ADVERTISEMENT

Article on 12 team college playoff....Delaney could be a problem...

psuro

psuro

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2001
63,227
41,401
1
The corner table at the Skellar
www.yahoo.com

With College Football Playoff change looming, a 12-team model leads the way

While popular sentiment has the College Football Playoff expanding to an eight-team tournament, that isn't the focus of the sport's power brokers.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com


A few sources brought up former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany’s consulting role with the Rose Bowl — half jokingly — as a potential road block to playoff expansion.

Delany was a longtime playoff obstructionist and famously helped orchestrate a Rose Bowl deal with ESPN before the CFP was put together that blocked the sport’s best windows from the highest-profile games.
 
I don't like plans in which someone gets a bye. In addition to lobbying to get an at large bid into a 12 team field, schools will be lobbying to be in the top four seeds to get an extra weeks rest. Politics on the front end AND back end would suck.

Missing an extra home game would be a secondary concern since the schools likely wouldn't get to keep the full gate anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LionJim, nits74, psu00 and 2 others
I still think 6 is the sweet spot. P5 conference champs with 1 at large. top 2 teams ranking wise get first round byes. 3-6/4-5. lowest seeded winner gets 1, highest gets 2
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUSignore and hlstone
College football has progressed so much since the 90's it's too hard to not continue to move forward toward between 8- 16 teams ( yes 16 teams) . Extra conference games, fcs opponents, weak non conference games even with the conference championship it's where things are at today.

To be progressive even with a moderate amount of teams say 6-8, CFB needs to adjust conferences or combine them. Schedule like the NFL ( you don't need 10 years advanced notice) BYU - Coastal is a classic example. This is what i suggest , to some this sounds silly or crazy, just a wild idea to make a change.

Several road blocks to progression. My rant but i'm not far from the truth.

Notre Dame - in a conference or out - it's the 2020's not the 1920's
The game OSU- MIchigan - it's not the 1970's , The Rose Bowl isn''t CFB's Golden Fleece anymore.
The Rose Bowl - it's not the 1950's , there are about 3 bowls just as meaningful today.
Playoff committee - even with a 8 team playoff , 4 teams would come from the SEC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nits74, gslachta, BrucePa and 1 other person
The unintended consequence of the current 4 team Play Off has been to concentrate power and talent into a few programs. Five stars want to play for a National Championship. Where are they going to get the best chance to do that but at Alabama...or Clemson...or Ohio State. That has hurt college football. Fewer and fewer teams have any hope of one day playing in the Play Off, let alone for a National Championship. It has also hurt the lessor Bowls. Attendance in those Bowls, over the years, is way down. What ever format they come up with it has to NOT give the Alabama's and Ohio State's an advantage, like this current system has. I thought they would go to an 8 team Play Off. After thinking about a 12 team Play Off there things I like about it and things I don't. I DO NOT like any teams getting a bye week. Here we go again. So they are proposing giving the top 4 ranked teams a bye for the first round of the Play Off. Who would that most likely be? Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State. Make it fair. Make all teams play all games. Why should Alabama get to rest their players while 8 others teams have to play. Also there is this thing called injuries. They are unfortunate but they happen. Why should Alabama be allowed to perhaps dodge injuries for a week? It's like the powers that be are saying Teams ranked #1 thru #4 will always beat teams #13 thru #16, so we will say they did beat them and give them a bye. Play the games. If they are thinking about making it a 12 team format, go to 16 teams. Make the top 4 teams play teams #13 thru #16. Nobody gets a bye. Make the Alabama's earn it, like all other teams. In round one have the 8 teams ranked #9 thru #16 play at the home site of the teams ranked #1 thru #8. That is the reward for those teams ranked #1 thru #8. Now both the 12 team and 16 team format would have 8 teams left. The difference is you made the top 4 teams play a game and win to move on. In round two play the next 4 games(8 teams left) rotating at the lessor Bowls. Then in round three and four play the last 3 games left like the current format. Rotating between the major Bowls. This will help the lessor Bowls. What ever they do they need to do a better job of spreading the wealth. Allow more teams to have the opportunity to play in the Play Off and have a shot at playing for a National Championship.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jo12208, Nitwit, The Song Remains the Same and 11 others
I hate to be the bearer of bad news....(actually I don't hate that at all)....but any change in the way the playoffs are handled will also require a different manner of governance to college football. Not sure what it is, but it will be different.
 
24. There are 10 leagues. Count their conference championship games as round 1 plus the next 4 highest ranked teams play each other as well. After 1st round you have 12. Take a week off and seed by ranking with 4 highest ranked getting a bye. Its simple and inclusive of all leagues like NCAA hoops tournaments. 1st round losers can still go to bowl games otherwise the bowls not used by the playoffs would be decimated.
 
No team outside the top four will ever win the CFP, but playing an extra game or two will better decide who is best, as opposed to getting ND or Oklahoma as their first round opponent. I’m in favor of 8 with 5 automatic and three at large bids or 16 (no conference championship game) with 5 auto and 11 at large.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LafayetteBear
I am happy with 8 teams. Very rarely do you see a team that has a chance to win the MNC outside the top 8. eight, then, also gives you three games to win it all (quarter, semi, and championship). There are no byes to make it all even. Frankly, can the conference championships if you need to. (or make them part of the 8 team play in so you get B1G E/W, SEC E/W games to play in in the first round).
 
  • Like
Reactions: nits74
kgilbert78 said:
Or...that first round *is* the conference championship game for the Power 5 conferences, plus a couple of wildcards/independents.
Click to expand...
I think that is part of it, but I think the 65 power 5 teams need to be reduced to 64 and put into 4 conferences (Big-10, Pac-16, ACC, SEC). I'd give ND an ultimatum, if they refuse to join one of the new Power 4 conferences, they'd be out. If they did join one, then I would kick out the school with the worst athletic program in the current power 5, which is Pitt. I assume ND would cave under the pressure, so Pitt would have to go. The 4 conferences would have 8 division champs, and the CCG would be the first round of the playoffs. The remaining 4 go to the current 4 team playoff, no committee required. We get an 8 team playoff where a true champion is chosen on the field, while not adding any extra games, or eliminating the CCG, and Pitt's FB program gets the mercy killing it so desperately needs.

BONUS: OOC games are now meaningless, so big money marquee matchups can be played more frequently since teams only need to win their division. Although I expect that W/L records might factor into playoff seeding.
 
Obliviax said:
I am happy with 8 teams. Very rarely do you see a team that has a chance to win the MNC outside the top 8. eight, then, also gives you three games to win it all (quarter, semi, and championship). There are no byes to make it all even. Frankly, can the conference championships if you need to. (or make them part of the 8 team play in so you get B1G E/W, SEC E/W games to play in in the first round).
Click to expand...
Its not just about winning a Natty. Just to make the Play Off is a huge feather in the cap for many programs. Players, coaches and fans need some hope to keep the interest up. The more hope they can give, the better for the game. I like 8 or 16 teams. Took me a while to come around to that but the more the merrier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777, wolve1972 and NedFromYork
Obliviax said:
I am happy with 8 teams. Very rarely do you see a team that has a chance to win the MNC outside the top 8. eight, then, also gives you three games to win it all (quarter, semi, and championship). There are no byes to make it all even. Frankly, can the conference championships if you need to. (or make them part of the 8 team play in so you get B1G E/W, SEC E/W games to play in in the first round).
Click to expand...
This is where I'm at with the playoff. 8 Teams. No Byes. Make the conference title games mean something. Win your power 5 conference title game and you get an automatic playoff berth. Then you still have 3 at large spots in case Bama, Clemson, or OSU lose in the title game. (Or two at large and highest group of 5 program if you want to be sure everyone has a chance.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: wolve1972 and Obliviax
psuro said:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news....(actually I don't hate that at all)....but any change in the way the playoffs are handled will also require a different manner of governance to college football. Not sure what it is, but it will be different.
Click to expand...

Don't know what you have in mind, but the same folks will be running it as now. Just more opportunities to screw up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nits74
Ohio_Pirate said:
This is where I'm at with the playoff. 8 Teams. No Byes. Make the conference title games mean something. Win your power 5 conference title game and you get an automatic playoff berth. Then you still have 3 at large spots in case Bama, Clemson, or OSU lose in the title game. (Or two at large and highest group of 5 program if you want to be sure everyone has a chance.)
Click to expand...

I'm not a real fan of the conf champ games. I don't like the divisions or rematches of regular season games. I'd rather not have a conf champ game. Determine conf champ how the Big Ten used to do it. Have a 16 game playoff with top two teams in each power five, a couple of non-power fives and a few at large. Seed them in a 16 team playoff based on ranking while trying to avoid any rematches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNit07
nittanyfan333 said:
I still think 6 is the sweet spot. P5 conference champs with 1 at large. top 2 teams ranking wise get first round byes. 3-6/4-5. lowest seeded winner gets 1, highest gets 2
Click to expand...
Agree. This has been my plan for years. Winning matters. The CFP should be a champion of champions.
I'd even amend to say that it should be the Top 5 highest ranked conf champs. The 6th is either the 6th highest ranked champ or ND with all participants finishing in the Top 15? or so of the rankings. If 6 winners are not in the Top 15, then perhaps there is an at large (ie highest ranked conference runner-up or something).
nothing is perfect, but winning should be at the forefront.
OSU should never have gone to the playoff over PSU who won the Conference in '16. If the B1G isn't capable of determining who their best team is on the field, then that is their problem...fix your conference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nittanyfan333
1PSUfootball1 said:
8 teams. 5 Conf Champs, Best group of 5 and 2 at large. No byes.

