playoff committee considering Expansion

[DAG 34,103]

Nothing imminent as of now. I think 16 teams is way too much 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31317686/cfp-committee-considered-expanding-playoff-include-many-16-teams

 

 

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,841]

8 is the minimum to me. Maybe 10, 5 P5 conference bids, 5 at larges, couple spots set aside for the best G5 teams 

 

no matter how it goes, they gotta figure out how to include G5 teams or it’s just a tone deaf act

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

2 minutes ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

8 is the minimum to me. Maybe 10, 5 P5 conference bids, 5 at larges, couple spots set aside for the best G5 teams 

 

no matter how it goes, they gotta figure out how to include G5 teams or it’s just a tone deaf act

I used to be a big fan of 16 teams, but honestly football is not like basketball in the sense of cinderella teams. Yes it could happen here and there, but there is a pretty big disparity in a top 5 team and a top 15 team. Most seasons there are really no more than 3-4 teams that are on that elite level. There are exceptions to that of course. 

I personally like either 6 teams with top 2 seeds getting a bye, or 8 teams. Either way, take our power 5 conference champs and then the highest ranked G5 team and next 2 highest ranked teams. I think it will keep all the season games to where they matter. Biggest thing is get rid of the so called eye test. Playoffs need to be earned. Period. 

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,841]

1 minute ago, Tigerpro2a said:

I used to be a big fan of 16 teams, but honestly football is not like basketball in the sense of cinderella teams. Yes it could happen here and there, but there is a pretty big disparity in a top 5 team and a top 15 team. Most seasons there are really no more than 3-4 teams that are on that elite level. There are exceptions to that of course. 

I personally like either 6 teams with top 2 seeds getting a bye, or 8 teams. Either way, take our power 5 conference champs and then the highest ranked G5 team and next 2 highest ranked teams. I think it will keep all the season games to where they matter. Biggest thing is get rid of the so called eye test. Playoffs need to be earned. Period. 

Yeah idk if any of these previous years have really had an instance where less than 3 of the 4 teams felt or appeared to be “elite”. The one where neither TCU or Baylor made it stung, and the one where PSU got shelved for an OSU team they beat. Those were the toughest instances to me. 
I think the issue is that there’s no intrigue. The South is the ratings kings granted, but even we care less and less about seeing the same teams. 
Think to Cincy and UGA. That was an incredibly talented UGA D that got tore apart. Their NFL running game was stymied. They had a better game than the entirety of the CFP. We gotta give these dudes a chance yknow 

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

4 minutes ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

Yeah idk if any of these previous years have really had an instance where less than 3 of the 4 teams felt or appeared to be “elite”. The one where neither TCU or Baylor made it stung, and the one where PSU got shelved for an OSU team they beat. Those were the toughest instances to me. 
I think the issue is that there’s no intrigue. The South is the ratings kings granted, but even we care less and less about seeing the same teams. 
Think to Cincy and UGA. That was an incredibly talented UGA D that got tore apart. Their NFL running game was stymied. They had a better game than the entirety of the CFP. We gotta give these dudes a chance yknow 

I agree. I am all for it up to 8. It's not like we are getting super games in the Semis every year or even the NC. It would definitely help parody in the sport with recruiting if more teams have a chance to make the playoffs. 

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,841]

3 minutes ago, Tigerpro2a said:

I agree. I am all for it up to 8. It's not like we are getting super games in the Semis every year or even the NC. It would definitely help parody in the sport with recruiting if more teams have a chance to make the playoffs. 

It’s gonna get really ugly if we can’t figure out ways to make the PAC 12 and majority of the Big 12 relevant again. There’s a lot of talent on that side of the country that’s already being picked by the big dogs in Bama, Clemson, OSU etc. If those conferences collapse, the greedy hogs are gonna only get fatter

[Mikey 16,781]

I like it with the current four. Nothing has happened that's similar to AU getting left out in 2004. I think four is enough.

 

[oracle79 3,569]

The anti-Alabama plan is best. 6 teams. Automatic bids for 5 P5 conference champions. Last bid is highest ranked group of 5. 1 and 2 get byes. 3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5. 1 plays lowest winner, and 2 plays highest winner. Then champ game. Closest you can get to deciding on the field. 'Eff the great teams that can't win their conference championship ON THE FIELD! Sorry Nick.

[W.E.D 11,070]

7 hours ago, Mikey said:

I like it with the current four. Nothing has happened that's similar to AU getting left out in 2004. I think four is enough.

 

More football is a good thing. 

I like 6 or 8

[DAG 34,103]

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

I like it with the current four. Nothing has happened that's similar to AU getting left out in 2004. I think four is enough.

