CFP considering expansion to 12-team format

[YoloinOhio]

 

Top 4 ranked conf champs  would get byes. First round would be played at home fields. 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[DrDawkinstein]

Big mistake, imo. But I've also always contended the playoffs are bad for college football as it is.

 

I could maybe see expanding to 6, and someday stretching it to 8. But even that is all too much. 12 just makes the season worthless.

[Bill from NYC]

3 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Big mistake, imo. But I've also always contended the playoffs are bad for college football as it is.

 

I could maybe see expanding to 6, and someday stretching it to 8. But even that is all too much. 12 just makes the season worthless.

Also too many games for the players. Too much risk.

 

If they expand the playoffs they should do away with conference championship games imo. Those games are unfair to the SEC, but I suppose that this is what expansion is all about.

5 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Top 4 ranked conf champs  would get byes. First round would be played at home fields. 

How do you feel about this?

[YoloinOhio]

32 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Also too many games for the players. Too much risk.

 

If they expand the playoffs they should do away with conference championship games imo. Those games are unfair to the SEC, but I suppose that this is what expansion is all about.

How do you feel about this?

Unless Ohio state starts losing more than 0-1 games/yr in conference they should make the playoff every year. Will be interesting to see the potential of warm weather teams having to come north for that 1st round in December that has home fields. College Post season has always been played in domes or warm weather stadiums. 

[Doc Brown]

I love it.  Twelve was perfect for the NFL with the top four teams getting a bye.  One bad game won't ruin an entire season for some highly skilled teams and you'll have a lot more meaningful games near the end of the season trying to get into that 12 team playoff.  You'll also get to see some Cinderella stories.

[YoloinOhio]

6 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Big mistake, imo. But I've also always contended the playoffs are bad for college football as it is.

 

I could maybe see expanding to 6, and someday stretching it to 8. But even that is all too much. 12 just makes the season worthless.

The regular season will be more meaningful to more teams for longer. But no one game will hold nearly the stakes they did in the past.

[Bill from NYC]

9 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Unless Ohio state starts losing more than 0-1 games/yr in conference they should make the playoff every year. Will be interesting to see the potential of warm weather teams having to come north for that 1st round in December that has home fields. College Post season has always been played in domes or warm weather stadiums. 

Good points. 

 

I think that 12 teams would make some playoff games all but meaningless. Many players are currently sitting out bowl games. Will an NFL bound player from a GO5 or even Pac 12 team want to risk injury and face OSU, Clemson, or Bama, while having little to no chance of winning? I predict that many players will simply not play.

 

There is a better way for more schools to make the playoffs. They need to recruit better and improve their coaching. Saban does not win by working 8 hour days and I'm sure that the same applies to Day and Dabo. Why punish greatness?

Edited June 11, 2021 by Bill from NYC

[YoloinOhio]

 

[Milanos Milano]

On 6/11/2021 at 7:05 AM, YoloinOhio said:

 

I really hope this happens. While teams like Bama, Ohio St, Clemson, and Oklahoma deserve to be in the playoffs most year because they have the talent, it would be nice to see some other near worthy teams get a crack at it. I think 12 is a really good amount. Any more and it would water down the experience and 4 I also felt was not enough. It makes sense to have a big tournament for college basketball, but it would be terrible for football. 12 is just right. 

Edited June 13, 2021 by IronMaidenBills

[FireChans]

On 6/10/2021 at 4:39 PM, DrDawkinstein said:

Big mistake, imo. But I've also always contended the playoffs are bad for college football as it is.

 

I could maybe see expanding to 6, and someday stretching it to 8. But even that is all too much. 12 just makes the season worthless.

The regular season is already worthless. Teams like Bama, Clemson, OSU play Jackson State half the time. 
 

Seeing a lower caliber team that surprises and plays well all year get a chance to play against the top teams in the country can be nothing but fun.

On 6/11/2021 at 6:14 AM, Bill from NYC said:

Good points. 

 

I think that 12 teams would make some playoff games all but meaningless. Many players are currently sitting out bowl games. Will an NFL bound player from a GO5 or even Pac 12 team want to risk injury and face OSU, Clemson, or Bama, while having little to no chance of winning? I predict that many players will simply not play.

 

There is a better way for more schools to make the playoffs. They need to recruit better and improve their coaching. Saban does not win by working 8 hour days and I'm sure that the same applies to Day and Dabo. Why punish greatness?

