OT: College Football Playoff Expansion

[boatcapt]

Isn't that pretty much what is already happening? Hence the PSAC usually gets more in than the others?

The folks proposing that are not from SR1...In fact they use SR1 as the example of a region that doesn't deserve the 8 slots they get and that many of them should go to "more deserving" teams from other conferences.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

The folks proposing that are not from SR1...In fact they use SR1 as the example of a region that doesn't deserve the 8 slots they get and that many of them should go to "more deserving" teams from other conferences.

Well, ... there's probably validity in that argument based on how SR1 traditionally gets walloped deep in the playoffs.

[boatcapt]

Well, ... there's probably validity in that argument based on how SR1 traditionally gets walloped deep in the playoffs.

Perhaps. But it seems like with the D1 playoffs, some posters want to craft a system that insures access by multiple conferences quite possibly at the expense of getting the best teams into the playoffs regardless of their conference. Just found it interesting that the DII discussion often centers on getting the "best" 32 in the playoffs regardless of conference while the D1 discussion is centered on getting "equal access" for teams from non-P5 conferences.

[IUP24]

Perhaps. But it seems like with the D1 playoffs, some posters want to craft a system that insures access by multiple conferences quite possibly at the expense of getting the best teams into the playoffs regardless of their conference. Just found it interesting that the DII discussion often centers on getting the "best" 32 in the playoffs regardless of conference while the D1 discussion is centered on getting "equal access" for teams from non-P5 conferences.

Everything I've seen/read doesn't deter my feelings that major college football was actually better without the playoff. There was more parity, and there was more excitement to the regular season. On one hand, I recognize the argument that the expansion of the playoff creates more "meaningful" regular season games. I'm just not sure you could replace the drama under the old BCS system. It mattered who you played and who you lost to or beat, sure, but it also mattered WHEN you lost. How many times did we see a team lose the opening week of the season that was expected to be a contender, drop significantly in the rankings, keep winning after that loss, and then crawl back up the rankings and into the conversation as others lost and fell?

The scenario of an undefeated team that lost to their rival in the last week of the regular season, and their season gets destroyed. That team who lost week one kept winning and they climbed ahead of that school ranked 1 or 2 when they lost their only game in the final weekend. Mattered when you lost, just as much as who you lost to. Lose early, and you still had a shot to climb and have others lose. There was so much drama and chaos under that system. There was more parity. I was originally all in favor of a playoff system. But at this point, I truly wish we could go back.

I understand my viewpoint isn't common or popular, but it's how I feel.

[shipfbfan1]

Well just read an interesting article in which BYU's AD states that they want to be in a football conference soon and while we all assume they're holding out hope for a PAC 12 bid they could also be looking at a backup option in the AAC where they would probably be able to get get the conference to add some western schools like SDSU, Boise State, to lessen the travel costs. This would give the AAC the boost they need to have their conference considered a Power Conference and force the powers that be to change from P5 to P6.

[ironmaniup]

Everything I've seen/read doesn't deter my feelings that major college football was actually better without the playoff. There was more parity, and there was more excitement to the regular season. On one hand, I recognize the argument that the expansion of the playoff creates more "meaningful" regular season games. I'm just not sure you could replace the drama under the old BCS system. It mattered who you played and who you lost to or beat, sure, but it also mattered WHEN you lost. How many times did we see a team lose the opening week of the season that was expected to be a contender, drop significantly in the rankings, keep winning after that loss, and then crawl back up the rankings and into the conversation as others lost and fell?

The scenario of an undefeated team that lost to their rival in the last week of the regular season, and their season gets destroyed. That team who lost week one kept winning and they climbed ahead of that school ranked 1 or 2 when they lost their only game in the final weekend. Mattered when you lost, just as much as who you lost to. Lose early, and you still had a shot to climb and have others lose. There was so much drama and chaos under that system. There was more parity. I was originally all in favor of a playoff system. But at this point, I truly wish we could go back.

I understand my viewpoint isn't common or popular, but it's how I feel.

I get the point, the conference championships were more important then, and the marquee Bowl games were exciting - The PSU win over Miami and Vinny Testeverde was one - Sandusky's defense crushed them stands out as an ecample. . I'm not sure it was the playoffs that caused the loss of parity though, I think it was an attempt to bring some interest back after years of pretty average Bowl games and conferences dominated by one or two teams. .

[Fightingscot82]

I get the point, the conference championships were more important then, and the marquee Bowl games were exciting - The PSU win over Miami and Vinny Testeverde was one - Sandusky's defense crushed them stands out as an ecample. . I'm not sure it was the playoffs that caused the loss of parity though, I think it was an attempt to bring some interest back after years of pretty average Bowl games and conferences dominated by one or two teams. .

I actually think the creation of the BCS cartel led to the lack of parity. It created the illusion of a true national champion when all it turned out to be was aggregating polls. It also led to the notion of the P5 and gave cover for the SEC to schedule late season FCS games and improve their standing while Ohio State had late season conference games against Penn State and Michigan State. Again, nobody talked about SEC superiority until ESPN made it a regular talking point and after ESPN had ownership stakes in several bowl games. Believing that a 10-2 SEC team deserves anything more than the Camping World Bowl is silly too. It takes away from their inability to beat their conference. If we pretend that Top 25 polls don't exist, the notion that a 10-2 SEC team could be worthy of playoff consideration is laughable at best.

[boatcapt]

Everything I've seen/read doesn't deter my feelings that major college football was actually better without the playoff. There was more parity, and there was more excitement to the regular season. On one hand, I recognize the argument that the expansion of the playoff creates more "meaningful" regular season games. I'm just not sure you could replace the drama under the old BCS system. It mattered who you played and who you lost to or beat, sure, but it also mattered WHEN you lost. How many times did we see a team lose the opening week of the season that was expected to be a contender, drop significantly in the rankings, keep winning after that loss, and then crawl back up the rankings and into the conversation as others lost and fell?

