I apologize...what are you asking for then? What requirements are you saying are a must?
The Big Ten wants a 24-28 team playoff
- Thread starter KingLando
- Start date
If you are not in the top 8 you have no claim to a championship. It should have gone to 8 and stopped there.
So weird how you just keep making assertions but have yet to provide evidence. Are you new at this? Because I'm not.
The window opened on Dec. 9 and closed on Dec. 28.
There's a second window that opened on April 16, and closed on April 25.
That is why other players left after the playoffs.
Last edited:
The only deja vu here is Lando dying on the same hill over and over again.
Again, you're wrong
College football transfer portal: Winter window closed Dec. 28, but exceptions keep player movement alive - CBSSports.com
Key exceptions to the deadline
Players involved in postseason play have extra time to enter the portal. Any athlete participating in a bowl game or playoff has a five-day window to enter the portal after their season ends. For instance, players in Jan. 1 bowl games have until Jan. 6, while those in the Jan. 20 national championship game have until Jan. 25.How did Wallace leave? How did Evans leave? Both in January
Penn State Football: Two Penn State Starting Receivers Enter NCAA Transfer Portal
Just because you want to blindly defend Beau (guessing I know who you are) doesn't mean you can ignore facts
I have no dog in this fight. You said he transferred because Penn State forced him to do so.
You are wrong. You made that up out of whole cloth, or got a wrong answer from Google AI.
It looks like Pribula transferred when he did due to financial/opportunity reasons, and he feared facing reduced offers/availability if he held out through the playoffs.
Last edited:
This is exactly the way I remember why he left when he did, was to create the best opportunity for himself as many other QB's were in the portal and offers were already being extended and accepted and if he waited til January when PSU was eliminated Missouri may have landed on another QB.
I'm not wrong nor did I use AI. Unlike you I know the rules of the portal.
So now you acknowledge he didn't have to portal by the 28th and made a selfish decision unlike everyone else in college football that stayed. In fact, he made an emotional decision because Allar stayed.
Oh and I said we forced him to leave when he entered the portal...no one forced him to transfer...see Brown staying at Ohio State. That's a Penn State rule not an FBS rule.
Thanks for playing
Last edited:
That's true for one simple reason. MONEY! You're 150 games into the baseball season and your team is 14 games out of first place but only 3 from a wildcard. So you're saying there's a chance... Let's go spend money on my team.
This is true
Its why the NHL refuses to award 3 points for a win and still gives a point for SOL.
But it's also true, especially in college football, perfection shouldn't be required and teams like Ohio State can earn a title on the field .
The most important thing to me is having more meaningful games. The larger the playoff there's more games that matter illustrated by your MLB example.
MLB is the only sport that I hate having an expanded playoff. Over 162 the best should rise to the top. Over 12 with very unbalanced schedules even within conference play (see Indiana last year) not so much.
That's the difference between us. I think winning matters. I think predefined criteria matters. For example, winning. I don't think a 3rd place conference member deserves to compete for a so called national championship. I'd like to see a true playoff with winners only. The winner of the MAC is more deserving than a 5th place SEC team. I'd like that in every sport. It's never going to happen but I can want what I want. It doesn't make me wrong or mean it's going to happen.
Yeah, so we just completely disagree which is fine. I think the MAC winner should be included but I also think the Big Ten and SEC need multiple teams. Otherwise, why wouldn't all good teams just break off and form their own league then have alliances for TV money?
Deserving is an opinion. Is it more impressive to go 12-0 and win the MAC with a SOS in the 90s or 9-3 playing the 3rd hardest schedule in the country. It can be debated all day.
I do agree with you--you're not wrong for wanting that. Just like I'm not wrong for wanting 24 teams and others aren't wrong for wanting 4 or 8. It's just what is possible that creates the issues.
Now, if the SEC and Big Ten break into 4 divisions with all 4 division winners getting in maybe that's a way around it.???
There is a special exception for teams that are still playing to keep the portal open longer just for them. This allows players in the playoff the chance to enter the portal after their last game of the season.You do not know what you are talking about.
Here is my guess: you Googled it and read the AI response, which is wrong. The portal window closed on Dec. 28. Penn State played Notre Dame on January 9.
Why did Beau Pribula transfer from Penn State? Why Nittany Lions' backup QB left before CFP
Why did Beau Pribula enter the transfer portal before Penn State's College Football Playoff game vs. SMU? Here's what to know, including a look at his stats:www.ydr.com
No, the entire purpose of a playoff is to crown one champion.
it's here...
go to a post. click on the username and click ignore.
I’m pretty sure the Steelers and Giants have both won the Super Bowl as the lowest seeded wildcard team in the playoffs.
The more meaningful games thing is just what they say to try to convince people to get behind the expansion so they can make more money. Expanding the playoff field removes meaning from regular season and even conference title games for the top contending teams... the ones that are actually going to compete in the playoff to win a title. Those are the meaningful games fans care about and are some of the most important games of the season. Expansion adds meaning to lesser teams trying to qualify for a low playoff seed, one that if they manage to get most likely ends in hasty playoff exit and loss as we saw last year when every lower seed lost in round 1. Meanwhile, you nerfed the impact of what should have been the biggest games of the season. The PSU-Oregon and PSU-OSU games meant very little in terms of either team having a successful season and ensuring they make the playoffs. When a loss has little implication the game loses a ton of meaning, far more than you are gaining with other teams by expanding. These are games that in a 4 team format would have been a 10 out of 10 on the impact scale (nationally, not just in Happy Valley), and last year they were maybe a 6 or 7. In return, some otherwise middling games went from a 3 on the scale to a 6. So in essence, you have eliminated importance from the biggest games of the season and have not replaced that level of importance with any other regular season games. One of the defining characteristics that has made CFB great and different was the importance of the regular season. Elimination of that is not going to sit well with many fans.
We agree it removes meaning for CCGs (which shouldn't exist) but it doesn't remove meaning from any regular season game--it's about seeding and getting into the playoff. Do you think less people are going to watch Ohio State-Penn State this year because both are likely playoff teams or do people want to see how good both teams are?
Every lower seed lost in the first round because the formatting was a disaster. Same reason lower-seed teams went 3-1 in the second round, right?
Both those Penn State games are huge. I don't understand how you think they aren't. To each their own though but those games are still a 10/10 and hopefully, due to an expanded playoff, we get less Penn State-Nevade. I mean, I don't care about 10 of our games because they should be easy wins--if we lose them Franklin failed miserably. Schedules must improve and an expanded playoff allows for that. Do you think our non-conference schedule?
We completely disagree on how fans will react because Michigan-Ohio State, Penn State-Ohio State, Georgia-Bama, ND-anyone good, are still going to get huge ratings and people will love watching it. I think the fans you're speaking of are the ones that dislike change--college football doesn't care about those of us over 45 (including me)--they care about younger fans. Same reason games are on streaming networks.
You do understand despite this argument that last November had more games that impacted the post season than ever before, right?
They simply have to alter the schedule and continue to tweak the format. CCGs but die--we do completely agree they no longer have meaning--at least in the Big Ten and SEC
So?? I never said undeserving teams can't win. I just prefer a system which rewards winning. Baseball had it right with 4 divisions in each league and division winners advanced to a true playoff. They dumped that for money. Now your team can be 12 games out of first but 3 out of a lucky loser (wildcard) slot and fans are thinking they have a chance. Yes they do but they don't deserve one. There are 10 fbs conferences, some with multiple divisions. It would be easy to configure a 16 team playoff with conference and division winners. Unfortunately that wouldn't make as much money as a 4th place big 10 team vs a 5th place sec team but it would make the whole season part of the playoff as winning would matter.
Predefined criteria is the most important thing.
I don't necessarily agree about winning the MAC over a 5th place SEC team. The 10th place SEC team would win the MAC in a lot of years. Here is the dilemma: either you shunt the MAC down to FCS (where winning the MAC guarantees them a playoff birth) or you start including all the conferences in a better fashion (making 60+ teams compete for 1 guaranteed spot is goofy).
If the Big 10 and SEC want to do their super league, NFL Jr setup, then just do it.
They're not undeserving. You don't determine that.
MLB did have it correct because they played 162 against only the NL or AL and it was division heavy. College football isn't comparable.
I don't think anyone is going to dispute there needs to be predetermined criteria but how often is the Sun Belt or MAC winner going to beat the 4th or 5th team in the SEC or Big Ten?
You just made a case for not expanding access to the playoff. You are using subjectivity, saying the 4th best team in the SEC is better than the MAC champ so they deserve it more. Well then both subjectively and objectively the top 2 teams in the SEC are even better, so why include 2 more?
If using subjective criteria there is no reason to expand the playoff to teams that subjectively and objectively have shown they aren't one of the real title contenders. So limit the field to only real contenders, there would rarely ever be an argument for more than 6 teams. Go to 8 to eliminate byes. And you protect the impact of the big regular season games and winning a conference means something since it might be the only way into the playoff.
If you want to expand (and we know they do solely because of money), then use predefined criteria like conference championships, division championships, conference standings, AP rankings (still subjective), etc. and open up the field to 16, 20, or whatever. But now you are knowingly expanding not for the sake of including the best teams, because you don't need a field of 16 for that. You are now objectively including teams that aren't top contenders because they either play a weak schedule in a weak conference, or weren't good enough to finish at the top of a conference that matters. So why do they need to be there? They don't. But if you're going to insist on it because you want to print more money, then you might as well give the teams that were good enough to win their conference a place because just like that 4th place SEC team, they aren't a legit title contender. At least they were good enough to beat most of their peer opponents, unlike that 4th place SEC team. But that won't bring in money so heaven's no, we can't have G5 teams involved, so f*ck 'em, right?
Every single decision is being made by money, full stop. It's ruining the sport.
Last edited:
The meaning of those big games is drastically reduced, you are kidding yourself if you can't see that. TV ratings is not a measure of game importance.. TV ratings are relevant KPIs for the already rich people in the sport because it tells them how much more money they can make, why would I care about that? Those people don't give a crap about the fans. I don't care about TV ratings, I don't know why fans get caught up in bragging or worrying about them.
In any year prior to 2024 a passionate fan might break their TV if their contending team loses to their biggest rival, knowing their shot at a title may be gone. In 2024 after the same loss that fan can just shrug their shoulders, the game result didn't mean squat and they can even lose another. As long as the team qualifies for the playoff, which they can do with 2 losses. That's all that matters. A loss has little meaning relative to the goal of winning a title. Now they want to expand to 24 teams so we can just lose 3, maybe even 4 games and still get into the playoff. Look at PSU's 2025 schedule. Where are there 4 losses? It's practically a guaranteed playoff berth before even playing a game. Hell, you could decide to rest your best players in all of the big games to reduce injury risk because that's more impactful to making a championship run than taking a loss would be. It's a mind-numbingly stupid idea to keep expanding, unless you are one of the rich people looking to make more money.
Last edited:
If you believe the sport is ruined why are you watching? And no I didn't make that argument. I want all conference winners plus at large teams to have 24 like FCS. They get a chance to prove it on the field. Like Ohio State did last year.
Is the FCS about $$$?
TV ratings dictate fan interest which people are claiming is reduced by expansion which isn't proven.
I disagree with the word drastically but of course the importance of those is altered. They're largely playing for seeding which is still relevant. It also makes a ton of games have way more importance. In a league of a 130+ teams why is your focus on 8 of them instead of the entire league?
An expanded playoffs will lead to better regular seasons opponents. You dont have to schedule Temple and Nevada over the fear of losing. I want better games not easy games to win 10+.
See the SEC moving to 9 conference games next year. That's a result of an expanded playoff.
I think the answer is "yes", unfortunately.
The coaches are getting paid, tickets are being sold. ESPN doesn't show that championship game for free.
It is basically where D1 football was 60 years ago.
Ok. I don't know how often the MAC team wins, neither do you, but it shouldn't matter. IF the goal is to get better tv ratings and make more money than the current system works. IF the goal is to crown a true champion then only and all conference/division winners should be included. I think it's very clear that the goal is and always has been money.
I agree...the MAC winner should be included which is why I want to mirror FCS. All conference champs plus at large. Big playoff of 24 where everyone gets to prove it on the field.
That's fair...to some level it probably is about the $$$.I think the answer is "yes", unfortunately.
The coaches are getting paid, tickets are being sold. ESPN doesn't show that championship game for free.
It is basically where D1 football was 60 years ago.
Here's how the leaked 24 team Playoff would work. No more conference title games. Conference titles would be determined by conference play and tie breaks. Teams ranked #1 thru #8 get byes. Teams ranked #17 thru #24 would play at the home stadium of the teams ranked #9 thru #16. The winners of those games would then play at the home stadium of the teams ranked #1 thru #8. After two Playoff weekends we are down to 8 teams. Proceed with the Playoff as previous years. The Bigten and SEC would get 6 auto bids each. The ACC and Big12 would get 4 auto bids. G6 and Indepentants would get 2. There would 2 at large bids. I like it. There would be 16 home Playoff games. With so many possible Playoff spots open, fan support and TV ratings will be off the chart in November. The lessor teams will have a chance to grab the brass ring. Even if they lose in the first round, it will drive fan attendance and TV dollars. All things athletic programs need now more then ever with the House Settlement. In a 16 team Playoff the Big10 wants 4 auto bids. While the SEC wants 11 at large bids. Their studies show that the SEC would get more of the at large bids available. I think the perfect compromise would be to go to 24 teams. Give the Bigten and SEC 4 auto bids each. Give ACC and Big12 2 auto bids each. Give G6 and Independants 2 auto bids and have 8 at large bids. That way the Big10 gets it's 4 auto bids and the SEC and everybody else has a shot at 8 at large bids. My guess is Playoffs will be decided and announced next week sometime. It has to be decided by December. I think they want this off their plate before the season gets rocking and rolling.
Last edited:
This whole thing is set up for TV and maximum revenue. However, I don't think any 6th or 4th place conference team deserves a chance for a national title. Lose 2 non - conference games and 2 conference games and you have 4 loses and make the tournament. Fun tournament that everyone will watch but a joke calling the winner the national champion. Turns the regular season into a joke.
Yet this is how all sports work in the US. Let's say a 17 seed run the table...they win 5 games against higher seeds. How would one argue its a joke? Was it not a joke when voters determined who was the best? What about when they picked 2-4 teams that passed their eye test?
Ultimately it's going to happen. Most fan bases will love it as their teams will finally get a chance to compete for a title instead of simply playing for pride all year.
If anything Ohio State and Penn State proved last year an expanded playoff is good.
I’m not sure why you can’t grasp that it’s not about the number of teams, it’s the criteria to get in. You keep bringing up that this is how all sports works and it’s not. Other than college basketball, all sports have a specific criteria teams have to achieve to make the playoffs and everyone knows what that is prior to the season. Since there is no way in college football to have a predetermined set of rules to get in, there should be fewer teams- only those that actually win something.
But that's not true. See Volleyball. See the Frozen Four. Almost college sports have teams that are selected.
Why is this "win something" a thing? Didn't we establish that's untrue in all sports? And you can have preset rules....top 5 in the Big Ten and SEC for example would be preset.
This argument doesn't make any sense. It's ridiculous to think that any college playoff last year without Penn State and Ohio State would be logical. Which was shown on the field. We beat Boise who won something.
Top 5 based on what? And how do we accurately measure top 5 if everybody is playing different teams within the conference? Randomly picking teams is what doesn’t make sense and that goes for all college sports….just because other college sports do it doesn’t make it right. Why is winning important to making the playoffs???? Jeez, I don’t know.
You set tiebreakers...like in every other sport
Winning is important. But 10-2 in the Big Ten is winning and far more impressive than other conference champs.
If balance existed with the conferences you'd have a point but you don't.
This is honestly absurd that people can't accept change over the nonsensical belief the regular season no longer matters when the reality is for more than half the teams it finally would matter.
I don’t care about whether it makes the regular season matter or not, I just want there to be a way to earn your way to a title and not just get selected. For now, the only way to do that is to take the conference winners for the p4 conferences and play a final four. Don’t need anything else. Then the rest of the conferences can have their own playoffs.