Counterpoint, college players care more about winning a championship than the Capital One Bowl.

 

The NCAA tournament didn’t cause all of the top NBA prospects to drop.

 

Why wouldn’t a decent OT from Iowa want to put some play on tape of him going against some Bama DE’s?

[YoloinOhio]

2 hours ago, FireChans said:

The regular season is already worthless. Teams like Bama, Clemson, OSU play Jackson State half the time. 
 

Seeing a lower caliber team that surprises and plays well all year get a chance to play against the top teams in the country can be nothing but fun.

Counterpoint, college players care more about winning a championship than the Capital One Bowl.

 

The NCAA tournament didn’t cause all of the top NBA prospects to drop.

 

Why wouldn’t a decent OT from Iowa want to put some play on tape of him going against some Bama DE’s?

I think with a potential of having to play up to 17 games you will see the nfl guys and certain starters sitting out the part of the schedule that has any cupcake games so they “load manage” for the bigger games and post season. Theoretically that’s better for the big programs who recruit well because it gets the younger guys who are just as talented more experience early 

[FireChans]

41 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

I think with a potential of having to play up to 17 games you will see the nfl guys and certain starters sitting out the part of the schedule that has any cupcake games so they “load manage” for the bigger games and post season. Theoretically that’s better for the big programs who recruit well because it gets the younger guys who are just as talented more experience early 

IMO, this only makes the game better. Devonta Smith didn't need to play every snap vs Arkansas

[Doc Brown]

On 6/11/2021 at 6:14 AM, Bill from NYC said:

Good points. 

 

I think that 12 teams would make some playoff games all but meaningless. Many players are currently sitting out bowl games. Will an NFL bound player from a GO5 or even Pac 12 team want to risk injury and face OSU, Clemson, or Bama, while having little to no chance of winning? I predict that many players will simply not play.

 

There is a better way for more schools to make the playoffs. They need to recruit better and improve their coaching. Saban does not win by working 8 hour days and I'm sure that the same applies to Day and Dabo. Why punish greatness?

With a chance (no matter how minute) at a championship title and to put good film in against better teams they'll play.  Internal pressure from both the team and your college as a whole also plays a factor.

[Bill from NYC]

8 hours ago, FireChans said:

The regular season is already worthless. Teams like Bama, Clemson, OSU play Jackson State half the time. 
 

Oh, OK. I thought that Alabama played a 10 game all SEC schedule in 2020 and went undefeated. Sorry.

 

[Bill from NYC]

8 hours ago, FireChans said:

 

Seeing a lower caliber team that surprises and plays well all year get a chance to play against the top teams in the country can be nothing but fun.

 

Really? I was thinking that sub-par teams would stand a chance of losing by scores of 60-0.  That doesn't sound like fun from where I sit FC.

 

Also, I don't think that the championships should be fun based. Maybe the best teams should play, no? And also, "fun" for who? Not the kid who loses a 20 million or so guaranteed contract for having to play extra, unpaid college games. 

 

Sorry, I don't think that inferior teams should be rewarded. I also don't think that the college kids should be taking more risk. Finally, I think that the reason for this proposal is economic exploitation. It will be great for the NCAA but how good will it be for the injured player.

 

Thanks for the dialogue FC and as always, JMO.

[FireChans]

27 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Oh, OK. I thought that Alabama played a 10 game all SEC schedule in 2020 and went undefeated. Sorry.

 

That was the COVID schedule.  This year the Bama boys play such powerhouse teams such as:

 

Mercer (they beat Duke in the NCAA CBB tourney a few years ago!)

Southern Miss

New Mexico State

 

If a few players miss those games, so what?  Bama backups will beat them by 50.

18 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Really? I was thinking that sub-par teams would stand a chance of losing by scores of 60-0.  That doesn't sound like fun from where I sit FC.

 

Also, I don't think that the championships should be fun based. Maybe the best teams should play, no? And also, "fun" for who? Not the kid who loses a 20 million or so guaranteed contract for having to play extra, unpaid college games. 

 

Sorry, I don't think that inferior teams should be rewarded. I also don't think that the college kids should be taking more risk. Finally, I think that the reason for this proposal is economic exploitation. It will be great for the NCAA but how good will it be for the injured player.

 

Thanks for the dialogue FC and as always, JMO.

Really? I was thinking that sub-par teams would stand a chance of losing by scores of 60-0.  That doesn't sound like fun from where I sit FC.

 

I get that.  I get that ND can barely hang with the powerhouses.  But you know what?  It's still football.  The difference in talent between TAMU and Bama is not the same as Mercer vs Bama.  The teams that make it will be at least solid. 

 

And usually the good CFB teams have good players. I would like to see some star DB from Michigan State play a LSU star WR in the first round of the playoff.  Sounds like fun to me.

 

Not the kid who loses a 20 million or so guaranteed contract for having to play extra, unpaid college games. 

 

If I was a college player, I would rather play an undefeated BIG12 or PAC10 team  than Mercer. Injuries can happen in any game.  But we let those boys ride vs Southern Miss.  Why not the playoff?

 

It will be great for the NCAA but how good will it be for the injured player.

 

Injuries suck.  More games equals more risk but no one argues to eliminate the useless games on the schedule for the players.  Or to eliminate the East/West game. Or to eliminate Bowl Season. 

 

Ultimately, the players don't have to play.  If you are a top 10 talent and you don't want to risk the postseason, go right ahead.  They'll still play. Because they want to.

 

There are thousands of college players and only hundreds of draftees.  Even fewer are the ones who make it to the NFL.  Who are we really protecting?  The projected first rounders?

Edited June 14, 2021 by FireChans

[Bill from NYC]

17 hours ago, FireChans said:

 

There are thousands of college players and only hundreds of draftees.  Even fewer are the ones who make it to the NFL.  Who are we really protecting?  The projected first rounders?

The above is a thought provoking question imo. I think that the answer to it is no, but I do get your point.

 

I have spoken to a particular player who was a second round draft pick. I also spoke to his mother. He hails from Mississippi and his mom is a nursing assistant. If he would have torn his achilles (or another horrible injury), he would be out millions of dollars.

 

Things are changing in Alabama. Many of the players are very bright kids these days. Still, some are not exactly chemistry majors and stand to make much more money playing football than they will after college in other endeavors. NFL players have very short careers and this opens the for for later round draft picks as well as udfas to make the pros.

 

I'm not going to harp on it but I think that a majority of the top college players come from poor families. Most have little to nothing to fall back on and an injury can cost them a sum of money they would probably not see from any other line of work.

 

If they MUST expand the playoffs, my thing is to do away with conference title games and shorten the regular season. They should also place more emphasis on strength of schedule. 

 

Again, jmo.

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

18 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

Really? I was thinking that sub-par teams would stand a chance of losing by scores of 60-0.  That doesn't sound like fun from where I sit FC.

 

Also, I don't think that the championships should be fun based. Maybe the best teams should play, no? And also, "fun" for who? Not the kid who loses a 20 million or so guaranteed contract for having to play extra, unpaid college games. 

 

Sorry, I don't think that inferior teams should be rewarded. I also don't think that the college kids should be taking more risk. Finally, I think that the reason for this proposal is economic exploitation. It will be great for the NCAA but how good will it be for the injured player.

 

Thanks for the dialogue FC and as always, JMO.

Bill I think you do not realize how good the players are across the country in many schools and how many only go to power 5 schools because they know everywhere else they can't win a title. The expansion of the playoff will every year be 11 power 5 schools but at least one other will be given a chance. The non power team will 2/3 of the time lose the first game but seeing as six times in the past 16 years the only undefeated team after bowl games was not national champs it is hard to argue they never have a chance 

 

[May Day 10]

I like it.  

I think the teams such as UCF a few years ago or those Peterson Boise teams should have a shot, a puncher's chance, and if they un-seated a power team in the tournament, it would be mayhem.  I would also like to see the SEC runner-up who is arguably the 2nd best team in the country get in rather than an overrated Notre Dame tomato can or Ohio State.  Now they all can get in.  This truly gives every team a chance at a National Championship when the season starts, which does not exist now.

 

12 teams will all be pretty high quality.  Furthermore, you are having 5-12 in the first round which normally should breed pretty good and interesting match-ups.  I dont think we are doomed to perpetual blowouts either.  

 

I used to be a huge bowl game fan, but they did lose an enormous amount of luster and importance when the playoff started.  If the Bowl Games are grafted with games that mean something, then it is much better.

