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

[Deep Creek]

Forgot OSU.

Bama actually validated their placement in the CFP by winning a natty the year they got in without participating in their CCG. Such is part of the reason I'd be willing to let others in...even if some have less than stellar credentials. Bama proved on the field they were the best. They wouldn't have gotten such an opportunity if the old BCS. I'm for giving more "opportunity" to prove things on the playoff field as well as the regular season field. I'm not buying the diminishing the regular season logic. If expansion means more potentially questionable teams get a spot, so be it. They'll get their asses handed to them in the first round...similar to what is happening now. We still watch them in the droves.

 

[theboardref]

Bama actually validated their placement in the CFP by winning a natty the year they got in without participating in their CCG. Such is part of the reason I'd be willing to let others in...even if some have less than stellar credentials. Bama proved on the field they were the best. They wouldn't have gotten such an opportunity if the old BCS. I'm for giving more "opportunity" to prove things on the playoff field as well as the regular season field. I'm not buying the diminishing the regular season logic. If expansion means more potentially questionable teams get a spot, so be it. They'll get their asses handed to them in the first round...similar to what is happening now. We still watch them in the droves.

I believe in earning your way in. Sitting at home, drinking beers on Championship Saturday isn’t earning your way in. You may have the most talented team, but if your standing doesn’t reflect that it’s a big oh well. You shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt, because you know if it wasn’t Bama and Ohio State and it was Missouri and Indiana they wouldn’t have gotten in.

 

[cclxxxvdicere]

Too many games for the players, too much travel, on short notice and during the holiday season, for the fans.

Leave it at 4.

 

[ericd7633]

Well that's part of the problem. I agree that having no losses is the absolute best thing any team can do to make a case for anything, but schedules are made well in advance and what looked good might not by the time it rolls around. Like-wise due to stupid ass preseason rankings. A team could play 4-5 ranked teams, but only 1 of those teams was good enough to finish ranked. Too subjective, open to interpretation and error in my opinion.

You'll have 12/13 data points to use going into the final cfp ranking. Preseason rankings shouldn't even be considered. Also, no losses is obviously good, but that has to be coupled with having good wins/having played a good schedule. Simply giving a team AQ status by winning a conference has the chance to water it down.

 

[We Are Decent]

I see no problem in expansion.

 

[CJH9972]

Oh no! The "sanctity" of regular season that depends on a two class system and weak OOC scheduling will be harmed.

 

[CJH9972]

I absolutely agree with the pre-season ranking argument. I think part of what causes these to remain are, how else are the average fan going to know what game they are supposed to watch without a team being assigned a numerical value.

The average fan needs a made up number next to a team's name to decide what games to watch?

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I believe in earning your way in. Sitting at home, drinking beers on Championship Saturday isn’t earning your way in. You may have the most talented team, but if your standing doesn’t reflect that it’s a big oh well. You shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt, because you know if it wasn’t Bama and Ohio State and it was Missouri and Indiana they wouldn’t have gotten in.

We could expand to 16 and just get rid of the CCG and take division winners, still leaves 6 at large. No byes. No Saturdays off. I love it lol.

 

[theboardref]

We could expand to 16 and just get rid of the CCG and take division winners, still leaves 6 at large. No byes. No Saturdays off. I love it lol.

Pass

 

[theboardref]

The average fan needs a made up number next to a team's name to decide what games to watch?

It was more sarcasm.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

You'll have 12/13 data points to use going into the final cfp ranking. Preseason rankings shouldn't even be considered. Also, no losses is obviously good, but that has to be coupled with having good wins/having played a good schedule. Simply giving a team AQ status by winning a conference has the chance to water it down.

Sure I hear ya, but what about those teams who had a tough schedule, but by the time that year rolls around all of those teams suck, the conference is down, etc... they go on and go undefeated, where are their "good" wins? It isn't their fault, they did all they could do.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Pass

Why?

Conference winner sounds nice and all, but in the end it is also ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of the national title. CCGs don't really seem to serve a purpose beyond screwing up one teams hopes (typically).

 

[theboardref]

Why?

Conference winner sounds nice and all, but in the end it is also ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of the national title. CCGs don't really seem to serve a purpose beyond screwing up one teams hopes (typically).

I don’t want 6-6 UCLA in the playoffs that would have 12 teams too many competing?

 

[CJH9972]

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?

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I don’t want 6-6 UCLA in the playoffs that would have 12 teams too many competing?

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.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

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?

Honestly, I don't think much will change either way unless something is done in terms of scheduling and/or recruiting.

 

[CJH9972]

Honestly, I don't think much will change either way unless something is done in terms of scheduling and/or recruiting.

Agreed. I wonder if a larger playoff and rules rather than voting could impact scheduling and recruiting in a positive way if the goal is to promote greater parity. Who knows what so many schools particularly G5 teams could do with a system where they control their destiny?

 

[theboardref]

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.

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?

 

[Deep Creek]

I believe in earning your way in. Sitting at home, drinking beers on Championship Saturday isn’t earning your way in. You may have the most talented team, but if your standing doesn’t reflect that it’s a big oh well. You shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt, because you know if it wasn’t Bama and Ohio State and it was Missouri and Indiana they wouldn’t have gotten in.

I agree 100% that the name on the jersey makes a difference. Maybe not overtly, but still there. But, I disagree on the other part. I have no problem letting real good teams in that just happen to be in the tougher division of the conference. To me they "earned" it more than some that are in easier divisions/conferences...even if they didn't play in the CCG. But, that is JMO.

 

[Deep Creek]

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?

This may need its own thread. Good question IMO.