Drop one reg season game. Go back to 11
That’s a trade-off I wouldn’t want to make. That would suck.
Drop one reg season game. Go back to 11
I agree, And remember the LSU Alabama Championship game. LSU had beaten ALA during the season but ALA won the championship. An 8 team playoff could consist of the 5 conference champions and 3 at largeSo again- your view has been proven incorrect in every other sport - pro or college - but keep backing the idea that less is better
That’s a trade-off I wouldn’t want to make. That would suck.
I'm all for the outsider getting a chance, but i want them to earn it. USC hasn't made a playoff. Neither has Michigan, Penn State, Texas, Wisconsin, and a lot of other teams. And I think it's been proven during regular seasons that those teams weren't going to challenge for a national title anyway, so why is it so important that they "get a chance"? Besides, they had their chance. Wisconsin had a chance to make the playoffs this year. Beat Ohio State. Baylor had a chance. Beat OU once. TCU had a chance. Go 12-1 and win the Big 12 and we're in. Every single team has a chance, this myth that they don't is just that. Is it really hard to make it? It sure is. But in MOST years it's hard enough to find 4 teams that play competitive playoff games. There's no need to add more teams when there are 12 regular season games plus a CCG to separate the teams.
The reason is to keep everybody in the mix longer which keeps it more interesting. BTW any P5 conference that already plays every other member should not be required or pressured to play a CCG. We were pressured to do this by the CFP .org. not because it made for a fairer team comparisons but for the additional $revenue$ it represented. Which is what drives every decision and IMO is the only possible reason anyone would argue endlessly about it. To those who argue endlessly for the status quo, schools are mere brands that vary in value. I’ll take the basketball approach where a Gonzaga can emerge as a national power and create high interest in their region. That kind of thing is impossible in football.
It's impossible in football because of the nature of the sport and there being 85+ players on a team instead of 12-15. Football just doesn't lend itself to the kind of parity seen in other sports.
I agree that the Big 12 CCG is kind of dumb and it's completely money driven. But it's also dumb for teams like Georgia, Baylor, and WIsconsin this year to make a playoff (and even more to dumb to argue that they deserve to be in the playoffs) when they just lost to a playoff team in their last game of the season. And that would happen ALL THE TIME, every year. It'd be even more dumb for a team sitting at home on CCG weekend passing up a team that lost in their CCG and thus making the playoffs, but that would happen sometimes too.
I think everyone has this pollyanna vision concerning a 8-team playoff (or god forbid 16-team) and that the reality is it's not going to turn out anything like they thought it would. Just my opinion.
I didn’t know that. Orlando is a very international city. People flying in to those parks 24/7. That feeds a lot of businesses.They have huge upside. Even Del Conte thought 8-10 years ago they were a diamond in the rough.
Not impossible to anybody except TV or CFP people. You’re right about less parity in football but the system reduces parity by having the same usual suspects in the playoff year in and year out, which skews recruiting in a way that absolutely kills parity.
And the same usual suspects will still be in the playoffs. Ohio State would have been 6 for 6 instead of 3 for 6.
If there was more parity before any playoffs existed, a little less after the BCS format, and even less once they went to a 4-team playoff, why do people think there will be more if it goes to 8.
The divide will only get wider because EVERYTHING will be about the playoffs, the bowls will be even further marginalized if they don't go away, and instead of 4 blue-blood teams hogging all the spotlight at the end of the year, you'll have a few more of them in most years with a very occasional party crasher and a token G5 team that gets their ass handed to them most every year.
Sorry but you state ridiculous stuff as though you actually believe it, which kills your credibility. For example, a three round playoff is going to ruin the regular season? It is the regular season that determines the playoff participants. Would be interesting to know why you work so hard at grinding that axe.
And you ignore that as many 15 teams that have never been would also have made it....And the same usual suspects will still be in the playoffs. Ohio State would have been 6 for 6 instead of 3 for 6.
If there was more parity before any playoffs existed, a little less after the BCS format, and even less once they went to a 4-team playoff, why do people think there will be more if it goes to 8.
The divide will only get wider because EVERYTHING will be about the playoffs, the bowls will be even further marginalized if they don't go away, and instead of 4 blue-blood teams hogging all the spotlight at the end of the year, you'll have a few more of them in most years with a very occasional party crasher and a token G5 team that gets their ass handed to them most every year.
What ruins the regular season is when 7 out of 10 teams in a conference are not even a candidate to make it after 7 weeks of the season or 7 of 8 teams in a division have never even been mentioned in the discussion...It wouldn't "ruin" the regular season. It would make it less compelling over time. Just my opinion.
Yea the current system is great for parity.
https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football-playoff-same-teams-national-signing-day-052140424.html
It’s not. I’m arguing that expanding it will just result in less parity. There was more parity in college football when there was no playoff at all. Why was that?