---

---

+ 2 more quotes (click to expand)

---

JJxvi said:

---

Why is it bad for one Florida-LSU game to lose some shine, in exchange for making other games more important to the regular season picture? Why is that one Florida game the measuring stick? The answer is that youve made your perspective as being viewed from only Florida's perspective not the persoective of the entire sport. This inherent viewing of individual games and deciding their importance by an "if we, as a team playing in this game, lose our season is over" as the be all, end all of the importance of games is flawed. Its especially odd when thats what types of games a large playoff explicitly adds more of.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

I'm just using the Florida LSU game as an example, don't take it too literally. The point is if winning your conference because the only objective there will be scenarios leading up to the conference championship games where teams have nothing to play for if they have already locked up their division title

That's really the only point I'm making. They would benefit by resting their starters so they can be ready for the conference championship game which feels like week 16 and 17 in the nfl when teams are sitting starters to prepare for the playoffs

---

Toptierag2018 said:

Smart coaches wouldn't bank on that. If they were one of the two highest non conference champs they are in. That's worth fighting for.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

I get it, but if you are already locked up to be in the conference championship game and you have two regular season games left...you can literally lose both of those games and still have a chance to play for a national title. That is not/should not be college football. Period.

---

A team going unbeaten or even 11-1/12-1 without a chance is better?

---

wbt5845 said:

---

No. Autobids for conference champs incentivizes weak conferences.

And no the present four team format is perfect.

---

Toptierag2018 said:

Conferences would purposely make their team's bad to make the conference weaker??

---

See the Big 12. It's no secret that they hold down the other teams so that OU and the sips have a better shot at being the conference champs .

---

---

+ 3 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

JJxvi said:

---

Why is it bad for one Florida-LSU game to lose some shine, in exchange for making other games more important to the regular season picture? Why is that one Florida game the measuring stick? The answer is that youve made your perspective as being viewed from only Florida's perspective not the persoective of the entire sport. This inherent viewing of individual games and deciding their importance by an "if we, as a team playing in this game, lose our season is over" as the be all, end all of the importance of games is flawed. Its especially odd when thats what types of games a large playoff explicitly adds more of.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

I'm just using the Florida LSU game as an example, don't take it too literally. The point is if winning your conference because the only objective there will be scenarios leading up to the conference championship games where teams have nothing to play for if they have already locked up their division title

That's really the only point I'm making. They would benefit by resting their starters so they can be ready for the conference championship game which feels like week 16 and 17 in the nfl when teams are sitting starters to prepare for the playoffs

---

Toptierag2018 said:

Smart coaches wouldn't bank on that. If they were one of the two highest non conference champs they are in. That's worth fighting for.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

I get it, but if you are already locked up to be in the conference championship game and you have two regular season games left...you can literally lose both of those games and still have a chance to play for a national title. That is not/should not be college football. Period.

---

Toptierag2018 said:

A team going unbeaten or even 11-1/12-1 without a chance is better?

---

Obviously. An 11-1 team lost an "important" regular season game and we cant make that game unimportant!

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

The CFP will expand to 8, go straight from 4 to 8, bypassing 6. It will include all Power 5 Champs and the highest ranked G5 champ and 2 at-large / wild-card teams. Likely the only caveat is that you have to be ranked in the Top 12 to be included, otherwise that spot opens up to a wild-card team. Good for the SEC overall as many times we will be getting 2 or 3 teams in the CFP.

I don't see how or why they would just automatically include all P5 champs, without some type of ranking qualification. Thus the CFP committee and poll will still be needed and in place.

Then there will be some complaining and wailing about teams that finish #9 and #10, but really nobody will care about that and the arguments of #9 or #10 being left out will not be strong or valid, not like the #5 team has just about every season.

I'm all for it. Especially with what Jimbo is building here. The quicker they go from 4 to 8 the better IMHO as it will be good for Texas A&M.

---

Of course people will be complaining about the few teams that got left out, and people won't shrug them off. People were saying the same thing about teams 5-8 when the playoffs were created, now look at things.

The fact of the matter is if we were still in the old BCS format, relatively nobody would be complaining that Alabama and Clemson were playing for the MNC. The playoff was created to make sure that the best team didn't get left out, and that has worked.

