Would expanding CFB playoffs create more parity? Interesting article on it from The Athletic

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,758
Reaction score
4,794
Points
113
So four teams would basically have play-in games. Notre Dame?
Notre Dame did very well this past season in the ACC. I absolutely believe they are prepared to join that league, if and when being a conference champion is a requirement to get a playoff bid.

Your first sentence isn't correct. The first round is the first round. Two of the teams would have byes in the first round.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
10,046
Reaction score
941
Points
113
I was just giving you the correct answer to your question.

Any number of teams in 9-16 is the same bracket as a 16 team bracket. Think on it, and get back to me if you still have any questions about that.
No you weren't. 4, 8, 16 require no byes/play-in games.
 

leib0039

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2019
Messages
416
Reaction score
340
Points
63
I am against an expanded playoff for one reason. The committee is generally trash and they will use the "well everyone has a shot and we don't care about TV" but that is a 100% lie. Expanding the playoff essentially ensures Bama/Clem/OSU/ND a seat at the table. Gophers go 10-2 with losses to say Iowa and Ohio St, Bama goes 9-3 they are 100% putting Bama in. Those top schools would have to go like 7-5 to not make it and what are the odds of that, almost nil. Furthermore, if you are say UCF and you get in, sure you COULD win but what happens if you lose by 30. Next recruit looks and goes, ughh they got housed by bama, I will just go ride the bench for the tide instead.

As far as making things even in recruiting. I have always thought the NIL thing would help in that. I could certainly be wrong as it would be a bit of the wild wild west BUT my thinking is you sell these kids, well sure Bama wins more and is on CBS more, but guess what, you are going to be 4th on the depth chart. No one is paying the 4th/5th WR for Bama to do commercials, but what if you are our #1 stud WR, hey now 3M/Best Buy/Target pay you to do a commercial or sign autographs. Now that kid goes, yah hey I want to make money, and that makes sense I could be the star at a less national brand school and get paid more. I also think this would be a big selling point for local recruits. Is Jalen Suggs a star in Spokane, sure, but I bet there are a lot of people who dont know who he is. In MN he is already a bonafide star and very well known, so again those companies see an opportunity and Suggs has more of those chances being a star Gopher in his hometown as opposed to going to a place like Spokane.
 

Taji34

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
698
Points
113
No matter how many teams you have, there will always be arguments that teams close to the cutoff got shafted.

My thought, why not expand to 24? Then make the top 25 rankings into a Top 24 rankings. Then its as simple as "If you're ranked, you're in the tournament and have a shot if you can win out". Of course, this has it's own problems. You'd have to lengthen the season, which would be tough. And there will always be bias.

I think the biggest thing that makes this tough for football as opposed to basketball, is the lack of games played and by extension the lack of non-conference games played.
 

Plausible Deniability

Coffee is for closers
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
1,139
Reaction score
619
Points
113
Expanding the playoffs would be an absolutely dreadful idea. A straight up money grab is all it would be. Just dumb
 

spackler

Active member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
418
Reaction score
30
Points
28
I think it would be great, and something that should be done sooner than later.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,758
Reaction score
4,794
Points
113
No you weren't. 4, 8, 16 require no byes/play-in games.
Is a 9 team playoff really an 8 team bracket with one "play-in game", or is it a 16 team bracket with 7 teams having a BYE in the first round?

They're in fact exactly the same thing. I'm not sure what else to tell you. It's just the math of it.

Every playoff with a number of teams inbetween powers of 2 (4, 8, 16, 32, 64, ...) uses the same bracket as the higher power of 2, and just gives BYEs to the teams that don't have someone to play.

You asked about 10 and 12 specifically.

10 team playoff uses a 16 team bracket: 6 teams (12 slots in the first round) have BYEs, and the remaining 4 teams (4 slots in the first round) play.

12 team playoff uses a 16 team bracket: 4 teams (8 slots in the first round) have BYEs, and the remaining 8 teams (8 slots in the first round) play.


Do it for 13 teams, if you like: 3 teams (6 slots in the first round) have BYEs, and the remaining 10 teams (10 slots in the first round) play.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
1,847
Points
113
No matter how many teams you have, there will always be arguments that teams close to the cutoff got shafted.