 

We will get a lot more flavor in the playoff picture than Alabama, Clemson, O-State, Notre Dame, Georgia, Oklahoma.   We will get more Washington, Texas A&M, Utah, Cincinnati, Wisconsin, etc.  Plus a bracket buster like Coastal Carolina, UCF, Boise, or WMU...  say what you will, but if those teams are undefeated, they should get a shot with 12, and Im sure their players would relish a week of "Great White Hype" going up against a P5 school.  

[YoloinOhio]

I can definitely see an upset here or there in the first round, but I think it would be less likely to see a less talented/experienced team beat several better teams in succession over multiple weeks to win it all

[PromoTheRobot]

Throwing a bone to the Group of 5, guaranteeing them one slot. Eh, it's a step in the right direction.

[Bill from NYC]

16 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Bill I think you do not realize how good the players are across the country in many schools and how many only go to power 5 schools because they know everywhere else they can't win a title. 

 

I think that the above factors in, and is probably the number 2 reason.

 

The primary reason for most great players attending Alabama is the prospect of getting into the NFL. This matters even more than winning a championship. While recruiting, Coach Saban can sit down with a player (and their parents/grand parents) and show them copies of a contract that Alabama graduates have signed to earn millions of guaranteed dollars, this at EVERY position.

 

Players know what they are getting into when they go to Tuscaloosa and almost all of them buy into the sytstem. The same applies to coaches. Nobody goes to Alabama to have fun. Coaches like Jimbo Fisher, Kirby Smart, and our own Brian Daboll leave Alabama and make 7 or 8 million per year. Other coaches like Locksley, Kiffen, Sarkisian, Butch Jones, Bill O'Brien, and even Doug Marrone go to Bama to revive their careers. All of these coaches were struggling for one reason or another and came to Alabama not to reinvent the wheel, but to fit into Saban's system, and it worked. These men all left for better jobs (except for the brand new arrivals).

 

High school kids know that there are only a few places where they can get this kind of coaching, not to mention the great facilities but again; the main reason players go to places like Alabama, OSU, and Clemson is because is the chances for them to become multi millionaires are greater at places like this than they are at schools with inferior programs.

 

 

 

[Bill from NYC]

12 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Throwing a bone to the Group of 5, guaranteeing them one slot. Eh, it's a step in the right direction.

Promo, how many of those teams do you think deserve a shot at the title? A strong case could be made for none, no?

[Orlando Tim]

24 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

I think that the above factors in, and is probably the number 2 reason.

 

The primary reason for most great players attending Alabama is the prospect of getting into the NFL. This matters even more than winning a championship. While recruiting, Coach Saban can sit down with a player (and their parents/grand parents) and show them copies of a contract that Alabama graduates have signed to earn millions of guaranteed dollars, this at EVERY position.

 

Players know what they are getting into when they go to Tuscaloosa and almost all of them buy into the sytstem. The same applies to coaches. Nobody goes to Alabama to have fun. Coaches like Jimbo Fisher, Kirby Smart, and our own Brian Daboll leave Alabama and make 7 or 8 million per year. Other coaches like Locksley, Kiffen, Sarkisian, Butch Jones, Bill O'Brien, and even Doug Marrone go to Bama to revive their careers. All of these coaches were struggling for one reason or another and came to Alabama not to reinvent the wheel, but to fit into Saban's system, and it worked. These men all left for better jobs (except for the brand new arrivals).

 

High school kids know that there are only a few places where they can get this kind of coaching, not to mention the great facilities but again; the main reason players go to places like Alabama, OSU, and Clemson is because is the chances for them to become multi millionaires are greater at places like this than they are at schools with inferior programs.

 

 

 

Bill you have seen Butler and Gonzaga recently make the NCAA final but can honestly sit there and state that no school outside the power 5 will be good enough? You have seen "lesser" teams destroy power 5 teams but since it is unlikely- which I agree- you are cool with making it impossible? Lastly I am going to ask about 1 team- do you actually believe Alabama would have blown out UCF in 2017? 

[Bill from NYC]

34 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

 Lastly I am going to ask about 1 team- do you actually believe Alabama would have blown out UCF in 2017? 

Yes, easily.

[YoloinOhio]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Bill you have seen Butler and Gonzaga recently make the NCAA final but can honestly sit there and state that no school outside the power 5 will be good enough? You have seen "lesser" teams destroy power 5 teams but since it is unlikely- which I agree- you are cool with making it impossible? Lastly I am going to ask about 1 team- do you actually believe Alabama would have blown out UCF in 2017? 

