| NEWS A College Football Playoff change is looming, and a 12-team model leads the way

S

SEC Sports


Expanding the CFP to 12 teams will allow more teams into the playoff who have no business being there.

Support has been growing for College Football Playoff expansion ever since the four-team event started following the 2014 season. Those calls were answered Thursday when the CFP working group announced that it is recommending expanding to 12 teams -- the top six conference champions and six at-large teams.

I'll take a hard pass.

College football did a disservice to itself Thursday. It made a resounding statement that its postseason is in the business of granting access, not rewarding excellence.

College football isn't like other sports. Heck, it isn't even like the professional version of its own sport. It's a sport that has 130 teams divided up into 10 conferences based largely on geography and academics. It's a sport that has six independent teams just to make things more complicated. It's a sport that has teams, conferences, rosters and budgets that are not equal.

It might seem fun to dream in some fairy-tale world that opening up access for the "little guy" would change that, but it won't. That's fantasy, not reality. Subjectivity is mandatory in college football, and no postseason format will ever change that unless the sport goes through a much bigger transformation.

Our sport is beautifully dysfunctional, which is exactly the way the postseason should be.

Nothing is clean in college football. The beauty of the postseason is that the selection committee judges the definition of "excellence" based on the landscape of each specific season. Often times, it's a disservice to the sport's regular season and it's truly excellent teams to even have a fourth team in the mix ... much less teams ranked Nos. 10-12.

Did three-loss Iowa State deserve a shot at the national title last year? No offense to the Cyclones -- I really do love ya -- but no. Did three-loss Florida, fresh off back-to-back losses to LSU (and a shoe-toss) and Alabama? Of course not. Yet, in the proposed new format, they'd get a chance to be crowned "the best team in the nation" (sarcasm very much intended).

CFP director Bill Hancock has used the phrase "scarcity breeds passion" quite often during the current era. He's right.

When Ohio State lost to Virginia Tech in Week 2 of the 2014 season, we thought it was over for the Buckeyes. It was a huge upset. It reverberated through the college football world. It brought out that passion because we literally didn't know what it meant in the brand new system. What we found out is that it didn't matter because Ohio State made the playoff and won the title. That was in the current four-team structure. Can you imagine what that Virginia Tech game would mean in a 12-team format? It would be met with a yawn, a pat on the back and a "we'll get 'em next time out."

The sense of urgency and uncertainty about what any given regular-season win or loss means in the long run is a feature, not a bug. It brings out the passion that makes the college football regular season the best regular season in all of sports. The emotion immediately after a massive win or loss, no matter where it falls during the three-month regular season, is what college football is all about. That visceral response exists because of the unknown.

Sure, we are going to get some great regular season out-of-conference matchups in this new world of a 12-team playoff. It seems like virtually all of them have already been announced since, let's be honest, expansion was inevitable in the minds of athletic directors. That's awesome. I can't wait to see them. But do I want to see an undefeated MAC champ that has the opportunity to be named the best team in the nation get worked by at-large Georgia in Sanford Stadium in mid-December? Nope. I'd rather see that in September -- where it belongs.

Expansion was inevitable because demand for access from the masses built into a roar. In the process, it has diminished the definition of "excellent."
 

TerryP

Ivory Club
Sounds pretty exciting to me....

Seems like a recipe for a lot of bad games.
Oh yeah. To that there is no doubt.

In 2019 we'd have seen UGA hosting Memphis. On a neutral site that game would be posted with UGA favored by right at two touchdowns. In Athens? That's a 17-21 point margin of victory. Penn State would be favored by double digits versus Baylor and the same spread would be found for Oregon vs Utah. We might, MIGHT, have gotten a decent game with Florida hosting Wisconsin but with Florida putting up 35 a game in '19 I don't see how Wisky could have kept up. Remember, the only decent defense Wisky faced that season was Ohio State and they put seven on the board.

