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

[cwalke3408]

88% of FBS Athletic Directors Want an Expanded College Football Playoff until the 4 of the spots are all from the SEC

Will be fun to see how this plays out

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Like I said before, we are just handing out oopsies. How did it workout for Oregon losing to ASU or OSU losing to Purdue/Iowa

It worked out great. Oregon wanted no part of LSU.

 

[cwalke3408]

It worked out great. Oregon wanted no part of LSU.

For Clemson, no more worrying about our yearly blunders against UNC, Syracuse, NCST, or Pitt. Whew

 

[Deep Creek]

It worked out great. Oregon wanted no part of LSU.

No one else should have either.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Do you want to wait til December for playoff type game? For you Yes, for me nah. Conf. or Non-conf games we are losing out on must win games in the regular season where you (win -> control your own destiny) or (lose -> you must likely going to need help). Will games like Bama/LSU, PSU/OSU, OU/Baylor be the same after expanding because win or lose you still control your own destiny at the end of the day.

Like I said before, we are just handing out oopsies. How did it workout for Oregon losing to ASU or OSU losing to Purdue/Iowa

A playoff type of game? A playoff type of game to me is a playoff game. This non-con ultimately means nothing, playoff game means everything.

Will these conference games matter? Yes, because losing will hurt your chances for the playoff. It just isn't an instant dismissal.

And in the end, every team should have control of their own destiny, but only most P5 teams actually do. This doesn't remove the control of their own destiny, it adds more. In the playoffs, no matter how big it is, you control your own destiny. Win your games, you win the title. Right now, all G5 teams have no chance even if they go undefeated even though they have shown that some of these teams can actually hang with big dogs, they also deserve the right to prove that they can and if they happen to win 3-4 straight games against top dogs, they would deserve it in my opinion.

 

[cwalke3408]

A playoff type of game? A playoff type of game to me is a playoff game. This non-con ultimately means nothing, playoff game means everything.

Will these conference games matter? Yes, because losing will hurt your chances for the playoff. It just isn't an instant dismissal.

And in the end, every team should have control of their own destiny, but only most P5 teams actually do. This doesn't remove the control of their own destiny, it adds more. In the playoffs, no matter how big it is, you control your own destiny. Win your games, you win the title. Right now, all G5 teams have no chance even if they go undefeated even though they have shown that some of these teams can actually hang with big dogs, they also deserve the right to prove that they can and if they happen to win 3-4 straight games against top dogs, they would deserve it in my opinion.

"Playoff type game", "Do or Die", "Elimination game" or whatever you want to call it. Conf. or non-conf., top team showdowns in Sept, Oct, or Nov is what college football, college football. Top teams going after each other, winner keeps their dreams alive, loser is either out or praying for some help. Maybe it's not the best way or the most fair way but it's fun to watch (atleast for me).

You make a good point for G5 schools. They don't have a real shot and they should have a chance at fighting for one but some people just don't care about G5 schools that much.

For me I just enjoy turning into a late close game where a 0-1 lost team is struggling against a lower rank opponent and watching that team fight to keep their hopes alive. Expanding to 8 teams may not eliminate this all together that but why fix something that's not broken

 

[jjc2009]

More games = more money. It’s that damn simple.

 

[LawDawg]

Rule no. 1 in discussing college football playoff expansion is that you can't mess with the money. Any discussion that messes with the money is pure fantasy and a waste a time. If you don't agree with that we can respectfully agree to disagree and move on.

This means:
- 12 game regular seasons don't get dropped to 11
- CCG still have to be be played
- You have to work around the bowls

Those three things, which are often spoken of in these types of discussions, are non-starters if you try to limit them or get rid of them. For example, some of the coaches in the poll that started this discussion indicated we could do a 16 team playoff if you dropped to 11 games. Understand how stupid this idea is when you look at Rule no. 1. They are proposing that 114 teams play one less game, meaning 114 teams lose money, so that 16 teams can play an extra game. Even if you somehow come up with a way to distribute the income those 8 games generate, they don't make up for 57 lost games, including all the money they generate to the 57 local economies.

