Many of us argued to expand beyond four. We talked about six and probably even more about 8, then all of a sudden we are at 12. Did anyone ever explain how we got to 12? Maybe I missed it. Is it just more TV money? Does a Penn State at 10 or 11 really have a chance to get very far? We couldn't beat the big boys in the regular season and the Michigan State game notwithstanding, we ain't going to beat them now. And adding in Georgia and Oregon and some of the others ahead of us doesn't help.
How exactly did the CFP get to 12?
- Thread starter RCS-PSU70
- Start date
They went for the proposal that would make the most money that they could actually convince people to approve.
Probably not. But there's a small chance that we get a good draw and can win a game or two. I saw a hypothetical 12-team bracket for this year that showed a perfect example of that. It had us playing Washington in the 1st round and then Florida St in the quarters. That would be 2 winnable games that would get us into the semis vs Michigan. When you're 14-15 games deep in the season who knows what can happen.
It should be 8. Every power conference champ belongs there. That does not happen with 4. A 5th team could be undefeated and not make the playoffs. Nobody ever argued the 9th team should be national champ.
The 6 NY Bowls wanted to all be involved - so that could cover the quarterfinals (4 games) and semifinals (2 games). But schools also wanted to have some home games in the process so that not all of the playoffs were in the south.
Also, the SEC (and Big Ten to a lesser extent) wanted more teams than 8 because they believe they can get in more teams with more at large slots. 8 teams would have only left space for 2 at large once you took all five P5 champs and 1 G5 champ.
Also, the SEC (and Big Ten to a lesser extent) wanted more teams than 8 because they believe they can get in more teams with more at large slots. 8 teams would have only left space for 2 at large once you took all five P5 champs and 1 G5 champ.
The 12 team format will yield the top 4-6 seeds in the semis and finals every year. In other words, chalk will reign. Once you get to the quarters then you could have a 6 beat a 3 on a neutral field or a 5 beat a 4. I don't see many other upsets given the dominance of elite programs (top 4).
As for Penn State, unless something changes we will continue to lose to Mich and OSU in the reg season and if not Mich then an Oregon or Washington on the road or even possibly a USC on the road so still looking at best a 10-2 record which let's say gets us a 12 seed. We won't beat a 5 seed on the road most years. And if we do, I highly doubt we can turn it around and then beat a 4 seed even on a neutral field. If that miraculously happens we then get #1 seed.
So my point is that it is great we could make the playoff starting next year but the reality of even getting to the semis is remote much less actually ever bringing home the NC.
As for Penn State, unless something changes we will continue to lose to Mich and OSU in the reg season and if not Mich then an Oregon or Washington on the road or even possibly a USC on the road so still looking at best a 10-2 record which let's say gets us a 12 seed. We won't beat a 5 seed on the road most years. And if we do, I highly doubt we can turn it around and then beat a 4 seed even on a neutral field. If that miraculously happens we then get #1 seed.
So my point is that it is great we could make the playoff starting next year but the reality of even getting to the semis is remote much less actually ever bringing home the NC.
It will be nice (and interesting) to see warm weather teams play in cold weather venues in the first round! They didn't expand a few years back because Delaney insisted that the first round games be played at the better seeded team. Hate Delaney but he was right there. The new format allows the better seeded team to select the venue. Can't wait to see some southern teams playing in the upper midwest or northeast in December!
Don’t like it and oddly surprised they agreed to it knowing there were the conference re-alignments possible, if not likely, at the time.
Hope they adjust more than just the 6-6 split. With the top 4 seedings going to conference champions, think it is ridiculous a 9-3 Okie St would be playing for one of those seedings if the format were this year.
Hope they adjust more than just the 6-6 split. With the top 4 seedings going to conference champions, think it is ridiculous a 9-3 Okie St would be playing for one of those seedings if the format were this year.
Yep, it was the bowls, the tv networks that show them, and the cities that host them. Would have been disastrous for them if only eight teams got invited, which is most logical.
You’ll probably see a team like ok state playing for a shot at it every year in the new big 12. ACC title games have featured a lot of not great teams as well as of late. A repeat of the 2021 ACC title game would guarantee a really mediocre team in the top 4.
Yeah, but before the PAC implosion, these types of teams would be able to buried like the typical G5 rep because there would still likely be 4 “worthy” champs.
