Indeed, and why I always didn't want 6 or 8 or 12 or 64 team playoff. But all the "it's not fair!!!" types plus, and more importantly, $$$ from more games, won in the end.
I would prefer a 30 team playoff with two division champions and two byes for the top division. That way the have nots will get a shot at being a champion and many of the lesser schools will have something to play for.
Can you imagine the excitement of college football when many teams have a chance to be a champion instead of a few, the usual suspects. I guess you can't. And it wouldn't kill college football but enhance it. Sure it's non-traditional but so what.
I remember SMU being the only undefeated team in the country and playing Dan Marino & Pitt in the Cotton Bowl before a whopping 20,000 people. Schools like USC & UCLA can't sell 50% of their games. Yes I can imagine getting excited about South Carolina/Rutgers or Syrexcuse/Oregon State when they are playing in front of crowds that don't come close to Duncanville/North Shore. Imagine the dinner conversation in Iowa: "Ethel, the corn crop has been pretty good, what do you say we mosey over Boulder and watch the Hawks take on the Buffs? Well, yes, we could wait a week because if they win, we could go to Columbus. They will like my polyester slacks and Banlon shirts over there."
Every team has a chance at the start of the season. Most of them lose that chance by losing multiple games. College football is exciting even though <gasp> teams lose every week.
So, how many teams should make the playoffs? Four is not enough. I would have been happy with 8 and I'm not sure why they chose 12. There are teams each year who have great seasons but don't get the top rankings because of lack of publicity, or lack of competition. An expanded playoff will give those teams a chance to perform.
Ok but will any Pac 10=12 team be competitive this year. probably not Frankly at this point GT and Clemson both look bad. 6 to 8 seems ok but jeez.
Untrue. For example, Central Florida in 2017, Boise State in 2006 and 2009, TCU in 2010, and Utah in 2004 were eliminated before playing a single game.
If you watched ESPN/ABC over the weekend, you would have heard the playoffs are already fixed: 1) Bama; 2) tOSU; 3) Georgia ; 4) Clemson. Why not just take their money and call it a season now?
With the LA market gone from the Pac whatever, and the AZ's, Utahs', and Wash State potentially up for grabs, I think the B12 could make them an offer and they'd be very interested, specially Arizona to be in what would be a very good BB school with KU, Baylor, UH, ISU. Would be a hoot to see the B12 do fine, while the PAC collapses and leaves just Berkely, Oregon, Wash, and Stanford left, as no way they'd join those "land locked" schools. If Stanford only has 3 other schools to play against in their 145 women's sports, can they still win the Sears Trophy every year?
As they should have been. What's hard about winning all but 0 or 1 games in a P5 conference isn't just the one game against a top ranked team, it's the constant beating your players get week in and out, against top quality players, even if their team isn't that great. Too easy for teams like those above to hang out in a weak conference that doesn't have the players that P5 teams do, go undefeated, then maybe sneak in a win at the end to claim the title. Like BYU did in 84. I thought 4 teams were plenty for the playoffs, now we'll have ones with at least 2, maybe 3 losses going in, with a corresponding reducing in importance in the regular season. Between player free agency with the Portal, salaries and signing bonuses via being able to do endorsement and vacuum up booster money, and a too long season, college football is slumping into NFL level of excitement, which to me anyway is ZZZZ.
