FBS football

[IUP24]

Re: FBS football

Seems to me that you could make the same argument about college basketball, but somehow they find 68 teams every year...No need to separate those conferences, so why would you do it in football??

Let's not pretend that the structure of football and basketball are the same. Basketball is a sport where you can play multiple games in as many days. Also consider that there are over 350 teams playing Division 1 college basketball. Good mid-majors have proven there isn't a high degree of separation between them and teams in the middle of the pack of the major conferences. In football, teams like Boise State and UCF are simply flashes in the pan. Put them into a major conference for the years after their run, and you would see they aren't on the same level.

Remember that relatively speaking, very few of these players playing college basketball go to the NBA or play professionally. It's a very, very small percentage. With the exception of the programs getting the "one and dones" every year, you can make a lot of arguments that support a fairly level playing field across college basketball. Unlike in college football, parity exists in that sport. I'm not saying mid-majors don't have it as easy as some of the schools from power conferences, but comparing the structure of collegiate basketball to the current state of college football that is dominated by only about a dozen schools is not just in my opinion.

[WarriorVoice]

Re: FBS football

Let's not pretend that the structure of football and basketball are the same. Basketball is a sport where you can play multiple games in as many days. Also consider that there are over 350 teams playing Division 1 college basketball. Good mid-majors have proven there isn't a high degree of separation between them and teams in the middle of the pack of the major conferences. In football, teams like Boise State and UCF are simply flashes in the pan. Put them into a major conference for the years after their run, and you would see they aren't on the same level.

Remember that relatively speaking, very few of these players playing college basketball go to the NBA or play professionally. It's a very, very small percentage. With the exception of the programs getting the "one and dones" every year, you can make a lot of arguments that support a fairly level playing field across college basketball. Unlike in college football, parity exists in that sport. I'm not saying mid-majors don't have it as easy as some of the schools from power conferences, but comparing the structure of collegiate basketball to the current state of college football that is dominated by only about a dozen schools is not just in my opinion.

The major beef about the current format is that there aren't enough of the best teams involved...16 teams wouldn't require playing games on consecutive days, so that argument doesn't apply IMO. 16 teams allows every conference to have a shot, just like basketball. That's all I'm trying to say. 16 out of the 132 FBS schools seems like a good field.

[catatonic]

Re: FBS football

The major beef about the current format is that there aren't enough of the best teams involved...16 teams wouldn't require playing games on consecutive days, so that argument doesn't apply IMO. 16 teams allows every conference to have a shot, just like basketball. That's all I'm trying to say.

[ironmaniup]

Re: FBS football

I just don't see that as being plausible. Expand to 16 teams, but how do you shorten the regular season? Teams won't give up non-conference home games against the sisters of the poor. Are you shortening the conference season? As it stands today, teams play 12 games. Most conferences play 9 conference games plus 3 non-conference games that you will not get athletic directors to buy into giving up. Teams that make a conference championship play 13. The bowl game makes 14. We are at 16 games then with the 16 team playoff. Are you playing straight through, or will we be playing college football at the end of January? Those are my questions.

I'm not in favor of expansion because I believe the best teams should be in. I like where the playoff is at currently. It leaves the taste of wanting more, but getting more won't necessarily make it better. The best thing is that every year there are 2 teams that we all agree should have had a shot. We say 2 teams, not 4, not 6, not 12. The more teams you add, the more watered down the field becomes. This isn't college basketball where there are over 350 teams playing at the same level. In my opinion, if we expanded to eight teams, most years we might all agree that there aren't eight teams who are deserving of being in. Most of these games have been non-competitive to this point already, expansion will only deliver more of those games. Let's be honest, the MAC champion is just going to be a sacrificial lamb in the first round. I'm not interested in watching that.

The other element that advocates of expansion don't necessarily think about is attendance. Add another round, plus conference championships. Are you telling me fans will travel to 4 weeks in a row (including conference championship weekend), drop literally thousands of dollars at Christmas time, and sell out stadiums each week for an expanded playoff? Even if you played the first round at a home site, it's lunacy to think that these games would sell out.

Keep it at four teams.

I don't know, I would like to see the top 8 play this year. Add Georgia, UCF Michigan and Ohio State to the Mix. If Notre Dame is in it, why not these other 4 ? 16 would be too many, But taking the top 8 allows for a Richer field and more more interesting games. consider UCF v Alabama - UCF with that on any given day chance to pull of an upset, show they are better than people say. Clemson v Michigan - Michigan had looked strong until OSU took them apart. maybe that was just one of those days, ND v Ohio State - certainly a competitive game, and Georgia v Oklahoma, who wouldn't want to see that one ? Then the Top four on new years day bowls just like is currently done.

[KleShreen]

Re: FBS football

Each FBS team plays what, 3-4 non-conference games? They can easily drop two of them. Most P5 teams are playing cupcakes for at least two of their non-conference games anyway.

[WarriorVoice]

Re: FBS football

Would you settle for 8 teams??...It's a yes or no question...LOL

[IUP24]

Re: FBS football

Each FBS team plays what, 3-4 non-conference games? They can easily drop two of them. Most P5 teams are playing cupcakes for at least two of their non-conference games anyway.

