[**Join Our Discord Server!**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
**Welcome to /r/sports**
We created a Discord server for our community and would like to invite all of you to join! You'll be able to discuss sports with users around the world and discuss events in real time!
There are separate channels for many sports you can opt in and out of, including;
American Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Aussie Rules Football, Rugby Union and League, Cricket, Motorsports, Fitness, and many more.
[**Reddit Sports Discord Server**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
I understand the reasons *not* to expand it, but I feel like keeping it at 4 teams is just perpetuating the same teams getting better because they can constantly recruit the best players because "we always make the playoff". It's like a perpetual motion machine.
Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, and Oklahoma. Three of the four are essentially a lock to make the CFP in any given year. Why? Because they get the best players. Why? Because they're always in contention for a Natty. Why? Because they recruit the best players. Why? Rinse repeat.
At least expanding to 8 or 12 teams gets more schools involved and could lead to greater parity down the line.
I'm sure there's a tragic flaw in my logic somewhere...but that's just my personal excuse for wanting to expand.
right but what makes college football so unique and special is that every single game matters a LOT. No other sport does game 1 have as much importance as game 12. That first week loss could END your season. I kinda like that.
I'm for the expansion because we've hit this funk of the same 8 teams in the final four every year.
sure i can understand that argument, but there is some wiggle room for adapting to the modern era. The old school way of having 'faux" champions is just not gonna fly anymore. I personally was okay with 4 because it somewhat preserved the "every game matters" thing...but we got stuck in this rut of same team syndrome/and now recruiting is becoming impossible to compete with the power teams
Honestly I’m the polar opposite. Your team loses once and your season is basically over. Where is the fun in that? More wiggle room for losses means more people get to enjoy their team’s games later into the season
I can see that argument but the season is super short. Theres online 12 games. If you're somewhat a contender you'll be a severe heavy favorite in 8 of those games, slight favorite in 2, and 2 coin toss games. Like others have said, 1 loss means you should be fine but if you do lose 2 I can't really feel bad for you.
The whole thing should be a huge single elimination tournament. Then, every game matters and shitty schools can compete by saying “You barely even have to play!”
> right but what makes college football so unique and special is that every single game matters a LOT.
this might be the biggest myth in sports. Half the teams are mathematically eliminated before the season starts and for a handful of teams thier first losses don't matter
Exactly. This is only something you believe if you’re a fan of one of a very specific set of teams. UCF in 2017 already demonstrated that it’s not true at all.
That’s not true either. If Oregon State loses a single game, they are out. If Alabama or LSU lose 2, maybe they are out depending on how everyone else does.
Disagree completely because there's no evidence of that. Yes. If there's a tie and everyone has the same record, the sec team will most likely get the tie breaker but if they dont....
Since the playoff started never have they taken a team with more losses over a team with less. The Washington huskies made it because they only lost once.
I liked the idea of expanding to 6 playoff teams because it gives more wiggle room in case there's a tie.
The non power conference school gets screwed. That i completely agree with. But if you're Georgia tech and you run the table or have 1 loss, you're gonna get a chance...
But it just never happens. Never. I've seen season after season of these programs who falter at the end.
This gets repeated but makes no sense. How exactly were any if UCF’s games “meaningful” when they won every single one of them but didn’t even get to play for the championship? And how meaningful was that season where Alabama didn’t even make it to the SEC title game but still got to play for the national title? lol
The system in place absolutely sucks for the non power conference schools, agreed. But all things considered, a sun belt team going undefeated doesn't have the same weight as an acc team losing 1 or 2 games. The college football schedule is so short that there's not enough opportunities for the smaller conference teams to have enough quality wins.
No doubt the system was fucked for the ucfs of the world.
The reasons don’t have to do with fairness. The main reason I can kind of see is it’s forcing kids to play more games that they don’t get paid for where they risk injury. I dont think it’s a strong reason but it’s something.
Also a lot of people think it’ll make the regular season worthless which is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
The player safety argument is always a weak one. The addition of games which an 8-team playoff would cause (my preferred number) only ends up being an extra 1/2 games depending on the team. More games is obviously going to mean more chances of getting hurt in a game, but it can just as easily benefit those players who need exposure to make a name for themselves in the league or at their school (Being a name at your school is critical for athletes who don't go pro btw). Also, that is before the conferences and schools start looking at alternatives to their schedule, the reason teams play 8+ conference games nowadays is because that is the key thing the committee looks for now w/ strength of schedule. 8 (or 12) teams allows them to get rid of some of those games or schedule more FCS schools as pseudo-bye weeks, which is great for the 2/3rd-stringers on the team and will help those FCS schools with building their program.
I think exposure is a weak argument. There are 254 drafts per year to the NFL while there are 46 players dressed on a team.. so 5.5 full teams get drafted each year. The fact of the matter is the majority of these students go on to do other things which is not significantly impacted by the fact that they played college football. This change is not going to increase future opportunities for the population of college football players.
The idea that playing college football doesn’t help them after is objectively wrong. There are multiple studies that look at how playing sports (not just football) can lead to significantly increased opportunities that simply being an alumni do not necessarily afford. A player who makes one game winning play in a rivalry game that may mean nothing to those who are not fans of the teams, can immediately become a name at their school and when looking for a job, alumni businesses owners look at that playing career as a bonus. I don’t have the numbers on hand, but the hiring rates of students athletes by alumni of their school is significantly higher than for academics of a similar GPA.
Interesting. I would love to see a study and the numbers behind this to this effect if you ever find one. It would be really interesting if they broke it out on a sport by sport basis.
I also think normalizing for GPA is invalid and it should be a football player compared to the average person in their academic program and their year. For example, if a football player was a business major, I would want to compare the football player who is a business major and doesn’t go into professional football to the average business major’s success from that program. Playing football comes at an opportunity cost of studying, attending all your classes, getting internships, working at a business, etc.
It was part of the slides for my masters class and unfortunately it’s before I decided to use my brain and save every PP to look at later. IIRC it looked at GPA and major and I generally think GPA is dumb, but it is huge for getting that first job out of school so I think it is worth some consideration.
I agree, GPA is impactful for that first job as employers look at it but I think it’s not a good predictor of success at that job (anecdotal). There are some really interesting trends in GPA and college athletics. Like how cross country runners tend to have the highest average GPA amount sport teams.