 

That's actually true! I just want it to at least get everyone a fair opportunity even if on paper they don't stand a chance. For instance UCF back in 2017

[DAG 34,103]

6 hours ago, oracle79 said:

The anti-Alabama plan is best. 6 teams. Automatic bids for 5 P5 conference champions. Last bid is highest ranked group of 5. 1 and 2 get byes. 3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5. 1 plays lowest winner, and 2 plays highest winner. Then champ game. Closest you can get to deciding on the field. 'Eff the great teams that can't win their conference championship ON THE FIELD! Sorry Nick.

I like the power 5 champions but 3 at large bids 

[AUBwins 10,157]

If they have started having serious thoughts and conversations about it, then I think it will happen in the next few years.  I like 8. The power 5 champs, Group of 5 leader,  2 at large.  

If the committee is considering 16 teams, that would take 4 weeks.  I say use the 4 weeks but with 8 teams in a bit of a tiered bracket.   The committee can seed the Champions 1 through 6. The at larges will be the 7th and 8th seed determined by committee as well. Seeds 5-8 play each other and will have to play all 4 weeks.  Seeds 3 and 4 play those winners and play 3 weeks. Then you have the semifinals like the setup is now.  Therefore the teams are rewarded for having better seasons or winning more convincingly overall.  This sort of collaborates all the ideas together, while putting an emphasis on winning the conference.

I've plugged in theoretical seeds based on recent trends. 

First round - Dec 18th

8 seed (Big 10 at large)  vs 5 seed (Pac 12 champ) 

7 seed (SEC at large)  vs 6 seed (Group of 5 leader) 

Second round - Dec 24th/25th

4 seed (Big 12 Champ) vs winner of 8vs5

3 seed (Big 10 Champ)  vs winner of 7vs6

Semifinal round - Jan 1st

1 seed (SEC Champ) vs 4/5/8 seed

2 seed (ACC Champ)  vs 3/6/7 seed

Champ Round - Jan 10th

1/4/5/8 seed vs 2/3/6/8 seed. 

 

I could definitely be happy with this set up. 

[DAG 34,103]

1 hour ago, AUBwins said:

If they have started having serious thoughts and conversations about it, then I think it will happen in the next few years.  I like 8. The power 5 champs, Group of 5 leader,  2 at large.  

If the committee is considering 16 teams, that would take 4 weeks.  I say use the 4 weeks but with 8 teams in a bit of a tiered bracket.   The committee can seed the Champions 1 through 6. The at larges will be the 7th and 8th seed determined by committee as well. Seeds 5-8 play each other and will have to play all 4 weeks.  Seeds 3 and 4 play those winners and play 3 weeks. Then you have the semifinals like the setup is now.  Therefore the teams are rewarded for having better seasons or winning more convincingly overall.  This sort of collaborates all the ideas together, while putting an emphasis on winning the conference.

I've plugged in theoretical seeds based on recent trends. 

First round - Dec 18th

8 seed (Big 10 at large)  vs 5 seed (Pac 12 champ) 

7 seed (SEC at large)  vs 6 seed (Group of 5 leader) 

Second round - Dec 24th/25th

4 seed (Big 12 Champ) vs winner of 8vs5

3 seed (Big 10 Champ)  vs winner of 7vs6

Semifinal round - Jan 1st

1 seed (SEC Champ) vs 4/5/8 seed

2 seed (ACC Champ)  vs 3/6/7 seed

Champ Round - Jan 10th

1/4/5/8 seed vs 2/3/6/8 seed. 

 

I could definitely be happy with this set up. 

I like the set up but I think at large bids should just be that. I don't think they should be based on any conference affiliations.

[WarTiger 3,966]

leave it at 4 or get rid of it entirely.  No expansion...EVER

[Hank2020 3,232]

The more the merrier to me. I believe this would replace top bowls which in my opinion are on the way out unless they do something.

[Viper 3,150]

“no commissioner has been more publicly supportive of it than American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco.

"I think it has to happen because there's just too much dissatisfaction with the current system," he said. "Ultimately, I think there will be support for it because not only would the [Group of 5] obviously want it, but clearly there are [Power 5] guys being left out who would like a shot."

MMW - Gus/UCF will get in before AU does. 

[Viper 3,150]

3 hours ago, DAG said:

I like the power 5 champions but 3 at large bids 

Agreed. But no byes for anyone. Football is too physical to give anyone a bye. Make it fair for all involved.  

Also one of the at-larges should be an automatic; The highest ranked Group of 5 by the committee. 

2010 would have been interesting with both Boise St and TCU in the mix with AU and Oregon. Not wishing...just interesting. 

