Expansion is looking like it will happen for 2024. I did not see a thread on this subject, so apologies if I missed it. Was listening to Josh Pate, and he thinks it will radically change college football. More playoff opt outs, and much less importance on the regular season, since teams should be able to lose another game or two and still get in. Ring the bell, though, the money is going to be huge.
CFP 12-team expansion beginning in 2024
- Status
Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
- Bloomington, IL
Just my opinion--12 is dumb. Go to 16 and make the top seeds earn it.
Format:
"The six highest-ranked conference champions in the FBS will receive automatic bids and the next six highest-rated teams in the CFP rankings will receive at-large spots. The four highest-ranked conference champions will be rewarded with first-round byes. The first round will be held on the campuses of the higher-ranked programs (seeds Nos. 5-8). Bowl sites will be utilized starting with the quarterfinals through the national championship, with six bowls in the rotation."
"The six highest-ranked conference champions in the FBS will receive automatic bids and the next six highest-rated teams in the CFP rankings will receive at-large spots. The four highest-ranked conference champions will be rewarded with first-round byes. The first round will be held on the campuses of the higher-ranked programs (seeds Nos. 5-8). Bowl sites will be utilized starting with the quarterfinals through the national championship, with six bowls in the rotation."
Seems like illinois will have a better chance at being in the CFP then winning the b10 in 2024 going forward?
I prefer byes. They make the regular season more important. They also make it more likely that the best team will win. I think its good to have the championship actually awarded to the best team, but understand the view point that its better increase the chances that a "lesser" team might win.
Fwiw, in 2005 I told people we could just skip the NCAA tournament (which I recall one team did back in ancient times when it was a 16 team tournament for champions only). We were the unanimous number 1 at the end of the regular season: there was no need for a tournament to "decide" who was the best team.
Possible B1G football tournament format for a four-division B1G:
In playing with some proposals, I just realized that if you set the conference up with four divisions, and have the regular season consist of each team playing each team in its own division plus each team in one other division (that other division switching every year so that every you are guaranteed to play each team outside your division once every three years), you can decide the conference champion with a single game. Let's say there are four divisions, and we play in (and won) a plains division that played every team in a west division that was won by USC, and Michigan played in (and won) a midwest division that played every team in an east division that was won by Penn State. You could use the regular-season game between us and USC to decide one of the berths in the championship game, and the regular-season game between Michigan and Penn State to determine the other berth.
In playing with some proposals, I just realized that if you set the conference up with four divisions, and have the regular season consist of each team playing each team in its own division plus each team in one other division (that other division switching every year so that every you are guaranteed to play each team outside your division once every three years), you can decide the conference champion with a single game. Let's say there are four divisions, and we play in (and won) a plains division that played every team in a west division that was won by USC, and Michigan played in (and won) a midwest division that played every team in an east division that was won by Penn State. You could use the regular-season game between us and USC to decide one of the berths in the championship game, and the regular-season game between Michigan and Penn State to determine the other berth.
Post season could be a lot longer though. E.g.
1. Lose conf championship game to get in the 5-12 position
2. Win and advance to round of 8
3. Win - go to round of 4
4. Win a semi-final game
5 Play in the N.C. game.
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
That is true. I posted my thoughts on another thread with how I could envision a 4 division format:
"I can see a scenario where non-conference season gets cut down to 2 games, and then have a conference season of 9 games. This gets to eleven games. Those teams that do not win division meet a similar ranked non-division foe for their 12th game. Only the two teams in conference championship game play the final week. So we are back at 13 possible games that we have now for a school. The perk of the playoff formatting is that the winner of the B1G will almost certainly get a bye in the CFP. In this scenario, if you win the B1G, to win CFP you would play in 16 games, which is only one more game than the current format.
I do not believe the standard 12 week season, in it's current format will continue long term, especially if the B1G does a major expansion in the next few years. As long as we are only adding USC and UCLA, it will be easy to keep the two divisions format, but I think another expansion will happen."
Whatever is actually decided, you must provide a format that guarantees that each team plays at least 12 games in their season, with at least 6 home game opportunities. A 7 game conference season, with the 3 current non-conference games, can wreak havoc on teams that do not qualify for B1G playoff. You would end up with double digit schools scrambling to find two more games to add to their schedule. That is why I believe something like I suggested being the working format -- either a 2 or 3 non-conference game schedule and then 8-9 standard conference games, with a final conference game being added based on standings if you are not part of B1G playoff. This is to ensure that each school gets the required 12 games, without having the logistical headache of trying to add games last minute.
Yep, in a 16 team conference (9 in a twenty team conference.). If everybody plays a last game against a comparable finishing team (the other two division champs play each other, the send-place finishers play each other, etc.), you get to eight (or ten) conference games per year.
Four non conference games is probably too many, I think. So, with sixteen teams, I would probably prefer a two-week playoff at the end.
We were 17.5 point underdogs to Michigan this year...didn't go so bad.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
Is it just me or is the 12 team playoff way more exciting for an Illini fan?
Like legit, we could have a 9-10 win season and make the playoff.
The friggin’ playoff.
Just making the playoff would feel incredible.
At 4 teams, I feel like we have almost no shot.
Like legit, we could have a 9-10 win season and make the playoff.
The friggin’ playoff.
Just making the playoff would feel incredible.
At 4 teams, I feel like we have almost no shot.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Yep. The only, and I mean only, people this hurts are those with a financial interest in the various lower tier bowls. Now, that's a decent number of people (especially when considering those communities and any benefit they might get from hosting), but it hardly ever includes coaches, players or fans associated with programs across the country. I know logistically we cannot replicate the NCAA Tournament here, but "as close as we can get" should be the goal.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Completely agree. Only a couple of weeks ago, I saw a graphic on social media that was titled, "Teams that would still be in it if we had a 12-team playoff." And we were there.
(Presumably this is because we had a chance to win the West, but the point stands.) I mean, if we always had a 12-team playoff, we very well might have already made two of them in 2001-02 and 2007-08!lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
Some people say the 12 team playoff gives the games less meaning.
I disagree.
Maybe for a game like OSU vs Michigan in the last game of the season, where both teams have a playoff spot locked up whether they win or lose. Yeah, that might mean less.
But for the teams ranked 5-25 who all have a reasonable shot to make or miss out on the playoff based on the last 1-2 games of the year, each of those games mean *more*.
I also believe the 12 team playoff brings more parity to the sport.
In a sport where only 4-8 teams have a reasonable chance to make the playoff, 4-8 teams hold the entirety of the recruiting power.
When 12 can make it and 20+ teams have a reasonable shot to make it each year, the top teams have less of a recruiting advantage.
For a team like ours, CFP expansion is a beautiful thing.
I disagree.
Maybe for a game like OSU vs Michigan in the last game of the season, where both teams have a playoff spot locked up whether they win or lose. Yeah, that might mean less.
But for the teams ranked 5-25 who all have a reasonable shot to make or miss out on the playoff based on the last 1-2 games of the year, each of those games mean *more*.
I also believe the 12 team playoff brings more parity to the sport.
In a sport where only 4-8 teams have a reasonable chance to make the playoff, 4-8 teams hold the entirety of the recruiting power.
When 12 can make it and 20+ teams have a reasonable shot to make it each year, the top teams have less of a recruiting advantage.
For a team like ours, CFP expansion is a beautiful thing.
Not that anyone asked, but I like the new format for several reasons:
The 4 team format kept out too many deserving teams. 4 isn't even enough to put in conference champions, let alone the best of the non-conf champions. Really helps the non P5.
Similar to the bball tournament, you'll have a rich debate about resumes and seeding, so hardcore fans will have plenty to follow. The cut-off for a first round bye will be very hotly debated, for sure.
There's already a debate about "punishing" teams that lose their conference championship, but I think all games need to be considered.
Season is pretty long -- I hope more guys get something for the effort and risks they take. If I'm a first rounder, do I even play in the playoffs? I wonder if they'll need to come up with an insurance plan for playoffs.
The 4 team format kept out too many deserving teams. 4 isn't even enough to put in conference champions, let alone the best of the non-conf champions. Really helps the non P5.
Similar to the bball tournament, you'll have a rich debate about resumes and seeding, so hardcore fans will have plenty to follow. The cut-off for a first round bye will be very hotly debated, for sure.
There's already a debate about "punishing" teams that lose their conference championship, but I think all games need to be considered.
Season is pretty long -- I hope more guys get something for the effort and risks they take. If I'm a first rounder, do I even play in the playoffs? I wonder if they'll need to come up with an insurance plan for playoffs.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
Replying to my own post cuz I wanna give one more example:
Let’s say we played this season all over again under the current bowl set up.
The difference is: we beat Purdue & Michigan to go 10-2.
What’s the difference in outcome? We go from the Reliaquest Bowl to the Citrus Bowl?
So we beat the #2 team in the nation, win the B1G West, go 10-2 and we go from earning a bowl game in Florida to a slightly better bowl game in Florida?
Under the expanded playoff rules, those 2 wins get us into the college football playoff.
The. College. Football. Playoff.
And it’s not just us, there are few dozen teams in similar situations.
How much more exciting does that make the college football season?
Ryllini
- Lombard
Bingo!
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
It would be interesting to see how much more the CFP would mirror the NCAA Tournament the more it expands. For example, the NCAAT is theoretically taking the 64 best teams, but your conference affiliation definitely matters, and it factors heavily (if not officially) into your SOS and therefore the NET rankings. I almost feel like an "undefeated Clemson" or "undefeated Notre Dame" would all of a sudden find itself getting less and less of a seeding boost from that feat if there were more teams in it, as the current selection appears to be a rather subjective game of "Who has had an 'exceptional' season?"
Meh, I'm in the minority. I can't imagine any special thrill from "making the playoff" when it's a 12 team playoff: no more than finishing, say, in the top 12 in the post season rankings. (Sure, it gives a better chance of winning the championship, but (in my view) it's a lesser "championship" if it's occasionally awarded to teams that weren't really the best team that year.)
Is it good for college football? People have talked in the past about the extra practices afforded to current bowl teams gives them a leg up the following year. I'm guessing that a 12 team playoff (spanning a month) will multiply that affect: if the Georgias and the Ohio States get an extra three or four weeks of football EVERY SINGLE YEAR, it's going to make it really hard to knock them out of "premiere" status. Maybe it's entertaining to entrench premiere teams, but it's not my idea of "good for college football."
Is it good for college football? People have talked in the past about the extra practices afforded to current bowl teams gives them a leg up the following year. I'm guessing that a 12 team playoff (spanning a month) will multiply that affect: if the Georgias and the Ohio States get an extra three or four weeks of football EVERY SINGLE YEAR, it's going to make it really hard to knock them out of "premiere" status. Maybe it's entertaining to entrench premiere teams, but it's not my idea of "good for college football."
- Status