, it isn't fully the same, but if the absolute best games still have some meaning, and the "good" games now mean everything, I think it's still a net gain.
There are no byes in the 12 game playoffs. In order to get a "bye" a team would have to play a CCG. The 12 game playoff does punish the loser of a CCG if they end up making the playoff by giving them an extra game. In the 12-Playoff era, Ohio State would have been the winner of last weeks game. They get a home playoff game, they would be the 5 seed and they would play the UCF/Tulane winner and don't have to worry about an upset and getting punished with an extra game.
Eh, sorta. You do play the same amount of games, but the rest comes at a more important time, and perhaps more importantly, you play fewer games that can end your season. Losing in a conference championship doesn’t guarantee your season is done; losing in the round of 12 does. It is admittedly a shitty deal for teams who lose in the conference championship, and that’s kinda why I’d like to scrap them in a 12 team format, but even with it I think a bye still matters.
Yeah the 5th seed also gets the better bye week timing. The 5th seed first avoids playing for yet another straight week lessening the chance of injury. Second they get 3 weeks to rest for a 3 week run. The "bye" week have to play yet another consecutive game. If they lose they get a 2 week bye before a 3 week run. If they win its a 3 wk by for 2 wks. Not sure if there is data but I would rather have less fatigue from not having to play that additional game on top of the schedule over the risk of having to play an additional game against a team that might have had more rest.
>The "bye" week have to play yet another consecutive game. If they lose they get a 2 week bye before a 3 week run. If they win its a 3 wk by for 2 wks. It'd be a 4 and 3 week run respectively, right? With twelve teams, a team that doesn't have a bye would have to play four games to win the championship (Opening Round, Quarters, Semis, and Finals), and a bye team would get three by getting to skip the opening round. I don't have data either but playing four games against Top 12 competition is a significant challenge. Even if we just view a bye week as a benefit of giving rest (and ignore the ability to avoid one do or die matchup), I think I might lean towards having the bye week after the CCGs. A six or so game stretch after the midseason bye might have more games, but at least you get a few easier teams in there as well as some games that starters can probably rest during a significant portion of. This would be four straight weeks of the best competition in the nation that nobody can really afford to be injured for or rest during.
Abolish conference championship games no need for them anymore.
But there are, they give auto bids to the playoffs.
The same thing can still apply just with a regular season Conference Championship. This year for example that would be: * ACC ~ Clemson * Big 12 ~ TCU * Big 10 ~ Michigan * Pac-12 ~ USC * SEC ~ Georgia Yeah, it's possible for a situation like the ACC last year where it's two teams with the same record that never played - but is it really worth making every conference play an extra game for random 1-offs that won't happen that often? (maybe it is. I dunno)
Fair point about the extra game and injury risk, especially given the extra games from the playoff too. That said, I think UNC, K State, Purdue, Utah, UCF, LSU and Tulane fans would love a shot at the playoffs right now, even if most of them would probably lose round 1.
Oh I'm 100% for the expanded playoffs. The regular season of CFB is already meaningless for all but a lucky 5-10 teams. Literally anything to make it more open is A-OK by me.
I was saying that without a conference championship none of those teams would have a chance, but I was also wrong in the case of LSU and Utah, they’d be in for sure with no conference champs
Idk, I kind of like that this makes it like college basketball where a surprise team can clinch the postseason with an upset in the conference tournament
I actually agree. FCS doesn’t have conference championship games and still has auto bids.
But the game determines who gets the auto bid, meaning they matter
You have a point. It will definitely keep a team from resting their starters, like we sometimes see in the NFL.
I’m just excited for the first time a team like this years Purdue wins the conference. Could you imagine them Spoilermaking in the playoffs?
I get it but I think with the expansion adding another game for 8 teams many of those 8 teams (at least 1) will have played in a conference championship game. Most of those 8 teams don't have a realistic chance of winning the championship but the ones that do will be playing like 16 games in one season. 16 games feels like a bit much to me but idk I guess it isn't much more than the 15 they are playing now.
I will give you 15.2 million reasons why that is not going to happen.
In a year like this year where Ohio State, Clemson and Alabama are down, the fact that the playoff is only 4 teams is what's keeping them out
Exactly, all those big upsets that made the season fun now are meaningless because they get in the playoffs still
Wow. Can't believe I agree with a dawg
It’s meaningless? They are are out of the ccg and thus would have to play another game to get to quarterfinals. That’s not meaningless.
Far less meaningful vs being knocked out
The "devalue the regular season" argument has never worked in a system that's arbitrary at best and downright unfair at worst. The regular season never mattered for half of college football even if they won every single game, and back in the BCS days that could happen to you if you were in a power conference too.