I think MOST athletic directors at P5 schools would vehemently disagree with that notion. I think most athletic directors at the sisters of the poor would as well. These are 1 of 2 things depending on what you are... 1) a guaranteed home game against a team that you will clobber, or 2) a great pay day to go and get clobbered.

ADs aren't going to give that up. You're likely going to be reserved to shortening the conference schedule, and the conferences and networks won't climb aboard that train.

[IUP24]

Re: FBS football

Would you settle for 8 teams??...It's a yes or no question...LOL

I wouldn't. Because I don't feel that every year there are 8 teams worthy of playing for the national championship given the landscape of FBS college football. Most of the playoff games we've seen have either been non-competitive or blowouts with four teams.

[IUP24]

Re: FBS football

The major beef about the current format is that there aren't enough of the best teams involved...16 teams wouldn't require playing games on consecutive days, so that argument doesn't apply IMO. 16 teams allows every conference to have a shot, just like basketball. That's all I'm trying to say. 16 out of the 132 FBS schools seems like a good field.

I understand you're argument and I supported it a few years ago until I saw how large of a gap existed in the arms race that is major college football. I don't think you're doing that kid at Northern Illinois OR Alabama any favor by playing a game down in Tuscaloosa in December that will be over before the ball is kicked off. Keep adding rounds and games to the playoffs, and more of these guys will sit out these games.

[WarriorVoice]

Re: FBS football

I wouldn't. Because I don't feel that every year there are 8 teams worthy of playing for the national championship given the landscape of FBS college football. Most of the playoff games we've seen have either been non-competitive or blowouts with four teams.

That's a pretty heavy indictment of the lack of quality in college football if only 4 teams out of 132 are worthy of playing for a title...

[IUP24]

Re: FBS football

I don't know, I would like to see the top 8 play this year. Add Georgia, UCF Michigan and Ohio State to the Mix. If Notre Dame is in it, why not these other 4 ? 16 would be too many, But taking the top 8 allows for a Richer field and more more interesting games. consider UCF v Alabama - UCF with that on any given day chance to pull of an upset, show they are better than people say. Clemson v Michigan - Michigan had looked strong until OSU took them apart. maybe that was just one of those days, ND v Ohio State - certainly a competitive game, and Georgia v Oklahoma, who wouldn't want to see that one ? Then the Top four on new years day bowls just like is currently done.

I agree. On paper, yeah, it looks great. The results of the playoff however, just haven't indicated it will provide us with another round of great football. Most of the games to this point have either been blowouts or non-competitive. I just don't see how adding more teams to the field will improve that. Maybe in the middle in the 4-5 or 3-6 game, but otherwise, I don't see it.

And nobody has addressed my mention of the attendance issue. The more games you add, the more likely you are to have crowds at half capacity for these things. People aren't made of money. I don't care how rabid a fanbase is or well anybody thinks their fans travel. People aren't dropping thousands of dollars a week in succession during the 3-4 weeks leading up to Christmas. Isn't happening.

[KleShreen]

Re: FBS football

I think MOST athletic directors at P5 schools would vehemently disagree with that notion. I think most athletic directors at the sisters of the poor would as well. These are 1 of 2 things depending on what you are... 1) a guaranteed home game against a team that you will clobber, or 2) a great pay day to go and get clobbered.

ADs aren't going to give that up. You're likely going to be reserved to shortening the conference schedule, and the conferences and networks won't climb aboard that train.

Yea they would. Conferences and networks would both get much more money if they replaced two weeks of regular season games with even one week of playoff games.

All the schools in the Big Ten are going to get more money from having OSU, Michigan, and Penn State playing first round playoff games than they would those three teams playing Akron, Western Michigan, and Kent State in early September. And ESPN or whatever network broadcasts the playoff games is going to make more money than they would showing Alabama vs Citadel.

[WarriorVoice]

Re: FBS football

I agree. On paper, yeah, it looks great. The results of the playoff however, just haven't indicated it will provide us with another round of great football. Most of the games to this point have either been blowouts or non-competitive. I just don't see how adding more teams to the field will improve that. Maybe in the middle in the 4-5 or 3-6 game, but otherwise, I don't see it.

And nobody has addressed my mention of the attendance issue. The more games you add, the more likely you are to have crowds at half capacity for these things. People aren't made of money. I don't care how rabid a fanbase is or well anybody thinks their fans travel. People aren't dropping thousands of dollars a week in succession during the 3-4 weeks leading up to Christmas. Isn't happening.

Adding more teams isn't to excite college football fans...It's to give MORE teams the chance to play for something...After all, college athletics are about giving student-athletes the opportunity to compete, not to placate fans...

[catatonic]

Re: FBS football

Each FBS team plays what, 3-4 non-conference games? They can easily drop two of them. Most P5 teams are playing cupcakes for at least two of their non-conference games anyway.

[WarriorVoice]

Re: FBS football


Remember, it's about giving student athletes the opportunity to compete, not about $$$. Don't you think TV networks would pay for more games??