[Spiny_Norman]

Expanding the field won't change the boredom with Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State always being among the top 3 or 4 teams.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...00023.html

[Spiny_Norman]

Expanding the field won't change the boredom with Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State always being among the top 3 or 4 teams.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...00023.html

[Farm93]

Expanding the field won't change the boredom with Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State always being among the top 3 or 4 teams.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...00023.html

A 12 team model - 
So that would mean
1 Group of 5
1 Pac-12
1 ACC
1 Big-12
3 BigTen
5 SEC

However, any time a playoff includes multiple rounds it becomes less likely you will see seed #1 v seed #2 in the final.   Given that Clemson & Alabama now own #1 and #2, anything that reduces that rematch works for me.

That noted - the 5-12 seeds would need to win 4 playoff games to get the title.   That's similar to the path NFL wildcard teams need to navigate to win the Super Bowl.  That's a long playoff journey for a bunch of "student"-athletes working (errr...playing) for in-state tuition at their nearby State U.

[Farm93]

Expanding the field won't change the boredom with Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State always being among the top 3 or 4 teams.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...00023.html

A 12 team model - 
So that would mean
1 Group of 5
1 Pac-12
1 ACC
1 Big-12
3 BigTen
5 SEC

However, any time a playoff includes multiple rounds it becomes less likely you will see seed #1 v seed #2 in the final.   Given that Clemson & Alabama now own #1 and #2, anything that reduces that rematch works for me.

That noted - the 5-12 seeds would need to win 4 playoff games to get the title.   That's similar to the path NFL wildcard teams need to navigate to win the Super Bowl.  That's a long playoff journey for a bunch of "student"-athletes working (errr...playing) for in-state tuition at their nearby State U.

[Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card]

Expanding the field won't change the boredom with Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State always being among the top 3 or 4 teams.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...00023.html

A 12 team model - 
So that would mean
1 Group of 5
1 Pac-12
1 ACC
1 Big-12
3 BigTen
5 SEC

However, any time a playoff includes multiple rounds it becomes less likely you will see seed #1 v seed #2 in the final.   Given that Clemson & Alabama now own #1 and #2, anything that reduces that rematch works for me.

That noted - the 5-12 seeds would need to win 4 playoff games to get the title.   That's similar to the path NFL wildcard teams need to navigate to win the Super Bowl.  That's a long playoff journey for a bunch of "student"-athletes working (errr...playing) for in-state tuition at their nearby State U.

You forgot to leave room for the Domers (unless they count against the ACC).

In fact, given the view of Domer fans, maybe they deserve two slots.

[Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card]

Expanding the field won't change the boredom with Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State always being among the top 3 or 4 teams.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...00023.html

A 12 team model - 
So that would mean
1 Group of 5
1 Pac-12
1 ACC
1 Big-12
3 BigTen
5 SEC

However, any time a playoff includes multiple rounds it becomes less likely you will see seed #1 v seed #2 in the final.   Given that Clemson & Alabama now own #1 and #2, anything that reduces that rematch works for me.

That noted - the 5-12 seeds would need to win 4 playoff games to get the title.   That's similar to the path NFL wildcard teams need to navigate to win the Super Bowl.  That's a long playoff journey for a bunch of "student"-athletes working (errr...playing) for in-state tuition at their nearby State U.

You forgot to leave room for the Domers (unless they count against the ACC).

In fact, given the view of Domer fans, maybe they deserve two slots.

[OutsiderFan]

Leave it to the College Football powers that be to come up with something nobody else really was advocating to have, with 12 team playoff.

I am offended. For years and years we were told "we can't extend the playoffs" because of classes, or injuries, or whatever. This 12-team format would mean FOUR WEEKS of playoffs. That's even more than March Madness, which is only 3 weeks. And I am so tired of trying to fit the bowl games into a CFP structure. We either have bowl games with no playoffs, or playoffs, but having playoffs by definition devalues bowl games. Why doesn't the NCAA just take control of the Football?  I've never understood why the NCAA can't control its own post-season.

