88% of FBS Athletic Directors Want an Expanded College Football Playoff

Blackshirts BLVD · Apr 9, 2020

theboardref said:
Also, to be nit picky, because what else is there to do: do the Big 12 still get gifted 2 spots despite having 4 less teams than other leagues?

lol maybe. They do have a conference championship game... could take the top two as they do now. They do play the same number of non-con as most others and a full 12 game slate.

well again, as I said in my last post, there should be some requirements - something like @Deep Creek was saying maybe.

Deep Creek · Apr 9, 2020

theboardref said:
Also, to be nit picky, because what else is there to do: do the Big 12 still get gifted 2 spots despite having 4 less teams than other leagues?

Don't see that as "nit picky". I have one that is similar. Do the teams that benefit from unequal scheduling in the larger conferences also get gifted spots?

Blackshirts BLVD · Apr 9, 2020

Deep Creek said:
Don't see that as "nit picky". I have one that is similar. Do the teams that benefit from unequal scheduling in the larger conferences also get gifted spots?

We're going to a 64 team playoff and that's final. No more issues.

theboardref · Apr 9, 2020

Blackshirts BLVD said:
Blame USC for that.

But I get ya though that is also rare. I think certain requirements would need to be in place. Worst case is they lose in the first round, whatever.

For arguments sake, lets take a look at non-extenuating circumstances and some teams that would make it in with the ‘win the division criteria’.

2015: USC 8-4 before CCG, ended year 8-6

2016: Florida 8-3, ended 9-4
Virginia Tech 9-3, ended 10-4

2017: Stanford 9-3, ended 9-5

2018: Pittsburgh 7-5, ended 7-7
Washington 9-3, ended 10-4
Utah 9-3, ended 9-5

2019: Virginia 9-3, ended 9-5

theboardref · Apr 9, 2020

CJH9972 said:
Just curious, how many people want college football to be more competitive than it is? Do we like a handful of teams winning every year? Do we think a larger playoff will help or hurt parity?

It won’t help that’s proven by FCS/Division 2/ Division 3 .

Blackshirts BLVD · Apr 9, 2020

theboardref said:
For arguments sake, lets take a look at non-extenuating circumstances and some teams that would make it in with the ‘win the division criteria’.

2015: USC 8-4 before CCG, ended year 8-6

2016: Florida 8-3, ended 9-4
Virginia Tech 9-3, ended 10-4

2017: Stanford 9-3, ended 9-5

2018: Pittsburgh 7-5, ended 7-7
Washington 9-3, ended 10-4
Utah 9-3, ended 9-5

2019: Virginia 9-3, ended 9-5

So what you are saying is...

A) a team gets in and loses in the first round. - whatever, no big deal really.
B) they get in, cause an upset and freak the CFB world out. - fucking hilarious and adds excitement.

After all... any given Saturday.

theboardref · Apr 9, 2020

Blackshirts BLVD said:
So what you are saying is...

A) a team gets in and loses in the first round. - whatever, no big deal really.
B) they get in, cause an upset and freak the CFB world out. - fucking hilarious and adds excitement.

After all... any given Saturday.

But those teams have not earned the right to play for a title. If I lose on the field to a team in my division, I am not better than that team. Therefore, why should I get a second chance to play them? The results have been settled on the field already. People can say, what about the NFL, well the NFL also plays all divisional opponents twice so it’s not really relevant.

cclxxxvdicere · Apr 9, 2020

CJH9972 said:
Just curious, how many people want college football to be more competitive than it is? Do we like a handful of teams winning every year? Do we think a larger playoff will help or hurt parity?

Expanding the playoff isn’t going to make the the recruits start going to South Alabama instead of Alabama, so the same schools are going to win, just more of the same teams will be in the playoff every year.

Hang_On_Sloopy08 · Apr 9, 2020

MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
As soon as they announced the initial playoff, this was always the end goal. Get people OK with the idea of a playoff, one with serious flaws, and then use those flaws to expand beyond that. Think about it, our system has 4 spots for 5 P5 conferences and the G5. The math doesn't add up. I think the next move is 6-8 spots and maybe auto-bids for conference champs in the P5.

You really think their intention was to get together and put out a flawed championship system?

ralphiewvu · Apr 9, 2020

theboardref said:
For arguments sake, lets take a look at non-extenuating circumstances and some teams that would make it in with the ‘win the division criteria’.

2015: USC 8-4 before CCG, ended year 8-6

2016: Florida 8-3, ended 9-4
Virginia Tech 9-3, ended 10-4

2017: Stanford 9-3, ended 9-5

2018: Pittsburgh 7-5, ended 7-7
Washington 9-3, ended 10-4
Utah 9-3, ended 9-5

2019: Virginia 9-3, ended 9-5

Again there would need to be criteria. None of those teams would make it with those records regardless if they win their conference championship games or not.

CJH9972 · Apr 9, 2020

cclxxxvdicere said:
Expanding the playoff isn’t going to make the the recruits start going to South Alabama instead of Alabama, so the same schools are going to win, just more of the same teams will be in the playoff every year.

South Alabama doesnt need to become Alabama over the long haul for any possible format to have huge impact on parity. That said, you just never know how many different programs will improve their brand under an expanded playoff format compared to where they are now.

theboardref · Apr 9, 2020

CJH9972 said:
South Alabama doesnt need to become Alabama over the long haul for any possible format to have huge impact on parity. That said, you just never know how many different programs will improve their brand under an expanded playoff format compared to where they are now.

