re: 247's Josh Pate with a hot take on a potential 8-team College Football Playoff

quote:

---

Winning your conference should mean something.

---

It SHOULD. but what does winning the PAC 12 really mean? They are all terrible. You leave out better teams when you automatically include conference winners.

Expanding the Playoffs would only ensure the top tier teams will ALWAYS get into the playoffs even when they lose late in the season.

This is a worthwhile discussion. And there is a solution out there - we haven't found it yet.

IMO Division 1 should be reorganized and limited to approximately 64 teams. Many of the 125 teams claiming to be Division 1 are not - they just want to claim they are. Are FIU, East Carolina, Liberty, and Ball State really Division 1 teams? Of course not. They (and a bunch more) shouldn't be pretending they are. Whittling D1 down to 64 teams will make the weaker D1 teams more attractive and help them recruit better talent. From there it will take conference reorganization. It's a long tough road to save college football and Payola is going to make it even tougher.

8 teams does matter because every extra game Ohio State, Bama, Clemson has to play is a greater chance they lose which is good for the sport. Parity is great for the game. The top 2ish teams in college football have so much more talent but if they are negative 2 in turnovers against the next tier they can be upset.

What I frel Like the CFP and the BCS have going for them is that no one seems to win by accident.

You had to be pretty ducking good to get there or beat a really good teams

An 8 Team Playoff I think your hoping for a pure entertainment factor of more games and a little chaos. Can an at large team get hot at the right time?

quote:

---

Winning your conference should mean something.

---

and more than that, it makes late season games in shitty conferences more exciting.

Not to mention it automatically makes conference championships de facto in games

quote:

---

Make the playoff as big or small as you want -- unless rivalries, conference titles, just having a good record or bowls are considered important, college football will be on the decline.

It’s a sport too stacked at the top for it to be healthy to only focus on the national title.

---

Advocates of an 8-team CFP w/automatic bids for P5 conference champs and a G5 push false narratives that it'll improve CFB and fan interest. But their very flawed CFP model not only makes it likely that some of the best FBS teams will be excluded from the CFP, it'll also reduce CFB's #1 appeal -- what CFB needs more of -- competitive regular season games that matter.

How to expand CFP opportunities and get more competitive & appealing regular season games:

FBS CFP - top 6 teams per committee rankings: No auto-bids. Rnd-1: #6@#3, #5@#4, #1/#2 bye. Rnd-2: R1 winners vs #1/#2. Final 1st Sat in Jan.

A top-6 CFP allows all 5 P5 conf champs & a G5 to get in and has key advantages over an 8-team with 6 auto-bids. Auto-bids for P5 conf-champs discourage scheduling good out-of-conf teams. The top-6 model with round-1 byes for #1 & #2 and home-fields for #3 & #4 encourages it -- in order to achieve higher seeding. Also, #8 at #1 and #7 at #2 games would probably be routs. Worst of all, 6 of 8 as auto-bids would result in undeserving multi-loss conf champs getting in over 1-loss non-champs with better resumés.

FBS scheduling criteria - to qualify for the CFP:
• 12 games in Sep-Nov; CCGs 1st Fri-Sat in Dec.
• P5 must schedule 9 in-conf, 1 other P5, 0 FCS.
• G5 must schedule 8 in-conf, 3 to 4 P5s, 0 FCS.

CFP expansion to 6 teams, with the criteria that G5s must schedule 3-4 P5s to qualify, will give G5s a viable means to achieve a top-6 ranking. Since P5s can & will schedule a couple of G5s, good G5s like Memphis, ULL or CCU aspiring to reach the top-6 can find 3-4 good P5s seeking a quality G5 opponent to strengthen their resumé. Teams without CFP expectations don't have to schedule out-of-conf P5s; instead they can aim for bowl eligibility.

Conf realignment to bolster rivalries & balance: 14 teams in each P5 conf & 12 in each G5 conf.
-- P5 conf cross-div: 1 fixed; 6 rotate in 2 slots.
-- G5 conf cross-div: 0 fixed; 6 rotate in 3 slots.
6 G5 (UCF, Cin, Houston, SMU, Boise, SDS) move to P5, likely enabling better hiring and recruiting.
2 small private schools Vandy & Wake go to G5. Conf TV revenue split equally among its teams; Big12 lost Neb, Col, ATM & Miz due to unequal.