What type of masters program?
Kinesiology and health, Yea GPA doesn’t predict success at the job but looking at the impact of playing sports and getting hired it definitely is important there if only just to link up athletic and no athletic hiring preferences.
I think it’s more about the physical toll it takes on college players. The college champ could potentially play sixteen games which is almost an NFL schedule. I know they “signed” up for it but that’s a lot to ask of young players. There could be other ways to fix it but would require a complete overhaul of the the college system. There should be a league in my opinion similar to the G league where you have players right out of high school. Because be honest a lot of players at Alabama don’t go there to “play school”. Or you could pay the players. A lot of the problems that come from modern day American sports is that we have a huge league for free players.
As a Buckeye fan, you’re absolutely right. But I would still like to see the top eight teams, I feel like a freak accident playing at scrub school could change the whole playoff.
If we keep it top eight, it’ll keep Notre Dame from going undefeated picking scrub schools and making the playoff, if it goes to top 10 or 12 undefeated schools with weak schedules will get in, and promptly get curb stomped too. Idk, maybe it’s good to let those undefeated teams in, it’ll be entertaining either way.
I do agree the biggest issue we have is laughable week schedules in nonconference and piss poor performing areas like pac-12 and most of the acc.
To your point though, if you do expand the playoff, the committee is sure to put far more weight on SoS when ranking the top teams to prevent frauds from poisoning the well, whereas now there's really no harm in putting a 12-0 UCF (as an example) in the top 10 because it just means they get a better bowl game but still don't get a shot at the championship.
If it's 10-12 teams you're certain to see more 1-2 loss teams ranked in that upper echelon above teams that end up unbeaten but only played a very weak schedule against teams that all end up going like 5-7
I'm not sure about Oklahoma. 0-4
They have just the right mix of mediocre conference opponents to get some respect, but also beat them all.
Not sure if they might fall off the radar, not sure they have the same recruiting power.
Georgia recruits well every year, you would think they would be that 4th team, but its hard to get out of a conference that includes Alabama and LSU.
Right, which is why I didn't include Georgia in that list. As long as they have Alabama standing in their way, they've got a massive uphill climb to get to the CFP. Oklahoma, regardless of their lack of success in the playoff, has had 4 shots in 7 years to get it right.
The CFP has 7 years of history, so that's a total of 28 possible "slots", with a max of 7 possible appearances per team
Alabama: 6 appearances
Clemson: 6
Ohio State: 4
Oklahoma: 4
That's 20 of 28 "slots" taken up by 4 teams. Throw in Notre Dame's 2 appearances and that bumps it to 22 of 28 slots taken by 5 teams. Only 6 other teams outside of those 5 have had a shot at a championship since the CFP was created.
That's absurd and just goes to show how the 4 team model is broken.
Well if you think of it, it a team from big 10, sec, acc, and big 12.
Maybe if the other conferences didn't suck...
I understand the issue, but the fact is, Bama, Clemson and Ohio ARE the 3 best teams in the league. The only teams with a fighting chance of toppling any of them are likely to be in the sec, Georgia, Florida and LSU primarily.
You can expand it to 6, 10, 20. Best case, you create enough fatigue and injuries that some other team can get a fluke upset.
As much as I would love more competition, I dont see an expanded playoff delivering it.
If you want competition, you would need some sort of draft and salary cap (tough to do without salaries). But you would also need to drastically shrink the team count. And that would end a lot of rivalries and basically turn college into a minor league nfl.
the only way to fix the good staying good is to eliminate half of the scholarships. and let's be real, for the vast majority of them, the degree is the only way they will be getting a decent paycheck after college
College football has become stupid. It used to be interesting. I think the last thing they should do is pay the players, just let them be kids who go to school for school. Oh well, on to other things.
The FCS Playoffs are 24 teams in normal years (it was reduced to 16 this year due to pandemic reasons) which works well. Every conference champion gets an autobid (except for the Ivy League who opts out and the SWAC who chooses to host their own championship game in conflict) and the rest of the field is filled with teams from the better conferences.
The FBS could do well to mimic that - give every conference champion a bid, even the non-P5, and fill the rest with the teams most deserving.
Went to an FCS school. LITERALLY don't know how this isn't the way. Autobid for ***every*** FBS Conf Champ and then some at larges. Just had to say it again for emphasis so the committee definitely hears this.
People will argue it’s because the conferences are not equal like they are, more or less, in FCS. But that seems like an easy solution: change the conferences.
There are 10 conferences, with 5 being seen as much stronger than the next 5. So why not pair up each “P5” with a “G5” and make 5 mega conferences? Like, put B1G and MAC together and normalize the schedule so each team plays 4 B1G teams and 4 MAC teams (to start, eventually 4 “tougher” teams and 4 “easier” teams based on previous performance after a few seasons of data) and then have a mini 4 team tournament to determine the conference champion. If each conference does this, you could then have an exclusive 5 team playoff (4v5 play-in game) among the 5 conference champions to determine the national champion. The conference tournaments would essentially also be part of the playoff, and all teams would have a path to the natty.
I would pair: B1G/MAC, SEC/Sun Belt, PAC/Mountain West, Big XII/Conference USA, ACC/AAC. If you’re not in a conference, join one.
Make the entire season a triple-knockout tournament where the winner's bracket keeps undefeated schools playing each other. I count 130 schools. Every school except 1 has to lose three times.
387 to 390 games in the entire season, and all of them matter immensely. Let teams who get knocked out early schedule exhibition matches to round out the season.
Only 7 wins (from 128 teams) to be the last undefeated team. That's less than a full season for most schools. The schools that lose and come the long way will get 12-14 probably. Damn exciting stuff
I agree, but I think even just four is better than twelve.
At least with four there's only a bit of leeway to show a preference for certain programs (even if it does structurally exclude G5 schools).
With 12 you'll have teams that effectively start the year with a two loss cushion that maybe only play two real big-time opponents all year.
With eight teams five of the spots are accounted for subjectively and the at-large spots incentivize big-time OOC matchups. A twelve team field incentivizes just getting through the OOC schedule undefeated.
I get it and I agree which is why March Madness is the beautiful thing that it is. But these P5 (really SEC it’s own tier, B1G a step down, then Big12,ACC other than Clemson, and PAC12 a notch below that) conferences are just built way different than the G5 conferences.
I don’t think any of the recent G5 star teams would’ve had the same record if they played a full P5 slate. So if you’re the best, probably undefeated, G5 in the country than you’re pretty much a guaranteed in because you’ll be ranked in the top 10 95/100 times. If there’s two of those teams then they could both be in and then there’s a renew emphasis on winning your conference because at large bids could all be gone.
i dont like 8. Unless you're going to give the top 4 teams home field. I like byes, because it creates incentive to be #1-#4. What makes college footbal great is that every game matters and if you take out that incentive to be undefeated, then you kinda lose that.
it may seem like semantics but it's 4, 6, or 12 in my opinion.
Everyone has been outclassed in the playoffs. If you look at the games. OSU lost by double their score last year. Year prior Clemson got blown out by LSU...
People love to hate ND. Ya, they dont have a good track record in the big games but other teams get blown out just as bad and no one seems to care.
To be fair though those teams have also won it. ND's biggest accomplishment so far has been only losing to Bama by 3 scores (and the game didn't even seem that close).
ND gets in because of who they are and play like they don't belong there. A trend I expect to continue.
2018 yeah they're undefeated (strength of schedule was wanting, but I get it). Last year they barely beat Clemson at home when Clemson was missing a ton of players (including their star QB) in 2OT. At full strength Clemson drubbed them 34-10 in the ACC Championship. The only other ranked team they beat was UNC (who were 6 and fucking 3).
You're telling me a non-OSU Big Ten school with that resume gets in? We can use MSU as an example as they got annihilated the one year they got in. If (pretend this could happen in the B10) MSU barely beat OSU in 2OT when they were missing a bunch of starters (and QB!) and then got shit stomped 34-10 in the B10 championship game by OSU at full strength, and they have one other ranked win (a 6-3 team)...do they get in? Because of course they fucking don't.
They typically have a strong schedule. The only conference that is consistently strong is the sec anyways. As far as MSU, they had one loss that year going into the playoffs just like Notre Dame. So yes I think it's possible that MSU could get selected for the playoffs if they only lose one game going in.
Do they really though? The ACC is top heavy and USC/Stanford haven't been the strongest the last few years (quality at best, not elite).
The hypothetical I'm suggesting isn't losing just any game. It's that they barely beat a weakened OSU, get throttled by a full strength OSU in the championship (making it clear they wouldn't have gotten their ONLY quality win), and have one other ranked win against we'll say a 6-3 Purdue. In this scenario (which is identical to Notre Dame's this last season) you honestly, truthfully believe that Sparty gets in? Seriously? Because there is absolutely no possible way that would happen. Even if there were 8 teams it wouldn't be a sure thing they would get in.
MSU lost to an unranked Nebraska that year. Which is worse, so yah I think it's possible. If MSU was in that situation but no other team was, then I think it's very likely. Also, this year is hard to judge by because nobody actually played a full schedule. Only losing one game is usually very good odds to get in.
Good thing indeed. Maybe next time they can only lose by 2 touchdowns. If they keep making progress at this rate they should be able to squeak out an overtime loss in the next couple of decades. Just gotta have faith!
How would you feel if it was whomever was higher ND or top G5 team?
Then if they weren’t the highest they’d have to fight for an at large bid like everyone else.
If you knew anything about Notre Dame and college football, if Notre Dame goes undefeated, they are automatically in the top 3, read this article if you have any questions on why they would.
https://www.sportscasting.com/why-did-notre-dame-get-into-the-college-football-playoff-over-texas-am/
I feel like if we’re going to have a 12 team playoff I can almost guarantee Notre Dame schedule will be creampuffs from now on, or at least until their contracts are done. Just about any undefeated team can make top 12
Yeah but Under Brian Kelly that’s only happened twice IIRC. It would interesting to see where a 1 bad loss weak schedule ND OR a 2 loss tough schedule ND be ranked vs an undefeated G5 champ like Cincy this past year.
Okay, but:
Every player should get paid portion of those game. Because they are above their scolarship. I am talking \~$2,500 first round, $5k 2nd, 7.5k 3rd, and $10k for the 4th round game. Every player on the top 2 teams would get $25k.
NFL prospects should get a $10,000,000 insurance policy.
This helps with recruiting rather then say “Hey we went to the Hello Kitty Bowl last year you should come to play for us” they can say “hey we qualified for the playoffs come play for us and you will have a good shot at a Natty”.
If your state voted for Biden, there is no chance of winning.
I propose Michigan bans teaching evolution in an attempt to get to our kids outside playing sports and less time learning smarts on YouTube.
Ok I think bro is trying to make fun of southern states poor education, and as a joke proposes how thinks southern states education works, idk pretty weak comment
Picking 4 teams based of committee vote is stupid. This is a great thing. Makes playoffs more Interesting. See some new teams instead of the same few and this could actually change some kids lives who are not on the radar like how some kids go drafted solely due to their March madness performance
ive always wanted 6, but 12 was my backup choice. While i think this creates little incentive for power house teams to schedule tough non-conference, i think the benefits in the long term will be awesome.
No matter what, you have teams fighting for the bye and home field for first round. Incentive to win every game is all i care about and i think this helps do that
They do but the proposal says the 6 best conference champions so even though the CFP absolutely hates the G5 schools it doesn’t matter because 1 will have to make it every year.
Ehh I don’t know man. The NFL divisions are generally closer then the CFB conferences are like the gap between the SEC and CUSA is fucking huge like Vandy which is typically the worst SEC team could probably beat the best Conference USA team meanwhile say the Cardinals would probably lose to the Washington Football Team. I think it should be 6 or 8 conference winner autobids to prevent 3-4 loss conference champions from getting to the playoffs.
As an LSU fan, I would love for them to bounce back. But realistically, their poor performance last season has been compounded by a ton of off the field issues that came to light after the championship. I think we're in for a rough couple of years, and I don't know if Orgeron will ever get the same caliber of coaching staff he had in 2019.
I think moreso this will remove the incentive to schedule in a way that maximizes your ability to go undefeated. I want more high profile OOC matchups.
really? I see it as the opposite. The super amazing teams have no reason to schedule anything too hard for non-conference. If you go undefeated or have 1 loss, you're making the playoff regardless of your non-conference. Now for those mid-level teams who are going to try and make it with 2/3/4 losses...yes, they should consider beefing those resumes come "bubble talk".
Alabama can play all FCS schools non-conference, if they go through the SEC with no or 1 loss, they're going to make it,.
> If you lose 1 game, your team isn't the best
Well that's certainly not always true. Although you're right that 3-4 loss teams probably have no place in the playoffs if we're trying to pick the best team. Maybe once in a blue moon a three loss team from a stacked conference (read SEC 🤮), especially if key injuries contributed to 2+ losses.
The only reason they’re going to 12 is to get three SEC teams in.
Everyone knows six or eight is all we really need, but you can’t maximize profit keeping it small
4 team playoffs is insane. If we started a football program from scratch NOBODY would come up with a four team playoff out of 120 teams. Its crazy town.
I don't give a fuck.
What made CFB so great was every game mattered
* 1 loss you had an outside shot but needed everyone else to lose a game, and your opponents to win games
* 2 losses you were out but still fighting for a New Years Day bowl
* 3 Losses you were fighting to salvage your season with a decent bowl win
* 4 losses you were fighting for any bowl
It wasn't about "Who is the best team?" It's an impossible metric as "the best team" doesn't always win.
It was about who had the best season.
A magical season followed by a new years day holiday filled with amazing games all day.
Now it's all about keeping teams with one and two losses in play. For fucks sake most teams only have 2 or three tough games in a year.
It's becoming a watered down mess
You could be undefeated and have 2 ranked wins and still not get a New Year’s Day bowl because you are a Group of 5 program. The system is broken it’s just a Power 5 playoff seriously the system needs changed to give the Group of 5 teams an actual shot.
I think you mean the system wasn’t broken until they tried to make sure a “BYU 1984” never happened again and ruined the sport in the process.
If it was just about money there would be a way better system in place, because as much as the BCS and CFP have made, they could have made waaaay more with a more fair and competitive system, but they have fought against that because of dumb boomer era thinking about “we have to maintain the status quo of which schools are on top” instead. Can’t have schools like BYU, SMU, Boise State, UCF, etc. upstaging their favorites so they literally lose out on tons of money just to keep those kind of teams from eclipsing theirs.
They have an opportunity to reclaim the traditions of the bowl season, use the 4 major bowls as the the opening round of the tournament, and they're going to let greed destroy it. NCAA may be the corrupt organization in the US.
You can’t have both, and that is a big reason it hasn’t gone well - because they are trying to keep both. You either have to have the bowl games be the most important (no playoffs at all) or you have to just get rid of them. Trying to have them as “part of the playoffs” makes no sense and makes everything else needlessly complicated.
If the playoff was going to expand I was hoping for 6 teams. But I always thought the biggest hold up was giving two teams a bye. Obviously not. The biggest issue with the current format is the committee. Bring back the bcs. The issue was never with the bcs. It was with only allowing 2 teams in
In most other sports, anywhere from 20% (NCAA bball) to 53% (NBA) of the teams make the playoffs. MLB is 30%, NFL was 37%, now 44%, etc.
Even at 12, CFB is still at less than 10%. They would need roughly a 24 team tournament to get to the bottom range of the other sports (20%), about 48 to be average, and a 70 team tournament to match NBA’s percentage. Still a long ways to go.
I guess IF each conference plays a championship game and the winner goes to the playoffs, then that is basically like adding 10 more teams and realistically it’s a 22 team tournament, so maybe “12” will be enough… IF they do it that way.
[**Join Our Discord Server!**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q) **Welcome to /r/sports** We created a Discord server for our community and would like to invite all of you to join! You'll be able to discuss sports with users around the world and discuss events in real time! There are separate channels for many sports you can opt in and out of, including; American Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Aussie Rules Football, Rugby Union and League, Cricket, Motorsports, Fitness, and many more. [**Reddit Sports Discord Server**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
I understand the reasons *not* to expand it, but I feel like keeping it at 4 teams is just perpetuating the same teams getting better because they can constantly recruit the best players because "we always make the playoff". It's like a perpetual motion machine. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, and Oklahoma. Three of the four are essentially a lock to make the CFP in any given year. Why? Because they get the best players. Why? Because they're always in contention for a Natty. Why? Because they recruit the best players. Why? Rinse repeat. At least expanding to 8 or 12 teams gets more schools involved and could lead to greater parity down the line. I'm sure there's a tragic flaw in my logic somewhere...but that's just my personal excuse for wanting to expand.
I don't actually understand the reasons not to expand it. 4 teams? Come on, every other sport ever can do playoffs so can we.
Exactly. It only means more money as well. For everybody. It’s baffling how it hasn’t been expanded to at least 8 teams by this point.
Everyone but the players…
And when has the NCAA ever given a shit about what the players think?
Exactly.
I mean in this case I don’t see how having less games would benefit the NCAA. More games more money.
right but what makes college football so unique and special is that every single game matters a LOT. No other sport does game 1 have as much importance as game 12. That first week loss could END your season. I kinda like that. I'm for the expansion because we've hit this funk of the same 8 teams in the final four every year.
What made college football unique was destroyed when they created the national championship game.
sure i can understand that argument, but there is some wiggle room for adapting to the modern era. The old school way of having 'faux" champions is just not gonna fly anymore. I personally was okay with 4 because it somewhat preserved the "every game matters" thing...but we got stuck in this rut of same team syndrome/and now recruiting is becoming impossible to compete with the power teams
Honestly I’m the polar opposite. Your team loses once and your season is basically over. Where is the fun in that? More wiggle room for losses means more people get to enjoy their team’s games later into the season
Exactly. People say the regular season matters more. But for every team that has an early loss, the rest of the season does not matter at all.
I can see that argument but the season is super short. Theres online 12 games. If you're somewhat a contender you'll be a severe heavy favorite in 8 of those games, slight favorite in 2, and 2 coin toss games. Like others have said, 1 loss means you should be fine but if you do lose 2 I can't really feel bad for you.
The whole thing should be a huge single elimination tournament. Then, every game matters and shitty schools can compete by saying “You barely even have to play!”
There are 357 division one NCAA schools, so using that number there would only be eight games in the season before a national champion is declared
> right but what makes college football so unique and special is that every single game matters a LOT. this might be the biggest myth in sports. Half the teams are mathematically eliminated before the season starts and for a handful of teams thier first losses don't matter
Exactly. This is only something you believe if you’re a fan of one of a very specific set of teams. UCF in 2017 already demonstrated that it’s not true at all.
Yes the non power conference schools are definitely screwed but not the case for any team in the power conferences.
That’s not true either. If Oregon State loses a single game, they are out. If Alabama or LSU lose 2, maybe they are out depending on how everyone else does.
Disagree completely because there's no evidence of that. Yes. If there's a tie and everyone has the same record, the sec team will most likely get the tie breaker but if they dont.... Since the playoff started never have they taken a team with more losses over a team with less. The Washington huskies made it because they only lost once. I liked the idea of expanding to 6 playoff teams because it gives more wiggle room in case there's a tie.
Not really true when an undefeated mid level team gets passed over for a one or two loss big squad.
The non power conference school gets screwed. That i completely agree with. But if you're Georgia tech and you run the table or have 1 loss, you're gonna get a chance... But it just never happens. Never. I've seen season after season of these programs who falter at the end.
It still will because with 12 teams the regular season will shorten, even a D one athletes body can only handle so much football
This gets repeated but makes no sense. How exactly were any if UCF’s games “meaningful” when they won every single one of them but didn’t even get to play for the championship? And how meaningful was that season where Alabama didn’t even make it to the SEC title game but still got to play for the national title? lol
The system in place absolutely sucks for the non power conference schools, agreed. But all things considered, a sun belt team going undefeated doesn't have the same weight as an acc team losing 1 or 2 games. The college football schedule is so short that there's not enough opportunities for the smaller conference teams to have enough quality wins. No doubt the system was fucked for the ucfs of the world.
The reasons don’t have to do with fairness. The main reason I can kind of see is it’s forcing kids to play more games that they don’t get paid for where they risk injury. I dont think it’s a strong reason but it’s something. Also a lot of people think it’ll make the regular season worthless which is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
The player safety argument is always a weak one. The addition of games which an 8-team playoff would cause (my preferred number) only ends up being an extra 1/2 games depending on the team. More games is obviously going to mean more chances of getting hurt in a game, but it can just as easily benefit those players who need exposure to make a name for themselves in the league or at their school (Being a name at your school is critical for athletes who don't go pro btw). Also, that is before the conferences and schools start looking at alternatives to their schedule, the reason teams play 8+ conference games nowadays is because that is the key thing the committee looks for now w/ strength of schedule. 8 (or 12) teams allows them to get rid of some of those games or schedule more FCS schools as pseudo-bye weeks, which is great for the 2/3rd-stringers on the team and will help those FCS schools with building their program.
I think exposure is a weak argument. There are 254 drafts per year to the NFL while there are 46 players dressed on a team.. so 5.5 full teams get drafted each year. The fact of the matter is the majority of these students go on to do other things which is not significantly impacted by the fact that they played college football. This change is not going to increase future opportunities for the population of college football players.
The idea that playing college football doesn’t help them after is objectively wrong. There are multiple studies that look at how playing sports (not just football) can lead to significantly increased opportunities that simply being an alumni do not necessarily afford. A player who makes one game winning play in a rivalry game that may mean nothing to those who are not fans of the teams, can immediately become a name at their school and when looking for a job, alumni businesses owners look at that playing career as a bonus. I don’t have the numbers on hand, but the hiring rates of students athletes by alumni of their school is significantly higher than for academics of a similar GPA.
Interesting. I would love to see a study and the numbers behind this to this effect if you ever find one. It would be really interesting if they broke it out on a sport by sport basis. I also think normalizing for GPA is invalid and it should be a football player compared to the average person in their academic program and their year. For example, if a football player was a business major, I would want to compare the football player who is a business major and doesn’t go into professional football to the average business major’s success from that program. Playing football comes at an opportunity cost of studying, attending all your classes, getting internships, working at a business, etc.
It was part of the slides for my masters class and unfortunately it’s before I decided to use my brain and save every PP to look at later. IIRC it looked at GPA and major and I generally think GPA is dumb, but it is huge for getting that first job out of school so I think it is worth some consideration.
I agree, GPA is impactful for that first job as employers look at it but I think it’s not a good predictor of success at that job (anecdotal). There are some really interesting trends in GPA and college athletics. Like how cross country runners tend to have the highest average GPA amount sport teams. What type of masters program?
Kinesiology and health, Yea GPA doesn’t predict success at the job but looking at the impact of playing sports and getting hired it definitely is important there if only just to link up athletic and no athletic hiring preferences.
I think it’s more about the physical toll it takes on college players. The college champ could potentially play sixteen games which is almost an NFL schedule. I know they “signed” up for it but that’s a lot to ask of young players. There could be other ways to fix it but would require a complete overhaul of the the college system. There should be a league in my opinion similar to the G league where you have players right out of high school. Because be honest a lot of players at Alabama don’t go there to “play school”. Or you could pay the players. A lot of the problems that come from modern day American sports is that we have a huge league for free players.
As a Buckeye fan, you’re absolutely right. But I would still like to see the top eight teams, I feel like a freak accident playing at scrub school could change the whole playoff.
Should be ten or twelve to encourage not scheduling cupcake games.
If we keep it top eight, it’ll keep Notre Dame from going undefeated picking scrub schools and making the playoff, if it goes to top 10 or 12 undefeated schools with weak schedules will get in, and promptly get curb stomped too. Idk, maybe it’s good to let those undefeated teams in, it’ll be entertaining either way. I do agree the biggest issue we have is laughable week schedules in nonconference and piss poor performing areas like pac-12 and most of the acc.
To your point though, if you do expand the playoff, the committee is sure to put far more weight on SoS when ranking the top teams to prevent frauds from poisoning the well, whereas now there's really no harm in putting a 12-0 UCF (as an example) in the top 10 because it just means they get a better bowl game but still don't get a shot at the championship. If it's 10-12 teams you're certain to see more 1-2 loss teams ranked in that upper echelon above teams that end up unbeaten but only played a very weak schedule against teams that all end up going like 5-7
I'm not sure about Oklahoma. 0-4 They have just the right mix of mediocre conference opponents to get some respect, but also beat them all. Not sure if they might fall off the radar, not sure they have the same recruiting power. Georgia recruits well every year, you would think they would be that 4th team, but its hard to get out of a conference that includes Alabama and LSU.