1 2 3 4  get byes

First Round
5 - 12
6 - 11
7 - 10
8 - 9

Quarterfinals
5 - 1
6 - 2
7 - 3
8 - 4

Semifinals
1 - 4
2 - 3

Final
1 - 2

[OutsiderFan]

Leave it to the College Football powers that be to come up with something nobody else really was advocating to have, with 12 team playoff.

I am offended. For years and years we were told "we can't extend the playoffs" because of classes, or injuries, or whatever. This 12-team format would mean FOUR WEEKS of playoffs. That's even more than March Madness, which is only 3 weeks. And I am so tired of trying to fit the bowl games into a CFP structure. We either have bowl games with no playoffs, or playoffs, but having playoffs by definition devalues bowl games. Why doesn't the NCAA just take control of the Football?  I've never understood why the NCAA can't control its own post-season.

1 2 3 4  get byes

First Round
5 - 12
6 - 11
7 - 10
8 - 9

Quarterfinals
5 - 1
6 - 2
7 - 3
8 - 4

Semifinals
1 - 4
2 - 3

Final
1 - 2

[OutsiderFan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1403042783347286016[/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1403042783347286016[/tweet]

[terry]

Twelve teams is too many. Too many teams, too many rounds of playoffs. There are never 12 teams that truly deserve a shot at the championship.

[terry]

Twelve teams is too many. Too many teams, too many rounds of playoffs. There are never 12 teams that truly deserve a shot at the championship.

[Papa John]

Terry, I agree that 12 is too many, but I see the logic if one assumes that, at least some years, the Pac-12 champion and highest G5 conference champion will be out of the top 10. If that's the case, then expanding to 12 ensures that the top 10 teams are included in the CFP.

Personally, I prefer that we go back to the old pre-BCS bowl system--too many scheduling discrepancies make the rankings apples-to-oranges comparisons--but that will never happen. So having said that, I would go with 8 teams. Power 5 conference champs plus top ranked G5 conference champ plus 2 at-larges, including Notre Dame as a potential at-large team.

[Papa John]

Terry, I agree that 12 is too many, but I see the logic if one assumes that, at least some years, the Pac-12 champion and highest G5 conference champion will be out of the top 10. If that's the case, then expanding to 12 ensures that the top 10 teams are included in the CFP.

Personally, I prefer that we go back to the old pre-BCS bowl system--too many scheduling discrepancies make the rankings apples-to-oranges comparisons--but that will never happen. So having said that, I would go with 8 teams. Power 5 conference champs plus top ranked G5 conference champ plus 2 at-larges, including Notre Dame as a potential at-large team.

[Canalejas]

I’ve long hoped that the football postseason would just be administered by the NCAA like FCS, D2, and D3 are. Those are all bigger than 12 so 12 hardly seems like too many to me. My dream is that we someday stop arguing subjectively about “deserving” and just set up a large tournament to take care of those legitimacy concerns.

[Canalejas]

I’ve long hoped that the football postseason would just be administered by the NCAA like FCS, D2, and D3 are. Those are all bigger than 12 so 12 hardly seems like too many to me. My dream is that we someday stop arguing subjectively about “deserving” and just set up a large tournament to take care of those legitimacy concerns.

[OutsiderFan]

One thing I do like about this format is that it addresses a scenario like this...

Conference champion rankings (only conference champions ranked here)
#1 SEC
#2 Big 12
#3 ACC 
#4 Pac-12
#5 AAC
#6 MWC

You see, in this scenario, the Big Ten Champion isn't automatically in the playoff. It may get in as an at-large, which affords two Group of 5 teams are in the playoff. I honestly don't know why the powers that be are giving so much deference to Group of 5 schools, but I'm all for it.

I totally agree that in no year have their ever been 12 teams I thought were legit contenders, so by that logic 12 is too many. But, injuries can happen. Players can opt out for pro aspirations, etc.

More is better than less, and this model ensures much greater access to the playoff franchise, which always increases interest in the game, which means more viewers, which means more revenue.