Now, before it has even started, the “extra” conference champ position has vanished and these teams will be provided an advantageous seed.
Just poor planning with how quick decisions were made and some having knowledge of impactful moves.
One word, MONEY! It will be 133 before you know it! They'll be playing 3 games a day 365 days a year.
It's all about the MONEY. Can't have just conference WINNERS. You know, teams that have actually won something. Have to let a bunch of lucky losers in to maintain interest in fan bases. This way fans can tell themselves there's a chance and keep spending money and keep watching tv. Same as all sports "wildcards". Hey we finished third in the big 10 but we can still win a national championship. Bull.
It's an end of season TOURNAMENT not a playoff but everybody please keep telling yourself it's a playoff. I'm fine with a tournament but let's not kid ourselves into believing it's a real playoff.
It's an end of season TOURNAMENT not a playoff but everybody please keep telling yourself it's a playoff. I'm fine with a tournament but let's not kid ourselves into believing it's a real playoff.
None of them. I said that.
MLB used to. When they had 2 leagues and they played the world series. Thst was truely great as there was no inter-league play so it was the first time those teams met. Then they went to 4 divisions in each league where the WINNERS advanced to a real playoff. Now that doesn't exist because they have to keep the fans of losing teams thinking they have a chance. Sadly they do and if the win they don't really deserve it because they shouldn't be there in the first place. Team B finishes 9 games behind team A but gets a few lucky bounces and wins the so called "playoff".
So have your tournament. Its probably entertaining but don't ask me to think it's a true playoff to determine a WORTHY champion.
The Atlantic has a good article on the 12-team playoff this morning. Basically, it is a what if the 12-team playoff was this year. They state that GA, WA, UM and FSU would get the bye, leaving 8 teams to play week 1.
We, at 10, would play TX in one of the four round-one locations (determined by the committee). Round 2 would take the TX-PSU game-winner and play UM in the Rose Bowl.
To me, the biggest challenge is that a team not in the top four would have to play four extra games to be champion. That is quite a load. This kind of nullifies any value in winning the B1G other than to make it to the playoff. Five of the 12 would come from the B1G (PSU, UM, tOSU, Oregon and WA). You then have a handful of teams that would also probably be ranked: USC, Iowa, and Wisconsin. My point is that B1G teams are going to have a really tough road to the Natty.
We, at 10, would play TX in one of the four round-one locations (determined by the committee). Round 2 would take the TX-PSU game-winner and play UM in the Rose Bowl.
To me, the biggest challenge is that a team not in the top four would have to play four extra games to be champion. That is quite a load. This kind of nullifies any value in winning the B1G other than to make it to the playoff. Five of the 12 would come from the B1G (PSU, UM, tOSU, Oregon and WA). You then have a handful of teams that would also probably be ranked: USC, Iowa, and Wisconsin. My point is that B1G teams are going to have a really tough road to the Natty.
As long as you consistently acknowledge that college football has never had a real champion then at FBS then you point is valid because it's consistent.
You make some valid points but wildcard teams have won the Super Bowl. And the World Series. Teams improve over a season and some peak at the end. Others have critical injuries early and get healthy in time for playoffs.
Could same or similar happen in college football? We shall see.
Agreed. Plus, with football, injuries play a huge part in the game. Losing a key player for a few critical games is a disaster. tOSU, for example, can point to being on their third string RB in the second half against UM. Who knows the outcome of that game with a better running game? So if that happened today, tOSU would get into the playoff and have a very good chance of winning (if they had a great gameday coach like CJF instead of that choker cryin' Ryan Day).
This is the point IMO. Teams should be rewarded for improving over the course of the season. Arizona is a prime example while FSU is a great example of someone who may get in that has no chance at all.
Arizona lost three games. Florida state lost zero. This isn’t even a discussion
If 2 losses would put PSU at a 9-12 seed, the first round is more or less a typical bowl game except that we would always be playing someone ranked higher than us. That, of course, sets PSU up for a first round loss more often than not. And, by the way, is going to be one of the "problems" with always making the playoffs. Unless you win the whole thing, PSU will always end the season with a loss. I don't know about anyone else, but I always looked forward to ending the season with a potential WIN. I think it's good for player and fan morale. For me, it was always one of the things about college football that made it special and different from any other sport...you had a 50/50 chance most years of ending the season with a WIN. Even if some say it's a meaningless win, it was something to look forward to around New Year's...getting a final WIN.
That's true lucky losers have won. My opinion is they shouldn't have the opportunity to win it. If you are looking for a true championship for that season they shouldn't be included because you should have to win something to advance. No team that didn't win their league should ever be called that seasons champion. Now like I said it makes a nice tournament and keeps more people/money involved but it's not a true champion from that season.
I know I'm nitpicking but the MLB playoffs were so much better when only winners got in.
My dream for cfb would be 8 conference winners feeding an 8 team playoff. The winner amongst the winners would be the champion. I don't care if the 3rd place team in the sec is perceived to be "better" than the MAC winner. They already lost in the sec. It would be a season long playoff where every game matters. No eye tests. No committees. Win and move on.
Well, that is why there are 12 teams. No matter luck, if you can't make it to the 12, your chances of being the best in the nation in any year is about dead zero. If you look at the teams currently ranked 13~20, you get LSU, AZ, Loius, ND, Tulane, Iowa, OK state, and LIberty. LSU & AZ both have three losses. Given SoS, I would argue that not a single one of them played well enough to deserve a shot at a Natty.
I don’t believe any team should get a bye week. 8 or 16, and I like 16 as it allows more spoiler teams in and interest by fans across a larger group of conferences and regions just like March madness. A bye is too big of an advantage in a physical sport where injuries regularly impact game outcomes. Sure being the underdog may result in some season ending losses. But getting hot at the end of the season would also have big recruiting benefits.
Well, that is why there are 12 teams. No matter luck, if you can't make it to the 12, you chances of being the best in the nation in any year is about dead zero. If you look at the teams currently ranked 13~20, you get LSU, AZ, Loius, ND, Tulane, Iowa, OK state, and LIberty. LSU & AZ both have three losses. Given SoS, I would argue that not a single one of them played well enough to deserve a shot at a Natty.
But it’s not luck when key players return from injuries. Or an offense jells as they learn the system or each other.
Hey, I agree that the playoffs should be only eight teams. Hate seeing top four get a bye week, Five conference winners sigh three at large. That allows a team that greatly improves to be rewarded.
totally agree. And that is why I agree with a previous poster that pointed out that they needed to get all of the bowls in line with this idea. All of the major bowls will get a playoff game. With only 8 teams, that is only 7 games. 12 teams with a bye yields 11 games. (if my math is correct)
Why should they be rewarded? This is supposed to be a championship for the season. The season should count. Wildcards or as I call them lucky losers degrades the season. What I want will never happen because money drives everything and there is lots of money in keeping more fan bases involved. I get it. I just don't like it. If MI wins the big why should they have to beat OSU or PSU again? Winning that second game Is way more valuable but why should they have to play? By the way I really don't like MI and expect them to continue their tradition of losing in bowl/playoff games.
I'm fine with thinking of it as nothing more than an end of season tournament. Not saying it's not entertaining. That's what bb in March is. No 5th place team has earned the right to play for what's called a national championship but that's what bb does all the time.
We will never see the likes of what MLB was again. In my mind that's unfortunate. Money drives everything.
MLB is 162 games...it makes sense to limit the playoffs in that scenario. In college football with it being 12 it doesn't.
The regular season will only have more meaning with expansion as more teams are fighting for a spot and seeding.
There shouldn't have to be a "discussion". The criteria should be predefined not made up as we go along and applied dependent on how the wind blows. No committees. No eye tests. No lobbying. Winning should matter. Any other criteria is designed to get losing teams that somebody likes in.
Yes FSU would win. Arizona won some games in a soft defensive conference. They also needed a fg at the buzzer to beat a horrible Colorado team, needed a 4th quarter comeback to beat a shitty Stanford team and lost to Usc who couldn’t stop iowas offense. They also lost to miss st. Florida state has way more talent
No it doesn't. Not when a third place team gets in or you think a 3 loss team should get in over an undefeated one. Why, because you think they're better. Sorry. that's not good enough.
There has to be a predefined criteria or its always going to be a joke.
IF MI and OSU get in why should MI have to beat OSU again. Why should that second meeting matter more. In that scenario we have proof that winning doesn't matter in the current environment.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Football Adisa Isaac finds perfect landing spot in Baltimore- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting 2025 LB target scheduled for Penn State OV in June
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley