It is remarkable. I do suspect Oregon State and Washington State may end up in the Big XII, bringing them to 18.
College Sports / Conference Realignment
- Status
Do those programs really help the Big 12 though? I'm skeptical.
IDK, but I don't think the ACC collapsing is a sure-thing. ND seems to be committed to its survival and I just don't see the more prestigious institutions leaving for the Big XII if it did.
Serious Late
- Peoria via Denver via Ann Arbor via Albuquerque vi
I've long suspected they go to the ACC with Stanford/Cal eventually. May be another 5 years, but I'm skeptical the ACC lasts in it's current form long-term.
That said, I'm not positive who the SEC or Big Ten would want. If the B1G added FSU/ND, that would seemingly be worth it, but the current top of the ACC feels to be losing steam as targets of the Big 2.
I guess my question is more, does the Big 12 really even need to expand to 18 if it means bringing in programs that don't add value? I just don't think the current B12 programs will jump to share their revenue with the two least desirable programs (as evidenced by them getting stuck there) in a conference that imploded on itself.
yea, if the B12 really wanted them, they would be in by now
well, we do need to weigh the disparity of quality between the conferences so that'd be a plus.
RabidDawgClassic
- Los Angeles, CA
Only two things surprise me on this list:
1. That Michigan State has played just three fewer games than Michigan while ranked #1
2. That Northwestern has played any games — let alone five! — ranked as #1.
1. That Michigan State has played just three fewer games than Michigan while ranked #1
2. That Northwestern has played any games — let alone five! — ranked as #1.
Also Penn State with only 12 games at #1, barely ahead of Minnesota (11) and Iowa (10).
Northwestern's wins were from the 1st year of the poll--1936. They were also ranked No. 1 in 1962 but did not win any games. All of the Illinois top rankings predate the AP poll. We have never been ranked No. 1 in the AP poll. Could undefeated Illinois do it by beating Ohio State on October 11? Crazy talk.
I’d argue the regular season is quickly gaining relevancy. With 4 teams in the playoffs, the entire regular season is irrelevant for all but 10 teams. Now 40 plus teams think they have a legitimate chance for the playoffs. The entire season is relevant with 25 teams having a shot in the final week or two. Moving 4 teams to 12 teams dramatically increased the relevance of the regular season. Moving to 16 will do the same. It is very difficult to get through the BT and SEC and finish in the top 4.
I agree on this take. I would be curious where the maximum playoff teams vs. season relevancy line is, though. For example, i think we'd all agree that a 7 round, 128-team playoff would be ridiculous, an I only include it here as an obvious "that's too much" line.
I think the key question is "how many teams still have a legit shot of winning it all"? If that answer is around 20, then there needs to be space for around 20-ish teams to make it; less than 20, really (16 falls within that range). Then, regular season becomes important. If only 4 teams have a legit shot to win it, then a 16-team playoff system is too much.
As it stands right now, there are likely 20+ teams that have a real shot of being good enough to compete for a championship (possibly more). 16-team playoffs sounds good. I'm happy with the 12, but I'd be happy with 16.
Illwinsagain
- Cary, IL
Good points. I think that the regular season has become more relevant for the teams like the Illini, Football selection Sunday will have a wider appeal. For the Buckeyes, Bulldogs and Crimson Tide, etc, likely just allows them a slip up (once, maybe twice) that they may not have been allowed when it was only a 4 team tourney. So if a star player misses a game or two, it may not cost them their title hopes. Regarding "how many teams have a legit shot at the title?" My bias against ND had me believe that they didn't have a chance, I was proven wrong. So, maybe 8 teams last year had the talent to win it if the starts aligned? The big question then becomes "which 8?" I am warming up to the 16 team model. I like not having a bye for the first 4 teams. Since those teams were 0-4 (please correct me if wrong), it did not play out to an advantage, but rather a significant disadvantage.
ptgrd23
- orange county CA
CFP last year if b10 gets 4 - no change
OSU, Oregon, PSU and Indiana
Most people would expect Michigan to replace Indiana in most years.
Going to 16 would give Illinois access to an "at large berth". or sneak into the B10 4th slot.
Not a big change for Illinois. If there are 16 teams is there any need for conference championship games?
OSU, Oregon, PSU and Indiana
Most people would expect Michigan to replace Indiana in most years.
Going to 16 would give Illinois access to an "at large berth". or sneak into the B10 4th slot.
Not a big change for Illinois. If there are 16 teams is there any need for conference championship games?
My strong suspicion is that future expansion will always work against fans that enjoy the regular season. The suits that make the projections will invariably forget to put into their projections how watering down the regular season will hurt the sport, while putting in projections for the incremental revenue. It's an experiment that we'll be able to (have to?) watch unfold.
mattcoldagelli
- Script Illinois Enthusiast
Yes, this.
There has been much kvetching about the regular season "becoming irrelevant" but what those critics are really saying is that they don't like it that you no longer have to go undefeated (or get as close to it as possible, depending on the year). Which hey, maybe you were inordinately invested in CFB being the sport you watched where there was no room for error....I'm not here to kink shame. But the regular season last year was plenty compelling, and there's no reason to think that won't continue being the case.
i’m okay with essentially having all cfp teams play a 13th game and put the 4 qualifiers from B1G & SEC on equal footing in terms of games played .
then the CFP is games 14, 15 , 16 & 17 for the champ . it’s the price some of these players need to pay to get 1.5 M at age 20.
for the fan, watching relevant college games throughout December is pretty nice .
then the CFP is games 14, 15 , 16 & 17 for the champ . it’s the price some of these players need to pay to get 1.5 M at age 20.
for the fan, watching relevant college games throughout December is pretty nice .
DeonThomas
- South Carolina
Surprises me the most?
The Fighting Illini of Illinois, of course. 5 Natty's and we've never played a game as the AP#1!!!
DeonThomas
- South Carolina
NFL: 14 out of 32 = 44% of teams make the playoffs
NCAA: 16 out of 134 = 12% would make the playoffs
Totally agree. When referring to D-1 college football and basketball players, the term "student-athlete" should be outlawed -- that term wasn't accurate when the top recruits were getting a bag under the table, and it's certainly not accurate now that seemingly everyone is getting a bag of some size.
There's two sides to it for sure, and it depends a lot on what era we're comparing (e.g 12 team era vs 4) and your personal sweet spot. For the 12 team playoff, we only have a direct sample of one, but I think it's pretty clear that 2 loss teams are in the discussion, and even some 3 loss teams in certain scenarios. Expansion will only make those more and more common, and the stakes for regular season games less. There was something special about top ten games before that I think is being lost.
I have mixed feelings personally. 4 was way too tight IMO and too biased towards what used to be the P4. Expanding from 12 though isn't going to get me to watch more playoff games, and it will make me less interested in the regular season.
- Status