A second round game would have been UF vs LSU (whom LSU defeated by 14 or so in '19.) We'd have seen Penn State vs Ohio State (whom OSU beat by double digits that season.) Clemson vs Oregon? Oh good lord that would be a blowout. We'd have OU vs UGA which, like the UF vs Wisky game, MIGHT be a good game.

Eight new games with two that may be competitive.

It's definitely more football. It's definitely not better football.
 

TerryP

Ivory Club
In 2019 we'd have seen UGA hosting Memphis. On a neutral site that game would be posted with UGA favored by right at two touchdowns.

So how long will be before 13,14,15,16 teams start complaining?
That season BAMA was ranked #13 in the last poll. Would you be complaining if a 12-2 Alabama team is supplanted by a 12-1 Memphis team who was ranked lower by the playoff committee?

And, for what it's worth, while UGA would have been favored by 17-20, Bama would be favored by four or more than UGA would have been.
 

RTB Twitter Bot

Thread Starter
Ivory Club

E3mkeZNXMAAV4fb
 

50+yeartidefan

Touchdown Club
Oh yeah. To that there is no doubt.

In 2019 we'd have seen UGA hosting Memphis. On a neutral site that game would be posted with UGA favored by right at two touchdowns. In Athens? That's a 17-21 point margin of victory. Penn State would be favored by double digits versus Baylor and the same spread would be found for Oregon vs Utah. We might, MIGHT, have gotten a decent game with Florida hosting Wisconsin but with Florida putting up 35 a game in '19 I don't see how Wisky could have kept up. Remember, the only decent defense Wisky faced that season was Ohio State and they put seven on the board.

A second round game would have been UF vs LSU (whom LSU defeated by 14 or so in '19.) We'd have seen Penn State vs Ohio State (whom OSU beat by double digits that season.) Clemson vs Oregon? Oh good lord that would be a blowout. We'd have OU vs UGA which, like the UF vs Wisky game, MIGHT be a good game.

Eight new games with two that may be competitive.

It's definitely more football. It's definitely not better football.

no doubt be some bad games. No doubt be some good games

so we want to eliminate all possible bad games

oooopppps. cAnt have a 4 team playoff yhen Bad finals.
bama vs osu. 2020 blowout
Clemson vs bama 2018 blowout
Lsu vs Clemson. Blowout


Bad semi finals.
to many blowouts to list

so whats your point

the possibility of having blowouts should eliminate the playings of games

bcs had blowouts.
bama vs ND and lsu
So the rationale is .......what?

also a lot of great games.
Bama has lots of blowouts during regular season. What, dont have regular season?

don't understand your rationle. Better a meaningful game than a bowl game where teams best players are sitting out!!!!!
 

TerryP

Ivory Club
don't understand your rationle.
More football = good thing.
More bad football = is there a debate whether it's good or not?

Like I've said since day one we'd be a lot better off if they'd chosen to 1) stick with the BCS, or 2) gone with the plus one.

bama vs osu. 2020 blowout
Clemson vs bama 2018 blowout day
Lsu vs Clemson. Blowout
...and those were top four teams but let's add programs that are worse. Yeah, that's a rationale that needs more explanation.
Better a meaningful game than a bowl game where teams best players are sitting out!!!!!
At the end of the day your lower ranked seeded teams will be playing and then returning home the next day with a participation trophy. Again, rationale?
 

bama alum

Crimson Tide Club
IF they're going with the four highest ranked conference champions getting the bye week that would have meant Cincy would have received a bye last season. Since they've said the highest six ranked conference champions now we're also including Marshall and Coastal Carolina.

Three of the top six automatic bids are going to G5 teams?

This doesn't make sense to me.

At larges would be a bit of a crap shoot, right? Clemson, Texas A&M, Florida, BYU, Indiana, and Wisconsin?

This move for inclusion once again leaves out the PAC. Here it would also have left out the Big12. I'm not sure how the cards would fall but it looks to me like BAMA would have faced the winner of Marshall vs Wisconsin. (Do you think that Marshall vs Wisky game is going to get a lot of eyeballs? :rolleyes: )

On the one hand, it would take a scenario like that to reaffirm to America that this is a terrible format. On the other hand, the "geniuses" who've had this grand epiphany probably are happy that another pandemic season isn't coming again anytime soon.
 