So, Rule No. 1 has to be taken into consideration when addressing some of the specific points raised here:

Hell just in my humble opinion, I hate any time a game of true value isn’t played in a dome. I don’t want a playoff or title game to be decided in a slopfest. I don’t care where the game is hosted geographically, but the bare minimum requirement should be either a dome or a retractable roof.

I agree, I was just having some fun at the expense of our northern neighbors. That said, I think the first 4 games have to be on campus in order for it to work. The cost to travel to CCG can be planned for most people, and it is normally driving distance. But CCG tickets can be expensive. Then you could have 3 playoff games ... I know what it cost to travel to the Rose Bowl in 2017, Atlanta in 2017, and a couple easily dropped $10-$15K. Throw in one more game and you are at $15K - $20K. You just can't ask that of your fans, and it will end up being corporate events, like the Super Bowl. Don't want that.

I get ya, but both teams play in the same conditions. If it is wet and rainy or cold and snowy, there isn't an inherent advantage to any team.

It's not an issue as to whether one team has an advantage, I just don't want important games to be affected by the weather. Why would anyone want the weather to dictate the outcome of a football game?

Also if we are talking about an 8 team playoff, I might be more inclined to accept 2 G5s with 1 at large assuming they meet certain criteria as well. There have been many times where 2 G5s would have met the criteria in my opinion and this also limits the number of at larges from conferences getting in. I'm sorry, but I don't want to see Bama win the SEC, then 2 at large spots going to LSU and Florida or UGA or something. Taking 2 G5s would create more parity, limit the number of same conference members getting in, and still allows a spot for when Notre Dame would qualify not that THAT is important to me at all (honestly, don't care for ND), but it wouldn't screw anything up.

We really haven't had a single G5 team that should have qualified, let alone 2 of them. The goal is still to try as close as you can to ge the best 4, best 8 if you can.

As for 3 teams from the SEC, why is that a bad thing? Your disdain for the SEC is so deep that you would rather let UCF and Cincinnati in instead of two better teams? That's not rational. And it won't always be the SEC - OU and TX; tOSU, UM, Wisky; USC and Oregon; Clemson, Miami, FSU, VaTech (ok, that's totally historic). It could just as easily be other conferences that get a couple in at-large, and I wouldn't have a problem with that all so long as they deserve it.

Sure lol but not having the CCG saves this as well. And if this model were in play back then, Bama would not have gotten in. I know some people would say that the best team wouldn't have won, but this is nonsense. How many times have we seen a team get beat in the regular season and end up playing the team they lost to in the CCG or bowl and completely turn it around. No different than what Bama did in 2011... they lost so they knew where they had to fix things in a rematch.

They would have and should have gotten in as an at-large team. This coming for the guy who lost the natty to those cousin-humping gumps. I like CCs, as that gives every P5 conference a shot, every year. But, the 3 at large teams ensures we get the best teams in the playoffs.

True. But, you very well could be better than five teams from other conferences that went undefeated in their division/conference. Why should they get in ahead of you just because they played in a lesser division/conference?

This is a really good question, and one I've fought with. But, at the end of the day it's because it's what is best for college football. It's just not good for the fans of teams in one conference (PAC, looking at you) to feel like they don't have a chance before the season begins. It likely skews recruiting to a degree, as well. The at-large bids take care of the disparity ... let's say an undeserving Washington gets in ast he 9-4 PAC champ, that's okay if 2-3 other P5 teams that "we think" are better than Washington get in as at-large bids. No harm no foul. Now, could number 9 complain they are better than Washington, in this scenario?

Because if you aren’t the best team in your conference you aren’t the best team in the country. So on the field results have eliminated you.

This has been disproven over and over again in all sports. Wild card teams have won the World Series. The Stanley Cup winner is often someone that didn't' win their division. Teams in the NFL often beat someone in the playoffs they lost to in the regular season. Same with the NBA. College football is the only sport where you get one loss and you are basically done for the year. In a lot of ways I like that because it makes the regular season mean so much. A contrary example, college basketball where the regular season has been ruined by the awesome March Madness. Again, we lost in the NC to Bama who didn't get to the SECCG. That didn't bother me a bit ... they were clearly one of the best 4 teams and they won when they needed to. I believe an 8 team playoff, with CCs (qualified) and 3 at large (or 2 at large and a qualified G5 team) will give us just enough extra teams without ruining the regular season. You are still going to need to lose 1 or less, maybe get by with 2 tough losses. And, teams will schedule better OOC - they already are - knowing they can get it in by winning their conference.