[OutsiderFan]

One thing I do like about this format is that it addresses a scenario like this...

Conference champion rankings (only conference champions ranked here)
#1 SEC
#2 Big 12
#3 ACC 
#4 Pac-12
#5 AAC
#6 MWC

You see, in this scenario, the Big Ten Champion isn't automatically in the playoff. It may get in as an at-large, which affords two Group of 5 teams are in the playoff. I honestly don't know why the powers that be are giving so much deference to Group of 5 schools, but I'm all for it.

I totally agree that in no year have their ever been 12 teams I thought were legit contenders, so by that logic 12 is too many. But, injuries can happen. Players can opt out for pro aspirations, etc.

More is better than less, and this model ensures much greater access to the playoff franchise, which always increases interest in the game, which means more viewers, which means more revenue.

[Goose]

More is better than less,

until it becomes too much.

and this model ensures much greater access to the playoff franchise, which always increases interest in the game, which means more viewers, which means more revenue.

As long as there is demand for more football, this model works. However, what I believe will happen is that many people will regard the regular season as a bore, especially when your team will either a) get in anyway because of who they are or b) has no chance. This approach is further dividing a limited size pie into more pieces (games), not creating a bigger pie. Five years ago, that may not have been true, but I think it is true today. We have all seen a "softening" of the sports market in recent years. This change won't alter the trend.

Let's face it. Playoffs don't really determine who the "best" team is, if that concept really means anything. One bad game and your out. The non-transitive property of sports basically ensures that is true. Playoffs between good teams can be fun to watch, no matter who wins, but they don't have the cachet they used to. The old vote for #1 was subjective, but at least it didn't claim otherwise.

[Goose]

More is better than less,

until it becomes too much.

and this model ensures much greater access to the playoff franchise, which always increases interest in the game, which means more viewers, which means more revenue.

As long as there is demand for more football, this model works. However, what I believe will happen is that many people will regard the regular season as a bore, especially when your team will either a) get in anyway because of who they are or b) has no chance. This approach is further dividing a limited size pie into more pieces (games), not creating a bigger pie. Five years ago, that may not have been true, but I think it is true today. We have all seen a "softening" of the sports market in recent years. This change won't alter the trend.

Let's face it. Playoffs don't really determine who the "best" team is, if that concept really means anything. One bad game and your out. The non-transitive property of sports basically ensures that is true. Playoffs between good teams can be fun to watch, no matter who wins, but they don't have the cachet they used to. The old vote for #1 was subjective, but at least it didn't claim otherwise.

[Snorlax94]

Leave it to the College Football powers that be to come up with something nobody else really was advocating to have, with 12 team playoff.

I am offended. For years and years we were told "we can't extend the playoffs" because of classes, or injuries, or whatever. This 12-team format would mean FOUR WEEKS of playoffs. That's even more than March Madness...

Agree, plus the additional — I would argue biggest — scam of it all is that it’s designed to have Clemson, Ohio State, or an SEC team win every year.

It is ridiculous to make 8 teams play 4 playoff games, and to hand select 4 special teams that only have to play 3. Football isn’t basketball, you can’t just wind through brackets endlessly.

The specially selected 4 teams will have fewer injuries, and will get to sit back and scout their opponent’s playoff schemes for an extra week. Plus you know many of those four teams don’t play out-of-conference home and homes, they play 8 conference games and pay the rest of the schedule to fly to their home at a convenient time.

Either 8 teams or 16. And to reduce the ridiculous load on college student(?)-athletes, the regular season should be pruned to a 10 game season.

[Snorlax94]

Leave it to the College Football powers that be to come up with something nobody else really was advocating to have, with 12 team playoff.

I am offended. For years and years we were told "we can't extend the playoffs" because of classes, or injuries, or whatever. This 12-team format would mean FOUR WEEKS of playoffs. That's even more than March Madness...

Agree, plus the additional — I would argue biggest — scam of it all is that it’s designed to have Clemson, Ohio State, or an SEC team win every year.

