Big Ten pondering 28-team playoff

[Piscis]

The system which serves everyone cannot itself foster the gap between the haves and have-nots.

It's along the same lines as why Antitrust laws exist -- to promote fair play and prevent monopolies.

The system is not fostering the gap. The top teams are doing things differently, operationally, than the lower tier teams.

You sound like someone who believes in "systemic racism" as a reason for the achievement gap between races and affirmative action as a solution.

 

[Cobie]

The system is not fostering the gap. The top teams are doing things differently, operationally, than the lower tier teams.

You sound like someone who believes in "systemic racism" as a reason for the achievement gap between races and affirmative action as a solution.

So this is going to be your troll account for the season. Have fun with that and say hi to the Fam.

 

[KingWard]

The system which serves everyone cannot itself foster the gap between the haves and have-nots.

It's along the same lines as why Antitrust laws exist -- to promote fair play and prevent monopolies.

War is a better analogy for establishing the competitive sports norm. "To the victor belong the spoils."

 

[KingWard]

What's happening with the CFP is the same was what happened with bowl games, just at an accelerated rate. The 1960 bowl schedule featured 8 games for D1 teams. That means you had top 25 teams not going bowling. You could have a really good year and not make a bowl. Over time it eroded to include teams who had good years, pretty good years, ok years, and now just flat-out bad years. There have actually been teams with losing records to make bowls. What started out as a reward for a very good season has been degraded to a required bare minimum accomplishment. Making a bowl used to mean you had an excellent season. Now it only means you don't completely suck (and, frankly, that's even completely true any longer).

The CFP is trending down the same path, albeit at a drastically accelerated rate. At its inception, making the 4-team CFP was a badge of honor for an excellent season. Now, with the expanded 12-team CFP, you already have a handful of teams for which making the playoff is considered a minimum accomplishment. With inevitable further expansion it's going to be much like bowls where you're expected to make the CFP most years.

In other words, "Playoff Team" is becoming a diminishing distinction.

 

[Piscis]

In other words, "Playoff Team" is becoming a diminishing distinction.

Exactly. Like everything in society, mediocrity is being rewarded in the name of "self worth". When FCS wins (or D-1AA) started being counted towards bowl eligibility, the purpose was to pump up coaches resumes with bowl appearances. In a 12 game schedule, there are generally three cupcake FCS games so a coach starts the season with 3 wins. He only has to manage 3 more wins in the other 9 games to be bowl eligible. If the coach of a legitimate P4 team can't manage that, he needs to find another job.

The goal for some fans is for the playoff to expand to the point that eligibility backs up to the point their team gets in so they can feel good about making the playoff.

 

[Cobie]

Exactly. Like everything in society, mediocrity is being rewarded in the name of "self worth". When FCS wins (or D-1AA) started being counted towards bowl eligibility, the purpose was to pump up coaches resumes with bowl appearances. In a 12 game schedule, there are generally three cupcake FCS games so a coach starts the season with 3 wins. He only has to manage 3 more wins in the other 9 games to be bowl eligible. If the coach of a legitimate P4 team can't manage that, he needs to find another job.

The goal for some fans is for the playoff to expand to the point that eligibility backs up to the point their team gets in so they can feel good about making the playoff.

n/m

 

[Cobie]

Exactly. Like everything in society, mediocrity is being rewarded in the name of "self worth". When FCS wins (or D-1AA) started being counted towards bowl eligibility, the purpose was to pump up coaches resumes with bowl appearances. In a 12 game schedule, there are generally three cupcake FCS games so a coach starts the season with 3 wins. He only has to manage 3 more wins in the other 9 games to be bowl eligible. If the coach of a legitimate P4 team can't manage that, he needs to find another job.

The goal for some fans is for the playoff to expand to the point that eligibility backs up to the point their team gets in so they can feel good about making the playoff.

