CFB Playoff Expansion to 12 teams approved

[YoloinOhio]

 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[YoloinOhio]

First round games on campuses >>>>
 

weather will be a factor 

[Beast]

Good deal.

 

More college football makes me happy.

[Southern_Bills]

I hate it, well kind of, I will enjoy the extra football. 

 

I'm just wondering when we will just separate the teams from the schools. Student-athlete is a dated term, I'm all for the guys getting paid considering the situation they are in.

 

At some point though you have to admit you are a for profit semi pro league that has nothing to do with higher education.  

 

College football pageantry is destroyed, and with conference realignment it will only get worse. Bowl games were already meaningless, now with this expansion they may as well end them.

 

I do think they are putting the best "football" product first with this move, as well as paying the players. It isn't the best moves for preserving college football tradition though.

 

I'll stop my rant now 🤣

[GunnerBill]

I watched #11 Oregan last night get boatraced by the Bulldogs. I did not think we need more teams to determine who is best.

[Mr. WEO]

On 9/2/2022 at 4:27 PM, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

"If...Pac-12 champ is the No.1 seed".......lol

 

 

[FireChans]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I watched #11 Oregan last night get boatraced by the Bulldogs. I did not think we need more teams to determine who is best.

Lots of season left. Not sure Oregon will be #11.

 

I want more interconference play. I want teams like Cinci last year to play teams like TAM.

[GunnerBill]

18 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Lots of season left. Not sure Oregon will be #11.

 

I want more interconference play. I want teams like Cinci last year to play teams like TAM.

 

No I doubt they will. But the point stands for me. We are just gonna have some one sides CFP Qrtr Finals. The big colleges are too dominant and the talent is not sufficiently evenly spread. Until there is a way to tackle that 12 team playoffs are not helping produce better competition. 

 

Maybe in the long run it helps improve the standard of some of the other conferences. 

[Southern_Bills]

On 9/4/2022 at 11:32 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

No I doubt they will. But the point stands for me. We are just gonna have some one sides CFP Qrtr Finals. The big colleges are too dominant and the talent is not sufficiently evenly spread. Until there is a way to tackle that 12 team playoffs are not helping produce better competition. 

 

Maybe in the long run it helps improve the standard of some of the other conferences. 

 

I see big teams like Bama, OSU, UGA etc taking the freedom to schedule some tough/profitable/entertaining games knowing even if they lose they still make the top 12.

[Bill from NYC]

This is nonsense. Inevitable but nonsense. Yeah, put the winner of the Big 12 and the PAC 12 in the playoffs, despite their clear lack of talent.  😒 These conferences will soon be lucky to exist.

And let's be sure to bring in inferior Group of 5 teams and make the playoffs a complete farce.  

 

[Doc Brown]

So it's possible a highly touted NFL prospect may have to make the decision of playing three more games than they do now.  Thus, risking injury before the draft that could set you up for life financially.  The peer pressure to play from the fans, coaches, and teammates to play in the playoffs will be overwhelming.  College football has gone too far as the four team playoff format was fine.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Bill from NYC said:

This is nonsense. Inevitable but nonsense. Yeah, put the winner of the Big 12 and the PAC 12 in the playoffs, despite their clear lack of talent.  😒 These conferences will soon be lucky to exist.

And let's be sure to bring in inferior Group of 5 teams and make the playoffs a complete farce.  

 

 

I said in another thread a few weeks ago that to me as a complete outsider that doesn't understand the intricacies of college football as a cultural phenomenon the reality is that as a sporting one, it's broken. The conference system is outdated, the scheduling is a joke and the whole NIL thing baffling. 

 

There are probably lots of reasons it can't ever happen but if you were starting again with a blank sheet of paper you would start with a "Premier Division" of college football, with two conferences (either east-west or north-south) of 12 teams, 11 games per regular season games and then a 4 team playoff where the winner of conference A plays the runner up of conference B and vice-versa. Then you'd have a regional structure below that with promotion and relegation playoffs in place of all the pointless "Pinstripe Bowl" games. 

 

I have serious reservations how long the sport can continue to thrive with so few competitive games between the top teams. Again, I know I don't have the same understanding of the history, the tradition and the cultural impact. But something needs to change IMO. 

 

 

EDIT: but the answer is not just to retain the status quo and extend the playoffs. That just produces more supposedly high stakes games - CFP Qrtr Finals etc - where there is no jeopardy and everyone knows the result before kickoff. 

Edited September 6, 2022 by GunnerBill

[Bill from NYC]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I have serious reservations how long the sport can continue to thrive with so few competitive games between the top teams. Again, I know I don't have the same understanding of the history, the tradition and the cultural impact. But something needs to change IMO. 

Yes, but what?  A few points.....

1) Now that players are getting paid, should we expect them to play even more games? Doing so gives them a much bigger risk of injury and perhaps losing out on a VERY lucrative NFL career. Some kids are already skipping bowl games.

2) Should winners of inferior conferences (Pac 12, Big 12) receive automatic playoff spots? These teams are perhaps as good as a middle of the pack SEC teams, if that.

3) Should Group of 5 teams also be ushered into these playoffs? How will they shape up against Bama, Georgia and OSU?

4) Depth will now be the biggest factor in winning championships rather than pure talent and superior coaching. I expect Coach Saban to pull players earlier than he seems to like. The backups are going to have to be ready because players will be going down. Of this I have zero doubt.

5) Perhaps conference title games should be eliminated. Will this happen? Of course not because they are pure profit.