We are going to 8 ... I knew that the minute UGA and others started scheduling daunting OOC schedules of the next 15 years. I guess I knew if before then because money talks.

 

[Deep Creek]

- You have to work around the bowls

Those three things, which are often spoken of in these types of discussions, are non-starters if you try to limit them or get rid of them.

I understand your point and the money rules most things fo sho. (Why else would we have had conference realignment?) But things do change in spite of what many want...including some of the money folks.

The Rose Bowl (and a few friends) didn't even want the BCS and lobbied very, very hard against it...and even more so against a CFP type playoff. How'd that turn out? They are still a pain in the ass with their "Has to be Jan 1" crap. If they had their way, we'd go back to the old bowl system so things do move along...even for the money mongers.

 

[Myles]

How is the 'more deserving' being decided?

There are rankings all throughout the season. The final rankings would all but select the best 8 teams, but 7-10 could flip flop. For the most part, it would have 1 team from each of the power 5 each season with 1 other conference and 2 other teams from the power 5.

 

[Myles]

"Playoff type game", "Do or Die", "Elimination game" or whatever you want to call it. Conf. or non-conf., top team showdowns in Sept, Oct, or Nov is what college football, college football. Top teams going after each other, winner keeps their dreams alive, loser is either out or praying for some help. Maybe it's not the best way or the most fair way but it's fun to watch (atleast for me).

You make a good point for G5 schools. They don't have a real shot and they should have a chance at fighting for one but some people just don't care about G5 schools that much.

For me I just enjoy turning into a late close game where a 0-1 lost team is struggling against a lower rank opponent and watching that team fight to keep their hopes alive. Expanding to 8 teams may not eliminate this all together that but why fix something that's not broken

It is broken. Going to 8 teams fixes it.
I think it would also lead to better out of conference games being played. Teams may not feel the need to play cupcakes only if they can still make the top 8 with a loss. Getting the #1 seed would still be huge.

 

[LawDawg]

It is broken. Going to 8 teams fixes it.
I think it would also lead to better out of conference games being played. Teams may not feel the need to play cupcakes only if they can still make the top 8 with a loss. Getting the #1 seed would still be huge.

The OOC scheduling is already playing out. The top teams are scheduling touch OOC well into the 2030s. Hell UGA plays Clemson, Texas and GaTech in one year, and Clemson, FSU and GaTech in another. We have H&A series with OU, tOSU, UT, FSU, Clemson (5 total games in the next 15 years) ... of the top of my head.

Getting seeds 1-4 will be key as I suspect those games will be played at home. Can you imagine the atmosphere at those games?

 

[Deep Creek]

The OOC scheduling is already playing out. The top teams are scheduling touch OOC well into the 2030s. Hell UGA plays Clemson, Texas and GaTech in one year, and Clemson, FSU and GaTech in another. We have H&A series with OU, tOSU, UT, FSU, Clemson (5 total games in the next 15 years) ... of the top of my head.

Getting seeds 1-4 will be key as I suspect those games will be played at home. Can you imagine the atmosphere at those games?

They are definitely scheduling better OOC IMO. My hope is, whatever the CFP selection process turns out to be, is that those schools scheduling bett OOC don't punished for it just because they drop one of them. In fact, I hope they reward them and punish teams for not even attempting to play good OOC teams. But hey, that's just me. There seems to be a whole lot of people that like the fact that teams schedule crappy OOC games.

 

[LawDawg]

They are definitely scheduling better OOC IMO. My hope is, whatever the CFP selection process turns out to be, is that those schools scheduling bett OOC don't punished for it just because they drop one of them. In fact, I hope they reward them and punish teams for not even attempting to play good OOC teams. But hey, that's just me. There seems to be a whole lot of people that like the fact that teams schedule crappy OOC games.

