107 replies to this topic

[RShack]

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. 

 

Oh, you could be right... I s'pose the NBA is way more popular than I realize...

[mweb08]

Oh, you could be right... I s'pose the NBA is way more popular than I realize...

 

I'm guessing it's not all that popular in Alabama. 

[RShack]

I'm guessing it's not all that popular in Alabama. 

 

Most of my friends are elsewhere... MD... CA... WA... ATL... NOLA...

[BSLMikeLowe]

ESPN: College Football Playoff committee presents expansion ideas to as many as 16 teams

[BSLMikeLowe]

CBSSports.com: Momentum rapidly growing for College Football Playoff expansion to eight or more teams

 

...a 12-team model is favored by multiple parties.

 

CFP executive director Bill Hancock's bold assertion the bracket could expand to as many as 16 teams -- found in the 17th paragraph of an otherwise sleepy April press release -- ignited increased speculation.

 

"The SEC is going to push 12 because of their brand. I'm hearing 12," a Group of Five AD told CBS Sports. 

 

A 12-team field would presumably allow for six automatic bids -- Power Five conference champions and the top-ranked Group of Five team -- along with six at-large bids.

[BSLMikeLowe]

BSL: College Football 2021 - This Was Inevitable

 

My thoughts on the possibility of an expansion of the College Football Playoff to 12-teams.

[BSLMikeLowe]

....seems inevitable. 

 

It happens in every sport eventually. Why would NCAAF be any different.

 

You're about to have a mess of a final four where potentially a 12-0 Big Ten team is left out. Where potentially for the 2nd year in a row an "at-large" type who doesn't play for their conference title might get in. Where an independent (join a friggin conference, jackasses) Notre Dame threw a wrench in the works during the season.

 

The next logical expansion would be to 8 teams. You could have the power 5 conference champs get auto-bids. Then 3 "at-large" and the committee picks the seeding.

 

It would look like...

 

Stanford/USC - Loser is out

Oklahoma/TCU - TCU is out with loss, Oklahoma in no matter what

Georgia/Auburn - Georgia is out with loss. Auburn in no matter what. 1 loss Bama jumps UGA but not Auburn for at-large

Miami/Clemson - both in no matter what.

Ohio State/Wisconsin - both in no matter what....I understand a debate could be had between Georgia and Ohio State...

 

If the best teams win their conference...

 

USC

Oklahoma

Auburn

Clemson

Wisconsin

 

With At-larges going to...

 

Alabama

Miami

Ohio State

 

And your 8 team playoff looking like...

 

1 Oklahoma vs. 8 USC (Orange Bowl)

2 Auburn vs. 7 Miami (Fiesta Bowl)

3 Clemson vs. 6 Ohio State (Sugar Bowl)

4 Alabama vs. 5 Wisconsin (Rose Bowl)

 

Make that 12 teams. And you're right, it's inevitable.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Some things I just heard on TV from Dennis Dodd, CBS Sports, that sheds more light on this proposal. (bear with me, as I've edited this as I learn more)

 

1. The automatic bids would go to the 6 highest ranked conference champions. That does not guarantee all Power 5 champions get in. Last year, for instance, the 6 highest ranked conference champions were: Alabama (1), Clemson (2), Ohio State (3), Oklahoma (6), Cincinnati (8) and Coastal Carolina (12). Oregon, the Pac-12 champion, was ranked 25th and would not have gotten in.

 

* Obviously citing last season comes with the enormous caveat of COVID's impact, especially for the Pac-12 who played the fewest games, and Oregon not even winning their division but getting to play for the conference title because Washington couldn't play.

 

2. That does potentially open up more opportunities for G5 teams.

 

3. The Top 4 seeds, and the byes that come with it, would go to the Top 4 ranked conference champs. So Notre Dame, an independent, could be seeded no higher than #5 regardless of overall ranking.

 

4. The "first round" games would be played on campuses, with the higher-ranked teams hosting. The quarter and semi-finals would be incorporated with existing bowl games. The championship game will remain independently hosted at a neutral site.

 

5. As far as dates, the first round would be sometime in the 2-weeks following the conference championship games, which are typically the first Saturday in December. The quarterfinal games would be played over 2 days sometime during the New Year's window, depending on when Sunday (NFL) falls. I haven't heard anything yet about the semifinal games, but I would think they would want to do it on the Saturday of the NFL's Week 18 (taking advantage of the added game), otherwise they might have to go to weeknight matchups to avoid overlap with NFL playoff games, which would be the kiss of death for TV ratings.

