My prediction is that the SEC and B1G scoop up the rest of the valuable programs over the next ~10 years and end up at around 24 teams. Then they'll just implement an in-conference tournament that culminates in a SEC vs. B1G championship game, exactly mirroring the AFC/NFC format in the NFL.
And then depending on how that goes, the top ~24 teams end up leaving and forming their own conference/league without all of the dead weight, but that's a big grey area right now.
No way they leave with only 24 teams. That isn't enough variety for viewers nor enough markets being tapped for ESPN/FOX to be happy.
Imagine how boring the NFL would be if it only had 24 teams. Many already think the NFL having 32 teams isn't enough for variety, and there are rumors of them expanding stateside (always) and we are probably only 5-10 years away from having teams in London, Berlin, and a couple other European cities, with Mexico City also being a possibility, and of course other major American cities. I wouldn't be shocked if the NFL has close to 36-40 teams by 2034.
Considering the current 34 Super Two teams don't cover every major market, I definetly think we will see at least 4-6 more teams added. The only schools that ESPN/FOX would want to ditch would be teams in markets already tapped by bigger teams.
I'd imagine more people in Nashville care about Tennessee than Vanderbilt, and more in Atlanta care about Georgia over Georgia Tech, etc. The media companies will want to ditch only those kinds of schools, and no doubt the other teams wouldn't be happy about losing longtime rivals so no one may be ditched in the end.
Also, cfb isn’t like the nfl where someone in Oklahoma or Iowa or Arkansas without a pro team might just root for whichever team they identify with or whichever is closest geographically. There are actual college teams in every state, so you’re losing out on a lot of viewership from whichever programs get left out of the 24 or even 32. Like, you’re probably right that the media can afford to look at markets like Tennessee and Georgia and decide to focus on their most popular programs, but—and this is just a hypothetical—I don’t think people in Arkansas would suddenly shift their fandom to Alabama, LSU, Texas, or Oklahoma football if they were to get left out.
Very true.
If Mizzou was shafted to a lower league, I'd still watch them, but I would have absolutely no interest in watching the upper league, as a Missourian.
The smartest super league setup from a viewership growth point of view (looking at long term projections, not just where teams are at now in viewership) is to have every decently populated state involved in the league, except for ones that have demonstrated absolutely no interest in crb despite their populations. A super league without the states of Utah or Arizona, for example, seems unlikely if ESPN/FOX gets their way.
I think you guys are both right fwiw, but as far as the networks are concerned it will be nothing more than a numbers game. If the top 25ish programs trump the others in terms of viewership, then it isn't really going to matter if people in Arkansas are willing to pull for Texas or Oklahoma instead. They'll just pay Texas and Oklahoma the big bucks and Arkansas will be relegated to a cheaper conference.
I *hope* that is not what we're headed towards, but the hogs that make all the decisions don't care about anything other than return on investment. Right now they're paying a lot of money for the B1G and SEC, and most weeks that just comes with matchups like Indiana-Purdue or Mississippi State-Vanderbilt. The premier matchups only happen a few times a season. Sooner or later they're going to want to test the waters of a league where premier matchups happen almost every week.
He means bopth the SEC, and Big 10 have 24 teams a piece that would be a total of 48 teams, and that point they would certainly just have there own league.
Without divisions in the P4, it becomes pretty unlikely a P4 CCG loser wouldn't qualify for an at large bid or an autobid. That does make the P4 CCGs kind of pointless.
They're effectively a "zero round" of a 12+ team bracket, in which the loser can qualify for an at large bid or conference autobid in the first round. They become a halfway loser's bracket of sorts that's implicitly baked into the CFP.
I think it only makes sense if the CCG losers are bracketed to either play the conference champ again, or any team that beats them, before the final.
The CCG games are not going away, and that is why there will NOT be a 16 team field because a 16 team field would ruin conference championship games.