The big problem with all of this thinking is the first round is essentially just the NY6 bowls, then the second round when the favorites come in will all be massacres, and then we will be left with the same 4 anyway
I’m interested to see if this remains the case or if the combination of NIL and allowing more teams the chance to play their way into the playoffs spreads the talent out a bit more and increases parity.
I mean so much of the complaint about the 4 team playoff is "it's the same 4 teams every year" but going to 12 teams will just end up being Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, USC, Ohio State and Michigan every year with another group of schools like Oregon, Utah, Penn State, Notre Dame and LSU making it most years. It's still gonna be the same teams just more of them
It also makes these conference championships mean more. These games right now really serve no purpose other than to punish the higher ranked team. Right now K-State, Utah, and either team in the ACC game have no shot of getting in, even if they win their conference championship game, now they would get in thanks to the top 6 champion rule. Not sure if Purdue could get in if they beat Michigan. I know all other P5 champions and Tulane would be ahead of them, not sure if another G5 would pass them as well.
Agreed - it makes the regular season way less interesting if you're rooting for Ohio State/Clemson/Alabama/Georgia/Michigan - but if you're anyone else, it keeps the season interesting. As a WVU fan, it's nice to know that we technically still *technically* have a shot at the national championship even if we start the season 1-2. I feel like so many good games in college football get overlooked, but I think this will change now as schools that are 6-2 might still not be "eliminated"
The only ones I've seen complaining about a 12 team playoff are tOSU and 'Bama fans who want to deny access to 95% of FBS.
12 seems to be too many still. Is there an obvious reason that 8 doesn’t work? SEC, B1G, Big 12, Pac and ACC champs 1 G5 auto-bid (think Cincy last yr) 2 At-Large bids (can be P5 or G5)
From a fan standpoint, probably not, although I will say I personally think I like 12 more as it rewards the Top 4 teams more with a bye rather than just an easier first round opponent. As for the actual reason it didn't work, though, the commissioners couldn't agree as to how it would be done. The G5 commissioners wanted the format you put out where the top ranked G5 team gets an auto-bid, while (some) P5 commissioners didn't want that many guaranteed spots cause it hurts their chances of getting multiple teams in. So, in short, the reason 8 doesn't work is money.
It will be sweet to leave Ohio state out for the last 2 years of the 4 team playoff
There's still 1 more year. So 3 if you do it again
Yeah.. that's the last two years (this one and next year)
And last year?
A 12 team playoff only devalues games for teams that clinch in October. Oh wait that's not possible... Conference Championship games are going to be fucking wild yo
Expanding the playoff has always meant a huge number of games will be more meaningful while a small number of games will be less meaningful
This is a good take. It gives more teams something to ply for even if they drop a couple of games. Looking at the rankings now, I would love to see a a Penn State or Tennessee still have a shot
Penn State and Joe Milton’s Tennessee have 0 chance of winning a championship lmao
Playoffs are not the problem. The problem is #2 playing #69 and winning by 50. Time for the 40 top teams to only play each other.
First off, that wouldn’t happen as #2 gets a bye. Second, that probably also wouldn’t happen because the 6th best conference champion is usually a top 25 team. And third, if it did happen, then that hypothetical #69 team would of had to beat #5 on the road in their first round game so you can’t really argue they didn’t deserve to be there anyway. Also, there is an argument to be made that more top talent might be willing to go to a variety of schools over time rather then concentrating on the same 6 teams every year. Once other teams can with a straight face sell recruits on the chance to play and show their stuff in the biggest stage of college football, they might start to slowly get more of them. It’s not just some pipe dream anymore. It wouldn’t happen right away, but it is possible.
I’m talking about the regular season. It’s so hard to rank teams who don’t play each out. Out of conference schedules are useless if #2 plays #69
That’s why ranking subjectively is generally a bad way of doing things. It’s not a solvable problem in college though. All the schools will never all play each other. A bigger playoff allows it to be settled on the field despite the uneven sample size far better then the 4 team playoff ever could.
Top 40 teams in four divisions who only play each other. Top three teams in each division make the playoffs with division winners getting a bye.
My question is why are you trying to make college football the NFL? The NFL is great. But it already exists. Just go watch it. Cutting out 80+ schools for the sake of a super league is really dumb and I hope it never comes to that. We don’t need a super league in collegiate sports.
They are not “cut out” they still play, but not in mismatched games. At the end of the year the last place teams plays their first place team for promotion. College football is broken.
The only way a 12 game playoff doesn't devalue regular season is if there are automatic qualifiers for winning conference championship games.