Division 1A (FBS P5) = 70 teams:
(moves underlined; cross-div rivals paired)

ACC (14) - Atlantic
N: BC, Syr, Pitt, WVU, VT, VA, MD
S: Mia, DU, NC, NCS, CL, SC, UCF

B1G (14) - Northern
E: UM, MS, Ind, Cin, OSU, PSU, Rtg
W: ND, NW, Pur, Illn, Iowa, Wis, MN

B12 (14) - Central
N: OU, OSt, Neb, Miz, Kan, KSt, ISU
S: Tex, Bay, Col, Hou, SMU, TT, TCU

PAC (14) - Pacific
N: OR, BYU, UT, OS, WA, WS, Boise
S: SC, Ucla, AS, AZ, Stn, Cal, SDSt

SEC (14) - Southeastern
E : TN, GA, FLA, FSU, UK, Lou, GT
W: UA, AU, LSU, aTm, AR, OM, MS

Bama's out-of-conf & cross-div rotations:
9th SEC replaces FCS; 6 SEC-West games
in 2nd half of season; 7 homes & 5 aways.
'22: vs G5, vs P5, vs G5; at UK, vs FS, at TN
'23: vs G5, at P5, vs G5; vs UL, at Ga, vs TN
'24: vs G5, vs P5, vs G5; at GT, vs UF, at TN
'25: vs G5, at P5, vs G5; vs UK, at FS, vs TN
'26: vs G5, vs P5, vs G5; at UL, vs Ga, at TN
'27: vs G5, at P5, vs G5; vs GT, at UF, vs TN

Consistent schedule grids for all conferences (with 1 bye occurring only after game 6 or 7) would simplify in- and out-of-conf scheduling.

Division 1B (FBS G5) = 60 teams:
(moves underlined)

AAC (12) - Eastern
N: Tem, Mass, Con, Army, Navy, Lib
S: Mrsh, Chrlt, ECU, Appn, CCU, WF

CUSA (12) - Mid South
E: Mem, ArSt, ULL, ULM, LaTch, Tuln
W: Tuls, UNT, TxSt, Rice, UTSA, UTEP

MAC (12) - Northern
E: Buf, Kent, M-OH, OH, Akrn, BGS
W: Ball, Tol, WMU, EMU, CMU, NIU

MWC (12) - Western
S: Haw, NMS, NM, FrSt, SJS, UNLV
N: Nev, UTSt, AFA, CSU, Wyo, IDSt

Sun Belt (12) - Southeast
E: GaSt, GaSo, Troy, USF, FAU, FIU
W: WKy, USM, USA, UAB, Van, MTS

Pitt, WV, VT, VA, MD and NC schools, along with SC and UCF, are regional rivals that belong in the ACC. Miz, Neb, Col, Hou and SMU belong in the Big12. ND and Cincy belong in the B1G. Boise, BYU and SDS belong in the PAC. FSU, Louisville and GT are better fits in the SEC-E than Miz, SC and Vandy. It appears all realigned conferences, including regional G5, would gain net increases in TV ratings and attendance. Perhaps ESPN could also provide G5 conference TV networks.

There are good reasons smart people chose a Top-4 CFP model. The Top-6 CFP model above supports those same good reasons even better. It enables all 5 P5 conf champs and a G5 conf champ to earn a top-6 ranking. And it inherently encourages teams to enhance their resumés by scheduling good out-of-conf teams.

CFP expansion to 6 teams, benefits/incentives for higher seedings, scheduling criteria, and conference realigment will produce schedules with more competitive games that will improve clarity of the true top 6. The regular season will become a better "de facto playoff" filled with more appealing games that matter. TV ratings and attendance should improve significantly.

He can say what he wants but a 4 team playoff ain’t doing it. I would rather have 8 teams and the illusion of parity (and also have conference championships be worth something) than have only the same select few teams have a shot every single year. 4 team playoff has done a lot of damage to college football already and as someone said earlier it very well may have killed the sport.

And while leaving the playoff system definitely has some merits there is no way the sport would ever go back. That money ship has sailed.

quote:

---

He can say what he wants but a 4 team playoff ain’t doing it. I would rather have 8 teams and the illusion of parity (and also have conference championships be worth something) than have only the same select few teams have a shot every single year. 4 team playoff has done a lot of damage to college football already and as someone said earlier it very well may have killed the sport.

And while leaving the playoff system definitely has some merits there is no way the sport would ever go back. That money ship has sailed.

---

Are you talking about Red Sox? I think that is one team that is pretty much done for a while due to cheating and it also killed MLB.

quote:

---

It’s a sport too stacked at the top for it to be healthy to only focus on the national title.

---

I agree. Now tell Nick to retire.