6) Again, these are college students who are young, still growing, and should not have to play NFL schedules. How long before it is expanded again to 64 teams, in order to give even more second rate (or perhaps so-so) teams a playoff berth? What number of games is too many?

 

Coach Saban went to Alabama (which would seem to have less appeal to recruits than California and many other states) and built a championship team from one that had been playing poorly almost every season since they lost Bear Bryant. Perhaps other coaches should learn from him and copy his methods and work ethic. It worked for our own McDermott in using the term "process" that Saban invented. Maybe then they will find a way to consistantly beat him but no; it's easier to just change the rules.

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Yes, but what?  A few points.....

1) Now that players are getting paid, should we expect them to play even more games? Doing so gives them a much bigger risk of injury and perhaps losing out on a VERY lucrative NFL career. Some kids are already skipping bowl games.

2) Should winners of inferior conferences (Pac 12, Big 12) receive automatic playoff spots? These teams are perhaps as good as a middle of the pack SEC teams, if that.

3) Should Group of 5 teams also be ushered into these playoffs? How will they shape up against Bama, Georgia and OSU?

4) Depth will now be the biggest factor in winning championships rather than pure talent and superior coaching. I expect Coach Saban to pull players earlier than he seems to like. The backups are going to have to be ready because players will be going down. Of this I have zero doubt.

5) Perhaps conference title games should be eliminated. Will this happen? Of course not because they are pure profit.

6) Again, these are college students who are young, still growing, and should not have to play NFL schedules. How long before it is expanded again to 64 teams, in order to give even more second rate (or perhaps so-so) teams a playoff berth? What number of games is too many?

 

Coach Saban went to Alabama (which would seem to have less appeal to recruits than California and many other states) and built a championship team from one that had been playing poorly almost every season since they lost Bear Bryant. Perhaps other coaches should learn from him and copy his methods and work ethic. It worked for our own McDermott in using the term "process" that Saban invented. Maybe then they will find a way to consistantly beat him but no; it's easier to just change the rules.

 

Again, I agree. The thing that needs to change is not extending the playoffs. We don't need more games in college football. We need more competition. 

 

The current system is fundamentally broken. As for what should change, I've given you my solution - it needs root and branch reform and there are probably lots of reasons why it won't happen. But the status quo plus an expanded playoff is the worst of all words. 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by GunnerBill

[Bill from NYC]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Again, I agree. The thing that needs to change is not extending the playoffs. We don't need more games in college football. We need more competition. 

 

The current system is fundamentally broken. As for what should change, I've given you my solution - it needs root and branch reform and there are probably lots of reasons why it won't happen. But the status quo plus an expanded playoff is the worst of all words. 

 

I agree 100%!!!

Btw another example I could point to is Clemson. Are they a very good team? Absolutely. Are they well coached? Yes. Are there any other good teams in their conference? Well, Miami is now well coached and will almost certainly improve. Who else? I think no other team in the ACC is all that good. Clemson (again, a VERY good team) gets to feast on nobodies and gets into the playofs less banged up amd more rested than their opponents., while teams like OSU, Michigan and SEC Teams are tested quite often.

As for me, I would be open to schedule reform but it doesn't matter what I think.

[GunnerBill]

31 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

I agree 100%!!!

Btw another example I could point to is Clemson. Are they a very good team? Absolutely. Are they well coached? Yes. Are there any other good teams in their conference? Well, Miami is now well coached and will almost certainly improve. Who else? I think no other team in the ACC is all that good. Clemson (again, a VERY good team) gets to feast on nobodies and gets into the playofs less banged up amd more rested than their opponents., while teams like OSU, Michigan and SEC Teams are tested quite often.

As for me, I would be open to schedule reform but it doesn't matter what I think.

 

It needs schedule reform and conference reform as an absolute minimum. 

[FireChans]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Again, I agree. The thing that needs to change is not extending the playoffs. We don't need more games in college football. We need more competition. 

 

The current system is fundamentally broken. As for what should change, I've given you my solution - it needs root and branch reform and there are probably lots of reasons why it won't happen. But the status quo plus an expanded playoff is the worst of all words. 

 

100% disagree. The whole point of expanding the playoffs is to see quality teams play quality teams. 
 

The way college football is set up, these power 5 teams have 2-4 cupcakes on the schedule every year. As much as I respect our resident Bama and OSU fans, they complain about postseason blowouts and “wastes” but not playing Eastern Southwestern Presbyterian College and winning by 100 2-3 times a year.

 

I would 1 million times rather see Bama play a 6 seed TCU over ESPC. So would any fan of the sport of college football. So that’s why they are expanding. If you say, “well that’s too many games” then eliminate those cupcakes and expand it. 
 

The fans of the big 4 perennial playoff teams don’t want expansion because the more quality teams they have to face to win, the harder it gets. An extra game against some Big 12 dark horse is an extra chance for them to have a couple CFB plays and shockingly lose. They would rather just take their chances with Georgia again in the final instead. No effing thanks.

[ArdmoreRyno]

4 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

This is nonsense. Inevitable but nonsense. Yeah, put the winner of the Big 12 and the PAC 12 in the playoffs, despite their clear lack of talent.  😒 These conferences will soon be lucky to exist.

And let's be sure to bring in inferior Group of 5 teams and make the playoffs a complete farce.  

