CFB Playoff Expansion

[HerbRedman]

There has long been fear of litigation by those in power at the top of CFB

Really?

You're talking about a league (NCAA D-1 FB) that has never actually crowned a champion. It's always operated on smoke, mirrors, myths & legends. And writers polls. Coaches polls. Etc

The CFP operates outside of the NCAA. The NCAA D-1 football season just ends without a champion.

Legally challenging the CFP seems very very very difficult. Now, in hoops you could legally challenge the NCAA and the selection committee etc. But the CFP doesn't report to anyone.

 

[Fargo Husker]

IMO, playoff size should be limited to about the number of teams that have an actual chance of winning it. 12, maybe 16 absolutely max is plenty in CFB.

Nobody outside that group is winning it, so including them is pointless and turns games against those teams into "just don't get injured" contests, and wastes a full week in a sport like football.

Have your playoffs for the title contenders, and have bowl games be fun escapes & revenue generators for other good teams.

Thank you for saying what I wanted to say better than I said it.

 

[Irv]

If the SEC is interested, this thing will happen.

From The Athletic article:

A mega-expansion that eliminates conference championship games is not an idea exclusive to the Big Ten. The SEC has internally looked at a Playoff as large as 32 teams over the past few months, a person involved in those discussions told The Athletic.

Missouri coach Eli Drinkwitz recently outlined a plan for a 30-team bracket.

“Now you’re talking about an opportunity for 30 teams, 30 fan bases to be excited and engaged, engaged in giving revenue,” Drinkwitz said. “You’ve got 30 teams with players who have access to compete for a championship. So, for me, I think that makes a lot more sense.”

 

[BorWhiskey]

There are two sides to this debate (at least as I see it):

1. I believe the national champion needs to be the best team that year. Creating more opportunity for upset will reduce the probability that the one true champion gets crowned. Therefore, we need to limit the pool to only those deserving.

2. I like to watch good football games above all else so give me that.

I was in #1 for a long time not realizing that #2 was an option until about 4-5 years ago. Now I’m in for what increases entertainment value.

 

[HerbRedman]

There are two sides to this debate (at least as I see it):

1. I believe the national champion needs to be the best team that year. Creating more opportunity for upset will reduce the probability that the one true champion gets crowned. Therefore, we need to limit the pool to only those deserving.

2. I like to watch good football games above all else so give me that.

I was in #1 for a long time not realizing that #2 was an option until about 4-5 years ago. Now I’m in for what increases entertainment value.

I'm with you in that I've come around to a view I didn't have before, but I disagree with you on what the 2 sides are.

I see the debate as these two sides:

#1 - PAST CLINGERS: keep the 35 bowl games. keep the CCGs. I'll allow a playoff but only if it's small, capped at 8-12 teams max. no changes needed. I want to keep CFB as close to my 1980s-90s memories as I can.


#2 - FUTURE ACCEPTORS: nuke the 35 bowls. nuke the CCGs. make a bigger playoff that involves 28-32 teams. CFB has changed irrevocably (NIL, TV $$, transfer portal, conference alignments, bowl game opt-outs, etc) - we need a system that reflects the current CFB landscape.



I am now firmly in the 2nd group. The status quo will not work as the CFB landscape continues to change. We need to get over the whole "30 teams sounds crazy and hurts my 1988 CFB brain." Look at it more from a post-season involvement standpoint: we're trading the bowl involvement and shifting it to a playoff involvement. This is something that needs to be done bc the bowls are dead and a relic of the past.

 

[Dawgsauce]

I'm curious what the naysayers would prefer for a better system?

Are you guys still clinging to bowl games? Those are over man.

The way forward is playoffs man. Not more meaningless lawn mower and Duke's Mayo bowl games.

Replacing them with meaningless playoff games doesn't seem to be it either. I was for expansion from 4. 12 seemed like too many. I love 8, no auto bids, no teams from Florida, TN, or Technical schools. Seems about perfect.

 

[Dawgsauce]

If there were 28 teams instead of 16, would you watch the incremental games and be interested in their outcomes? I'd bet you would.

I'll absolutely watch if they play all of those at different times. I still want regular season to matter, and that seems less and less with each expansion. In the Playoff I want Georgia wouldn't have made it last year maybe. I'm ok with that. 2 losses should matter. They won SECCG and that should matter some as well. But, if they would've been left out of an 8 team playoff then Bama and Miss losses would've stung and that is a beautiful thing.

 

[Stan Raymond]

I’d rather see some kid of mini conference playoff which feeds into a smaller CFB playoff.

I was really getting behind the idea of top 2 in B1G and SEC are in, then 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 on campus for next two in. Some expansion of this effectively does take the playoff beyond 12 or 16, just keeps some of it within conference.

I agree. I think it can also make the money easier to handle, let the SEC and B1G have their own playoffs for their national spot and they also control the media for those games. Something like this, with last years teams.



The Semifinals would rarely have the best 4 teams in the country, but who cares, one upset and that happens anyway. Tournaments don't find out the "best" team, just the team that won the tournament. Seed the Championship bracket and usually it will be the B1G vs the SEC in the finals, but everybody else had a chance, on the field, no at large crap or committee "eye" test. Committee does one thing, seed the National Semis.

 

[HerbRedman]

View attachment 57015

Stan - I appreciate this, but you're missing the point of what is coming down the horizon. Your example has only 4 B1G/SEC teams each and 8 spots to non-B1G/SEC. This will never, ever, ever, ever, ever fly in the future model.

Here's why: B1G has essentially 6 mega $$$ CFB programs with mega brand name/tradition/TV power. They are:

1. Ohio St
2. Michigan
3. Penn St
4. Oregon
5. USC
6. Nebraska

They have a 2nd tier with huge potential and in some cases $$ too:

• Wisconsin
• Cockeye
• Illinois
• Washington
• UCLA
• Indiana

If you only have 4 B1G playoff spots, you're basically keeping 66% of your star power teams on the sidelines for every playoff (a given year could be 2 teams from group 1 and 2 from the 2nd tier). The B1G (and FOX) will not allow this. That star power group is going to basically have like $45m/yr annual rosters in a few yrs (Rev sharing + NIL). These teams are not going to even be in the same galaxy as your Jacksonville St and Marshalls.

The B1G/SEC will not allow a situation where a $45m roster USC who is the B1G #5 team to be cut out for some $1m roster Army/Marshall/Jax St teams. And I don't think they should allow it. It's not fair to the people writing these checks.

This is why you'll see a 28-32 team playoff. This allows the B1G & SEC to get their 7 teams in each AND allows us to see ASU/Jax St/Marshall, etc. This is why we'll never see a 12-16 team setup like you provided above. It just won't happen.

 

[Seaofred92]

I'm curious what the naysayers would prefer for a better system?

Are you guys still clinging to bowl games? Those are over man.

The way forward is playoffs man. Not more meaningless lawn mower and Duke's Mayo bowl games.

Bowl games are fine for ~90% of FBS. People love bowl games and they continue to rate well. They’re no different than the NIT/CBC in basketball - they’re content and we appreciate them for what they are. With contracts coming and a changed portal window likely to one time in the spring of the following year, bowl games will be around for a while IMO.

There’s really no actual need for over 20 teams in the college football playoff. FCS has 24 with every conference champ getting in, I would be on board with that same concept in FBS as it would give each conference representation and add meaning to all conference championships with the rest of the slots going to at large teams. You can have the top 8 teams earning byes with the lowest rated 16 playing a “first round” to have the actual bracket be 16 teams - I’d be fine with that. But zero reason to kill bowls on top of it when 85% of FBS wouldn’t make the field.

Guaranteeing 7 bids for one league in the Big Ten’s proposed format is stupid. Cockeye making last year’s playoff would’ve been an absolute joke. Missouri was the 7th place team in the SEC so all of a sudden the “meaningless” bowl game in Nashville would’ve been a playoff game that everyone was excited about? How does that make any sense??

The reality is the Playoff is more or less the right size in its current iteration. Going up to 16 would be tolerable. Anything beyond that is just a waste IMO, those teams aren’t winning the natty and aren’t really even “earning” a slot in the playoff field on the field during the season. Bowls can stick around and be what they are - TV content and a nice reward for a good season. The CFP doesn’t need to bring in all the teams from the Music City Bowl to “save college football”.

 

[Seaofred92]

Really?

You're talking about a league (NCAA D-1 FB) that has never actually crowned a champion. It's always operated on smoke, mirrors, myths & legends. And writers polls. Coaches polls. Etc

The CFP operates outside of the NCAA. The NCAA D-1 football season just ends without a champion.

Legally challenging the CFP seems very very very difficult. Now, in hoops you could legally challenge the NCAA and the selection committee etc. But the CFP doesn't report to anyone.

1. I’m well aware the CFP is its own entity. The NCAA actually has several “recognized” forms of champions for football, it’s why UCF claims their natty in 2017 because they won the Colley Matrix which is one of the recognized champion tools from the NCAA. This is also why we had “split” champions forever.

2. Yes, there has long been fear of antitrust lawsuits both in playoff format and conference realignment. Do you not remember literally 2 years ago the AG and Governor of Florida investigating and threatening to sue the CFP? State of Utah threatened to sue the BCS in 2009 over its exclusion. Hell even Obama in his first term told CFB leaders they needed to form a true playoff.

