Per Sports Illustrated- new 12 team playoff being discussed
According to sports illustrated a new 12 team proposal is being talked about. Same as before but one difference, 1 g5 team is guaranteed a spot.
https://www.si.com/college/2021/11/11/college-football-playoff-12-teams-alternate-format-proposed
I personally think it should be a very standard format. 16 teams, all 10 conference champions qualify. 6 at large bids should be plenty to take care of any oddities any given year. A true playoff should have a defined guaranteed path of inclusion for all teams within that sport. Any format being decided by polls and committees is simply an invitational. This allows teams to settle it on the field. I also believe this can help the sport as a whole in the future. Most seem to look at these proposals and only consider them from our perspective today, not considering that a change like this to the system can have major effects on the future. I would think with a little more inclusion we could see much better competition down the road.
November 12th, 2021 at 2:52 PM ^
Even the previous system had blowouts. They're unavoidable.
November 12th, 2021 at 6:38 PM ^
If you stay at 4, the sport won't exist in 10 years.
November 11th, 2021 at 11:13 PM ^
nah, so way should we ever see CMU vs Alabama, UTSA vs Georgia, Utah State vs LSU in a tournament. They'd all lose by 60.
November 11th, 2021 at 11:59 PM ^
And the fans of Alabama, Georgia, and LSU would love to see a playoff home game against any of those teams. Who cares if they’re blowouts. March Madness includes frequent blowouts and people still watch.
November 12th, 2021 at 12:12 AM ^
It’s more football and more relevant football. The current system is losing viewership every year. Maybe because it’s not that good.
November 12th, 2021 at 12:39 PM ^
The sport cannot handle having the same region producing the only teams in the title hunt every season. There has to be more effort done to make sure every region of the country has SOMEONE that locals can get behind.
November 12th, 2021 at 1:44 PM ^
Yeah, who wants a playoff system that leads to 28+ point score differentials?
November 12th, 2021 at 4:06 PM ^
So CMU or UTSA would do about as well as Oklahoma or Washington.
November 11th, 2021 at 11:22 PM ^
A 12-team playoff with the first round played on campus? Yes please.
November 12th, 2021 at 4:52 AM ^
8-team with the first round played on campus.
Yesser, pleaser.
November 12th, 2021 at 12:40 PM ^
Why? That would be shitty. Big 10 teams have to fight over one conference title spot like dogs while the champion of a glorified mid major Big 12 gets to waltz into the playoff?
November 12th, 2021 at 12:44 PM ^
Why couldn't you just get an at-large spot?
If it was this year...the #2 team would have a great shot at getting one.
November 12th, 2021 at 12:56 PM ^
There's not a single team in the rump Big 12 or the entire Pac 12 that would finish in the top 5 of the Big 10 or SEC, and you're going to give them a precious auto bid and make those Big 10/SEC teams fight with each other for 2 (and really 1 at large, because an undefeated ND will always get 1 of the two at larges in an 8 team playoff) spots?? That's nuts man, that's a fucking terrible deal for the Big 10.
In a 12 team playoff, the Big 10 will get minimum of 2 teams EVERY SINGLE YEAR and often 3 or 4.
November 11th, 2021 at 11:23 PM ^
Do it
November 11th, 2021 at 11:35 PM ^
SI as a source? lol
November 11th, 2021 at 11:39 PM ^
Nope, 16 guarantees 3 lose teams in the playoff.
November 12th, 2021 at 4:51 AM ^
So?
Why is that the threshold?
It's not like it's a 6-6 team in the playoff like the NFL were 8-8 teams are in every year.
Who cares if it's a #16 9-3 team versus a #1 undefeated team...that's still a reasonable game.
I personally think 8 is the right number, but a 3-loss team isn't the end of the world.
November 12th, 2021 at 10:19 AM ^
Yes it is, because it basically says the regular season is irrelevant. And that's the strongest argument against expanding the playoffs in my opinion.
November 12th, 2021 at 12:44 PM ^
4 teams is destroying the value of the regular season. The 4 team playoff killed the value of the bowls, so once a conference bell cow has enough losses to keep them out of the playoff, there's nothing for their fans or fans in their league to care about any more and they drop out of audience.
Either you put the genie back in the bottle and dump the playoff or you have to expand it so teams can still have that conference title golden ticket to play for. Otherwise this sport will continue on the course it's on and will be a regional curiosity.
November 12th, 2021 at 2:20 PM ^
The regular season is already irrelevant for half of the conferences in FBS. At least in terms of being capable of being considered for the playoff.
November 12th, 2021 at 12:13 AM ^
Anything that gives 2-3 teams from B1G an opportunity in playoff is what I like, especially B1G East. Too tough of a division
November 12th, 2021 at 12:32 AM ^
And this is just from our point view being big ten fans. Can you imagine being a huge fan of a G5 school? If we can’t have a legitimate playoff that has full inclusion of all the conferences then FBS needs to just be blown up. It makes no sense to have these other conferences around if they are not actually a part of the system, I prefer the system where we keep them, and include them versus breaking off into some super conference landscape. People keep bringing up that there will be blowouts, there are blowouts already with 4 teams; who cares? There are also blowouts in bowl games, conference championship games, regular season games. So what? At least they played the game. There are plenty of blowouts during March madness as well? Do we complain about these? No of course not, we’re too busy enjoying the tournament to care about that. Oh, and also enjoying the crazy upsets you don’t expect. The game feels way too much like inputting numbers into some algorithm and then pretending like we already know what’s going to happen. When did we stop caring about actually letting games be played instead of coming up with reasons to not play them? Isn’t that what sports is all about?
November 12th, 2021 at 12:24 AM ^
Conference races and standings should be what we are talking about from September through November, not style points and rankings.
Yes, G5 champs should be included. Let the G5 champs (and independents who qualify) finish their regular season earlier (so maybe they only play a 10 or 11 game regular season), then play off against each other beginning Thanksgiving weekend or the first of week of December, and play at the P5 winners in mid-December.
November 12th, 2021 at 6:03 AM ^
And the postseason should be about the best teams competing to see who is best.
Not all conferences are equal.
That's the problem with this thinking. You all are taking a pro model and applying it to college football. IT DOES NOT WORK.
In the NFL or NBA, all of your conferences (divisions) are theoretically even and playing under the same rules with the same advantages and disadvantages.
So what you're saying works in those leagues.
That is not the case in college football, so applying the same model is asinine.
Someone made a joke about Michigan joining the MAC, but it's true. If you're guaranteeing spots...that's the way to go. But again, what are we even talking about? That would NEVER happen.
November 12th, 2021 at 8:18 AM ^
If it's about "the best" then the championship should only be about the team or teams that are creditably called the "best". If that is true, a playoff should only occur in years and among teams where and among whom there is doubt. This year, that team seems to unquestionably be Georgia. In such years, there is no point of any playoff at all.
No, while it is called a playoff, it is really a post-season tournament, whether it involves 2 teams or 68. To argue otherwise is asinine. And as such, the inclusion of teams "deserving" is subject to whatever definitions give the regular season the most meaning and significance. The purpose of the college season (as opposed to the pro season, as an example) is to have the best regular season, not necessarily to adulate one team and fanbase at the expense of all others. The former bowl season, and the previous system which predated that - both of which named "mythical champions" did a pretty good job of elevating the popularity of the game nationwide well before there was any BCS or championship game.
November 12th, 2021 at 8:46 AM ^
I suggested another round or two of the playoffs - a play-in - for G5 and independents, and they would not have the homefield advantage that the top four P5 conference champions would get, so that would acknowledge the likely differences in levels of competition without excluding any champions. It would put the focus back on the regular season and conference races rather than on polls, pundits, and committees.
November 12th, 2021 at 10:21 AM ^
Can't upvote this enough. I agree 100%.
November 12th, 2021 at 12:50 PM ^
Ahem
Giving an auto bid to the Pac 12 or Big 12 is only fractionally more ridiculous than giving one to the MAC.
Either all 10 conferences (well, 9 honestly) should be given an auto bid in the playoff with 16 total teams minimum, or they shouldn't grant an auto bid to ANY conferences and should just give an auto bid to the 6 highest ranked conference champions like they originally proposed and let the chips fall where they fall if a 12-0 MAC champion ends up higher ranked than an 8-4 Big 12 or Pac 12 champ.