 

 

Only SEC fans... mainly Alabama fans... have a real issue with an expanded playoffs and it's hilarious. The thought that the Big XII or even the PAC 12 can't hang with other conferences is just flat out incorrect. It's a crock of sh*t actually to think no one can hang with the mighty SEC. Why have NCAA basketball tournaments?  And what other conferences are better than the Big XII as a whole? ACC? No. Big 10? No. Pac-12 No. SEC? Top 2 teams? Yes. At times conferences have a bad run, like the Pac-12 is currently having... but most come around. You, as a Bama fan, should know that. Bama went a good decade (like 1997-2007) just sucking ass. The one good year you had, you cheated and got caught.

 

But lets look at the 2021-22 post season.... 

 

NY6 Bowls (Big XII, not counting CFP games) 

#9 Oklahoma State 37

#5 Notre Dame 35

 

#7 Baylor 21

#9 Ole Miss 7

 

SEC v Big XII (in other bowls)

Texas Tech 34

Miss Stat 7

 

Kansas State 42

LSU 20

 

SEC vs Everyone else

Army 24

Missouri 22

 

UCF 29

Florida 17

 

Houston 17

Auburn 13

 

Purdue 48

Tennessee 45

 

S. Carolina 38

N. Carolina 21

 

Arkansas 24

Penn State 10

 

Kentucky 20

Iowa 17

 

Then the playoffs of course, which again... you have Alabama and UGA. Two best teams in the country in... yes.. the best conference. The SEC had a LOSING record in the Bowl games last year vs the weaker conferences.

 

But stop with the BS that the Big XII or (or anyone else really) are pathetic compared to the mighty SEC. It's just a moronic statement. Maybe you don't want it to be expanded because your mighty Alabama Crimson Tide might have a more difficult time playing for the ship? 

 

18 minutes ago, FireChans said:

100% disagree. The whole point of expanding the playoffs is to see quality teams play quality teams. 
 

The way college football is set up, these power 5 teams have 2-4 cupcakes on the schedule every year. As much as I respect our resident Bama and OSU fans, they complain about postseason blowouts and “wastes” but not playing Eastern Southwestern Presbyterian College and winning by 100 2-3 times a year.

 

I would 1 million times rather see Bama play a 6 seed TCU over ESPC. So would any fan of the sport of college football. So that’s why they are expanding. If you say, “well that’s too many games” then eliminate those cupcakes and expand it. 
 

The fans of the big 4 perennial playoff teams don’t want expansion because the more quality teams they have to face to win, the harder it gets. An extra game against some Big 12 dark horse is an extra chance for them to have a couple CFB plays and shockingly lose. They would rather just take their chances with Georgia again in the final instead. No effing thanks.

 

The ones against it are the ones who just want their team in the top 4 every year, they're afraid of getting knocked off by a team who might pull together a better game plan. I only see Bama fans hate the idea of expansion. I'm glad we are doing it. A team like Oklahoma State or Baylor last season (who had arguably the two best defenses in college football) could have surprised anyone in the top 4. 

[FireChans]

49 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Only SEC fans... mainly Alabama fans... have a real issue with an expanded playoffs and it's hilarious. The thought that the Big XII or even the PAC 12 can't hang with other conferences is just flat out incorrect. It's a crock of sh*t actually to think no one can hang with the mighty SEC. Why have NCAA basketball tournaments?  And what other conferences are better than the Big XII as a whole? ACC? No. Big 10? No. Pac-12 No. SEC? Top 2 teams? Yes. At times conferences have a bad run, like the Pac-12 is currently having... but most come around. You, as a Bama fan, should know that. Bama went a good decade (like 1997-2007) just sucking ass. The one good year you had, you cheated and got caught.

 

But lets look at the 2021-22 post season.... 

 

NY6 Bowls (Big XII, not counting CFP games) 

#9 Oklahoma State 37

#5 Notre Dame 35

 

#7 Baylor 21

#9 Ole Miss 7

 

SEC v Big XII (in other bowls)

Texas Tech 34

Miss Stat 7

 

Kansas State 42

LSU 20

 

SEC vs Everyone else

Army 24

Missouri 22

 

UCF 29

Florida 17

 

Houston 17

Auburn 13

 

Purdue 48

Tennessee 45

 

S. Carolina 38

N. Carolina 21

 

Arkansas 24

Penn State 10

 

Kentucky 20

Iowa 17

 

Then the playoffs of course, which again... you have Alabama and UGA. Two best teams in the country in... yes.. the best conference. The SEC had a LOSING record in the Bowl games last year vs the weaker conferences.

 

But stop with the BS that the Big XII or (or anyone else really) are pathetic compared to the mighty SEC. It's just a moronic statement. Maybe you don't want it to be expanded because your mighty Alabama Crimson Tide might have a more difficult time playing for the ship? 

 

 

The ones against it are the ones who just want their team in the top 4 every year, they're afraid of getting knocked off by a team who might pull together a better game plan. I only see Bama fans hate the idea of expansion. I'm glad we are doing it. A team like Oklahoma State or Baylor last season (who had arguably the two best defenses in college football) could have surprised anyone in the top 4. 

Any argument against CFP expansion boils down to:

 

"I just want to play Georgia or Michigan and then punch my ticket to the final."

[May Day 10]

It wont be 12 vs 1.

 

I would bet that the top 4 teams earn byes, and it will be 12 v 5, 11 v 6, 10 v 7, and 9 v 8.  Those should be good games most seasons.  Then those winners get slotted to play 1-4 in the QF games.  

 

So we may get 1 v 8, or 1 v an upset-winner.  Maybe that game will stink... but some day, somewhere, there will be an upset.  