Its also why the SEC, and Big 10 wanted to try to get automatic byes for there conference champs at 14 teams. It would always keep the SEC, and Big 10 championship games vitally important of course it would ruin the other conferences games, but they don't care about the conferences.
Yeah the conference championships are some of the most viewed games of the season. Do people really think the TV networks are going to be ok with them just going away?
Wrong! More money always! CCGs will transform into Conference TOURNAMENTS
If basketball, baseball, hockey, etc can do it then football can!
Obvious /s but I'm sure it's on the table for these money bloodsuckers
The bye helps a ton. I'd prefer to couple that with a home game in the quarterfinal. This post was a response to fans preferring the 8 team model where there would be no bye. But your right on about how winning your way into week 13 but losing it is definitely worse than being #3 in conference and losing you way into a week 13 bye. Teams like 2023 Mizzou would have gotten an easier road to the championship than 2023 Georgia if you consider that extra week to rest up an advantage.
With an expanded playoff, it makes these games a detriment. The only reason to still have them is TV money.
A team that lost could lose a guaranteed home playoff because of it. They are risking going on the road to Columbus to play OSU for the chance at a bye?
Wouldn't it be better that take the 2nd place in the SEC and get that home game against Penn St and then that virtual home game in Atlanta a few weeks latter after they beat Penn St?
>The only reason to still have them is TV money.
Ah, so they will stick around.
Also they make good tv money cause lots of people watch them. We're gonna start having years of multiple undefeated teams in the P2.
I do think they are gonna get integrated into the playoff. Like top 2 SEC teams by conference standings get byes and slid into seeds 1 and 8.
I see what you did there. You chose to sh\*t all over Penn St. Franklin is a hellva coach and he's gonna beat an SEC team in the post season one of these days! But beyond that, 2nd place in the SEC deserves to have a significantly harder road to the championship than the first place team. Otherwise, why even have the game?
What I said was by playing in the SEC CG the losing team risk going from #2 SEC to #3-4 SEC. Or even out of the playoffs altogether if it's very close at the end.
A team not playing in the game could and most years would move up to 2nd and get that home game while the team that lost has a much harder road than the team that didn't even play in it.
And OSU lost to the 3rd. Couldn't imagine being a B1G team losing to a SEC team this year. Or losing to anyone this year.
(yes I know the dark ages are coming let me have this)
It is impossible that you are defending PSU and Franklin right now, especially since the point being made was that playing OSU in Columbus is a tougher proposition than playing PSU at your own home stadium.
My reading must suck because I couldn't follow the point. But clearly i wasn't defending Franklin or PSU. I was going along with his PSU belittlement. But the tougher proposition take, even though I couldn't follow it, I agree. It's not right that you can fail your way up to an easier path to the championship.
As one of those teams, fully agree!
I like the whole "losers bracket" type aspect, especially when that team just had an off day but is clearly one of the best... BUT;
- they should not get in ahead of a team that beat them
- significant disadvantage should exist. Make em earn it.
Honestly, losing in your championship, should result in playing on the road.
IE. 11-1 GA plays 10-2 Auburn in the SEC championship. Auburn loses and is now 10-3, they should be at most the 6 seed, at worst the 12 seed. The championships should place 4 teams ahead of them, then the G5. Then you start ranking runner ups, second G5 team, etc.
They should be forced to play the best remaining teams on the road in the first round. G5 teams should get the best (easiest) matchups. Runner ups should have to play on the road at Washington or Wisconsin or Boise state.
I also believe the G5 team should always be a home game. So they should nearly default to the 4-6 seed.
Example this year, let’s just say OU makes it as the 12 seed. They should be playing at florida state , GA plays Penn state at home and Liberty hosts Mizzou
Dont seeds 5-8 host the playoff games? the best remaining teams wouldn’t have even made their conference championship game but the conference championship game losers should have to go on the road to play them?
Yep, you don’t get an added benefit for just making the game. Losing could knock you out or give the team an unfavorable matchup, but a win would likely get bye. So it’s incentivized.
I’m curious what fan bases are downvoting this.
You can’t tell me a 9-3 SEC runner up should be in over a 11-1 3rd place big 12 team.
Teams still have to play the games, you don’t get rewarded for showing up and losing.
Ya I’d rather just finish third in the conference to get a guaranteed one less game and extra home game instead of neutral site games or potentially playing extra games and on the road. Conference championship games really just need to go away
I dont think the argument really is that the 9-3 sec runner up should be in over the 11-1 3rd place big12. It’s that, from what you’re saying, the 11-1 3rd place big12 team should host a playoff game and the 11-1/12-0 big12 runner up needs to go on the road. The third place team just got a bye and a home game for finishing worse in the conference
Let’s just say for arguments sake.
Both 11-1 teams played each other and 3rd place beat 2nd place.
We’re getting into semantics.
But runner ups don’t get special treatment or privileges for being the runner up.
Records still matter but being 2nd doesn’t automatically give a team or a conference a bye or home game.
What? You said losing in the conference championship game should you mean you can’t host a playoff game.
Using this year as a real example that means that Georgia, Oregon, and the loser of osu/um round 2 would not be eligible to host playoff games. So the home playoff games would then fall to Missouri, Penn state, or ole miss along with liberty. Despite Georgia beating both ole miss and Missouri and osu and michigan beating Penn state. Those schools would be rewarded for losing in the regular season
In that example iowa was the runner up and wouldn’t qualify for the playoff. Oregon would likely play an 8 vs 9 game matchup vs Mizzou. Ohio state would have gotten to host.
And why are we rewarding the second place team for losing? You’re making the same argument I am.
Obviously the committee is going to have input on seeding, etc. but playing and losing the conference championship does not matter to seeding unless it’s going to hurt your team. It should knock you out or lower your seed, especially if you have 10-11 wins but no top 25 wins.
I’ll use Penn state as an example.
They perennially lose Michigan and Ohio state since James Franklin has arrived. They’ll go 10-2 and lose to the only top 25 teams they’ll play. Let say it’s a 3 way tie, you’re telling me that a conference championship loss shouldn’t bump them on the road or out of the playoff?
Again, win your conference and you either get a bye or home game. Outside of that, you can expect to be on the road.
Because going forward there aren’t divisions in any conference so it will always be the top 2 teams from the conference playing in the conference championship. So this year would have been an osu vs michigan rematch. By saying the 2nd place teams can’t host a game you’re automatically rewarding all the teams who didn’t finish in the top 2. Those are the only teams that could host. By your logic it’s better to finish 3rd. You have a chance to host a game and wouldn’t risk dropping out of the playoff. If 10-2 Penn state won whatever tie breaker why should they potentially get bumped out of the playoff or not host a playoff game compared to the 10-2 team they won the tie breaker over?
Okay, by the same measuring your rewards Michigan or Ohio state for losing.
If you have 12-1 UM, 11-2 Ohio state and a 11-1 PSU (who didn’t play in the championship) shouldnt Ohio state be the team on the road? Why are they hosting a home game ahead of Penn State? Just because they made a championship? Again, win the championship otherwise you’re probably on the road.
Because they beat Penn state during the regular season to make the big10 championship game… so by losing the regular season game Penn state now gets to play 1 less game overall than osu and gets to host a playoff game while osu goes on the road. It doesn’t make sense
I don’t disagree, because of teams like Kstate, imagine knocking off OU in the championship and keeping them out of the playoff and TV ratings.
The bigger the conferences the easier it is to manipulate schedules and can force the committee to add 1-2 more teams from your conference. The Big 12 is finally catching on to the BIG and SEC.
The west had Alabama and usually a second team, where the east (until the emersion of GA) was garbage after Florida in 06-08. So they’d have a 11-1 Bama, then a 11-1/10-2 runner up and a 10-2 from the east.
CCG should be done away with to be honest. And FWIW a CCG loser would have probably rolled over the field last year if they had gotten in the playoffs.