I am tired of having to pretend every year that the champion of a shit ass Pac 12 or Big 12 is somehow more deserving than the Mountain West or AAC champion. They aren't, this is shown by how every year they get their doors blown off in the playoff as badly as the Sun Belt's champ would in the same spot.
November 12th, 2021 at 6:31 PM ^
And let's face it: if we're going to have conference championship games, they might as well mean something. They are a de facto first round of a tournament/playoff.
Does that mean there is a risk that a three loss team might get into the playoffs? Yes. So what? The NFL had a 9-7 make and nearly win the Super Bowl, and the republic somehow survived.
November 12th, 2021 at 1:09 AM ^
Yeah the 10 conference champions is a wild take. Michigan should just join the MAC. Free playoff appearance every year.
November 12th, 2021 at 1:40 AM ^
It is right now. No arguments there. But why do we have to only look at it from our perspective right now? The plan would hopefully be a final one, or at least close to it. We should be able to look at things with the mindset that things change over time. I’m approaching this as if this is how it should have been setup originally. Obviously there has been plenty of realignment over the years so we would have to work with it as is now. We all know that at one point in time the Ivy League was dominant and so were the service academies. Shit so was Minnesota and UChicago. We don’t know what it will be like 50+ years from now. Set things straight now, include all of the FBS and move along. It’s not going to hurt anything to get a legitimate FBS playoff going. We’re spending too much time finding reasons to not play the games on the field. We accept that competition is good right? So allow actual level playing field competition in FBS football.
November 12th, 2021 at 8:53 AM ^
Yeah the 10 conference champions is a wild take. Michigan should just join the MAC. Free playoff appearance every year.
Would it though? And forgo all the TV money and other benefits of belonging to the B1G athletic and otherwise? Give up the chance to get one of the spots hosting a quarterfinal round game? Give up its B1G rivalries? Give up a shot at ever playing in the Rose Bowl again? Take the chance of missing winning the conference championship and having no chance of an at-large bid?
I doubt it.
Michigan would be no worse off in the proposed system than it currently is, and arguably all of college football would be better off.
November 12th, 2021 at 12:26 PM ^
This wasn't meant to say that Michigan should join the MAC, obviously it would not be in their best financial interest to do so. This is more to point out the absurdity of the MAC champion making the CFP. As of right now that champion would be Northern Illinois, a team Michigan beat by 53. I agree that some G5 should be able to make it such as Cincy this year but to say that all 5 G5 champions should get an automatic bid is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.
November 12th, 2021 at 4:48 AM ^
10 conference champions? That is ridiculous.
This isn't a 68 team college basketball tournament. 52 more teams + a sport with MUCH smaller margins and thus more realistic opportunities for upsets.
November 12th, 2021 at 5:01 AM ^
8-teams.
P5 champions IF they finish in the top 10 or 12 (your call)...otherwise that spot becomes an at-large.
Highest ranked G5 team IF it finishes in the top 10 or 12 (your call)...otherwise that spot becomes an at-large.
Automatic bids get you in the playoff, but seeding is still final CFP ranking.
Quarterfinals at home campus of top 4 seeds. Then your regular neutral site 4-team semifinal and final that we do right now.
Quarterfinal losers are still bowl eligible (their seasons shouldn't end on a campus before Christmas).
No byes, that adds 2 additional weeks on the season rather than just 1 in the 8-team model. Last, there is typically a HUGE gap after 5 or 6 teams. Get those teams in the playoff + a couple of conference champions who are just outside that top 5/6 range...and let's play.
November 12th, 2021 at 5:39 AM ^
I wholeheartedly agree it sounds ridiculous, but everything about college football is ridiculous. You have 10 conferences with 130 teams but even when the playoff expansion comes up there is no path for the vast majority. Either make a real playoff that includes all of the teams in the FBS or scrub the entirety of it and get rid of the charade that they are playing the same sport because clearly they are not so why keep pretending? It’s the equivalent of Major League Baseball and minor league baseball existing in the same giant league but only the major league teams can actually win anything.