It is ridiculous to make 8 teams play 4 playoff games, and to hand select 4 special teams that only have to play 3. Football isn’t basketball, you can’t just wind through brackets endlessly.

The specially selected 4 teams will have fewer injuries, and will get to sit back and scout their opponent’s playoff schemes for an extra week. Plus you know many of those four teams don’t play out-of-conference home and homes, they play 8 conference games and pay the rest of the schedule to fly to their home at a convenient time.

Either 8 teams or 16. And to reduce the ridiculous load on college student(?)-athletes, the regular season should be pruned to a 10 game season.

[needle]

Why the hell would a potential top 10 draft pick sign up to play 16 or 17 games?

This format will double the number of early season opt outs. Guys will play 6-8 games and...see ya later.

I want a 10-game regular season of all conference games, then a committee selects the top two teams from all 10 conferences who play each other for their 11th regular season game.

The committee then picks the top eight from the group of week 11 winners.

Apart from the top eight, other teams play bowl games.

Only four teams play 13 or 14 games in any one season. Most other good teams play 12.

[needle]

Why the hell would a potential top 10 draft pick sign up to play 16 or 17 games?

This format will double the number of early season opt outs. Guys will play 6-8 games and...see ya later.

I want a 10-game regular season of all conference games, then a committee selects the top two teams from all 10 conferences who play each other for their 11th regular season game.

The committee then picks the top eight from the group of week 11 winners.

Apart from the top eight, other teams play bowl games.

Only four teams play 13 or 14 games in any one season. Most other good teams play 12.

[81alum]

What does 4 weeks of playoff games do to traditional bowl games?

The Rose Bowl is already ruined once every four years.  Will it now be ruined every year?

I have no appetite for football playoffs.  I had no interest in the existing system and none in the proposed one.  I want Stanford to play the Big 10 Champion in the Rose Bowl every year, and I don't care who "#1" is.

I also want the games at 1:30 in the afternoon, our time.  This can happen if we play in the Rose Bowl.

In short, I'd rather turn back the clock.

Since this is not likely to happen, the alternative is that I just further lose interest in the game.

[81alum]

What does 4 weeks of playoff games do to traditional bowl games?

The Rose Bowl is already ruined once every four years.  Will it now be ruined every year?

I have no appetite for football playoffs.  I had no interest in the existing system and none in the proposed one.  I want Stanford to play the Big 10 Champion in the Rose Bowl every year, and I don't care who "#1" is.

I also want the games at 1:30 in the afternoon, our time.  This can happen if we play in the Rose Bowl.

In short, I'd rather turn back the clock.

Since this is not likely to happen, the alternative is that I just further lose interest in the game.

[BostonCard]

More is better than less, and this model ensures much greater access to the playoff franchise, which always increases interest in the game, which means more viewers, which means more revenue.

no it is not.

And I'm not sure it will increase interest in the game.

BC

[BostonCard]

More is better than less, and this model ensures much greater access to the playoff franchise, which always increases interest in the game, which means more viewers, which means more revenue.

no it is not.

And I'm not sure it will increase interest in the game.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

More is better than less, and this model ensures much greater access to the playoff franchise, which always increases interest in the game, which means more viewers, which means more revenue.

no it is not.

And I'm not sure it will increase interest in the game.

BC

Stanford fans live on a tiny island, not in the sense they are cut off from information, but that compared to the greater college football fan base their way of life is an outlier and they are inconsequential in their numbers.

The masses for whom this expanded playoff is designed to appeal believe more is better. There are some gripes about it, but to say "more is not better" is refuted by the sheer numbers of people who believe more is in fact better. 

And I would expect Stanford fans to have mixed feelings about this, because how many times in the 2010s did Stanford have a team ranked in the Top 10, had no shot at playoff, and we thought would have done well in them? The proposed model would have put Stanford in the playoff in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, would have been in the running in 2017.

Who knows, if Stanford was in playoff all those years, MAYBE recruiting doesn't fall off a cliff? Maybe the program remains relevant on the national stage?

