Texas A&M Football
Sponsored by

Dellinger SI article on CFP ecpansion being discussed on Finebaum

12,069 Views | 128 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Iowaggie
greg.w.h
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:13p, 5/3/21
AG
Ross claims at least two years before change, the CFP has formed a committee to explore, conferences have final say, formats from 6 to 16 teams.

Dellinger article:

https://www.si.com/college/2021/05/03/college-football-playoff-expansion-discussions-underway
Reply Quote
2 edits
greg.w.h
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:15p, 5/3/21
AG
Oh. And been meeting since 2018
Reply Quote
1
greg.w.h
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:16p, 5/3/21
AG
Expansion. Meh.
Reply Quote
9
Aggieair
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:26p, 5/3/21
Sounds like we'll likely see an 8 team playoff in 2 years with the quarterfinals hosted by the top 4 seeds, though automatic bids seems doubtful.
Reply Quote
1
hunter2012
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggieair • 7:23p, 5/3/21
AG
Aggieair said:
Sounds like we'll likely see an 8 team playoff in 2 years with the quarterfinals hosted by the top 4 seeds, though automatic bids seems doubtful.
Ef automatic bids, not all conferences are created equal.

Have eight teams play in 4 of the NY6, winners advance to the remaining 2 NY6, and finally play the championships at one of the 6 locations.

If 3 rounds are too much, then play the NY6 as normal and pick the championship teams from the results of that.
Reply Quote
17
Bunk Moreland
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:30p, 5/3/21
Continuing to dilute the product. Adding more teams won't fix the problem that very rarely are there more than 2 teams a pure cut above the rest. Work on that and then I'd care more about expanding from 4.
Reply Quote
24
1 edit
NyAggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bunk Moreland • 7:38p, 5/3/21
AG
Bunk Moreland said:
Continuing to dilute the product. Adding more teams won't fix the problem that very rarely are there more than 2 teams a pure cut above the rest. Work on that and then I'd care more about expanding from 4.


I don't see it as dluting the product, I see it as making sure there is minimal argument as to who should be in, plus keeping more teams alive and enhancing what has become a very boring and meaningless post season outside the playoff

And even the playoff has become boring because it's some combination of 4 of the same 5 or 6 teams every year

8 will open it up to new participants every year, giving more fanbases hope and thus keeping interest in the season and post season stronger

Plus it will hopefully cut down on the opt outs


Reply Quote
29
1 edit
Bunk Moreland
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NyAggie • 7:42p, 5/3/21
8 will mean each p5 conference champion + 1 non power 5 + 2 at large.

Which is not the top 8. If they do a committee ranking top 8 with no additional official underlying biases then I may be open to it but when most semi final games aren't super competitive how can I get excited about quarterfinal games?

8 playoff + byes for top 2 may help alleviate the 1st round blowouts but doesn't stop the bloat.

The argument is being driven mostly by lack of representation by conferences representing large portions of the country and of course by money. Not for competitive reasons in any way.
Reply Quote
14
3 edits
TxAg76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NyAggie • 7:47p, 5/3/21
AG
NyAggie said:
Bunk Moreland said:
Continuing to dilute the product. Adding more teams won't fix the problem that very rarely are there more than 2 teams a pure cut above the rest. Work on that and then I'd care more about expanding from 4.


I don't see it as fluting the product, I see it as making sure there is minimal argument as to who should be in, plus keeping more teams alive and enhancing what has become a very boring and meaningless post season outside the playoff

And even the playoff has become boring because it's some combination of 4 of the same 5 or 6 teams every year

8 will open it up to new participants every year, giving more fanbases hope and thus keeping interest in the season and post season stronger

Plus it will hopefully cut down on the opt outs



So if I've got this right, they should:
- fold to accommodate all the whiners that barely missed out
- make the non playoff bowls even more irrelevant
- with #1 playing #8 (instead of #4), create more blowouts that just postpones the inevitable matchup of two Top 4 teams

And this is a good thing?
Reply Quote
10
Agvet12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NyAggie • 7:48p, 5/3/21
AG
NyAggie said:
Bunk Moreland said:
Continuing to dilute the product. Adding more teams won't fix the problem that very rarely are there more than 2 teams a pure cut above the rest. Work on that and then I'd care more about expanding from 4.


