CFP Expansion

Auggie

Auggie

Well-known member
In a Friday news dump it appears the Conferences have set up a committee to look at expanding the CFP:

www.espn.com

CFP subcommittee presents expansion scenarios

A working group within the CFP management committee this week considered dozens of possibilities for future expansion, including options ranging from six to 16 teams, though no change to the current four-team format is imminent.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

It's just a start but this thing feels very inevitable.
 
 
TBH it wouldn’t surprise me if we end up with a P5/G5 split with an 8 team playoff. I don’t see the P5 ever giving the G5 a fair shake with an expanded playoff
 
Crusaders said:
TBH it wouldn’t surprise me if we end up with a P5/G5 split with an 8 team playoff. I don’t see the P5 ever giving the G5 a fair shake with an expanded playoff
Click to expand...
They really don’t deserve a “fair shake” most yrs. I’m tired of UCF beating an Auburn team that didn’t care being used as a justification. UC played UGA tough but UGA was down 1/2 their starters. No, I’m tired of the G5 b**ch fest.
 
Crusaders said:
TBH it wouldn’t surprise me if we end up with a P5/G5 split with an 8 team playoff. I don’t see the P5 ever giving the G5 a fair shake with an expanded playoff
Click to expand...
Nor should they. Some of the P5’s can barely draw crowds as it is. Leagues like the MAC are an abomination when it comes to attendance and TV viewership.

8 with the 5 P5 champs and 3 at-large bids, which can include G5’s that are worthy in a rare year.
 
Omar said:
They really don’t deserve a “fair shake” most yrs. I’m tired of UCF beating an Auburn team that didn’t care being used as a justification. UC played UGA tough but UGA was down 1/2 their starters. No, I’m tired of the G5 b**ch fest.
Click to expand...
I will play the flip side of the argument when a G5 beats a P5 who doesnt GAF>

If said Group of Five team TRULY does NOT belong, then an Auburn team down a few kids and not care should still be able to take care of them.
 
thavoice said:
I will play the flip side of the argument when a G5 beats a P5 who doesnt GAF>

If said Group of Five team TRULY does NOT belong, then an Auburn team down a few kids and not care should still be able to take care of them.
Click to expand...
You’re underselling being down your best players.
 
A lot of chatter around the business side saying that since they publicly came out with the announcement of a committee it is almost a given that expansion will happen. Now how this will look is the big question and there will be a lot of lobbying by the various factions. Notable will be how the Bowls stay engaged in the game and look for a lot of discussion in the distance around this since these guys have big $s invested. Also a big part of the conversation will involve ND, they even got a seat at the table, and how they figure in when a likely discussion about Power 5 Conference champs getting auto bids and higher seeds. If ND doesn't have to play a conference title game that will be a big talking point as an upset in one of those could create a lot of drama around who is deserving to get in. Finally the Presidents want to keep football from becoming a 2 semester sport. The TV guys would love to sneak the CFP title game into the Sunday between the Conference Title Games and the SB but that is way too late for most schools, a much bigger check to all schools might change the thought process on this.

To be continued...
 
Omar said:
They really don’t deserve a “fair shake” most yrs. I’m tired of UCF beating an Auburn team that didn’t care being used as a justification. UC played UGA tough but UGA was down 1/2 their starters. No, I’m tired of the G5 b**ch fest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they do.

It's such a lame excuse to say whenever a P5 team loses to a G5 program or there's a close game that the P5 teams just wasn't taking the game seriously or they were missing players. The best teams of the G5 are far better than at least half the P5. They should not start the season practically eliminated from the playoffs.
 
Crusaders said:
Yeah, they do.

It's such a lame excuse to say whenever a P5 team loses to a G5 program or there's a close game that the P5 teams just wasn't taking the game seriously or they were missing players. The best teams of the G5 are far better than at least half the P5. They should not start the season practically eliminated from the playoffs.
Click to expand...
They’re better than 1/2 the P5, not the best of the P5. You can ignore reality all you want the fact of the matter is it’s playoff or bust for many of these high profile P5 teams. The 2017 Auburn team that lost to UCF would’ve been in the playoff if they beat UGA in the SEC Title game. You really think losing out on a playoff birth and having multiple starters sit out was representative of that team at its best? Hell, no.

And with 8 teams the best G5 team would get in most yrs. However, I’m willing to bet that trend song last after a few massive blowouts.
 
It's an excuse people use because they struggle to accept an outsider out-performing a blue blood. It's sour grapes. If Auburn had lost to Iowa no one would have made excuses.

I doubt there would be a bunch of blow outs unless they're routinely matched up with the #1 team
 
If they push this thing to 8, the highest ranked G5 team has to have an auto bid at a certain threshold. I'd probably argue top-15 and no worse than top-12.

If there's no automatic qualifying threshold for the cream of the G5 crop in an expanded playoff, then the G5 needs to be split off of the P5 for football and have their own playoff.
 
Crusaders said:
It's an excuse people use because they struggle to accept an outsider out-performing a blue blood. It's sour grapes. If Auburn had lost to Iowa no one would have made excuses.

I doubt there would be a bunch of blow outs unless they're routinely matched up with the #1 team
Click to expand...
No, it’s a reason. Do you think Oklahoma was that much better than Florida, who gave Bama their toughest game? Or could not having Kyle Pitts and several other top players have caused that blowout?

And why wouldn’t the G5 team get paired with the #1 seed most yrs? Nobody really made much of a fuss with UC getting the #6 ranking bc outside of the top 4, it didn’t matter. However, in an 8 team playoff, you better believe Oklahoma & Florida would’ve been raising hell being ranked behind UC.
 
Florida had it's entire receiving corp out plus others. Auburn played with pretty much the same personnel they had against Georgia. How are those two things comparable?

Auburn was outplayed by UCF. The excuses have to stop.

Some big program thinking they deserve to be higher is completely irrelevant. If a G5 program has to have a perfect season just to break the Top 8, that's a problem.
 
I don’t know what the perfect number is ... but allowing more opportunities to more teams will help even things out in recruiting ... right now the elite players are mostly all going to the same small group of team because they are the only teams with a decent chance at the playoffs ... giving more teams a chance will help improve their chances at getting elite players ... just look at Gonzaga in basketball ... since they have been included in the big dance (and had some success) their recruiting has improved dramatically
 
joesports said:
I don’t know what the perfect number is ... but allowing more opportunities to more teams will help even things out in recruiting ... right now the elite players are mostly all going to the same small group of team because they are the only teams with a decent chance at the playoffs ... giving more teams a chance will help improve their chances at getting elite players ... just look at Gonzaga in basketball ... since they have been included in the big dance (and had some success) their recruiting has improved dramatically
Click to expand...
If you really want to even out college football, you simply cut the scholarship limit from 85 to 75. That spreads the talent out even more. The reduction from 100+ to 85 is what finally opened things up in the 1980’s. Might be time to reduce again.
 
12 team playoff
All 10 conference champions
Two at large bids
Seed 1-12
Top four seeds get a first round bye
First two rounds at campus site of the higher seed

Write it.
 
oxat622 said:
12 team playoff
All 10 conference champions
Two at large bids
Seed 1-12
Top four seeds get a first round bye
First two rounds at campus site of the higher seed

Write it.
Click to expand...
There's at least six leagues that would have a hard time putting a playoff-worthy champ into it. Doubt you would get much of a TV audience for a Cincinnati vs Coastal Carolina playoff game, or Boise State vs Ohio U.
 
cjb56 said:
There's at least six leagues that would have a hard time putting a playoff-worthy champ into it. Doubt you would get much of a TV audience for a Cincinnati vs Coastal Carolina playoff game, or Boise State vs Ohio U.
Click to expand...
Is a MEAC, Summit League, or Big Sky school "playoff-worthy" when they earn a 16 seed in basketball?

And sure you could get a great TV audience. Do the first round the second Saturday of December and stagger the start times. What would it compete against? Early non conference college basketball? NBA? Army/Navy?
 
oxat622 said:
Is a MEAC, Summit League, or Big Sky school "playoff-worthy" when they earn a 16 seed in basketball?

And sure you could get a great TV audience. Do the first round the second Saturday of December and stagger the start times. What would it compete against? Early non conference college basketball? NBA? Army/Navy?
Click to expand...
Army and Navy would both be trying to make the playoffs each year, so I’m sure their annual clash would be scheduled before any playoffs would start.

The college basketball tourney is an entirely different model and it only takes one great player to give a low seed a chance at an upset.

At least your model would protect the lowest seeds from facing the best teams. The MAC champs, for example, would likely be waxed by the PAC 12 or AAC champs in the opening round and avoid the spectacle of a game vs Bama or Clemson.

I do believe they need to expand the playoffs to revive interest, but I think what’s wanted is more teams with a realistic chance to win it all, not giving automatic bids to the MAC and Sun Belt while an 11-1 Power 5 runner-up with a huge fan base sits home.
 
cjb56 said:
Army and Navy would both be trying to make the playoffs each year, so I’m sure their annual clash would be scheduled before any playoffs would start.

The college basketball tourney is an entirely different model and it only takes one great player to give a low seed a chance at an upset.

At least your model would protect the lowest seeds from facing the best teams. The MAC champs, for example, would likely be waxed by the PAC 12 or AAC champs in the opening round and avoid the spectacle of a game vs Bama or Clemson.

I do believe they need to expand the playoffs to revive interest, but I think what’s wanted is more teams with a realistic chance to win it all, not giving automatic bids to the MAC and Sun Belt while an 11-1 Power 5 runner-up with a huge fan base sits home.
Click to expand...
This is all anecdotal; I love watching college football, but as a fan of a MAC team, I can tell you I pretty much check out of what's going on in the national landscape by November. I couldn't even tell you from memory who just won the national championship. I only paid close attention to LSU's postseason a couple years ago because I'm also a Bengals fan and wanted to see how Burrow performed at that stage of the season. And yeah, from watching that performance, from a competitive standpoint, it is hard to justify that a MAC or Sun Belt team belongs.

But it's asinine to me that FBS football is the only college sport (to my knowledge) where every team does not have a linear path within their control to the national championship. That's the beauty of college basketball (and every other sport, but basketball is my favorite), that a school like Wright State has nothing in their way of a championship besides their own W/L record. Even when my team is eliminated, the rest of the NCAA Tournament is appointment television for me.
 
oxat622 said:
This is all anecdotal; I love watching college football, but as a fan of a MAC team, I can tell you I pretty much check out of what's going on in the national landscape by November. I couldn't even tell you from memory who just won the national championship. I only paid close attention to LSU's postseason a couple years ago because I'm also a Bengals fan and wanted to see how Burrow performed at that stage of the season. And yeah, from watching that performance, from a competitive standpoint, it is hard to justify that a MAC or Sun Belt team belongs.

But it's asinine to me that FBS football is the only college sport (to my knowledge) where every team does not have a linear path within their control to the national championship. That's the beauty of college basketball (and every other sport, but basketball is my favorite), that a school like Wright State has nothing in their way of a championship besides their own W/L record. Even when my team is eliminated, the rest of the NCAA Tournament is appointment television for me.
Click to expand...
I would like to see the CFB playoffs expanded. To support your point, the FCS, D2 and D3 all manage to have 16 to 32 team football playoffs, but the obstacles to that in FBS is length of regular season and especially the bowl system. As I mentioned in a previous post, cutting scholarships from 85 to 75 would spread the talent around college football even more and eat into the dominance of the Power 5 leagues and dominant programs such as Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, etc.
 
I heard some chatter that expansion will in all likely hood kick off another round of conference realignment and some powers are not happy about this possible outcome.
 
Auggie said:
I heard some chatter that expansion will in all likely hood kick off another round of conference realignment and some powers are not happy about this possible outcome.
Click to expand...
There has long been that talk of four major conferences of 16 schools divided into 8 team divisions. The four survivors would be the ACC, SEC, Big Ten and PAC 12. The Big 12 teams would be dispersed to other leagues and a few might be excluded.
 
Would have to be a bit geographically flexible because the ACC already has 16 teams, unless you boot a few out to make a new mid-major conference. Would be difficult to see Oklahoma and Texas going separate places and could round out the Big 10 at 16. West Virginia would probably go to the SEC along with Baylor. Pac 12 takes their pick of the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top