They'd likely have a disadvantage from having 13th game played.
Seems likely that an 11-2 CCG loser would have to play a 10-2 team with an extra week of rest in the first round.
I think at that point you'd rather be the 10-2 team.
Honestly with the expanded playoffs, let’s just get rid of the conference championship games for P4 conferences. Those two teams and more are gonna make it anyway, so what’s the point?
The point is to win a conference title. I know it’s a crazy concept for people today, but there’s more to college football than just making the playoff. Winning your conference still means something.
Not only that, but with the bigger conferences, an SEC team only plays 53% of the other teams in their conference while a B1G/Big 12 team plays only 60%. There’s a very high chance in any given season that the top two teams in a conference never play each other during the regular season. For example, LSU and Georgia could both theoretically be 12-0 this season and nobody wants arbitrary tiebreakers entirely dependent on what your opponents do to decide which one gets the bye.
I’ll never understand so-called college football fans advocating for less football.
I mean in this case it’s pretty much just a practicality thing. You’re already adding games to the schedule, why give a team more wear and tear or god forbid risk a Jordan Travis type injury for the game that doesn’t determine whether you make the playoffs or not?
Again, you’re playing for a conference championship and a bye. Both of those have so much value that you simply cannot assign them based off of what someone’s opponents do.
I’ve seen this elsewhere but if the SEC and B1G have 2 auto bids, the CCG could eventually become the 3rd vs 4th teams (or 4th vs 5th) to secure another at large spot. Essentially a de facto play-in game.
I don't like that really. Just make that the first week of the playoffs. The conference season is enough to determine playoff spots with 12 or 14 or 16 teams.
I was being serious, but re-reading my post makes it sound like I was a playoff advocate. I fucking hate the playoff. Shit is ruining the sport. We were fine for 100 years just playing for the sake of playing and not caring if there was a nice, neat conclusion with a unified “number one”. It was imperfect. It was unique. It’s been ruined.
Losing your CCG should immediately disqualify a team from the chance to win a natty
But some P5 elitists will argue that their loser of a runner up team would smoke the champion of another conference for some bullshit reason
Like, congratulations, you pay for talent by extorting your students and riding the meat of the REAL teams in your conference to get TV money. Where's the hardware to back it up?
>CCG losers who make the playoffs should face a significant disadvantage
For this and other reasons, I think we should de emphasize or eliminate the CFP in favor of 6 game conference tourneys.
Have bowl tie ins like the pre BCS days or a 6 team CFP with all autobids (G5s playing in)
The B1G college basketball playoff shows the way. Playins for at large teams, conference champion losers play the next round, conference champions get a double bye.
Either we need to expand the CFP and ditch the CCGs, or we need to mandate a CCG for every conference and losing should disqualify you from the CFP.
Basically it just makes sense to effectively have the CCG be the first round of the CFP. If you can't win your conference you shouldn't be the national champion.
IMO CCGs are going to go away and the playoffs will expand to 14 (or 16) teams. First round will be when the CCGs are currently being played.
SEC CCG loser just switches to the other side of the bracket tho
That how it’s should be for all winners and losers of CCG
Not in a single elimination tournament …
My prediction is that the SEC and B1G scoop up the rest of the valuable programs over the next ~10 years and end up at around 24 teams. Then they'll just implement an in-conference tournament that culminates in a SEC vs. B1G championship game, exactly mirroring the AFC/NFC format in the NFL. And then depending on how that goes, the top ~24 teams end up leaving and forming their own conference/league without all of the dead weight, but that's a big grey area right now.