 

6. This could happen as soon as 2023, two years before the current CFP broadcast contract runs out. That means ESPN would have exclusive negotiating rights to broadcast the entire expanded Playoff (they'd probably shoot for the moon anyway, even if they didn't).

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Mike great writeup. Going to disagree with one point and that is the players being losers in this. Two thoughts.

 

1. The extra number of games is continually overstated when this discussion comes up. I don't buy that.

a. With the money the schools would get for a playoff game they can skip the bowl season. For most teams that means that their players actually get to spend the holidays at home. And they aren't playing anymore games than they do now. And in fact for those playoff teams, as you pointed out, they play a game they actually care about instead of some meaningless bowl game.

b. Even teams that play the full playoffs aren't playing any more games than they have been for a number of years in the FCS. I get the argument that "but the FBS players are bigger and stronger so its harder on them.' But the wear and tear is relative to both the player dishing out and receiving the physical punishment. So a RB gets hit by a bigger LB in FBS than FCS. But that FBS RB is also bigger and stronger than the FCS RB. 

2. I think its actually a big positive for players from G5 and west coast teams that don't get the tv exposure that east coast/P5 schools get. In the playoffs they will get that exposure. This is especially good for the G5 team (teams?) that get in. Much of the discount you hear about their draft prognosis is the old standby "yeah but they don't play against good competition." And I can see, unusual certainly, but a path for two G5s to get in. Go back to the BCS era and look no further than BSU and TCU. Both got a BCS bid (albeit against each other).

 

So while this isn't my preferred approach of 16 teams this is a pretty good improvement! Thanks for the writeup!

[BSLMikeLowe]

Mike great writeup. Going to disagree with one point and that is the players being losers in this. Two thoughts.

 

1. The extra number of games is continually overstated when this discussion comes up. I don't buy that.

a. With the money the schools would get for a playoff game they can skip the bowl season. For most teams that means that their players actually get to spend the holidays at home. And they aren't playing anymore games than they do now. And in fact for those playoff teams, as you pointed out, they play a game they actually care about instead of some meaningless bowl game.

b. Even teams that play the full playoffs aren't playing any more games than they have been for a number of years in the FCS. I get the argument that "but the FBS players are bigger and stronger so its harder on them.' But the wear and tear is relative to both the player dishing out and receiving the physical punishment. So a RB gets hit by a bigger LB in FBS than FCS. But that FBS RB is also bigger and stronger than the FCS RB. 

2. I think its actually a big positive for players from G5 and west coast teams that don't get the tv exposure that east coast/P5 schools get. In the playoffs they will get that exposure. This is especially good for the G5 team (teams?) that get in. Much of the discount you hear about their draft prognosis is the old standby "yeah but they don't play against good competition." And I can see, unusual certainly, but a path for two G5s to get in. Go back to the BCS era and look no further than BSU and TCU. Both got a BCS bid (albeit against each other).

 

So while this isn't my preferred approach of 16 teams this is a pretty good improvement! Thanks for the writeup!

 

I doubt the bowl games are going away. There might end up being fewer of them, and many of the ones left will feature even less-attractive matchups than they do now, but they will still be around IMO.

 

Valid point on the FCS comparison.

[BSLRoseKatz]

I think the meaning of a major upset is devalued but other games go up in value. OSU getting randomly blown out by Purdue won't have the same impact as prior seasons but something like PSU-Michigan or Texas-Oklahoma State could be a lot more important if those games now have the chance to determine a playoff spot 

 

Also I'm sure this might lead to an increase in blowouts but all you need is one year of Cincy/UCF/Boise pulling off an upset over an Alabama or Clemson to make it worth it 

[Mike in STL]

Some things I just heard on TV from Dennis Dodd, CBS Sports, that sheds more light on this proposal. (bear with me, as I've edited this as I learn more)

 

1. The automatic bids would go to the 6 highest ranked conference champions. That does not guarantee all Power 5 champions get in. Last year, for instance, the 6 highest ranked conference champions were: Alabama (1), Clemson (2), Ohio State (3), Oklahoma (6), Cincinnati (8) and Coastal Carolina (12). Oregon, the Pac-12 champion, was ranked 25th and would not have gotten in.

 

* Obviously citing last season comes with the enormous caveat of COVID's impact, especially for the Pac-12 who played the fewest games, and Oregon not even winning their division but getting to play for the conference title because Washington couldn't play.

 

2. That does potentially open up more opportunities for G5 teams.

 

3. The Top 4 seeds, and the byes that come with it, would go to the Top 4 ranked conference champs. So Notre Dame, an independent, could be seeded no higher than #5 regardless of overall ranking.

 

4. The "first round" games would be played on campuses, with the higher-ranked teams hosting. The quarter and semi-finals would be incorporated with existing bowl games. The championship game will remain independently hosted at a neutral site.

 

5. As far as dates, the first round would be sometime in the 2-weeks following the conference championship games, which are typically the first Saturday in December. The quarterfinal games would be played over 2 days sometime during the New Year's window, depending on when Sunday (NFL) falls. I haven't heard anything yet about the semifinal games, but I would think they would want to do it on the Saturday of the NFL's Week 18 (taking advantage of the added game), otherwise they might have to go to weeknight matchups to avoid overlap with NFL playoff games, which would be the kiss of death for TV ratings.

 

6. This could happen as soon as 2023, two years before the current CFP broadcast contract runs out. That means ESPN would have exclusive negotiating rights to broadcast the entire expanded Playoff (they'd probably shoot for the moon anyway, even if they didn't).

I think there needs to be more questions asked. 

 

Will they go by rankings at the time of conference championships? Or after those are played have another week of rankings? Could be closer than the Oregon scenario sometimes, and maybe the committee gives the favor of a better ranking to the P5 school. Let's say same schools listed above, but Oregon is ranked 13th going into their conference title game. They win. Are they the 7th highest ranked conference champ? Or will the committee vote again, and place Oregon 11th, effectively leaving Coastal Carolina out? 

 

Higher ranked, or higher seeded teams host in the first round? Would a Coastal Carolina as the higher seed host top-5 ranked at large team like LSU, Penn State, Auburn? Or the higher ranking team hosts regardless of seed? I guess that could be answered by asking if the top four ranked conference champs get byes, are the next eight teams seeded by a selection committee, meaning the 5th and 6th ranked conference champs are auto bids, but not necessarily the 5th and 6th seeds in the playoff?

 

Good, don't give Notre Dame a bye. Join a conference, play a conference championship game. It'd be worth going to some ridiculous playoff format just to penalize them for thinking they are special.

[BSLMikeLowe]

I think there needs to be more questions asked. 

 

Will they go by rankings at the time of conference championships? Or after those are played have another week of rankings? Could be closer than the Oregon scenario sometimes, and maybe the committee gives the favor of a better ranking to the P5 school. Let's say same schools listed above, but Oregon is ranked 13th going into their conference title game. They win. Are they the 7th highest ranked conference champ? Or will the committee vote again, and place Oregon 11th, effectively leaving Coastal Carolina out? 

 

Higher ranked, or higher seeded teams host in the first round? Would a Coastal Carolina as the higher seed host top-5 ranked at large team like LSU, Penn State, Auburn? Or the higher ranking team hosts regardless of seed? I guess that could be answered by asking if the top four ranked conference champs get byes, are the next eight teams seeded by a selection committee, meaning the 5th and 6th ranked conference champs are auto bids, but not necessarily the 5th and 6th seeds in the playoff?

 

Good, don't give Notre Dame a bye. Join a conference, play a conference championship game. It'd be worth going to some ridiculous playoff format just to penalize them for thinking they are special.

I’ll be working on another blog post that will show how this would have worked out in recent seasons based on the structure I’ve heard about so far. Some, like your Coastal Carolina question, contain details I’ve either not heard about or they haven’t put in the proposal yet. For the rankings,  I’m certain they will do as they currently do, and have a final ranking after the conference championship games that will determine all the seedings.

