So we aren't going to talk about the CFP expanding to 12 teams?

[Toadman005]

You don’t think so? I don’t think the B1G is ready to expand more and the SEC probably want to wait until OU/UT start playing to see how well that works out. I think this could save the PAC, since winning the conference pretty much guarantees a spot. Maybe not a bye week, but the P5s should all be in the top 6 conference champions. If the PAC decides to raid the MWC, it almost makes the American a guaranteed spot as well.

Uh…so, I’m admittedly bad at math but that’s like….3.

 

[david_WVU]

yes changing that helps ND. But that isn’t really my point. If the goal is the best teams than the top 4 should be the top 4. Regardless of winning their conference. I can argue multiple times that the playoff committee has proven they don’t really care about that. The only ones that do are the people most likely to make money off of that platform (ie the conference commish).

Ok, but think of it like this, During the season, Conf A is a grind and the winner has 2 losses. Conf B has two strong teams that play weak schedules and go 12-0 and 11-1. Does the second place team from Conf B deserve to be above Conf A's champ, even though they did not win against anyone tough.

Also, if it is just about the money, isn't there more money on the table playing all four rounds?

 

[david_WVU]

Uh…so, I’m admittedly bad at math but that’s like….3.

I am from West Virginia, so you gotta realize I can only count on figures and toes. That being said, I thought the PAC was the one most likely disband (with Oregon and Washington talking to the B1G) which is why I focused on that.

No one is thinking the B1G (1) nor SEC (2) are going anywhere. I stated why I think the PAC (3) will be around. The ACC (4) still has their GoR and unless the B1G or SEC are expanding, there is no reason to fight that GoR. Lastly, there is the XII (5) which is near and dear to my heart. I don't think that these schools are moving, because the $ difference between the XII, PAC, and ACC will all be very similar when all is settled.

 

[NoleKing]

There’s never been a legit case for 8 deserving teams in a given year. The only times that 4 wasn’t enough is when people can’t admit they were wrong about a team, and arbitrarily decide that it “deserves” a mulligan.

This diminishes the conference schedule and will lead to more garbage OOC games.

The assumption is that more “big” games is more money. This creates less big games, not more.

It doesn’t hurt College Basketball.

To assume teams would play worse OOC games makes no sense in an expanded playoff. The risk is less.

 

[DJ Fieri]

Thought it would be 8 teams or so but 12 isn't too shabby.

 

[OldDevilDawg]

Thought it would be 8 teams or so but 12 isn't too shabby.

I was more a proponent of 8. I do not like a first round bye. If they had to go over 8, IMO, they should have went straight to 16. The reason I prefer 8......if you look at the history of the FCS/1AA playoffs, it's extremely rare that any team outside of the top 8 won it. I mean like maybe 2 times since 1978.

 

[DJ Fieri]

I was more a proponent of 8. I do not like a first round bye. If they had to go over 8, IMO, they should have went straight to 16. The reason I prefer 8......if you look at the history of the FCS/1AA playoffs, it's extremely rare that any team outside of the top 8 won it. I mean like maybe 2 times since 1978.

True.

I am just glad it got expanded......tired of the same old Bama, Clemson, OSU, UGA, ND teams.