---

---

+ 3 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

JJxvi said:

---

Why is it bad for one Florida-LSU game to lose some shine, in exchange for making other games more important to the regular season picture? Why is that one Florida game the measuring stick? The answer is that youve made your perspective as being viewed from only Florida's perspective not the persoective of the entire sport. This inherent viewing of individual games and deciding their importance by an "if we, as a team playing in this game, lose our season is over" as the be all, end all of the importance of games is flawed. Its especially odd when thats what types of games a large playoff explicitly adds more of.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

I'm just using the Florida LSU game as an example, don't take it too literally. The point is if winning your conference because the only objective there will be scenarios leading up to the conference championship games where teams have nothing to play for if they have already locked up their division title

That's really the only point I'm making. They would benefit by resting their starters so they can be ready for the conference championship game which feels like week 16 and 17 in the nfl when teams are sitting starters to prepare for the playoffs

---

Toptierag2018 said:

Smart coaches wouldn't bank on that. If they were one of the two highest non conference champs they are in. That's worth fighting for.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

I get it, but if you are already locked up to be in the conference championship game and you have two regular season games left...you can literally lose both of those games and still have a chance to play for a national title. That is not/should not be college football. Period.

---

Toptierag2018 said:

A team going unbeaten or even 11-1/12-1 without a chance is better?

---

I don't believe that an unbeaten or one loss team that people really thought was one of the best teams in the country has been left out yet. Sorry, unless you can name me one

---

---

+ 4 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

JJxvi said:

---

Why is it bad for one Florida-LSU game to lose some shine, in exchange for making other games more important to the regular season picture? Why is that one Florida game the measuring stick? The answer is that youve made your perspective as being viewed from only Florida's perspective not the persoective of the entire sport. This inherent viewing of individual games and deciding their importance by an "if we, as a team playing in this game, lose our season is over" as the be all, end all of the importance of games is flawed. Its especially odd when thats what types of games a large playoff explicitly adds more of.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

I'm just using the Florida LSU game as an example, don't take it too literally. The point is if winning your conference because the only objective there will be scenarios leading up to the conference championship games where teams have nothing to play for if they have already locked up their division title

That's really the only point I'm making. They would benefit by resting their starters so they can be ready for the conference championship game which feels like week 16 and 17 in the nfl when teams are sitting starters to prepare for the playoffs

---

Toptierag2018 said:

Smart coaches wouldn't bank on that. If they were one of the two highest non conference champs they are in. That's worth fighting for.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

I get it, but if you are already locked up to be in the conference championship game and you have two regular season games left...you can literally lose both of those games and still have a chance to play for a national title. That is not/should not be college football. Period.

---

Toptierag2018 said:

A team going unbeaten or even 11-1/12-1 without a chance is better?

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

I don't believe that an unbeaten or one loss team that people really thought was one of the best teams in the country has been left out yet. Sorry, unless you can name me one

---

Obviously we believe that but not everyone else in the country does. Allowing the top ranked group of 5 in and 1 of each major conference in gives EVERY FBS team in the nation at least a CHANCE at thinking they could win the National championship if they win every game they play.

The phrase "we want Bama" would actually be fulfilled.

In reality a 13-0 Texas State still might not get in but it would, theory, be a possibility if the rest of the group up 5 slips
up and they are the last one standing. Sure they'd have to win 3 straight games against top 10 teams but the plausibility of it happening is infinitely higher than it is now which is a 0% chance of 13-0 Texas State getting in.

point being, and i've said this for years, that the hardest route to defend is a come-back when the CB's back is turned.

Almost every CB will have his back turned at some point when you are running a vertical route in man coverage.

When the receiver stops and comes back, he will almost ALWAYS have a huge advantage on the defender.

It's time we start using this a bit more.

The reg season and now bowl season are already worthless right now. Only a few teams and their games matter.

JW said:

---

No. Highest 8. Period. Your conf champ means nothing.

---

I am on the fence on this one. If you leave it with committee selecting all teams, you can bet your ass that they would rate blueblood programs in the top 8. It is how ND and 6 win Brutus got in this year.

If you expand, you have to include conference champions to help with interest nationwide. Otherwise, college football has the potential to become a "regional" game much the way hockey and lacrosse are.