Putting the Conf champs in brings 5 more teams into the mix because of championship games so 8 actually becomes 13.
Click to expand...
Exactly, this is the answer and if a top team gets upset in the conference championship the at large is still available to them. This gives the UCF"s Boise's etc.. at least a shot and that's all they ask for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13
danvillenit said:
Power 5 conference winners plus 3 at large is a no brainer. Giving teams a bye is no good imo. That’s too big of an advantage based on subjective rankings
Click to expand...
Some of the CF sites I visit have a poll on the number of playoff teams and this one is - by far - the most popular.
 
Have not read the whole thread so probably already suggested. Power 5 winners. The best non-Power 5 team (must have a winning record) and two at large. I am not for a model that gives higher seeds a bye.
 
BlueLion said:
16 with no conference champ games.
Click to expand...
The correct number is actually zero. They’re was never a need for the Bowl Alliance/Coalition, BCS or playoff. All were an unnecessary solution for a non-existent problem. The number of problems that existed during the poll era were were fairly small over the fifty or so years it existed. The fact that there have been many more controversies over the last 20 years than the previous 50 is telling. The idiotic desire for a “champion” has been a complete failure at great cost.
 
Wallace Breen said:
The correct number is actually zero. They’re was never a need for the Bowl Alliance/Coalition, BCS or playoff. All were an unnecessary solution for a non-existent problem. The number of problems that existed during the poll era were were fairly small over the fifty or so years it existed. The fact that there have been many more controversies over the last 20 years than the previous 50 is telling. The idiotic desire for a “champion” has been a complete failure at great cost.
Click to expand...


1968, 1969, 1973, 1994?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUSignore, Chickenman Testa and NittanyBuff24
NittPicker said:
I don't like plans in which someone gets a bye. In addition to lobbying to get an at large bid into a 12 team field, schools will be lobbying to be in the top four seeds to get an extra weeks rest. Politics on the front end AND back end would suck.

Missing an extra home game would be a secondary concern since the schools likely wouldn't get to keep the full gate anyway.
Click to expand...
I really don’t see a way to eliminate politics completely. 8 is the right number but having at large bids keeps the politics in it (who do you think the at large teams will be?). Going with the 5 conference winners and the best G5 team eliminates the politics in the selection, but then politics comes into play with who gets the two byes. I think that option is better because there is less politics at least.
 
IsomsPopBelly said:
1968, 1969, 1973, 1994?
Click to expand...
1982 (SMU was unbeaten), 1977 - bunch of 1 loss teams at end of season including PSU. 1984 - BYU? 1990 - Colorado/Georgia Tech. 1991 (Washington/Miami split title). 1996 - Ohio State was #2 at 11-1 behind 11-1 Florida. 1997 - Michigan/Nebraska split.
 
bison13 said:
8 teams. Power 5 conference winners, group of 5 best team and 2 others, you know for when OSU or Bama or Clemson dont win their conference they still get in.
Click to expand...
I see what you did there...lol. Sounds like no change is necessary for them. You might even add when they don't even win their division.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13
heckmans said:
Agree. This has been my plan for years. Winning matters. The CFP should be a champion of champions.
I'd even amend to say that it should be the Top 5 highest ranked conf champs. The 6th is either the 6th highest ranked champ or ND with all participants finishing in the Top 15? or so of the rankings. If 6 winners are not in the Top 15, then perhaps there is an at large (ie highest ranked conference runner-up or something).
nothing is perfect, but winning should be at the forefront.
OSU should never have gone to the playoff over PSU who won the Conference in '16. If the B1G isn't capable of determining who their best team is on the field, then that is their problem...fix your conference.
Click to expand...
Screw Notre Dame!
 
heckmans said:
Agree. This has been my plan for years. Winning matters. The CFP should be a champion of champions….

OSU should never have gone to the playoff over PSU who won the Conference in '16. If the B1G isn't capable of determining who their best team is on the field, then that is their problem...fix your conference.
Click to expand...
You say winning matters, but then you want to selectively choose which wins and losses matter. CFP is determining the Mythical National Champion, not the Mythical Conference Champion. All games a team plays in the nation matter.

I know an unpopular opinion here, but PSU did not deserve in over tOSU.
 
Wallace Breen said:
I never said the old way was without controversy, it was much much less than we have experienced since where there is a major controversy virtually every season since we went down this path.
Click to expand...
This does not match reality. Name the recent controversies. UCF’s year or the year the two Big 12s got left out for tOSU? Anything before that when there were 2 teams was the catalyst for expanding to 4.

That doesn’t come close to the multitude of years with split titles and other debates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back