‘We don’t need to wait another six years’: College football leaders ready to discuss eight-team Play

ZB4CY

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2012
2,801
4,526
113
A really good article from The Athletic that was published today in regards to expansion.

I think it's closer than many of us may think. The big wigs in college football are talking more and more about it. I think we could see a change in the next year or 2 and going to an 8 team playoff.

Here is a snidbit from the article:


"The first four years of the College Football Playoff were considered a success. The four-team format has been more universally accepted than the old BCS system, and it has kept fans engaged throughout the country. But ahead of Year 5’s national semifinals featuring Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame and Oklahoma, there is a sense of growing discontent with certain aspects of the CFP system, including the selection committee’s deference to the SEC and what some consider unfair treatment of UCF.

Now, a number of influential voices in college football are calling for a serious look at expansion.

There is a groundswell of support to expedite expansion before the end of the CFP’s initial 12-year contract with ESPN in 2026, with many telling The Athletic they support an eight-team format.

“It’s an appropriate thing to begin thinking about,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told The Athletic this week.

There have been a number of informal conversations involving college football’s most important power brokers in recent weeks and months. The growing concern is that a system designed to nationalize the sport of college football — including a championship game that is played at different venues and will be held in the Bay Area for the first time this season — is being undermined and regionalized with teams from the Southeast regularly playing each other.

“Everyone has the same feeling; expansion is inevitable,” said Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez, who served on the CFP’s selection committee from 2014-2016. “When you can do it, and I think we need to serve more people. I think four was the right way to get started. In my opinion, we need to take a look of adding more teams into the Playoff, giving more opportunities. ..."

Being it is a pay site, I don't want to post the whole article. It's worth taking a read, though.

https://theathletic.com/708538/2018/12/12/college-football-playoff-expansion-eight-team-support/
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
25,038
37,157
113
Waukee
Posted this before, but I have always thought this simple and a winner...

5 P5 champions with auto-bids
3 at-large (so there you can get ND or BYU)
limit of 2 teams per conference (looking at you, SEC)
top G5 team guaranteed a spot
(maybe has to hit a certain ranking threshold... 15ish?)
let the stupid committee determine seeding
move teams around to avoid rematches until the championship
play the first four games at campus locations in early December
this gives huge advantages from home field for the top four
winners go into essentially what is the current system
losers get paired off into consolation bowl games
huge profits

* * *​

This season would be...

1 Alabama
Tuscaloosa
8 U-Dub

4 Oklahoma
Norman
5 Georgia

3 Notre Dame
South Bend
6 Ohio State

2 Clemson
Clemson
7 UCF

(maybe switch UGA and Ohio State to avoid the possibility of a rematch between Alabama and UGA in the second round, but the point remains the same)
 

jbindm

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2010
13,073
7,604
113
Des Moines
Agreed on the eight team format, although I'm not sure it would solve the UCF problem. I don't think there should be an auto bid for a G5 program simply because there isn't necessarily a worthy team in that group every season.
And who's to say that by expanding the field to eight the committee wouldn't just continue to select one or two loss P5 programs over an undefeated G5 team? It wouldn't be that difficult for them to justify.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Acylum

ZB4CY

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2012
2,801
4,526
113
Agreed on the eight team format, although I'm not sure it would solve the UCF problem. I don't think there should be an auto bid for a G5 program simply because there isn't necessarily a worthy team in that group every season.
And who's to say that by expanding the field to eight the committee wouldn't just continue to select one or two loss P5 programs over an undefeated G5 team? It wouldn't be that difficult for them to justify.

I would say an auto bid for a G5 team, depending on ranking at end of year. Such as must be in Top 15 or Top 10.. I think there needs to be a bar set so you're not getting an 8-4 Memphis whose ranked 23rd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbindm

ArgentCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
20,387
11,176
113
Posted this before, but I have always thought this simple and a winner...

