What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CFP recommended to expand to 12-team model

TSchekler

Club Member
Club Member
Six highest ranked Conference Champions, not all P5 + 1 G5. That's important as Pac 12 would have been left out in 2020 due to Oregon finishing ranked 25th. Granted, I can't imagine we'll see that actually happen in most years
 

skibum

Did not pee on the Alamo.
Club Member

Pros:
- More money
- Introducing additional rounds includes more opportunities for upsets
- G5 teams will finally learn that they really don't actually belong in the MNC discussion
- Teams will be more willing to schedule quality opponents in non-conference play

Cons:
- More money (yes, this is probably, overall, a con - I don't believe that adding more money to college football is, on it's own merits, a good idea)
- Regular season is no longer as important (this is why the last point on "pros" is true: the payday will now outweigh the risk of a loss).
- The bowl system is will mostly die (a few will hold on and return to what they were back in the day: exhibition games between interesting teams - but mid-tier teams without something (big name, history, tradition, or, well, gimmick offense/defense) to attract attention will no longer have the opportunity to play in bowl games).

Of the cons, the regular season meaning less might be the biggest. Thinking back to the 80s-90s, how many times was the opportunity for a national championship won or lost in a regular season game in Boulder or Lincoln? Knowing that the loser of the game is simply out of championship picture creates a much different atmosphere than "well, it will effect their playoff seed."

They ended some of our chances at a championship, and we ended some of theirs. It was glorious. And every year, we knew we'd play each other again.

Sure, they'll be a few teams that meet in the playoffs a few years in a row - and some quasi rivalries might sort of develop - but they'll die as the seeding changes and they don't play again for several years. But knowing the team that ended your run multiple times is on the schedule each and every year is just different.
 

TSchekler

Club Member
Club Member
Pros:
- More money
- Introducing additional rounds includes more opportunities for upsets
- G5 teams will finally learn that they really don't actually belong in the MNC discussion
- Teams will be more willing to schedule quality opponents in non-conference play
 

BerkeleyBuff

Club Member
Club Member
Six highest ranked Conference Champions, not all P5 + 1 G5. That's important as Pac 12 would have been left out in 2020 due to Oregon finishing ranked 25th. Granted, I can't imagine we'll see that actually happen in most years
Pretty much a freak scenario last year. They're essentially giving the P5 and highest G5 an auto-bid.

I would have preferred 8. But I get why the powers that be would shoot 8 down.
 

BerkeleyBuff

Club Member
Club Member
I don't feel like Stewart thinks some things through. The answer is because those tough OOC games make boatloads of money, don't actually hurt your odds of getting the "champ" autobid unless you play multiple really monster OOC games in one year and lose them all, and because a win in them gives you a much better argument if you don't win your conference but are vying for an at-large bid.
 

Shldr2Shldr

Club Member
Club Member
Last full CFB season, 2019, would have looked like (as far as I understand it):

8 Baylor vs 9 Wisc to play 1 LSU
7 UGA vs 10 Florida to play 2 OSU
6 Memphis vs 11 PSU to play 3 Clemson
5 Oregon vs 12 Utah to play 4 Oklahoma

Puts A TON of pressure to get one of those top 4 seeds.

Autzen getting to host a playoff game on campus would be insane.
 

FM-Buff

Club Member
Club Member
Fine with me. Buffs would’ve made it in 2016.
Four byes would’ve been the teams that made the playoffs (Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, Washington).
First round:
(12) Western Michigan @ (5) Penn State
(11) Florida State @ (6) Michigan
(10) Colorado @ (7) Oklahoma
(9) USC @ (8) Wisconsin
Seems like more fun this way.
 

FM-Buff

Club Member
Club Member
Last full CFB season, 2019, would have looked like (as far as I understand it):

11 PSU vs 12 Utah to play 1 LSU
9 Wisc vs 10 Florida to play 2 OSU
7 UGA vs 8 Baylor to play 3 Clemson
5 Oregon vs 6 Memphis to play 4 Oklahoma

Puts A TON of pressure to get one of those top 4 seeds.

Autzen getting to host a playoff game on campus would be insane.
I think it would be 5 vs 12; 6 vs 11; etc
 

Jens1893

Moderator
Club Member
Junta Member
Pros:
- More money
- Introducing additional rounds includes more opportunities for upsets
- G5 teams will finally learn that they really don't actually belong in the MNC discussion
- Teams will be more willing to schedule quality opponents in non-conference play

Cons:
- More money (yes, this is probably, overall, a con - I don't believe that adding more money to college football is, on it's own merits, a good idea)
- Regular season is no longer as important (this is why the last point on "pros" is true: the payday will now outweigh the risk of a loss).
- The bowl system is will mostly die (a few will hold on and return to what they were back in the day: exhibition games between interesting teams - but mid-tier teams without something (big name, history, tradition, or, well, gimmick offense/defense) to attract attention will no longer have the opportunity to play in bowl games).

Of the cons, the regular season meaning less might be the biggest. Thinking back to the 80s-90s, how many times was the opportunity for a national championship won or lost in a regular season game in Boulder or Lincoln? Knowing that the loser of the game is simply out of championship picture creates a much different atmosphere than "well, it will effect their playoff seed."

They ended some of our chances at a championship, and we ended some of theirs. It was glorious. And every year, we knew we'd play each other again.

Sure, they'll be a few teams that meet in the playoffs a few years in a row - and some quasi rivalries might sort of develop - but they'll die as the seeding changes and they don't play again for several years. But knowing the team that ended your run multiple times is on the schedule each and every year is just different.

I think it might well be too late already (see Clemson and Alabama), but you need to be careful to not create a system that essentially creates a closed shop at the top where the rich keep getting richer and keep enriching each other with a gap that makes it insurmountable for most to overcome.

The current system has massively strengthened the position of Alabama and Clemson to a point where they'll qualify for the playoff by default 80%+ of the time and reap the benefits that come with it (exposure, financially, recruiting) etc and that **** multiplies. Expanding the playoff may well mean we have a group of like 8 schools or so in a few years that qualify for the playoff 80%+ of the time and are therefore in a position where their floor is higher than the ceiling of 95% of all teams and it's more or less become a closed shop.
 

Jens1893

Moderator
Club Member
Junta Member
You are also possibly expanding the season by another two games meaning that some may well play a 17 game season (12 reg, 1 CCG, 4 playoff)
 

Jalapeno

Future EA Sports College Football addict.
Club Member
South Dakota State & Sam Houston State's players played in 10 FCS games including playoffs this spring and will play another 11 this fall bringing the total to 21 this year alone. If they go all the way again like they did this spring, that's 23-24 games. Where's the outrage in that case?

Six highest ranked conference champions plus six at large teams for the 12 team playoff...that is a better solution than the current CFP. I'll take that.
 

josef

Club Member
Club Member
Six highest ranked Conference Champions, not all P5 + 1 G5. That's important as Pac 12 would have been left out in 2020 due to Oregon finishing ranked 25th. Granted, I can't imagine we'll see that actually happen in most years
Oregon was ranked 10th or so going into the Fiesta bowl werent they?

Edit-- NVM Im an Idiot
 

Creebuzz

Survives on seaweed and Natty Boh.
Club Member
You are also possibly expanding the season by another two games meaning that some may well play a 17 game season (12 reg, 1 CCG, 4 playoff)
With the extra games, will the players collectively bargain for...oh never mind. They get the same deal no matter what. Maybe thrown in a few more Xbox stations in the locker room and call it a day.

I’m really hoping Saban can get to a $100 million net worth before he retires. Hate to see a man struggle in retirement.
 

Not Sure

Sets low bar, barely exceeds it.
Club Member
With the extra games, will the players collectively bargain for...oh never mind. They get the same deal no matter what. Maybe thrown in a few more Xbox stations in the locker room and call it a day.

I’m really hoping Saban can get to a $100 million net worth before he retires. Hate to see a man struggle in retirement.
I honestly wonder how much longer he stays at Alabama. I know he’s a type A personality and lives on the pressure that comes with the job, but he’s basically 70 years old at this point. Is he still coaching at 75? When he retires, there’s going to be a huge power vacuum in college football.
 

skibum

Did not pee on the Alamo.
Club Member
I think it might well be too late already (see Clemson and Alabama), but you need to be careful to not create a system that essentially creates a closed shop at the top where the rich keep getting richer and keep enriching each other with a gap that makes it insurmountable for most to overcome.

The current system has massively strengthened the position of Alabama and Clemson to a point where they'll qualify for the playoff by default 80%+ of the time and reap the benefits that come with it (exposure, financially, recruiting) etc and that **** multiplies. Expanding the playoff may well mean we have a group of like 8 schools or so in a few years that qualify for the playoff 80%+ of the time and are therefore in a position where their floor is higher than the ceiling of 95% of all teams and it's more or less become a closed shop.
You're right on this - there really is no effective mechanism to level the playing field.

At some point I think you have to have some sort of budget limit that programs have to work under.
 

4BienemyTDs

Club Member
Club Member
12 just seems like such a large jump and just way too many! Is there a magical Multi-Billion dollar secret TV deal that is gonna happen?
 

Jens1893

Moderator
Club Member
Junta Member
You're right on this - there really is no effective mechanism to level the playing field.

At some point I think you have to have some sort of budget limit that programs have to work under.

The problem with budgets in college football is that the single most important factor that decides games, the players, isn't affected by it (or at least the kind of budget that shows up in books that you can show to outsiders). Plus the more you regulate, the bigger the chance some schools decide to break away and govern themselves. And teams will find ways to spend surplus money to give them a competitive advantage.

Even if/when Dabo and Saban leave, Clemson and Alabama may have elevated themselves to a level where their floor, even when they both a coaching hire, is too high for others to reach even under perfect circumstances as the recruits will just keep flocking to them as they can essentially guarantee you a playoff spot. Clemson's and Alabama's largely unprecedented success is a direct result of having the perfect coaches at the right time when the system changed.
 

Not Sure

Sets low bar, barely exceeds it.
Club Member
The problem with budgets in college football is that the single most important factor that decides games, the players, isn't affected by it (or at least the kind of budget that shows up in books that you can show to outsiders). Plus the more you regulate, the bigger the chance some schools decide to break away and govern themselves. And teams will find ways to spend surplus money to give them a competitive advantage.

Even if/when Dabo and Saban leave, Clemson and Alabama may have elevated themselves to a level where their floor, even when they both a coaching hire, is too high for others to reach even under perfect circumstances as the recruits will just keep flocking to them as they can essentially guarantee you a playoff spot. Clemson's and Alabama's largely unprecedented success is a direct result of having the perfect coaches at the right time when the system changed.
You could be on to something there. Urban “retires” from Ohio State and they don’t miss a beat. Alabama is well suited for that kind of continued success. I’m not certain that Clemson is, though.
 
Top