Time for 24 teams coaches have spoken

[Tuco Ramirez]

54 minutes ago, Realist Horn said:

wait for the other conferences to complain that only one of the eight were not from the Big10 or SEC. 

And that one team got shut out by a team that got blown out by Indiana. 

[genevalonghorn]

I don't understand why the Big 10 or SEC would push for 24 right now.  It helps the ACC and Big 12 more, by giving them a second, third, and, maybe, fourth team in the Playoff.  That will keep the Clemsons, FSUs, etc. happy enough to stay put, when the SEC (or Big 10) would be more than happy to pick off some of them when the opportunity next presents itself.

[Here for the Wins]

3 hours ago, Alex Butler said:

Head to head wins matter period. The hubbub you refer to is an example used to illustrate different scenarios that exist where a deserving 3-4 loss team would be excluded circumstantially and to you point growing and improving by the end of the season. It is more realistic to say that teams will water down their schedule if there is less opportunity for post season success. If there is strategy involved that means losing a game late for a favorable playoff match up then they have to deal with the potential implications that come with that in a case by case basis. You’re operating on a lot of negative assumptions I without considering the numerous upsides. There is. I perfect system, and someone will get left out that feels deserving. All I’m arguing is that if much rather it be the 24-26th best teams not 13-15. To you point wins do matter, but I don’t feel that a team should be eliminated for losing 1-2 games or even 3-4 potentially. 

Yes head to head matters, but it’s not the end-all-be-all.

Trust me, I’ve considered many implications and done so for 20 years.  At that time, advocates for expansion (known in my personal life) are surprised at how it played out this past year.  I was not.

Scheduling could go either way.  Some programs will step up and challenge.  Others will not.  As you increase the number of playoff participants, you increase those that had an argument too.  If you go to 24, you’ll have those that just missed out on a bye, contemplating what they could have done differently.  You might now have a dozen contemplating what they could have done differently to get in to the tournament.  They are limited in what they control.  They are in full control of their non-conference schedule.  It is unlikely that remains two.

You originally stated, presumably as an argument, that all levels of football have a playoff better than division 1.  I’m not sure you said better but that’s the implication.  And now, when I point out examples of the negative consequences of those playoffs you claim I’m on operating on negative assumptions.  That’s true life examples in those leagues not assumptions.

One thing we all need to remember is that the power brokers will look out for themselves first and foremost.  When things don’t go according to plan, then we tweak because it doesn’t fit their preference.

 

[HookedOnTF]

21 hours ago, LonghornFan4Ever said:

24 seems too big and I dont follow seeding here. But all that matters is Texas' path.

Ohio State should face Mich vs Utah winner, then A&M or Miami/JMU, then UGA/Ole Miss. Avoiding a Michigan rematch makes sense but why flip Utah and USC or A&M and 0U or Tech and Georgia?  On paper its an easier path to the championship. For Karma, lets assume Texas beats them in the semis...

Instead of this year's actual run of Bama->Oregon->Miami, Indiana now need to go (hypothetically) Utah->A&M->Oregon->Texas. 2 rounds of punishment before Oregon might change that game, but even if they still smoke them, thats a great depth test for IU.  

24 teams, Texas to rule them all!

[Alex Butler]

2 hours ago, Here for the Wins said:

Yes head to head matters, but it’s not the end-all-be-all.

Trust me, I’ve considered many implications and done so for 20 years.  At that time, advocates for expansion (known in my personal life) are surprised at how it played out this past year.  I was not.

Scheduling could go either way.  Some programs will step up and challenge.  Others will not.  As you increase the number of playoff participants, you increase those that had an argument too.  If you go to 24, you’ll have those that just missed out on a bye, contemplating what they could have done differently.  You might now have a dozen contemplating what they could have done differently to get in to the tournament.  They are limited in what they control.  They are in full control of their non-conference schedule.  It is unlikely that remains two.

You originally stated, presumably as an argument, that all levels of football have a playoff better than division 1.  I’m not sure you said better but that’s the implication.  And now, when I point out examples of the negative consequences of those playoffs you claim I’m on operating on negative assumptions.  That’s true life examples in those leagues not assumptions.

One thing we all need to remember is that the power brokers will look out for themselves first and foremost.  When things don’t go according to plan, then we tweak because it doesn’t fit their preference.

 

Yes I did reference playoffs at all other level because it is better and more interesting. The hemming and hawing is always there no matter what because we always want to consider what could’ve been. When we settle it on the field at least it’s between two teams and not a decision about 2 or 4 teams using a computer algorithm and committee. As a fan I’d rather the committee and computers decide the 24 best not the 2, 4, or even 12. I don’t disagree that the powers will protect their interests. Head to head isn’t the end all, but when comparing two teams with the same record they’ve played head to head the team that won head to head comes out on top. The negative assumptions I’m discussing is that expansion will reduce the number of quality games in the regular season. I fundamentally disagree with that as stated before. You also assume that there will be a watering down of regular season match ups, but if you’re playing in a tough conference and against quality opponents out of conference every week matters because every team is good. My assumption is that not only will the games matter more but the parity will grow because you’ll have more teams with opportunities to make money and players to play on the big stage. It’s fine if we don’t agree. I’ve been an advocate for expansion since the BCS started before I was even in college. I’m not saying that we need to expand beyond 24 but I think 16-24 is the sweet spot for college football. That is unless you have consolidation into tiers where we have the top 32-40 D1 teams then everyone else plays in tiers below that. If you have 32 or 40 teams then it makes complete sense to decrease the number of spots relative to the site of the pool. 

[Dallas Horns Fan]

College football has twice the viewership as the "never call a travel" NBA and is $5B behind the NBA in collective TV revenue- moving to a playoff system that involves 24 teams, replacing the conf championships and irrelevant bowl games will help close that gap - not to mention having 80,000 fans at 8 more meaningful playoff games - it adds up to a lot of coin that could fund the other sports.  Its too much $$ to leave on the table and I think the Big 10 was smart to get all the other conferences allied behind them and force the SEC to go along.

Think about it:  gate revenues of 80,000 fans  x 8 more games x $300 per ticket is $192M. 

Here is an article with background.

 https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/is-college-football-undervalued-americas-second-most-popular-game-still-leaving-billions-on-the-table/

[Quinncent McManning, Jr.]

My issue with this format is that the sec will have a disadvantage given the depth of the conference. If Ohio st, Michigan and or Oregon have 1 loss because they have beaten up the poor sisters half of the conference they could theoretically throw out the second team to scrimmage a last game to get into the playoffs. Heck they could still have a first round bye if one was undefeated going into the last game and just mail in the last one.  Then sec has a much higher chance of lower ranked team upsets and thus much less room to maneuver. Makes it zero incentive to play an early oos game that is difficult.  And don’t get me started on notre dame. They would cake wake into the playoffs every year. 

[Tres Comas]

1 hour ago, Quinncent McManning, Jr. said:

My issue with this format is that the sec will have a disadvantage given the depth of the conference. If Ohio st, Michigan and or Oregon have 1 loss because they have beaten up the poor sisters half of the conference they could theoretically throw out the second team to scrimmage a last game to get into the playoffs. Heck they could still have a first round bye if one was undefeated going into the last game and just mail in the last one.  Then sec has a much higher chance of lower ranked team upsets and thus much less room to maneuver. Makes it zero incentive to play an early oos game that is difficult.  And don’t get me started on notre dame. They would cake wake into the playoffs every year. 

After the ridiculous nature of the current transfer and NIL landscape this is my biggest issue with CFB