November 12th, 2021 at 5:55 AM ^
So do that!
It's going to happen anyway.
Like I said, take the top 60 (I'll say even 80) teams and create "FBS1"
Then take the remaining 40 of so teams and add the top 40 FCS schools (because MAC schools are closer to them than they are the Big Ten or SEC)...and create an 80-team "FBS2."
Give them both the same rules, same playoff, same bowl system, everything.
Now Eastern Michigan has a shot.
But if you think just giving them an auto bid to the current playoff means they'll have a shot, you're sorely mistaken.
November 12th, 2021 at 5:43 AM ^
It's guys like Duffman that are the reason Rutgers is in the B1G ?.
...always playing the long game. Curious, how much crypto do you own, Duffman?
I'm kidding. Again, I appreciate the inclusivity and outside of the box thinking...but one is back to the drawing board.
If you want 10 teams in because you believe in amateurism and want to provide equality opportunities for all student-athletes, everywhere.
Then yes...this works, that's still stupid, but stand on that premise because it actually makes sense. You are providing more opportunities for more student-athletes at all levels of college football.
But you're not saying that. You're saying if I throw a pebble into the ocean it's going to be a tidal wave 50 years from now.
November 12th, 2021 at 5:59 AM ^
Competitive balance allows for change. Let’s not act like either of us know what will happen 50 years from now. What’s funny is you saying I’m wrong is just as much a leap as what I’m saying. People thought the damn internet was going to be a fad at one point in time, Netflix offered themselves to blockbuster (lol what’s a blockbuster) for $25 million once upon a time ago.
November 12th, 2021 at 6:11 AM ^
So you're equating business models to this yet ignoring the current business model of college football?
Yeah, that makes sense.
Also, this isn't an invention. You're not inventing anything. You're just changing the rules of something that already exists. Those are HORRIBLE analogies.
What you're saying is more along the lines of...if Blockbuster rented porn 50 years ago, it would still be in business. As if that is the reason they went out of business and not...the internet.
You can't equate adding 5 more conference champions to something new altogether.
And once again, THAT IS NOT COMPETITIVE BALANCE! I honestly don't think you know what that means.
Like I said, you want competitive balance then you have to split the revenue equally AND figure out a way to catch the G5 teams up to the P5 teams so they're all starting from the same place. That's competitive balance.
Allowing G5 teams to have 5 guaranteed playoff spots doesn't balance anything competitively.
November 12th, 2021 at 6:24 AM ^
How is allowing every conference that is in the SAME league (FBS) not competitive balance? The NCAA tournament keeps coming up. There are what 35 auto bids. Because EVERY conference is represented. Which means every team from every conference in theory has a chance to win the championship. We all go into this tournament accepting that 95% of these teams have zero shot to win the whole thing and yet we do it anyway. Because that is what having a playoff is for. The NCAA tournament easily could be 16 teams if you want to ruin it and only allow the teams we have decided actually have a chance to win it.
November 12th, 2021 at 6:17 AM ^
...and you can miss me with the "you don't know the future anymore than I do" bullshit. That is a ridiculous argument. Neither of us knows if the dinosaurs are coming back tomorrow, but I think we both feel comfortable saying...they're arent.
I don't mean to get philosophical, but look back at the history of our country when we've had inequality (like say, I don't know, slavery...or equal pay for woman...or possibly anything).
When you have a huge disparity, when has saying "okay, we're all equal now!" ever actually worked?
You're not closing the gap. You're just (theoretically) allowing everyone to run the race. But if we're running a marathon and you get to start at Mile 23...do you really expect me to catch you? Of course not. That's not "competitive balance."
And in this analogy, you're still going to be running and running faster than me (P5 teams)...I just now get to run (G5 teams). So great, now it won't be 26.2 to 0...it'll be 26.2 to 2.
What's the point? Just for me to be able to say I ran? That's ridiculous. If I really want to compete, and have balance, let me run against everyone else starting at or near mile 0.
Now if you're going to stand there until I get to mile 23...and then we race. Fine. Let's do it. But that's not what you're saying.