 

I also believe that the presence of the 12-team playoff, along with the name and likeness era will bring about a lot more parity among the haves in NCAA football.  All this continues to shovel dirt on the mid-majors though.

[Back2Buff]

I personally don't like it.

 

The best part of college football, is how much the regular season matters.  It's something no other sport has.  Watching every week hoping Alabama, Georgia, or Clemson loses and can't win a final, is every week entertainment.  That has recently been watered down with the 4 team playoff, and with a 12 team playoff, it is pretty much gone.  Alabama could lose 4 games and still end up in somehow.

[Bill from NYC]

47 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Only SEC fans... mainly Alabama fans... have a real issue with an expanded playoffs and it's hilarious. The thought that the Big XII or even the PAC 12 can't hang with other conferences is just flat out incorrect. It's a crock of sh*t actually to think no one can hang with the mighty SEC. Why have NCAA basketball tournaments?  And what other conferences are better than the Big XII as a whole? ACC? No. Big 10? No. Pac-12 No. SEC? Top 2 teams? Yes. At times conferences have a bad run, like the Pac-12 is currently having... but most come around. You, as a Bama fan, should know that. Bama went a good decade (like 1997-2007) just sucking ass. The one good year you had, you cheated and got caught.

 

But lets look at the 2021-22 post season.... 

 

NY6 Bowls (Big XII, not counting CFP games) 

#9 Oklahoma State 37

#5 Notre Dame 35

 

#7 Baylor 21

#9 Ole Miss 7

 

SEC v Big XII (in other bowls)

Texas Tech 34

Miss Stat 7

 

Kansas State 42

LSU 20

 

SEC vs Everyone else

Army 24

Missouri 22

 

UCF 29

Florida 17

 

Houston 17

Auburn 13

 

Purdue 48

Tennessee 45

 

S. Carolina 38

N. Carolina 21

 

Arkansas 24

Penn State 10

 

Kentucky 20

Iowa 17

 

Then the playoffs of course, which again... you have Alabama and UGA. Two best teams in the country in... yes.. the best conference. The SEC had a LOSING record in the Bowl games last year vs the weaker conferences.

 

But stop with the BS that the Big XII or (or anyone else really) are pathetic compared to the mighty SEC. It's just a moronic statement. Maybe you don't want it to be expanded because your mighty Alabama Crimson Tide might have a more difficult time playing for the ship? 

 

 

The ones against it are the ones who just want their team in the top 4 every year, they're afraid of getting knocked off by a team who might pull together a better game plan. I only see Bama fans hate the idea of expansion. I'm glad we are doing it. A team like Oklahoma State or Baylor last season (who had arguably the two best defenses in college football) could have surprised anyone in the top 4. 

You again?

 

Bowl games are all but meaningless. Many players boycott them. They are the equivalent of NFL preseason games, if that.

 

Congrats to OK State for having a fairly decent team last season, weak competition notwithstanding. If the Big 12 was even half decent, Oklahoma and Texas would not be beating down the doors to get out of it, following the lead of Texas A&M, and even Arkansas fleeing the SWC in the 90's. The best hope for OK St. would be to become the Clemson of the Big 12. They (if they remain a decent team) could perhaps feast on weak sisters and slide into the playoffs, until of course they are slaughtered by superior teams.

 

As for the Crimson Tide, their team last season was perhaps the worst one they fielded in 10 years or so. They still came within 15 minutes of a championship, this without their top 2 receivers. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that there is not 1 Alabama football fan in the country that is, or would be worried about Oklahoma State but again, they do look great against their conference patsies.

[FireChans]

12 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

You again?

 

Bowl games are all but meaningless. Many players boycott them. They are the equivalent of NFL preseason games, if that.

 

Congrats to OK State for having a fairly decent team last season, weak competition notwithstanding. If the Big 12 was even half decent, Oklahoma and Texas would not be beating down the doors to get out of it, following the lead of Texas A&M, and even Arkansas fleeing the SWC in the 90's. The best hope for OK St. would be to become the Clemson of the Big 12. They (if they remain a decent team) could perhaps feast on weak sisters and slide into the playoffs, until of course they are slaughtered by superior teams.

 

As for the Crimson Tide, their team last season was perhaps the worst one they fielded in 10 years or so. They still came within 15 minutes of a championship, this without their top 2 receivers. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that there is not 1 Alabama football fan in the country that is, or would be worried about Oklahoma State but again, they do look great against their conference patsies.

Alabama is great and will probably top 4 for another decade.

 

But it's a fact they are not unbeatable and making them face more quality opponents in postseason play will negatively impact their chances of winning (which of course will still be high).

 

Teams that have beaten Bama in the last 10 years:

 

TAMU

LSU

Auburn

Clemson

Auburn

Clemson

Ole Miss

Ole Miss

OSU

Auburn

Oklahoma

TAMU

 

Under the current system, Bama only played less than half of those games in the playoffs. Neutral fans don't want that. They would rather see good teams play good teams.

 

If you don't want more games because of risk of injury, stop playing tomato cans like Mercer and New Mexico State.

 

Even Bama vs Cincy was a game and fun to watch, until they obviously pulled away.

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by FireChans

[ArdmoreRyno]

23 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

You again?

 

Bowl games are all but meaningless. Many players boycott them. They are the equivalent of NFL preseason games, if that.