I don't see it as fluting the product, I see it as making sure there is minimal argument as to who should be in, plus keeping more teams alive and enhancing what has become a very boring and meaningless post season outside the playoff

And even the playoff has become boring because it's some combination of 4 of the same 5 or 6 teams every year

8 will open it up to new participants every year, giving more fanbases hope and thus keeping interest in the season and post season stronger

Plus it will hopefully cut down on the opt outs




This won't fix the problem... 2 years after expanding to 8 teams and Same 2/3 teams are the finalists again (add in ND for us/UF/Uga/LSU) and the world will wanting 12 teams for "fairness"
Reply Quote
9
Stinky T
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bunk Moreland • 7:58p, 5/3/21
AG
Bunk Moreland said:
Continuing to dilute the product. Adding more teams won't fix the problem that very rarely are there more than 2 teams a pure cut above the rest. Work on that and then I'd care more about expanding from 4.


It could be argued that having only 4 teams in the playoffs each year just exacerbates the problem you describe.
Reply Quote
4
Bunk Moreland
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stinky T • 8:03p, 5/3/21
Stinky T said:
Bunk Moreland said:
Continuing to dilute the product. Adding more teams won't fix the problem that very rarely are there more than 2 teams a pure cut above the rest. Work on that and then I'd care more about expanding from 4.


It could be argued that having only 4 teams in the playoffs each year just exacerbates the problem you describe.


Would love to hear the argument so please go ahead..
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Stinky T
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bunk Moreland • 8:15p, 5/3/21
AG
Bunk Moreland said:
Stinky T said:
Bunk Moreland said:
Continuing to dilute the product. Adding more teams won't fix the problem that very rarely are there more than 2 teams a pure cut above the rest. Work on that and then I'd care more about expanding from 4.


It could be argued that having only 4 teams in the playoffs each year just exacerbates the problem you describe.


Would love to hear the argument so please go ahead..


Sure. I don't think it is a secret that the 2 teams that were playing at the highest level when the 4 team playoff started have been there the most and may actually be recruiting at the highest level we have ever seen in college football. We are seeing a concentration of talent at fewer and fewer programs. I don't think this is a particularly good trend for college football.

College football may benefit by adding more teams that have a chance. It may benefit from a few upsets - similar to what we see in basketball. Maybe not, but I think it can be argued.
Reply Quote
17
The Chicken Ranch
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to greg.w.h • 8:17p, 5/3/21
AG
The playoff is perfect the way it is. No one seeded below #4 really has a chance.
Reply Quote
19
NoahAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Chicken Ranch • 8:59p, 5/3/21
The Chicken Ranch said:
The playoff is perfect the way it is. No one seeded below #4 really has a chance.

Exactly. In the CFP format no team below #4 has had a serious argument that they were the best in the country.
Reply Quote
4
Bunk Moreland
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:00p, 5/3/21
If anything, playoffs should be 3 teams... 2/3 winner plays #1.

Make 2v3 play 10 days after conference championship weekend.
Reply Quote
2
3 edits
Agsuffering@bulaw
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:07p, 5/3/21
I'm with Bunk. Leave it alone. If the bdf and pac are unhappy, f them!
Reply Quote
4
aTmAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:32p, 5/3/21
AG
The CFP has only existed during the Saban era. He is the primary reason there has been one or two dominant teams. To think that will always be the case, and to use that as the argument on why the playoff should never grow to larger than 4 is idiotic.
Reply Quote
4
Bison
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NoahAg • 8:21a, 5/4/21
AG
NoahAg said:
The Chicken Ranch said:
The playoff is perfect the way it is. No one seeded below #4 really has a chance.

Exactly. In the CFP format no team below #4 has had a serious argument that they were the best in the country.

So then it didn't matter than ND got the bid last year over us...?

I get it, right now it seems to make sense to limit to top-four. But then again a ten-team play off in 2012 gets us a natty in all likelihood. I don't like the idea of an infinite season any more than the rest of us do, but the current four team structure is locking some folks in and leaving a bunch more permanently out. And since no one wants to take the other obvious solution (limit schollies to 15/year, spread the talent around), I'd say go to eight, and wait for the inevitable year that someone outside the initial top four makes it to the NCG.
Reply Quote
6
W
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NyAggie • 9:08a, 5/4/21
AG
Quote:

Plus it will hopefully cut down on the opt outs

Bingo. That's what I'm thinking too, but the CFP cannot come out and say it.

they want to prevent the disaster that was the OU-UF Cotton Bowl this past year.

would try to find a way to have the major bowls serve as quarterfinal hosts
Reply Quote
2
aggiebrad94
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bunk Moreland • 9:26a, 5/4/21
AG
Bunk Moreland said:
Continuing to dilute the product. Adding more teams won't fix the problem that very rarely are there more than 2 teams a pure cut above the rest. Work on that and then I'd care more about expanding from 4.
Expanding will take care of this just like college basketball. Right now, only 3-4 teams can tell recruits they will most likely play in the playoffs during their career. That's a HUGE selling point.

Now if 8 or 10 teams can now say this, kids won't feel the urgency to go to Bama, Ohio St or Clemson. They can go to A&M, or Miami, or USC and know they'll have a great shot at the tournament AND get more playing time early in some cases.
Reply Quote
6
Agsuffering@bulaw
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bison • 9:27a, 5/4/21
Neither ND nor us was a legit contender. We deserved in more bc their win over Clemson was exposed as hollow. They got in bc they get better ratings. It was crap how the committee did is, but bama wins regardless.

We would have been a 7 pt dog against2012 bama in a neutral rematch. Maybe we win, but more likely saban would have figured out how to slow jff down with the month of prep.
Reply Quote
3
HossAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bunk Moreland • 10:45a, 5/4/21
AG
This is such a dumb take. What sport has every playoff team "cut out for the championship"? The fact is that it's getting ****in boring watching the same 4 teams make it every year, and politics play too big of a role in keeping certain teams out at 5 and 6 that deserved a shot, or at least deserved the spot over #4.

College football would be a lot more entertaining and interesting if there were 8 seeds to play for. 8 seeds is not too many when you have 5 power conferences with at least 10 schools each.
Reply Quote
17
HossAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiebrad94 • 10:49a, 5/4/21
AG
Exactly. In theory, 8 teams promotes more parity. Right now, if you want a real shot at the playoffs, you go to bama, Clemson, Ohio state, OU, or Georgia.

On top of all that, as I said in my previous post, it's just more entertaining.

I'll never understand the gate keeping of the 4 team playoff by fans here of a team that gets ****ed harder by the 4 team playoff setup than any other team out there. We haven't made the playoff. Why are some of you acting like we should protect that setup?
Reply Quote
7
LB12Diamond
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:51a, 5/4/21
AG
I like an 8 team playoff. 5 automatics and 3 at large. Just hope 3 at large are the deserving teams.

They just need to go ahead and do it.

Last year we could have beat ND in the first round and had the rematch with Bama. Do we lose, probably, but I think we would have given them the best game of any of the teams and maybe ended ranked 2nd.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Detmersdislocatedshoulder
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:54a, 5/4/21
I am okay with 8 teams in the playoffs and I believe if they expanded the playoff you would see the playing field be leveled a bit. That said I am not in favor of expansion if it is based on conference champions. It should be the top 8 teams regardless of conference affiliation. All conferences are not created equally and should not be treated as if they are created equally.
Reply Quote
6
GIF Reactor
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:56a, 5/4/21
AG
On one hand I think what we have now is good, and I like Bunk's idea of 2 playing 3 for the opportunity to play #1 as well. It makes the regular season matter more.

On the other hand, I like the idea of playoff expansion because it would hopefully push the power 5 to play more meaningful non-conference games, rather than 3 warm ups. But that also likely means catastrophe for the smaller schools who count on those paydays.

In the end, I think the lure of a financial windfall is too much to ignore and they expand the playoff. So it doesn't matter what any of us think or want.
Reply Quote
LB12Diamond
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Detmersdislocatedshoulder • 11:00a, 5/4/21
AG
5 auto bids are fine for the power 5 conferences. That way politics (ESPN) only can affect 3 teams instead of all 8. They would be a headache and not interested in that.

The funniest part would be the teams politicking on seeding so they could avoid certain teams. Like Ohio State wanting no part of Bama in the first round this year.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Bunk Moreland
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HossAg • 11:01a, 5/4/21
Quote:
I'll never understand the gate keeping of the 4 team playoff by fans here of a team that gets ****ed harder by the 4 team playoff setup than any other team out there. We haven't made the playoff. Why are some of you acting like we should protect that setup?

Who's gatekeeping? We haven't been good enough to make the playoffs in a single year since it existed until this past season, and covid weirdness helped **** all that up.

There hasn't been a single year during the playoff era where more than 4 teams deserved to be in and/or had a legit chance to win/make the title game. Most seasons there aren't even 4, but 3.