I do think basketball is very different. Although Gonzaga isn’t really a good example because though they may be a smaller school but it’s a top recruiting basketball powerhouse for years. But in general, a bball team can much more easily get hot with one big time shooter (is Steph Curry’s Davidson team) and go on a post season run than a football team. Eventually though the smaller program will like run into a bigger, stronger team with more depth though. And The difference in football is # of players overall and the depth of talent. Every group of 5 team probably has a few blue chip players amongst the team who could go to Clemson and play. The difference is Clemson has 7 of those guys in each position group and will just keep rolling them out in waves. The true powerhouse schools have the NFL qbs and elite coaches and those guys are the one who win championships. Again I think upsets can happen but not enough of them to win 3 straight games over better competition to win it all. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by YoloinOhio

[Orlando Tim]

45 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Yes, easily.

Is that because the one team they both played- Auburn- beat Bama and lost to UCF or just based on the fact that Bama is historically much better? I know it is not based on watching UCF that year. 

15 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

I do think basketball is very different. Although Gonzaga isn’t really a good example because though they may be a smaller school but it’s a top recruiting basketball powerhouse for years. But in general, a bball team can much more easily get hot with one big time shooter (is Steph Curry’s Davidson team) and go on a post season run than a football team. Eventually though the smaller program will like run into a bigger, stronger team with more depth though. And The difference in football is # of players overall and the depth of talent. Every group of 5 team probably has a few blue chip players amongst the team who could go to Clemson and play. The difference is Clemson has 7 of those guys in each position group and will just keep rolling them out in waves. The true powerhouse schools have the NFL qbs and elite coaches and those guys are the one who win championships. Again I think upsets can happen but not enough of them to win 3 straight games over better competition to win it all. 

I agree it is not a perfect analogy but you state the QBs go to the powerhouse schools, in the top 6  best QBs in the NFL you have  Louisville, Cal, Wyoming,  NC State which are all hardly football factories. I agree most years the power 5 will dominate but the once every 12 year teams do happen elsewhere. 

[PromoTheRobot]

4 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

Promo, how many of those teams do you think deserve a shot at the title? A strong case could be made for none, no?

 

Probably. But you could also say #16 UMBC had no business playing #1 seed Virginia. That's why I love Match Madness. Because every D1 school has a path to the national title. Win your conference and run the bracket.

 

Football on the other hand is a closed loop for about a dozen schools. If the G5 are so not a threat then the P5 schools shouldn't mind playing them.

Edited June 15, 2021 by PromoTheRobot

[May Day 10]

I think the 'path' needs to be opened up for those teams.  Boise State, early in their run knocked off Oklahoma with a statue of Liberty play.

 

 

With 2 or 4 teams, it is very hard to justify a Coastal Carolina, UCF, or Western Michigan.  You have the SEC Champ, often ACC Champ, SEC runner up is likely a powerhouse, pressure to gift Notre Dame a spot because they beat Navy by a touchdown and bested Duke and you need to capitalize on all the Notre Dame/Yankees fans who will watch, and a Big 12 and Big 10 champion.  Thats crowded, and it is truly hard to justify giving a mid-major spot over most of those slots.  

 

With 12, you can give a spot to those teams if worthy.  If UB had a team with Mack and also maybe that offense with Jackson/Johnson and they were humming and had a season/run like the Nate Oats Bulls... it would be really exciting down the stretch if they can finish the job in the MAC, go undefeated, and get a shot at one of the #5-12 teams, possibly draw someone more beatable like Iowa State, Indiana, etc.  Maybe UB could pull it out and we would have a really exciting week going into a puncher's chance against one of the 4 top dogs.  Exponentially more exciting than being eternally stuck in the Motor City, Potato, bahamas, or the Lending Tree Bowl game.

 

 

[Bill from NYC]

21 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Is that because the one team they both played- Auburn- beat Bama and lost to UCF or just based on the fact that Bama is historically much better? I know it is not based on watching UCF that year. 

 

When the Bills were horrible, there was a thread on TSW each and every season asking if Alabama could beat the Bills. Every year I said NO. A great college team doesn't compare to a bad NFL team.

 

I will use this analogy to UCF/Alabama. Alabama is loaded every year with blue chip players. This season the offense suffered huge losses. It will be good, but not as good as last year. However, the defense looks better than I have seen in many years. UCF probably would not score against Alabama. 

 

2017 wouldn't have been much different in a game that mattered. We are looking at 2 entirely different programs.