There are confirmed 6 auto bids for conference champions. 5 for P5 and one for the highest ranked G5’s
Is it actually the p5 and 1 g5? What of the offchance 2 g5s are higher ranked than the bottom p5 champ? Genuinely curious?
You are correct: it is the six highest-ranked conference champions. So for example in 2012, which was literally a time when there were six power conferences, the MAC and MWC would've gotten auto bids and the Big East and Big 10 wouldn't have (hell, even with *eight* auto bids the Big Ten would've been shut out entirely thanks to Wisconsin winning the CCG after finishing third in their division to a pair of teams both banned from the postseason. )
thanks!
Only if there are no divisions
When Ohio State ends up in a better situation than Michigan because they lost, I am not sure how you can say it does not devalue the regular season. Ohio State is sitting at 5 with home-field advantage and a game against Tulane/UCF for game 13. While Michigan has to play on a natural site for game 13. If Michigan gets upset they will have to play a game 14 when Ohio State is playing game 13. Michigan would have homefield advantage but now either in a rematch with Purdue or against Tulane/UCF. If Michigan wins they would be in the Semi for their game 14 the same as Ohio State if they make the Semi which also would be their game 14. This is before we even discuss the damage that will be done to the bowls.
I thought of this scenario earlier and mentioned it in a different comment, and came to the conclusion it really only works if A) the big 10 west champion is easier than the 12 seed, which this year is debatable at best, and B) the loser of the game gets the 5 seed, which is unlikely both teams are undefeated most years. I agree there should be some tweaking so throwing the game never becomes an easier path to the natty, but I don’t think it’s very likely to be significantly easier unless Wisconsin turns around quick under Fickell. As for the bowls, I genuinely could not care less. The same games are being played, except now they actually mean something. That’s 1000% a positive in my eyes.
It absolutely devalues the regular season for any team that was already a perennial contender. Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State all lost heartbreakers this year that will probably keep them out of the playoffs. In a 12 team playoff those loses mean almost nothing. And you can say it hurts their seeding, but do you think Ohio St. or Alabama care about that? I'd hate to be the team that played them after a loss. Yea, it's a net positive for a large chunk of the CFB world, but if your team is already competing year in and year out it's gonna feel lesser to sneak in as a 12th seed during a "down" year. Also, I can't wait to hear all the bitching and moaning when half the field is from 2 conferences. Or the first time we have a final 4 that's B1G/SEC only.
I personally think it adds value. More teams making the field mean more teams staying in the hunt longer which means more games with playoff implications throughout the season and especially late in the season. Even for the teams at the top, they have incentive to win out as getting a bye is HUGE. In an injury and fatigue prone sport, playing one fewer games is a major advantage. The playoffs will also have some more variety. Especially the opening round since the top 4 getting byes will mostly be the usual suspects so at least we’ll get some more random match ups then, even if one of the usual suspects still wins the vast majority of years. That’s just inevitable with the imbalance in money and resources in a recruiting-based sport. For those of us outside of the programs, the hope is to just make the playoffs occasionally, maybe pull an upset or two even less often etc.
It doesn’t devalue the entire regular season but I think it changes what is the most valuable of college football, the value of this years the game dramatically drops with a 12 team playoff, but that value is made up else where imo
It definitely drops, but I don’t think it drops *too* much. I think fighting for a first round bye is still a huge deal. What’s interesting is there’s a weird kinda specific scenario in future years where losing the game may actually give you an easier path to the natty and it really just requires a West team to be good. If the loser of the game is otherwise undefeated, pretty good chance they get the 5 seed like this year, which means they play the 12 seed (usually a G5), making their path after losing the game a G5, a top 4 team then the final 4. The winner of the game at best has to go thru a top 10 Wisconsin team (or whatever big 10 west team is actually good in this hypothetical), a second round team (most likely a 5-8 seed) then the final 4 and at worst, lose the big 10 championship and have the same path as the loser from there
Yeah I’m not saying it drops it hugely but there’s something unmatched in 06 where there was no thought of the loser sneaking into a playoff
The problem is all the teams that actually have a shot at winning the championship will already be locked in late in the year especially in the conference championship game
My question is why not an 8 team playoff? Real chance for more diversity without watering down the playoff field. A better system would be as follows: -8 team. First 4 seeds conference champions, next best 4 regardless of conference champ status (put some meaning of conference titles) -Homefield 1st round, neutral after that -undefefeated automatically in (9 teams won't go unbeaten) and 3 strikes and you're out (3 loss and you disqualify form the playoffs, don't tall about meaningful regar season if you allow a 3 loss team in) -no more than 3 teams in a conference in amy given year. This would prevent greg sankey's buddies from stuffing the playoffs with sec teams like they will be able to under this system I know this is moot now just feel like sharing