Not saying they would just give up. Just saying it adds another level to the hype of November. We got so much hype for knocking UT and Clem out of the playoffs. Go ask clem fans if they would trade their ACCG win to have that USC game back and a spot in the playoff. Every game those teams in contention for the playoff is under a microscope. Every week you're watching the bubble, watching the first/last in and out.
The Excitement Over The NCAA Tournament (Big Dance) Foreshadows What Will Result In The Coming Expanded College Football Playoffs.
- Thread starter gamecock stock
- Start date
In turn it makes the regular season far less meaningful/interesting. Few regular season games will carry much intensity anymore. You know you can absorb a few losses and still make the playoffs. That's what made college football unique. For instance, no longer will an Alabama/LSU be an intense regular season matchup with a lot/everything on the line. I love that teams are playing in September and October for a shot at the title. Won't be the case any longer. There's not much better than watching a white knuckle, regular season college football game, knowing that a win sets one team for a shot and the knocks the other team out. Bid that a fond farewell.
It's funny. The playoffs were used to justify opt outs. Now opt outs are used to justify expanding the playoffs. That's some circular reasoning right there.
While I agree with that SOMEWHAT, for me it will make the regular season more meaningful. We can be knocked out to likely win the SEC early in the season (probably by Georgia who we usually play early). But after that, we still have a chance at making the playoffs.
But until you get to 3 losses, no individual game will mean a whole lot.
Different strokes for different folks I guess. Even if we were to make a 16-team playoff, which is where we are heading, I won't be able to convince myself we're deserving of making a playoff. I guess that's the difference between me and the pro-playoff expansion crows. I'm just not willing to redefine reality/truth. But, hey, we redefine lots of truths these days.
Playoff expansion necessarily comes at the expense of the meaningful nature of the regular season. No way around it.
Last edited:
That's life or, as a former collegiate Athletic Director whom I worked with in the late 1970s and early 80s used to often say to me: that's what makes the world go around.
Last edited:
I think FCS has a 24-team playoff. But I get the idea.
Yes, anytime anyone reasonably argues against patently absurd ideas, the "angry old man" gig makes an appearance.
I tell you, I will laugh my butt off if we manage to put together a magical season and ascend to the top of the polls, only to get knocked out of the "playoffs" by 4-loss Fresno State. Because that it is exactly what would happen.
You'll get the angry old man when "everyone that doesn't agree with you is stupid".
Well, there are certain things for which that line of reasoning is true.
If you don't think we landed on the moon, you're objectively stupid
If you think the earth is flat, you're objectively stupid.
If you believe in playoff expansion, you're objectively stupid.
Also it's funny to me that people are saying "Make it like the NFL! They have playoffs!" and "Make it like FCS! FCS has byes!" but also saying "Get rid of the byes!" Uhhh, the NFL has byes. The FCS has byes.
Thinking about it objectively, all a playoff does is generate excitement and interest. In most cases, only the top 4 seeded teams (pick your sport) play at the end for the title.
I agree with this. But it does weed out those other top seeds that might not have been as good though. There's only been one final 4 with all 1s. It kind of helps solve the issue of unbalanced conferences.
Whether or not anyone wants the expanded playoffs, guess what? It is coming. Many of us will enjoy watching them. The bowls on the otherhand.....who cares?
I read an interesting piece, where the author suggested that you may see a lot less of the opt outs for the teams that are in the playoffs, since not only are the games meaningful, it's an opportunity to further showcase their talents.
Interesting take.
The only way I could get on board with playoff expansion is if they made it 24 teams and got rid of all other bowl games. 24 teams go to the postseason, that's it.
I agree with this. Also, if you opt out of a playoff game that's going to be a point of contention during your combine interviews.
Bob Wetzel in that long-ago article suggested that the FBS playoffs should be conducted outside of the bowls. And teams who lose in the early playoff rounds should be allowed to accept a bowl bid if they wish. And under this arrangement, those bows which remain, okay, good for them.
There are probably other superficial similarities as well. Players of both wear footwear, for example.Well, they both have nets.
So in that scenario we'd have 8 byes, which would equate to 23 bowl games that make up the playoff. I'm good with that. As for the rest of the bowls, I honestly don't care. If someone wants to throw in millions to create a bowl nobody cares about, go for it. I'll watch, or not watch. The only ones that will matter are the 23 in the playoff.
The NCAA does not operate the Bowls, it does certify their right to host NCAA teams and ensures they meet minimum standards of governance.
The host cities would determine if they wish to continue hosting a bowl game in the future.
Yes, I'm aware. The FBS conferences that control the CFP could figure something out to make it happen.
Each football game carries a lot more weight than a basketball game. You couldn't play two or three football games every week of a season. There's a clue in there as to the relative weight of a given football game versus a given basketball game.
Proportionately greater physical commitment is required to play each football game, as well as the far more planning and mental preparation.
These factors mitigate against wholesale playoff games for football. The unworthy need to be preempted to a greater extent in football than in basketball. Football is inherently too much more demanding.
I feel that any Top 10 team on a given day could win and win it all. Now I believe it's a stretch to say teams outside the Top 10 could win it all. Is it possible someone outside the Top 10 could win it all? Sure. Is it probable? No. I am happy to see the expansion to 12. It gives us a chance . And if we are a Top 10 team (Spurrier proved we have that potential), anything can happen in a playoff.
You make very valid points, However, FSC uses a multiple playoff model as the NFL. I'm not engaged enough to go on to a full debate about the merits and/or deficiencies of this proposal.
Once again, I'm not ready to state that this proposed model is doomed to failure, or will be a success.
We shall have to wait and see. Any prediction has a 50/50 chance of becoming a truism.
I believe it would be unwise, unfair, and unsafe to impose the kinds of demands upon college players that a dramatically expanded format would impose, especially for the teams that remain involved throughout the most games.
Do you feel the same way when it pertains to FCS schools ? The format they incorporate is currently using 24 teams
I find it difficult to understand how some are opposed to expanded playoffs due to demand on the student athlete, yet
silence concerning the playoff format for FCS schools.
I'm not advocating or dismissing either scenario, just trying to understand the juxtaposition of the argument.
It's a huge difference. Nothing college football can come up with could ever equate to the NCAAT. There can be no college football equivalent for FDU knocking off Purdue. THAT is what makes March Madness. Seeing teams who you've never or barely heard of get a shot against the big boys. is the whole point Even if a 16 knocks of the #1 in a 16-team CFP, it won't carry a fraction of the excitement that comes with an FDU or Princeton or Furman winning in the first round.
Exactly. Is the NCAA beginning to realize how many $$$ they are leaving on the table with this arrangement?
A #16 defeating a #1 in round 1 of the FBS playoffs on #1's home turf would be more shocking than exciting.
I'm looking at this from the question: is going to a 12-team playoff good for the University of South Carolina football program. Under the current system, we, for the most part, have to win the SEC conference. Yes you can sneak in without the conference championship. But, there has been a bias against bringing in more than one team from a conference. On3 back tested would SC have gotten into a 12-team playoff in the past had it been in place. They found we would have made it 2 times. I'm sure that would have been in the Spurrier era. I'm sure that would have been in the 2011-2013 timeframe when we finished 8th. 7th and 4th in the nation.
I look at how SC has and would have done under both a 4-team playoff and a 12-team playoff: Current System SC in playoffs: 0
12-team playoff SC in playoffs: 2
So, I just do the math: 12-team playoff: 2
4-team playoff: 0
When our coaches go out to recruit and say come to SC. We can win a national championship. The recruits will laugh at us and say that we can't even make the playoffs. In a 12-team playoff, when we make the playoffs, they won't laugh. Regardless whether a 12-team playoff is good overall for college football (I happen to believe it is because of the national interest it will generate, which means more money from the networks), I look at it from South Carolina's perspective. There is no doubt that it is good for South Carolina football.
Last edited:
I respect your perspective. I'm looking at it from consistency across the NCAA and all divisions.