[Viper 3,150]

3 hours ago, AUBwins said:

First round - Dec 18th

8 seed (Big 10 at large)  vs 5 seed (Pac 12 champ) 

7 seed (SEC at large)  vs 6 seed (Group of 5 leader) 

Second round - Dec 24th/25th

4 seed (Big 12 Champ) vs winner of 8vs5

3 seed (Big 10 Champ)  vs winner of 7vs6

Semifinal round - Jan 1st

1 seed (SEC Champ) vs 4/5/8 seed

2 seed (ACC Champ)  vs 3/6/7 seed

Champ Round - Jan 10th

1/4/5/8 seed vs 2/3/6/8 seed. 

None of your 1st rounders would ever make it four straight weeks, not with the 1 and 2-seeds getting a double bye. Football is WAY more physical than hoops. 

[DAG 34,103]

16 minutes ago, Viper said:

Agreed. But no byes for anyone. Football is too physical to give anyone a bye. Make it fair for all involved.  

Also one of the at-larges should be an automatic; The highest ranked Group of 5 by the committee. 

2010 would have been interesting with both Boise St and TCU in the mix with AU and Oregon. Not wishing...just interesting. 

I agree. Definitely no byes

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,334]

6 or 8 would be perfect. Any more and it's unnecessarily bloated and just a cash grab.

In any given year there are NOT more than 8 teams that COULD have a chance or SHOULD have a chance to win it all.

5 conference champs + 1 OR + 3 at large

I agree with the bye week for top 2 seeds- they would have earned it and would get a feather in their hat, chance to regroup and rest, much like in the NFL.

4 isn't terrible, I could stay where we are, but I'd like to reward the 5 major conference champs and the fringe and/or little guys with the chance to make a really good season a great/memorable one.

[AUBwins 10,157]

17 minutes ago, Viper said:

None of your 1st rounders would ever make it four straight weeks, not with the 1 and 2-seeds getting a double bye. Football is WAY more physical than hoops. 

Understood, but isn't that kinda the point?  Right now we have 4 of the best teams.  Typically that is plenty to decide as one of those 4 should be the one that comes out victorious based on the merits of their season.  Others that want an outside chance should have a more difficult road IMO, Alabama getting in playoff without playing title game for example. Make them earn it.  It would definitely take a toll, but this is essentially the NFL formula with 1 extra round.  I would actually prefer the 1st 2 rounds run the 11th and 18th. Take a break the following week and begin the final 4 the 1st. Gives a bye so to speak to recoup.  I was thinking of school finals and that navy/ army play that week.  Just in case they would merit being in the playoff. 

2 hours ago, DAG said:

I like the set up but I think at large bids should just be that. I don't think they should be based on any conference affiliations.

That was just examples to get a visual how it would look.  The at large would be at large.  

[Viper 3,150]

19 minutes ago, AUBwins said:

Understood, but isn't that kinda the point?  Right now we have 4 of the best teams.  Typically that is plenty to decide as one of those 4 should be the one that comes out victorious based on the merits of their season.  Others that want an outside chance should have a more difficult road IMO, Alabama getting in playoff without playing title game for example. Make them earn it.  It would definitely take a toll, but this is essentially the NFL formula with 1 extra round.  I would actually prefer the 1st 2 rounds run the 11th and 18th. Take a break the following week and begin the final 4 the 1st. Gives a bye so to speak to recoup.  I was thinking of school finals and that navy/ army play that week.  Just in case they would merit being in the playoff. 

Overcoming three straight weeks playing a 1 or 2-seed (with one bye) in the Final is possibly obtainable. No way four straight weeks playing a 1 or 2-seed (with two byes). WAY too physical. So that “reward” for making it in would literally be punishment. Your scenario would never happen.

Six teams with one bye week could be what they decide, but the top Group of 5 team will nearly always be left out, save for 2010 TCU/2017 UCF anomalies.

I still want 8 teams with no byes with one guaranteed Group of 5 team. Only fair way to expand. 

[oracle79 3,569]

28 minutes ago, AUBwins said:

Others that want an outside chance should have a more difficult road IMO, Alabama getting in playoff without playing title game for example. Make them earn it.

I'll make it simple. I'm against any type of system that lets media darlings (Bama, Ohio St., etc.) in the playoffs WITHOUT winning their conference championship on the field. I could live with any other system.

[Viper 3,150]

4 minutes ago, oracle79 said:

I'll make it simple. I'm against any type of system that lets media darlings (Bama, Ohio St., etc.) in the playoffs WITHOUT winning their conference championship on the field. I could live with any other system.

Agreed but if they expand to 8, teams like 2019 bammer will get in, like it or not.

[Hank2020 3,232]

8 minutes ago, oracle79 said:

I'll make it simple. I'm against any type of system that lets media darlings (Bama, Ohio St., etc.) in the playoffs WITHOUT winning their conference championship on the field. I could live with any other system.

I don’t agree with any byes.

only conference champs in from each conference. Require at least 2 group of five.