Photo

NCAAF Playoff Expansion...


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,773 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 26 November 2017 - 12:29 PM

They do 16 at the FCS level...it works. Regular season wouldn't be meaningless..seeding would matter.

Would be less weekly discussion...would be more discussion at playoff time.

 

There would be more discussion at playoff time because the playoffs would go on for longer. I'm not sure that there would be more discussion otherwise. I don't think the 2 vs 15 game would generate a ton of discussion, but I could be wrong. 



#22 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,773 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 26 November 2017 - 12:37 PM

But you could also argue that for most teams that loses 2 games, the rest of the regular season becomes useless. If you're a fan of say Northwestern, the last 2 months have meant absolutely nothing....despite wining seven straight to end the season after starting 2-3. 9-3 Northwestern, no one cares. 

 

Teams are always playing for something. If you need to win your conference to get an auto bid to a playoff, the regular season isn't useless because you need those games to earn a conference title game berth. 

 

Teams are also trying to win to get better bowl games, more exposure, look good for recruits. (Except for Maryland given their look)

 

From a fan perspective the Pac-12 title game is useless right now. But if a bid to get into an 8-team playoff was on the line, it would be a must see game. 

 

I wouldn't say that no one cares regarding Northwestern, but your overall point is correct.

 

It can be difficult finding the right balance here. You and Steve's logic can be applied to much further expansion as well, like 32 teams. The logic on the other side can be applied to just having 2 teams, or just declaring a #1 like they used to do. 

 

Ultimately, for games to matter in a very significant way, many games have to not matter. The question is how many games prior to the playoffs do you want to truly be huge in their meaning and what level of excellence do you want teams to achieve to have a chance at the title. Obviously there are reasonable positions along that spectrum. I just think that one of college football's main positives is that each week truly matters for the contenders, which is not something that can be said about any of the other major sports.



#23 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,208 posts

Posted 26 November 2017 - 12:39 PM

One day 16 might be in the cards. But I like a baby steps approach to something like this. 1 vs. 2 was welcome from having the AP pick a champ. 4 team playoff was welcome expansion from 1 vs. 2. I think the argument to go to 6 or 8 is there now. I think going from 4 to 16 would be a bit wild at this point.


@BSLMikeRandall

#24 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    SportsGuy's Muse

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,567 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 26 November 2017 - 12:44 PM

Most I would do is 6

 

The regular season is awesome now.  Every game DOES matter whether you want to believe that or not.  Once you take a loss almost every game you play from there on out is a playoff type game.  Lose and you're likely done.

 

Steve just has a boner for Boise State, if he had it his way he'd put every G5 school in.


There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#25 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 26 November 2017 - 12:49 PM

I've said from the first playoff discussions that 12 is the way to go.

 

Eleven conferences = eleven autobids.

 

The best non-conference champion gets in, too.

 

The top four seeded champions get byes, and HFA.

 

The next four seeds get HFA in the first round.

 

Everybody has a chance if they win their conference. Winning the conference ends up being of critical importance, but so do the non-conference games that can win you a higher seed. The regular season is still critical, and every game matters.

 

There likely would even be more of an incentive for a top team to play a better early-season matchup than two pay-to-play games against the FCS, because better competition looks better when the seeding comes in to play.

 

Then you throw in one extra shot for a great team that happens to slip up a bit, or runs into another great team in the same conference.


@DJ_McCann

#26 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,208 posts

Posted 26 November 2017 - 12:58 PM

There would be more discussion at playoff time because the playoffs would go on for longer. I'm not sure that there would be more discussion otherwise. I don't think the 2 vs 15 game would generate a ton of discussion, but I could be wrong. 

I think if it were to go to 16, all of the games would be up for discussion and analysis. You had #2 get beat by an unranked 5-7 team. #8 just lost to #21. 2 Weeks ago #10 beat #1. #7 beat #3. I don't think it would be a lopsided discussion or lopsided games. 

