They need to do something. I still like Mike Leach's idea, put 64 teams in and do it like the ncaa basketball tournament lol

Forest Bueller said:

---

Like I said about a week ago, 12-1 conference champion tOSU getting left out of the dance was the last straw.

It may take a few years, but it will happen now. Likely 8, but hoping for 16.

---

Very good point and seeing two Sec teams in last year was ridiculous.

Hopefully there is objective criteria for at least 5 of the slots. Such as P5 champ. That way every P5 knows at the beginning of the season what they need to do to get in--win the conference. Honestly I dont mind giving the winner of the AAC and MWC an automatic bid either and just allow one subjectively chosen play off team. That may be asking for too much though.

Pretty sure the bowl contracts designated for the 4 team playoffs are ending after next year. Pretty sure they were 5-year contracts, so, yeah, they're gonna talk about expanding the playoffs.

8 teams equals 3 SEC teams...

Seems legit

YoakDaddy said:

---

Pretty sure the bowl contracts designated for the 4 team playoffs are ending after next year. Pretty sure they were 5-year contracts, so, yeah, they're gonna talk about expanding the playoffs.

---

I'm no expert here, but a lot of those arguing "it won't change for a long time" have told me that the contract has another five years to run.

I don't think contracts matter. If they decide they want to expand, it just means more money -- no one's going to say "no"

YoakDaddy said:

---

Pretty sure the bowl contracts designated for the 4 team playoffs are ending after next year. Pretty sure they were 5-year contracts, so, yeah, they're gonna talk about expanding the playoffs.

---

If next year is the end of the contract, there will be a new format very soon after that.

Thank goodness. If you are a P5 conference champ you should be in.

Every few years, like this year, there is even a worthy non P5. I hope they get their shot too.

They wouldnt be discussing expanding it publicly if they didnt have the power to do it within the next year or two one way or the other. either modifying the contract or the current one about to expire. If it was a 5 year contract this is the final play off under the existing contract.

BTW if 5 P5 winners have automatic bids. There is no incentive for the P5 conferences to realign into 4. In fact the XII with 10 members will be the envy of the the 14 team members. In fact the two 14 member conferences may think it better to re split up with the 8 or so total cast offs becoming a seperate then P6 conference and just having two at large bids.

6 or 8 is the right number, hey 16 is more games too. Whomever came up with 4 "subectively chosen" should be ashamed and should be ridiculed publicly. Makes no sense.

Get more viewers and dollars involved if there is actual incentive for the prospect of winning it all, regardless of odds. Everyone loves a underdog cinderella except the once in a while favored team that loses. This is evident and reasonable as additional support for deserving 1-loss p5 schools (like bu, tcu, osu etc...) being left out.

Current format makes for 2 meaningful games to reach the championship with a bunch of ancillary side shows. That isnt enough and never was. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

PartyBear said:

---

They wouldnt be discussing expanding it publicly if they didnt have the power to do it within the next year or two one way or the other. either modifying the contract or the current one about to expire. If it was a 5 year contract this is the final play off under the existing contract.

BTW if 5 P5 winners have automatic bids. There is no incentive for the P5 conferences to realign into 4. In fact the XII with 10 members will be the envy of the the 14 team members. In fact the two 14 member conferences may think it better to re split up with the 8 or so total cast offs becoming a seperate then P6 conference and just having two at large bids.

---

Interesting perspective. Hadnt though about the smaller p5 conference advantage.

PartyBear said:

---

They wouldnt be discussing expanding it publicly if they didnt have the power to do it within the next year or two one way or the other. either modifying the contract or the current one about to expire. If it was a 5 year contract this is the final play off under the existing contract.

BTW if 5 P5 winners have automatic bids. There is no incentive for the P5 conferences to realign into 4. In fact the XII with 10 members will be the envy of the the 14 team members. In fact the two 14 member conferences may think it better to re split up with the 8 or so total cast offs becoming a seperate then P6 conference and just having two at large bids.

---

This is the reason you have 8 teams and not 6.

With 8, all of the leftovers that are worthy should be able to make it.

Being upfront, the PAC 12 will just be glad they get in it every year. BIG and SEC might get 2 in each on a good year, that leaves room for one more.

If it were 8 this year, I think Georgia and tOSU as well as ND get the three extra spots.

