Current NCAA system systematically keeping playoffs exclusive.
What has helped the NFL become so popular across the nation is that the league has figured out a way to keep everyone in the game. It's why they schedule like they do and its why they draft like they do. By keeping some level of parity everyone's team will or should have a chance (Unless you have some really bad ownership like the Lions). The new college playoff system works totally against this philosophy. It has become increasingly apparent that most high school elite athletes are front runners. They have been taught that their easiest path to the NFL is through exposure and they can look best by being surrounded by other top level players. The programs that were strongest when the system first went into place have reaped the rewards of the top four and five star athletes. The rest of the programs are stuck on the outside looking in. Yes you might get the occasional team that slips into the playoffs but this isn't going to change enough minds to make a big sway in recruiting. There's really only two things that could possibly change this current conundrum. The NCAA figures out that only having a select number of teams making the playoffs year in and out is bad for the sport and they change (expand) the play-off format, or when the courts rule that paying players will be allowed, how this pay system is structured may determine that players will go where they can get a better share of these dollars. Until one of these things happens you might as well get used to the fact that there will only be a couple of top tier teams and the rest will just be picking up the scraps as bottom feeders. With this said, kudos to those players that step outside of this front runner philosophy and truly want to try and get a team outside of the top tier to the playoffs. Thoughts?
December 1st, 2019 at 5:54 PM ^
I agree that the current system is self-perpetuating. Players want to be in the playoffs, so they gravitate to schools that have been in the playoffs. The Big Ten was more fun in the 1960’s when a variety of schools won championships. If I remember correctly, Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, MSU, OSU and Michigan each won a title between 1959 and 1968. That’s how you keep people overall engaged and interested. At least we won’t have to watch Alabama in this year’s playoffs.
December 1st, 2019 at 5:57 PM ^
My thoughts are this sport fucking sucks.
You have 4-6 teams that have a shot to get to the “playoff”.
Some playoff. Sounds like they just added an extra game and swapped the BCS computers with people.
4/130 teams in the “playoff”. 3% of college football.
3%. Either go all in with it and get a 32 team tournament like Division II and III (D3 which has academic first focus. Hmm no problem for them) or get rid of the “playoff” and go back to bowl games with polls voting mythical champions.
This in between sucks. The idea that if you aren’t part of 4/130 your season is a failure and meaningless makes me ask “why even bother?” since the playoff teams all cheat.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:08 PM ^
It is still about winning all 12 games in the regular season which really counts for something. The strength of schedule should count for more so the elite program do not load up with cupcakes to play during the regular season. This will justify your 4/130 argument. So, lose once early in the season, then must run the table and win out. Lose once in Nov and chances are slimmer unless your play an Top 10 team in loss. Lose twice, and your out, like this year's 'Bama.
December 1st, 2019 at 7:16 PM ^
Yeah man, but Clemson’s biggest game was like Wake Forest. All things aren’t equal. I think we could give Clemson a pretty good fight but we will never know because we play four legit Top 20 teams every year and you can’t win every game.
A big part of me hopes that Ohio State face-pounds everybody in the Playoff do that it isn’t just assumed that Clemson and the winner of LSU/Alabama is not automatically best-team-ever.
December 1st, 2019 at 8:08 PM ^
I used to think that way, but it's just too hard to go 12-0. We've done it literally once in 70 years.
A playoff that allows a 10-2 team to get in isn't so bad.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:12 PM ^
I know that a lot of people give you crap on this blog but your comments post-OSU are the most rational out there.
Could not agree more. The playoffs has resulted in a mentality that unless you are Alabama (most years), OSU, Oklahoma, LSU, Georgia or Clemson, your season was a complete failure. It really sucks.
I don’t think we need to go to 32, but a playoff season of 16 or even 8 would work fine. Too many teams are out of it halfway through the season. Even look at our team - post-PSU we went on a great run, but our excitement was limited because we were effectively out of it since week 6.