 

On that note though, 16 might be a little out of hand because if #1 goes 13-0, wins their conference, and #16 is an at large thats 9-3, they could easily compete and maybe knock off #1 on any given day. Being a top 5 or so team throughout a regular season should earn you some reward, bye weeks and such, home game rather than neutral site. 

 

I'd be more open to Rob's idea, 6, with #1 and #2 getting a bye. Maybe before getting to 8, or even 16.


@BSLMikeRandall

#27 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,208 posts

Posted 26 November 2017 - 01:02 PM

I've said from the first playoff discussions that 12 is the way to go.

 

Eleven conferences = eleven autobids.

 

The best non-conference champion gets in, too.

 

The top four seeded champions get byes, and HFA.

 

The next four seeds get HFA in the first round.

 

Everybody has a chance if they win their conference. Winning the conference ends up being of critical importance, but so do the non-conference games that can win you a higher seed. The regular season is still critical, and every game matters.

 

There likely would even be more of an incentive for a top team to play a better early-season matchup than two pay-to-play games against the FCS, because better competition looks better when the seeding comes in to play.

 

Then you throw in one extra shot for a great team that happens to slip up a bit, or runs into another great team in the same conference.

There are only 10 conferences. And 4 independent teams. Conference USA and Sun Belt teams have no business in the conversation for a playoff spot. 


@BSLMikeRandall

#28 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,773 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 26 November 2017 - 01:05 PM

I think if it were to go to 16, all of the games would be up for discussion and analysis. You had #2 get beat by an unranked 5-7 team. #8 just lost to #21. 2 Weeks ago #10 beat #1. #7 beat #3. I don't think it would be a lopsided discussion or lopsided games. 

 

On that note though, 16 might be a little out of hand because if #1 goes 13-0, wins their conference, and #16 is an at large thats 9-3, they could easily compete and maybe knock off #1 on any given day. Being a top 5 or so team throughout a regular season should earn you some reward, bye weeks and such, home game rather than neutral site. 

 

I'd be more open to Rob's idea, 6, with #1 and #2 getting a bye. Maybe before getting to 8, or even 16.

 

Sure, there would be discussion and analysis. I think typically the top few teams would be a lot better than the bottom few teams, though. However, any given day and all.

 

"Rob's idea" has been something I've been advocating for since the foxhole days. ;)


  • BSLMikeRandall likes this

#29 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,421 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 26 November 2017 - 01:12 PM

Definitely no to 16. I think it would just have too much impact on the regular season as far as taking away the importance of games. Expanding the field in any way would have rendered the Iron Bowl result yesterday as mostly moot....would have been for little more than bragging rights.

 

No to 6 because as I've stated before, I think byes in a playoff are terrible. Every team in should have to win the same number of games to be the champion. It's something I really don't like about the current NFL format.

 

I'm okay with 8. If you are going to expand (which I think is inevitable), then go straight to 8. I'd be fine staying at 4 too, but I think there's too much potential money on the table for them to just stay there.



#30 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,773 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 26 November 2017 - 01:23 PM

If the goal is to give more programs a chance at realistically competing for something, then here are some steps I'd advocate over expanding the playoffs to 16 teams:

 

- Have the Big 5 conference teams and perhaps a few of the stronger programs from the other conferences leave the unethical NCAA and form their own college football league and actually pay the players. The other teams can compete in leagues that are more aligned to their ability and track record.

 

- Have something like what various soccer leagues do around the world do with relegation. Split this league up into 3 levels with teams having the ability to go up or down based on their performance. 

 

- So now there would like 32 teams competing for the major championship, with the teams at the bottom trying to stay in that highest tier. Then there would be like another 40 teams trying to move up a tier or at least stay in tier 2. 

 

- The devil's in the details, and I don't know the details, but this would give programs outside of the elite more to compete for as they would be trying to stay in their tier or go up a tier, and there could be playoffs in the different tiers.



#31 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,432 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 26 November 2017 - 01:37 PM

Most I would do is 6

 

The regular season is awesome now.  Every game DOES matter whether you want to believe that or not.  Once you take a loss almost every game you play from there on out is a playoff type game.  Lose and you're likely done.

 

Steve just has a boner for Boise State, if he had it his way he'd put every G5 school in.

Not true even remotely. I just believe any system that does not give EVERY FCS school a legitimate chance going into a season is flat wrong. Look at UCF. How does anybody KNOW they don't belong in the mix. How does anybody KNOW that they aren't the best team in the country? Fact is they don't. Its all conjecture. Every sport on the planet gives teams a legit shot to win on the fleld. In deed every division in college football does except for FBS. And there is one and only one reason the FBS doesn't have an honest playoff. They don't want to share any of the money or risk losing to "a sisters of the poor" school. But if the G5 programs are so inferior then what is their worry?



#32 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,421 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 26 November 2017 - 01:45 PM


Not true even remotely. I just believe any system that does not give EVERY FCS school a legitimate chance going into a season is flat wrong. Look at UCF. How does anybody KNOW they don't belong in the mix. How does anybody KNOW that they aren't the best team in the country? Fact is they don't. Its all conjecture. Every sport on the planet gives teams a legit shot to win on the fleld. In deed every division in college football does except for FBS. And there is one and only one reason the FBS doesn't have an honest playoff. They don't want to share any of the money or risk losing to "a sisters of the poor" school. But if the G5 programs are so inferior then what is their worry?


The best thing I think the Power 5 could do for the G5 is in scheduling. First and foremost, do away with the FCS cupcakes....those games are bad for everyone but the FCS teams that collect a big check for showing up. Replace those games with G5 teams who also need the money (it costs them a lot more than the FCS teams to run their football programs), the TV exposure, and the opportunity to prove their mettle that they can compete with the top teams in the country. They might have to settle for one-off games or 2-for-1s rather than home-and-homes, but at least they can say they got their shot.

#33 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,773 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 27 November 2017 - 10:38 AM

Most I would do is 6

 

The regular season is awesome now.  Every game DOES matter whether you want to believe that or not.  Once you take a loss almost every game you play from there on out is a playoff type game.  Lose and you're likely done.

 

Steve just has a boner for Boise State, if he had it his way he'd put every G5 school in.

 

Steve is right though that the vast majority of games are pretty much irrelevant to the title picture. They only mean something to you if they are in Pedro's Pickz. That is a legitimate problem. But I agree with you that every game mattering for the contenders is a big plus, and something that is unique to college football among the major sports.

 

However, if they went to 16 teams like Steve wants, the seeding would certainly matter, especially if the higher seeds had homefield advantage for the first couple rounds. College basketball fans get into the seeding a lot even though it's not all that important, so I'd expect college football fans to get into it as well.



#34 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,470 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 27 November 2017 - 12:52 PM

In fairness, Pedro Pickz is very important
  • Pedro Cerrano likes this

#35 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    SportsGuy's Muse

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,567 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 27 November 2017 - 01:44 PM

In fairness, Pedro Pickz is very important

 

It took over 300,000 posts through two sites, but you finally posted something worth reading.

 

Kudos!


There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#36 RShack

RShack

    http://tinyurl.com/fake-news-BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,415 posts

Posted 27 November 2017 - 09:07 PM

Steve is right though that the vast majority of games are pretty much irrelevant to the title picture. 

 

There's lots of teams that would wind up in the title picture if they went undefeated... or, depending on the year, just losing one...   so, if you're talking about games *after* a team has lost a couple, then sure, most of them don't matter... but so what?

 

A big playoff makes the regular season *way* less interesting to me... it means the watering down of the season, to the point where most games that would matter don't...   

 

Just because most people here are too young to remember when the NBA regular season meant something, that doesn't mean it didn't... it used to mean a lot... the way things are now, I don't see why anybody would go to see a regular NBA game... and I imagine most folks offering opinions about this don't ever go see one... how many folks here even care about the NBA at all before the playoffs?

 

Disclaimer: Not dissing Pedro's Pickz... (even though there's a silly "z" in it...  )


 "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at.

  You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" - Bob Dylan


#37 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,773 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 27 November 2017 - 11:28 PM

There's lots of teams that would wind up in the title picture if they went undefeated... or, depending on the year, just losing one...   so, if you're talking about games *after* a team has lost a couple, then sure, most of them don't matter... but so what?

