Board of managers has decided on a 12 team CFB playoff

[gamecockblack]

That's big! Supposed to happen by 2026.

CFP board decides on 12-team playoff format

The College Football Playoff's board of managers voted Friday to expand the CFP to 12 teams in 2026, but it is encouraging the sport's commissioners to try to implement it as soon as 2024.

www.espn.com

 

[FCB 2013 treble]

That's big! Supposed to happen by 2026.

CFP board decides on 12-team playoff format

The College Football Playoff's board of managers voted Friday to expand the CFP to 12 teams in 2026, but it is encouraging the sport's commissioners to try to implement it as soon as 2024.

www.espn.com

The college football playoffs will last four weeks. The only negative I see is that it does cut into the heart of college basketball season, and it could hurt teams that are going to the semifinals and finals with recruiting for the February period. The positive about expanding the playoff is it gives the Owls a chance at making the playoffs.

 

[bucketdad]

Couldnt help but laugh when in the article it said the Pac12 is strongly in favor of a cfp expansion. Lol

 

[Lurker123]

I really don't like any playoff that includes byes. It's too big an advantage, imho.

 

[bucketdad]

I really don't like any playoff that includes byes. It's too big an advantage, imho.

Agreed. I'd have prefered 8 with no byes... or 16 with no byes, but guess they'd rather give 4 teams a break than give another 4 teams a chance. It's not like it would take any longer.

 

[hillstosea]

Does this mean college football will go till the end of January?

 

[dapper77]

Agreed. I'd have prefered 8 with no byes... or 16 with no byes, but guess they'd rather give 4 teams a break than give another 4 teams a chance. It's not like it would take any longer.

The byes are for teams that just played (and won) their conference championship. The lower seeds may have sat that week out, so they’d have one less game. The byes are necessary.

 

[bucketdad]

The byes are for teams that just played (and won) their conference championship. The lower seeds may have sat that week out, so they’d have one less game. The byes are necessary.

Not every team that played in a conference championship game gets a bye... only a select 4. In fact there will be more teams playing in conference championships that dont get a bye than do. Gotta wonder how long before conference games are eliminated after it becomes evident that one, possibly two teams within a conference are at a disadvantage when we know all that will matter to these conferences will be advancing in the playoffs.

 

[Flameout12]

I really don't like any playoff that includes byes. It's too big an advantage, imho.

I like a bye. You earn it with your regular season play.

If I expect #1 to play #12 and #1 loses key players to injuries pounding #12, how fair is that?

Regardless, I expect to see more elite players opting out. Too may games/too many chances to ruin their NFL draft status via injury.

Shudda been 6 teams with #1 & #2 taking byes.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

I like a bye. You earn it with your regular season play.

If I expect #1 to play #12 and #1 loses key players to injuries pounding #12, how fair is that?

Regardless, I expect to see more elite players opting out. Too may games/too many chances to ruin their NFL draft status via injury.

Shudda been 6 teams with #1 & #2 taking byes.

I actually would think the very opposite is true. Many players now opt out, so as not to play in a meaningless game.
Now however, they are playing in a game that can lead to a NC, and they would get to display their skills in games that have serious implications. Hard to beat that kind of showcase.

 

[Lurker123]

If I expect #1 to play #12 and #1 loses key players to injuries pounding #12, how fair is that?

Equal games would mean equal risk for every team though.

With byes for the top teams, now the lower seeds have to play more games, with more chance of injuries, on top of (proposed) playing away games.

I get earning higher seeds with the regular season, but the bye is too big of an advantage, imo.

 

[bucketdad]

Equal games would mean equal risk for every team though.

With byes for the top teams, now the lower seeds have to play more games, with more chance of injuries, on top of (proposed) playing away games.

I get earning higher seeds with the regular season, but the bye is too big of an advantage, imo.