 

Congrats to OK State for having a fairly decent team last season, weak competition notwithstanding. If the Big 12 was even half decent, Oklahoma and Texas would not be beating down the doors to get out of it, following the lead of Texas A&M, and even Arkansas fleeing the SWC in the 90's. The best hope for OK St. would be to become the Clemson of the Big 12. They (if they remain a decent team) could perhaps feast on weak sisters and slide into the playoffs, until of course they are slaughtered by superior teams.

 

As for the Crimson Tide, their team last season was perhaps the worst one they fielded in 10 years or so. They still came within 15 minutes of a championship, this without their top 2 receivers. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that there is not 1 Alabama football fan in the country that is, or would be worried about Oklahoma State but again, they do look great against their conference patsies.

 

LOL 

 

Again, it's just "Alabama" and everyone else sucks, right? Anything that might put a bump in the road for Alabama is bad. Right? 

 

Sorry I have an opinion on the matter and sorry MOST of America agrees with me. Your "Many players boycott them" is simply not true. Do players do that? Yes. It's been happening more recently, but with an expansion in the playoffs it can help with the FEW kids who opt out of bowls. Less than 30 opted out across the nation, out of a pool of 3,500 that were trying to get into the NFL. 0.008% Hardly a reason to say bowl games are meaningless. Tell that to the kids in Stillwater who beat Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl or the kids in Waco who won the Sugar Bowl. Ohio State kids were on top of the world after winning the Rose Bowl this past year. Meaningless. 

 

And if you haven't figured it out, I've never said Alabama was a weak team or didn't deserve to play in the playoffs (aside from 2011 which they didn't deserve a rematch vs LSU). They have been *the* team the past decade. 

 

You can theorize all you want with bowl games but the fact is, outside UGA and Bama... the rest of the SEC sucked and got beat down top to bottom by other conferences. Maybe SEC is weaker than you think. Alabama BARELY BEAT Florida, Auburn and Arkansas last year. How did Florida do in 2021? Same Florida team that barely beat a 4-7 SAMFORD team, giving up 52 points. 

 

All that said: Just STFU and let teams PROVE IT. If you think Baylor or Oklahoma State is weak because they play in the Big XII, then you have nothing to worry about. 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by ArdmoreRyno

[FireChans]

18 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:

I personally don't like it.

 

The best part of college football, is how much the regular season matters.  It's something no other sport has.  Watching every week hoping Alabama, Georgia, or Clemson loses and can't win a final, is every week entertainment.  That has recently been watered down with the 4 team playoff, and with a 12 team playoff, it is pretty much gone.  Alabama could lose 4 games and still end up in somehow.

The regular season matters he says as Miami plays Bethune Cookman lol

[ArdmoreRyno]

12 minutes ago, FireChans said:

The regular season matters he says as Miami plays Bethune Cookman lol

 

13 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Alabama is great and will probably top 4 for another decade.

 

But it's a fact they are not unbeatable and making them face more quality opponents in postseason play will negatively impact their chances of winning (which of course will still be high).

 

Teams that have beaten Bama in the last 10 years:

 

TAMU

LSU

Auburn

Clemson

Auburn

Clemson

Ole Miss

Ole Miss

OSU

Auburn

Oklahoma

TAMU

 

Under the current system, Bama only played less than half of those games in the playoffs. Neutral fans don't want that. They would rather see good teams play good teams.

 

If you don't want more games because of risk of injury, stop playing tomato cans like Mercer and New Mexico State.

 

Even Bama vs Cincy was a game and fun to watch, until they obviously pulled away.

 

Dude, this beats out all the comments I've made on his page and you just destroyed his ridiculous argument. He also forgets, they beat Auburn in the luckiest of ways. Auburn who went 6-7 and lost to an AAC team (Houston). Auburn had NO players opt out of their bowl game (another one of Bill from NYC's arguments). 

 

[Beast]

On 9/4/2022 at 12:32 PM, GunnerBill said:

 

No I doubt they will. But the point stands for me. We are just gonna have some one sides CFP Qrtr Finals. The big colleges are too dominant and the talent is not sufficiently evenly spread. Until there is a way to tackle that 12 team playoffs are not helping produce better competition. 

 

Maybe in the long run it helps improve the standard of some of the other conferences. 

 

And we will have some not so one-sided early round games.

[Bill from NYC]

26 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

All that said: Just STFU and let teams PROVE IT. If you think Baylor or Oklahoma State is weak because they play in the Big XII, then you have nothing to worry about. 

 

Don't tell me to STFU until you own or moderate this board.

 

Now, go back to your basement and do whatever it is that you do while fantasizing about your team being somehow relevant.

[ArdmoreRyno]

1 minute ago, Bill from NYC said:

Don't tell me to STFU until you own or moderate this board.

 

Now, go back to your basement and do whatever it is that you do while fantasizing about your team being somehow relevant.

 

Apparently you missed my point. 

 

STFU and let teams prove it = Stop yapping and let the teams prove it. 

[Bill from NYC]

31 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Alabama is great and will probably top 4 for another decade.

 

But it's a fact they are not unbeatable and making them face more quality opponents in postseason play will negatively impact their chances of winning (which of course will still be high).

 

Teams that have beaten Bama in the last 10 years:

 

TAMU

LSU

Auburn

Clemson

Auburn

Clemson

Ole Miss

Ole Miss

OSU

Auburn

Oklahoma

TAMU

 

Under the current system, Bama only played less than half of those games in the playoffs. Neutral fans don't want that. They would rather see good teams play good teams.

 

If you don't want more games because of risk of injury, stop playing tomato cans like Mercer and New Mexico State.

 

Even Bama vs Cincy was a game and fun to watch, until they obviously pulled away.

 

No team is unbeatable FC. I never made that ridiculous claim. Georgia just beat Bama for the title, and Bama could lose in almost any given week. I should however point out wrt the 10 losses that you list, they probably won 120 games during this span. Not too shabby and again, Saban took over a team in 2007 that was a hot mess. Can't other coaches rebuild poor programs?

 

As far as the easy games, most teams simply do not want to play Alabama. I actually give credit for Oklahoma State for having the courage to do so in the future. When asked by reporters about teams refusing to play Bama, Saban challenged them to find teams willing to do so and said, "we'll play them." LOL.

Besides, as I pointed out before; teams such as Clemson can go years playing 1 or maybe 2 good teams in an entire season and then waltz into the playoffs. Alabama has tough teams built into their schedule every season, no?

 

Bama vs. Cincy? That was a perfectly coached game by Saban, who recently called 2021 a "rebuilding year," and it clearly was. They had lost their 2 great receivers, a great RB, their Center and LT, their best DL, the starting TE, their best CB, and their QB. The 2020 team would have put up 60 points against Cincy if they wanted to. They almost did against OSU. Against Cincy they just pounded the ball on the ground. They were just too big and strong for Cincy (who btw did play surprisingly well Saturday while losing to Arkansas). 

 

In summary, I am not afraid of competition. I just wish that other teams outside of the Big 10 and SEC would face some. 

23 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Apparently you missed my point. 

 

STFU and let teams prove it = Stop yapping and let the teams prove it. 

Thank you. We should be able to discuss these things without being online enemies. Life is too short. I apologize if I was being too abrupt. 

 

Btw, I just gave your school credit in a post above (as I have before) for having courage.

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

No team is unbeatable FC. I never made that ridiculous claim. Georgia just beat Bama for the title, and Bama could lose in almost any given week. I should however point out wrt the 10 losses that you list, they probably won 120 games during this span. Not too shabby and again, Saban took over a team in 2007 that was a hot mess. Can't other coaches rebuild poor programs?

 

As far as the easy games, most teams simply do not want to play Alabama. I actually give credit for Oklahoma State for having the courage to do so in the future. When asked by reporters about teams refusing to play Bama, Saban challenged them to find teams willing to do so and said, "we'll play them." LOL.

Besides, as I pointed out before; teams such as Clemson can go years playing 1 or maybe 2 good teams in an entire season and then waltz into the playoffs. Alabama has tough teams built into their schedule every season, no?

 

Bama vs. Cincy? That was a perfectly coached game by Saban, who recently called 2021 a "rebuilding year," and it clearly was. They had lost their 2 great receivers, a great RB, their Center and LT, their best DL, the starting TE, their best CB, and their QB. The 2020 team would have put up 60 points against Cincy if they wanted to. They almost did against OSU. Against Cincy they just pounded the ball on the ground. They were just too big and strong for Cincy (who btw did play surprisingly well Saturday while losing to Arkansas). 

 

In summary, I am not afraid of competition. I just wish that other teams outside of the Big 10 and SEC would face some. 

I think that's fair!

 

But imagine this Bill. Clemson/ND gets in as a 3 seed and they have to play 5 seed UGA or 7 seed TAMU.  It's not for the Natty, but it's for the right to play in it.  Is there any doubt that a good SEC team that loses in the SEC Championship or almost gets there would be a formidable matchup?

 

The CFB playoff was created for one purpose.  Money.  And that's not going away. But the reason it draws money is because it FORCES these teams that think they should be in contention for a Natty to PLAY for it.

[Bill from NYC]

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I think that's fair!

 

But imagine this Bill. Clemson/ND gets in as a 3 seed and they have to play 5 seed UGA or 7 seed TAMU.  It's not for the Natty, but it's for the right to play in it.  Is there any doubt that a good SEC team that loses in the SEC Championship or almost gets there would be a formidable matchup?

 

The CFB playoff was created for one purpose.  Money.  And that's not going away. But the reason it draws money is because it FORCES these teams that think they should be in contention for a Natty to PLAY for it.

OK, but what about my earlier post in which I said that these kids should not play long schedules like the NFL? NIL notwithstanding, they ARE still college students, and they are risking MILLIONS of dollars if they get injured. And the truth is that a majority of these kids come from poor families. It makes sense too. I wouldn't want to get my brains knocked in by Von Miller or some human missle safety if I had a few million in my pocket.

 

I know that these kids are modern day gladiators and we are the fans, but most (not all) are still just kids trying to escape poverty and get that fame and fortune. I would feel better if they dropped the conference title games and perhaps another game if they are going to add extra playoff games. 

[FireChans]

4 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

OK, but what about my earlier post in which I said that these kids should not play long schedules like the NFL? NIL notwithstanding, they ARE still college students, and they are risking MILLIONS of dollars if they get injured. And the truth is that a majority of these kids come from poor families. It makes sense too. I wouldn't want to get my brains knocked in by Von Miller or some human missle safety if I had a few million in my pocket.

 

I know that these kids are modern day gladiators and we are the fans, but most (not all) are still just kids trying to escape poverty and get that fame and fortune. I would feel better if they dropped the conference title games and perhaps another game if they are going to add extra playoff games. 

Then cancel non-competitive games against Mercer and New Mexico State.  No use blowing out an ACL up 56-0.

 

You forget most of these kids don't make the NFL.  A decent starter on TAMU may WANT to play as many games as possible.  Having a big time playoff may change his career from Enterprise Rent A Car to NFL backup

Edited September 6, 2022 by FireChans

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, FireChans said:

100% disagree. The whole point of expanding the playoffs is to see quality teams play quality teams. 
 

The way college football is set up, these power 5 teams have 2-4 cupcakes on the schedule every year. As much as I respect our resident Bama and OSU fans, they complain about postseason blowouts and “wastes” but not playing Eastern Southwestern Presbyterian College and winning by 100 2-3 times a year.

 

I would 1 million times rather see Bama play a 6 seed TCU over ESPC. So would any fan of the sport of college football. So that’s why they are expanding. If you say, “well that’s too many games” then eliminate those cupcakes and expand it. 
 

The fans of the big 4 perennial playoff teams don’t want expansion because the more quality teams they have to face to win, the harder it gets. An extra game against some Big 12 dark horse is an extra chance for them to have a couple CFB plays and shockingly lose. They would rather just take their chances with Georgia again in the final instead. No effing thanks.

 

I don't think we disagree in principle. I want more competitive college football. I am all for getting rid of the cupcake games. I said above it needs conference reform and schedule reform AS A MINIMUM. No way should Alabama or Georgia or Clemson or anyone else be able to load up on wins against nobodies. 

 

I'm not sure extending the playoffs is the way to do it. The history of the playoffs has not been littered with underdog stories and I just think the gap is too big. Had they gone to 6 initially and tested the concept I'd have been on board. Going from 4 to 12 is a mistake to my mind. It will produce more games. It won't produce more competition. 

Edited September 6, 2022 by GunnerBill

[ArdmoreRyno]

43 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

OK, but what about my earlier post in which I said that these kids should not play long schedules like the NFL? NIL notwithstanding, they ARE still college students, and they are risking MILLIONS of dollars if they get injured. And the truth is that a majority of these kids come from poor families. It makes sense too. I wouldn't want to get my brains knocked in by Von Miller or some human missle safety if I had a few million in my pocket.

 

I know that these kids are modern day gladiators and we are the fans, but most (not all) are still just kids trying to escape poverty and get that fame and fortune. I would feel better if they dropped the conference title games and perhaps another game if they are going to add extra playoff games. 

 

I've brought this up before as well.... the "should not play long schedules like the NFL" is a moot point. 

 

Georgia and Alabama played 15 games last season (which was the extreme number in the country). The Atlanta Falcons played 17. 

 

You can remove the moronic "middle of the season vs a tiny school" from the SEC schedules and kick that number down to 14 games (including post-season). Alabama played NM State and Mercer last year (NM State towards the end of the year). Georgia played Charleston Southern. Tennessee played South Alabama. Ole Miss played Liberty. Get rid of a non-conference game or two, across the board. Yea, it will effect smaller schools like Arkansas Pine-Bluff with money from the game, but are we going to hang on to those games instead of trying to put together a REAL NCAA championship? Only sport that doesn't have one. That needs to change IMO. 

We can easily make it a 10 game regular season. Used to do that YEARS ago. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Bill from NYC said:

 

 

In summary, I am not afraid of competition. I just wish that other teams outside of the Big 10 and SEC would face some. 

Thank you. We should be able to discuss these things without being online enemies. Life is too short. I apologize if I was being too abrupt. 

 

Btw, I just gave your school credit in a post above (as I have before) for having courage.

 

Totally agree brother. We are passionate college football fans and we both love our Bills. 

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think we disagree in principle. I want more competitive college football. I am all for getting rid of the cupcake games. I said above it needs conference reform and schedule reform AS A MINIMUM. No way should Alabama or Georgia or Clemson or anyone else be able to load up on wins against nobodies. 

 

I'm not sure extending the playoffs is the way to do it. The history of the playoffs has not been littered with underdog stories and I just think the gap is too big. Had they gone to 6 initially and tested the concept I'd have been on board. Going from 4 to 12 is a mistake to my mind. It will produce more games. It won't produce more competition. 

IMO massive reform ain't coming.

 

Here's how I see it. Below is the top 12 from last season.

 

12. Utah Utes 10-4 851 (10)

11. Ole Miss Rebels 10-3 926 (8)

10. Oklahoma Sooners 11-2 966 (14)

9. Michigan State Spartans 11-2 1026 (11)

8. Notre Dame Fighting Irish 11-2 1039 (5)

7. Oklahoma State Cowboys 12-2 1177 (9)

6. Ohio State Buckeyes 11-2 1247 (7)

5. Baylor Bears 12-2 1259 (7)

4. Cincinnati Bearcats 13-1 1349 (4)

3. Michigan Wolverines 12-2 1361 (2)

2. Alabama Crimson Tide 13-2 1464 (1)

1. Georgia Bulldogs 14-1 1525 (3)

 

Let's say the top 2 get bye weeks (have they announced how they are going to do that?)

 

Utah vs Michigan

Ole Miss vs Cinci

Oklahoma vs Baylor

MSU vs OSU

ND vs Oklahoma State

 

Which of these games would not have been competitive last year?  Maybe Utah - Michigan?  I think if you tried to pick winners on the rest of the field you'd struggle to go higher than 50%.

 

How is this much different than bowl play as it currently stands?

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

IMO massive reform ain't coming.

 

Here's how I see it. Below is the top 12 from last season.

