Quote:

---

There was no reason to have Tulane or JMU in the playoffs

---

"No reason" other than Federal antitrust laws.

What's the downside to having too many teams in the CFP?

I don't really get why people are so offended by the idea of an expanded playoff. The only argument I could see is that it makes regular season games less impactful.

Drum5343 said:

---

I don't really get why people are so offended by the idea of an expanded playoff. The only argument I could see is that it makes regular season games less impactful.

---

One of the definitions of being Conservative, is resistance to change. Some people unfortunately get anxiety about new ideas, no matter how beneficial they may be. They just find peace in old familiar ways.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

There was no reason to have Tulane or JMU in the playoffs

---

"No reason" other than Federal antitrust laws.

---

Could the Power 4 withdraw from The NCAA for football only?

TXAG 05 said:

---

njohn87 said:

---

I would rather have an exciting regular season and a small, often boring playoff than have a low-stakes regular season and a large playoff. If people disagree that's fine, but we seem to value college football for vastly different reasons.

---

This is my thought too. What always set college football aside from other sports is that the regular season was the main event, and if you had a good enough season, you got a fun bonus game. People are trying to make college football just like everything else and taking away what made it special.

---

I miss the BCS days, honestly. Playoff was fine at four teams, but the more you add the less the regular season matters.

Is the regular season just a qualifier for a postseason tournament, or is it supposed to mean more than that?

I prefer it to mean more. Ideally no one team should ever have to beat the same team twice in one season.

cavscout96 said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

cavscout96 said:

---

8

P4 champs and 4 at large; must be IN a conference to be eligible... cry more ND.

No byes


One less week of FB, but round 1 hasn't been great FB anyway the last two years.

---

Conference champions like the ACC champ this year? No thanks.

---

Over Tulane and JMU?

---

Yeah, especially considering that Tulane beat that ACC champ in their own building

ElephantRider said:

---

TXAG 05 said:

---

njohn87 said:

---

I would rather have an exciting regular season and a small, often boring playoff than have a low-stakes regular season and a large playoff. If people disagree that's fine, but we seem to value college football for vastly different reasons.

---

This is my thought too. What always set college football aside from other sports is that the regular season was the main event, and if you had a good enough season, you got a fun bonus game. People are trying to make college football just like everything else and taking away what made it special.

---

I miss the BCS days, honestly. Playoff was fine at four teams, but the more you add the less the regular season matters.

---

Under the current format, yes.

Get rid of the neutral site playoff games until the championship game, and play the playoff games at the higher seed that had the better regular season. Now it's not only a competitive advantage, but it also means millions and millions of economic impact for the home community.

Dorm 15 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

There was no reason to have Tulane or JMU in the playoffs

---

"No reason" other than Federal antitrust laws.

---

Could the Power 4 withdraw from The NCAA for football only?

---

Sure, but is there any desire for that from the "Power 4"?

SEC and Big 10 won't want to drag those other two along if (or when) that move happens.

Expansion rewards the undeserving.

What happened to JUST WIN BABY! Lose and go home!

Thanks for your response. If the Power 4 formed their own "League" I have a different suggestion for a Playoff format. First, no Conference Championship Games. Using that week the top 8 teams in each Conference would begin "The Playoffs". Year 1, the SEC would be matched with the Big 12. No. 1vs 8 and so on with the game being played at the higher seeds field. Same thing B1G vs ACC. The results leaves you with 16 teams. The 4 Conference Commissioners along with an overall Commissioner meet to seed the field. The remaining contests could be played anywhere. Year 2 , the SEC vs ACC.

Above all, get rid of the CCG's.

How about **** the Big 10? They still seem to think they are in control from a TV standpoint. I dont know where they get the idea that they can hold everybody up on a 16 team format until we all agree to an even larger expansion later. If everybody agrees on 16, just go to 16. Frankly id be happy divorcing the Big 10 altogether and just doing our own thing without them. They keep trying to dictate terms to everybody else. The Big 10 is like the conference equivalent of the sips.

Sparkie said:

---

aggiedad7 said:

---

JebediahOhio said:

---

AGREE. We should not be having ANY conversations about 3 loss teams getting in. We should even be iffy on 2 loss teams. The national champion should be whoever has proven themselves the MOST throughout the WHOLE season, not just whoever gets hot at the end. If you want to see that, watch any other sport.

---

What are you even talking about? 3 loss teams (outside of Bama losing the CCG) were excluded regardless of who they played or beat. With 16 teams ND, Vandy, and t.u. (3 top 14 wins) all get in and deserved it every bit as much as Bama. Bama was playing crap ball the last month. They certainly weren't hot.

---

spoken like a sip. tu got ***** slapped by Georgia. Lost to Florida, and had two overtime wins against terrible teams. If 16 teams mean teams like tu make the cfg, its a damn good argument to keep it at 12.

---

You're letting your anti-t.u. bias control you here.

There are plenty of good reasons to go to 16, even if 3-loss teams get in. First, you didn't refute the point of the comment you referenced: if Bama was good enough to get in, so were the other three teams in question. Bama lost to a terrible FSU team, so saying t.u. did this or that really isn't that much different.

Second, the 12-16 teams are going to have pretty difficult road tests the first round. Taking this year, AT Indiana, AT Georgia, AT Ohio State, AT tech (tech would have been better off at 5 playing a first round game in Lubbock), AT Oregon. How many of those teams lose in round 1? I say none. Over time, the 12-16s WILL eventually win some games but in those years, parity will be in play.

Besides, there is a very easy way to fix the 3-loss team issue: RESEED after every round like the NHL used to. That way, the t.u.'s of the world would have to play the supposedly best remaining team even if they do win.

JebediahOhio said:

---

Because they got hot at the end of the season. There are probably teams who weren't in the playoff who could have had a similar run, but it doesn't mean they should be in.

---

Very few teams in the country make it through A&M (away), Ohio State, Ole Miss, and have the ball with a chance to beat Indiana in the title game. It's amazing how quick we are to discredit things in this sport just because we don't like them.

I have no hate for Miami. I rooted for them in every game after they played us. I'm just saying you shouldn't be in the playoff if you have two losses to SMU and Louisville, no matter how great you can play at the tail end of the season.