• The KillerFrogs

Playoff Expansion seems inevitable, my money was not on 12 teams

Jared7

Active Member
Not disputing the additional teams. just the 12 vs 16 - bye or no bye. I just see it as an extreme unfair advantage which will go to the SEC champ, Big 10 champ, ACC champ (if Clemson, Miami or Fl St) plus one other champion to fight it out between Big 12 and Pac. No G5 champion will ever get considered for the bye. So no real change in fairness, just an opportunity to say "See you do have a chance".

There is almost no competition from other sport this time of year, so the times are not prohibitive to viewers in any extreme amount. The following teams are an example of who might make the playoffs given those extra games.

2019: 13-16 teams in AP - Baylor, Auburn, Iowa, and Utah. These teams playing against a top 4 team will get viewership.
2018: Washington, Michigan, Syracuse, Texas A&M
2017: Miami, Ok State, Michigan St, Washington
As to the byes, I agree - G5 teams will have virtually no chance to get them. But they will get into the playoff and their champ will have to be beaten on the field which is a massive increase in fairness. And one advantage of the 4 highest ranked conference champs getting the byes is that no conference will get more than one bye - not the SEC nor the Big 10.

Regarding the TV, yeah, other than the NFL, the NHL, the NBA , the ATP finals, soccer, the highly-watched golf gimmicks (Skins game) etc..., not much else going on. The key here is that the networks were not part of the task force, so it is certain that they will be asked whether and how much more they would pay for 8 additional games rather than just 4. You could quite well be right and they would pay more - a lot more. The question would then be is it worth it? Under this proposal, the CCG's will be the play-in games for the top 4 conference champs, so they would be playing no more additional games. Notre Dame, not having a CCG, would look at it as just adding 1 more game (like a CCG) while remaining indy. The other participants would be adding a game but they would be expected to lose at some point, so the additional games would be limited. We'll see what results from this - we're only at the beginning of the process and much could change as other stakeholders weigh in.

My essential point is that this proposal represents a massive change that could be very beneficial to TCU and teams like TCU.
 

Endless Purple

Full Member
If your argument is they should’ve gone to 16 then fine. But if you’re a fan of a top-4 team you’re still waiting about a month from the CCGs until your first playoff game. Having first round games in between isn’t going to decrease interest.
My argument is that I do not see a reason for a bye.

I would be fine with 16. I prefer 8.

My ideal: Top 8 conference champions in the top 12 to 15 get in. No auto-bids for a conference. If there are not 8 champions that highly ranked then fill in the gaps with the next highest runner-ups.
 

Endless Purple

Full Member
As to the byes, I agree - G5 teams will have virtually no chance to get them. But they will get into the playoff and their champ will have to be beaten on the field which is a massive increase in fairness. And one advantage of the 4 highest ranked conference champs getting the byes is that no conference will get more than one bye - not the SEC nor the Big 10.

Regarding the TV, yeah, other than the NFL, the NHL, the NBA , the ATP finals, soccer, the highly-watched golf gimmicks (Skins game) etc..., not much else going on. The key here is that the networks were not part of the task force, so it is certain that they will be asked whether and how much more they would pay for 8 additional games rather than just 4. You could quite well be right and they would pay more - a lot more. The question would then be is it worth it? Under this proposal, the CCG's will be the play-in games for the top 4 conference champs, so they would be playing no more additional games. Notre Dame, not having a CCG, would look at it as just adding 1 more game (like a CCG) while remaining indy. The other participants would be adding a game but they would be expected to lose at some point, so the additional games would be limited. We'll see what results from this - we're only at the beginning of the process and much could change as other stakeholders weigh in.

My essential point is that this proposal represents a massive change that could be very beneficial to TCU and teams like TCU.

Agree, I do like the limit of the top 4 being a conference champion. Agree with what you have here. Any expansion is beneficial to TCU and to the G5 conferences (hate that term). I am not against the expansion or most of the proposed methodology. I only question the need to give a bye advantage to certain teams when there is no reason not to have everyone play the same number of games in the playoffs. There is no issues with total games played on the season - only about the number of games being equal in the playoffs.

The point that it might give a little more interest in the conference championship games is the only small reason I have seen to support a bye. I do not see that as being fair, just more interest/money to the big conferences again. I am guessing the dollar value would be more with 16 teams over 12 once the whole season is considered.
 

ECM

Active Member
My argument is that I do not see a reason for a bye.

I would be fine with 16. I prefer 8.

My ideal: Top 8 conference champions in the top 12 to 15 get in. No auto-bids for a conference. If there are not 8 champions that highly ranked then fill in the gaps with the next highest runner-ups.
I think 8 would be ideal as well, but more games = more $$. The byes are a reward for the top-4 and add additional intrigue to the regular season and CCGs.

Bottom line I think it’s great for college football. More teams having access to the CFP equals more interest in regular season games. The CFP had gotten quite stale with the usual assortment of Bama, OU, Ohio State and Clemson
 

Jared7

Active Member
Coach P is quoted in an Athletic article estimating that only 6 teams have made the playoffs in the CFP era. The actual number is 11. Goodness Gracious Gary! Learn the precise number - you need to be the expert here!

Here's the breakdown of bids if the proposed system had been in place rather than the BCS or the current 4- team CFP:

17 - Ohio State
16 - OU
12 - Alabama; Florida
11 - LSU
10 - Florida State; Georgia; Oregon
9 - USC
8 - TCU, Boise State; Notre Dame; Kansas State; Wisconsin
7 - Clemson; Penn State; Texas
6 - Auburn; Miami, Virginia Tech; Stanford; Michigan
5 - Michigan State
4 - Iowa; Nebraska; Tennessee; Washington
3 - Arkansas; Baylor; Cincinnati; Missouri; A&M; Missouri; Utah
2 - Arizona; Colorado; Louisville; South Carolina; West Virginia
1 - a bunch of teams

How would recruiting had fared if Gary had 8 playoff appearances on his resume rather than the zero that the BCS and 4-team CFP eras allowed?
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
I know there's always someone who will complain about anything but my goodness we've all wanted the playoff expanded for so long and now that it's finally going to happen there are people all over the place bitching and moaning that it won't be done exactly the way they think it should be.

This is going to be GREAT for college football, the fans, and specifically for TCU and the Big 12.

Is this exactly the format I would pick if I was in charge? No. But there are a [ Finebaum ] load of people who have to sign off on this stuff so a perfect system that pleases everyone ain't ever gonna happen. Whether it's 8 or 12 then I think this is fantastic. There's always going to be some degree of subjectivity involved in college football with the huge variances in schedules but this removes a whole lot of that.
 

Paul in uhh

Active Member
Coach P is quoted in an Athletic article estimating that only 6 teams have made the playoffs in the CFP era. The actual number is 11. Goodness Gracious Gary! Learn the precise number - you need to be the expert here!

Here's the breakdown of bids if the proposed system had been in place rather than the BCS or the current 4- team CFP:

17 - Ohio State
16 - OU
12 - Alabama; Florida
11 - LSU
10 - Florida State; Georgia; Oregon
9 - USC
8 - TCU, Boise State; Notre Dame; Kansas State; Wisconsin
7 - Clemson; Penn State; Texas
6 - Auburn; Miami, Virginia Tech; Stanford; Michigan
5 - Michigan State
4 - Iowa; Nebraska; Tennessee; Washington
3 - Arkansas; Baylor; Cincinnati; Missouri; A&M; Missouri; Utah
2 - Arizona; Colorado; Louisville; South Carolina; West Virginia
1 - a bunch of teams

How would recruiting had fared if Gary had 8 playoff appearances on his resume rather than the zero that the BCS and 4-team CFP eras allowed?
KSU with 8? That surprises me
 

HG73

Active Member
It actually should prevent it.

Easier path to a 12-0 or 11-1 season means don't play in the SEC or Big 10.

ACC and Big 12 have an easier path into a 12 team field.

In fact, I'd drop the championship game in the Big 12 if the polit bureau loses its cancerous grip on the game.
Agree if we are going to 12 teams then drop the Big12 championship game, we play a round robin schedule anyway. Better chance to get 2nd team in the playoff. At least go to an 8 game conference schedule if we keep the CCG.

This should generate a ton more money and insure Big12 survival. All good.

Think BYU is on the phone to the MWC? How would they ever make the playoff as an independent? Not that I care.
 

YA

Active Member
Agree if we are going to 12 teams then drop the Big12 championship game, we play a round robin schedule anyway. Better chance to get 2nd team in the playoff. At least go to an 8 game conference schedule if we keep the CCG.

This should generate a ton more money and insure Big12 survival. All good.

Think BYU is on the phone to the MWC? How would they ever make the playoff as an independent? Not that I care.
Byu will join the aac
 

BearlyAFrog

Active Member
Coach P is quoted in an Athletic article estimating that only 6 teams have made the playoffs in the CFP era. The actual number is 11. Goodness Gracious Gary! Learn the precise number - you need to be the expert here!

Here's the breakdown of bids if the proposed system had been in place rather than the BCS or the current 4- team CFP:

17 - Ohio State
16 - OU
12 - Alabama; Florida
11 - LSU
10 - Florida State; Georgia; Oregon
9 - USC
8 - TCU, Boise State; Notre Dame; Kansas State; Wisconsin
7 - Clemson; Penn State; Texas
6 - Auburn; Miami, Virginia Tech; Stanford; Michigan
5 - Michigan State
4 - Iowa; Nebraska; Tennessee; Washington
3 - Arkansas; Baylor; Cincinnati; Missouri; A&M; Missouri; Utah
2 - Arizona; Colorado; Louisville; South Carolina; West Virginia
1 - a bunch of teams

How would recruiting had fared if Gary had 8 playoff appearances on his resume rather than the zero that the BCS and 4-team CFP eras allowed?

 

Froglaw

Full Member
I think that by awarding byes you help preserve the integrity of the regular season a bit

It gives Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, and the second SEC team a second round advantage due to fatigue and injuries by the first round participants.

Georgia is losing so they cheap shot TCU's QB to give Alabama a second string QB to bull rush in Round two.

Anyone thinking that this is going to be a fair system needs to look at the TCU/Baylor screwing in 2014.

This is about more tv revenue and keeping the elite the elite.
 

Frog-in-law1995

Active Member
It gives Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, and the second SEC team a second round advantage due to fatigue and injuries by the first round participants.

Georgia is losing so they cheap shot TCU's QB to give Alabama a second string QB to bull rush in Round two.

Anyone thinking that this is going to be a fair system needs to look at the TCU/Baylor screwing in 2014.

This is about more tv revenue and keeping the elite the elite.

4th bye will be Big 12 champ (unless the PAC 12 gets better soon).
 

Endless Purple

Full Member
Big 12 needs the ccg in order to make a top 4 bye. Yes?

I don't think it matters as much with it limited to conference champions. There are only 5 teams eligible for it. If it came down to a TCU or Tech at 4 and Ohio St at 5, they will come up with some other reason that Ohio St will jump to 4 in the polls. So it may be a factor only in very limited situation of a Big 12 champ vs PAC champ, where the Big 12 is sitting or playing Kansas while a PAC team plays a championship game to move from 5 to 4.
 

Endless Purple

Full Member
It gives Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, and the second SEC team a second round advantage due to fatigue and injuries by the first round participants.

Georgia is losing so they cheap shot TCU's QB to give Alabama a second string QB to bull rush in Round two.

Anyone thinking that this is going to be a fair system needs to look at the TCU/Baylor screwing in 2014.

This is about more tv revenue and keeping the elite the elite.

That last sentence is so accurate.

The byes are also a way to help prevent a lower money conference from making the championship game. Can't have someone from the AAC or MWC win a championship as that would hurt the prestige and image of the ACC, Big 10 etc.. The other conferences have a shot, but it is much harder to win the title with the extra game. The lack of depth, by not having 4 stars at the 3rd and 4th string position, will show with the extra game against playoff level teams.
 
Top