They need to expand the CFP, they said. It'll be better, they said.

[Auto Driller 2504]

https://mobile.twitter.com/rossdellenger/status/1204848550758273025?s=21

Edited December 12, 2019 by Auto Driller

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

OP probably used 2005 MNC game to prove the BCS worked

[Big Frog II 511]

If they go to 8 or 16 some year, drop the Big 12 championship game.

[LonghornSean 3942]

From the Athletic: https://theathletic.com/1455632/2019/12/12/larry-scott-conference-commissioners-college-football-playoff-expansion/

 

Quote

For commissioners, Playoff expansion has become an open conversation

By Nicole Auerbach 24m ago

NEW YORK — Larry Scott knows that a lot of people expect him be on the front lines of the fight to expand the College Football Playoff. He knows he could (and maybe should) be the face of this because, once again, none of his league’s teams will get a chance to play for a national championship this postseason.

“I completely get that,” the Pac-12 commissioner told a small group of reporters on Thursday.

The Pac-12 has been left out of the four-team Playoff more years than not. In the six years under the current format, the league has missed out four times. Oregon made the field the first year, in 2014, and Washington reached it in 2016.

This year, two-loss Pac-12 champion Oregon finished No. 6 in the final rankings; a trip to the Rose Bowl will be the Ducks’ consolation prize.

“(Expansion) would really release the pressure of being the one that’s been on the outside looking in most for the first six years,” Scott said. “Because we’d automatically have our champion. But we also have agreements through 2026 that I think would be very challenging for us to all agree and amend, how we’re going to change. I want to manage expectations, but we’re fully engaged in that conversation. We’re supportive of the conversation.

“This conversation has been going on for the last year. Those conversations have been legitimate and real. We’re active participants. We, probably more than anyone, realize the benefits that it would bring.”

For the past year, high-ranking college athletics officials have had myriad conversations about expanding the four-team College Football Playoff. Commissioners have discussed the topic together and separately, with the members of their leagues. They’ve discussed whether there’s any way the field could expand before the initial 12-year contract with ESPN expires in 2026 — which is possible though quite unlikely due to the impediments in the way. They’ve also started to discuss, if all required parties come together to expand the Playoff in 2026, what type of format (How many teams? Autobids? On-campus quarterfinals?) would be best.

They have also acknowledged, both publicly and privately, the obvious obstacles: The bowl system, the length of the season and the way the current contract is structured. Would an eight-team field help or hurt the regular season? For both the Pac-12 and the Big Ten, preserving the sanctity of the Rose Bowl is of utmost importance.

Here’s where those conversations stand.

“It’s really painful to not be in the Playoff, to be the one league of the five that doesn’t have a team in it,” Scott said. “Hurts our positioning, our brand, everything. We’ve got to change that. First and foremost, we’ve got to be better. And we’re engaged in: Is there a better mousetrap going forward?”

Scott was asked whether he would be a proponent of an eight-team field if it included all five Power 5 conference champions and incorporated the bowl system into its format.

“That’s pretty appealing,” Scott said. “I think that’s the only eight-team model we would consider, as a premise. Otherwise it wouldn’t make any sense.”

Essentially, it boils down to this: The Pac-12 would likely support an expanded field, as long as parameters exist to guarantee a spot for each Power 5 league’s champion. That explicit acknowledgement of the value of a conference championship is particularly interesting considering the negotiations that led to the current four-team Playoff. Right now, a conference championship is only used as a tiebreaker for comparable teams. Teams selected to the Playoff are not required to be conference champions.

“My view and that of most of my colleagues is that winning your conference should matter,” Scott said. “That’s more important than the perception of who’s the best.”

The emphasis (or lack thereof) on the value of a conference championship and the application of strength of schedule credit are two sticking points for some of the sport’s leaders. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, who is retiring in January, has expressed his frustrations on both points in the past and did so again this week. From 2016 to ’18, his conference champion was left out of the Playoff.

“I haven’t always felt like the conference champions have been adequately rewarded,” Delany said Wednesday. “I don’t like the fact that people play different schedules (with eight or nine conference games). I don’t like the fact that strength of schedule is not well understood of how it is treated. I’m not in any way, shape or form saying that everything is perfect. But I want to keep it all in the right perspective. …

“We knew when we created it that that there would be unhappy people. I’ve been one of those unhappy people from time to time.”

Delany confirmed that discussions regarding expansion and/or changes to the current format are ongoing, even in a year where the four teams selected to the Playoff were clear-cut. Delany won’t be in the room with other commissioners and power brokers over the coming months and years figuring out if the Playoff should expand, when the Playoff could expand and what it all could look like. He’ll be consuming the sport as a fan.

As a fan, would he be a proponent of an eight-team field?

“I could be, under the right circumstances,” Delany said. An educated guess: The right circumstances look a lot like the ones outlined by Scott, with a designated spot for each P5 champion.

It’s remarkable how much the language surrounding talk of expansion has changed in just 12 months. More and more coaches and athletic directors talk of an eight-team field as if it were inevitable; some have even used that angle to justify beefing up their nonconference schedules for the mid- to late-2020s. A year ago, it was jarring and news-worthy to have Power 5 commissioners say they wanted to bring people together to simply talk about expansion. Now, they’re openly dissecting expanded formats they’d prefer. Scott, for one, said Thursday that he’s “eager to explore it,” but also that he’s trying to manage expectations.

“Whether that leads to change before the current contract is up or informs where we want to go, and so you start lining up things to be ready for that,” Scott said.

Still, 2026 — the conclusion of the initial 12-year deal — seems to be the bull’s-eye for many administrators. That feels like the most realistic time for wholesale change.

“That is definitely a time that we could,” Scott said. “Whether we could do something (before) then is more unclear. There are a lot of complications, contractually and otherwise.”

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey stuck to the company line. For the SEC, a four-team field has been wonderful. The league has had a team in the Playoff every single year and is the only conference to send two representatives in the same year. So Sankey isn’t exactly itching like others, who haven’t had that kind of access and success, to change the model.

But even he acknowledges the need to discuss and review what works and what doesn’t in the current system. He won’t go so far as to say expansion feels inevitable, though.

“I wouldn’t use that phrase right now,” Sankey said. “The responsibility to review and be attentive to, what are the principles that inform the decision to go to four? Are we meeting those or not? Are there adjustments to be made? I think that’s the type of informed conversation and consideration that has to be provided (first). That’s the perspective we would bring to the dialogue.”

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by LonghornSean

[C-Man 27068]

22 hours ago, LonghornSean said:

Yeah conference championship games would need to change or leagues run the risk of knocking their #2 team out of a potential at-large bid.

Good luck crowning a SEC champ without the title game. Let's see -- 14-team league, two divisions, only play two from other division every year with one "protected" rivalry opponent you play every year.

19 hours ago, Vic Mackey said:

Yep. Only college football fans of the FBS level actually want the precious regular season to mean more than the playoffs. Fuck the regular season. It's there to slot the teams for the playoffs and then let it play out. Imagine college basketball not having a legit tournament and having a fucking 4 team "playoff" and a bunch of meaningless bowl games.

It baffles me how people with even half a brain think the regular season is so magical for college football. It isn't. It's fucking stupid and so pointless for 95% of the teams out there. But they hide behind the logic that every game matters (it doesn't and not even by a longshot). 

College football's regular season IS great. I enjoy the hell out of it even if my Longhorns aren't that great. It's not playoffs-or-bust for me, though I do like when the Longhorns are damn good. But there is a better way to crown a legit champion than the way it's done now. Keep the bowls, tweak the playoff system and the regular season is still plenty bad ass.

[LTbear 4161]

42 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Good luck crowning a SEC champ without the title game. Let's see -- 14-team league, two divisions, only play two from other division every year with one "protected" rivalry opponent you play every year.

It's the most ridiculous scheduling in the country by a mile. Miss 5 teams from the other division every single year, ridiculous. Not only does it artificially inflate some ratings, but jeebus, what a shitshow for fans. How many historic rivals do some schools see visiting their campus once a decade now? Just a shame for college football anywhere to have gotten that way, and it's one thing I love about the current Big XII. Realistically, 12 teams is about as big as a conference needs to get. 

[Iceman 2641]

for whatever issues the Big XII had, I loved playing 3 teams from the other division for 2 years at a time.  The SEC horseshit makes it damned near a waste of time calling it a conference.

[n64ra 1078]

On 12/11/2019 at 1:59 PM, LonghornSean said:

Yeah conference championship games would need to change or leagues run the risk of knocking their #2 team out of a potential at-large bid.

Or solve that with conference expansion. Inflate your conference size so that your best two teams end up 12-0 entering the CCC.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18524]

On 12/11/2019 at 1:57 PM, Huckleberry said:

Now was that so hard?

And fuck the Big 12 if that happens and we still have a stupid conference championship game.

That game is worth, what, $30 million to the conference? I don't think it's going anywhere. Plus, you get the bonus of a possible upset that potentially puts two teams into the playoff. I don't like it either, but zero chance they give up that revenue.

[Huckleberry 32704]

The game would cause us to lose a team in the playoff more often than gain a team. 

[JBJ 3649]

You could make a 14-team conference schedule good, but you have to eliminate divisions.

Do 3-tiered scheduling: Each tier has 5-4-5 teams each.  The top 5 tier play each other and 2 randomly-chosen teams from the other two (this is for 8 games).  Same for the bottom tier. 

This makes it so that each team in the middle tier plays each other, then two from top and bottom, then one more from either top or bottom.  Reseed the tiers each year based on conference finish.

Give priority in the "random" selection for teams that were missed the prior year, and top priority if it happens that you miss 2 years in a row.

Each team will play each other team usually every other year with the perpetually stronger teams almost always playing each other, and the perpetually weaker teams being used as fodder a bit less often.

Edited December 12, 2019 by JBJ

[Zavala 1384]

On 12/12/2019 at 4:23 PM, Huckleberry said:

The game would cause us to lose a team in the playoff more often than gain a team. 

Toughest road

Rematches are very tough

[tx 3 putt 76419]

a four team 'playoff' is plenty 

[Landomatic 3813]

4 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

a four team 'playoff' is plenty 

Lookin like a 3 team playoff would have been plenty this year.

[Eastwood 4394]

Yeah, but we get to see that on the field. Not a spreadsheet.

[Bill Lumbergh 7171]

Lookin like a 3 team playoff would have been plenty this year.

In a three team playoff, the first seed gets a bye in the semis, so we basically did have a three team playoff this year.

[perfectchaos007 6596]

Yeah this year a 3 team playoff would have been perfect, but a 2 team playoff would have left an undefeated power 5 team at home ( and if they won their bowl game they would have claimed to be national champion too ). I still would take 4 teams over 2 teams all day

[C-Man 27068]

Lookin like a 3 team playoff would have been plenty this year.

Just because OU doesn’t belong doesn’t mean there wasn’t somebody else worthy enough for #4.

[El Hornarino 370]

But this way we can all just assume Oregon was better than OU without having to see them actually settle it on the field.

[Surly Bevo 24697]

They need to expand the CFP

[perfectchaos007 6596]

11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

Just because OU doesn’t belong doesn’t mean there wasn’t somebody else worthy enough for #4.

 

Unfortunately if not for OU, they would have gone with the Georgia rematch.

Maybe Oregon would have put up a fight, but this year was certainly a year with a massive gap between #3 and #4

[WBT 20425]

10 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

They need to expand the CFP

Agreed, maybe LSU could have scored 100 against an even shittier team

[Js1 85122]

12 minutes ago, perfectchaos007 said:

Unfortunately if not for OU, they would have gone with the Georgia rematch.

Maybe Oregon would have put up a fight, but this year was certainly a year with a massive gap between #3 and #4

We need 8. OU should have had to play someone else to face #1 

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1084]

The bowl record is only 7 points away.

[Handcruser 2805]

Unfortunately if not for OU, they would have gone with the Georgia rematch.
Maybe Oregon would have put up a fight, but this year was certainly a year with a massive gap between #3 and #4

Not really. Say what you want about Bama, but they have the talent to compete with the top 3 with QB1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[perfectchaos007 6596]

3 minutes ago, Handcruser said:

Not really. Say what you want about Bama, but they have the talent to compete with the top 3 with QB1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Honestly, Bama was probably the 4th "best" team in the nation this year but they couldn't justifiably be ranked in the top 4 after finishing 10-2. 

[Surly Bevo 24697]

Agreed, maybe LSU could have scored 100 against an even shittier team

Fucking retarded take. That’s the whole point. How the fuck do you know that team 8 is for sure shittier than team 4. You fucking don’t. Maybe Team 8 is a rematch and if you want to say you don’t want to see that again then make that argument otherwise this is tiredhead shit.

[Surly Bevo 24697]

Agreed, maybe LSU could have scored 100 against an even shittier team

Fucking retarded take. That’s the whole point. How the fuck do you know that team 8 is for sure shittier than team 4. You fucking don’t. Maybe Team 8 is a rematch and if you want to say you don’t want to see that again then make that argument otherwise this is tiredhead shit.

[Landomatic 3813]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

Just because OU doesn’t belong doesn’t mean there wasn’t somebody else worthy enough for #4.

 

Hahaha Oregon had their shot against the T5th best team in the SEC in the regular season (you know, essentially the earlier playoff rounds) and couldn’t win.  But I’m sure they’d have given LSU a hell of a game.

[F250 28698]

22 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

Hahaha Oregon had their shot against the T5th best team in the SEC in the regular season (you know, essentially the earlier playoff rounds) and couldn’t win.  But I’m sure they’d have given LSU a hell of a game.

Eh, that was early in the season. We were competitive against LSU back then before turning into dog shit.

[Landomatic 3813]

10 minutes ago, F250 said:

Eh, that was early in the season. We were competitive against LSU back then before turning into dog shit.

So what’s the cutoff in your world for when the games should start counting?  Since we need to now dismiss early season games in order to try to make this argument.

[F250 28698]

1 minute ago, Landomatic said:

So what’s the cutoff in your world for when the games should start counting?  Since we need to now dismiss early season games in order to try to make this argument.

Didn't say there is a "need" to dismiss but clearly some teams not named the Texas Longhorns improve as the season progresses.

[Landomatic 3813]

1 hour ago, Surly Bevo said:

Fucking retarded take. That’s the whole point. How the fuck do you know that team 8 is for sure shittier than team 4. You fucking don’t. Maybe Team 8 is a rematch and if you want to say you don’t want to see that again then make that argument otherwise this is tiredhead shit.

 

How about the fact that teams 5-8 had 2-3 losses in the regular fucking season so don’t deserve to be there.  Can I make that argument?

There have been a couple years where arguing that the playoffs should be expanded may have some merit.  This year ain’t that year.  Talk about retarded takes.

[Surly Bevo 24697]

10 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

How about the fact that teams 5-8 had 2-3 losses in the regular fucking season so don’t deserve to be there.  Can I make that argument?

There have been a couple years where arguing that the playoffs should be expanded may have some merit.  This year ain’t that year.  Talk about retarded takes.

Who gives a shit if they had 2 losses if those were to good teams...and teams grow and mature over a season and some regress.  There are 130 fucking teams, letting 8 in isn't all of a sudden going to despecialize the regular season.  If a team loses to a tough opponent early in the year and then they drop a conference game in early October on the road or some shit like that but then by late October/November/December they are playing like worldbeaters....let's fucking see it when it counts.  

And yea usually the top 2 or 3 should be the ones to win, that's the way it's supposed to fucking work doesn't mean that it wouldn't be more open and more exciting to let all the champs in and say 3 at larges in on the off chance that one of them has ultimately grown in to being the best team over the course of the season. If you want the regular season to be the end all be all then just fuck off on the playoff period and let a poll decide it.

EVERY FUCKING OTHER LEVEL OF FOOTBALL PAST JR HIGH HAS A BIGGER PLAYOFF BUT YEA....I'M SURE THEY ARE ALL WRONG AND THIS IS THE WAY

Edited December 29, 2019 by Surly Bevo

[gecko 1104]

After last night we should go to a 3 team system

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

Worked out perfect.  Top seed got a bye.  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  

[Iceman 2641]

10 hours ago, Landomatic said:

So what’s the cutoff in your world for when the games should start counting?  Since we need to now dismiss early season games in order to try to make this argument.

after the last FCS team/ non P5 team is played...

 

that would be just a starting point, so to speak...

Edited December 29, 2019 by Iceman

[Landomatic 3813]

11 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

Who gives a shit if they had 2 losses if those were to good teams...and teams grow and mature over a season and some regress.  There are 130 fucking teams, letting 8 in isn't all of a sudden going to despecialize the regular season.  If a team loses to a tough opponent early in the year and then they drop a conference game in early October on the road or some shit like that but then by late October/November/December they are playing like worldbeaters....let's fucking see it when it counts.

You just completely contradicted yourself and proved why that mentality does, in fact, absolutely "despecialize the regular season."  Who cares if a team has 2 losses...let's see it when it counts...literally the definition of taking the emphasis off the regular season.

Quote

And yea usually the top 2 or 3 should be the ones to win, that's the way it's supposed to fucking work doesn't mean that it wouldn't be more open and more exciting to let all the champs in and say 3 at larges in on the off chance that one of them has ultimately grown in to being the best team over the course of the season. If you want the regular season to be the end all be all then just fuck off on the playoff period and let a poll decide it.

Two can play at that game.  If you want the playoffs to be the be-all-end-all, then why not open the playoffs up to the top 32 teams?  Since that's when it really counts.  Hell, why not 64?  That would give half the teams a shot when it really counts.  Then just fuck off on the regular season period and let the playoff decide it.

Quote

EVERY FUCKING OTHER LEVEL OF FOOTBALL PAST JR HIGH HAS A BIGGER PLAYOFF BUT YEA....I'M SURE THEY ARE ALL WRONG AND THIS IS THE WAY

And that's part of what makes college football so special.  Every game matters.  All season long.  None of this, "hell all you have to do is get above 500" bullshit.  None of this, "just win your division and you're in" bullshit.  Cowboys/Eagles...exhibit A.

[Landomatic 3813]

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

after the last FCS team/ non P5 team is played...

that would be just a starting point, so to speak...

So Oregon's early loss to Auburn would count then, thereby eliminating them from the playoffs (with their other loss to Arizona State)...got it.

[WBT 20425]

11 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

If you want the regular season to be the end all be all then just fuck off on the playoff period and let a poll decide it.

Who do I need to talk to to make this happen?

[SunUvAbitchMarcos 129]

Who do I need to talk to to make this happen?

PM Derka


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BurntOrange&White 39668]

Agreed, maybe LSU could have scored 100 against an even shittier team

It’s not about the 1 or 2 it’s about the 3 and 4 more so than anything.

[BurntOrange&White 39668]

How does letting in all 5 power conference champions make the regular season less meaningful? If anything it puts more pressure on regular season and winning your conference. Allowing the highest ranked G5 team in allows for no anti trust law suits and incentives the entire g5 landscape and Theo regular season. Having 2 at large teams incentives all 130 fbs teams season to do as well as they can in the regular season.

[Js1 85122]

I guess the NFL should get rid of the wildcard spots. They don’t deserve it apparently. 

[Disco Missile 456]

Numerous articles out today talking about how the LSU - OU game is evidence that 4 is the right number. It's the easier point to make than arguing for expansion, certainly - at least right now.

I'm not seeing the appetite for expanding like there was during the BCS era.

[aggie08 21436]

10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I guess the NFL should get rid of the wildcard spots. They don’t deserve it apparently. 

To be fair, a big reason why the wild card exists is to get actual good teams--like Seattle or San Fran--in since allowing all division winners to participate sometimes produces shit teams like Philly.

[Iceman 2641]

22 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

How does letting in all 5 power conference champions make the regular season less meaningful? If anything it puts more pressure on regular season and winning your conference. Allowing the highest ranked G5 team in allows for no anti trust law suits and incentives the entire g5 landscape and Theo regular season. Having 2 at large teams incentives all 130 fbs teams season to do as well as they can in the regular season.

no.  That would be too bold...

LOLz, I mean virtually every other sports league and level of competitive football does it, but the NCAA and Lando like their aggy-like cult way of settling the champeenships.

never reward coaching and team development.  Always penalize injuries. Reward the teams with every advantage.

See also: discourage great non-con scheduling.  Reward FCS teams on your schedule.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Iceman

[Landomatic 3813]

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

no.  That would be too bold...

Your simple-minded takes couldn't be more off base and lacking in common sense.

Quote

I mean virtually every other sports league and level of competitive football does it

You mean every other sports league and segment of football that has less emphasis on the regular season?  Again, it's part what makes college football so unique.

Quote

the NCAA and Lando like their aggy-like cult way of settling the champeenships

How is having the CLEAR best 4 teams play it off each year, an aggy-like cult way of settling championships?  And yeah, it's just me and the NCAA controlling everything.

Quote

never reward coaching and team development

Great coaching and team development starts at the beginning of the year and continues throughout the year.

Quote

Always penalize injuries

What the fuck does this even mean?  You mean like Alabama?  Injuries are part of the game for every team and will have an impact on your season regardless of playoff size.

Quote

Reward the teams with every advantage

Welcome to the real world, son.  Advantages come with rewards in life.  But maybe I'm just not following you on this one.  Oh, this must be one of those...but, but, but G5 ploys?  Yeah, Memphis really showed they deserved a shot at the National Fucking Championship yesterday against Penn State.  Maybe Memphis just didn't want to be there?  Or was there some other poor little old me team in the top 8 this year that suffers from all these horrible disadvantages that you think could give LSU/Clemson a run for their money?  Or are you just acting like an entitled millennial twat?

Quote

See also: discourage great non-con scheduling.  Reward FCS teams on your schedule.

If all you have to do is win your conference to get into the CFP, there is literally zero incentive to schedule anything but cupcakes out of conference.  If anything, this argument works against you, not for you.  You think team A in fill-in-the-blank conference is going to suddenly start scheduling a really hard pre-conference schedule, risking injury and losses, on the outside shot that they win them all and it helps for their shot at the 2 at large spots while their conference mate, team B schedules patsies, stays healthy, wins them all and goes into the conference schedule healthy and rested in hopes of winning the conference?  Not going to happen.

[Iceman 2641]

win which conference?

 

You cannot even answer that...  i mean you will because you're full of shit, but you cannot legitimately answer that.

[Landomatic 3813]

13 minutes ago, Iceman said:

win which conference?

You cannot even answer that...  i mean you will because you're full of shit, but you cannot legitimately answer that.

Any P5 under the expansion scenario.