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

[outofyourmind]

I’d rather go back to the BCS personally. Same conflict existed and the other bowls meant more

I like what the new guy said.
Just use the old Bowl system and crown a champion with the eye test.
Wasn't as definitive, which was probably better for CFB.

 

[psaboy]

8 teams is exactly what it should be. Fuck the power 5 conferences. If your good enough you'll be chosen in the final 8 teams. Even the power 5 have off years.

The PAC 12 agrees

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

I like what the new guy said.
Just use the old Bowl system and crown a champion with the eye test.
Wasn't as definitive, which was probably better for CFB.

We still bitch non-stop about who deserved it and who didn't, anyway, right?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

But they won’t, because that has never happened.

Also, the BCS doesn’t exist.

Lost of things have never happened, and every year those things get broken. A reign like Alabama has never happened, until this last decade. It wouldn’t take much for the P5 programs to produce 5 undefeated teams. Most end up with 1 loss or less champs every season.
The BCS doesn’t exist. Never said it did. I’m saying this system isn’t any better. They provided a “fix” to the BCS with the same fundamental problems.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I like what the new guy said.
Just use the old Bowl system and crown a champion with the eye test.
Wasn't as definitive, which was probably better for CFB.

The only problem with that is you miss out on the ability to “win” a championship. Teams would need to wait until a vote was held and weirdly celebrate days after the games were played. The BCS was imperfect but it maintained the feel of college football. Going to the Rose Bowl now just isn’t the same and the playoffs are the reaso. Why

 

[AlaskaGuy]

No playoff expansion until the ACC & SEC grow a set and start playing a 9 game conference schedule like the rest of the P5 conferences.

 

[outofyourmind]

The only problem with that is you miss out on the ability to “win” a championship. Teams would need to wait until a vote was held and weirdly celebrate days after the games were played.

Never really bothered me.
I liked the back and forth debate.

And the New Years Day Bowls were voted on the next day, and usually known at the end of the night.

 

[theboardref]

The only problem with that is you miss out on the ability to “win” a championship. Teams would need to wait until a vote was held and weirdly celebrate days after the games were played. The BCS was imperfect but it maintained the feel of college football. Going to the Rose Bowl now just isn’t the same and the playoffs are the reaso. Why

Me thinks Michigan fans want more teams because they know they will never beat Ohio State...

 

[Deep Creek]

Go look at FCS and tell me if this holds true. Tell me, how many different school’s have won a title in the past 8 years?

I didn't say it would happen. Just said traditionalists don't want to chance it.

 

[Deep Creek]

What happens when the AD’s realizes this loses money in the long run for their mediocre squads? When no fans want to go to the Peanuts and Crackerjack Bowl and half the roster sits out?

If the CFP money is less than what they'd have made in the Peanuts and Crackerjack Bowl, they'll be pissed and clamor for a return from it. If it surpasses what they've had made in the Peanuts and Crackerjack Bowl, they'll be elated and want even more. Money will be the deciding factor IMO.

I can assure you the folks that host all those Peanuts and Crackerjack Bowls damn sure don't want an expanded playoff.

 

[broncosmitty]

I'd be more interested in the % of University presidents who support expansion.

Why?

 

[theboardref]

For the record some numbers I dug up.

FBS- 11 different National Champions since 2000. (Most Bama with 5)

FCS- 11 different National Champions since 2000. (Most North Dakota State with 7)

Division 2- 10 different National Champions since 2000. (Most is a 3 way tie between Valdosta State, Northeast Missouri State, Grand Valley State all with 4)

Division 3- 6 different National Champions since 2000. (Most is Mount Union with 9)

People can complain about the system in place and how much better a playoff would be, yet numbers show us it makes no difference. Why should teams who don’t deserve to be in the conversation get the right to play for a National Title? Earning that right week in and out on the field is important. More teams, more back dooring into a playoff you don’t deserve to be in.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Why?

Presidents control what happens. The ADs do not get a vote.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Me thinks Michigan fans want more teams because they know they will never beat Ohio State...

had you read my comments, I actually suggested going back to the BCS. I don't want more. But I'd rather have more than the current system. Make sense? BCS > 6-8 team playoff > 4 team playoff

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Never really bothered me.
I liked the back and forth debate.

And the New Years Day Bowls were voted on the next day, and usually known at the end of the night.

With the prior voting system, #1 teams knew they won championships after they won their final game. Both Michigan and Nebraska celebrated championships in 1997 after their bowl wins. If we waited for the "eye test" vote later, it would be weird. Then you start getting into style points.

 

[ericd7633]

If they are going to expand it, please don't give an AQ to every P5 conference champion. We could be a couple upsets away from having an awful playoff. Also, don't let the G5 team in automatically either. If they are top 8, that's fine, but I don't want someone ranked 20th or whatever to get in.

 

[Deep Creek]

If they are going to expand it, please don't give an AQ to every P5 conference champion. We could be a couple upsets away from having an awful playoff. Also, don't let the G5 team in automatically either. If they are top 8, that's fine, but I don't want someone ranked 20th or whatever to get in.

If it is expanded, I'm for some minimum criteria to trump AQs/G5s as well. As long as conferences have divisions, we are just one upset in a CCG from getting what you describe happening.

IMO, the best example against AQs would have been the 2011 PAC 12. Had there been a CFP with AQs in place, and had UCLA upset Oregon in the CCG, there would have been a 7-6 Conference Champion in the CFP. (And that UCLA team went on to lose to Illinois in their bowl game...which they shouldn't have been in either IMHO.)

 

[ericd7633]

If it is expanded, I'm for some minimum criteria to trump AQs/G5s as well. As long as conferences have divisions, we are just one upset in a CCG from getting what you describe happening.

IMO, the best example against AQs would have been the 2011 PAC 12. Had there been a CFP with AQs in place, and had UCLA upset Oregon in the CCG, there would have been a 7-6 Conference Champion in the CFP. (And that UCLA team went on to lose to Illinois in their bowl game...which they shouldn't have been in either IMHO.)

Just pick the 8 most deserving, regardless of conference, if that means 3/4 SEC teams so be it.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Bowl games are meaningless and honestly one of the stupidest ways in which a champion has ever been crowned. Even today with the CFP, teams going to the gator bowl, birmingham bowl, whatever... if you aren't in the playoff, they are literally consolation prizes. Pity. Pathetic and literally mean nothing. Most people don't complain simply because football and football and we will take everything, but the whole idea of bowl games is really stupid if you actually stop and think about it.

I like what the new guy said.
Just use the old Bowl system and crown a champion with the eye test.
Wasn't as definitive, which was probably better for CFB.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Just pick the 8 most deserving, regardless of conference, if that means 3/4 SEC teams so be it.

How is the 'more deserving' being decided?