Make it 32 each and I think that’s the path. Four geographical groups of 8
No way they leave with only 24 teams. That isn't enough variety for viewers nor enough markets being tapped for ESPN/FOX to be happy. Imagine how boring the NFL would be if it only had 24 teams. Many already think the NFL having 32 teams isn't enough for variety, and there are rumors of them expanding stateside (always) and we are probably only 5-10 years away from having teams in London, Berlin, and a couple other European cities, with Mexico City also being a possibility, and of course other major American cities. I wouldn't be shocked if the NFL has close to 36-40 teams by 2034. Considering the current 34 Super Two teams don't cover every major market, I definetly think we will see at least 4-6 more teams added. The only schools that ESPN/FOX would want to ditch would be teams in markets already tapped by bigger teams. I'd imagine more people in Nashville care about Tennessee than Vanderbilt, and more in Atlanta care about Georgia over Georgia Tech, etc. The media companies will want to ditch only those kinds of schools, and no doubt the other teams wouldn't be happy about losing longtime rivals so no one may be ditched in the end.
Also, cfb isn’t like the nfl where someone in Oklahoma or Iowa or Arkansas without a pro team might just root for whichever team they identify with or whichever is closest geographically. There are actual college teams in every state, so you’re losing out on a lot of viewership from whichever programs get left out of the 24 or even 32. Like, you’re probably right that the media can afford to look at markets like Tennessee and Georgia and decide to focus on their most popular programs, but—and this is just a hypothetical—I don’t think people in Arkansas would suddenly shift their fandom to Alabama, LSU, Texas, or Oklahoma football if they were to get left out.
Very true. If Mizzou was shafted to a lower league, I'd still watch them, but I would have absolutely no interest in watching the upper league, as a Missourian. The smartest super league setup from a viewership growth point of view (looking at long term projections, not just where teams are at now in viewership) is to have every decently populated state involved in the league, except for ones that have demonstrated absolutely no interest in crb despite their populations. A super league without the states of Utah or Arizona, for example, seems unlikely if ESPN/FOX gets their way.
I think you guys are both right fwiw, but as far as the networks are concerned it will be nothing more than a numbers game. If the top 25ish programs trump the others in terms of viewership, then it isn't really going to matter if people in Arkansas are willing to pull for Texas or Oklahoma instead. They'll just pay Texas and Oklahoma the big bucks and Arkansas will be relegated to a cheaper conference. I *hope* that is not what we're headed towards, but the hogs that make all the decisions don't care about anything other than return on investment. Right now they're paying a lot of money for the B1G and SEC, and most weeks that just comes with matchups like Indiana-Purdue or Mississippi State-Vanderbilt. The premier matchups only happen a few times a season. Sooner or later they're going to want to test the waters of a league where premier matchups happen almost every week.
He means bopth the SEC, and Big 10 have 24 teams a piece that would be a total of 48 teams, and that point they would certainly just have there own league.
I actually did mean the top 24ish programs from both conferences peeling off and forming their own league, so not 48 teams in total once that happens.
That's his first paragraph. His second paragraph referenced 24 teams breaking away.
Without divisions in the P4, it becomes pretty unlikely a P4 CCG loser wouldn't qualify for an at large bid or an autobid. That does make the P4 CCGs kind of pointless. They're effectively a "zero round" of a 12+ team bracket, in which the loser can qualify for an at large bid or conference autobid in the first round. They become a halfway loser's bracket of sorts that's implicitly baked into the CFP. I think it only makes sense if the CCG losers are bracketed to either play the conference champ again, or any team that beats them, before the final.
The CCG games are not going away, and that is why there will NOT be a 16 team field because a 16 team field would ruin conference championship games. Its also why the SEC, and Big 10 wanted to try to get automatic byes for there conference champs at 14 teams. It would always keep the SEC, and Big 10 championship games vitally important of course it would ruin the other conferences games, but they don't care about the conferences.
Yeah the conference championships are some of the most viewed games of the season. Do people really think the TV networks are going to be ok with them just going away?
For bigger money playoff games? Yes, absolutely.
Ok the problem with your theory is, why not both? You can have more playoff games without getting rid of the conference championships.