 

A big playoff makes the regular season *way* less interesting to me... it means the watering down of the season, to the point where most games that would matter don't...   

 

Just because most people here are too young to remember when the NBA regular season meant something, that doesn't mean it didn't... it used to mean a lot... the way things are now, I don't see why anybody would go to see a regular NBA game... and I imagine most folks offering opinions about this don't ever go see one... how many folks here even care about the NBA at all before the playoffs?

 

Disclaimer: Not dissing Pedro's Pickz... (even though there's a silly "z" in it...  )

 

As for the first part, I mostly agree with you as I've stated in this thread. 

 

As for the NBA part, I watch a ton of regular season NBA games and go to a couple games a season as well, and that's for the same general reason you watch Georgia Tech, or people watch NFL, MLB, and college football or basketball games when they aren't that revelant to the title picture, and that's because it's very entertaining to me. Now most people on here don't have an NBA team they're that passionate about for an obvious reason which leads to more disinterest and sometimes bashing of the sport. However, I'm going to question the self-awareness of anyone who says something like why bother watching the NBA regular season when they often watched Maryland football or even basketball in many years, or Georgia Tech football, or the Orioles in that horrid 14 year stretch, or regular season hockey, etc. Everyone on here has watched plenty of games that can be considered far from meaningful to the championship picture in their given sport, they just generally have a team they're passionate about so they watch anyway, or they have money on the line.

 

BTW, I was not that informed on how many teams made the playoffs in the NBA compared to how many team there were in the older times, but I don't see any evidence that the NBA regular season meant all that much more than it does now. A lower percentage of teams actually make the playoffs compared to much of the NBA's history.



#38 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 27 November 2017 - 11:41 PM

There are only 10 conferences. And 4 independent teams. Conference USA and Sun Belt teams have no business in the conversation for a playoff spot. 

 

It's been a while since I've thought hard about this. Make it 10+2 then. It's still the same point.

 

And if those conferences have no business getting a playoff spot, get them out of I-A. But as long as they are there they absolutely deserve the chance.


@DJ_McCann

#39 RShack

RShack

    http://tinyurl.com/fake-news-BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,415 posts

Posted 27 November 2017 - 11:49 PM

As for the NBA part, I watch a ton of regular season NBA games and go to a couple games a season as well, and that's for the same general reason you watch Georgia Tech, or people watch NFL, MLB, and college football or basketball games when they aren't that revelant to the title picture, and that's because it's very entertaining to me. Now most people on here don't have an NBA team they're that passionate about for an obvious reason which leads to more disinterest and sometimes bashing of the sport. However, I'm going to question the self-awareness of anyone who says something like why bother watching the NBA regular season when they often watched Maryland football or even basketball in many years, or Georgia Tech football, or the Orioles in that horrid 14 year stretch, or regular season hockey, etc. Everyone on here has watched plenty of games that can be considered far from meaningful to the championship picture in their given sport, they just generally have a team they're passionate about so they watch anyway, or they have money on the line.

 

I think the main diff is most of the alternative interests are to specific teams, not to a league in general... big diff, to me at least...

 

I don't really know, but I betcha way more folks watch regular season college football games that don't involve whatever team they follow than happens re: the NBA...


 "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at.

  You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" - Bob Dylan


#40 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,773 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 27 November 2017 - 11:54 PM

I think the main diff is most of the alternative interests are to specific teams, not to a league in general... big diff, to me at least...

 

I don't really know, but I betcha way more folks watch regular season college football games that don't involve whatever team they follow than happens re: the NBA...

 

Eh, maybe. The NBA is quite popular. I think it's clear that there is more interest in the NBA as a league opposed to just following a team than there is in MLB for instance, but if you disagree I'm not going to try to find a bunch of evidence to back that up. College football is also quite popular. Neither are in great need of fixing, at least when it comes to being popular. We could certainly argue about things to make both better, and that's been going on here regarding the NCAA. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners