College Football 2021 Offseason

[UMFan83]

This wouldn't start until at least the 2023 season, but here we go.

 

 

This makes me so horsefeathering happy. I liked 8 team, but I'll take 12 team for sure. Maybe Michigan will make it one year.

[NonProfitCow]

[Andy]

This wouldn't start until at least the 2023 season, but here we go.

 

 

This makes me so horsefeathering happy. I liked 8 team, but I'll take 12 team for sure. Maybe Michigan will make it one year.

My objection to emphasizing the postseason over the regular season is well documented on this board, but I'm glad they picked 12 instead of 8. I think between the two, 12 is far better.

 

I'm less than thrilled with the proviso that the top 4 conference champs will automatically receive the top 4 seeds, which means Notre Dame can't get a bye no matter how good a regular season it has, but considering the ND athletic director was literally on the subcommittee that came up with this idea, I guess they have no one to blame but themselves for that one.

[UMFan83]

This wouldn't start until at least the 2023 season, but here we go.

 

 

This makes me so horsefeathering happy. I liked 8 team, but I'll take 12 team for sure. Maybe Michigan will make it one year.

My objection to emphasizing the postseason over the regular season is well documented on this board, but I'm glad they picked 12 instead of 8. I think between the two, 12 is far better.

 

I'm less than thrilled with the proviso that the top 4 conference champs will automatically receive the top 4 seeds, which means Notre Dame can't get a bye no matter how good a regular season it has, but considering the ND athletic director was literally on the subcommittee that came up with this idea, I guess they have no one to blame but themselves for that one.

 

Just join a conference already lol

[soccer10k]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

12 teams is dumb. 8 teams is dumb. Anything that guarantees a spot to a conference champ regardless of their record is dumb. Making unpaid players play more games is dumb.

 

About the only good thing is that it guarantees a non-Power 5 school will get a shot but the negatives far outweigh the positives.

 

This was always inevitable because of money but that doesn't make me dislike it any less.

[Old Style]

I prefer 6 or 8 teams but I'm happy they're expanding the playoff.

[Andy]

 

This makes me so horsefeathering happy. I liked 8 team, but I'll take 12 team for sure. Maybe Michigan will make it one year.

My objection to emphasizing the postseason over the regular season is well documented on this board, but I'm glad they picked 12 instead of 8. I think between the two, 12 is far better.

 

I'm less than thrilled with the proviso that the top 4 conference champs will automatically receive the top 4 seeds, which means Notre Dame can't get a bye no matter how good a regular season it has, but considering the ND athletic director was literally on the subcommittee that came up with this idea, I guess they have no one to blame but themselves for that one.

 

Just join a conference already lol

They already did, and it turned the schedule into Clemson (who was on the 2020 schedule before COVID), North Carolina and 9 ridiculously boring opponents. The first 2 of those were pretty cool, the rest of it was a slog.

[Tim]

My objection to emphasizing the postseason over the regular season is well documented on this board, but I'm glad they picked 12 instead of 8. I think between the two, 12 is far better.

 

I'm less than thrilled with the proviso that the top 4 conference champs will automatically receive the top 4 seeds, which means Notre Dame can't get a bye no matter how good a regular season it has, but considering the ND athletic director was literally on the subcommittee that came up with this idea, I guess they have no one to blame but themselves for that one.

 

Just join a conference already lol

They already did, and it turned the schedule into Clemson (who was on the 2020 schedule before COVID), North Carolina and 9 ridiculously boring opponents. The first 2 of those were pretty cool, the rest of it was a slog.

lol - join a better conference

[Andy]

 

Just join a conference already lol

They already did, and it turned the schedule into Clemson (who was on the 2020 schedule before COVID), North Carolina and 9 ridiculously boring opponents. The first 2 of those were pretty cool, the rest of it was a slog.

lol - join a better conference

ACC grant of rights through 2036, so that's not an option.

 

I should've known better than to even allude to this topic on this board.

[raw]

I feel like I'm always close to being alone on this hill, but I hate playoff expansion....every iteration of it. 10 years ago, the national champ played 13 games. Last full season LSU won at 15-0. They aren't going to cut out conference games because Ohio St. played 6 conference games and there were some that took exception to them even being in the playoff in a season that was shortened anyway. They aren't going to cut out non-conference games because then you get questioning a team's schedule if they run thru an easy conference.

 

So, if you don't shorten the regular season, you have teams potentially playing 17-game schedules. Look at 2019. Georgia had their 12 game regular season schedule Play powerhouse LSU in the SEC Championship. Just missed the playoff, but would now be an extremely capable 5th seed. Pretty safe bet they beat the #12 team in the first round. Could go either way in the 4/5 game. Now they get the #1 team in a rematch in the semis, familarity, ability to adjust, can see a scenario where they win and play game 17 for the title. You can't talk about the safety of football and then make college kids play NFL length seasons (for free), while they're supposed to be going to school and maintaining certain grades, when like 90% of them won't even play professionally to even make it worth their while to do all this for free.

[Derwood]

How many games did your nephew (?) play after winning the FCS title?

[Andy]

With NIL, the 'for free' part will be somewhat mitigated. As others have pointed out, it wouldn't be hard to envision an 'appearance fee' type of situation from bowl organizers.

[UMFan83]

I feel like I'm always close to being alone on this hill, but I hate playoff expansion....every iteration of it. 10 years ago, the national champ played 13 games. Last full season LSU won at 15-0. They aren't going to cut out conference games because Ohio St. played 6 conference games and there were some that took exception to them even being in the playoff in a season that was shortened anyway. They aren't going to cut out non-conference games because then you get questioning a team's schedule if they run thru an easy conference.

 

So, if you don't shorten the regular season, you have teams potentially playing 17-game schedules. Look at 2019. Georgia had their 12 game regular season schedule Play powerhouse LSU in the SEC Championship. Just missed the playoff, but would now be an extremely capable 5th seed. Pretty safe bet they beat the #12 team in the first round. Could go either way in the 4/5 game. Now they get the #1 team in a rematch in the semis, familarity, ability to adjust, can see a scenario where they win and play game 17 for the title. You can't talk about the safety of football and then make college kids play NFL length seasons (for free), while they're supposed to be going to school and maintaining certain grades, when like 90% of them won't even play professionally to even make it worth their while to do all this for free.

 

I agree 17 games is too long but I don't think playoff contraction is the answer. I'd rather do "Student athletes can only play in 15 games" or something and keep this proposal than go back to the BCS days.

[raw]

How many games did your nephew (?) play after winning the FCS title?

 

It was a shortened season so only 10. But yeah, normal season would be 16 for FCS title game participants.

[raw]

I feel like I'm always close to being alone on this hill, but I hate playoff expansion....every iteration of it. 10 years ago, the national champ played 13 games. Last full season LSU won at 15-0. They aren't going to cut out conference games because Ohio St. played 6 conference games and there were some that took exception to them even being in the playoff in a season that was shortened anyway. They aren't going to cut out non-conference games because then you get questioning a team's schedule if they run thru an easy conference.

 

So, if you don't shorten the regular season, you have teams potentially playing 17-game schedules. Look at 2019. Georgia had their 12 game regular season schedule Play powerhouse LSU in the SEC Championship. Just missed the playoff, but would now be an extremely capable 5th seed. Pretty safe bet they beat the #12 team in the first round. Could go either way in the 4/5 game. Now they get the #1 team in a rematch in the semis, familarity, ability to adjust, can see a scenario where they win and play game 17 for the title. You can't talk about the safety of football and then make college kids play NFL length seasons (for free), while they're supposed to be going to school and maintaining certain grades, when like 90% of them won't even play professionally to even make it worth their while to do all this for free.

 

I agree 17 games is too long but I don't think playoff contraction is the answer. I'd rather do "Student athletes can only play in 15 games" or something and keep this proposal than go back to the BCS days.

 

Keep it at 4 teams. What's the motivation for expansion other than money? Sure teams like Coastal Carolina get a chance, but it's not much of one. It's not like we've been saying in the playoff era, "boy if only that midmajor got a shot against historically good Clemson, LSU and Alabama teams".

[UMFan83]

I feel like I'm always close to being alone on this hill, but I hate playoff expansion....every iteration of it. 10 years ago, the national champ played 13 games. Last full season LSU won at 15-0. They aren't going to cut out conference games because Ohio St. played 6 conference games and there were some that took exception to them even being in the playoff in a season that was shortened anyway. They aren't going to cut out non-conference games because then you get questioning a team's schedule if they run thru an easy conference.

 

So, if you don't shorten the regular season, you have teams potentially playing 17-game schedules. Look at 2019. Georgia had their 12 game regular season schedule Play powerhouse LSU in the SEC Championship. Just missed the playoff, but would now be an extremely capable 5th seed. Pretty safe bet they beat the #12 team in the first round. Could go either way in the 4/5 game. Now they get the #1 team in a rematch in the semis, familarity, ability to adjust, can see a scenario where they win and play game 17 for the title. You can't talk about the safety of football and then make college kids play NFL length seasons (for free), while they're supposed to be going to school and maintaining certain grades, when like 90% of them won't even play professionally to even make it worth their while to do all this for free.

 

I agree 17 games is too long but I don't think playoff contraction is the answer. I'd rather do "Student athletes can only play in 15 games" or something and keep this proposal than go back to the BCS days.

 

Keep it at 4 teams. What's the motivation for expansion other than money? Sure teams like Coastal Carolina get a chance, but it's not much of one. It's not like we've been saying in the playoff era, "boy if only that midmajor got a shot against historically good Clemson, LSU and Alabama teams".

 

Because its the same 3 teams and it makes CFB boring. More teams theoretically (cant prove this until its tried) will redistribute talent a bit so Alabama cant just pull 5 star prospects off their bench etc. I lose more and more interest in college football every year and this would immediately increase my interest considerably (albeit so would Michigan ever beating Ohio State again). Granted I'm one person, but I would say this is the prevailing feeling amongst CFB fans.

 

I'd honestly rather go back to pre-BCS days with contractual bowl tie-ins rather than stick with a 4 team playoff.

[soccer10k]

You’ll be more interested for one season until a 9-3 Michigan team gets blasted 55-10 by Alabama/Clemson/OSU in the quarters.

 

Is this really going to distribute the talent better? If a 2nd/3rd SEC/Big 10/Big 12/Pac 12 school in the playoff going to lead them to get better players if they just lose before making the semis 9 times out of 10?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[UMFan83]

You’ll be more interested for one season until a 9-3 Michigan team gets blasted 55-10 by Alabama/Clemson/OSU in the quarters.

 

Is this really going to distribute the talent better? If a 2nd/3rd SEC/Big 10/Big 12/Pac 12 school in the playoff going to lead them to get better players if they just lose before making the semis 9 times out of 10?

 

I'm fine with that outcome because it makes all the games up to that for Michigan exciting and more enjoyable. And increases my interest of College Football outside of Michigan significantly. This Athletic article sums up a lot of the reasons this is great for college football:

 

https://theathletic.com/2649167/

 

Pat Kraft can imagine the banner hanging in his football team’s indoor facility. The Boston College athletic director can imagine what that piece of cloth would mean and how it could help.

 

The Eagles already can sell coach Jeff Hafley’s NFL experience to potential players. They can point to Matt Ryan, Luke Kuechly, B.J. Raji and Gosder Cherilus as proof that first-rounders can come from Chestnut Hill. But they can’t offer recruits any recent proof that the Eagles can compete for a national title. Given the imbalance of power in the ACC of late, no one outside Clemson can. And even if Boston College was bound for a double-digit win season, if it lost its annual Atlantic Division matchup against the Tigers (which usually occurs in October), it probably couldn’t sell any November home games as high-stakes matchups.

 

But if Boston College could hang a banner that read “College Football Playoff”? All of that would feel different. “It can give you momentum in recruiting,” Kraft said. “It can ignite a fan base and a donor base.”

---

So let’s imagine it’s 2023 and Boston College is having its best season yet under Hafley. We don’t yet know the dates of the Eagles’ ACC games, but let’s imagine BC is 9-2 heading into a home finale against Wake Forest. Clemson has already wrapped up its ninth consecutive Atlantic Division title, but the Eagles are sitting at No. 13 in the CFP rankings. And No. 11 Oklahoma State just lost to Oklahoma in Bedlam earlier in the day.

 

A few years earlier, such a game would have produced a collective yawn nationally. Even some BC fans might skip it despite the success of the season. But on this Saturday, Chestnut Hill is rocking. Why?

 

A banner is on the line.

 

This is it. As it stands, I don't think I've ever watched a Boston College game before. But in this scenario? I'm definitely following the game. You can say its just me and I'm not a good enough college football fan if I don't watch any of the the 99.5% of games that are utterly meaningless each year but I don't think I'm alone.

 

And from a Michigan standpoint? I've always been a much bigger UM basketball fan than football fan, though I follow UM football fairly closely. That said, I lose interest as soon as Michigan loses a couple of games except for the first half of the Ohio State game until its a blowout. With this 12 team playoff, Michigan would either have made the playoff or have been in contention for the playoff until the Ohio State game in 4 of Harbaugh's 5 full seasons. I can think of all the games in late October or early November when I see like Maryland on the schedule and figure I'll just follow the game on my phone and will turn it on in the 4th if its close. In most years with a 12 team playoff I will wake up excited and ready to commit 3+ hours of my day to watching the game because it actually means something.

 

Maybe this defeats my argument entirely, but to me its only somewhat about access to a championship. I just want to have more meaningful games late in the year, or the feeling of accomplishment that my team made the Final 12. That's a huge reason why I love college basketball. There are so many different ways to feel fulfilled after a season, even though my team hasnt won the title in 32 years. Honestly, in terms of relative ranking in their sport Michigan basketball has only been a bit more successful than Michigan football over the last decade, yet everyone is overwhelmingly positive about the recent history of Michigan basketball and the football team is a laughing stock. Why? Because making the Elite 8 or even Sweet 16 means something in basketball. Hell, in 2015 a very mediocre Michigan team went into the Big Ten Tournament, upset the 1 seed Hoosiers and barely got into the tourney in a First Four game, which they won. I probably rewatch Kam Chatman's 3 to sink the Hoosiers a couple of times a year. Do you know how many time's I've even thought about a non-MSU or OSU Michigan football game from the last decade? And that Michigan team was maybe the 50th best team in the country! (no I'm not suggesting a 68 team football playoff...12 is good)

 

Maybe I just like basketball more, but I think the true answer is somewhere in the middle.

[Andy]

I'm not saying anything you're saying is wrong, but Michigan basketball played in the national effing title game twice in a five-year span and was a 1 or a 2 seed in each of the two tournaments played since that 2018 runner-up finish. They have been extraordinarily more successful than the football team. And speaking as a fan of a college hoops team that made the Elite 8 twice in a row in '15 and '16 (before utterly collapsing on itself since), I speak from experience when I say I don't remotely blame you if that has made you a bigger UM hoops fan than football fan of late.

 

Anyway, I just have my doubts that the era of good feelings about 'bigger access' or whatever will last a few years into the 12-team event and people notice that the only meaningful difference in the final results is that current second-tier type teams like Michigan (and, frankly, Notre Dame) end their seasons with meaningful losses rather than meaningless wins.

[UMFan83]

I'm not saying anything you're saying is wrong, but Michigan basketball played in the national effing title game twice in a five-year span and was a 1 or a 2 seed in each of the two tournaments played since that 2018 runner-up finish. They have been extraordinarily more successful than the football team. And speaking as a fan of a college hoops team that made the Elite 8 twice in a row in '15 and '16 (before utterly collapsing on itself since), I speak from experience when I say I don't remotely blame you if that has made you a bigger UM hoops fan than football fan of late.

 

Well I've always been a bigger Michigan basketball fan for whatever reason even during the 11 year tourney drought in the 00's. But think about what you mentioned above about Michigan playing in the national title game twice in 5 years. They were a 4 and a 3 seed in those 2 seasons, meaning they wouldn't have even made a 4 team playoff in those years. In fact last year was the first year they've been a 1 seed since 1993. Imagine the perception of the hoops program if they hadn't made the playoffs since 1993. Imagine if the 5 star players only went to UNC, Duke, Michigan State and Kentucky because they made the playoffs every year. It's not a perfect comparison because they are different sports...CBB plays 3 times as many games and has 3 times as many teams. So it makes sense that they would have a larger more inclusive tournament that has more games. But proportionately CBB has 17x more playoff teams than CFB, not 3x.

 

Going back to the Michigan discussion, since I cant use tourney success for the basketball team to compare with the football team, just looking at regular season success, here is how Michigan has ranked in one computer poll for football (Congrove - easiest to find past years data) and basketball (kenpom):

 

2020:

FB - 74

BB - 3

 

2019:

FB - 17

BB - 16

 

2018:

FB - 6

BB - 6

 

2017:

FB - 34

BB - 7

 

2016:

FB - 7

BB - 20

 

2015:

FB - 12

BB - 50

 

Average:

FB - 25

BB - 17

 

So like I said, a little more successful. And those Kenpom numbers include results from the multiple postseason tournament runs Michigan basketball went on, if we abruptly stopped at the end of the regular season the numbers would be even closer. The difference is that Michigan basketball won a Big Ten title during those years (just one...and didn't finish 2nd in any of those years so no Big Ten Championship game appearance equivalent to football) and they beat MSU and OSU (because they have more shots at them and possibly because talent is distributed better?)

 

Anyway, I just have my doubts that the era of good feelings about 'bigger access' or whatever will last a few years into the 12-team event and people notice that the only meaningful difference in the final results is that current second-tier type teams like Michigan (and, frankly, Notre Dame) end their seasons with meaningful losses rather than meaningless wins.

 

We'll see. My point is that ~3 college football teams are considerably better each year than all the other teams, and its hurt the sport for me. I don't believe the answer is to do nothing and hope it fixes itself. FWIW, I also don't think you should continue tinkering with things every few years to fix minor issues in the sport *ahem*Manfred*ahem* but in my mind college football is seriously broken and I think expanding the playoff will best case increase parity, worst case give secondary teams more enjoyment of the season.

[soccer10k]

Any team that hangs a CFP participant banner is going to be relentlessly mocked.

 

And I have serious doubts any recruit is going to be more likely choose BC (you can change the school name, I just used it because of the article you posted) because they finished #12 and got bounced by the 5 seed. Or even won that game and then got blasted by Bama/Clemson/OSU in the QFs.

[stitchface]

I feel like I'm always close to being alone on this hill, but I hate playoff expansion....every iteration of it. 10 years ago, the national champ played 13 games. Last full season LSU won at 15-0. They aren't going to cut out conference games because Ohio St. played 6 conference games and there were some that took exception to them even being in the playoff in a season that was shortened anyway. They aren't going to cut out non-conference games because then you get questioning a team's schedule if they run thru an easy conference.

 

So, if you don't shorten the regular season, you have teams potentially playing 17-game schedules. Look at 2019. Georgia had their 12 game regular season schedule Play powerhouse LSU in the SEC Championship. Just missed the playoff, but would now be an extremely capable 5th seed. Pretty safe bet they beat the #12 team in the first round. Could go either way in the 4/5 game. Now they get the #1 team in a rematch in the semis, familarity, ability to adjust, can see a scenario where they win and play game 17 for the title. You can't talk about the safety of football and then make college kids play NFL length seasons (for free), while they're supposed to be going to school and maintaining certain grades, when like 90% of them won't even play professionally to even make it worth their while to do all this for free.

 

the players not getting paid is the only thing not professional about college football.

[UMFan83]

Any team that hangs a CFP participant banner is going to be relentlessly mocked.

 

And I have serious doubts any recruit is going to be more likely choose BC (you can change the school name, I just used it because of the article you posted) because they finished #12 and got bounced by the 5 seed. Or even won that game and then got blasted by Bama/Clemson/OSU in the QFs.

 

Alabama is not going to hang a banner but I bet BC would, or Coastal Carolina. Just like some schools hang Sweet 16 banners while others only hang Final Fours or better.

 

No a recruit is not going to decide to choose BC over Alabama because they made the playoffs as a 12 seed. But its an accomplishment that helps build the program. Right now you can't sell them on anything because Clemson is going to win every division and conference title, and they have no shot at making the playoffs. A team that is viable enough to make the playoffs gives you another selling point and helps build your program. For some of those fringe playoff caliber programs (think Florida, Penn State, Auburn, etc) they may actually be able to steal recruits from Bama or Ohio State based on their likelihood to make the playoffs if other variables favor that school. Najee Harris was so close to coming to Michigan that he was enrolled and had a dorm assignment, but ultimately stuck with his commitment to Alabama because he believed Bama would get him the exposure from being in the playoffs among other things. Plenty of other stories like that out there.

 

I'm legitimately surprised there are so many people defending the current system..it seems terrible to me. Maybe my arguments aren't rock solid but I think the 4 team system is flawed and causing a consolidation of talent. Maybe opening up to 12 teams won't change that (though I'm willing to bet it helps at least a little bit) but doing nothing certainly isn't going to help that problem either.

[Andy]

4 is not good as implemented - a true plus one after the bowls would've been better, not that it would've slowed playoff creep - and 12 will probably be better. I'm just annoyed that the only sport that truly required season long greatness to win a title is going out the window and that there's essentially no way the current ruling class will ever miss a playoff again (they weren't anyway, but it was in play). They put the idea of single season-altering outcomes on life support when they went to 4 and 12 is pulling the plug.