My thought, why not expand to 24? Then make the top 25 rankings into a Top 24 rankings. Then its as simple as "If you're ranked, you're in the tournament and have a shot if you can win out". Of course, this has it's own problems. You'd have to lengthen the season, which would be tough. And there will always be bias.

I think the biggest thing that makes this tough for football as opposed to basketball, is the lack of games played and by extension the lack of non-conference games played.
Paragraph 2 is why conference champions deserve auto bids.

it is the most objective thing in college football.

It means your are the best of group X of teams



It also means teams would schedule good non conference games. Because a loss doesn’t eliminate you at all but a win could be what gets you the at large bid
 

Herd

Active member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
690
Reaction score
136
Points
43
No matter how many teams you have, there will always be arguments that teams close to the cutoff got shafted.

My thought, why not expand to 24? Then make the top 25 rankings into a Top 24 rankings. Then its as simple as "If you're ranked, you're in the tournament and have a shot if you can win out". Of course, this has it's own problems. You'd have to lengthen the season, which would be tough. And there will always be bias.

I think the biggest thing that makes this tough for football as opposed to basketball, is the lack of games played and by extension the lack of non-conference games played.

Expanding the playoff isn't about ranking the top 24 teams, it would be about providing access to the playoff to every conference champion first (all 10 leagues). The the remaining at large bids would go to the next highest ranked teams.
 

Herd

Active member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
690
Reaction score
136
Points
43
You have to look at the playoffs at the DIII, DII, DI FCS levels to really understand what a true playoff is all about. In a true playoff, conference are given pretty equal weight, and all conference champions are included as the first priority. In the FCS playoff for example (24 team), the conference champion in the Pioneer and NEC leagues might be ranked in the 30-35 range. They still get in over the teams ranked 20-25. In the MVFC for example, one of the stronger leagues, they get 3 teams in the field usually. Their 4th team might be ranked 15-20, and would throttle the Pioneer league champ, but that's the way it is. If you are a conference champ, you are in. (and frankly I have no issue with that)

In this 24 team playoff scenario, you know that your strong league will get 3, sometimes 4 teams in. It makes the regular season meaningful and very competitive. I would say there is a larger competitive gap between the Pioneer League and the MVFC (FCS) than there is between the SEC and the Sunbelt (FBS). Why 5 whole conferences at the FBS level are completely excluded from having access the championship is kinda insane.

For FBS football, I say eliminate conference championship games, and expand the playoff to 16. (10 autobids and 6 at large; then ranked 1-16). Would be a hellava lot more interesting than Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State and pick a 4th team every year. The suspense just about kills me every year, will the 4th be LSU, Nortre Dame, Georgia this year?

As a gopher fan, how in the world is that at all interesting to you? You have almost no shot.
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
2,144
Points
113
You have to look at the playoffs at the DIII, DII, DI FCS levels to really understand what a true playoff is all about. In a true playoff, conference are given pretty equal weight, and all conference champions are included as the first priority. In the FCS playoff for example (24 team), the conference champion in the Pioneer and NEC leagues might be ranked in the 30-35 range. They still get in over the teams ranked 20-25. In the MVFC for example, one of the stronger leagues, they get 3 teams in the field usually. Their 4th team might be ranked 15-20, and would throttle the Pioneer league champ, but that's the way it is. If you are a conference champ, you are in. (and frankly I have no issue with that)

In this 24 team playoff scenario, you know that your strong league will get 3, sometimes 4 teams in. It makes the regular season meaningful and very competitive. I would say there is a larger competitive gap between the Pioneer League and the MVFC (FCS) than there is between the SEC and the Sunbelt (FBS). Why 5 whole conferences at the FBS level are completely excluded from having access the championship is kinda insane.

For FBS football, I say eliminate conference championship games, and expand the playoff to 16. (10 autobids and 6 at large; then ranked 1-16). Would be a hellava lot more interesting than Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State and pick a 4th team every year. The suspense just about kills me every year, will the 4th be LSU, Nortre Dame, Georgia this year?

As a gopher fan, how in the world is that at all interesting to you? You have almost no shot.
Great post!!

I'm in and they should take a % from the TV money and split it amongst all FBS scholarship players to compensate them for the extra games, whether their teams make the playoffs or not. Not sure how it work with the service academies or the Ivy's at this point, but it's time for a disruption!!
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
10,046
Reaction score
941
Points
113
No matter how many teams you have, there will always be arguments that teams close to the cutoff got shafted.

My thought, why not expand to 24? Then make the top 25 rankings into a Top 24 rankings. Then its as simple as "If you're ranked, you're in the tournament and have a shot if you can win out". Of course, this has it's own problems. You'd have to lengthen the season, which would be tough. And there will always be bias.

I think the biggest thing that makes this tough for football as opposed to basketball, is the lack of games played and by extension the lack of non-conference games played.
It gets tough with football. Would mean eight byes/play-in games would be needed. Six games to go from #24 to Nat'l champion, one more than if you went to 32 teams. I tend toward brackets that don't need byes.
 

Great Plains Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,484
Reaction score
97
Points
48
Expanding the playoffs would make the playoffs a second season, which we don't need. We needed a playoff and the four-team playoff is just about perfect. Players will go to the Alabama and Ohio State level schools because they win all the time, but financial remuneration for publicity income will only make it more likely they'll go to the same handful of teams.
 

Herd

Active member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
690
Reaction score
136
Points
43
Expanding the playoffs would make the playoffs a second season, which we don't need. We needed a playoff and the four-team playoff is just about perfect. Players will go to the Alabama and Ohio State level schools because they win all the time, but financial remuneration for publicity income will only make it more likely they'll go to the same handful of teams.
The champion plays 15 games today. If you played 12 regular season games, with no conf championship games, The champion could play up to 16 games in a 16 team playoff. Use some of the bowl games in the quarter and semi finals. Only 2 teams would play 16 games, the rest less. 16 teams, 10 conf champs, 6 at large. Have a bowl season for teams outside the playoff.

Your second season argument doesn’t hold water. Pay playoff shares to the conf of the 16 teams involved, with add’l amounts for games won. That would be more fair, and bring more parity to college football, something it desperately needs. As a player, I can goto the MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBC and AAC, and contend in the national championship, it would be the right thing for college football. The level of play in the lower conferences would be lifted greatly. Win win
 
Last edited:

MNfootballfan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,669
Reaction score
72
Points
48
Expanding the playoffs would make the playoffs a second season, which we don't need. We needed a playoff and the four-team playoff is just about perfect. Players will go to the Alabama and Ohio State level schools because they win all the time, but financial remuneration for publicity income will only make it more likely they'll go to the same handful of teams.
Except for the 60+ teams not in the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, or Pac 10.
 

btowngopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
4,066
Reaction score
548
Points
113
Except for the 60+ teams not in the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, or Pac 10.
I think a G5 team could make the playoff, but they need to have a strong non conference schedule. There’s never been a good candidate that I can remember that got snubbed.
 

Otis

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
1,011
Points
113
What are the 6 schools?

Alabama
Clemson
LSU
Ohio State
Georgia
Oklahoma?

I honestly can't pick the next one but there are other good recruiting schools like Oregon, USC, UCLA...

They are just down at the moment.
 

BigGopher69

Active member
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
184
Reaction score
175
Points
43
The Perfect playoff- Each power 5 conference winner gets an auto bid, The best non power 5 school gets in, 2 at large teams, everyone is represented at 8 teams.
 

Taji34

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
698
Points
113
The only way to create more parity is to reduce scholarships.
That's not very equitable though. How many student athletes can only afford college because of an athletic scholarship? A lot of those athletes would not be able to compete in a walk on situation because they would not be able to afford to attend.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
15,953
Reaction score
2,777
Points
113
That's not very equitable though. How many student athletes can only afford college because of an athletic scholarship? A lot of those athletes would not be able to compete in a walk on situation because they would not be able to afford to attend.
It's not....but it also is one of the only ways to do it.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,758
Reaction score
4,794
Points
113
Even if there were NO scholarships (every college team was like DIII) ..... the elite programs would still be the "haves" in every other aspect. Coaching salaries, stadiums, facilities, etc. Name recognition. Most players put into the NFL. (*cough*bagmen*cough* ... SORRY, had to clear my throat there)

The elite players, that you need if you want to win the natty, are still always going to "choose" the elite schools.

There is no way around that.


Now you could try to limit roster sizes, but this isn't the NFL, it's college, and you usually need those extra bodies for good reason.
 
Top Bottom