TerryP

Ivory Club
On the one hand, it would take a scenario like that to reaffirm to America that this is a terrible format. On the other hand, the "geniuses" who've had this grand epiphany probably are happy that another pandemic season isn't coming again anytime soon.
I've seen more than a few suggest it'll be whittled down.

It's a hoot seeing people rejoice over the point a team like Coastal Carolina gets in and at the same time the same people bitch when Bama schedules an opponent from the Sun Belt. A game that's horrible on the schedule during the season but a game that's exciting in the post season?
 

SoCalPatrick

Sideline Club
@50+yeartidefan here's where I see this falling apart.

Two seasons ago I watched a few here complain about the bowl games; "I don't watch any of those" was the general consensus followed by "those aren't good football games."

Now we're talking about the same games and it's a good thing because it's a playoff game instead of a bowl game. It's still the same game.
 

50+yeartidefan

Touchdown Club
I've seen more than a few suggest it'll be whittled down.

It's a hoot seeing people rejoice over the point a team like Coastal Carolina gets in and at the same time the same people bitch when Bama schedules an opponent from the Sun Belt. A game that's horrible on the schedule during the season but a game that's exciting in the post season?
of course by your reference you are saying "people bitch an opponent from sun belt" and it's horrible on schedule

but taking the top team from C-USA or sun belt is different. As oppose to a scheduled 4 year earlier bottom feeder

this year Cincinnati would have been a worthy opponent. Maybe even Liberty or Coastal

wasnt long ago a ucf beat AU. Cincinnati gave UGA all they could hAndle last bowl season. La tech over miami a couple years ago.
And u are discounting upsets ?????

Just like bowl games. If the matchups arent worthy of watching. Just dont watch
 

252BAMA

AKA: ALA2262
Bama Club
IF they're going with the four highest ranked conference champions getting the bye week that would have meant Cincy would have received a bye last season. Since they've said the highest six ranked conference champions now we're also including Marshall and Coastal Carolina.

Three of the top six automatic bids are going to G5 teams?

This doesn't make sense to me.

At larges would be a bit of a crap shoot, right? Clemson, Texas A&M, Florida, BYU, Indiana, and Wisconsin?

This move for inclusion once again leaves out the PAC. Here it would also have left out the Big12. I'm not sure how the cards would fall but it looks to me like BAMA would have faced the winner of Marshall vs Wisconsin. (Do you think that Marshall vs Wisky game is going to get a lot of eyeballs? :rolleyes: )
Just as the addition of the 12th game to the regular season was all about FCS, this format is all about G5. The P5 need to get the hell out of the NCAA. And yes, I know the NCAA doesn't have anything to do with the CFP. But the CFP uses NCAA schools.
 
Last edited:

50+yeartidefan

Touchdown Club
@50+yeartidefan here's where I see this falling apart.

Two seasons ago I watched a few here complain about the bowl games; "I don't watch any of those" was the general consensus followed by "those aren't good football games."

Now we're talking about the same games and it's a good thing because it's a playoff game instead of a bowl game. It's still the same game.
No. Playiffs arent having players sit out.

A little more preparation and intrigue for playoff games. winner moves on
If Cincinnati and uga played in playoffs last year. I would have watched. The intrigue of playoffs. Otherwise it was just a game. Like exhibition games. Or preseason nfl games


bowl games. Winner n loser go home

i get the drift of those not liking and those that do.
See it differently
 

TerryP

Ivory Club
this year Cincinnati would have been a worthy opponent. Maybe even Liberty or Coastal
Not one of these three teams would have won against the final four last season. Cincy, a worthy opponent, because they played a UGA team (without a decent QB) closely in the bowl game?

Alabama vs Cincy would have been a 25+ point spread. Liberty (over 38) and Coastal (25+) are even worse.
 

Top