Started By
Message
re: Per Sports Illustrated, the CFP expansion to 12 teams is in peril
Posted on 9/22/21 at 12:51 pm to Jack Ruby
Posted on 9/22/21 at 12:51 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
And as for people saying, 'why would the Pac-12, Big 12, etc vote against 12 teams', well, sticking it to Texas and OU is a factor here. Those commissioner s, especially Bowlsby, would get no greater feeling than making sure the SEC can only get in one, maybe two teams for the foreseeable future. They'd do it for the melt alone.
I believe this is the case now, but long term they aren’t going to turn down the increased money that comes with not only an expanded playoff but an increase of playoff relevant games in their own leagues for them to sell.
0
Posted on 9/22/21 at 12:51 pm to higgs_boson
quote:
I disagree a bit here. I think you are speaking to the quality of teams for the playoffs.
Actually I meant as far as it being a special experience for the teams and bragging rights. If they went to 12 and the top 12 teams went...most of the years that have gone by the SEC would have sent 4 teams. When 4 teams from the same conference goes, is it really that special to go?
I get what you are saying about the $$ side, and you are probably right. But I don't care about $$ so much. (mainly because as a fan I don't have to worry about that part.)
But stop and think. With what they have proposed you are not really going to get the top 12 teams. They are talking every P5 champion and the G5 teams along with at large which is left open for interpretation. You will get more situations where they skip over teams because a media favorite team has a bad year. (See: ND, Alabama, Ohio St, USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan etc.)
Those teams will go and leave teams that are probably more deserving home. Just my opinion, but look at how they rank teams now and it gives a pretty good indication.
Add to that the quality of games in the playoff structure will suffer greatly. We already have blow outs in the playoffs when #1 vs. #4. Imagine what is going to happen when #1 faces #12.
Just my opinion, but you do not get a better product by watering down that product.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 12:54 pm to Zgeo
quote:
Once OU is in the SEC, the SEC will have at least 3 teams in the 4 team playoff each and every year.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 12:55 pm to higgs_boson
quote:
I really believe the pressure to keep 2 SEC teams out this year will be intense.
You can bet they will not put two SEC teams AND Oklahoma (A future SEC team) in the playoffs.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 12:58 pm to Zgeo
quote:
the SEC will have at least 3 teams in the 4 team playoff each and every year.
Not really. Oklahoma will be bumping somebody off and somebody will be bumping Oklahoma off. I mean there will be more losses among the top teams from playing each other.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:00 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
The PAC 12 would have been left out of a 12 team playoff in 2020.
And yet the rules that were proposed for the 12 team format dictates every P5 champion get in.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:04 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
12 would keep the regular season important though, ironically more than 8 would.
I disagree. In a typical year the #12 team can have 3 losses. Does that make regular season games more or less important? I mean, you will have an undefeated team sit their best players for the last game or 2 to keep them from being injured. You will see something similar to the NFL in week 16 and 17.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:05 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Rarity and demand. If 12 teams make the playoff, then it will no longer be a rare feat to make the playoffs.
I may be an old head but 'making' a 12 team playoff team is more marketing than it really is. In the 70s/80s/90s, final week before the Bowls in the T12 was basically as it is now, just w varied Bowl ties. Being able to win post season is the same as it ever was. Any given Saturday aside, I guess.
This post was edited on 9/22/21 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:09 pm to DawgsLife
And again, I ask all of you: how many years has team #4 shown they belong in the playoff and not get blown off the field by #1? And you want to expand to 12? There will be some real barn burners between #5 and #12, I'm sure. And the surviving lower seed that gets #1, God help them.
Everyone wants to keep more fan interest and more regions interested. Great idea. But until the Midwest outside of Columbus, Ohio, and everything west of the Mississippi river sans College Station, Texas and CoMo, (I'll throw Missou a bone) starts playing grown arse man football, all you are doing is watering down a great product to reward more shitty teams for not giving a damn and investing in football. The Pac 12 is a freaking joke now that can't consistently beat good G5 teams. The ACC is trending that way now that the Clemson bubble looks to have burst. Why do they deserve a place at the table when they are one and dones? Congratulations, you made the top 12, here's your arse-whipping and your check, now go home. What good is that?
frick that, you wanna be THE MAN? BEAT THE MAN! And THE MAN resides in the SEC or Columbus, Ohio. Prove me wrong.
Everyone wants to keep more fan interest and more regions interested. Great idea. But until the Midwest outside of Columbus, Ohio, and everything west of the Mississippi river sans College Station, Texas and CoMo, (I'll throw Missou a bone) starts playing grown arse man football, all you are doing is watering down a great product to reward more shitty teams for not giving a damn and investing in football. The Pac 12 is a freaking joke now that can't consistently beat good G5 teams. The ACC is trending that way now that the Clemson bubble looks to have burst. Why do they deserve a place at the table when they are one and dones? Congratulations, you made the top 12, here's your arse-whipping and your check, now go home. What good is that?
frick that, you wanna be THE MAN? BEAT THE MAN! And THE MAN resides in the SEC or Columbus, Ohio. Prove me wrong.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:11 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I would prefer 6. With them going to the BCS Bowl formula and top 6 go.
I agree.
To me, six is the sweet spot.
BCS is fine, and it actually worked quite well—they just need to open up the algorithm for full transparency.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:12 pm to JetDawg
The CFP world co tract into 3 Power conferences and the leftovers of Big 12 mixed with the Pac 10 will do that.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:14 pm to JetDawg
Sports illustrated to sports is what MTV is to music.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:23 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
quote:
12 would keep the regular season important though, ironically more than 8 would.
I disagree. In a typical year the #12 team can have 3 losses. Does that make regular season games more or less important? I mean, you will have an undefeated team sit their best players for the last game or 2 to keep them from being injured. You will see something similar to the NFL in week 16 and 17.
Very unlikely because they want that first round Home game.
To me they should either keep it at 4 or move it to 12 or even better 16. It's all about what you care about most.
If you are an SEC fan you want 12 or 16 because you are likely getting 4 or 5 teams in. That both showcases the strength of the SEC and it means a LOT of money.
If you want more games that are meaningful late in the season and especially in the post season you want 12 or 16 because so many teams will be jockeying to get in or get a home game. A Playoff game is also so much better than even a NY6 game as players are sitting out in ever increasing numbers and the games mean less and less.
If you hate politics in who gets in the Playoff you want 12 or 16 because then Conf Champs automatically get in. At least 1 G5 team gets in. The discussion is really about who is getting the final playoff spot in a 12 or 16 team playoff is also far less impactful than a 4.
If you want it to be really hard to get in the Playoff and don't want Conf Championship games threatened you want 4. Or if you don't like the idea of Playoff home games for some reason.
As for the other combos:
6 is the worst, it will mean the 5 Conf Champs and a G5 Team in all likelihood and 2 teams get a bye. Ugh.
8 isn't much different than now really. You get the 5 Con Champs, a G5 Team, and 2 At Large. K. LOTS of politics there. Those Conf Champs and G5 will get in by the way because that is the only way it happens, once you have a slot for each Champ the Champs will all go.
No one wants 10 so not going to discuss.
12 likely means byes and that sucks. The 1-4 getting a bye is way too big of an advantage.
So to me the best answer is 4 or 16, personally I would prefer 16 with a lot more meaningful games, home Playoff games, Cinderella stories, and the SEC dominating. Any NC that has to win 4 Playoff games would also be impressive, it would leave no doubts.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:24 pm to phil4bama
quote:
And again, I ask all of you: how many years has team #4 shown they belong in the playoff and not get blown off the field by #1?
Several. But nobody is arguing against the 4 man playoff.
We are arguing against the 12 team playoff. BIG difference. And I will ask you...how many times has there been a blow out in the playoffs? Almost every single year. Do you really think adding 8 teams is going to help with that?
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:27 pm to GetmorewithLes
quote:
I would be happy with 8. Each P5 champion and 3 at large
How can the Big 12 continue to be regarded as a Power 5 conference when they are about to take on four non-Power 5 teams?
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:30 pm to DawgsLife
I think you will have blowouts regardless of the number of teams you have. What I think is more interesting is situations like last year where Ohio State blows out Clemson but then gets blown out by Bama. It makes it harder for a team to just get up for one game to be a champion. I like the idea of the NC having to win 4 games in single elimination.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:32 pm to phil4bama
Examples:
2014-2015:
Oregon/FSU 59-20
2015-2016:
Clemson/Oklahoma 37-17
Alabama/Michigan St. 38-0
2016-2017:
Alabama/Washington 24-7
Celmson/Ohio State 31-0
2017-2018:
Alabama/Clemson 24-6
2018-2019:
Clemson/ND 30-3
2019-2020:
LSU/Oklahoma 63-28
2020-2021:
Alabama/ND 31-14
Ohio State/Clemson 49-28
Do you think adding 8 more teams will make this more competitive? Better games?
2014-2015:
Oregon/FSU 59-20
2015-2016:
Clemson/Oklahoma 37-17
Alabama/Michigan St. 38-0
2016-2017:
Alabama/Washington 24-7
Celmson/Ohio State 31-0
2017-2018:
Alabama/Clemson 24-6
2018-2019:
Clemson/ND 30-3
2019-2020:
LSU/Oklahoma 63-28
2020-2021:
Alabama/ND 31-14
Ohio State/Clemson 49-28
Do you think adding 8 more teams will make this more competitive? Better games?
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:35 pm to aggressor
quote:
Very unlikely because they want that first round Home game.
Top 6 teams get home field advantage, and the top 6 teams will not need that advantage against the bottom 6.
Imo, if Alabama is undefeated going into the Iron Bowl, for instance, they could still easily secure the #4 slot (at worst) with a loss. Do you think they would sit a dinged up player in order to get him (or them if there are several) healthy for the playoffs?
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:36 pm to aggressor
quote:
I think you will have blowouts regardless of the number of teams you have.
Absolutely will. We are having them every single year now with 4 teams. But the idea is to have good close games. What is the point if the first round or two are nothing but blow outs?
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:42 pm to DawgsLife
Sounds like you are scared to play the teams that could beat you.
Yes... we need to expand it. You reasons for not does not help grow the game. It actually makes it slowly die
Yes... we need to expand it. You reasons for not does not help grow the game. It actually makes it slowly die
Page 2 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News