[OutsiderFan]

More is better than less, and this model ensures much greater access to the playoff franchise, which always increases interest in the game, which means more viewers, which means more revenue.

no it is not.

And I'm not sure it will increase interest in the game.

BC

Stanford fans live on a tiny island, not in the sense they are cut off from information, but that compared to the greater college football fan base their way of life is an outlier and they are inconsequential in their numbers.

The masses for whom this expanded playoff is designed to appeal believe more is better. There are some gripes about it, but to say "more is not better" is refuted by the sheer numbers of people who believe more is in fact better. 

And I would expect Stanford fans to have mixed feelings about this, because how many times in the 2010s did Stanford have a team ranked in the Top 10, had no shot at playoff, and we thought would have done well in them? The proposed model would have put Stanford in the playoff in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, would have been in the running in 2017.

Who knows, if Stanford was in playoff all those years, MAYBE recruiting doesn't fall off a cliff? Maybe the program remains relevant on the national stage?

[BostonCard]

First of all, you cannot possibly look at the data on the health and safety of athletes who play football and conclude that "more is better".  More means more chance of injury, more concussions, more sub-concussive traumatic injury, and a more likelihood of long term adverse consequences that we are only just starting to understand.  And "more" doesn't mean more compensation to these student athletes who have gone from playing 12 games a season 20 years ago to as many as 17 games in a season under this new rule.  More is not better for the student athletes, of which the NCAA is at least supposed to pretend to care about.  The more that the NCAA becomes a revenue-maximizing venture, the less it is possible to keep the pretense that it is an amateur venture, and the more it looks like a crappy facsimile of the NFL.  The NCAA's brand, such as it is, is that it is suppose to represent student athletes competing.  If it becomes a pseudo-professional minor league, it will garner as much interest as minor league baseball, which is to say local interest in places that don't have major league teams, and little interest elsewhere.

Moreover, "more" doesn't mean that viewership will continue to expand.  We are probably close to "peak football" anyways, with football viewership likely to decline in the future as there is greater competition for audience attention and younger generations are just less into football than older generations.  The NFL just increased the number of games in the regular season from 16 to 17.  College football may be increasing its post-season from 4 to 12 teams.  This will not generate a significant number of new fans; what it will do is shift what fans will watch.  Sure, fans will tune into the playoffs, but they will do so instead of going to or watching bowl games (some may consider this a feature rather than a bug, and I will be the first to say that there are too many bowl games).  It also means that the regular season will be devalued; once the 100 or so teams are out of consideration for the playoffs, why watch them play?  A 5-4 team, which in the past may have generated interest as it pushed to become bowl eligible, will be out of the playoff race with three games remaining, and will be as interesting as a team on the bubble for the NIT.

This smacks of a desperate attempt by the conferences to keep the revenue flowing even as football, and especially college football is going to start facing greater headwinds, and to me, it is looking like they are sacrificing the golden goose in the process.

As for Stanford, I would not have traded Rose Bowl trips in 2012, 2013, and 2015 for a berth in a 12-team playoff.

BC

[BostonCard]

First of all, you cannot possibly look at the data on the health and safety of athletes who play football and conclude that "more is better".  More means more chance of injury, more concussions, more sub-concussive traumatic injury, and a more likelihood of long term adverse consequences that we are only just starting to understand.  And "more" doesn't mean more compensation to these student athletes who have gone from playing 12 games a season 20 years ago to as many as 17 games in a season under this new rule.  More is not better for the student athletes, of which the NCAA is at least supposed to pretend to care about.  The more that the NCAA becomes a revenue-maximizing venture, the less it is possible to keep the pretense that it is an amateur venture, and the more it looks like a crappy facsimile of the NFL.  The NCAA's brand, such as it is, is that it is suppose to represent student athletes competing.  If it becomes a pseudo-professional minor league, it will garner as much interest as minor league baseball, which is to say local interest in places that don't have major league teams, and little interest elsewhere.