So 8 teams with the 5 Power 5 conference champions and best Group of 5 paired with top 2 at large teams could work.

I would rather see 12 teams with top 4 seeds receiving 1st round byes and then hosting 2nd round games. Teams seeded 5-8 would host 1st round games. This would insure the regular season would still mean something as winning your conference would likely go a long way to having a top 4 seed.

12 teams also makes sure the best teams are in the playoffs. Go back to 2012, with an expanded playoff, we could have won the whole damn thing as we were pretty hot at year's end. Also, an expanded playoff eliminates many of the players "opting out" and teams will be at or close to full strength. An expanded playoff allows for the possibility of more than one (1) Group of 5 to make the playoffs.

Playoffs this year

1st Round
--------------
12 Oregon (PAC) @ 5 Texas A&M
11 Indiana @ 6 Oklahoma (BDF)
10 Iowa State @ 7 Florida
9 Georgia @ 8 Cincinnati (G5)

2nd Round
---------------
8-9 winner @ 1 Alabama (SEC)
7-10 winner @ 2 Clemson (ACC)
6-11 winner @ 3 Ohio State (B1G)
5-12 winner @ 4 Notre Dame

Semifinals
---------------
5-12 @ 4 vs 8-9 @ 1
6-11 @ 3 vs 7-10 @ 2

National Championship
---------------
Semifinal Winners

To those suggesting "how could anyone be against meaningful football games"...

It absolutely is a zero sum game - every expansion of the playoffs devalues the regular season an equal amount. As has been pointed out - teams would have had games late in this season it would have made sense to rest key players, just like NBA teams do in meaningless regular season games.

Also - the last round of conference realignment was totally influenced by the BCS. Texas and Oklahoma wanted to stay in a weak conference to optimize their chances of going undefeated and being able to have ESPN help them into the BCS game. Rewarding conference champs with an automatic bid would cheapen any expanded playoff by letting in an 8-4 Baylor team that sneaks past Texas or OU in a BDF Championship Game.

As I stated earlier, the ONLY benefit of CFP expansion would be eliminating a lot of these meaningless bowl games. The Orange Bowl is not one of those games - that's a serious big time bowl. The Dukes Mayo Bowl certainly is.

---

---

+ 5 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

JJxvi said:

---

Why is it bad for one Florida-LSU game to lose some shine, in exchange for making other games more important to the regular season picture? Why is that one Florida game the measuring stick? The answer is that youve made your perspective as being viewed from only Florida's perspective not the persoective of the entire sport. This inherent viewing of individual games and deciding their importance by an "if we, as a team playing in this game, lose our season is over" as the be all, end all of the importance of games is flawed. Its especially odd when thats what types of games a large playoff explicitly adds more of.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

I'm just using the Florida LSU game as an example, don't take it too literally. The point is if winning your conference because the only objective there will be scenarios leading up to the conference championship games where teams have nothing to play for if they have already locked up their division title

That's really the only point I'm making. They would benefit by resting their starters so they can be ready for the conference championship game which feels like week 16 and 17 in the nfl when teams are sitting starters to prepare for the playoffs

---

Toptierag2018 said:

Smart coaches wouldn't bank on that. If they were one of the two highest non conference champs they are in. That's worth fighting for.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

I get it, but if you are already locked up to be in the conference championship game and you have two regular season games left...you can literally lose both of those games and still have a chance to play for a national title. That is not/should not be college football. Period.

---

Toptierag2018 said:

A team going unbeaten or even 11-1/12-1 without a chance is better?

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

I don't believe that an unbeaten or one loss team that people really thought was one of the best teams in the country has been left out yet. Sorry, unless you can name me one

---

Toptierag2018 said:

Obviously we believe that but not everyone else in the country does. Allowing the top ranked group of 5 in and 1 of each major conference in gives EVERY FBS team in the nation at least a CHANCE at thinking they could win the National championship if they win every game they play.

The phrase "we want Bama" would actually be fulfilled.

In reality a 13-0 Texas State still might not get in but it would, theory, be a possibility if the rest of the group up 5 slips
up and they are the last one standing. Sure they'd have to win 3 straight games against top 10 teams but the plausibility of it happening is infinitely higher than it is now which is a 0% chance of 13-0 Texas State getting in.

---

I think where we disagree is just that I don't care if a G5 team is left out. They need to schedule tough out of conference games if they want to prove they are the best. Obviously this year was an outlier where it was difficult/impossible to do that, but that was out of everyone's control.

The year UH beat OU and Louisville they would have made the playoffs if they didn't choke away games to SMU, Navy, and Memphis. It's not impossible, but they need to go undefeated in conference and beat at least 1 or 2 top level teams if they want to play for the big boy championship.

Quote:

---

It absolutely is a zero sum game - every expansion of the playoffs devalues the regular season an equal amount. As has been pointed out - teams would have had games late in this season it would have made sense to rest key players, just like NBA teams do in meaningless regular season games.

---

It is not a zero sum game, except in the most banal and meaningless way.

If you cancelled all football games at every level everywhere except one single club game between football clubs at Rutgers and Princeton, then yes you are correct in your "zero-sum" worldview that that one game would become the most important possible football game and its outcome would encapsulate all of the importance included within the entire existence of the sport.

And yet, it is also quite clear that the total importance that would be ascribed to that one game by the world outside of the sport would be a nothingth of a nothingth compared to the importance of regular season college football game as it currently exists. The format of the competition absolutely can increas and decrease the total importance of a sport.

If you eliminated the NCAA basketball tournament, you think what would happen is that the same number of people who are interested in and watch college basketball as currently constituted would be exactly the same except that they would instead turn all of their attention to big regular season games instead? I'm sure there would be some of that, some of the championship importance that the tournament lost would go back to some regular season games, but the reality is that the sport as a whole would be less important overall as many viewers that had previously been plugged into the sport on the basis of its postseason decide to totally check out of the sport altogether.

Eliminate Ccg and you have the correct solution

The true reality is that the current format and all previous formats were not really created and maintained on the basis of improving the importance of any games or the competitive value of the sport at large at all.

Obviously there has been some pressure to improve those areas, and thus through some mild reforms applied to the old systems, gradually it has led to the current 4 team playoff that exists now. However, this system does NOT exist for the benefit of the competition or the fans, or the athletes at all and never has. It exists to allow parasites outside of the confines of the competition (ie the bowls, the cities and entities that organize them, and the television media) to maximize the amount of cash they can suck off of the bloated corpse of the cash cow. The big schools themselves are enslaved to this mantra through their conferences, which are given some of the cash and a seat at the bargaining table, in return for supporting the system. These conferences won't ever truly endorse change because they are also the beneficiaries receiving most of the kickbacks from the parasites. An open system that allows the competition to be truly competitive to all teams, even those from the "have-not conferences" would see some of their bribery cash end up going to the new interlopers (of which there are now literally hundreds of schools trying to force their way into the feeding frenzy.

The college football postseason does not exist because it was some perfect form designed to create the most meaningful possible regular season. The idea of that is utter horse***** The idea that college football the way it has developed is perfect, is a nonsense created in the minds either of people who are too scared to try and change things or by schills who are trying to maintain the parasitical status quo.

JJxvi said:

---

The true reality is that the current format and all previous formats were not really created and maintained on the basis of improving the importance of any games or the competitive value of the sport at large at all.

Obviously there has been some pressure to improve those areas, and thus through some mild reforms applied to the old systems, gradually it has led to the current 4 team playoff that exists now. However, this system does NOT exist for the benefit of the competition or the fans, or the athletes at all and never has. It exists to allow parasites outside of the confines of the competition (ie the bowls, the cities and entities that organize them, and the television media) to maximize the amount of cash they can suck off of the bloated corpse of the cash cow. The big schools themselves are enslaved to this mantra through their conferences, which are given some of the cash and a seat at the bargaining table, in return for supporting the system. These conferences won't ever truly endorse change because they are also the beneficiaries. An open system that allows the competition to be open to have-not conferences would see some of their bribery cash end up going to the new interlopers (of which there are now literally hundreds of schools trying to force their way into the feeding frenzy.

The college football postseason does not exist because it was some perfect form designed to create the most meaningful possible regular season. The idea of that is utter horse***** The idea that college football the way it has developed is perfect, is a nonsense created in the minds either of people who are too scared to try and change things or by schills who are trying to maintain the parasitical status quo.