I would have liked to have thought 12 team tournaments were on their way out. They are pretty much limited to conference tournaments but with conference expansion going as high as 16, I'd like to see them completely go away. They should only be used if there's a limited number of teams to pull from.

 

[Flameout12]

I actually would think the very opposite is true. Many players now opt out, so as not to play in a meaningless game.
Now however, they are playing in a game that can lead to a NC, and they would get to display their skills in games that have serious implications. Hard to beat that kind of showcase.

But they are playing in multiple games, not just 1 or 2.

 

[Flameout12]

I get earning higher seeds with the regular season, but the bye is too big of an advantage, imo.

Just like the NFL. Homefield advantage as well?

 

[Lurker123]

Just like the NFL. Homefield advantage as well?

What the NFL doesn't change my opinion for college games.

I think the bye is too big of an advantage. Homefield advantage and getting to play the lower seeds seems sufficient to me.

Just a couple posts above you said it wasn't fair to ask the top seeds to play the extra game at the risk of injuries. Instead I would be asking them to play the same number of games. That seems fair to me.

 

[bucketdad]

What the NFL doesn't change my opinion for college games.

I think the bye is too big of an advantage. Homefield advantage and getting to play the lower seeds seems sufficient to me.

Just a couple posts above you said it wasn't fair to ask the top seeds to play the extra game at the risk of injuries. Instead I would be asking them to play the same number of games. That seems fair to me.

Speaking of fairness, I'm sitting here watching FSU play LSU. Not sure how fair it is to LSU when FSU is playing their second game of the year while LSU is playing their first. Right now, it looks exactly that. The old saying most improvement comes between week one and two looks pretty evident here. Just doesnt seem right.

 

[Lurker123]

Speaking of fairness, I'm sitting here watching FSU play LSU. Not sure how fair it is to LSU when FSU is playing their second game of the year while LSU is playing their first. Right now, it looks exactly that. The old saying most improvement comes between week one and two looks pretty evident here. Just doesnt seem right.

Ha, I agree. In the early season, it is almost an advantage to have played that game the week before.

I don't think that's true at the end of the year, when the wear and tear of the season piles up.

 

[bucketdad]

Ha, I agree. In the early season, it is almost an advantage to have played that game the week before.

I don't think that's true at the end of the year, when the wear and tear of the season piles up.

Yeah I guess if you have a quality opponent on week one, go ahead and schedule a week zero game. LSU didnt get the memo

 

[Flameout12]

Just a couple posts above you said it wasn't fair to ask the top seeds to play the extra game at the risk of injuries. Instead I would be asking them to play the same number of games. That seems fair to me.

Disagree.
Every year we have 2-3 elite teams at the top and the rest are behind. Those elite teams have already proven themselves during the regular season + conference championships.
But you're saying they have to play another 2-3 more games to prove themselves?

So keep posting....but the bye is the right call.

 

[Lurker123]

Disagree.
Every year we have 2-3 elite teams at the top and the rest are behind. Those elite teams have already proven themselves during the regular season + conference championships.
But you're saying they have to play another 2-3 more games to prove themselves?

So keep posting....but the bye is the right call.

Disagree.
Its not about proving themselves at all.

If they are that far above the other teams as you think (and i agree they are), they don't need the home game advantage on top of the fewer games advantage on top playing a lower seed advantage. That seems like too much advantage to me.

Again, you just posted that asking the top teams to play another game was not fair due to risk of injury. Why is asking the lesser teams to play another game and risk injury now fair?

And thank you, I will keep posting about the bye being the wrong call.

 

[Flameout12]

And thank you, I will keep posting about the bye being the wrong call.

And you've done research on why the FCS playoffs and NFL playoffs have byes? Maybe they've thought of something you haven't?

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

But they are playing in multiple games, not just 1 or 2.

Exactly
1 or 2 to get to a NC. I find to hard to believe some players will opt out with a NC in sight. It's the very reason you started the season in the first place.

 

[Lurker123]

And you've done research on why the FCS playoffs and NFL playoffs have byes? Maybe they've thought of something you haven't?

Given the depth of your responses about injuries and "proving themselves", I don't think falling back on lack of research is a good direction for you.

The point stands that a higher seeded home team already has enough advantage without adding in getting to play less games.

 

[Lurker123]

Exactly
1 or 2 to get to a NC. I find to hard to believe some players will opt out with a NC in sight. It's the very reason you started the season in the first place.

Agree. In the current season, only the 4 playoff teams "matter", and the rest of the bowls don't. The players on those 4 teams don't opt out.

Expand the playoffs and now you have 12 teams playing that "matter". More teams that "matter" means less players opting out.

 

[Flameout12]

Given the depth of your responses about injuries and "proving themselves", I don't think falling back on lack of research is a good direction for you.

The point stands that a higher seeded home team already has enough advantage without adding in getting to play less games.

Quit with the BS. It's not about me or my responses. My opinions are irrelevant & no one cares about yours'.

NFL & FCS have had playoffs with byes for years. It's how its done. Deal with it.

 

[Flameout12]

Exactly
1 or 2 to get to a NC. I find to hard to believe some players will opt out with a NC in sight. It's the very reason you started the season in the first place.

How many games must a Top 4 seed play to win it all?

 

[hillstosea]

I’ve asked and I’ll ask again- does expanding the playoffs mean college football will go to the end of January.?Don’t see how it wouldn’t.

 

[Lurker123]

Quit with the BS. It's not about me or my responses. My opinions are irrelevant & no one cares about yours'.

NFL & FCS have had playoffs with byes for years. It's how its done. Deal with it.

Yeah, I figured you didn't have any more lame excuses to offer, hence the "go research it" dodge. Now you're going with the "it doesn't matter anyway" angle? Laughable. It mattered enough for you to debate the merits earlier, but suddenly not now....

I hate to break it to you, but message boards are here for people to offer their opinions, and debate them, regardless of "how its done" currently, or whether you like it.

 

[Lurker123]

I’ve asked and I’ll ask again- does expanding the playoffs mean college football will go to the end of January.?Don’t see how it wouldn’t.

Short answer is that it hasn't been decided yet.

Long answer? Do we keep the conference title games? Will conferences like that money over possibly eliminating the loser of the game? (I think they keep them)

Playoffs will be 4 weeks now, so they'd most likely start the first round earlier than bowl season, or else you're right, and we end up playing till late January.

 

[bucketdad]

Short answer is that it hasn't been decided yet.

Long answer? Do we keep the conference title games? Will conferences like that money over possibly eliminating the loser of the game? (I think they keep them)

Playoffs will be 4 weeks now, so they'd most likely start the first round earlier than bowl season, or else you're right, and we end up playing till late January.

I think the plan is to keep conference championship games as well. But I also think they may be more fragile than a lot of people think. All it may take is for one conference to do away with it to have more follow. And I gotta think one will at some point. How the others handle see them rest before the playoffs start may be too much for them to bear. It's not like they cant pick a champion based on the season. Most of history says they can.

 

[hillstosea]

Short answer is that it hasn't been decided yet.

Long answer? Do we keep the conference title games? Will conferences like that money over possibly eliminating the loser of the game? (I think they keep them)

Playoffs will be 4 weeks now, so they'd most likely start the first round earlier than bowl season, or else you're right, and we end up playing till late January.

Or drop an OOC game?

 

[Neanderthal]

Why do players opt out? Who can read the teenage mind (and many 20-21 year olds have a teenage mind)? After NIL money, the dream of NFL $$ (a pipe dream for many), people telling them they are bigtime, etc. and in a world where loyalty doesn’t seem to be a deciding factor in much anything, who knows what they are going to do? A nightmare for many coaches, and for some fans.

 

[Lurker123]

Or drop an OOC game?

That would be my first choice, but then you'd have to weigh the money lost from that (I assume) home game against a patsy.