December 1st, 2019 at 7:43 PM ^
I initially was for keeping it at 4, but I've changed my mind. The playoffs completely changed how people view success, bowl games, etc. And it's made recruiting for all but literally 4 or so programs much harder. I think 8 would be enough, maybe there's a way to do 10 with byes. You'd have at large spots. You could get in with a good season even without having to beat Alabama, OSU consistently. That's something you can sell to recruits. Even conference championships hardly matter except for the boost it gives to your playoff resume. Some champ from the big 12 or pac 12 is going to be left out this year and they're not gonna be satisfied having won a conference. They're going to feel they got screwed over.
December 1st, 2019 at 8:20 PM ^
I also changed my mind. I used to not want any, or at least have the fewest teams possible. But the impact on recruiting is making the season brutal.
December 1st, 2019 at 8:49 PM ^
if you think NIL levels it out...hows that going right now? Yet somehow expectations of Michigan money cannons are going to bring all the recruits to a 9 win program when...they can win, get NIL money and Bag money...yeah sure...sign me up
After athletes get the right to profit from their likeness, bag money becomes legit. It won't be cheating anymore to do it. It will simply go above board. There's no reason to doubt that our boosters would step up to the plate in that instance.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:22 PM ^
They should either go to a 8 team system or just throw away the CFP all together.
Bring back BCS computers and force teams to schedule harder teams. Get the human polling out of it completely. Then you'll see a lot more parity imo.
December 1st, 2019 at 7:45 PM ^
If you ranked them by SP+, teams would schedule easier teams and just get good rankings by pounding bad teams.
December 1st, 2019 at 7:21 PM ^
Media outlets work hard to sell the thing, but college football is in crisis.
December 1st, 2019 at 7:38 PM ^
This perfectly sums up my feelings as well. Very well put WD
December 1st, 2019 at 7:46 PM ^
With the NCAA staring down the barrel of professionalism, the current iteration of the CFP probably doesn't have long to live due to the reasons you noted.
December 2nd, 2019 at 1:46 AM ^
Every time people mention “even D3 has a 32 team playoff” they don’t add the fact that D3 only plays a 10 game schedule. Many of the teams play 8 or 9 conference games and only 1 or 2 OOC games. Teams only have 5 home games most years. There are no conference championship games because it is settled on the field since you play every team in your conference every year.
And the same 4 teams have dominated the D3 college playoffs for going on 25+ years.
But sure, make it sound like it would be easy to implement a 32 team playoff at the FBS level.
December 2nd, 2019 at 7:29 AM ^
The exclusivity and elitism of college football are exactly the things that make it awesome. I would hate an NFL parity system in college. It's fucking fantastic that there are like 10-15 schools that are great year in and year out--that tradition and excellence is rewarded and that's great. I don't want some group of five team in the playoffs, I want blue bloods and the occasional upstart Power five school (like Minnesota before they lost Saturday) having the only chance to be in the playoff. That's why the best playoff system is few schools, 6 would be good but anything more than 8 terrible.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:00 PM ^
Bingo. The best path would be for teams to go independent and schedule a soft schedule so you can go undefeated.
Maybe once pay to play starts some programs like USC, UM and others can buy their way into the conversation.
I truly believe Delany has made it clear to his crews to not allow for their top program to falter. He saw OSU be left out because the Big Ten is much weaker than the SEC and he will never chance that again.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:06 PM ^
Doesn't matter what Delaney wants anymore, he's leaving. But having that 9th Big 10 game is what killed OSU twice.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:01 PM ^
Am still against more than a 6 team playoff system where the top 2 get a bye and let 3 through 6 play in. The current top 4 prove their quality by running the table during the 12 game regular season. The current playoff committee is a sham. Last week they had Michigan ranked 13th and should have been 10th like in the AP poll, then we wouldn't have fallen so far by losing to Ohio State. Might not mean anything.
There are a lot folks who would like to see the 8 or 16 team playoff system and will argue for it.
The current committee of 12 or 13 members plays favorites. For example, was 'Bama really #5 before the Auburn loss? Shouldn't they drop out the Top 10 this week?-I would hope so.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:25 PM ^
Why even have a committee? Devise a computer formula and roll with it. Take out the human biases. There’s only one reason to have a committee —so you can manipulate things to get the teams in you want.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:41 PM ^
They had that. It was called the BCS. It sucked and everyone hated it.
December 1st, 2019 at 10:05 PM ^
I was saying this when the BCS existed. They should have had it completely blind. Like no BCS ranking released. It just came out at the end and how it came out is how it came out. This way you don't people politicking with the pollsters to manipulate crap right at the very end. You vote. Computers do their thing and you then you see the results
December 1st, 2019 at 6:44 PM ^
Computers are programmed by humans and they can code their biases.
December 1st, 2019 at 7:47 PM ^
You're mostly right that the top 4 prove their quality. The problem is the playoffs have kind of ruined the rest of the sport, so they need to be more inclusive.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:02 PM ^
You're not wrong. Every year, it's been Alabama, Clemson, OSU, Oklahoma, plus or minus one of those teams.
Go back to the bowls, let the Big 10 Champ play the Pac 10 Champ in the Rose bowl and figure it out from there. Whilst you are at that, you can get off my lawn. This is turning me into a grumpy old man, well before my time.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:02 PM ^
Generally agree with you. But expanding the playoffs would be unlikely to create parity now, IMO. Say we somehow go in, we’d probably be one and done at the hands of Clemson or something.
Also, the NCAA cares about money, and college football is rolling in money, so hey don’t really see the same problem that Michigan fans see.
Assuming the NCAA even wants parity, some ideas including a pay system that allows non-elite teams to compete financially. The NCAA could also force harder schedules on better teams, like the NFL.
They could also make fundamental changes to recruiting. For example, limit the number of players each team can recruit. This, teams that want to recruit exclusively 5*s run the risk of being left empty handed. There could also be something loosely akin to medical students matching in residency. For example, all offers from all school go out the same day, and all acceptances come in simultaneously at another time. That way you don’t get to work our way from 5*s down to 4*s, rather, you cast your lot with certain recruits and hope they like you back.
But again, I don’t the NCAA sees a parity problem the same way we see it. Thus the best eat seems to be paying players, which may get forced on the NCAA whether they like it or not. But again, big caveat is that OSU and Bama might just outspend everyone and maintain their status at the top
December 1st, 2019 at 6:44 PM ^
Once it becomes fully legal for schools and their supporters to pay players, we will be a top tier program. There isn't a single other school with our overall financial resources.
December 1st, 2019 at 7:14 PM ^
Just don't agree. The NCAA will come out with rules that state how to pay and how much. Mich and others will abide by them and the bagmen will pay on TOP of that. Unless they don't put a limit on how much can be paid, it won't be a ton different unless M starts with their own bagman. I hope I am wrong but I don't see it.
December 1st, 2019 at 8:48 PM ^
True, unless they take 10% or so and fund a truly independent investigating unit - NOT THE NCAA - that reports to a blue ribbon committee of university presidents and ADs. All this unit does is investigate suspected payments through unofficial channels. Any player found getting more than the stated amount is ineligible and schools forfeit wins. Just like it's supposed to be now but the NCAA is toothless, mindless and gutless.
Divide all the TV money between schools and players like the pros do with teams and players. Schools keep their own gate, licensing, concessions and local media money.
The tough nut to crack will be policing name, likeness and image money. That should go to the players, but maybe it goes in escrow until they use up their eligibility to lessen the immediate impact of payoffs described as sponsor or image use money.
Geez, this ain't easy.
December 1st, 2019 at 8:55 PM ^
Now you are talking! No way this happens, but we can dream
December 1st, 2019 at 10:12 PM ^
Yes the top programs will conspire to stay on top.
December 1st, 2019 at 8:50 PM ^
I am as hopefully as anyone, but I am also a bit cautious. It's not like the school will spend every dime on football players, and OSU will pay up to protect their status as the pack leader. Plus, the NLI paradigm requires athletes to actually promote their image to make money, and I don't doubt that OSU jerseys and TV commercials will be lined up for them perfectly.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:02 PM ^
This makes perfect sense: They have been taught that their easiest path to the NFL is through exposure and they can look best by being surrounded by other top level players.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:04 PM ^
I have been saying this for some time. This will change when/if the money dries up. People need to stop watching the playoffs. Not likely to happen.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:27 PM ^
I’m doing my part. I haven’t watched a playoff game in three years.
December 1st, 2019 at 9:38 PM ^
I haven't watched any, ever. I switch to basketball after the annual OSU loss.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:06 PM ^
Sour grapes.
The ncaa has no interest in enforcing its rules. At this point the reason we arent with the big boys is because we dont want to do what it takes to get there.
Maybe name in likeness will help take some of the taboo away. At this point I'd rather see us compete with the ivies and drop scholarships. That would be a true even playing field. But that could be my bpone talking.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:09 PM ^
Top 16 and get on with it. Which means this year Michigan would be left out anyway.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:14 PM ^
I think that it is inevitable for the CFP to expand to more teams.
One challenge is to figure out how to do it so that non-CFP bowls do not lose so much viewership, resulting in a net loss in overall revenue.
Right now, there are about 80 teams in bowls each year.
I'd like to see something like a 32-team CFP and a 32-team tier-2 championship, sort of like the basketball NCAA tournament and the NIT tournament, so that we stay close to those 80 teams in bowl games.
NCAA FCS has a 16-team playoff; NCAA division II has a 24-team playoff; and NCAA division III has a 32-team playoff, so larger playoffs are already working in NCAA football.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:14 PM ^
My guess is that if Michigan were a consistent player in the playoff picture, these threads would not be created.
The BCS/Bowl system and determining a champion from voters was one of the single worst things the NCAA has done.
Sure, the playoff could use some tweaking, but it's FAR superior to what it used to be.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:34 PM ^
Is it though? Is college football really better than it was 20 years ago? Personally, I’d much rather go back to the days when January 1st was the holiest of of holy days in the life of a college football fan. Why was it so important to have one champion? Why was it so important to “decide it on the field”? The debate was what made college football unique and great. Now, it’s just a really poor version of the NFL.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:39 PM ^
Yes, it is.
We still, to this day, bitch about how bad Michigan got screwed in 97 because the coaches wanted to send Osborne off with a gift.
Tradition is overrated. Sorry, just how I feel. The system back in the day was flawed, and was the source of a TON of screaming and yelling.
How often, in the modern playoff system, has the committee been wrong? It has been pretty easy to determine the top 4 in the land. There has been a case here and there for the five, but this is the best system currently.
December 1st, 2019 at 7:32 PM ^
I don't bitch about 1997...it's still a fun debate to this day! I was 12 so, maybe that's part of the reason but then again, maybe us as fans should all be more like naive, aspiring 12 year olds and not asshole adults who act like 5 year olds.
December 1st, 2019 at 7:49 PM ^
Same here. 97 was awesome.
December 1st, 2019 at 9:59 PM ^
97 was great. The point is that they have is will continue to be the haves and everyone else gets screwed. And you’re crazy if you don’t think that includes us.
December 1st, 2019 at 7:29 PM ^
Exactly. It's NOT better than before the explosion of the bowl games and the idiotic conference 'championship' games and the playoffs.
There is more cheating and more money causing problems and top players and coaches get passes on not being there to "play school", looking the other way at the bag men, looking the other way at assault, etc.
December 1st, 2019 at 7:51 PM ^
Uh... You don't think this stuff was going on in the 80s and 90s?
Nostalgia is really dangerous.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:24 PM ^
Eight teams would be good.
December 2nd, 2019 at 7:07 AM ^
You don’t need 8 teams to figure the champion. The top 4 has gotten the champion correct every time and it will again this year. I have no interest in seeing a 9-3 team enter the playoff.
December 1st, 2019 at 6:28 PM ^
OSU has made the playoffs twice. Other teams that have made the playoffs include Michigan State, Florida State, Oregon, Notre Dame and Washington, and LSU is about to get in for the first time. There’s also a great chance Utah gets in this year. 10 different teams have gotten in so far, and likely 12 after this year. That’s really not bad considering this is what, year 6 of the playoffs? And in case you haven’t noticed, there isn’t tremendous parity in the nfl when the same team wins virtually every year