Your response exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at hand that both you and King seem to share -- conflating the pursuit of competitive equity with rewarding mediocrity. The critique of the 4-team College Football Playoff isn’t about coddling underachievers or inflating self-esteem; it’s about dismantling a system that structurally entrenched a handful of elite programs at the expense of the sport’s broader health.

The data is clear: from 2014 to 2023, just 14 unique teams claimed 40 playoff slots, with Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State gobbling up 19 of them. This wasn’t a meritocracy; it was an echo chamber where the same powerhouses leveraged their visibility to hoard top recruits—Alabama alone secured eight No. 1 recruiting classes between 2011 and 2020 -- widening the talent gap and stifling parity.

Additionally, your point about FCS games and bowl eligibility is a red herring. The issue isn’t coaches padding resumes with cupcake wins; it’s that the four-team system created a feedback loop where elite programs’ repeated exposure fueled their dominance, leaving others—even strong Group of 5 teams like 13-0 Cincinnati in 2020—on the sidelines unless they could miraculously crack a four-slot fortress.

Expanding to 12 teams (and possibly now 16) wasn't about handing out participation trophies; it’s about giving more programs a shot to compete, earn exposure, and disrupt the aristocracy of a few. Suggesting fans just want their teams in to “feel good” dismisses the legitimate call for a structure that doesn’t rig the game for the same old titans. If you think that’s rewarding mediocrity, you’re missing the forest for the trees—the sport thrives on competition, not coronation.

 

[KingWard]

Your response exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at hand that both you and King seem to share....

...Expanding to 12 teams (and possibly now 16) wasn't about handing out participation trophies; it’s about giving more programs a shot to compete, earn exposure, and disrupt the aristocracy of a few.

Condescending if not insulting in the first instance. 1917 Russia in the second..

 

[Cobie]

Condescending if not insulting in the first instance. 1917 Russia in the second..

Where's the data to support your emotion-based position?

 

[Cobie]

CowTown & The 10Yr. $100 Million Contract

Clemson’s historic run is another example of the structural tailwind of the four-team CFP’s network effects.

Clemson wasn’t just a plucky underdog; they rode a system that amplified their success into a recruiting juggernaut.

From 2014 to 2023, their six playoff appearances (second only to BAMA) and two national titles (2016, 2018) gave them a national spotlight, turning that cow pasture into a magnet for five-star recruits from around the world.

During the height of the 4-team alignment, they pulled in Top-10 classes each year from 2015 to 2020.

Pre-CFP, they had one title in 1981 and rarely cracked top-10 recruiting.

The ACC’s weak competition handed them an easy path to 12-1 records and playoff berths.

Like a small brand going viral on a curated platform, Clemson’s CFP exposure snowballed their success, creating an echo chamber where they hoarded talent and dominated.

Dabo was excellent as a marketing CEO -- but the four-team system’s exclusivity was the rocket fuel—without it, Clemson’s run is unthinkable.

A perfect storm.

 

[KingWard]

Where's the data to support your emotion-based position?

My opinion requires no data. I recognize when I see egalitarianism being preferred over excellence.

 

[Cobie]

My opinion requires no data. I recognize when I see egalitarianism being preferred over excellence.

States the King.

Data isn’t the enemy of excellence; it’s the lens for truth.

 

[KingWard]

States the King.

Data isn’t the enemy of excellence; it’s the lens for truth.

Only when used for noble, intelligent, and worthwhile ends. Disguising the undesirable as beneficial by a fallacious interpretation of certain measures does not qualify.

 

[Cobie]

Only when used for noble, intelligent, and worthwhile ends. Disguising the undesirable as beneficial by a fallacious interpretation of certain measures does not qualify.

Without evidence, it’s just opinion dressed up as insight.

Spurrier also saw it coming in 2012 -- warning a four-team setup would lock out deserving teams, creating a VIP club where the same programs monopolized the spotlight and talent.

 

[KingWard]

Without evidence, it’s just opinion dressed up as insight.

Spurrier also saw it coming in 2012 -- warning a four-team setup would lock out deserving teams, creating a VIP club where the same programs monopolized the spotlight and talent.