---

This bold part....well said and very accurate.

The shortsighted among us who are defending the current system or even the old BCS system are going to be sorely disappointed when the existing contract is up. Expansion is going to happen. You guys can cry all you want, but you will thank us when you realize how wrong you were.

aTmAg said:

---

The shortsighted among us who are defending the current system or even the old BCS system are going to be sorely disappointed when the existing contract is up. Expansion is going to happen. You guys can cry all you want, but you will thank us when you realize how wrong you were.

---

Well the current contract ends after the 2025 season so I guess we'll just wait and see.

If they do it expand it won't be more than 8, anything over that is just overkill.

---

aTmAg said:

---

The shortsighted among us who are defending the current system or even the old BCS system are going to be sorely disappointed when the existing contract is up. Expansion is going to happen. You guys can cry all you want, but you will thank us when you realize how wrong you were.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

Well the current contract ends after the 2025 season so I guess we'll just wait and see.

If they do it expand it won't be more than 8, anything over that is just overkill.

---

What's going to drive it is the opt-outs. If #7 and #8 teams tend to have lots of opt outs then they will make it at least a 8 team playoff. If #9 and #10 tend to have lots of opt outs then they will expand it more. At some level the opt outs drop off because there are not many NFL players and those teams will play in the also-ran bowls.

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

aTmAg said:

---

The shortsighted among us who are defending the current system or even the old BCS system are going to be sorely disappointed when the existing contract is up. Expansion is going to happen. You guys can cry all you want, but you will thank us when you realize how wrong you were.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

Well the current contract ends after the 2025 season so I guess we'll just wait and see.

If they do it expand it won't be more than 8, anything over that is just overkill.

---

aTmAg said:

What's going to drive it is the opt-outs. If #7 and #8 teams tend to have lots of opt outs then they will make it at least a 8 team playoff. If #9 and #10 tend to have lots of opt outs then they will expand it more. At some level the opt outs drop off because there are not many NFL players and those teams will play in the also-ran bowls.

---

Money is the only reason to expand the playoffs. Opt outs will have nothing to do with it, and it certainly will not have any impact on how they decide the number of teams to expand to (again that number will be based on money and contracts).

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

aTmAg said:

---

The shortsighted among us who are defending the current system or even the old BCS system are going to be sorely disappointed when the existing contract is up. Expansion is going to happen. You guys can cry all you want, but you will thank us when you realize how wrong you were.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

Well the current contract ends after the 2025 season so I guess we'll just wait and see.

If they do it expand it won't be more than 8, anything over that is just overkill.

---

aTmAg said:

What's going to drive it is the opt-outs. If #7 and #8 teams tend to have lots of opt outs then they will make it at least a 8 team playoff. If #9 and #10 tend to have lots of opt outs then they will expand it more. At some level the opt outs drop off because there are not many NFL players and those teams will play in the also-ran bowls.

---

Yep this. The Cotton Bowl tonight and the Ag game against UNC will be awful games. I'd rather watch more non scrimmages with all those great top 10 teams.

Television is the most neutral, fan friendly, and most powerful of the parasites, and also the closest to actually having a real partnership with the competition side of the sport like would normally exist in other sports. They want the competition to be good, especially for all the games they own. As Disney takes a larger and larger iron grip on the entirety of the sport's broadcast portfolio it becomes more and more likely that they will be able to force through any changes that increase the profile and value of their broadcasts and less likely that lesser parasites like Fox and CBS, and NBC will continue to have enough clout to loudly worry that playoff expansion will "erode the importance of muh regular season broadcasts!"

---

---

+ 2 more quotes (click to expand)

---

aTmAg said:

---

The shortsighted among us who are defending the current system or even the old BCS system are going to be sorely disappointed when the existing contract is up. Expansion is going to happen. You guys can cry all you want, but you will thank us when you realize how wrong you were.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

Well the current contract ends after the 2025 season so I guess we'll just wait and see.

If they do it expand it won't be more than 8, anything over that is just overkill.

---

aTmAg said:

What's going to drive it is the opt-outs. If #7 and #8 teams tend to have lots of opt outs then they will make it at least a 8 team playoff. If #9 and #10 tend to have lots of opt outs then they will expand it more. At some level the opt outs drop off because there are not many NFL players and those teams will play in the also-ran bowls.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

Money is the only reason to expand the playoffs. Opt outs will have nothing to do with it, and it certainly will not have any impact on how they decide the number of teams to expand to (again that number will be based on money and contracts).

---

Money is the reason opt-outs will have everything to do with it. Nobody wants to watch games where the best players are all sitting out.

---

---

+ 3 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

aTmAg said:

---

The shortsighted among us who are defending the current system or even the old BCS system are going to be sorely disappointed when the existing contract is up. Expansion is going to happen. You guys can cry all you want, but you will thank us when you realize how wrong you were.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

Well the current contract ends after the 2025 season so I guess we'll just wait and see.

If they do it expand it won't be more than 8, anything over that is just overkill.

---

aTmAg said:

What's going to drive it is the opt-outs. If #7 and #8 teams tend to have lots of opt outs then they will make it at least a 8 team playoff. If #9 and #10 tend to have lots of opt outs then they will expand it more. At some level the opt outs drop off because there are not many NFL players and those teams will play in the also-ran bowls.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

Money is the only reason to expand the playoffs. Opt outs will have nothing to do with it, and it certainly will not have any impact on how they decide the number of teams to expand to (again that number will be based on money and contracts).

---

aTmAg said:

Money is the reason opt-outs will have everything to do with it. Nobody wants to watch games where the best players are all sitting out.

---

What are you talking about, show me where they are losing money because of a few players opting out. Florida fans are still watching tonight, OU fans are still watching tonight, opt outs don't impact ratings at all. North Carolina and Aggie fans will be watching the Orange bowl I assure you

I swear people on here just make stuff up so they can make a point

aTmAg said:

---

The shortsighted among us who are defending the current system or even the old BCS system are going to be sorely disappointed when the existing contract is up. Expansion is going to happen. You guys can cry all you want, but you will thank us when you realize how wrong you were.

---

Perhaps. Let's imagine how that goes, though.

Round 1: 5-8 get blown out (unless Ohio State sharts the bed), ND v A&M is a real game.
Round 2: Clemson and Bama win handily - rendering round 1 purposeless, and ultimately round 2 as well.
Round 3: the inevitable championship game.

Are we crowing a "National Champion" or just a "Tournament Champion?" Let's say the 2012 Aggie team gets into an 8 team playoff and wins it all. They had 2 losses, but peaked at the right time. Is the regular season simply a mechanism for invitation, or are we trying to find that year's best team?

---

aTmAg said:

---

The shortsighted among us who are defending the current system or even the old BCS system are going to be sorely disappointed when the existing contract is up. Expansion is going to happen. You guys can cry all you want, but you will thank us when you realize how wrong you were.

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

Perhaps. Let's imagine how that goes, though.

Round 1: 5-8 get blown out (unless Ohio State sharts the bed), ND v A&M is a real game.
Round 2: Clemson and Bama win handily - rendering round 1 purposeless, and ultimately round 2 as well.
Round 3: the inevitable championship game.

Are we crowing a "National Champion" or just a "Tournament Champion?" Let's say the 2012 Aggie team gets into an 8 team playoff and wins it all. They had 2 losses, but peaked at the right time. Is the regular season simply a mechanism for invitation, or are we trying to find that year's best team?

---

Boom. Well said

Football champions at all levels are almost universally determined by the winner of a postseason knockout tournament playoff.

The "regular season is sacred" rhetoric only exists in fbs college football.

JJxvi said:

---

Football champions at all levels are almost universally determined by the winner of a postseason knockout tournament playoff.

The "regular season is sacred" rhetoric only exists in fbs college football.

---

Which is part of why it's by far the greatest regular season on any sport

On another note, an expansion to 8 will for sure have autobids, so start getting used to a that idea

JJxvi said:

---

Football champions at all levels are almost universally determined by the winner of a postseason knockout tournament playoff.

The "regular season is sacred" rhetoric only exists in fbs college football.

---

It's not fair to compare the postseason of football to other sports like baseball and basketball...those regular seasons are so long that a lot of those games are already meaningless.

