12 team playoff model?

[Joe the Panther Fan]

There was ONE NFL post season game that was a one score (5pts) or less. All of the other results were 11 points or more. Sometimes parity is parody. Sometimes it works. But it is time to expand the 4 team system. The bowl system is already suffering enough, so if this means more meaningful post season games, isn't that good?? I don't get the objection.

In 2017, the year of the great Patriots comeback against the Falcons in the Super Bowl, there were 10 other playoff games that season.

18, 13, 25, 20, 2, 18, 3, 16, 19, 23

Two games closer that 13 points. Average margin of victory, 15.7 points. Take out the 2 and the 3 and the average margin of victory is 19.0 points. For some reason, after three weeks of mostly bad games people still tuned in to the Super Bowl.

And all the other games, for that matter.

Because that's what fans do.

 

[TerryD44]

I was listening to Danny Kanell on Mad Dog yesterday and the clip they played said that the top 4 seeds (the ones with the byes) will all be conference champions. So while I agree that Notre Dame will likely always be one of the top 12, they can never be in the top 4. To me that makes it very hard for ND to be on a path to a national title.

ND will likely get a fair number of home playoff games in December, instead of a bye.

There would now be six at large spots for ND to compete/qualify for under this proposal.

ND likes the increased access to the playoffs as an independent.

Lack of a bye? No problem, no CCG to play, either. Tee up the ball.

ND has already agreed to this and just sees this as a cost of being an independent. No problem.

When asked about not having a bye, ND AD Jack Swarbrick said "I look forward to never hearing again about how we played one less game or don't have a conference championship."

(He is on the playoff expansion Committee, the chairman, I believe. He also is indicating that ND intends to remain an indy).

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

meh, its all still mostly determined by rankings and really the at large bids increased. They can still manipulate most of their schedule so why join totally? Yeah, maybe harder to get to final two, but they'e done that like once in 40 yrs.

 

[revampedpanthers]

8 teams would have been sufficient but 12 teams are definitely better than 4 so I’ll take it.

I have always felt 8 was the ideal number. I can live with 12 but we will have big games like the b10 championship which likrly wont really matter except for seeding. I liked the top 6 conferences and 2 autobids that pretty much covers anyone who really deserves to get in and spares us watching a 9-3 sec team every year

 

[revampedpanthers]

Yes but that is a shortsighted view. You start opening up and the talent will start spreading out. The 4 team model is just funneling the top players to about 6-7 teams. Everyone else is fighting for scraps.

Agree this likely helps with that but the name and likeness money is going to favor the big schools even more

 

[9nationalchampionships]

Agree this likely helps with that but the name and likeness money is going to favor the big schools even more

While increasing the # in the CFP will favor the top name schools (brand and TV rights) it does open up more chances for other schools.

 

[pittdan77]

People watch bowl exhibition games. And you think they'll skip an actual playoff game that counts?

Numbers say they're watching less and less. You think that doesn't matter to the people who pay for it?

 

[pittdan77]

There was ONE NFL post season game that was a one score (5pts) or less. All of the other results were 11 points or more. Sometimes parity is parody. Sometimes it works. But it is time to expand the 4 team system. The bowl system is already suffering enough, so if this means more meaningful post season games, isn't that good?? I don't get the objection.

So far, 8 of the 14 semi-final games have seen the loser get doubled up. In the last three years, there have only been 2 close games in the entire four team playoff. Not only that, if you look at how dominating the top two or three teams have been, there is zero evidence that the outcome changes. All you're really doing is putting guys that have future Sunday paydays at risk.

 

[cashisking884]

In 2017, the year of the great Patriots comeback against the Falcons in the Super Bowl, there were 10 other playoff games that season.

18, 13, 25, 20, 2, 18, 3, 16, 19, 23

Two games closer that 13 points. Average margin of victory, 15.7 points. Take out the 2 and the 3 and the average margin of victory is 19.0 points. For some reason, after three weeks of mostly bad games people still tuned in to the Super Bowl.

And all the other games, for that matter.

Because that's what fans do.

Doesn’ this just ignore the actual problem trying to be fixed?

You’re saying it doesn’t matter if the games are blowouts, the ratings will be there.

But the current concern is that people *aren’t* watching. Ratings are dropping. And that is what is trying to be fixed. So saying it doesn’t matter, the ratings will only be great, isn’t true. If it was, there would be no expansion talk.

Maybe adding a bunch of blowouts to playoffs that are almost all blowout games, will fix the ratings problem. But I’m skeptical.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Doesn’ this just ignore the actual problem trying to be fixed?

You’re saying it doesn’t matter if the games are blowouts, the ratings will be there.

But the current concern is that people *aren’t* watching. Ratings are dropping. And that is what is trying to be fixed. So saying it doesn’t matter, the ratings will only be great, isn’t true. If it was, there would be no expansion talk.

Maybe adding a bunch of blowouts to playoffs that are almost all blowout games, will fix the ratings problem. But I’m skeptical.

But most of the games won't be any more likely to be blowouts than they are now. Are any of the first round games, that don't involve Alabama and Clemson in a normal year, likely to be blowouts? When 8 is playing 9 is that likely to be a blowout? Or 7 versus 10? If you think that there is a huge difference in quality between the average team ranked 5-8 most years than the average team ranked 9-12 then you are simply wrong. This system will actually make it far more likely that more games will be competitive, simply because there are more games with teams that are on the same level than there are now.

The point, which you clearly missed, is that yeah, there will be blowouts. Just like there are in any playoff scenario. You can't hold a playoff tournament in any major sports organization without the knowledge that some games will be blowouts. If you are holding out for a system that guarantees no blowouts, you aren't going to have a system. Any system.

 

[cashisking884]

But most of the games won't be any more likely to be blowouts than they are now. Are any of the first round games, that don't involve Alabama and Clemson in a normal year, likely to be blowouts? When 8 is playing 9 is that likely to be a blowout? Or 7 versus 10? If you think that there is a huge difference in quality between the average team ranked 5-8 most years than the average team ranked 9-12 then you are simply wrong. This system will actually make it far more likely that more games will be competitive, simply because there are more games with teams that are on the same level than there are now.

The point, which you clearly missed, is that yeah, there will be blowouts. Just like there are in any playoff scenario. You can't hold a playoff tournament in any major sports organization without the knowledge that some games will be blowouts. If you are holding out for a system that guarantees no blowouts, you aren't going to have a system. Any system.

You’re just strawmaning the hell out of this response.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You’re just strawmaning the hell out of this response.

If you want, I can try to dumb it down a little more for you.

 

[cashisking884]

If you want, I can try to dumb it down a little more for you.

Use crayons, please.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

More teams, means more fan bases, means more interest. If you make it, you have a chance. Maybe slim, but you have a chance. There will be upsets which will generates more interest. That's why I hate the top 4 getting byes.

Fans get bored watching the same 5 or 6 teams every year. You have entire P5 conferences left out each year. That's bad for business. The BB tournament has everyone interested. The closer you can get to that model the better.

They will be at 16 teams within the next 5 years. I'd much rather watch two teams in a playoff game than the Citrus Bowl.

 

[cashisking884]

More teams, means more fan bases, means more interest. If you make it, you have a chance. Maybe slim, but you have a chance. There will be upsets which will generates more interest. That's why I hate the top 4 getting byes.

Fans get bored watching the same 5 or 6 teams every year. You have entire P5 conferences left out each year. That's bad for business. The BB tournament has everyone interested. The closer you can get to that model the better.

They will be at 16 teams within the next 5 years. I'd much rather watch two teams in a playoff game than the Citrus Bowl.

There hasn’t been anything close to upsets now. I get what you’re saying. If you literally play a 1 v 16, you’re going to have an upset eventually. On a long enough timeline, everything will e

But there aren’t going to be upsets at any kind of level to make a difference in the ratings. Those Washington and Michigan State teams were never going to be close to the top teams. Play the game 100 times, and it wouldn’t matter.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

There hasn’t been anything close to upsets now.

There have been seven playoffs under the current system. Number one and number two have met in the championship in three of those seven seasons. And oddly enough, number two won all three of those games. So far in seven years the number one seed has won the championship twice, in the last two seasons. Which, of course, means that there hasn't been even one year yet where the higher seeded team has won every game. And that's with only three games per year.

So yeah, clearly no upsets at all, or really, even anything close to it.

 

[cashisking884]

There have been seven playoffs under the current system. Number one and number two have met in the championship in three of those seven seasons. And oddly enough, number two won all three of those games. So far in seven years the number one seed has won the championship twice, in the last two seasons. Which, of course, means that there hasn't been even one year yet where the higher seeded team has won every game. And that's with only three games per year.

So yeah, clearly no upsets at all, or really, even anything close to it.

Yes, that’s a classic college basketball style upset. Thank you for correcting me.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

There hasn’t been anything close to upsets now. I get what you’re saying. If you literally play a 1 v 16, you’re going to have an upset eventually. On a long enough timeline, everything will e

But there aren’t going to be upsets at any kind of level to make a difference in the ratings. Those Washington and Michigan State teams were never going to be close to the top teams. Play the game 100 times, and it wouldn’t matter.

Right, because Clemson could never lose to Pitt or Syracuse. Alabama could never lose to Auburn (twice) and Ole Miss. OSU would never lose to Purdue, Iowa, PSU, or MSU.

And it doesn't have to be a 1 vs 16. There are plenty of other scenarios that could play out.

 

[Dointhatrag]

it is very plausible for a 12 to beat a 5 or 11 over a 6 in the proposed format and an opportunity for a potential P5 to play and beat a 2nd or 3rd place SEC or big 10 team. It also give the pac12 and B12 a chance to participate in the college playoffs on an annual basis which opens back up half the county to playoffs.

 

[Ranson1989]

I'm all for this. Pitt and the playoffs is no longer some once in a generation type event to me. I can def see us getting ready for a game that decides if we make it to the postseason or not with this format.

 

[cashisking884]

Right, because Clemson could never lose to Pitt or Syracuse. Alabama could never lose to Auburn (twice) and Ole Miss. OSU would never lose to Purdue, Iowa, PSU, or MSU.

And it doesn't have to be a 1 vs 16. There are plenty of other scenarios that could play out.

It’s one thing to upset these teams in the middle of the season. It’s another to do it in the playoffs.

Yes Alabama could lose to Auburn. In Auburn team that averages Top 10 recruiting classes, that’s located in the area of the country that isn’t hurting for college football fan interaction.

But what other upsets do you really seeing driving ratings? People tune into the first week of the college basketball tourney because there are all of these nail biters and upsets. And it happens so frequently, that after a long enough time, it created an expectation for it. So people now tune in with anticipatioN. That just isn’t going to happen in today‘s college football. An 8 beating a 9 isn’t going to matter to the average sports fan.

 

[cashisking884]

it is very plausible for a 12 to beat a 5 or 11 over a 6 in the proposed format and an opportunity for a potential P5 to play and beat a 2nd or 3rd place SEC or big 10 team. It also give the pac12 and B12 a chance to participate in the college playoffs on an annual basis which opens back up half the county to playoffs.

I think that’s probably plausible. And it won’t move the needle with anybody in my office.

And the idea that we need to open up the west coast market ignores the biggest problem with the west coast: nobody out there watches college football. Their network isn’t collapsing because of the playoffs. It’s collapsing because its just not a major sports market. The west coast doesn’t care. They aren’t tuning into Week 1, Week 2, 3, etc.

 

[cashisking884]

I'm all for this. Pitt and the playoffs is no longer some once in a generation type event to me. I can def see us getting ready for a game that decides if we make it to the postseason or not with this format.

This is the most honest answer.
“Ratings” and “recruiting” are just the thin justifications for expansion. Iowa and Pitt and Baylor and Stanford being in the playoffs isn’t going to draw one more national eyeball. In the end, its mostly about just wanting a taste of what the super powers got. And expanding the numbers until we reach a point where its conceivable we could have that. It’s just old fashion selfishness. What cannot be gotten on the football field, will be legislated into existence. Which I think is a fine enough reason. “Because I want it” is defensible enough.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

It’s one thing to upset these teams in the middle of the season. It’s another to do it in the playoffs.

Yes Alabama could lose to Auburn. In Auburn team that averages Top 10 recruiting classes, that’s located in the area of the country that isn’t hurting for college football fan interaction.

But what other upsets do you really seeing driving ratings? People tune into the first week of the college basketball tourney because there are all of these nail biters and upsets. And it happens so frequently, that after a long enough time, it created an expectation for it. So people now tune in with anticipatioN. That just isn’t going to happen in today‘s college football. An 8 beating a 9 isn’t going to matter to the average sports fan.

An Auburn type team is exactly the type of team likely to be in the 5-16 range most years. It's not going to be Troy, Ball St, or Marshall. People tune into the BB tournament for a lot of things, not just the upsets. The biggest is probably bracket pools.

The other option is just hand the trophy to Alabama at the end of the year. That will generate TV revenue.....

 

[Pitt79]

I'm trying to imagine any scenario where a G5 would have a home game. Especially a Mountain West school. There's a reason they get their seasons done early.

Otherwise, it still comes down to TV and what they want to pay for an Iowa State at ND or an Indiana at Cincy. If they can't get people to watch bowl games like those now, I don't know how a very outside chance of changing the inevitable outcome we had last year, moves the needle.

Personally I'd watch the games with all the off brand teams, then if it got to say Clemson, Alabama, tOSU and ND, then I'd not watch the rest of it.

 

[Pitt79]

There will be a lot of pregame hype, but people are clueless if they think a #12 seed is going to beat a team like Alabama. There will be a lot of blowouts. The massive gap in talent and coaching will still exist.

As it gets to a point that more different schools have an actual chance to get in, then the talent might begin to spread out.

 

[cashisking884]

As it gets to a point that more different schools have an actual chance to get in, then the talent might begin to spread out.

Why don’t those schools have a chance to get in today? Is there a law preventing Oregon State from playing for the national championship?

 

[YourPittDanceTeam]

With College Football Playoff change looming, a 12-team model leads the way

While popular sentiment has the College Football Playoff expanding to an eight-team tournament, that isn't the focus of the sport's power brokers.

sports.yahoo.com

I view the 12 team playoff as a step in the right direction, but it still needs some work.
A 16 team play off format would be ideal.
You take the 10 FBS Division IA conference winners (all conferences must decide to determine their champion the same way, either regular season record or conference championship game winner). That would leave wiggle room for a committee (like the NCAA uses for their basketball tournament) to determine the remaining 6 participants.
I would not want them to use the useless weekly football rankings as their guide to determine the remaining teams. Open the bowl games up to the highest bidder each season. The bowl offering the most money gets the National Championship game, the remaining top 14 bowl games (based upon money bid) would get the other playoff games.
All money generated by the 15 bowl games gets distributed evenly amongst all participating teams.

 

[pittdan77]

I view the 12 team playoff as a step in the right direction, but it still needs some work.
A 16 team play off format would be ideal.
You take the 10 FBS Division IA conference winners (all conferences must decide to determine their champion the same way, either regular season record or conference championship game winner). That would leave wiggle room for a committee (like the NCAA uses for their basketball tournament) to determine the remaining 6 participants.
I would not want them to use the useless weekly football rankings as their guide to determine the remaining teams. Open the bowl games up to the highest bidder each season. The bowl offering the most money gets the National Championship game, the remaining top 14 bowl games (based upon money bid) would get the other playoff games.
All money generated by the 15 bowl games gets distributed evenly amongst all participating teams.

Why not 32 teams?

Anyway, there is already an independent group that decides who the participants are in the current tournament. Probably keep the same bunch. So far as the higher bidder goes, TV does that although it's worth noting that even the article went so far as to point out that nobody asked them what they'd pay for this scheme or if they're even interested. Seems like a big deal.

 

[Pitt79]

Why don’t those schools have a chance to get in today? Is there a law preventing Oregon State from playing for the national championship?

No, but the best recruits congregate at the teams that are always there, making it super hard for an Oregon State to get enough talent to contend. To me it's not mainly about that anyways. I'd like to be excited about a playoff, because it's not always the same teams, I'd like to be excited if Pitt could get late into the season and have an actual shot at a playoff, and be excited if some 3rd rate team somehow upset Bama and ruined their season, I LIKE STUFF LIKE THAT! I HATE when the "best team" wins the championship. I LOVE WHEN THEY ARE UPSET. So basically, a bigger 12 team playoff adds a lot of FUN and uncertainty that isn't there now, I HATE the certainty of the "best teams" being handed the Final 4, this eliminates that problem, sure they will probably get there anyways, but at least there's a slight hope they won't.

 

[cashisking884]

No, but the best recruits congregate at the teams that are always there, making it super hard for an Oregon State to get enough talent to contend. To me it's not mainly about that anyways. I'd like to be excited about a playoff, because it's not always the same teams, I'd like to be excited if Pitt could get late into the season and have an actual shot at a playoff, and be excited if some 3rd rate team somehow upset Bama and ruined their season, I LIKE STUFF LIKE THAT! I HATE when the "best team" wins the championship. I LOVE WHEN THEY ARE UPSET. So basically, a bigger 12 team playoff adds a lot of FUN and uncertainty that isn't there now, I HATE the certainty of the "best teams" being handed the Final 4, this eliminates that problem, sure they will probably get there anyways, but at least there's a slight hope they won't.

But it doesn’t really. You can pull up the blue chip ratio list right now and there’s your national title contenders. There’s no real mystery to it. I guess it maybe impacts the margins. The team with the highest blue chip ratio gets upset by the team with the 6th highest, so Ohio State plays UGA that year for the NC instead of Ohio State v Bama.

But its not going to be this wild ride like people are pretending. However, as I said, “I don’t care, I want it” I think is a fine enough justification for changing. It’s better than, “this will change recruiting“ or silly stuff like that.

 

[pittdan77]

No, but the best recruits congregate at the teams that are always there, making it super hard for an Oregon State to get enough talent to contend. To me it's not mainly about that anyways. I'd like to be excited about a playoff, because it's not always the same teams, I'd like to be excited if Pitt could get late into the season and have an actual shot at a playoff, and be excited if some 3rd rate team somehow upset Bama and ruined their season, I LIKE STUFF LIKE THAT! I HATE when the "best team" wins the championship. I LOVE WHEN THEY ARE UPSET. So basically, a bigger 12 team playoff adds a lot of FUN and uncertainty that isn't there now, I HATE the certainty of the "best teams" being handed the Final 4, this eliminates that problem, sure they will probably get there anyways, but at least there's a slight hope they won't.

Wait a minute. You've argued in the past that the best recruit go to the schools that cheat the most. Therefore, if Oregon State wants to be in the final four, they just need to cheat more. Past performance means nothing.

 

[cashisking884]

Wait a minute. You've argued in the past that the best recruit go to the schools that cheat the most. Therefore, if Oregon State wants to be in the final four, they just need to cheat more. Past performance means nothing.

A lot of people have the cause and effect backwards. The SEC didn’t start getting all the recruits because they started playing for all the national championships. They started playing for all the NCs because they started getting all the recruits.

Nebraska was an elite, frequent NC contender when its recruiting collapsed. Being able to sell NC opportunity didn’t help it one bit on the trail. In the end, kids weren’t going 800+ miles away anymore.

It’s not a coincidence that their downfall as a program coincided with the rise of the south, OU, Texas, and USCw. The Tommy Fraziers and Kordell Stewarts of the world stopped leaving the southeast to play football and it destroyed programs like Nebraska and Colorado that aren’t close to talent breadbaskets and so rely on those kids being willing to change time zones.
This happened while Nebraska and Colorado had a NC level history to sell and LSU was nothing but that program whose one coach died in a plane crash.

 

[topdecktiger]

Why don’t those schools have a chance to get in today? Is there a law preventing Oregon State from playing for the national championship?

Wait a minute. You've argued in the past that the best recruit go to the schools that cheat the most. Therefore, if Oregon State wants to be in the final four, they just need to cheat more. Past performance means nothing.

That's actually true. It would just take a hell of a lot of cheating.

A lot of people have the cause and effect backwards. The SEC didn’t start getting all the recruits because they started playing for all the national championships. They started playing for all the NCs because they started getting all the recruits.

Nebraska was an elite, frequent NC contender when its recruiting collapsed. Being able to sell NC opportunity didn’t help it one bit on the trail. In the end, kids weren’t going 800+ miles away anymore.

It’s not a coincidence that their downfall as a program coincided with the rise of the south, OU, Texas, and USCw. The Tommy Fraziers and Kordell Stewarts of the world stopped leaving the southeast to play football and it destroyed programs like Nebraska and Colorado that aren’t close to talent breadbaskets and so rely on those kids being willing to change time zones.
This happened while Nebraska and Colorado had a NC level history to sell and LSU was nothing but that program whose one coach died in a plane crash.

One thing about Nebraska though. In their heyday, Nebraska's main talent pipeline was from New Jersey.

Back in the 70s and 80s when Nebraska was a contender, Oklahoma, Texas, and Southern Cal were all national powers. That's nothing new.

 

[cashisking884]

That's actually true. It would just take a hell of a lot of cheating.

One thing about Nebraska though. In their heyday, Nebraska's main talent pipeline was from New Jersey.

Back in the 70s and 80s when Nebraska was a contender, Oklahoma, Texas, and Southern Cal were all national powers. That's nothing new.

That’s not really true. Texas and So. Cal were fairly average programs. SMU rose up in the early ‘80s, by the late ‘80s A&M had become the top school (and they weren’t very good), and by the early ‘90s Houston was preseason Top 10 and the school people thought might be the new Miami.

But sure, there were always literally other contenders during Nebraska’s run.

But what happened in the late ‘90s/early 00 is that football became the new Roman Colosseum. And so schools began just dumping money into football by the truck loads.

Which meant all those facilities and things Nebraska relied on competitive advantage, stopped being an advantage. Nebraska became just another school. So recruits stopped leaving their geographic regions. And Nebraska’s talent dried up over night.

It’s not that there are one or two programs spending like Nebraska. It’s that there are entire regions of the United States spending like Nebraska. That’s why those programs rose up beginning in the early to mid ‘00s. That’s when you see the return on the investment hitting. And that’s when the south left everybody else behind.

Pretending like artificially creating national title contenders is going to disburse recruits across the country, just ignores why recruits stopped being disbursed across the country. It had nothing to do with national title contention. That’s the effect of the trend.

 

[topdecktiger]

That’s not really true. Texas and So. Cal were fairly average programs. SMU rose up in the early ‘80s, by the late ‘80s A&M had become the top school (and they weren’t very good), and by the early ‘90s Houston was preseason Top 10 and the school people thought might be the new Miami.

But sure, there were always literally other contenders during Nebraska’s run.

But what happened in the late ‘90s/early 00 is that football became the new Roman Colosseum. And so schools began just dumping money into football by the truck loads.

Which meant all those facilities and things Nebraska relied on competitive advantage, stopped being an advantage. Nebraska became just another school. So recruits stopped leaving their geographic regions. And Nebraska’s talent dried up over night.

It’s not that there are one or two programs spending like Nebraska. It’s that there are entire regions of the United States spending like Nebraska. That’s why those programs rose up beginning in the early ‘00s. That’s when you see the return on the investment hitting. And that’s when the south left everybody else behind.

Pretending like artificially creating national title contenders is going to disburse recruits across the country, just ignores why recruits stopped being disbursed across the country. It had nothing to do with national title contention. That’s the effect of the trend.

Right. It's just that the thing that killed Nebraska is the TV money, because other schools could outspend them, and they didn't have a nearby recruiting base to rely on, like Oklahoma, Florida etc.

Although another factor is Nebraska relied a lot on the big corn-fed lineman from the local 7-on-7 teams. When offenses opened up and speed became more of a priority, it really put them behind the 8-ball.

I would have to disagree though about Texas and Southern Cal. They were still legitimate Top 10 programs in the 80s.

 

[pittdan77]

But what happened in the late ‘90s/early 00 is that football became the new Roman Colosseum. And so schools began just dumping money into football by the truck loads.

Southern football was always a big deal in the south. They were just smart enough to get out in front of the curve and gave kids a reason to stay home.

The other thing that contributed was a demographic shift left a lot of schools with slim pickings in their traditional recruiting areas. Opening a pipeline to the south was/is a hard sell without exposure to those areas. Even then, there are still a ton of reasons for the best players to stay home.

 

[Pitt79]

Wait a minute. You've argued in the past that the best recruit go to the schools that cheat the most. Therefore, if Oregon State wants to be in the final four, they just need to cheat more. Past performance means nothing.

That's another route OS could take.

 

[YourPittDanceTeam]

Why not 32 teams?

Anyway, there is already an independent group that decides who the participants are in the current tournament. Probably keep the same bunch. So far as the higher bidder goes, TV does that although it's worth noting that even the article went so far as to point out that nobody asked them what they'd pay for this scheme or if they're even interested. Seems like a big deal.

To be quite honest, a 32 team playoff format would be perfect.

 

[Burgh15]

To be quite honest, a 32 team playoff format would be perfect.

When you factor in a conference championship game, the two teams in the National Championship game would be playing an additional half a season. Given how few teams can win on a given year, I'm surprised the FBS is so large. It feels like they could break it down into several smaller divisions so more teams have a chance to compete for titles.