I was always an advocate of a 16-team playoff, but the 4-team format has worked so well that I no longer am. No one can argue that college basketball has profited from a 68-team tournament. Regular season games are irrelevant when you have seven or eight teams from a conferene making the tournament. When college football goes to 12, Michigan, Ohio State and others can literally schedule themselves into the 10-2 record that will be required. Nowadays, you have to win big games against top opponents to have a hope of getting in.......And the 4-team playoff does not conflict with the NFL, whereas a 12-team playoff inevitably would at some point. The FCS has no bowl system; the 32 teams that get in the playoffs are the only ones with a postseason. Their tournament has a lot of early blowouts, and the expansion of the tournament has not brought parity. If they feel their tournament works for them, that's fine, but it's too much football.
You insist on writing about "watered down playoffs".........leave the amateurs alone and concentrate on the money-grubbing professionals.
Proof the 4-team CFP doesn't work -- They couldn't find room for #5 Alabama [would rightly only make an 8 team CFP], and were desperately trying to find an excuse to leave TCU out. Then looked correct when they lost to K-State.
Get rid of the conference championship games and partner up with the bowl games. Use automatic bids and a Pairwise [college hockey] approach......and play it like the lower divisions of college football play it.
The powers that be never want change.........for good reason. Lots of excitement [and yes, blowouts....] and lots of money to be made with an expanded playoff.
I used to agree with your view [if I see it correctly]. But the year Alabama got into the 2 team CFP game...despite losing to LSU earlier in the season [at LSU].....I didn't watch it. I knew there was a better way. Nice try with the 4-team CFP. Screw it.......12, than 16, than 24............32??? Invitational 8 team???
With varying budgets and 132 teams......gotta be flexible.
I had trouble following that one, but the committee wasn't "desperately trying to find an excuse" to leave TCU out. I also don't remember a 2-team CFP. That Bama-LSU game was a BCS final....I also don't see any way that the CFP hasn't worked. The only reason people don't like it is that the same teams always get there. That's because they're the best teams. Some years, four teams are too many....Philosophically I agree that the 16-team FCS team is the purest system, but I can't imagine the CFP settling for homefield games in the first 3 rounds. Under a 16-team playoff, a college team would conceivably play 17 games. That's an NFL schedule and it's too much.
I understand all your points and excuse my mis-labeling of the playoffs. BCS, CFP, etc..
Why can 24 and 32 team playoffs "work" in the other levels of college football....and not in the FBS?? The difference, besides skill level, is the money. Right?
Well, a lot more money can be made with a 12-16 team playoff. The NCAA, TV, etc.. will love 12 teams and eventually expand to 16....because of the popularity and the boat loads of money.
South Dakota State University - FCS Champs 14-1. NFL-like schedule. Maybe even a handful of NFL draftees.
Thank you for your input and I enjoy your work. Thanks.........
I was always an advocate of a 16-team playoff, but the 4-team format has worked so well that I no longer am. No one can argue that college basketball has profited from a 68-team tournament. Regular season games are irrelevant when you have seven or eight teams from a conferene making the tournament. When college football goes to 12, Michigan, Ohio State and others can literally schedule themselves into the 10-2 record that will be required. Nowadays, you have to win big games against top opponents to have a hope of getting in.......And the 4-team playoff does not conflict with the NFL, whereas a 12-team playoff inevitably would at some point. The FCS has no bowl system; the 32 teams that get in the playoffs are the only ones with a postseason. Their tournament has a lot of early blowouts, and the expansion of the tournament has not brought parity. If they feel their tournament works for them, that's fine, but it's too much football.
You insist on writing about "watered down playoffs".........leave the amateurs alone and concentrate on the money-grubbing professionals.
Proof the 4-team CFP doesn't work -- They couldn't find room for #5 Alabama [would rightly only make an 8 team CFP], and were desperately trying to find an excuse to leave TCU out. Then looked correct when they lost to K-State.
Get rid of the conference championship games and partner up with the bowl games. Use automatic bids and a Pairwise [college hockey] approach......and play it like the lower divisions of college football play it.
The powers that be never want change.........for good reason. Lots of excitement [and yes, blowouts....] and lots of money to be made with an expanded playoff.
I used to agree with your view [if I see it correctly]. But the year Alabama got into the 2 team CFP game...despite losing to LSU earlier in the season [at LSU].....I didn't watch it. I knew there was a better way. Nice try with the 4-team CFP. Screw it.......12, than 16, than 24............32??? Invitational 8 team???
With varying budgets and 132 teams......gotta be flexible.
I had trouble following that one, but the committee wasn't "desperately trying to find an excuse" to leave TCU out. I also don't remember a 2-team CFP. That Bama-LSU game was a BCS final....I also don't see any way that the CFP hasn't worked. The only reason people don't like it is that the same teams always get there. That's because they're the best teams. Some years, four teams are too many....Philosophically I agree that the 16-team FCS team is the purest system, but I can't imagine the CFP settling for homefield games in the first 3 rounds. Under a 16-team playoff, a college team would conceivably play 17 games. That's an NFL schedule and it's too much.
I understand all your points and excuse my mis-labeling of the playoffs. BCS, CFP, etc..
Why can 24 and 32 team playoffs "work" in the other levels of college football....and not in the FBS?? The difference, besides skill level, is the money. Right?
Well, a lot more money can be made with a 12-16 team playoff. The NCAA, TV, etc.. will love 12 teams and eventually expand to 16....because of the popularity and the boat loads of money.
South Dakota State University - FCS Champs 14-1. NFL-like schedule. Maybe even a handful of NFL draftees.
Thank you for your input and I enjoy your work. Thanks.........