And that's unrealistic and unreasonable. You know that's not an option. In order to have a real conversation you can't be creating a fantasy world to live in. The playoff will never have less than 12 teams. I'm open to any logical option to set criteria. Winning the P4 isn't...you're short on teams and why would the Big Ten and SEC agree to that? Just use logic please.
The Big Ten wants a 24-28 team playoff
- Thread starter KingLando
- Start date
Did he portal to a team rule?
No.
So, are you a liar, or did you not know what the hell you were talking about?
Sit down.
There have been 7 Wild Card teams in the NFL that have gone on to win the Super Bowl. Two of those winning teams were 10-6 in the regular season. They proved themselves capable of winning the Super Bowl, while having lost 6 games. Allowing for more opportunity for competition will drive fan support nationally. Let the cards fall as to who then wins the Natty. If last season's Play Off were only 4 teams, like in the resent past, Ohio State would have never won the National Championship. Little could doubt that by season's end they weren't the best team in the nation. I hope the Play Off gets to 24, with a format similar to that. 16 home Playoff games. More hope for all fan bases. TV ratings will go through the roof. Bring it on.
What are you talking about? I've proved you wrong multiple times
He didn't have to enter the portal by the 28th. That was a false statement you made.
Penn State's team rule of once you enter the portal you can't play is why he was gone.
I'm sorry you don't know anything about football and can't accept you're wrong.
Dream on. The college football game with the highest viewership took place nearly 20 years ago; number two, ten. No game in the last five years has come close, or made the top ten.
You’re not open to anything and never have been, that’s why I put you on ignore before. This endless circle jerk conversation is ridiculous. I think there are too many teams and you think there should be more…you’re not going to change my mind and I’m not going to change yours.
Talking about the future not the past. Having more teams in the hunt to make the Playoff in November will drive viewership, not hurt it. We will never know if it works unless they try it. Will we?
This is where you're confused--we currently have 12 teams--you comprehend that we will never have less, right?
So, a 4 team playoff is a non-starter. I'm open to any logical, reasonable statement--that is 12 teams or more--or a playoff only involving the big 2.
It's a fact--see TV ratings across the board. The fact you or others don't comprehend is scary but also very predictable.
Who knows what may happen in the future with the Big and the SEC, but they absolutely should never have more than 12 because 12 is already too many….and you’ll argue that it’s not and we’ll be back in the never ending circle.
Why is it "too many"? Didn't an 8 seed just win a title?
You can say you believe it's too many while still comprehending it's going to get larger.
Let's be honest, even if the Big Ten and SEC for their own super-conference we'll get to 14-16 teams. The Big Ten already wants 14 auto-bids from those conferences--and that's before adding teams.
I just don't know what you think you're arguing--we're discussing reality, right?
Seeded lower than Arizona State and Boise State and 2-3 other teams that were arguable and ties it with March Madness.
The SEC moving to 9 games is almost certainly a result of ESPN agreeing to give them more money for doing so. That just hasn't been shared with the public... yet. The secondary reason is because the Big 10 made it clear they would not support the SEC's playoff expansion 5+11 proposal without a 9 game conference schedule. And why do they want that expansion? Because they know a subjective committee ranking 11 at large teams will give the SEC more spots than they get today, which means more money. Money, money, money.
Yes, expansion may lead to game with better regular season opponents. Games. where a loss will have little playoff repercussion. So while that's at least better for the fans that pay for tickets, it doesn't do anything to maintain one of the key fundamentals that made college football great, the importance of regular season games.
The reason I mention 8 teams is because the many of those in favor of expansion say the reason to expand is to ensure that all of the best teams are in the playoff. The counterpoint to that statement is that you can accomplish that goal with a 6-8 team playoff. But they don't want to hear that, not enough money.
My ideal playoff is 16 teams, one autobid for each conference champ and a few at large spots, max 2 teams from any one conference. But they won't allow that, because the P4 would get a max of 7 slots, not enough money for the millionaires making the decisions.
Sensing a theme here? Apply a 5 whys analysis here and the root cause inevitably always leads to money.
Last edited:
Why 24, when you can accomplish this with 16? Because you know the Big 10 and SEC won't agree to 16. Why is that? Money.
The Big 10 and SEC are bullying everyone else into changing the sport and eliminating some of the things that made CFB great, and different, for their own benefit. I'm a bit tired of the elitism coming from these conferences. They aren't necessarily wrong that they have the best programs, but insisting on more playoff autobids than others that play in the same division of the sport is taking it too far. Either form your own league, or give everyone the same access. We've known for a while now that forming a new Big 10 and SEC only league is where this is headed, just rip the band-aid off and do it already.
Last edited:
There are huge differences with the NFL. Playoff criteria are objective, set in advance of the season. No dog and pony voting circus. The NFL has smaller divisions, not 18 team divisions. NFL teams play a similar schedule and the same number of games. The margin between the best and worst NFL team is significantly more narrow than the margin between top and bottom CFB teams, thanks to rules like salary caps which don't exist in CFB. You could say the same thing about playoff teams, the NFL margins between the top seed and bottom seed are far more narrow than in CFB. Expanding the playoff in college is only going to exacerbate that and result in fewer competitive playoff games.