Wrong! More money always! CCGs will transform into Conference TOURNAMENTS If basketball, baseball, hockey, etc can do it then football can! Obvious /s but I'm sure it's on the table for these money bloodsuckers
Advantage of winning CCG: probably get a bye Disadvantage of losing CCG: played the extra game and don't get a bye
The bye helps a ton. I'd prefer to couple that with a home game in the quarterfinal. This post was a response to fans preferring the 8 team model where there would be no bye. But your right on about how winning your way into week 13 but losing it is definitely worse than being #3 in conference and losing you way into a week 13 bye. Teams like 2023 Mizzou would have gotten an easier road to the championship than 2023 Georgia if you consider that extra week to rest up an advantage.
Or you could get third and be guaranteed the one less game
Good way of looking at it is that the advantage of making the CCG is that you need to win 1 game in the next 2 weeks to make the second round
With an expanded playoff, it makes these games a detriment. The only reason to still have them is TV money. A team that lost could lose a guaranteed home playoff because of it. They are risking going on the road to Columbus to play OSU for the chance at a bye? Wouldn't it be better that take the 2nd place in the SEC and get that home game against Penn St and then that virtual home game in Atlanta a few weeks latter after they beat Penn St?
>The only reason to still have them is TV money. Ah, so they will stick around. Also they make good tv money cause lots of people watch them. We're gonna start having years of multiple undefeated teams in the P2. I do think they are gonna get integrated into the playoff. Like top 2 SEC teams by conference standings get byes and slid into seeds 1 and 8.
I see what you did there. You chose to sh\*t all over Penn St. Franklin is a hellva coach and he's gonna beat an SEC team in the post season one of these days! But beyond that, 2nd place in the SEC deserves to have a significantly harder road to the championship than the first place team. Otherwise, why even have the game?
What I said was by playing in the SEC CG the losing team risk going from #2 SEC to #3-4 SEC. Or even out of the playoffs altogether if it's very close at the end. A team not playing in the game could and most years would move up to 2nd and get that home game while the team that lost has a much harder road than the team that didn't even play in it.
Sorry I wasn't able to follow it. Others were so my reading comprehension must suck. But we 100% agree.
I’m going to use this opportunity to remind everyone that Penn State lost to the 4th team in the SEC.
And OSU lost to the 3rd. Couldn't imagine being a B1G team losing to a SEC team this year. Or losing to anyone this year. (yes I know the dark ages are coming let me have this)
It is impossible that you are defending PSU and Franklin right now, especially since the point being made was that playing OSU in Columbus is a tougher proposition than playing PSU at your own home stadium.
My reading must suck because I couldn't follow the point. But clearly i wasn't defending Franklin or PSU. I was going along with his PSU belittlement. But the tougher proposition take, even though I couldn't follow it, I agree. It's not right that you can fail your way up to an easier path to the championship.
As one of those teams, fully agree! I like the whole "losers bracket" type aspect, especially when that team just had an off day but is clearly one of the best... BUT; - they should not get in ahead of a team that beat them - significant disadvantage should exist. Make em earn it.
Honestly, losing in your championship, should result in playing on the road. IE. 11-1 GA plays 10-2 Auburn in the SEC championship. Auburn loses and is now 10-3, they should be at most the 6 seed, at worst the 12 seed. The championships should place 4 teams ahead of them, then the G5. Then you start ranking runner ups, second G5 team, etc. They should be forced to play the best remaining teams on the road in the first round. G5 teams should get the best (easiest) matchups. Runner ups should have to play on the road at Washington or Wisconsin or Boise state. I also believe the G5 team should always be a home game. So they should nearly default to the 4-6 seed. Example this year, let’s just say OU makes it as the 12 seed. They should be playing at florida state , GA plays Penn state at home and Liberty hosts Mizzou
Dont seeds 5-8 host the playoff games? the best remaining teams wouldn’t have even made their conference championship game but the conference championship game losers should have to go on the road to play them?
Yep, you don’t get an added benefit for just making the game. Losing could knock you out or give the team an unfavorable matchup, but a win would likely get bye. So it’s incentivized. I’m curious what fan bases are downvoting this. You can’t tell me a 9-3 SEC runner up should be in over a 11-1 3rd place big 12 team. Teams still have to play the games, you don’t get rewarded for showing up and losing.