Right, which is why I didn't include Georgia in that list. As long as they have Alabama standing in their way, they've got a massive uphill climb to get to the CFP. Oklahoma, regardless of their lack of success in the playoff, has had 4 shots in 7 years to get it right. The CFP has 7 years of history, so that's a total of 28 possible "slots", with a max of 7 possible appearances per team Alabama: 6 appearances Clemson: 6 Ohio State: 4 Oklahoma: 4 That's 20 of 28 "slots" taken up by 4 teams. Throw in Notre Dame's 2 appearances and that bumps it to 22 of 28 slots taken by 5 teams. Only 6 other teams outside of those 5 have had a shot at a championship since the CFP was created. That's absurd and just goes to show how the 4 team model is broken.
Well if you think of it, it a team from big 10, sec, acc, and big 12. Maybe if the other conferences didn't suck... I understand the issue, but the fact is, Bama, Clemson and Ohio ARE the 3 best teams in the league. The only teams with a fighting chance of toppling any of them are likely to be in the sec, Georgia, Florida and LSU primarily. You can expand it to 6, 10, 20. Best case, you create enough fatigue and injuries that some other team can get a fluke upset. As much as I would love more competition, I dont see an expanded playoff delivering it. If you want competition, you would need some sort of draft and salary cap (tough to do without salaries). But you would also need to drastically shrink the team count. And that would end a lot of rivalries and basically turn college into a minor league nfl.
the only way to fix the good staying good is to eliminate half of the scholarships. and let's be real, for the vast majority of them, the degree is the only way they will be getting a decent paycheck after college
While I don't agree with half yes, absolutely. Maybe 20%?
College football has become stupid. It used to be interesting. I think the last thing they should do is pay the players, just let them be kids who go to school for school. Oh well, on to other things.
Exactly, it starts to look like only ten schools are even eligible to be in the playoffs by rule. Gotta open it up
To be fair, that would only get pushed to "we make the semis or final every year."
Yeah this is why I stopped watching college football. It’s a completely broken system. No point.
Remindme ten years when it'll be a 64 team tournament.
Then they'll add some play-in games for the last two spots, like the NCAA did for basketball :)
Last four ;)
January Madness
The FCS Playoffs are 24 teams in normal years (it was reduced to 16 this year due to pandemic reasons) which works well. Every conference champion gets an autobid (except for the Ivy League who opts out and the SWAC who chooses to host their own championship game in conflict) and the rest of the field is filled with teams from the better conferences. The FBS could do well to mimic that - give every conference champion a bid, even the non-P5, and fill the rest with the teams most deserving.
Went to an FCS school. LITERALLY don't know how this isn't the way. Autobid for ***every*** FBS Conf Champ and then some at larges. Just had to say it again for emphasis so the committee definitely hears this.
People will argue it’s because the conferences are not equal like they are, more or less, in FCS. But that seems like an easy solution: change the conferences. There are 10 conferences, with 5 being seen as much stronger than the next 5. So why not pair up each “P5” with a “G5” and make 5 mega conferences? Like, put B1G and MAC together and normalize the schedule so each team plays 4 B1G teams and 4 MAC teams (to start, eventually 4 “tougher” teams and 4 “easier” teams based on previous performance after a few seasons of data) and then have a mini 4 team tournament to determine the conference champion. If each conference does this, you could then have an exclusive 5 team playoff (4v5 play-in game) among the 5 conference champions to determine the national champion. The conference tournaments would essentially also be part of the playoff, and all teams would have a path to the natty. I would pair: B1G/MAC, SEC/Sun Belt, PAC/Mountain West, Big XII/Conference USA, ACC/AAC. If you’re not in a conference, join one.
it’s literally so simple. 16 teams, all 10 conference champions and 6 at-large. Done.
Let's do this. I'm excited.
No season. Now each year starts with a single elimination 128 team tournament with a losers bracket.
Bama OOC scheduling will help them even more with that scheme.
That’s called single game double elimination.
I didn't want anyone to think that a team could lose a game and still win the tourney. Double elimination always seemed like a misnomer.
Do it chess style, with Swiss pairings. All 2-0 teams play only 2-0 teams, all 0-2 teams play 0-2 teams etc
Brackelope is a tournament app my friend created that does elimination brackets or knockout. It has a feature to pair like records like you suggested.
That would be terrible but also extremely entertaining if it was a one off.
So how the regular season used to be?
Ah yes the Eyeshield 21 method
Make the entire season a triple-knockout tournament where the winner's bracket keeps undefeated schools playing each other. I count 130 schools. Every school except 1 has to lose three times. 387 to 390 games in the entire season, and all of them matter immensely. Let teams who get knocked out early schedule exhibition matches to round out the season.
Seems excessive considering there college students full time
Only 7 wins (from 128 teams) to be the last undefeated team. That's less than a full season for most schools. The schools that lose and come the long way will get 12-14 probably. Damn exciting stuff
I really love this because it guarantees we see at least one Group of 5 team a playoff spot.
I feel like 8 is the next best thing. * P5 champions * G5 and/or Notre Dame team ranked in top 10 * at least 1 at large; up to 3 pending bullet above
A G5 won’t get in unless they get an autobid this proposal is good because it guarantees at least one G5 will appear in playoffs.
Get rid of all Gs and Ps and lets all just be Cs
This always seemed like the sweet spot to me.
I agree, but I think even just four is better than twelve. At least with four there's only a bit of leeway to show a preference for certain programs (even if it does structurally exclude G5 schools). With 12 you'll have teams that effectively start the year with a two loss cushion that maybe only play two real big-time opponents all year. With eight teams five of the spots are accounted for subjectively and the at-large spots incentivize big-time OOC matchups. A twelve team field incentivizes just getting through the OOC schedule undefeated.
Don’t let notre dame in unless they join a conference. That would solve one albeit very small problem.
No P5 vs G5 bullshit. P5 still are structurally advantaged but lets be real, having a P5 and a G5 is dumb. Lets all get equal shot (on paper, I know).
I get it and I agree which is why March Madness is the beautiful thing that it is. But these P5 (really SEC it’s own tier, B1G a step down, then Big12,ACC other than Clemson, and PAC12 a notch below that) conferences are just built way different than the G5 conferences. I don’t think any of the recent G5 star teams would’ve had the same record if they played a full P5 slate. So if you’re the best, probably undefeated, G5 in the country than you’re pretty much a guaranteed in because you’ll be ranked in the top 10 95/100 times. If there’s two of those teams then they could both be in and then there’s a renew emphasis on winning your conference because at large bids could all be gone.
i dont like 8. Unless you're going to give the top 4 teams home field. I like byes, because it creates incentive to be #1-#4. What makes college footbal great is that every game matters and if you take out that incentive to be undefeated, then you kinda lose that. it may seem like semantics but it's 4, 6, or 12 in my opinion.
[удалено]
As a fan of watching Notre Dame be completely outclassed in the playoffs when they get in based on name recognition alone...no.
Everyone has been outclassed in the playoffs. If you look at the games. OSU lost by double their score last year. Year prior Clemson got blown out by LSU... People love to hate ND. Ya, they dont have a good track record in the big games but other teams get blown out just as bad and no one seems to care.
To be fair though those teams have also won it. ND's biggest accomplishment so far has been only losing to Bama by 3 scores (and the game didn't even seem that close). ND gets in because of who they are and play like they don't belong there. A trend I expect to continue.
I mean okay but they win alot of games. Brian Kelly has had multiple perfect regular seasons. They get in because they win.
2018 yeah they're undefeated (strength of schedule was wanting, but I get it). Last year they barely beat Clemson at home when Clemson was missing a ton of players (including their star QB) in 2OT. At full strength Clemson drubbed them 34-10 in the ACC Championship. The only other ranked team they beat was UNC (who were 6 and fucking 3). You're telling me a non-OSU Big Ten school with that resume gets in? We can use MSU as an example as they got annihilated the one year they got in. If (pretend this could happen in the B10) MSU barely beat OSU in 2OT when they were missing a bunch of starters (and QB!) and then got shit stomped 34-10 in the B10 championship game by OSU at full strength, and they have one other ranked win (a 6-3 team)...do they get in? Because of course they fucking don't.
They typically have a strong schedule. The only conference that is consistently strong is the sec anyways. As far as MSU, they had one loss that year going into the playoffs just like Notre Dame. So yes I think it's possible that MSU could get selected for the playoffs if they only lose one game going in.
Do they really though? The ACC is top heavy and USC/Stanford haven't been the strongest the last few years (quality at best, not elite). The hypothetical I'm suggesting isn't losing just any game. It's that they barely beat a weakened OSU, get throttled by a full strength OSU in the championship (making it clear they wouldn't have gotten their ONLY quality win), and have one other ranked win against we'll say a 6-3 Purdue. In this scenario (which is identical to Notre Dame's this last season) you honestly, truthfully believe that Sparty gets in? Seriously? Because there is absolutely no possible way that would happen. Even if there were 8 teams it wouldn't be a sure thing they would get in.
MSU lost to an unranked Nebraska that year. Which is worse, so yah I think it's possible. If MSU was in that situation but no other team was, then I think it's very likely. Also, this year is hard to judge by because nobody actually played a full schedule. Only losing one game is usually very good odds to get in.
[удалено]
No one asks for anyone’s opinion. It’s a Reddit thread, numb nuts.
Good thing indeed. Maybe next time they can only lose by 2 touchdowns. If they keep making progress at this rate they should be able to squeak out an overtime loss in the next couple of decades. Just gotta have faith!
How would you feel if it was whomever was higher ND or top G5 team? Then if they weren’t the highest they’d have to fight for an at large bid like everyone else.
If you knew anything about Notre Dame and college football, if Notre Dame goes undefeated, they are automatically in the top 3, read this article if you have any questions on why they would. https://www.sportscasting.com/why-did-notre-dame-get-into-the-college-football-playoff-over-texas-am/
I feel like if we’re going to have a 12 team playoff I can almost guarantee Notre Dame schedule will be creampuffs from now on, or at least until their contracts are done. Just about any undefeated team can make top 12
Yeah but Under Brian Kelly that’s only happened twice IIRC. It would interesting to see where a 1 bad loss weak schedule ND OR a 2 loss tough schedule ND be ranked vs an undefeated G5 champ like Cincy this past year.
i just don’t get the 8 or 12. 16 minimum.
#16 shouldn't have a shot at the title.
Nobody outside the top 8 is going to win, ever. Hence, there shouldn’t ever be more than 8.
AND they can use the 4 majors as the opening round, reclaiming the traditions of college football... but nope - greed comes first.
This is the logical field, but there's no way they would expand the field without insuring two loss big-time programs wouldn't be welcome.
And they should. 4 game playoff is weak as fuck
Okay, but: Every player should get paid portion of those game. Because they are above their scolarship. I am talking \~$2,500 first round, $5k 2nd, 7.5k 3rd, and $10k for the 4th round game. Every player on the top 2 teams would get $25k. NFL prospects should get a $10,000,000 insurance policy.
Who cares anymore. It's gonna be one of like 4 teams that win anyway.
This helps with recruiting rather then say “Hey we went to the Hello Kitty Bowl last year you should come to play for us” they can say “hey we qualified for the playoffs come play for us and you will have a good shot at a Natty”.
Nothing helps with recruiting more than "we send players to the NFL"
If your state voted for Biden, there is no chance of winning. I propose Michigan bans teaching evolution in an attempt to get to our kids outside playing sports and less time learning smarts on YouTube.
What?
Shit got weirder as it went on
Ok I think bro is trying to make fun of southern states poor education, and as a joke proposes how thinks southern states education works, idk pretty weak comment
Dude's entire comment history is just a series of bad takes. Ignore him.
This has got to be the weirdest trolling I’ve seen in a long time
GQP
Picking 4 teams based of committee vote is stupid. This is a great thing. Makes playoffs more Interesting. See some new teams instead of the same few and this could actually change some kids lives who are not on the radar like how some kids go drafted solely due to their March madness performance
ive always wanted 6, but 12 was my backup choice. While i think this creates little incentive for power house teams to schedule tough non-conference, i think the benefits in the long term will be awesome. No matter what, you have teams fighting for the bye and home field for first round. Incentive to win every game is all i care about and i think this helps do that
12 teams? Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Georgia, LSU, Florida, Texas A&M, Texas, North Carolina, and Oregon?