You should compare college football to the NFL postseason if you want to make an argument because they both have a small number of regular season games and they do their postseasons very differently. I personally don't care for the NFL near as much as I do college football and any argument to make it closer like the NFL I will be against (as will many others)

If I ask myself to evaluate the NFL vs college football, I come to the same value conclusion you do, but the playoff structure has almost nothing to do with it.

In terms of competition, I would say that it's probably the most popular regular season and postseason in terms of interest in the typical game in this country, so its hard to go against the NFL formula in terms of competitive structure.

I also think that if you dont want college football to move the direction of the NFL in terms of competitive balance, then, we had better stop the tidal shift that continues to move us toward only 67 power 5 programs being the sole competitors in a mini division, because thats what will move the game toward the NFL style football more than anything.

---

aTmAg said:

---

The shortsighted among us who are defending the current system or even the old BCS system are going to be sorely disappointed when the existing contract is up. Expansion is going to happen. You guys can cry all you want, but you will thank us when you realize how wrong you were.

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

Perhaps. Let's imagine how that goes, though.

Round 1: 5-8 get blown out (unless Ohio State sharts the bed), ND v A&M is a real game.
Round 2: Clemson and Bama win handily - rendering round 1 purposeless, and ultimately round 2 as well.
Round 3: the inevitable championship game.

Are we crowing a "National Champion" or just a "Tournament Champion?" Let's say the 2012 Aggie team gets into an 8 team playoff and wins it all. They had 2 losses, but peaked at the right time. Is the regular season simply a mechanism for invitation, or are we trying to find that year's best team?

---

You need to get your story straight. If round 1 and 2 go how you claim, then the "National Champion" and the "Tournament Champion" are the exact same thing. So WGAF? (other than the players who want to play and the fans who want to watch). If rounds 1 and 2 don't go how you claim, then perhaps the seeding was crap, and it's great that we have a 8 team playoff to sort that out. It's a win/win for everybody involved.

---

JJxvi said:

---

If I ask myself to evaluate the NFL vs college football, I come to the same value conclusion you do, but the playoff structure has almost nothing to do with it.

In terms of competition, I would say that it's probably the most popular regular season and postseason in terms of interest in the typical game in this country, so its hard to go against the NFL formula in terms of competitive structure.

I also think that if you dont want college football to move the direction of the NFL in terms of competitive balance, then, we had better stop the tidal shift that continues to move us toward only 67 power 5 programs being the sole competitors in a mini division, because thats what will move the game toward the NFL style football more than anything.

---

rootube said:

Now do a comparison with every single other sporting event where they have a reasonable playoff. There is a reason no other sport is investigating how to stage a Gasparilla bowl.

---

I am aware. In case its not clear I am for playoff expansion. In fact, I am for large playoff expansion, my preference is 16 teams. I am also for automatic bids for winning championships. I am generally for smaller conference winners getting competitive shots at the big teams. I am perfectly happy with the existence of powerful conferences that dominate the landscape of the sport, but I am against codifying which conferences are the predetermined good ole boy power conferences through the current system of contracts and corruption, and exclusion of teams from the postseason in order to avoid the possibility of sharing the money and glory with them. I am against staging a postseason filled with meaningless exhibition games that players dont want to even play in. I am even against playing playoff games in random cities all over the country instead of primarily in front of the true fans (esp the student body) of one of the teams

No don't expand, there will be years teams get screwed, either by perception or the number of talented teams at the top. Expanding will dilute the sport further and further reward bad leagues rather than promote them.

It sucks, OSU changed the rules to make it and the committee let them in because of their name, ND got in because of their nam, Bama and Clemson deserve to be there.

We have a harder path, it sucks because has we beat Bama and they ended with 1 loss they would absolutely be in the playoffs, I get it.

Don't expand because you're mad, that will make things worse in the long run.

Keep in mind I fully expect the playoffs to expand after 2025 - I just do not think it should.

As has been alluded, the bowl system is what keeps the current system going. Not sure how the system can expand to 8 unless everyone agrees to something stupid like letting the Rose Bowl host the championship game every year. That bowl is the big money one that drives the whole crooked system.

An expanded playoff will never happen without the B1G and PAC-12 and they will not agree to anything that doesn't protect the Rose Bowl.

Just more reasons to opt out. Ask King the Miami qb what he thinks