The great OOC games are the most fun that I have. Traveled to ASU, Colorado, Notre Dame. That away game in ND when we took over their stadium was the best football trip I've been on. And, them coming to Athens was a great weekend. Can't wait to go to OU, tOSU, UT, etc. Would have loved to have gone to Oregon away, but that got canceled. I have a feeling they will encourage those types of games or we wouldn't be seeing them scheduled.

 

[Deep Creek]

www.yahoo.com/sports/why-the-fiscal-fallout-from-covid-19-will-lead-to-college-football-playoff-expansion-160851276.html

Never thought about the cycling out of the old guard.

One of the refreshing perspectives from speaking to officials around the sport is that some of the next generation of leaders are annoyed with the postseason still being tethered to the bowl system. Essentially, college sports are still outsourcing their most valuable inventory. That has always been dumb.

The AD, who is at a school that’s perennially in the top 20, put it this way: Observe the actions and habits of the fans and players, the sport’s two most important constituencies. Fans care exponentially less about non-playoff bowl games than they do College Football Playoff games. Elite players are tipping their hand — wisely, by the way— by sitting out non-playoff bowl games.

“There’s two really important groups to whom bowls don’t matter – players and fans,” the athletic director said. “Has a [healthy] player sat out a playoff game yet? Well, why don’t we play more of those? That’s just Marketing 101. What do they want? Give them more. What don’t they want? Give them less.”

 

[Rolltide94]

Rule no. 1 in discussing college football playoff expansion is that you can't mess with the money. Any discussion that messes with the money is pure fantasy and a waste a time. If you don't agree with that we can respectfully agree to disagree and move on.

This means:
- 12 game regular seasons don't get dropped to 11
- CCG still have to be be played
- You have to work around the bowls

Those three things, which are often spoken of in these types of discussions, are non-starters if you try to limit them or get rid of them. For example, some of the coaches in the poll that started this discussion indicated we could do a 16 team playoff if you dropped to 11 games. Understand how stupid this idea is when you look at Rule no. 1. They are proposing that 114 teams play one less game, meaning 114 teams lose money, so that 16 teams can play an extra game. Even if you somehow come up with a way to distribute the income those 8 games generate, they don't make up for 57 lost games, including all the money they generate to the 57 local economies.

So, Rule No. 1 has to be taken into consideration when addressing some of the specific points raised here:

I agree, I was just having some fun at the expense of our northern neighbors. That said, I think the first 4 games have to be on campus in order for it to work. The cost to travel to CCG can be planned for most people, and it is normally driving distance. But CCG tickets can be expensive. Then you could have 3 playoff games ... I know what it cost to travel to the Rose Bowl in 2017, Atlanta in 2017, and a couple easily dropped $10-$15K. Throw in one more game and you are at $15K - $20K. You just can't ask that of your fans, and it will end up being corporate events, like the Super Bowl. Don't want that.

It's not an issue as to whether one team has an advantage, I just don't want important games to be affected by the weather. Why would anyone want the weather to dictate the outcome of a football game?

We really haven't had a single G5 team that should have qualified, let alone 2 of them. The goal is still to try as close as you can to ge the best 4, best 8 if you can.

As for 3 teams from the SEC, why is that a bad thing? Your disdain for the SEC is so deep that you would rather let UCF and Cincinnati in instead of two better teams? That's not rational. And it won't always be the SEC - OU and TX; tOSU, UM, Wisky; USC and Oregon; Clemson, Miami, FSU, VaTech (ok, that's totally historic). It could just as easily be other conferences that get a couple in at-large, and I wouldn't have a problem with that all so long as they deserve it.


They would have and should have gotten in as an at-large team. This coming for the guy who lost the natty to those cousin-humping gumps. I like CCs, as that gives every P5 conference a shot, every year. But, the 3 at large teams ensures we get the best teams in the playoffs.

This is a really good question, and one I've fought with. But, at the end of the day it's because it's what is best for college football. It's just not good for the fans of teams in one conference (PAC, looking at you) to feel like they don't have a chance before the season begins. It likely skews recruiting to a degree, as well. The at-large bids take care of the disparity ... let's say an undeserving Washington gets in ast he 9-4 PAC champ, that's okay if 2-3 other P5 teams that "we think" are better than Washington get in as at-large bids. No harm no foul. Now, could number 9 complain they are better than Washington, in this scenario?