FBS/FCS have both had 11 different champions since 2000, division 2 has had 10, and division 3 has only had 6. This will do nothing for parity.

CJH9972 · Apr 9, 2020

theboardref said:
FBS/FCS have both had 11 different champions since 2000, division 2 has had 10, and division 3 has only had 6. This will do nothing for parity.

It may not but clearly more teams getting more opportunities has a better chance of making the overall sport more competitive than the status quo. Im not convinced lower divisions tell us the same would happen with FBS. Also. it is not just about who ultimately wins. How many different schools make the playoffs and advance to each round are important factors too.

cclxxxvdicere · Apr 9, 2020

CJH9972 said:
South Alabama doesnt need to become Alabama over the long haul for any possible format to have huge impact on parity. That said, you just never know how many different programs will improve their brand under an expanded playoff format compared to where they are now.

Why would they “improve their brands”? Going to 8 will only insure all P5s get in, then 3 wildcards. You don’t think that those are going to be almost exclusively more teams from those conferences, or Notre Dame? Adding more teams just ensures teams like Alabama make the playoff every year, it ain’t going to make recruits go to non P5 schools.

theboardref · Apr 9, 2020

cclxxxvdicere said:
Why would they “improve their brands”? Going to 8 will only insure all P5s get in, then 3 wildcards. You don’t think that those are going to be almost exclusively more teams from those conferences, or Notre Dame? Adding more teams just ensures teams like Alabama make the playoff every year, it ain’t going to make recruits go to non P5 schools.

So with Notre Dame, they basically get an auto bid every year they have an ok team. Then a G5 and 1 wildcard... sounds like 4 teams is better to me.

CJH9972 · Apr 9, 2020

cclxxxvdicere said:
Why would they “improve their brands”? Going to 8 will only insure all P5s get in, then 3 wildcards. You don’t think that those are going to be almost exclusively more teams from those conferences, or Notre Dame? Adding more teams just ensures teams like Alabama make the playoff every year, it ain’t going to make recruits go to non P5 schools.

If they are going to format a playoff that maintains the two class system then the odds are less. That said im thinking of a top 8 format determined by actual rules where everyone basically controls their destiny excluding highly improbable circumstances. While i dont think my idea would be adopted for other reasons, i think such a format would make the ceiling for top G5 programs much greater.

Take Boise State, despite all its success, it really has nothing to show for it playoff wise and while still good, they have fallen off the pace they had set. Imagine if all those good years resulted in 4 or 5 playoff berths, perhaps they build off of it to become something like the Gonzaga of football. Or UCF makes the playoffs two years vs not even close, how might recruits view these schools differently given multiple playoff chances versus none?

theboardref · Apr 9, 2020

Don’t forget that one wildcard will likely go to a program that is a name brand program who is finding a way to back door their way into a playoff spot undeservedly.

Blackshirts BLVD · Apr 9, 2020

theboardref said:
But those teams have not earned the right to play for a title. If I lose on the field to a team in my division, I am not better than that team. Therefore, why should I get a second chance to play them?The results have been settled on the field already. People can say, what about the NFL, well the NFL also plays all divisional opponents twice so it’s not really relevant.

I don't know what the likelihood of the divisional winners actually playing their conference counterpart would be, would depend on seeding/situation. And even if it did somehow work out that way that the divisional counterparts play each other, that team (or your team) would have to have done enough to get back in or stay in the top 16.

We have seen this happen before too, might be a rough memory, but 2011. Personally, I don't think Alabama should have been in there and I do think some 'benefit of the doubt' went into it, but Stanford and Okie St losing later than Bama and right before CCGs hurt, a lot. And everyone around them kept losing too... Arkansas, Boise St (not that they would have made it anyway), Oregon, Va Tech, Houston... sometimes its just the way the cookie crumbles.

theboardref · Apr 9, 2020

Blackshirts BLVD said:
I don't know what the likelihood of the divisional winners actually playing their conference counterpart would be, would depend on seeding/situation. And even if it did somehow work out that way that the divisional counterparts play each other, that team (or your team) would have to have done enough to get back in or stay in the top 16.

We have seen this happen before too, might be a rough memory, but 2011. Personally, I don't think Alabama should have been in there and I do think some 'benefit of the doubt' went into it, but Stanford and Okie St losing later than Bama and right before CCGs hurt, a lot. And everyone around them kept losing too... Arkansas, Boise St (not that they would have made it anyway), Oregon, Va Tech, Houston... sometimes its just the way the cookie crumbles.

There is a reason I stand firm on conference champions and earning your way in.

LawDawg · Apr 10, 2020

theboardref said:
So now, on a yearly basis we will have teams getting a guaranteed bye before the playoffs because they weren’t good enough to play for a conference title?

But, if the first round is played on campus, they will likely have to go play an away game. They would likely not be ranked in the top 4.

88% of FBS Athletic Directors Want an Expanded College Football Playoff

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

thewhite_00 ESPN board

thewhite_00 ESPN board

Well-Known Member

thewhite_00 ESPN board

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Rivals' DTP2

thewhite_00 ESPN board

Rivals' DTP2

Active Member

thewhite_00 ESPN board

Rivals' DTP2

thewhite_00 ESPN board

Well-Known Member

thewhite_00 ESPN board

Sic 'em Dawgs ... woof!

Similar threads