We disagree on "little playoff repercussion"--seeding is huge--especially when it's fixed and more games are played at the higher seeds.
I think (my opinion) you're overstating this "value of the regular season". I thought last season was one of the best because of how many games actually mattered. Basically the only game that truly didn't matter was Ohio State vs Michigan but that even crushed their seeding and forced them to play an SEC team in the opening round.
See, I can't agree to only 2 teams from a conference. That doesn't work for me at all. The SEC and Big Ten should then split into 3 mini conferences each with a deal to align as a work around.
I get your focus is "the money" involved--and you're right. Money is a factor. But I want better and more football. I want all conference winners plus the deserving SEC and Big Ten teams in the playoff. A playoff last year without Oregon, Penn State or Ohio State would have been ridiculous when SMU, Clemson, Boise State and Arizona State are in because of their weak schedules.
To each their own but I do give you credit--you at least have a plan for a 16 team playoff even if I dislike it. The SEC & Big Ten run things and would never agree to that so I'm not just sure if it's realistic. I do follow your logic there.
Because 24 works great for FCS and we should be mirroring that.
And, we agree, I'm all for a super-conference with the Big Ten/SEC and the 12-16 team playoff they would create. But some of the things that made college football great to many (bowl games for example) are outdated. They just don't have the same meaning now.
I thought we were discussing our opinions and what we’d rather see. I know they’re not going to go backwards in terms of the number of teams, but I think they should. A bunch of old guys in a room picking who’s best, is not a good solution and never has been.
Because "what we want" has to be grounded in reality. Why are we discussing that's not possible? It's tough to try to discuss a realistic outcome when you're focused on your fantasy--it's fine...whatever.
The current setup is actually the most access any team has ever had. How many undefeated seasons did we produce with less than 1% chance to play for the title? '68, '69, '73. Heck. Go back to '94 and we plowed through the Big 10 (believe it was the first undefeated regular season a Big 10 team accomplished since '68 Buckeyes) and couldn't even get a split vote between the polls (even though they had just done split Champs in the 5 years prior twice).
The biggest problem with the current playoff is the incorporating of the bowls after 1st round games. We don't need that. Play at the higher seed and be done with it.
So, out of curiosity--I ran your 16 team playoff--it's rough--maybe 3 per conference I could get buy in because you'd have
AAC: Army (1)
ACC: Clemson (2) and SMU (3)
Big XII: Arizona State (4) and Iowa State (5)
Big Ten: Oregon (6) and Penn State (7)
CUSA: Jacksonville State (8)
IND: Notre Dame (9)
MAC: Ohio (10)
MWC: Boise State (11)
SEC: Texas (12) & Georgia (13)
SB: Marshall (14)
I have no idea how we'd reasonably get two more
You add a third Big Ten (Ohio State) and SEC (Tennessee) I'd be content though Indiana is livid with Iowa State and SMU getting in over them.
Since we have no control over any of it, nothing discussed has to be “grounded in reality”. And sorry, unlike you I’m not all about participation trophies. Let’s have every team make it to the playoffs….yay, that would be fun!
But it is--we have a playoff of 12--we know expansion is inevitable so that would be the discussion
I don't understand how this is a participation trophy discussion in your mind--that's what the bowls are. Nor is 16-24 inviting everyone. We're at 134 teams and growing. Even at 24 that's less than 15% of teams would make the playoff which is probably the lowest of any NCAA sport.
If you don't want participation trophies I truly hope you no longer want bowl games and you've always hated them. There's no trophy for losing a playoff game.
I agree with you that there will be fewer competive games...especially in the first, maybe second rounds. By the third round, when there are 8 teams left, the games will be very competive. Going to 24 teams is about increased viewership nation wide and giving more teams hope. Hope sells tickets.
An expanded playoff might be what it takes to get the players to unionize. A 24 team playoff would be an extra 4-5 games of play each year.
I never could see why the players would unionize as they hold the power imbalance now. Number of games played may be the catalyst.
I never could see why the players would unionize as they hold the power imbalance now. Number of games played may be the catalyst.
Rewarding more teams who haven’t won anything is the very definition of participation trophies. And no, I’m not a fan of bowl games…the only ones who like bowl games are coaches because they can go 6-6, win a meaningless scrimmage game, and get a Gatorade bath and a trophy.
Sounds more like a gift for entitled fans like you. James is just fine with or without it.
At least you're not a fan of a bowl game but a playoff birth isn't a participation trophy--you have to earn it from there.
Do you know what a participation trophy is or are you too old to have kids that unforutnately got them?
Last edited:
With a 24 team playoff won't alter the max games--we played 16 last year and could have played 17. A 24 team playoff without CCGs is a max of 17 and it's unlikely anyone 9-24 is going to reach a final often.
Well I disagree. With it he competes for the ring, without it he plays Kentucky at 11am without 5 starters
Being chosen to make the playoffs without winning anything is a participation trophy.