Expanded College Football Playoff coming

HRE Otto IV

All Conference
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
2,484
Like
3,467
There was a big talent divide when Syracuse beat Clemson a few years ago but it happened anyway. A much bigger divide than there will be between the top seeds and bottom seeds of the playoff imo. Upsets happen all the time. As for home field advantage, the top 4 seeds never even play at home during these playoffs. They have byes for the home game then play in neutral site bowls

If the 2nd round is at Bowls it will be a logistical nightmare. I doubt they go that route. Maybe it would work if they have 2 weeks off in between each round but that will take you towards February.

A regular mid season upset at home if totally different than a playoff game. We have had 7 years of the CFB playoff and not only have we failed to see an upset but we have failed to see close games in general. Heck we rarely see upsets in CCGs.
 

FrancoPizza

2018 Iggy Leading Minutes Per Game Winner
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
5,970
Like
7,849
Just get rid of all the meaningless NIT bowls and cap the playoff at 16. Make the postseason a truly special achievement and you won’t have potential draftees sitting out/opting out.
 

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
19,799
Like
26,477
If the 2nd round is at Bowls it will be a logistical nightmare. I doubt they go that route. Maybe it would work if they have 2 weeks off in between each round but that will take you towards February.

A regular mid season upset at home if totally different than a playoff game. We have had 7 years of the CFB playoff and not only have we failed to see an upset but we have failed to see close games in general. Heck we rarely see upsets in CCGs.
I hear all that - but I think it says more about the lack of parity than if more playoff games are a good idea or not. I think get this part right, see how the transfer stuff works, maybe add a year of eligibility or something like that based on the COVID experiment and see if we can't narrow the gap some between the best and the rest.

Prefer that to staying the course.
 

HRE Otto IV

All Conference
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
2,484
Like
3,467
I hear all that - but I think it says more about the lack of parity than if more playoff games are a good idea or not. I think get this part right, see how the transfer stuff works, maybe add a year of eligibility or something like that based on the COVID experiment and see if we can't narrow the gap some between the best and the rest.

Prefer that to staying the course.

Right, parity is the problem. But that likely can’t get fixed. Even if you went to 20/75 from 25/85 scholarship limits the top programs will find a way around it while still getting the top kids. So SU would be better overall and be closer to a school like Florida, but it won’t be enough for SU or Florida to get close enough to Alabama or Clemson.

Also IMO too much parity is a bad thing. It makes for a better playoff but a worse regular season. The ACC Coastal has parity. From a year to year standpoint that is great. Taking turns at the top. But within season having no clear alpha makes it worse. I rather see a 6-2 or better division winner than a 5-3 tie.
 

SUskibum

Starter
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
1,961
Like
4,726
They need to fix recruiting advantages next. Distribute the talent more evenly and the 12 team playoff would be akin to the NCAA tournament or the NFL playoffs.

It's prob the hardest nut to crack, but I could see name and likeness helping in some way. I also think the transfer rules might help a bit too.
Yes, moves toward more parity (will never be perfect) are what all changes should revolve around

12 or 16 team playoff helps by helping more schools get shots on goal, and making the playoff at all is a huge marketing tool (can’t win it if your not in it) Also purely as a fan, more games = more enjoyment

NIL like you say I think could actually help because now the four five star kid needs to think about how much exposure he will get being behind 3-4 other highly ranked kids on a team full of absolute studs vs being the very top 1-2 kid on a good but maybe not great team. I think the math will show that the top kids on mid tier teams will do better financially than a ‘cog’ but not superstar at the elite schools.

Transfer rules we have already seen the numbers that about 80% of moves are kids moving down a bit to secure more playing time at a slightly less glamorous school

and the last thing I think they should do is take the reshirt rule all the way to 5 to play 5 which will help schools who redshirt more kids (like the mid tier development schools)
 

Hokie Mark

Scout Team
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
492
Like
786
If they expand but don’t do auto-bids for P5 and an auto spot for a G5, they will have solved nothing and just grabbed cash. Which is sadly in line with their history

They are proposing a kinda/sorta autobid (for the top 6 conference champs, not specifying which conferences). Since 2014, only ONE P5 champ would've missed the playoffs - last year's Pac-12 champ, Oregon. If you only fail to get all five P5 champs in during a 100-year pandemic, I'll take that.
 

Hokie Mark

Scout Team
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
492
Like
786
Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Georgia, etc. have all made the playoff over the past few years with 1 regular-season loss.
Isn't that just proving the bias, though? The committee basically found a way to get the biggest brands into the playoffs. Meanwhile teams with better records (UCF) were passed over. The current CFP system has been broken and definitely needs fixing. As much as I dislike the 6 at-large bids, at least they're guaranteeing the 6 highest-ranked conference champs, which is a very positive step.
 

Eric15

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
22,755
Like
70,902
Isn't that just proving the bias, though? The committee basically found a way to get the biggest brands into the playoffs. Meanwhile teams with better records (UCF) were passed over. The current CFP system has been broken and definitely needs fixing. As much as I dislike the 6 at-large bids, at least they're guaranteeing the 6 highest-ranked conference champs, which is a very positive step.
But a team's record in college football by itself without context doesn't mean much. UCF went undefeated, but they had virtually no quality wins. They went 1-0 against the Sagarin Top 30, whereas Bama who got the 4 seed went 5-1 against the Top 30, and they went on to win the national title.

I am a fan of expanding to 8 and having 1 G5 team included so that teams like UCF don't get left out in the future.
 

SWC75

Bored Historian
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
24,286
Like
43,803
They need to fix recruiting advantages next. Distribute the talent more evenly and the 12 team playoff would be akin to the NCAA tournament or the NFL playoffs.

It's prob the hardest nut to crack, but I could see name and likeness helping in some way. I also think the transfer rules might help a bit too.

It will be interesting to see if the transfer portal will even out the talent more or make things even more top heavy. A Sean Tucker could decide he's rather run behind Clemson's line or a Clemson lineman who got beat out of the starting position might decide to play for Syracuse. Which will happen more?
 

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
19,799
Like
26,477
Right, parity is the problem. But that likely can’t get fixed. Even if you went to 20/75 from 25/85 scholarship limits the top programs will find a way around it while still getting the top kids. So SU would be better overall and be closer to a school like Florida, but it won’t be enough for SU or Florida to get close enough to Alabama or Clemson.

Also IMO too much parity is a bad thing. It makes for a better playoff but a worse regular season. The ACC Coastal has parity. From a year to year standpoint that is great. Taking turns at the top. But within season having no clear alpha makes it worse. I rather see a 6-2 or better division winner than a 5-3 tie.
Agreed. I don't think it can be fixed (parity) but I think some of it can be dealt with. And sometimes the margins matter. Clemson is 3x more talented and deeper than us (made up number, just roll with it) but maybe with some rule changes (transfer, redshirt rules, NIL, etc) we can get it to 2x or 1.8x or something. That would result in games that are I don't know 4x as more enjoyable?

The Coastal is boring to us - but that's because Syracuse isn't one of the 5-3 teams vying for the division. Too much can be bad - but I don't think the lead Clemson/Bama/OK/Ohio St have will ever be really diminished (except by scandal, maybe). Not looking for perfect - just better parity.
 

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
19,799
Like
26,477
It will be interesting to see if the transfer portal will even out the talent more or make things even more top heavy. A Sean Tucker could decide he's rather run behind Clemson's line or a Clemson lineman who got beat out of the starting position might decide to play for Syracuse. Which will happen more?
I don't think we'll see our best players end up moving up *if* the team culture, coaching, etc are good. Clemson has 5 Sean Tuckers already (actually prob better, lol). But if one of those 5 Clemson RBs thinks they can start here with less competition - I think that happens more.

I think it will even out the talent on the whole. And we should be happy for that, even if it means we might see more churn on our own roster IMO
 

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
19,799
Like
26,477
Yes, moves toward more parity (will never be perfect) are what all changes should revolve around

12 or 16 team playoff helps by helping more schools get shots on goal, and making the playoff at all is a huge marketing tool (can’t win it if your not in it) Also purely as a fan, more games = more enjoyment

NIL like you say I think could actually help because now the four five star kid needs to think about how much exposure he will get being behind 3-4 other highly ranked kids on a team full of absolute studs vs being the very top 1-2 kid on a good but maybe not great team. I think the math will show that the top kids on mid tier teams will do better financially than a ‘cog’ but not superstar at the elite schools.

Transfer rules we have already seen the numbers that about 80% of moves are kids moving down a bit to secure more playing time at a slightly less glamorous school

and the last thing I think they should do is take the reshirt rule all the way to 5 to play 5 which will help schools who redshirt more kids (like the mid tier development schools)
This is spot on, IMO.

I don't know how intentional any of this is - but it seems like it could help. I think they see what we all see - the gap is huge and it will become too boring if it's the same 3-5 schools over 20 years without getting the rest of the programs on more equal footing.
 

Scooch

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
12,102
Like
28,397
After thinking it through, I think 12 is a good number. 8 doesn't do much than allow more P5s in to grab cash. But 12 is truly inclusive, as there will always be at least one G5 team (and possibly 2 some seasons). It also provides better accessibility for the P5 non-name brand schools -- like Syracuse. We have a farrrrr better shot of nabbing a #9-#12 seed than a top 8.
 

CU44SE

Starter
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
1,367
Like
1,990
1- Yes, bottom line is 12 takes care of the little guys that get left out. It doesn’t allow them to claim a national championship like UCF. They would have been included and maybe they do go on a little run. Or maybe they get exposed. But the bottom line is THEY GET A CHANCE TO PLAY THE GAME!!! It’s everything the NCAA tournament is about.

2- I really think second round should be played at the top seeds home stadium. But the more I think about that. It won’t happen. Especially with ND on the comittee. They are okay not getting a bye. They would not be okay with not getting a bye and then having to travel to someone’s home field.
 

SUskibum

Starter
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
1,961
Like
4,726
It will be interesting to see if the transfer portal will even out the talent more or make things even more top heavy. A Sean Tucker could decide he's rather run behind Clemson's line or a Clemson lineman who got beat out of the starting position might decide to play for Syracuse. Which will happen more?
We already have numbers on this and the lions share of transfers are going slightly down in competition to gain playing time

Sean Tucker might be able to run behind clemsons line, but he’ll compete with 2-3 other NFL quality players and new recruits. Or he can stay at Syracuse where he knows he is the bell cow and has vested emotional interest (officially called confirmation bias)
 

kirbivore

2019 Cali Award (Passing Yards)
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
10,430
Like
10,279
I'd be fine with 8. The P5 champs, the top ranked champion of the smaller conferences, and two wild cards. Quarter finals are home games for the higher seeds. Then for semi-finals and title game use the same rotation they do now.
 

orangepassion

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
7,521
Like
11,807
What other sport has such a talent divide between the Top 1-3 teams and the 6-9 teams? What other sport has such a huge home field advantage? NBA playoffs are generally boring the first few rounds as they are chalky. This will be worse.
Football is different because of 2 big variables-Turnovers and injuries, particularly QB. If a team loses their QB, it changes everything.
 

elimunelson

All Conference
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
3,299
Like
4,852
After thinking it through, I think 12 is a good number. 8 doesn't do much than allow more P5s in to grab cash. But 12 is truly inclusive, as there will always be at least one G5 team (and possibly 2 some seasons). It also provides better accessibility for the P5 non-name brand schools -- like Syracuse. We have a farrrrr better shot of nabbing a #9-#12 seed than a top 8.

During our salad days, we were a top 20 program with top 10 years every 10 years. I think this playoff allows us to dream big again and potentially have a seat at the big boy table every 10 years if things go right. I do think the one part of this which needs tweaking is how they determine home games vs neutral sites.

If top teams get a bye do they not get a home game? I feel like that's an odd consolation even with the bye. I feel like the bowls will have a major say on how they construct this but imagine having these playoff games at home fields till the final game ala Superbowl.

As I stated earlier in the thread, 12 works for me or 0 works for me. This allows for the upstart into the conversation now.
 

djorange1989

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
8,413
Like
17,606
give me an 8 team playoff, highest rated group of 5 team along with the seven highest rated Power 5 teams. I am not a fan of auto bids for the Power 5 unless you get rid of divisions in the ACC, SEC, BG10 and Pac12, then I might like it sorta kinda
 

HRE Otto IV

All Conference
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
2,484
Like
3,467
After thinking it through, I think 12 is a good number. 8 doesn't do much than allow more P5s in to grab cash. But 12 is truly inclusive, as there will always be at least one G5 team (and possibly 2 some seasons). It also provides better accessibility for the P5 non-name brand schools -- like Syracuse. We have a farrrrr better shot of nabbing a #9-#12 seed than a top 8.

Last year was a weird year with no OOC and odd # of games. The B1G and P12 kinda got screwed but I guess we should include it. So in the CFP era (7 seasons) we would see the below.

The biggest winner was the B1G and P12. The B1G went from the 3rd most bids with a gap to 2nd, to the most bids. The P12 nearly doubled their bid %. The ACC went from a tie for the most, to tied for the 3rd most with a gap to second. The ACC's % of bids dropped in half. The biggest individual winner was Penn State going from 0.0 bids to 4.

ACC
Old 28.57% of bids
New 14.29%

B1G
Old 17.86%
New 23.81%

B12
Old 14.29%
New 14.29%

P12
Old 7.14%
New 13.10%

SEC
Old 28.57%
New 22.62%



B1G 20
Ohio State 7
Penn State 4
Wisconsin 3
Michigan 2
Michigan State 2
Indiana 1
Iowa 1

SEC 19
Bama 6
Georgia 4
Florida 3
LSU 2
A&M 1
Auburn 1
Mississippi State 1
Ole Miss 1

ACC 12
Clemson 6
FSU 3
Miami 1
UNC 1
ND 1*

B12 12
Oklahoma 6
Baylor 2
TCU 2
Iowa State 1
Kansas State 1

P12 11
Washington 3
Oregon 2
USC 2
Arizona 1
Colorado 1
Stanford 1
Utah 1

AAC 5
UCF 2
Cincinnati 1
Houston 1
Memphis 1

Ind 2
ND 2 (3)*

MAC 1
Western Michigan 1

MWC 1
Boise State 1

Sunbelt 1
Coastal Carolina


What actually happened:

ACC 8
Clemson 6
FSU 1
ND 1

SEC 8
Bama 6
Georgia 1
LSU 1

B1G 5
Ohio State 4
Michigan State 1

B12 4
Oklahoma 4

P12 2
Washington 1
Oregon 1

Ind 1
ND 1 (2)
 

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
838
Total visitors
991

Top Bottom