88% of FBS Athletic Directors Want an Expanded College Football Playoff

[theboardref]

Even in an 8 team playoff all teams will have multiple weeks off. I'd be fine doing away with conference championship games anyways. Leagues are so unbalanced these days you can have a team like Utah get to 11 wins having beaten nobody good, and then a team like Oregon gets credit for beating them, and jumping ahead of a team like Auburn, which is lost too and had a better overall resume despite having an additional loss.

Maybe I am in the minority, but I think pushing the importance of winning your conference is more important than adding 4 teams. Put more emphasis on conference titles and make it a virtual extension of the playoffs.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I still say use the BCS to pick the top 2 teams and if there are 3/4 worthy team it enacts the popular ‘plus one’ system in place that was pitched years ago. Unfortunately, while the plus one system is great on paper, if isn’t practical in terms of securing sites, ticket sales, and a ton of other issues.

I just don't like that the playoff essentially ruined the BCS Bowls. It's now playoff or bust and that's not really what CFB was about before. There were good bowls that were celebrated as accomplishments without being one of the two teams playing for a title. Now kids are seeing that and skipping the bowls.

 

[theboardref]

I just don't like that the playoff essentially ruined the BCS Bowls. It's now playoff or bust and that's not really what CFB was about before. There were good bowls that were celebrated as accomplishments without being one of the two teams playing for a title. Now kids are seeing that and skipping the bowls.

That is why I am saying, an 8 team playoff would make anything less pointless. Ratings and revenue from all other games would plummet.

 

[cwalke3408]

huh?

Are you saying that expanding the playoffs would take away from OOC upsets? It literally adds more chance for them and given that the OOC teams are making an expanded playoff, it means you won't get to play Mercer or Citadel and actually would have to play at least somewhat decent OOC opponents. And all things considered, OOC regular season games aren't that important anyway, so how would it make them less important. They are only important in terms of being undefeated for national title purposes in which case they are equally important to those that would be played in the expanding playoff.

With few exceptions, most P5 teams most difficult games are in conference every year and those games would still be played all the same and actually matter.

I’m just saying bye bye to games like Auburn/Oregon, OSU/Oregon, Texas/LSU, what was once a playoff type game is now just an exhibition. Sure we probably get these games back with the expansion but do I want to wait til December for that?

Also say good bye to all the great upsets we love to tune into. No more ASU over Oregon, KSU over OU, UNC near upset over Clemson because those don’t matter anymore because we are now giving out freebies

 

[theboardref]

I’m just saying bye bye to games like Auburn/Oregon, OSU/Oregon, Texas/LSU, what was once a playoff type game is now just an exhibition. Sure we probably get these games back with the expansion but do I want to wait til December for that?

Also say good bye to all the great upsets we love to tune into. No more ASU over Oregon, KSU over OU, UNC near upset over Clemson because those don’t matter anymore because we are now giving out freebies

Some schools already duck playing in big games as it is. It would depend on how much SOS is factored into being a playoff team. Although the ‘committee’ gerrymanders their beliefs on SOS to fit their agenda on a week by week basis.

 

[ericd7633]

Maybe I am in the minority, but I think pushing the importance of winning your conference is more important than adding 4 teams. Put more emphasis on conference titles and make it a virtual extension of the playoffs.

Sure if you are in a good league. It will all but guarantee a spot in the CFP. But I don't wanna see a team like UVA from last year getting into an 8 team playoff, at the expense of a team like UGA, Wisconsin etc. Because they managed to upset a team like Clemson.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

That is why I am saying, an 8 team playoff would make anything less pointless. Ratings and revenue from all other games would plummet.

Maybe, I think it would be better than the 4. At least you get more important bowl games again. Theoretically you could make 4 "BCS bowls" just be the playoff. The B10 could get an auto bid to the rose, for instance, and re-kindle that tie-in. At least bring back some semblance of what was good about the old system.

 

[theboardref]

Sure if you are in a good league. It will all but guarantee a spot in the CFP. But I don't wanna see a team like UVA from last year getting into an 8 team playoff, at the expense of a team like UGA, Wisconsin etc. Because they managed to upset a team like Clemson.

Fair point, but that doesn’t mean Virginia would have gotten in. Although it is a fair point.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Beat good teams/no losses/play a good schedule/"good" losses.

Well that's part of the problem. I agree that having no losses is the absolute best thing any team can do to make a case for anything, but schedules are made well in advance and what looked good might not by the time it rolls around. Like-wise due to stupid ass preseason rankings. A team could play 4-5 ranked teams, but only 1 of those teams was good enough to finish ranked. Too subjective, open to interpretation and error in my opinion.

 

[theboardref]

Well that's part of the problem. I agree that having no losses is the absolute best thing any team can do to make a case for anything, but schedules are made well in advance and what looked good might not by the time it rolls around. Like-wise due to stupid ass preseason rankings. A team could play 4-5 ranked teams, but only 1 of those teams was good enough to finish ranked. Too subjective, open to interpretation and error in my opinion.

I absolutely agree with the pre-season ranking argument. I think part of what causes these to remain are, how else are the average fan going to know what game they are supposed to watch without a team being assigned a numerical value.

 

[broncosmitty]

Presidents control what happens. The ADs do not get a vote.

:useful:

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I’m just saying bye bye to games like Auburn/Oregon, OSU/Oregon, Texas/LSU, what was once a playoff type game is now just an exhibition. Sure we probably get these games back with the expansion but do I want to wait til December for that?

Also say good bye to all the great upsets we love to tune into. No more ASU over Oregon, KSU over OU, UNC near upset over Clemson because those don’t matter anymore because we are now giving out freebies

For starters, do you want to wait til December? Yes, those games will have significantly more meaning and nonetheless would still happen. I also think there is little to no evidence to suggest that teams would simply stop scheduling decent opponents throughout their non-con even in this circumstance. Hell, rarely do teams schedule more than 1 quality opponent in their non-con anyway and even if they did give that up, I think giving up ONE would be game to allow for TWO or more good games on the back end is more beneficial.

Secondly, all of those examples you gave were conference and conference games will still matter. Hell, conference games have always mattered more than non-con. Yes, losing one won't necessarily expel you from contention... but it doesn't now anyway. I don't understand how you are making this connection, how would conference (or noncon upsets for that matter) cease to happen with an expanded playoff?

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I absolutely agree with the pre-season ranking argument. I think part of what causes these to remain are, how else are the average fan going to know what game they are supposed to watch without a team being assigned a numerical value.

I get what you are saying, but that is a stupid as fuck argument. Not calling you stupid, but if fans out there are having these stupid blank stares because they don't know what to do because a number isn't next to a teams name is ridiculous. Hype the programs, not the number. Personally and this is a bad example, but whenever I watched OU/NU I never cared about them saying this is #1 vs #2 or whatever... I LOVED seeing them going through the historical nature of the game. Honestly the opening montage they are likely to show for the upcoming OU/NU game is one of the top things I am looknig forward to seeing. Fuck the Avengers, I want that!! lol. This could be done with most non-con P5 match ups to a degree. Hype the event, the teams, the program history, the previous games against each other history, etc. And you can still hype all of the stuff mentioned for games of P5 schools that have never played each other with the lone exception of previous game history. Again, this is personal to me. As a fan I LOVE when they do the opening clips and history of whoever the two teams are.

Hell, I mean ESPN makes entire shows throughout the week doing this. They don't need numbers next to the teams of teams to hype games up. They are supposed to be expert analysts after all.


Not to mention that with the way streaming and info is shared nowadays, you can catch a lot more plays/games/highlights/etc than you could before.

 

[theboardref]

@Blackshirts BLVD I have no idea if that IS the argument used, but I don’t know any argument that doesn’t revolve around viewership. Some may argue it is so people have something to talk about, which I think is stupid because not having rankings actually adds a ton more to the college football conversation.

 

[The_Jer]

I would rather it be conditional qualifiers as opposed to AQ:
- Reserve 5 spots for the P5 conference champs, but place a requirement that they must be in the top 15 of the final CFP poll.
- Reserve 1 spot for the highest ranked G5 conference champ, but place a requirement that they must be in the top 12 of the final CFP poll
- Use a BCS type of ranking system that combines computer polls with the Playoff Committee ranking to form the final CFP rankings.
- If teams in the playoff have traditional bowl affiliations, have them play in those venues if possible regardless of "seeding". For example, Big 12 vs SEC in the sugar, Pac-12 vs Big 10 in rose
- Use current big 6 bowls for quarters and semis. Quarters played on new years day, semis a week later at the two locations not used on new years, and bid the champ game to the highest bidder

 

[theboardref]

- If teams in the playoff have traditional bowl affiliations, have them play in those venues if possible regardless of "seeding". For example, Big 12 vs SEC in the sugar, Pac-12 vs Big 10 in rose

I think that is a terrible idea. If a conference champion sucks and you have virtually a 4 vs 20 game and you have the Rose Bowl with 1 vs 2, in what world is this just?

 

[Deep Creek]

Just pick the 8 most deserving, regardless of conference, if that means 3/4 SEC teams so be it.

Okay by me. I'd also rather see first round games on campus. Maybe even 2nd round. Hell, teams go into hostile environments several times each season.

 

[Deep Creek]

So now, on a yearly basis we will have teams getting a guaranteed bye before the playoffs because they weren’t good enough to play for a conference title?

Good point. Only 2 out of 24 (Bama '17 and Ohio State '16) have had that luxury in the CFP era.

 

[Deep Creek]

You mean the thing that has only happened once under the current model?

Once... yeah, once in only 6 years so far.

Good point. Only 2 out of 24 (Bama '17 and Ohio State '16) have had that luxury in the CFP era.

 

[theboardref]

Forgot OSU.