ESPN: Bill Hancock says there's been no talk of expanding playoff field

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,580
Reaction score
15,663
Points
113
per ESPN:

After what he described as one of the most contentious debates in the five years of the College Football Playoff, executive director Bill Hancock said there is still no movement to expand the playoff beyond its current four-team field.

"There's been no talk about a format change in the meetings of the commissioners and the presidents who manage the CFP," Hancock said Sunday, adding that he didn't expect any changes to the selection committee's protocol, either.

This season's debate was different from years past because two-loss Georgia, which lost in the SEC championship game to Alabama on Saturday night, was seriously considered for the fourth spot -- so much so that some committee members voted for the Bulldogs at No. 4. It was the first time a two-loss team that didn't win its league was in the conversation. Georgia didn't get enough votes, though, to finish in the top four, landing the Bulldogs at No. 5 -- ahead of Big Ten champion and No. 6 Ohio State.

"This was the kind of debate we wanted when we created the playoff," Hancock said. "We wanted diverse opinions, we wanted people who wouldn't hesitate to state their feelings, and man, we got it."

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...ck-says-there-no-talk-expanding-playoff-field

Go Gophers!!
 

12 team playoff. All 10 FBS conference champs. 2 wildcards. 4 first round byes.
 

Some were still voting for two loss Georgia, one of which by 3 TDs to a non CFP contender and they are still being considered? Ridiculous. They’re making it up as they go along. Bad for the game and really disconcerting for any G5 teams.
 

Mathematically the problem with the current setup is that, unlike basketball, there aren't enough non-conference games to provide a statistically significant comparison of the conferences. That and a playoff field of 4 when you have 5 power conferences - and potentially other very good teams outside those conferences - makes the whole thing very suspect. The field needs to be at least 6.
 

It took them how many years to even have a playoff system? They'll eventually expand. My vote is an 8 team playoff with automatic bids for the 5 Power Conference Champs and 3 wildcards selected by the committee.
 


The fact Georgia was considered before Ohio State tells you exactly how this has morphed into yet another SEC love fest, just like the BCS before it. Georgia had two losses and didn't win their conference. They appear to be a very good team but that is no resume to be in the CFP. There should be requirements that any team in the playoff simply has to win their conference (with, sadly, some sort of unique stipulation for independents like Notre Dame). I am sick of awarding playoff spots to teams because of what biased people THINK. Take as much opinion and subjective stuff out of it as possible. If the requirement is to win your conference, nobody has to wonder if Ohio State is better than Georgia.

I saw a short sighted tweet from Peter Burns at ESPN stating the expansion to 8 teams for the playoff would have made every single conf championship meaningless and adding more teams would neuter the regular season. That would be true unless it were required to win your conference to be in the playoff. If that were the case, the conference championship games would be defacto playoff games and they would mean more than ever.

I'd be fine with basically any number of teams in the playoff as long as it was required for participants to win their conference to earn a right to be in that playoff. Yes, some subjective opinion stuff would remain as long as there were any at-large bids available, continued existance of independent programs, etc. But, this maddening continual gravity toward the SEC would end - and the playoffs would be much more fun.

It is college football. Teams can peak too early, peak late, and seemingly unbeatable teams can be beaten. So you can sit there all day and say Georgia deserves to be in because they played Alabama tough but before that everyone was saying Alabama was unbeatable. Just like Nebraska was thought of to be like that the year they lost the Orange Bowl and the NC to Miami.

In the end, this will continue to suck as long as people are attempting to compare teams that have not played each other, or look at it all from outside the "playoff system" that is already in place - the regular season and its determination of conference champions.
 

duplicate post
 
Last edited:

The fact that Georgia was considered at all is absurd. You had two 12 win, 1 loss major conference champions, and there was discussion of including a 11 win 2 loss non champ? Ridiculous.
 

The fact that Georgia was considered at all is absurd. You had two 12 win, 1 loss major conference champions, and there was discussion of including a 11 win 2 loss non champ? Ridiculous.

exactly.

You can see where this is headed... annual inclusion of two or more SEC teams in the "playoff" I used to joke during the BCS Era that the way they pick the NC game, they apparently just need to play the SEC champion against the highest rated non-SEC team. As funny as that sounds, they actually went BEYOND that by having a NC game between two SEC schools. Now the same bias is working its way into the new playoff format.
 



It shows you the power and influence of the SEC. The board that select the CFP should be representative of all the conferences and independents. The SEC or any of the P5s should not have more than one representative.

Bottom line, IMHO they should consider the following in picking:
Teams should have no loses like the Independents (The Notre Dames).
Conference Champions with no loses.
Strength of Schedule should decide a tie.
At Large teams with no loses, are Conference Champions, and Strength of Schedule considerations (The UCFs).
Nationally ranked Top 5 One-Loss Conference Champs if no undefeated teams to fill one of the 4 CFP slots.
 

I bet the second no SEC teams make it into the playoffs (if that can ever happen with the bias) it expands shortly after. Almost every conference at the point will probably be able to point to a year they were snubbed, but once it's the SEC something will change...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

This constant whining for expansion is ridiculous. If anything they should just go back to the 2-team BCS system. You're killing the golden goose.
 

Mathematically the problem with the current setup is that, unlike basketball, there aren't enough non-conference games to provide a statistically significant comparison of the conferences. That and a playoff field of 4 when you have 5 power conferences - and potentially other very good teams outside those conferences - makes the whole thing very suspect. The field needs to be at least 6.

This is the issue if they would have taken Georgia and Alabama.
You would essentially be ignoring 60% of the Power 5 football landscape.
Ironically (or not) the 60% who play 9 conference games. (Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac12).

With SEC playing very few cross-over game with other conferences during their non-conference, SEC's overall winning percentage increases with 4 non-conference games ever among their worst teams.

I'm not saying Georgia and Alabama aren't both top 4 teams, but if you want to really ensure that it's a national playoff, you need to have representation of more than just two conferences just to test your assumptions that certain conferences are up or down in a given year.

If there was more cross over, and the SEC was 10-2 against Big Ten or Big 12, then it would be easier to draw that conclusion and eliminate a conference from the CFP.
 



This constant whining for expansion is ridiculous. If anything they should just go back to the 2-team BCS system. You're killing the golden goose.

THIS! Enjoy college football for what it is. Quit trying to make another version of the NFL or all the other sports. Let it be it's own unique thing.
 

Any expansion of the playoff just ensures more SEC teams in the playoff.
Which ensures more SEC titles.
Which justifies more in playoff.
Which ensures more SEC titles.


It is confirmation bias at its finest
 

THIS! Enjoy college football for what it is. Quit trying to make another version of the NFL or all the other sports. Let it be it's own unique thing.

Keep in mind that FBS was traditionally the only level of college football who did things in that arcane way. When you say enjoy college football - the majority of college football has had robust playoff systems for many years.
 

Any expansion of the playoff just ensures more SEC teams in the playoff.
Which ensures more SEC titles.
Which justifies more in playoff.
Which ensures more SEC titles.


It is confirmation bias at its finest

Not if you do the power 5 champion teams plus one at-large. The at-large could be the best of the smaller conferences.
 

Not if you do the power 5 champion teams plus one at-large. The at-large could be the best of the smaller conferences.

Why would they ever do that though? There's no way they would pick UCF over Georgia, for example.
 

Any expansion of the playoff just ensures more SEC teams in the playoff.
Which ensures more SEC titles.
Which justifies more in playoff.
Which ensures more SEC titles.


It is confirmation bias at its finest

Not if you stipulate playoff teams have to win their conference to qualify (understanding solution still has to address independents)
 
Last edited:

Keep in mind that FBS was traditionally the only level of college football who did things in that arcane way. When you say enjoy college football - the majority of college football has had robust playoff systems for many years.

When I say enjoy college football I am speaking about FBS. I don't care how the rest of college football is played, I don't watch or follow it.
 

Not if you do the power 5 champion teams plus one at-large. The at-large could be the best of the smaller conferences.

Nobody is signing up for a playoff system where Utah is two plays away from the playoff this year and northwestern has a better shot of making it going into the last week than Half the top 10
 

I put this somewhere else; it should go here instead.

8 teams:
5 P5 (conf. chip champion)
1 G5 (highest ranked)
2 at large

This year:
Bama, tOSU, Clemson, Washington, Oklahoma
Notre Dame and ? (most likely Georgia)
UCF

2017
Clemson, Georgia, tOSU, USC, Oklahoma (no title game but made it w/o)
Bama (for sure) Wisconsin, Auburn, or Penn St (according to where they finished in the final playoff rankings)
UCF
 

I put this somewhere else; it should go here instead.

8 teams:
5 P5 (conf. chip champion)
1 G5 (highest ranked)
2 at large

This year:
Bama, tOSU, Clemson, Washington, Oklahoma
Notre Dame and ? (most likely Georgia)
UCF

2017
Clemson, Georgia, tOSU, USC, Oklahoma (no title game but made it w/o)
Bama (for sure) Wisconsin, Auburn, or Penn St (according to where they finished in the final playoff rankings)
UCF

Not saying it isn’t logical. But if it expands to 8 the major conference aren’t giving the G5 a ticket. Nor are they eliminating the possibility of 4 teams from the same conference. IF it expands to 8 it will be top 8
 

Some were still voting for two loss Georgia, one of which by 3 TDs to a non CFP contender and they are still being considered? Ridiculous. They’re making it up as they go along. Bad for the game and really disconcerting for any G5 teams.

My top 4 are Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, and Michigan, in that order. Those four in a playoff would beat the crap out of each other.

Notre Dame, Ohio State, and Oklahoma all have serious flaws and I would make a strong argument that Ohio State and Oklahoma did not have resumes deserving of consideration.

So no, it certainly was not ridiculous to consider Georgia above OU especially because I'm sure that Georgia would be touchdown favorites in that matchup.

Only two of this year's best teams made the playoffs. It needs to be fixed.
 

Not saying it isn’t logical. But if it expands to 8 the major conference aren’t giving the G5 a ticket. Nor are they eliminating the possibility of 4 teams from the same conference. IF it expands to 8 it will be top 8

money driven...you never know. Loyola, Chicago and Sister Mary had quite a following in bball last year, and who wasn't hoping the UMBC would keep rolling (besides those that got burned) after the upset?
 

money driven...you never know. Loyola, Chicago and Sister Mary had quite a following in bball last year, and who wasn't hoping the UMBC would keep rolling (besides those that got burned) after the upset?

Explain to me how the ACC made more money from UMBC advancing?

Hint: they didn’t


Nor would the SEC make more money from guaranteeing 1/8 of the pie leaving the power 5
 

Last edited:

My top 4 are Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, and Michigan, in that order. Those four in a playoff would beat the crap out of each other.

Notre Dame, Ohio State, and Oklahoma all have serious flaws and I would make a strong argument that Ohio State and Oklahoma did not have resumes deserving of consideration.

So no, it certainly was not ridiculous to consider Georgia above OU especially because I'm sure that Georgia would be touchdown favorites in that matchup.

Only two of this year's best teams made the playoffs. It needs to be fixed.

The conference championship is (or could be) a de facto playoff round. Georgia was eliminated. That’s the whole point of playing the games - pundits have a spotty history of determining winners. It doesn’t matter what the old eyeball test says. Maybe Alabama isn’t as good as we think.

Besides, the SEC plays fewer conference games and that should earn a demerit in any beauty contest.
 

My top 4 are Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, and Michigan, in that order. Those four in a playoff would beat the crap out of each other.

Notre Dame, Ohio State, and Oklahoma all have serious flaws and I would make a strong argument that Ohio State and Oklahoma did not have resumes deserving of consideration.

So no, it certainly was not ridiculous to consider Georgia above OU especially because I'm sure that Georgia would be touchdown favorites in that matchup.

Only two of this year's best teams made the playoffs. It needs to be fixed.

Are we basing it on feelings? Why even play the games? Michigan over Notre Dame? Michigan over OSU? Seriously? You'd put in the team with 2 losses over teams with 1 and 0 losses, both of whom beat them (one badly, less than two weeks ago)?

If the actual results of the actual games don't count, there's no reason to even play. Just draw it up on paper and we can have a fantasy playoff every year.
 

Does anyone believe this first of all?

There has been NO discussion?

These money hungry AD's and conference commissioners wouldn't be doing their job if they hadn't been thinking about ways to increase $$$ that flow into their Universities and conferences.
These are people who started their own TV networks and added Rutgers to the Big Ten solely on the basis of $$$.

So when a major event which pours millions of dollars into their pocket occurs every season, you're going to tell me that THEY haven't even discussed ways they could modify this to get even more $$$ into their pockets?
Seriously?

They are either lying or incredibly inept at doing due diligence around making boatloads of money.

Who would lose out if they promote 4 more bowls into CFP standings for opening round games?
 




Top Bottom