TechDawgMc said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Pretty sure the bowl contracts designated for the 4 team playoffs are ending after next year. Pretty sure they were 5-year contracts, so, yeah, they're gonna talk about expanding the playoffs.

---

I'm no expert here, but a lot of those arguing "it won't change for a long time" have told me that the contract has another five years to run.

I don't think contracts matter. If they decide they want to expand, it just means more money -- no one's going to say "no"

---

Not disagreeing with you at all. Follow the money. I recall one of the justifications for 4 instead of 6 or 8 was due to a 5-year contract.

Why not 6? P5 champions plus one G5.

BellCountyBear said:

---

Why not 6? P5 champions plus one G5.

---

Would still cause a cluster this year (ND) and last year (Alabama finished 3rd in their conference? Butbutbut they are the best team in the country!)

Eight teams ASAP, please.

PartyBear said:

---

Hopefully there is objective criteria for at least 5 of the slots. Such as P5 champ. That way every P5 knows at the beginning of the season what they need to do to get in--win the conference. Honestly I dont mind giving the winner of the AAC and MWC an automatic bid either and just allow one subjectively chosen play off team. That may be asking for too much though.

---

That's not going to happen for a handful of reasons.

Quote:

---

Why not 6? P5 champions plus one G5.

---

Number needs to be a power of 2. Makes the brackets nicer.

You think an 8 team play off will be 8 subjectively chosen teams? Is that what you meant? If that is how an 8 team play off is, that would end up more controversial than 4 subjectively chosen if a few Conf champs are passed over.

The TV sports guy's question in the Leach clip (Who wouldn't want to see this 64 team playoff?) is very easily answered. Alabama (aka ESPN). Why? Because G5 or lower division teams that don't have anything to lose can be much more dangerous than the big programs in the hour of truth. I'll always believe there was a before Boise State Bob Stoops and an after Boise State Bob Stoops, to cite one example.

I'm not surprised that once O State was left out that 8 team talks would begin. 2 P5 champions were left out this year.

Having 8 teams allows some of these "lesser bowls", starting this weekend, used as first round games. Keep the same format for the 4 teams left. Seems like a legit idea.

PartyBear said:

---

You think an 8 team play off will be 8 subjectively chosen teams? Is that what you meant? If that is how an 8 team play off is, that would end up more controversial than 4 subjectively chosen if a few Conf champs are passed over.

---

If they went to eight, the P5 would demand that 5 slots were for each conference champion with 3 at large spots. I also think there has to be a provision that if you finish as an undefeated champion of a G5 conference, you get a spot (so long as there weren't more than three of those, and the odds are astronomically low).

So if that happened this year, you'd have

Bama
Clemson
OU
Notre Dame
OSU
Washington
UCF

and most likely

Georgia

I could get behind that.

Forest Bueller said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

They wouldnt be discussing expanding it publicly if they didnt have the power to do it within the next year or two one way or the other. either modifying the contract or the current one about to expire. If it was a 5 year contract this is the final play off under the existing contract.

BTW if 5 P5 winners have automatic bids. There is no incentive for the P5 conferences to realign into 4. In fact the XII with 10 members will be the envy of the the 14 team members. In fact the two 14 member conferences may think it better to re split up with the 8 or so total cast offs becoming a seperate then P6 conference and just having two at large bids.

---

This is the reason you have 8 teams and not 6.

With 8, all of the leftovers that are worthy should be able to make it.

Being upfront, the PAC 12 will just be glad they get in it every year. BIG and SEC might get 2 in each on a good year, that leaves room for one more.

If it were 8 this year, I think Georgia and tOSU as well as ND get the three extra spots.

---

Duh, tOSU would be one of the 5, the Florida school probably gets the other spot.

PartyBear said:

---

You think an 8 team play off will be 8 subjectively chosen teams? Is that what you meant? If that is how an 8 team play off is, that would end up more controversial than 4 subjectively chosen if a few Conf champs are passed over.

---

They aren't going to guarantee bids to P5s by an official rule, and it's unclear why so many sports fans in forums believe that that would happen.

EDIT: This is because all the following reasons:
1. Functionality - The current format, which could -by rule- allow for a 4 G5 team playoff, has functionally prevented the G5 from participating in the CFP without the need to explicitly exclude or limit them.
2. Legal aspects - Excluding or limiting the G5 by rule would draw lawsuits from the G5 since doing so would explicitly prevent them from having access to a national title in a sport.
3. Interest - The concept of no guarantees is what makes the CFP interesting and what drives all of the conversations in November about which teams would make it if various scenarios played out. If CFP spots were guaranteed, all of those conversations would deteriorate back to the conversations about who is going to win their own favorite conference's title since that is all that would matter until the CFP arrived.
4. Alternatives - If the P5 wanted to solve a particular problem without changing the format, they could just vote to require CFP participants (playoff and NY6) be part of a conference (i.e. no Notre Dame, BYU, Army, etc.). That would (eventually) force Notre Dame into the ACC as a full member.

That's not to say that they -won't- expand, it's just if they did, there won't be guaranteed P5 spots.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

You think an 8 team play off will be 8 subjectively chosen teams? Is that what you meant? If that is how an 8 team play off is, that would end up more controversial than 4 subjectively chosen if a few Conf champs are passed over.

---

They aren't going to guarantee bids to P5s by an official rule, and it's unclear why so many sports fans in forums believe that that would happen.

---

Great point. It's about control and the power to make the decisions. If there are guaranteed spots, the committee loses ranking control.....ESPN loses money this way unless the committee then ranks the conference champs 1-5.

All of the conference champs in both men's and women's hoops are guaranteed in the tourney. Don't see why that can't happen here.

PartyBear said:

---

All of the conference champs in both men's and women's hoops are guaranteed in the tourney. Don't see why that can't happen here.

---

For clarification, is this suggesting that -all- FBS conference winners be guaranteed a spot, and, if so, is this also suggesting that the powers that be (i.e. media rights holders and power conferences) would allow that to happen?

That would literally break everything.

Wht can D3, D2, and FCS teams endure a playoff but D1 can't?

Let every conference winner in, that's 11 and then add top 5 more. DONE.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

All of the conference champs in both men's and women's hoops are guaranteed in the tourney. Don't see why that can't happen here.

---

For clarification, is this suggesting that -all- FBS conference winners be guaranteed a spot, and, if so, is this also suggesting that the powers that be (i.e. media rights holders and power conferences) would allow that to happen?

That would literally break everything.

---

No I actually suggested the 5 P5 winners and 3 at large. But I'm fine with 5 P5 winners and the highest ranked G5 also being an automatic participant then 2 at large. I'm also not opposed to the AAC winner and perhaps one other G5's winner getting an automatic bid and just one at large. However that would not be fair to the other G5 conferences.

TechDawgMc said:

---

I heard Barry Alvarez talking about being in favor of at least 6 and possibly 8. He was part of the original committee. I don't think he envisioned the B10 being left out repeatedly.

Two major conferences left out two years in a row -- that's going to bring change.

---

Barry thought the Big 10 and the SEC would get auto bids every year.

with the two remaining spots between the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12

Screw him.

I hope the Big 10 gets left out every year.

PartyBear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

All of the conference champs in both men's and women's hoops are guaranteed in the tourney. Don't see why that can't happen here.

---

For clarification, is this suggesting that -all- FBS conference winners be guaranteed a spot, and, if so, is this also suggesting that the powers that be (i.e. media rights holders and power conferences) would allow that to happen?

That would literally break everything.

---

No I actually suggested the 5 P5 winners and 3 at large. But I'm fine with 5 P5 winners and the highest ranked G5 also being an automatic participant then 2 at large. I'm also not opposed to the AAC winner and perhaps one other G5's winner getting an automatic bid and just one at large. However that would not be fair to the other G5 conferences.

---

Okay great.

But that was my point - they aren't going to guarantee either P5 champs only (even if the highest ranked G5 is guaranteed 1 bid) or guarantee all FBS champs for the above listed reasons. For those reasons, the only guarantee that could possibly be provided in any potential expansion would be for the highest ranked G5 champion and that would, in practice, be pretty much the only G5 team ever to make it in any given year regardless - i.e. UCF is undefeated for two seasons and demolished the runner up in the ACC and is only ranked #8, so it's unlikely that a single season would produce two G5 teams that finish the regular season ranked in the top 8 or 16.