Moreover, "more" doesn't mean that viewership will continue to expand.  We are probably close to "peak football" anyways, with football viewership likely to decline in the future as there is greater competition for audience attention and younger generations are just less into football than older generations.  The NFL just increased the number of games in the regular season from 16 to 17.  College football may be increasing its post-season from 4 to 12 teams.  This will not generate a significant number of new fans; what it will do is shift what fans will watch.  Sure, fans will tune into the playoffs, but they will do so instead of going to or watching bowl games (some may consider this a feature rather than a bug, and I will be the first to say that there are too many bowl games).  It also means that the regular season will be devalued; once the 100 or so teams are out of consideration for the playoffs, why watch them play?  A 5-4 team, which in the past may have generated interest as it pushed to become bowl eligible, will be out of the playoff race with three games remaining, and will be as interesting as a team on the bubble for the NIT.

This smacks of a desperate attempt by the conferences to keep the revenue flowing even as football, and especially college football is going to start facing greater headwinds, and to me, it is looking like they are sacrificing the golden goose in the process.

As for Stanford, I would not have traded Rose Bowl trips in 2012, 2013, and 2015 for a berth in a 12-team playoff.

BC

[Goose]

This smacks of a desperate attempt by the conferences to keep the revenue flowing even as football, and especially college football is going to start facing greater headwinds, and to me, it is looking like they are sacrificing the golden goose in the process.

Unfortunately I don't think those involved see it as a "desperate attempt". I think they fully expect it will be a revenue enhancement of significant proportions. As usual, those running the show often have a difficult time recognizing the winds of change and responding in the best way to that change. This 12 team format is just a way to make money, nothing else.

[Goose]

This smacks of a desperate attempt by the conferences to keep the revenue flowing even as football, and especially college football is going to start facing greater headwinds, and to me, it is looking like they are sacrificing the golden goose in the process.

Unfortunately I don't think those involved see it as a "desperate attempt". I think they fully expect it will be a revenue enhancement of significant proportions. As usual, those running the show often have a difficult time recognizing the winds of change and responding in the best way to that change. This 12 team format is just a way to make money, nothing else.

[Spiny_Norman]

More is not better for the student athletes, of which the NCAA is at least supposed to pretend to care about. 


As for Stanford, I would not have traded Rose Bowl trips in 2012, 2013, and 2015 for a berth in a 12-team playoff.


BC

BC, in this context, I would substitute "university presidents" for "NCAA." If the playoffs expand, this would be the university presidents (and in some cases Board of Regents) selling out the health of their "student-athletes" for more money. Can you think of a single example in modern times of them making a decision that benefited the athletes instead of their bottom line?

And I am with you 1000% on favoring the experience of watching Stanford in a Rose Bowl on January 1 or 2 over a playoff game.

[Spiny_Norman]

More is not better for the student athletes, of which the NCAA is at least supposed to pretend to care about. 


As for Stanford, I would not have traded Rose Bowl trips in 2012, 2013, and 2015 for a berth in a 12-team playoff.


BC

BC, in this context, I would substitute "university presidents" for "NCAA." If the playoffs expand, this would be the university presidents (and in some cases Board of Regents) selling out the health of their "student-athletes" for more money. Can you think of a single example in modern times of them making a decision that benefited the athletes instead of their bottom line?

And I am with you 1000% on favoring the experience of watching Stanford in a Rose Bowl on January 1 or 2 over a playoff game.

[BostonCard]

BC, in this context, I would substitute "university presidents" for "NCAA." If the playoffs expand, this would be the university presidents (and in some cases Board of Regents) selling out the health of their "student-athletes" for more money. Can you think of a single example in modern times of them making a decision that benefited the athletes instead of their bottom line?

Good point; you are correct.  And somehow that makes it worse.

BC

[BostonCard]

BC, in this context, I would substitute "university presidents" for "NCAA." If the playoffs expand, this would be the university presidents (and in some cases Board of Regents) selling out the health of their "student-athletes" for more money. Can you think of a single example in modern times of them making a decision that benefited the athletes instead of their bottom line?

Good point; you are correct.  And somehow that makes it worse.

BC