This has been disproven over and over again in all sports. Wild card teams have won the World Series. The Stanley Cup winner is often someone that didn't' win their division. Teams in the NFL often beat someone in the playoffs they lost to in the regular season. Same with the NBA. College football is the only sport where you get one loss and you are basically done for the year. In a lot of ways I like that because it makes the regular season mean so much. A contrary example, college basketball where the regular season has been ruined by the awesome March Madness. Again, we lost in the NC to Bama who didn't get to the SECCG. That didn't bother me a bit ... they were clearly one of the best 4 teams and they won when they needed to. I believe an 8 team playoff, with CCs (qualified) and 3 at large (or 2 at large and a qualified G5 team) will give us just enough extra teams without ruining the regular season. You are still going to need to lose 1 or less, maybe get by with 2 tough losses. And, teams will schedule better OOC - they already are - knowing they can get it in by winning their conference.

We are going to 8 ... I knew that the minute UGA and others started scheduling daunting OOC schedules of the next 15 years. I guess I knew if before then because money talks.

I find myself agreeing with almost all your points...and I'm not sure I like it.

 

[theboardref]

They are definitely scheduling better OOC IMO. My hope is, whatever the CFP selection process turns out to be, is that those schools scheduling bett OOC don't punished for it just because they drop one of them. In fact, I hope they reward them and punish teams for not even attempting to play good OOC teams. But hey, that's just me. There seems to be a whole lot of people that like the fact that teams schedule crappy OOC games.

As long as it is a panel of humans, they can change the guidelines for what constitutes as a strong OOC game or do whatever they want. Bama’s OOC schedule wasn’t an issue this year until they lost a second game. The committee can say/do whatever they please.

 

[CJH9972]

As long as it is a panel of humans, they can change the guidelines for what constitutes as a strong OOC game or do whatever they want. Bama’s OOC schedule wasn’t an issue this year until they lost a second game. The committee can say/do whatever they please.

Alabama should have been eliminated before their second loss with their schedule. As it is, the sport needs rules that compel stronger scheduling and let teams know what it takes overcome more losses like a two loss team jumping a one loss team. So far, the committee has picked four P5 teams with fewest losses all six years.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Rule no. 1 in discussing college football playoff expansion is that you can't mess with the money. Any discussion that messes with the money is pure fantasy and a waste a time. If you don't agree with that we can respectfully agree to disagree and move on.

This means:
- 12 game regular seasons don't get dropped to 11
- CCG still have to be be played
- You have to work around the bowls

Those three things, which are often spoken of in these types of discussions, are non-starters if you try to limit them or get rid of them. For example, some of the coaches in the poll that started this discussion indicated we could do a 16 team playoff if you dropped to 11 games. Understand how stupid this idea is when you look at Rule no. 1. They are proposing that 114 teams play one less game, meaning 114 teams lose money, so that 16 teams can play an extra game. Even if you somehow come up with a way to distribute the income those 8 games generate, they don't make up for 57 lost games, including all the money they generate to the 57 local economies.

So, Rule No. 1 has to be taken into consideration when addressing some of the specific points raised here:

I agree, I was just having some fun at the expense of our northern neighbors. That said, I think the first 4 games have to be on campus in order for it to work. The cost to travel to CCG can be planned for most people, and it is normally driving distance. But CCG tickets can be expensive. Then you could have 3 playoff games ... I know what it cost to travel to the Rose Bowl in 2017, Atlanta in 2017, and a couple easily dropped $10-$15K. Throw in one more game and you are at $15K - $20K. You just can't ask that of your fans, and it will end up being corporate events, like the Super Bowl. Don't want that.

It's not an issue as to whether one team has an advantage, I just don't want important games to be affected by the weather. Why would anyone want the weather to dictate the outcome of a football game?

We really haven't had a single G5 team that should have qualified, let alone 2 of them. The goal is still to try as close as you can to ge the best 4, best 8 if you can.

As for 3 teams from the SEC, why is that a bad thing? Your disdain for the SEC is so deep that you would rather let UCF and Cincinnati in instead of two better teams? That's not rational. And it won't always be the SEC - OU and TX; tOSU, UM, Wisky; USC and Oregon; Clemson, Miami, FSU, VaTech (ok, that's totally historic). It could just as easily be other conferences that get a couple in at-large, and I wouldn't have a problem with that all so long as they deserve it.


They would have and should have gotten in as an at-large team. This coming for the guy who lost the natty to those cousin-humping gumps. I like CCs, as that gives every P5 conference a shot, every year. But, the 3 at large teams ensures we get the best teams in the playoffs.

This is a really good question, and one I've fought with. But, at the end of the day it's because it's what is best for college football. It's just not good for the fans of teams in one conference (PAC, looking at you) to feel like they don't have a chance before the season begins. It likely skews recruiting to a degree, as well. The at-large bids take care of the disparity ... let's say an undeserving Washington gets in ast he 9-4 PAC champ, that's okay if 2-3 other P5 teams that "we think" are better than Washington get in as at-large bids. No harm no foul. Now, could number 9 complain they are better than Washington, in this scenario?

This has been disproven over and over again in all sports. Wild card teams have won the World Series. The Stanley Cup winner is often someone that didn't' win their division. Teams in the NFL often beat someone in the playoffs they lost to in the regular season. Same with the NBA. College football is the only sport where you get one loss and you are basically done for the year. In a lot of ways I like that because it makes the regular season mean so much. A contrary example, college basketball where the regular season has been ruined by the awesome March Madness. Again, we lost in the NC to Bama who didn't get to the SECCG. That didn't bother me a bit ... they were clearly one of the best 4 teams and they won when they needed to. I believe an 8 team playoff, with CCs (qualified) and 3 at large (or 2 at large and a qualified G5 team) will give us just enough extra teams without ruining the regular season. You are still going to need to lose 1 or less, maybe get by with 2 tough losses. And, teams will schedule better OOC - they already are - knowing they can get it in by winning their conference.

We are going to 8 ... I knew that the minute UGA and others started scheduling daunting OOC schedules of the next 15 years. I guess I knew if before then because money talks.

• You talk about non starters while introducing "rule 1", a non sequitur. Is money important? Absolutely. But it is nonsense to act like it is the only factor. 11 game schedules were a thing for a while. CCGs are still technically a new thing, even the B12 didn't have one recently... and they didn't add it for the money, they made it very clear they added it to increase their chances of a playoff berth. As for bowls... fuck bowls, stupid and a waste.

• I was not saying that I wanted or didn't care whether or not weather impacted a game, I am sure we all would like every team to be at its utmost best all the time, but this isn't realistic. My point was merely that the weather is not an excuse as both teams play under the same conditions.

• Why is 3 SEC teams a bad thing? Because no one outside the SEC wants to see that. Secondly, all it would do is validate these nonsensical preseason rankings the rewards SEC teams for playing... you guessed it, SEC teams. You know what is good for CFB?? PARITY. I don't have any disdain for the SEC, your homerism is showing. I only picked the SEC because similar things have happened twice recently with the SEC.

• It's not rational? Better teams? You don't KNOW these teams aren't better, you are assuming. We have seen many top G5 teams knock off some top level P5 teams. So until you can know, all teams should be given a fair chance to prove their worth.

• And as an at-large team, they very well could have lost in the additional games. I am not saying that 2011 Alabama did not win the title, they did. I think it was done on bad parameters, but nonetheless whether they were deserving or not, whether they were the best team or not, they were the one that was given the opportunity and they made the most of it. And regardless of what you might want to believe, more opportunity to everyone else is better for CFB.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Alabama should have been eliminated before their second loss with their schedule. As it is, the sport needs rules that compel stronger scheduling and let teams know what it takes overcome more losses like a two loss team jumping a one loss team. So far, the committee has picked four P5 teams with fewest losses all six years.

CFB needs a real governing body in my opinion. Take realignment away, take schedules away. You want more money through playing better teams, then prove you can beat the other teams. I have said this many times, but this is what should happen in my opinion... minus the recruiting part though I do believe things should change for recruiting.