We all know 8 teams means 5 power 5 champs + 1 non-p5 + 2 at large. If 2019 were an 8 team playoff we'd have seen the following teams:


LSU (SEC)
Clemson (ACC)
Ohio St (B1G)
Oklahoma (Big12)
Oregon (PAC)
Memphis (Np5)
Georgia (at-large 1)
Baylor (at-large 2)

Re-rank them based off CFP rankings and you have the following:

1 LSU v 8 Memphis
2 Ohio State v 7 Baylor
3 Clemson v 6 Oregon
4 Oklahoma v 5 Georgia

We would have added 3 terrible games and 1 potentially good game in UGA/OU. Whoever wins that game gets the honor of getting blown out in the semi finals to LSU (LSU won the semi that year 63-28 vs OU).

I don't see what's entertaining in that. Blowouts in primetime on the largest stage turn people OFF from watching, not the other way around.
Reply Quote
2
4 edits
HossAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bunk Moreland • 11:15a, 5/4/21
AG
You have no way of knowing if those will be blowout games. We see enough upsets in NY6 games to not make that call. You can say that those teams just weren't trying, but at the end of the day, you don't know.

I agree that they most likely will, but there will be some upsets, it'll be more entertaining watching teams fight for 8 spots, and it'll promote parity over time when you've got more teams with a chance at a spot.
Reply Quote
7
Agsuffering@bulaw
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:26a, 5/4/21
Bunk's point is that making any general rule for college b/c of Saban is unwise. Saban is unprecedented. Saban is also probably gone in 5 years or less.
Reply Quote
Bunk Moreland
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HossAg • 11:30a, 5/4/21
HossAg said:
You have no way of knowing if those will be blowout games. We see enough upsets in NY6 games to not make that call. You can say that those teams just weren't trying, but at the end of the day, you don't know.

I agree that they most likely will, but there will be some upsets, it'll be more entertaining watching teams fight for 8 spots, and it'll promote parity over time when you've got more teams with a chance at a spot.

You have no way of knowing it'll be more entertaining watching teams fight for 8 spots, and no way of knowing it will promote parity over time when you've got more teams with a chance at a spot. You can hope for it, but at the end of the day, you don't know.

Again, this is not CBB where roster sizes allow for one key recruit to change the entire trajectory of a team's potential. There are way too many blowouts in the 4-team playoffs to consider it with a straight face thinking it will make the product better.

2014:
2 def 3 by 39
4 def 1 by 7

2015:
2 def 3 by 38 (shut-out)
1 def 4 by 20

2016:
2 def 3 by 31 (shut out)
1 def 4 by 17 (7 points scored by loser)

2017:
3 def 2 by 6 in 2OT
4 def 1 by 17 (6 points scored by loser)

2018:
2 def 3 by 27 (3 points scored by loser)
1 def 4 by 9

2019:
3 def 2 by 6
1 def 3 by 35

2020:
3 def 2 by 21
1 def 4 by 17

when the top 4 are usually slaughtering at least 1 (if not 2) of those 4 in most years, it's clear that there are usually 2 elite teams each season, sometimes 3. No addition of more teams will change that until there's are more consistently elite teams at the table than Bama, Ohio St and Clemson.

WHEN that happens I'd be open to expanding but it makes no sense imo at this point.
Reply Quote
4
Jarrin' Jay
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:35a, 5/4/21
AG
All Aggie/SEC fans should be in support of the playoff expanding to 8. I just don't see them going to 6 and saying all P5 champs and highest ranked G5 team, as many times those teams will be ranked lower than other teams.

IMHO it will go to 8 and nobody will care to hear about the complaints of the teams left out, 8 is more than enough.

Will be worked into existing bowl structure for first 4 games, likely with SF games and champ. game being neutral locations and not bowl games.

Expect all P5 Champs plus highest ranked G5 team, with a Top 15 ranking qualification for all, otherwise they don't qualify. 2 at-large wild-card teams, additional at-large / wild-card team if an auto-qualified isn't ranked high enough.

This will be a good thing for aTm and the SEC as the additional teams are gong to be dominated by the SEC and to a lesser extend the B1G. This will really help us as we are not then completely out just due to a loss to Bama or a 2nd SEC loss, could get in with a 10-2 record with our schedule.

Reply Quote
6
HossAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bunk Moreland • 11:42a, 5/4/21
AG
I think the fact that there are so many blowouts just boosts the probability of having better games in the playoffs. The 4-5 and 3-6 matchups will be great games most likely.

I guess our idea of the playoffs are just different. You like seeing two teams play for a title and that's it, and I like watching the playoffs as a whole, like in other sports where way more than the two or four best teams make it.
Reply Quote
2
Bunk Moreland
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HossAg • 11:47a, 5/4/21
Fair enough. But this is the internet, so we'll end on terms that I'm right, no other opinion is valid, and you couldn't be more wrong
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Last Page
Page 1 of 4 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.