[BSLMikeLowe]

I think the meaning of a major upset is devalued but other games go up in value. OSU getting randomly blown out by Purdue won't have the same impact as prior seasons but something like PSU-Michigan or Texas-Oklahoma State could be a lot more important if those games now have the chance to determine a playoff spot 

 

Also I'm sure this might lead to an increase in blowouts but all you need is one year of Cincy/UCF/Boise pulling off an upset over an Alabama or Clemson to make it worth it 

I don’t think you’ll see anywhere near as many Cinderellas as you do in March Madness. That’s just the nature of football versus basketball. Plus the 12th best team in the country in a given season is still a very good team. But given time, I suspect there will be some noteworthy upsets.

[BSLMikeLowe]

BSL: College Football Playoff Expansion - Some Historical Context

 

Using the proposed 12-team model, I go back and show what the field would look like for each season dating back to the first CFP (2014).

 

Some things I found notable:

 

1. For those wondering about "SEC Overload" every year, two times in the previous 7 seasons they would have had 4 teams (2018 and 2020). Three times they would have had 3 teams in, and twice they would have had only one team in the entire 12-team field. Over the seven seasons, the SEC would have placed 19 teams in the field. And yet, they would not be the leader in that category; that honor would go to the Big Ten with 20 participants.

 

2. Only once would the G5 have had more than one team, which was the somewhat anomalous 2020 season. Besides 2020, only 2 other times did the would-be G5 representative finish in the Top 12 of the CFP rankings, that being UCF in 2017-18. That means in the other 4 seasons the team that finished #12 in the final CFP rankings did not make the field.

 

3. Over the 7 seasons, a total of 15 three-loss teams would have made the field. Of those 15, only six of them got the 3rd loss from playing in their conference championship game.

[BSLChrisStoner]

The Ringer: The 17 Biggest Questions About the College Football Playoff’s Proposed Expansion

[BSLMikeLowe]

ESPN: Georgia coach Kirby Smart: 12-team playoff would be college football's "greatest change"

 

"I think a lot of this is going to boil down to strength of schedule," Smart told Marty & McGee. "For a long time now we have been trying to build up our future strength of schedule, because it's not the losses that are going to kill you; it's not playing the best teams. We've tried to go out and schedule major Power 5s across our scheduling system all the way out with the hopes that this would give us the opportunity to go play some really good teams. And losses won't kill you when you start talking about top 12. You've got to have a powerful schedule and go play good teams."

 

If that's one of the results of Playoff expansion, count me as in favor. Like Smart says some programs appear to have already taken that approach when it comes to non-conference scheduling. I know Saban has been saying it for a while with regards to needing to play a more challenging schedule, and seems he's putting his money where his mouth is on that. (starting in 2025, they are scheduled to play two Power 5 OOC games per season)

[Mike in STL]

ESPN: Georgia coach Kirby Smart: 12-team playoff would be college football's "greatest change"


If that's one of the results of Playoff expansion, count me as in favor. Like Smart says some programs appear to have already taken that approach when it comes to non-conference scheduling. I know Saban has been saying it for a while with regards to needing to play a more challenging schedule, and seems he's putting his money where his mouth is on that. (starting in 2025, they are scheduled to play two Power 5 OOC games per season)

Had a much longer reply but lost it. Anyway, Smart and Saban are full of it. Look at the lopsided matchups the SEC schedules in weeks 11 and 12 every year for at least the last decade+. ACC recently starting to realize the advantage of risking a loss in a week 1 or 2 game rather than a week 11 or 12 game.

Good on Georgia and Clemson having a banger in week 1. Ask both schools if they’d rather play that game in week 12 rather than Charleston Southern and UConn, that’s going to be a big “hell no.”

Saban wants to play two P5 OOC schools starting 4 years from now. Golly gee. Don’t go all crazy on us. They play Miami week 1, Mercer, Southern Miss, and New Mexico State on what I call “SEC bye week” before rivalry games in season finales. If you add Kansas, or Maryland, in place of Southern Miss, did you really make your schedule tougher? And I’m sure in return they’ll make another one easier. Instead of New Mexico State, shamelessly plug in Citadel or something during SEC bye week.

I’ve never seen an SEC school punished in the rankings for beating an FCS team by 60+ in week 12 when their other P5 counterparts play real games, and some take an L against quality opponents and drop multiple spots down the rankings with no real opportunity to climb back in the race.

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: College Football Playoff expansion may surprisingly level the playing field, enhance the regular season

https://www.cbssport...regular-season/

[BSLChrisStoner]

• CFP's 12-team plan moves ahead to next phase