5 P5 champions with auto-bids
3 at-large (so there you can get ND or BYU)
limit of 2 teams per conference (looking at you, SEC)
top G5 team guaranteed a spot
(maybe has to hit a certain ranking threshold... 15ish?)
let the stupid committee determine seeding
move teams around to avoid rematches until the championship
play the first four games at campus locations in early December
this gives huge advantages from home field for the top four
winners go into essentially what is the current system
losers get paired off into consolation bowl games
huge profits

* * *​

This season would be...

1 Alabama
Tuscaloosa
8 U-Dub

4 Oklahoma
Norman
5 Georgia

3 Notre Dame
South Bend
6 Ohio State

2 Clemson
Clemson
7 UCF

(maybe switch UGA and Ohio State to avoid the possibility of a rematch between Alabama and UGA in the second round, but the point remains the same)

This is obviously the way to go so expect the money to screw it up badly.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: bthebutcher

cyfanatic13

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 19, 2008
11,099
9,842
113
You mean the persuasive essay I wrote as a sophomore in high school saying we need an 8 team with 5 auto bids and 3 at large was right all along? Crazy that a dumb 16 year old had it figured out before way before the big wigs did
 

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
61,899
56,540
113
Not exactly sure.
Can we get bowlsby to oversee the BCS type system? Seeing how he basically sits on his duff and screws stuff up, this should be harder to botch and we can also get a Commish who does his job.
 

Prone2Clone

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2006
9,891
9,202
113
“Everyone has the same feeling; expansion is inevitable,” said Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez, who served on the CFP’s selection committee from 2014-2016. “When you can do it, and I think we need to serve more people. I think four was the right way to get started. In my opinion, we need to take a look of adding more teams into the Playoff, giving more opportunities since the Big Ten got left out two years in a row. Four teams is total bull****."
 

cyfanatic13

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 19, 2008
11,099
9,842
113
Why would conference championship games need to be cut? And then how would you decide who gets the conference autobid if say a B1G west Wisconsin and a B1G east Ohio state don’t play each other but both go 9-0 in conference play?
 

BillBrasky4Cy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 10, 2013
15,402
28,041
113
Although I'm in favor of expanding to 8 teams, be careful what you wish for. This will be setup for the SEC to get 4 teams annually... I can't see the committee going with the Conference champ autobids like we are all hoping for because it makes sense...
 

Daserop

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2011
5,637
1,880
113
The Bebop
If I was at the top, and could do whatever I wanted, here is what I'd do. This would be specifically for football only.

1. Max teams in conference 10.
2. True round robin (like current Big 12) setup.
3. 3 non-conference games.
4. Cannot play FCS teams.
5. 1 of the 3 non-conference games must be against an opponent in a "Power Conference"
6. Due to #2 eliminate "conference title game" gaining another week for an 8 team playoff.
 

aeroclone

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2006
9,808
5,832
113
8 makes sense. I'd say either top 8 by the BCS formula or 5 auto bids for conference champs then 3 at large based on highest remaining teams in BCS rankings. The general key for me is getting away from the selection committee. The committee has been a disaster.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2Xclone

jbindm

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2010
13,073
7,604
113
Des Moines
“Everyone has the same feeling; expansion is inevitable,” said Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez, who served on the CFP’s selection committee from 2014-2016. “When you can do it, and I think we need to serve more people. I think four was the right way to get started. In my opinion, we need to take a look of adding more teams into the Playoff, giving more opportunities since the Big Ten got left out two years in a row. Four teams is total bull****."

They can leave the Big Ten out every year for all I care, but otherwise I agree.
 

Frak

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 27, 2009
10,786
6,007
113
Just make the conference title games for P5 auto bid. Other 3 are at-large. There would have to be restrictions for the at-large teams such as they need to be in the top 12 in the rankings, 2 teams max from any one conference, G5 gets one spot as long as they are ranked high enough. First round games are either at on-campus stadiums or higher ranked team gets to pick the stadium (Northern teams could pick closest dome if they want).

That would work pretty well and the teams left out wouldn't have nearly the argument that UGA, UCF, tOSU have this year. I'd actually settle for 6 right now and let the top 2 teams get byes.

BTW, the ONLY reason this is coming out right now is that the Big 10 has been left out two years in a row.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron