A mock-up of the expanded College Football Playoffs
- Thread starter FCB 2013 treble
- Start date
Ok uga and Tenn still have to play each other so I get that. Mich and OSU still have to play each other so I get that. I also get how that would move clemson up to bye territory. Not sure about tcu tho. Three Pac12 teams in the top 10 and not a Big12 team other than tcu to be found. Not sure they thought this out with the strength of schedules remaining.
Imo, this is just another reason to add four more teams and do away with byes.
Imo, this is just another reason to add four more teams and do away with byes.
Last edited:
Yeah that's not really what I was getting at... although ok st is 18th in the ap so go figure. Maybe they are out now idk.
What I was getting at is determining byes. Giving tcu a bye (currently 7th) while several Pac12 schools (ranked 8th, 9th, 10th and 12th) have tougher remaining games (using the ap) makes no sense. TCU has already played the cowboys so it's not going to help their remaining schedule. Yeah it will probably play out, but they didnt have a problem looking to the future to determine Tenn losing to uga and Mich losing to OSU. So why they decided to stop playing Nostradamus there, idk.
Just playing the devils advocate here. I'm no fan of byes when they can easily be avoided.
As of today, wouldnt it be the top 4 getting byes?
... or are they reserved for the conference champions of the conferences of their choice? That's what it kinda looks like.
Last edited:
The biggest fallacy of the expanded playoffs is the undeserving teams that are going to take up space. That's another reason I say no automatic bids.
If you took the top 12 teams and called them automatic, would you be ok with that?
King, were you one of many who have said the four team format committee had been getting it right? Not trying to single you out. If you were one, seem to have changed your mind. Am I wrong?
I love it like it is. I love the drama and the controversy surrounding who gets the last spot.
I understand that more teams mean more games and more games mean more money. But I also believe that all the committee has to do in the four-team playoff is to get the true top two in there. They have done it every time.
Expansion is coming, but to diminish the unworthiness factor, which will now be inevitable, no automatic bids should be granted for any reason.
If you have a 12 team playoff, the idea that the champion of the SEC or Big Ten isn't getting in as one of the 12 is ludicrous. You can call that an automatic bid or not, but that is just choice of terminology, you know they will be in.
Let the onfield product be the criterion. Nothing else. Most years, whom those teams have beaten will take care of getting them in. Therefore, do not make it an entitlement.
Of course, those decisions are subjective. I like the four team format because I also think the decision makers have been accurate
They have been. But the four team format is vulnerable to the possibility of five unbeaten, strong teams. No matter how accurate, one team will be able to claim that they are really the best team and were not let in. My preference is an 8 team. Hard to see a situation that a ninth team is undefeated and can claim to be the best team.
I don’t necessarily disagree but we all know the slippery slope. Where will expansion end?
Not all unbeaten teams are equal and matrices exist to identify the lesser ones. Four team playoff has worked sublimely well. This expansion is not about better identifying the best team. It's about more money. You know it and I know it. And to get more money, they are essentially diminishing the importance of what have been considered do-or-die regular season games.
That last sentence is spot on. I am plenty old enough to remember eleven games was the maximum. With expanded playoffs, it could be as many as seventeen
While 4 teams has worked well so far, it is primed for a disaster. It is very conceivable that you could have an unbeaten Alabama who dominated the SEC, an unbeaten Oregon that dominates the Pac-10, an unbeaten Michigan/Ohio state that dominates the Big Ten, an unbeaten Clemson or resurgent FSU that dominates the ACC and an unbeaten Notre Dame. None of those teams will be seen as "lesser" by their fan base and a sizable part of the populace. An eight team playoff, it is impossible to come up with a scenario like that.
Nothing will happen ever that would render the four-team playoff invalid. Once people accept that not all Power Five conferences are equal, so not all conference championships are equal, and not all undefeated teams are equal, and that there are excellent analytics available to sort out who is who, then four need not be exceeded. They haven't failed to get the top two teams in there yet, and that's really all you have to make sure of, along with keeping the pretenders out. As to that last requisite, four is way better than 12, or even eight.
I disagree. Leave out an undefeated Ohio State who wins their bowl game 50-0 and all you will hear is how they are the best team, not the playoff winner who squeaked out a win in the 2nd playoff game. Just because the disaster hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. Eight game playoff is perfect, no need for 16.
Even though the playoff wins (two) were against higher ranked teams?
Higher ranked by who? In my scenario, Ohio State might be the No.1 team in the AP poll and Coaches poll. they also might have beaten a highly ranked team in the bowl 50-0.
I believe any team that wins back to back games against two top four teams, no matter the arguments, deserves the NC. Won’t always be perfect seedings in a lot of peoples eyes. And you can bet the comparisons will always be close. Makes for good conversation. And there will be arguments whether its four or forty
This looks far more interesting than the current format and helps even the playing field.
For example, 5-star recruits who are looking for the quickest way to the NFL have a larger menu to select from each year.
For example, 5-star recruits who are looking for the quickest way to the NFL have a larger menu to select from each year.
I do like that aspect of it. Gives more than a handful of schools the selling point of come to us and play for a national championship... which you know has to be a huge advantage for those who have been pretty much locked in to this point.
Sports has alot to do with individual matchups. Finding the "best team" is completely subjective most years.
Protecting schools who already have an large advantage do to sponsor/donor warchests, long standing reputation, location, conference strength, etc. is completely counterproductive if your interest is a more level playing field.
Protecting schools who already have an large advantage do to sponsor/donor warchests, long standing reputation, location, conference strength, etc. is completely counterproductive if your interest is a more level playing field.
Last edited:
I don't think that is true. I don't think you can make an argument some 9th team that didn't get into an 8 team playoff is the true champion like you can an undefeated 5th team that didn't get into a 4 team playoff.
This is why I would be fine with 8. In fact it would be my preference. Second choice would be 16.
12 is dumb. Might as well add 4 more and it finishes in the same amount of time with no byes
Last edited:
Why I’m in favor of an expanded playoff. Imagine if we had not crapped the bed against Missouri, we would literally have been knocking on the door of this list. It gives teams like us a legitimate chance. There would have been several years we would have been in the playoff under this format and it would have been great for the program.
Similar threads