The scenario of an undefeated team that lost to their rival in the last week of the regular season, and their season gets destroyed. That team who lost week one kept winning and they climbed ahead of that school ranked 1 or 2 when they lost their only game in the final weekend. Mattered when you lost, just as much as who you lost to. Lose early, and you still had a shot to climb and have others lose. There was so much drama and chaos under that system. There was more parity. I was originally all in favor of a playoff system. But at this point, I truly wish we could go back.

I understand my viewpoint isn't common or popular, but it's how I feel.

I agree...They tried to fix a situation that wasn't truly broken. As with many things, the media got a hold of the "story" and demanded that a "National Champion" be crowned. Once they got a hold of it, they were like a dog with a bone. And once the NCAA caved, it was just a matter of time before more and more teams were included in the "playoffs." It basically destroyed the bowl system which was very lucrative for many teams. Does anyone truly believe that the media and college football "experts" will be satisfied with 12 teams in the playoffs? Heck, there is already ample "reporting" on how "unfair" the 12 team playoff system is to independent teams like Notre Dame, how unfair it is to the 13 through 25 teams, how the selection process is "unfair," and how college football will now need to shorten their regular season for the safety of it's players.

[Fightingscot82]

I agree...They tried to fix a situation that wasn't truly broken. As with many things, the media got a hold of the "story" and demanded that a "National Champion" be crowned. Once they got a hold of it, they were like a dog with a bone. And once the NCAA caved, it was just a matter of time before more and more teams were included in the "playoffs." It basically destroyed the bowl system which was very lucrative for many teams. Does anyone truly believe that the media and college football "experts" will be satisfied with 12 teams in the playoffs? Heck, there is already ample "reporting" on how "unfair" the 12 team playoff system is to independent teams like Notre Dame, how unfair it is to the 13 through 25 teams, how the selection process is "unfair," and how college football will now need to shorten their regular season for the safety of it's players.

The NCAA surprisingly has absolutely nothing to do with the FBS post-season. They abdicated to have the season end in bowl games and allowed the media to use polling to determine. Neither determines a champion. Just a highest rating. Every other team sport at every other level uses a full playoff with equal access to determine the champion.

I'm really surprised that there's so much objection to it on here. If anything, we should be proponents of a full playoff with equal access like in D2.

[boatcapt]

The NCAA surprisingly has absolutely nothing to do with the FBS post-season. They abdicated to have the season end in bowl games and allowed the media to use polling to determine. Neither determines a champion. Just a highest rating. Every other team sport at every other level uses a full playoff with equal access to determine the champion.

I'm really surprised that there's so much objection to it on here. If anything, we should be proponents of a full playoff with equal access like in D2.

Why should we support a system that has done nothing except destroy what was a pretty good process for quite a few D1 teams...i.e. the bowl games?

[IUPbigINDIANS]

I actually think the creation of the BCS cartel led to the lack of parity. It created the illusion of a true national champion when all it turned out to be was aggregating polls. It also led to the notion of the P5 and gave cover for the SEC to schedule late season FCS games and improve their standing while Ohio State had late season conference games against Penn State and Michigan State. Again, nobody talked about SEC superiority until ESPN made it a regular talking point and after ESPN had ownership stakes in several bowl games. Believing that a 10-2 SEC team deserves anything more than the Camping World Bowl is silly too. It takes away from their inability to beat their conference. If we pretend that Top 25 polls don't exist, the notion that a 10-2 SEC team could be worthy of playoff consideration is laughable at best.

10-2 in the SEC is pretty dang good.

It's just a different level. The 5th team in the SEC would dominate all those G5 leagues most years.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

I'd love to see the P5 become D1. The G5 becomes 1-AA (and has own champion). Current FCS becomes D2. We become D3. D3 becomes D4.

[IUP24]

The NCAA surprisingly has absolutely nothing to do with the FBS post-season. They abdicated to have the season end in bowl games and allowed the media to use polling to determine. Neither determines a champion. Just a highest rating. Every other team sport at every other level uses a full playoff with equal access to determine the champion.

I'm really surprised that there's so much objection to it on here. If anything, we should be proponents of a full playoff with equal access like in D2.

It's not even remotely comparable.

There's no bowl season in D2. 40 games aren't nationally televised each week. There's far less money involved. There's far fewer boosters involved. There's far less interested parties involved. There's no media involved. There's significantly less NFL and personal gain influence for players. The regular season is 3 weeks shorter, when you consider the bye week built into the D1 schedule. Nobody is pounding the table for them to be paid. High school football gets significantly more coverage in many areas of the country than D2 or D3 football. It's not even the same discussion.

How do you not see this as nothing more than a money grab? Boatcapt is 100% right.

[IUP24]

10-2 in the SEC is pretty dang good.

It's just a different level. The 5th team in the SEC would dominate all those G5 leagues most years.

I'm glad I was not the guy to say this lol...

[IUP24]

I'd love to see the P5 become D1. The G5 becomes 1-AA (and has own champion). Current FCS becomes D2. We become D3. D3 becomes D4.

I've long advocated for a similar structure. If you figuratively 'blow it all up,' I would like to see 30 teams basically create an NFL type league with divisions, conferences, and rotating schedules. If those 30 programs think they have money to pay the players, break away and operate as semi-pro football. Don't even charade it.

Let the remainder of your D1 schools who aren't even in that stratosphere be your Division 1A/FBS - and that's 75% of D1. Then go from there. The cat is obviously out of the bag and won't go back, but that's what I would like to see.