Beyond the above, the only thing that has driven “progress” in college football is lawsuits.

The reason college football is played on Saturdays is because the NFL is legally not allowed to play on Fridays or Saturdays from September to the 2nd Saturday in December within 75 miles of a high school or college game due to the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which provides the NFL their antitrust exemption with the US Government. It is also why the NFL’s Friday opening game this year is in Brazil.

The entire reason schools have their TV rights to sell (which they grant to their conferences) is because of the NCAA v Board of Regents of Oklahoma in 1984 which determined the NCAA was in violation of the Sherman antitrust act by grouping and selling TV rights for its member schools as one package. Ironically, schools would probably make more money in totality today if they were selling rights this way versus the current format.

In every single format change that happens, they have to account for potentially being sued in violation under antitrust. Whether it’s realignment, playoff, TV rights, etc. It’s why even within the new rules where the B1G and SEC control the format they have to “work in good faith” with the other leagues on design. Lawsuits and the threat of them have and will continue to shape the future of college football in perpetuity until a formal antitrust exemption is granted.

 

[Mavsker]

I'm sick of people saying the sport "needs to change". Most of the changes they've made have been shit. Go away!

 

[Flabio]

They have to expand it due to the gerrymandering for SEC teams.

 

[Stan Raymond]

Stan - I appreciate this, but you're missing the point of what is coming down the horizon. Your example has only 4 B1G/SEC teams each and 8 spots to non-B1G/SEC. This will never, ever, ever, ever, ever fly in the future model.

Here's why: B1G has essentially 6 mega $$$ CFB programs with mega brand name/tradition/TV power. They are:

1. Ohio St
2. Michigan
3. Penn St
4. Oregon
5. USC
6. Nebraska

They have a 2nd tier with huge potential and in some cases $$ too:

• Wisconsin
• Cockeye
• Illinois
• Washington
• UCLA
• Indiana

If you only have 4 B1G playoff spots, you're basically keeping 66% of your star power teams on the sidelines for every playoff (a given year could be 2 teams from group 1 and 2 from the 2nd tier). The B1G (and FOX) will not allow this. That star power group is going to basically have like $45m/yr annual rosters in a few yrs (Rev sharing + NIL). These teams are not going to even be in the same galaxy as your Jacksonville St and Marshalls.

The B1G/SEC will not allow a situation where a $45m roster USC who is the B1G #5 team to be cut out for some $1m roster Army/Marshall/Jax St teams. And I don't think they should allow it. It's not fair to the people writing these checks.

This is why you'll see a 28-32 team playoff. This allows the B1G & SEC to get their 7 teams in each AND allows us to see ASU/Jax St/Marshall, etc. This is why we'll never see a 12-16 team setup like you provided above. It just won't happen.

Why I think something like that would work is the timing. When you start with 16 teams that 8 games that have to happen that weekend, so there will be overlap and some pretty crappy timeslots. Situation like that proposal, the B1G and SEC games take all the good timeslots and gobble up all the good money. FOX/Disney will pay big dollars for the mini B1G/SEC tournament where the Big 12/ACC will be pushed into bad timeslots and cheaper rates and the G5 stuff will go on the same time on lesser networks.

In theory I like smaller national tournament, preceded by a conference tournament. Keeps the committee out and give the B1G/SEC more marquee games that they get to sell for themselves.

But to your larger point, the B1G has too many major brands that need money to spend on football, and that is the bottomline, what is going to make those name brands the most money so that they can spend more on their programs. So in the end, the best postseason solution isn't what matters, it's what will make the name brand schools the most money.

 

[Irv]

I think there are 2 drivers to this proposal:

1. It responds to criticism that the danger for CFB is if a huge chunk of FBS fan bases feel like they don’t have a shot and have been left out.

With 28+ teams, there’s no reason not to believe that your program can put itself in position to grab one of those.

2. I think Herb nailed it above. The big conferences have so many brands to protect. People always want the conference only to add the best programs and balk when you bring up someone like Ga Tech. But someone has to lose half of the games every conference week.

It’s so hard to finish a season in the B1G or SEC with a good conference record. You can win 9, have a great season, not make the playoff, and go to the weedeater bowl.

A few of those seasons in a row, throwing in a couple of of down years, and suddenly you’re minting more Iowas and Wisconsins instead of creating powerhouses.

But if you turn those 9 win seasons into multiple playoff appearances, the shine is back on.

I actually think this idea is a pretty clever way to add value to your programs that aren’t Ohio State.

 

[Stan Raymond]

I think there are 2 drivers to this proposal:

1. It responds to criticism that the danger for CFB is if a huge chunk of FBS fan bases feel like they don’t have a shot and have been left out.

With 28+ teams, there’s no reason not to believe that your program can put itself in position to grab one of those.

2. I think Herb nailed it above. The big conferences have so many brands to protect. People always want the conference only to add the best programs and balk when you bring up someone like Ga Tech. But someone has to lose half of the games every conference week.

It’s so hard to finish a season in the B1G or SEC with a good conference record. You can win 9, have a great season, not make the playoff, and go to the weedeater bowl.

A few of those seasons in a row, throwing in a couple of of down years, and suddenly you’re minting more Iowas and Wisconsins instead of creating powerhouses.

But if you turn those 9 win seasons into multiple playoff appearances, the shine is back on.

I actually think this idea is a pretty clever way to add value to your programs that aren’t Ohio State.

Excellent point. The same 9-3 or really even 8-4 team that was going to the Holiday Bowl can now go to the playoffs. Appears to be a more successful season when it's really just the same thing with moving goalposts.

But perception is powerful for fanbases, a playoff appearance is bragging rights even if the playoff field is 7x bigger, that keeps donors donating and HC from getting fired, all good things to a programs bottomline.

 

[HerbRedman]

FCS has 24 with every conference champ getting in, I would be on board with that same concept

Huge difference between FCS and FBS though. With FBS is you have massive national, big $$$ brands. And they will all be spending some $45m/yr on their rosters.

Those brands are:

• BIG 6: Ohio St, USC, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn St, Oregon
• SEC 6: Texas, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida, Tennessee

With a 16-team playoff (only 4 spots to B1G/SEC) you might get 2 of those brands in from each, potentially leaving 8 big $$ brands out every year. That's not acceptable to the people writing the checks. And not acceptable to ESPN and FOX. You guys can argue all you want with me, but I'm right.

The power brokers for those 12 schools are not going to fund those rosters to the tune of $45m each year only to have a setup where only 4/12 are in the CFP every year and 8 are playing in the Poulan Weedeater Bowl. It's just not gonna happen. They're not giving their spots to Army, Marshall or Jacksonville St. Sorry but they control the $$ and they won't allow that.


Look at NCAA Hoops for example. You have the big dollar brands like Duke, Kansas, UNC, Michigan St, Purdue, UCLA, UConn, Kentucky etc and they ALL have an avenue to make their sport's playoff every single year. That's not by accident. CBS pays billions of $$$ for that contract. They're not paying $8.8bn to have a system that doesn't get in every single big brand name they possibly can. They're not morons. You guys really want to think (hope) that the CFB money people are morons with their money. They're not.

All you have to do is follow the money on this RE: football. There will be a playoff solution that gets each of B1G/SEC around 7 guaranteed spots. You all can argue it all you want, but this will happen. If you don't think this is happening, you're naive.

 

[Kaladin]

I'm sick of people saying the sport "needs to change". Most of the changes they've made have been shit. Go away!

It needs to change. Regional conferences and a 32 team playoff.

 

[V-Doub]

Excellent point. The same 9-3 or really even 8-4 team that was going to the Holiday Bowl can now go to the playoffs. Appears to be a more successful season when it's really just the same thing with moving goalposts.

But perception is powerful for fanbases, a playoff appearance is bragging rights even if the playoff field is 7x bigger, that keeps donors donating and HC from getting fired, all good things to a programs bottomline.

12 is plenty enough IMO. With a 20-28 team playoff there will be a few SEC and B1G teams that will qualify for every playoff until the end of time. I don’t want that, and outside of OSU, bama and UGA fans nobody else should want that either.

 

[HerbRedman]

12 is plenty enough IMO. With a 20-28 team playoff there will be a few SEC and B1G teams that will qualify for every playoff until the end of time. I don’t want that, and outside of OSU, bama and UGA fans nobody else should want that either.

Yeah but the 5th team from B1G/SEC is likely going to be a $45m/yr roster like USC, Nebraska, LSU or Texas. That team that is left out is going to be way, way, way better than a Memphis or East Carolina.

Think 5-7 yrs out: the 5th place team in the B1G or SEC is going to be a really good team. An expensive team with NFL players all over its roster.

That 5th team could very often be Nebraska. Our $$$ people aren't going to pay $25m/yr (+$20m rev sharing) when it's almost impossible to crack the top 4. Especially when a Sun Belt team gets to be in.


I wouldn't look at this now per se, but look at it after another 5 yrs of this $$$ flowing to the B1G/SEC. The 5th place team in those leagues is going to look like a mini NFL team. There's no reason to arbitrarily keep them out in favor of lesser talented Memphis or Cockeye St. Include everyone, I say. You just need a 28 team playoff to do it.