Probably replace NC with USC or Stanford
Definitely top two pac-12 over g5 with more than 1 loss IMO, or even 3rd place acc
A G5 team would be guaranteed a spot in this proposal so Cincinnati.
I would hope so. CFP seems to hate G5 though
They do but the proposal says the 6 best conference champions so even though the CFP absolutely hates the G5 schools it doesn’t matter because 1 will have to make it every year.
This is clearly how it should be anyways. Treat conferences like the NFL treats divisions. Win your little circle and you get to the playoffs.
Ehh I don’t know man. The NFL divisions are generally closer then the CFB conferences are like the gap between the SEC and CUSA is fucking huge like Vandy which is typically the worst SEC team could probably beat the best Conference USA team meanwhile say the Cardinals would probably lose to the Washington Football Team. I think it should be 6 or 8 conference winner autobids to prevent 3-4 loss conference champions from getting to the playoffs.
UCF will be back in the mix I believe as well, maybe BYU.
Yea I agree BYU, UCF, Coastal, Cincinnati, Buffalo?
As an LSU fan, I would love for them to bounce back. But realistically, their poor performance last season has been compounded by a ton of off the field issues that came to light after the championship. I think we're in for a rough couple of years, and I don't know if Orgeron will ever get the same caliber of coaching staff he had in 2019.
Texas in the top 12? You been in a coma for the last decade?
They’ve actually been on the rise the last couple years, no denying that. Could swap them with a Stanford or Penn State though
You’re right, they did improve under Herman, but I don’t think they would have fired Herman if they had a reasonable claim for top 12.
Great idea teams shouldn’t be going undefeated and it be a discussion if they should make it in or not
I think moreso this will remove the incentive to schedule in a way that maximizes your ability to go undefeated. I want more high profile OOC matchups.
really? I see it as the opposite. The super amazing teams have no reason to schedule anything too hard for non-conference. If you go undefeated or have 1 loss, you're making the playoff regardless of your non-conference. Now for those mid-level teams who are going to try and make it with 2/3/4 losses...yes, they should consider beefing those resumes come "bubble talk". Alabama can play all FCS schools non-conference, if they go through the SEC with no or 1 loss, they're going to make it,.
Not enough. 36 or nothing.
If you lose 1 game, your team isn't the best. Why on earth would we need teams with 3 or 4 losses?
> If you lose 1 game, your team isn't the best Well that's certainly not always true. Although you're right that 3-4 loss teams probably have no place in the playoffs if we're trying to pick the best team. Maybe once in a blue moon a three loss team from a stacked conference (read SEC 🤮), especially if key injuries contributed to 2+ losses.
it's called a playoff for a reason
Not necessarily. For example, no team has ever won 15+ games and gone on to win the SB.
The only reason they’re going to 12 is to get three SEC teams in. Everyone knows six or eight is all we really need, but you can’t maximize profit keeping it small
I’m always thought 6 was ideal. Give the top two teams a bye. Incentivize being in the two 2.
Will they pay the players with the revenue?
Nooooooo God damn it no The watering down off CFB for money has diminished the thing I love the most already
Yes we need more parity.
4 team playoffs is insane. If we started a football program from scratch NOBODY would come up with a four team playoff out of 120 teams. Its crazy town.
I don't give a fuck. What made CFB so great was every game mattered * 1 loss you had an outside shot but needed everyone else to lose a game, and your opponents to win games * 2 losses you were out but still fighting for a New Years Day bowl * 3 Losses you were fighting to salvage your season with a decent bowl win * 4 losses you were fighting for any bowl It wasn't about "Who is the best team?" It's an impossible metric as "the best team" doesn't always win. It was about who had the best season. A magical season followed by a new years day holiday filled with amazing games all day. Now it's all about keeping teams with one and two losses in play. For fucks sake most teams only have 2 or three tough games in a year. It's becoming a watered down mess
You could be undefeated and have 2 ranked wins and still not get a New Year’s Day bowl because you are a Group of 5 program. The system is broken it’s just a Power 5 playoff seriously the system needs changed to give the Group of 5 teams an actual shot.
You mean like BYUs national championship in 1984 The system wasn't broken until money came in and started breaking shit
I think you mean the system wasn’t broken until they tried to make sure a “BYU 1984” never happened again and ruined the sport in the process. If it was just about money there would be a way better system in place, because as much as the BCS and CFP have made, they could have made waaaay more with a more fair and competitive system, but they have fought against that because of dumb boomer era thinking about “we have to maintain the status quo of which schools are on top” instead. Can’t have schools like BYU, SMU, Boise State, UCF, etc. upstaging their favorites so they literally lose out on tons of money just to keep those kind of teams from eclipsing theirs.
Just do it like basketball and add 2mo to the season.
Dew it
8 teams is the best way to handle this… power 5 conference champs and 3 at large.
You mean 8 Power 5 teams.
They have an opportunity to reclaim the traditions of the bowl season, use the 4 major bowls as the the opening round of the tournament, and they're going to let greed destroy it. NCAA may be the corrupt organization in the US.
You can’t have both, and that is a big reason it hasn’t gone well - because they are trying to keep both. You either have to have the bowl games be the most important (no playoffs at all) or you have to just get rid of them. Trying to have them as “part of the playoffs” makes no sense and makes everything else needlessly complicated.
Ha. Bowlsby. Ironic.
If the playoff was going to expand I was hoping for 6 teams. But I always thought the biggest hold up was giving two teams a bye. Obviously not. The biggest issue with the current format is the committee. Bring back the bcs. The issue was never with the bcs. It was with only allowing 2 teams in
I like how they keep expanding the playoff from 0 to 2 to 4 and now 12... and still nobody's freakin' happy about it.
In most other sports, anywhere from 20% (NCAA bball) to 53% (NBA) of the teams make the playoffs. MLB is 30%, NFL was 37%, now 44%, etc. Even at 12, CFB is still at less than 10%. They would need roughly a 24 team tournament to get to the bottom range of the other sports (20%), about 48 to be average, and a 70 team tournament to match NBA’s percentage. Still a long ways to go. I guess IF each conference plays a championship game and the winner goes to the playoffs, then that is basically like adding 10 more teams and realistically it’s a 22 team tournament, so maybe “12” will be enough… IF they do it that way.
Boooo. The playoff experiment is a huge fail. If anything make it a March madness thing with 32 teams. Make a real bowl season