November 12th, 2021 at 6:27 AM ^
You’re going to try and slam me for bringing up business world examples and then turn this into some conversation comparing to inequality in America? Okay ? I’m done now. Agree to disagree.
November 12th, 2021 at 12:52 PM ^
Lol I'm not agreeing to disagree...your idea is ridiculous and you haven't justified it.
And my point in bringing up the history is that...give me an example, ANY example, in the history of universe. Where you have two things start out that are inequal, then you give them both the exact same opportunity, completely ignoring that one of those things is WAAAAAY ahead of the other.
And over an arbitrary amount of time, those two things became equal.
It doesn't work. It's math. It's history. It's science.
But rather than get bent out of shape about it...step up and come up with a model that makes sense, even if no one agrees with it.
And again, the model you have makes PERFECT sense if your justification is to "provide more amateur opportunities for postseason play at all levels of college football." Boom.
I don't think that's worth it, but it at least makes sense and would actually happen.
But you're not saying that, you're trying to do this cause and effect thing that is ridiculous and has never proven to work, ever. So I'm supposed to believe you that it would in this situation? FOH.
November 12th, 2021 at 1:12 PM ^
You know what... I'll do it for you since you don't want to give it a go.
Here's the "Netflix" option:
- First off, I don't want more than 3 weekends of playoffs, I don't think one team should play 16 games and another should play 12. That's crazy to me.
- Another rule, I hate that in conferences everyone doesn't play everyone. 10-team leagues...everyone plays 9 conference games. No championship game.
- 3 non-conference games against "FBS1" teams.
- 1 non-conference game against an "FBS2" team.
So with that in mind, give me 70 teams for "FBS1"...seven 10-team leagues broken up geographically.
ALL conference champions advance to an 8-team playoff, *IF* they finish the season in the TOP 10. So that's 7 champions + 1 at-large spot for the highest ranked non-champion (basically creating a Wildcard race, like in baseball).
- If your league champion doesn't finish in the top 10, it becomes an at-large spot. So you could have more than just the 1 at-large spot.
Quarterfinals are played on home campuses of top 4 seeds. Then neutral site games for the semi's and finals.
Quarterfinal losers are bowl eligible in one of 15 bowls. Meaning about 50% of teams make the postseason and get a 14th or 15th game. The National Championship would be a 16th game (same as it would be now with a 12-team playoff...which actually could result in someone playing 17 games).
-----
What happens with teams outside of the 70? Take those 45 or so teams and take the best 25 current FCS teams and create "FBS2"...and follow the EXACT same model as "FBS1."
...now, do I love this? Eh, it's alright. But is this actually something that could turn the sport on its head and happen? Sure.
And I'm not going to lie, I'm watching #1 James Madison play #3 Eastern Michigan on a Thursday night, on ESPN, in front of a packed crowd. That would be awesome. And knowing they're playing for the playoffs and legit national championship...I like the sound of that. I think this model is still flawed, but no question it creates better matchups and more opportunities.
November 12th, 2021 at 6:27 AM ^
Bottom line. If you REALLY want to create "competitive balance."
Do exactly what you started to say...BE NETFLIX.
Take something that exists and INVENT something new. Not slightly alter the existing model. Don't add porn to Blockbuster.
Rip it up and create your own thing. You may not like it, but I gave you that something new.
"FBS1" - 60 to 80 teams
"FBS2" - 60 to 80 teams (if you go 80 and 80...just add the top 40 or so FCS teams to "FBS2")
Go crazy, split them into divisions, create new rules, playoffs, and now you have something new and, in theory, your competitive balance (or you're at least a lot closer to it).
November 12th, 2021 at 6:32 AM ^
16 team playoff. G5 get 3 spots, top ranked G5 conference winner gets in, other four champions do a play in for two spots. P5 champs are top 5 seeds with home field in first round
November 12th, 2021 at 7:15 AM ^
I’m in favor of any scenario that forces SEC schools to play in the cold snowy north.
November 12th, 2021 at 11:23 AM ^
Agree and Happy belated birthday
November 12th, 2021 at 7:54 AM ^
It's not about fairness, it's all about the money.