 

12. Utah Utes 10-4 851 (10)

11. Ole Miss Rebels 10-3 926 (8)

10. Oklahoma Sooners 11-2 966 (14)

9. Michigan State Spartans 11-2 1026 (11)

8. Notre Dame Fighting Irish 11-2 1039 (5)

7. Oklahoma State Cowboys 12-2 1177 (9)

6. Ohio State Buckeyes 11-2 1247 (7)

5. Baylor Bears 12-2 1259 (7)

4. Cincinnati Bearcats 13-1 1349 (4)

3. Michigan Wolverines 12-2 1361 (2)

2. Alabama Crimson Tide 13-2 1464 (1)

1. Georgia Bulldogs 14-1 1525 (3)

 

Let's say the top 2 get bye weeks (have they announced how they are going to do that?)

 

Utah vs Michigan

Ole Miss vs Cinci

Oklahoma vs Baylor

MSU vs OSU

ND vs Oklahoma State

 

Which of these games would not have been competitive last year?  Maybe Utah - Michigan?  I think if you tried to pick winners on the rest of the field you'd struggle to go higher than 50%.

 

How is this much different than bowl play as it currently stands?

 

I agree massive reform isn't coming. But that still doesn't make an extended playoffs the right answer. I don't think anyone outside the top 6 in that list would have had a cat in hell's chance of beating any of the top 3 or Ohio State in a playoff game. OSU beat Michigan state by 50 points in the regular season. Sure Ole Miss v Cinci and Oklahoma vs Baylor might have been interesting games but the winners would still have been boatraced the next week. 

 

If they ran the playoffs as you suggest then they have 7 teams left after week 1 and you might have had some competitve games because the gap 12 to 6 isn't massive. But then whatever format they use for Qrtr final stage you will end up with mismatches. Because the gap between the top few and the rest is and remains massive. And sure you get an odd year where a new team has a great year and gets in but that can happen now - witness LSU. 

 

I just don't see a 12 team playoff as a solution to that problem. It is another sticking plaster that will not turn the ship around if that isn't a mixed metaphor. 

[FireChans]

13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I agree massive reform isn't coming. But that still doesn't make an extended playoffs the right answer. I don't think anyone outside the top 6 in that list would have had a cat in hell's chance of beating any of the top 3 or Ohio State in a playoff game. OSU beat Michigan state by 50 points in the regular season. Sure Ole Miss v Cinci and Oklahoma vs Baylor might have been interesting games but the winners would still have been boatraced the next week. 

 

If they ran the playoffs as you suggest then they have 7 teams left after week 1 and you might have had some competitve games because the gap 12 to 6 isn't massive. But then whatever format they use for Qrtr final stage you will end up with mismatches. Because the gap between the top few and the rest is and remains massive. And sure you get an odd year where a new team has a great year and gets in but that can happen now - witness LSU. 

 

I just don't see a 12 team playoff as a solution to that problem. It is another sticking plaster that will not turn the ship around if that isn't a mixed metaphor. 

Leave your British slang out of this!

 

Sure, you're right some of those teams may win the first week and get smoked the next. But if they beat another "playoff contender", don't they deserve that chance?

 

Let's say Utah or Ole Miss shocks the world and beats Michigan or Cinci. Don't they "prove" they deserve to be in over those teams?  I think they do.

 

And that's really the rub of it, and why I'm all for it.  I HATE when teams fall out of the top 4 and are, in my opinion, good enough to deserve a shot.  The kids deserve a shot.  Do you remember that ATROCIOUS year where TCU and Baylor were co Big12 champions and ended up 5 and 6 and never got a chance to even try? I think one of them was undefeated.

 

It makes it fun. The prevailing thought is that the mediocre SEC teams would still beat the top Big12 or PAC10 teams.  Rather than debate the snubs, let's just see if that's true.  If it's a dud and Bama/Georgia/OSU and a rotating 4th team are consistently the final four and dominate everybody, contract the playoff to 10 or 8. 

 

To your earlier point, I think I would have just expanded to 6 or 8.  12 is ALOT.  But, IMO, if you did the top 6 last year, there's a decent chance Baylor gets past Michigan.   And then they get a shot.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

Leave your British slang out of this!

 

Sure, you're right some of those teams may win the first week and get smoked the next. But if they beat another "playoff contender", don't they deserve that chance?

 

Let's say Utah or Ole Miss shocks the world and beats Michigan or Cinci. Don't they "prove" they deserve to be in over those teams?  I think they do.

 

And that's really the rub of it, and why I'm all for it.  I HATE when teams fall out of the top 4 and are, in my opinion, good enough to deserve a shot.  The kids deserve a shot.  Do you remember that ATROCIOUS year where TCU and Baylor were co Big12 champions and ended up 5 and 6 and never got a chance to even try? I think one of them was undefeated.

 

It makes it fun. The prevailing thought is that the mediocre SEC teams would still beat the top Big12 or PAC10 teams.  Rather than debate the snubs, let's just see if that's true.  If it's a dud and Bama/Georgia/OSU and a rotating 4th team are consistently the final four and dominate everybody, contract the playoff to 10 or 8. 

 

To your earlier point, I think I would have just expanded to 6 or 8.  12 is ALOT.  But, IMO, if you did the top 6 last year, there's a decent chance Baylor gets past Michigan.   And then they get a shot.

 

I would not oppose going to 6. Honestly I think going to 6 and having 6 v 3 and 5 v 4 with the winners to play 1 and 2 in the semis would have been a reasonably good idea. 12 is way too many and will produce more uncompetitive games in that Qrtr final stage and gives teams who have literally no chance of making the title game a shot.