Which they did because they were manifestly better at running their business than the others, as evidenced over entire seasons. I suspect many if not most of them will continue in the that same vein.

 

[Cobie]

Which they did because they were manifestly better at running their business than the others, as evidenced over entire seasons. I suspect many if not most of them will continue in the that same vein.

'
That was part of it.

We're talking about the ridiculous kicker subsidy from the 4-team spotlight.

States once offered Amazon the "tax free" incentive to set up shop in their jurisdiction.

What was a disaster that was for small/local storefront businesses.

 

[KingWard]

'
That was part of it.

We're talking about the ridiculous kicker subsidy from the 4-team spotlight.

States once offered Amazon the "tax free" incentive to set up shop in their jurisdiction.

What was a disaster that was for small/local storefront businesses.

Much like Walmart in most every small town with a Main Street. It's a sorrowful metamorphosis but I don't see people or governments mobilizing to eliminate Walmart. Some towns reinvent themselves downtown to re-establish vitality. It's a matter of vision, will, and capital.

 

[TheRoo]

Much like Walmart in most every small town with a Main Street. It's a sorrowful metamorphosis but I don't see people or governments mobilizing to eliminate Walmart. Some towns reinvent themselves downtown to re-establish vitality. It's a matter of vision, will, and capital.

The deck is stacked against small businesses just like it is with smaller schools. There shouldn't be policy on top of this to make it easier for big corporations and schools to grab a even larger market share. That's what is happening in both instances. The big boys have enough of an advantage through wealth accumulation over time. There's no reason to make things worse through policy and organizational structure.

 

[TheRoo]

Your response exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at hand that both you and King seem to share -- conflating the pursuit of competitive equity with rewarding mediocrity. The critique of the 4-team College Football Playoff isn’t about coddling underachievers or inflating self-esteem; it’s about dismantling a system that structurally entrenched a handful of elite programs at the expense of the sport’s broader health.

The data is clear: from 2014 to 2023, just 14 unique teams claimed 40 playoff slots, with Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State gobbling up 19 of them. This wasn’t a meritocracy; it was an echo chamber where the same powerhouses leveraged their visibility to hoard top recruits—Alabama alone secured eight No. 1 recruiting classes between 2011 and 2020 -- widening the talent gap and stifling parity.

Additionally, your point about FCS games and bowl eligibility is a red herring. The issue isn’t coaches padding resumes with cupcake wins; it’s that the four-team system created a feedback loop where elite programs’ repeated exposure fueled their dominance, leaving others—even strong Group of 5 teams like 13-0 Cincinnati in 2020—on the sidelines unless they could miraculously crack a four-slot fortress.

Expanding to 12 teams (and possibly now 16) wasn't about handing out participation trophies; it’s about giving more programs a shot to compete, earn exposure, and disrupt the aristocracy of a few. Suggesting fans just want their teams in to “feel good” dismisses the legitimate call for a structure that doesn’t rig the game for the same old titans. If you think that’s rewarding mediocrity, you’re missing the forest for the trees—the sport thrives on competition, not coronation.

Excellent Post.

 

[KingWard]

The deck is stacked against small businesses just like it is with smaller schools. There shouldn't be policy on top of this to make it easier for big corporations and schools to grab a even larger market share. That's what is happening in both instances. The big boys have enough of an advantage through wealth accumulation over time. There's no reason to make things worse through policy and organizational structure.

Many of the same people who subscribe to Darwinism are rankled by Social Darwinism. I understood that sensibilities are involved, but there is a logical disconnect.

 

[KingWard]

Excellent Post.

Using carefully selected information to insinuate sophistic conclusions.

 

[Cobie]

Using carefully selected information to insinuate sophistic conclusions.

Above is unprecedented historical data, working examples, Spurrier, quotes (below) etc.

And your continued rebuttal -- "Nope...cause I said so."

Nice troll King.

------------------

“The rich get richer... Commissioners and administrators recognize this phenomenon — and its repercussions — in real time.”

“None of them will stop the rich from getting richer. Hard work, superior talent evaluation, development, incremental gains in on-the-field performance... but the recruiting gap persists due to the CFP’s visibility for top programs.”

“The top programs have a monopoly on the top talent, and the Playoff system only exacerbates that by giving them a bigger stage.”

"Recruiting ratios show the top five or six teams get a disproportionate share of five-star talent, and the Playoff’s spotlight only widens that gap.”

“The four-team format has led to a financial and competitive gap that favors the elite, with recruiting advantages flowing to those with playoff exposure.”

“The Playoff has created a power imbalance where the same teams dominate, and expansion is needed to address the parity panic caused by talent hoarding.”

 

[KingWard]

Above is unprecedented historical data, working examples, Spurrier, quotes (below) etc.

And your continued rebuttal -- "Nope...cause I said so."

Nice troll King.

------------------

“The rich get richer... Commissioners and administrators recognize this phenomenon — and its repercussions — in real time.”

“None of them will stop the rich from getting richer. Hard work, superior talent evaluation, development, incremental gains in on-the-field performance... but the recruiting gap persists due to the CFP’s visibility for top programs.”

“The top programs have a monopoly on the top talent, and the Playoff system only exacerbates that by giving them a bigger stage.”

"Recruiting ratios show the top five or six teams get a disproportionate share of five-star talent, and the Playoff’s spotlight only widens that gap.”

“The four-team format has led to a financial and competitive gap that favors the elite, with recruiting advantages flowing to those with playoff exposure.”

“The Playoff has created a power imbalance where the same teams dominate, and expansion is needed to address the parity panic caused by talent hoarding.”

You don't get it. I believe in competitive advantages for teams that build them through achievement, as the Big Boys have. Those advantages are justified by sustained performance. They weren't conferred upon them by anybody. If you believe differently, then once again, you and I have reached another "never the twain shall meet" impasse. Have a nice Saturday.

 

[Cobie]

You don't get it. I believe in competitive advantages for teams that build them through achievement, as the Big Boys have. Those advantages are justified by sustained performance. They weren't conferred upon them by anybody. If you believe differently, then once again, you and I have reached another "never the twain shall meet" impasse. Have a nice Saturday.

So you acknowledge the issue(s), yet you're comfortable with these teams bathing in the system advantages in perpetuity because "they've earned it"?

 

[KingWard]

So you acknowledge the issue(s), yet you're comfortable with these teams bathing in the system advantages in perpetuity because "they've earned it"?

In my lifetime, I've seen UPC, FSU, Oregon, and Florida come out of the weeds to establish eminence near the top, and two of those four are having to reassert themselves. It isn't proving easy.

Ascendance can be achieved but relevance must be maintained. There's nothing amiss inherently with competitive requirements as they exist now. It's there for the taking for schools possessing the vision, the will, and stakeholders willing to buy in.

There are other issues like NIL and unlimited transfers that concern me, but the issue we've been discussing does not.

 

[TheRoo]

In my lifetime, I've seen UPC, FSU, Oregon, and Florida come out of the weeds to establish eminence near the top, and two of those four are having to reassert themselves. It isn't proving easy.

Ascendance can be achieved but relevance must be maintained. There's nothing amiss inherently with competitive requirements as they exist now. It's there for the taking for schools possessing the vision, the will, and stakeholders willing to buy in.

There are other issues like NIL and unlimited transfers that concern me, but the issue we've been discussing does not.

Aren't you missing the point that this maintained relevance should not be padded by an exclusionary playoff system though?

Clemson's run was absolutely influenced by the playoff system. FSU was down and Clemson claimed it's position as the team to play for because of the easier ACC path. Florida has always had great recruiting classes but really isn't a part of this discussion anyway because that was before the playoffs. Similar to the ACC, Oregon is typically near the top of the PAC and has a bunch of money to spend on players.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

Aren't you missing the point that this maintained relevance should not be padded by an exclusionary playoff system though?

Clemson's run was absolutely influenced by the playoff system. FSU was down and Clemson claimed it's position as the team to play for because of the easier ACC path. Florida has always had great recruiting classes but really isn't a part of this discussion anyway because that was before the playoffs. Similar to the ACC, Oregon is typically near the top of the PAC and has a bunch of money to spend on players.

Aren't all playoffs exclusionary?

 

[Cobie]

In my lifetime, I've seen UPC, FSU, Oregon, and Florida come out of the weeds to establish eminence near the top, and two of those four are having to reassert themselves. It isn't proving easy.

Ascendance can be achieved but relevance must be maintained. There's nothing amiss inherently with competitive requirements as they exist now. It's there for the taking for schools possessing the vision, the will, and stakeholders willing to buy in.

There are other issues like NIL and unlimited transfers that concern me, but the issue we've been discussing does not.

If it’s truly “there for the taking,” why did the rich get richer while others withered?

Your examples of UCF, FSU, Oregon, and Florida rising prove the point: their ascents happened pre- or early in the four-team CFP era, before its echo chamber locked in elite dominance.

As mentioned previously -- from 2014–2023, just 14 teams snagged 40 playoff slots. Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State hogged 19 of those and it funneled an unprecendented 47% of five-star recruits to top programs and widening the talent gap. (24/7Sports)

The Athletic nailed it in 2021: “The top programs have a monopoly on the top talent, and the Playoff system only exacerbates that by giving them a bigger stage.” NIL and transfers are sideshows—the four-team CFP’s exclusivity rigged the recruiting game, turning “vision and will” into a pipe dream for most.

 

[Cobie]

Aren't all playoffs exclusionary?

When they are connected to recruiting.

This is the entire point of why you would want to expand them - so more teams have an opporunity for exposure to top recruits.

The wider your pool, the better chance teams have a shot at the spotlight from year to year.

The 4-team playoff was waaaay over concentrated in that regard. An echo chamber.

 

[KingWard]

Aren't you missing the point that this maintained relevance should not be padded by an exclusionary playoff system though?

Clemson's run was absolutely influenced by the playoff system. FSU was down and Clemson claimed it's position as the team to play for because of the easier ACC path. Florida has always had great recruiting classes but really isn't a part of this discussion anyway because that was before the playoffs. Similar to the ACC, Oregon is typically near the top of the PAC and has a bunch of money to spend on players.

It's not "exclusionary" when any FBS team could conceivably get in. 12-13 games and an outstanding record against a credible schedule affords plenty of opportunity.

 

[KingWard]

If it’s truly “there for the taking,” why did the rich get richer while others withered?

Your examples of UCF, FSU, Oregon, and Florida rising prove the point: their ascents happened pre- or early in the four-team CFP era, before its echo chamber locked in elite dominance.

As mentioned previously -- from 2014–2023, just 14 teams snagged 40 playoff slots. Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State hogged 19 of those and it funneled an unprecendented 47% of five-star recruits to top programs and widening the talent gap. (24/7Sports)

The Athletic nailed it in 2021: “The top programs have a monopoly on the top talent, and the Playoff system only exacerbates that by giving them a bigger stage.” NIL and transfers are sideshows—the four-team CFP’s exclusivity rigged the recruiting game, turning “vision and will” into a pipe dream for most.

Nothing was "rigged". Some people resent the successful; others don't, as with people who continually skewer the rich, even while their very livings are afforded by them. That attitude extends to "journalists" also.

 

[Cobie]

Nothing was "rigged". Some people resent the successful; others don't, as with people who continually skewer the rich, even while their very livings are afforded by them. That attitude extends to "journalists" also.

Agree that rigged was overboard. Wasn't my term.

Believe they were probably using within the context that governing body knew the system was severely flawed, had the data to more than prove it, --- and yet allowed it to continue for years on end.