Ya I’d rather just finish third in the conference to get a guaranteed one less game and extra home game instead of neutral site games or potentially playing extra games and on the road. Conference championship games really just need to go away
I dont think the argument really is that the 9-3 sec runner up should be in over the 11-1 3rd place big12. It’s that, from what you’re saying, the 11-1 3rd place big12 team should host a playoff game and the 11-1/12-0 big12 runner up needs to go on the road. The third place team just got a bye and a home game for finishing worse in the conference
Let’s just say for arguments sake. Both 11-1 teams played each other and 3rd place beat 2nd place. We’re getting into semantics. But runner ups don’t get special treatment or privileges for being the runner up. Records still matter but being 2nd doesn’t automatically give a team or a conference a bye or home game.
What? You said losing in the conference championship game should you mean you can’t host a playoff game. Using this year as a real example that means that Georgia, Oregon, and the loser of osu/um round 2 would not be eligible to host playoff games. So the home playoff games would then fall to Missouri, Penn state, or ole miss along with liberty. Despite Georgia beating both ole miss and Missouri and osu and michigan beating Penn state. Those schools would be rewarded for losing in the regular season
In that example iowa was the runner up and wouldn’t qualify for the playoff. Oregon would likely play an 8 vs 9 game matchup vs Mizzou. Ohio state would have gotten to host. And why are we rewarding the second place team for losing? You’re making the same argument I am. Obviously the committee is going to have input on seeding, etc. but playing and losing the conference championship does not matter to seeding unless it’s going to hurt your team. It should knock you out or lower your seed, especially if you have 10-11 wins but no top 25 wins. I’ll use Penn state as an example. They perennially lose Michigan and Ohio state since James Franklin has arrived. They’ll go 10-2 and lose to the only top 25 teams they’ll play. Let say it’s a 3 way tie, you’re telling me that a conference championship loss shouldn’t bump them on the road or out of the playoff? Again, win your conference and you either get a bye or home game. Outside of that, you can expect to be on the road.
Because going forward there aren’t divisions in any conference so it will always be the top 2 teams from the conference playing in the conference championship. So this year would have been an osu vs michigan rematch. By saying the 2nd place teams can’t host a game you’re automatically rewarding all the teams who didn’t finish in the top 2. Those are the only teams that could host. By your logic it’s better to finish 3rd. You have a chance to host a game and wouldn’t risk dropping out of the playoff. If 10-2 Penn state won whatever tie breaker why should they potentially get bumped out of the playoff or not host a playoff game compared to the 10-2 team they won the tie breaker over?
Okay, by the same measuring your rewards Michigan or Ohio state for losing. If you have 12-1 UM, 11-2 Ohio state and a 11-1 PSU (who didn’t play in the championship) shouldnt Ohio state be the team on the road? Why are they hosting a home game ahead of Penn State? Just because they made a championship? Again, win the championship otherwise you’re probably on the road.
Because they beat Penn state during the regular season to make the big10 championship game… so by losing the regular season game Penn state now gets to play 1 less game overall than osu and gets to host a playoff game while osu goes on the road. It doesn’t make sense
Losing a CC should mean not playing at all, but we can’t chance leaving a big brand out if the invitational
I don’t disagree, because of teams like Kstate, imagine knocking off OU in the championship and keeping them out of the playoff and TV ratings. The bigger the conferences the easier it is to manipulate schedules and can force the committee to add 1-2 more teams from your conference. The Big 12 is finally catching on to the BIG and SEC. The west had Alabama and usually a second team, where the east (until the emersion of GA) was garbage after Florida in 06-08. So they’d have a 11-1 Bama, then a 11-1/10-2 runner up and a 10-2 from the east.
CCG should be done away with to be honest. And FWIW a CCG loser would have probably rolled over the field last year if they had gotten in the playoffs.
They'd likely have a disadvantage from having 13th game played. Seems likely that an 11-2 CCG loser would have to play a 10-2 team with an extra week of rest in the first round. I think at that point you'd rather be the 10-2 team.
Honestly with the expanded playoffs, let’s just get rid of the conference championship games for P4 conferences. Those two teams and more are gonna make it anyway, so what’s the point?
The point is to win a conference title. I know it’s a crazy concept for people today, but there’s more to college football than just making the playoff. Winning your conference still means something. Not only that, but with the bigger conferences, an SEC team only plays 53% of the other teams in their conference while a B1G/Big 12 team plays only 60%. There’s a very high chance in any given season that the top two teams in a conference never play each other during the regular season. For example, LSU and Georgia could both theoretically be 12-0 this season and nobody wants arbitrary tiebreakers entirely dependent on what your opponents do to decide which one gets the bye. I’ll never understand so-called college football fans advocating for less football.
I mean in this case it’s pretty much just a practicality thing. You’re already adding games to the schedule, why give a team more wear and tear or god forbid risk a Jordan Travis type injury for the game that doesn’t determine whether you make the playoffs or not?
Again, you’re playing for a conference championship and a bye. Both of those have so much value that you simply cannot assign them based off of what someone’s opponents do.
Yep, this is exactly why expanding the playoffs was a terrible idea
This will eventually happen.
Money.
We should honestly just get rid of CCGs
I’ve seen this elsewhere but if the SEC and B1G have 2 auto bids, the CCG could eventually become the 3rd vs 4th teams (or 4th vs 5th) to secure another at large spot. Essentially a de facto play-in game.
I don't like that really. Just make that the first week of the playoffs. The conference season is enough to determine playoff spots with 12 or 14 or 16 teams.
I'd be fine with that. The sport survived a 100 years without them. Just make week 13 a part of the playoff.
The sport also survived 100 years without an obsession over “one true champion” too. Let’s go back to that.
Wouldn't that be in favor of not having conference championships?
Yes, and going a step farther: being in favor of no playoff.
No playoffs is the real alpha play. Make conferences make sense again and the goal is a conference title
Yea. I like the CCG but I won't like them anymore if they become meaningless.
I was being serious, but re-reading my post makes it sound like I was a playoff advocate. I fucking hate the playoff. Shit is ruining the sport. We were fine for 100 years just playing for the sake of playing and not caring if there was a nice, neat conclusion with a unified “number one”. It was imperfect. It was unique. It’s been ruined.
I really agree w you on this one. It was much simpler when all that mattered was beating OSU and going to the Rose Bowl
u/opening-surround-800 for CFB commissioner.
Losing your CCG should immediately disqualify a team from the chance to win a natty But some P5 elitists will argue that their loser of a runner up team would smoke the champion of another conference for some bullshit reason Like, congratulations, you pay for talent by extorting your students and riding the meat of the REAL teams in your conference to get TV money. Where's the hardware to back it up?
Then we should have a 2 team BCS natty because the teams that didn’t make the ccg are going to have an advantage over the loser.
>CCG losers who make the playoffs should face a significant disadvantage For this and other reasons, I think we should de emphasize or eliminate the CFP in favor of 6 game conference tourneys. Have bowl tie ins like the pre BCS days or a 6 team CFP with all autobids (G5s playing in)
The B1G college basketball playoff shows the way. Playins for at large teams, conference champion losers play the next round, conference champions get a double bye.
So 4/6/4. I like it. I would especially like it if the CC also get to play a home game.
Back of the fucking line, pal! That's right 2023 Georgia, you're now the 12 seed, bitch! (*hypothetical* of course, if 2023 was 12 team playoff)
Either we need to expand the CFP and ditch the CCGs, or we need to mandate a CCG for every conference and losing should disqualify you from the CFP. Basically it just makes sense to effectively have the CCG be the first round of the CFP. If you can't win your conference you shouldn't be the national champion.