 

Jmo.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Bill from NYC

[Orlando Tim]

38 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

When the Bills were horrible, there was a thread on TSW each and every season asking if Alabama could beat the Bills. Every year I said NO. A great college team doesn't compare to a bad NFL team.

 

I will use this analogy to UCF/Alabama. Alabama is loaded every year with blue chip players. This season the offense suffered huge losses. It will be good, but not as good as last year. However, the defense looks better than I have seen in many years. UCF probably would not score against Alabama. 

 

2017 wouldn't have been much different in a game that mattered. We are looking at 2 entirely different programs.

 

Jmo.

Your argument is simply that because historically it is true it is always true. Your comment that UCF would not have scored against Alabama shows your ignorance of UCF in 2017. UCF put up 31 against Auburn which is more than any other team that year. UCF actually scored the most points on every team they played that year. I think most of your football thoughts are good but this one is awful because it restricts who has a chance based on the money from their fan base and that is not right.

[May Day 10]

The thing is, a UCF would open up the playoff against a #5-#12 team which is much more reasonable/beatable.  If they lose the game against Wisconsin or whoever, then they have no place to complain or wonder 'what-if?' and hang fake championship flags.  

 

They win that and they will slot in against 1 of the top 4.  A good chance Alabama, but they would wreck Notre Dame anyways to get to the NCG.  Upsets do happen though.  

[Metal Man]

Some good arguments from both sides on this.

 

There will no doubt be some playoff games that turn out to be laughers which won't add much on the entertainment side.

 

However I think it is worthwhile to give some of these smaller programs their shot because even though they will get smoked more often than not in the early years of this format there is a chance that the recruiting field will even out a bit as better talent filters down to other schools once they can start using 'x amount of years' in the playoff as a recruitment incentive.

 

Could take a while but will be worth it in the long run if it evens the playing field a bit which would definitely add more to the entertainment side of college football as a whole.

[Cynical]

 

On 6/15/2021 at 9:38 AM, Buffalo Timmy said:

I agree it is not a perfect analogy but you state the QBs go to the powerhouse schools, in the top 6  best QBs in the NFL you have  Louisville, Cal, Wyoming,  NC State which are all hardly football factories. I agree most years the power 5 will dominate but the once every 12 year teams do happen elsewhere. 

 

At least you admitted the comparison of FB to BB was bad, but then you follow it up with comparing CFB QBs that made it in the NFL.

Not sure what you are trying to argue there.

 

But, if spitting out random factoids is the way to go:

Joe Montana was drafted in the third round, Drew Brees was drafted in the second round, and as we all know, Brady in the 6th.

 

AJ MacCarron was the starting QB at BAMA for 4 years, and guided BAMA to 3 NC during that time.

He is one only 7 QBs to win back to back NC.

 

His NFL career has not been quite so spectacular.

 

6 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Your argument is simply that because historically it is true it is always true.

 

This is an interesting comment, given what you say just after this.

 

6 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Your comment that UCF would not have scored against Alabama shows your ignorance of UCF in 2017. UCF put up 31 against Auburn which is more than any other team that year. UCF actually scored the most points on every team they played that year.

 

I don't care if "UCF actually scored the most points on every team they played that year."

Doing that against Austin Peay, UConn, and FIU is noting to brag about, considering the rest of that cup cake schedule they played in 2017.

 

And this: "Your comment that UCF would not have scored against Alabama shows your ignorance of UCF in 2017. UCF put up 31 against Auburn which is more than any other team that year."

UCF scored 34 points, by the way.

Auburn scored 27. And even took a lead at one point in that game.

Auburn had more total yardage than UCF.

The difference was Auburn coughed the ball up 3 times. Even 1 less TO, I think the game ends in a different outcome.

 

IMO, I will not say UCF would not score against Bama, but I have no problem stating Bama would walk away with a pretty convincing win.

I also believe if UCF played AU's 2017 schedule, UCF would have ended up with at least 4 losses during the regular season.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cynical]

5 hours ago, Metal Man said:

However I think it is worthwhile to give some of these smaller programs their shot because even though they will get smoked more often than not in the early years of this format there is a chance that the recruiting field will even out a bit as better talent filters down to other schools once they can start using 'x amount of years' in the playoff as a recruitment incentive.

 

Could take a while but will be worth it in the long run if it evens the playing field a bit which would definitely add more to the entertainment side of college football as a whole.

 

IMO, expanding the playoffs to 12 will not even out the talent level.

It will do the opposite.

During the BCs years, no team had an "automatic" by-in for the 1 or 2 spot.

The talent was more spread out.

Nobody knew who the 2 teams were going to be.

 

Now with 4 teams in the playoffs, is it any coincidence why the same teams keep getting the better recruits?

You think 12 teams will stop that?

Can't wait until the blowouts continue, and then the cries for expanding the playoffs resurface.

Because the only way to fix the problem of crappy teams getting blown out in the playoffs, is to add even more crappier teams.

 

 

[Buffalo716]

Every year there's not a group of five school that could compete with the big boys

 

But they're absolutely years where a group of five School can play with the big boys.. Boise State beating Oklahoma in the fiesta bowl comes to mind

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, Cynical said:

 

 

At least you admitted the comparison of FB to BB was bad, but then you follow it up with comparing CFB QBs that made it in the NFL.

Not sure what you are trying to argue there.

 

But, if spitting out random factoids is the way to go:

Joe Montana was drafted in the third round, Drew Brees was drafted in the second round, and as we all know, Brady in the 6th.

 

AJ MacCarron was the starting QB at BAMA for 4 years, and guided BAMA to 3 NC during that time.

He is one only 7 QBs to win back to back NC.

 

His NFL career has not been quite so spectacular.

 

 

This is an interesting comment, given what you say just after this.

 

 

I don't care if "UCF actually scored the most points on every team they played that year."

Doing that against Austin Peay, UConn, and FIU is noting to brag about, considering the rest of that cup cake schedule they played in 2017.

 

And this: "Your comment that UCF would not have scored against Alabama shows your ignorance of UCF in 2017. UCF put up 31 against Auburn which is more than any other team that year."

UCF scored 34 points, by the way.

Auburn scored 27. And even took a lead at one point in that game.

Auburn had more total yardage than UCF.

The difference was Auburn coughed the ball up 3 times. Even 1 less TO, I think the game ends in a different outcome.

 

IMO, I will not say UCF would not score against Bama, but I have no problem stating Bama would walk away with a pretty convincing win.

I also believe if UCF played AU's 2017 schedule, UCF would have ended up with at least 4 losses during the regular season.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can say with certainty you did not watch that UCF game vs Auburn because UCF had a terrible first quarter and then smoked them. As I have asked what fact based argument do you have that Bama would have smoked them? Bama lost while putting up 13 points. I am not stating UCF was clearly better but all your arguments are not based on what happened that year when the premier win for Bama was a team not in the top 20. As for the random facts he stated the better QBs are all going to the great teams and that is certainly not true. 

[Orlando Tim]

I will make my last points and then I am done with this thread- those who are against the expansion to include at least one of the non power 5 teams each year are the worst kind of elitist in the sports world. They don't believe the Miracle should have happened, or Hoosiers should have happened, and truly do not think BYU deserved the title despite being undefeated. Because it is unlikely it should not be given a chance. And to the two Bama fans downplaying the UCF 2017 team I just watched the entire peach bowl and  UCFspent 3 qtrs kicking the crap out of the Auburn team that decimate the Bama team. It reminds me of the Bills vs 49ers this past year. UCF offense was clearly better than Alabama's unless your beliefs from before the season mean everything and what happens on the field means NOTHING.

[Metal Man]

13 hours ago, Cynical said:

 

IMO, expanding the playoffs to 12 will not even out the talent level.

It will do the opposite.

During the BCs years, no team had an "automatic" by-in for the 1 or 2 spot.

The talent was more spread out.

Nobody knew who the 2 teams were going to be.

 

Now with 4 teams in the playoffs, is it any coincidence why the same teams keep getting the better recruits?

You think 12 teams will stop that?

Can't wait until the blowouts continue, and then the cries for expanding the playoffs resurface.

Because the only way to fix the problem of crappy teams getting blown out in the playoffs, is to add even more crappier teams.

 

 

That definitely could be the way it goes ultimately and likely will be the way it goes in the short term.

 

We will have to wait and see how it looks 10 years from now if they adopt this format but to me it seems like there is a good chance that if you get another 4 or 5 teams making regular appearances then maybe more recruits will choose one of those teams for a better chance at playing time then to be the second guy off the bench at Alabama. Then from there it could trickle even further down.

 

Obviously all theoretical but I'd prefer giving that a shot than keeping it how it is.