Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Right now, Iowa looks better than it was last year. The jury is out on Penn State, but they are probably a little down from last year. 

As a practitioner of the church of the pre-BCS postseason, I really hate the question I'm about to ask, but what outcome do you think is most likely to re-up regular season meaning: growing the CFP to 8 or 16, or reducing it back to 2?

Heh, well see a 64 team playoff before we go back 2

Heh, well see a 64 team playoff before we go back 2

Oh I know. My question was about whether it's necessarily all downhill for the sport from here. That is, the current system diminishes the regular season more than the BCS, which was worse at this than the pre-BCS bowl system. But is there a chance that we aren't on a forever downslope but in a trough between two peaks and that an 8- or 16-team tourney could be better for the regular season than this (in terms of more games mattering because more teams can get in)?
Don't get me wrong, I severely dislike the CFP era and am biased to resist its expansion, but I'm also an optimist fishing for silver linings.

Example A of why I think the CFP has diminished the regular season even farther, and why I think "best regular season" is sort of a farce now.  ESPNU radio was discussing most important games this weekend, and one of the co-hosts brought up this one saying it was a de facto West title game because the winner would essentially be 2 games ahead of the loser with tiebreaker, and they didn't see anyone else in the division posing a threat.  That was totally poo pooed by the other co-host, who basically said "so what, neither team is going to the Playoff."  When a Week 4 game between the best two teams in a Power 5 division is irrelevant because they aren't currently in the CFP race, I have a hard time saying that's the "best" regular season.  Maybe the regular season where a loss most greatly impacts you, but it to me seems like the sport with the greatest number of totally irrelevant regular season games, if the narrative is singularly focused on the CFP...which I think it has become.  My their logic, until proven otherwise, any game not involving Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, OSU or Oklahoma is irrelevant.

It always strikes me that in the world of CFB, we often work hard to be, for lack of a better word, dismissive. It’s hardwired into a lot of people to look more for the reasons someone or something is bad than is good. To a degree the playoff just becomes another way to talk about that, though perhaps it’s more a vehicle than a cause. 
But I think CFB, becuase of the nature of bowls and recruiting, in some ways appreciates a good season more than most. A good pro team can get upset in the playoffs. A good BB team can get knocked out of the dance early. But a nine- or 10-win team, or even 8 or 7 in the right circumstances, that carries a different kind of weight. I think back to being from PAC-10 country. The 2004 Cal Golden Bears or 2005 Oregon Ducks won no conference titles, both lost bowls. And yet they stick with those fanbases. Perhaps there were disappointment, but I think they’re remembered more fondly than not. 
And you have a weird dichotomy when both things can be true. 

so.. the game...


As is almost always the case, the game will be decided up front. UW's young DL is going to have to hold its own against Iowa's OL. If it cannot keep blockers off the backers, UW is in for a long night. On the other side, UW's OL is going to be challenged by the Iowa DL, which looks to go 8 deep. That's some serious depth, but UW can counter with its own OL depth, which goes 8-9 deep itself.

Yep, it's this simple.
I view Wisconsin's OL play last week as an under performance - UW has the personnel on offense to still be very good.  This will be the first good offensive line the Iowa DL has seen, so I expect that will be a fun match up to watch.  Iowa's DL is very good, but the LB's are still green and haven't gotten this kind of test yet.  
On the flip side, I think this is the first year in a number of years where the "reload" mentality on defense isn't going to work for Wisconsin.  They seemed to have lost too much.  The DL, in particular, seems to lack the depth/talent it's had in the past.  Four of the six Wisconsin DL in the depth chart are freshmen (two RS, two TR).  Wisconsin averaged 3 sacks per game last year, this year they only have 3 combined through three games - that seems like a red flag for them.  The key to Iowa winning the game will be the OL controlling the Wisconsin DL and getting blocks to the second level.
It will all come down to the line of scrimmage (and probably turnovers) tomorrow night.

Yeah, that's sort of where I am, that 4 is the worst case scenario.  That 2 or 8 would be better.  I wouldn't be opposed to 12 if it included all 10 conference champs.  If that gave me a reason to care about the Sun Belt race, I could get on board with that.  I'm not one who cares too much about who wins a national title, and if making all of the conference races important again means opening up the risk of having a fluky national champion, I think I'm good with that.

I like 12 if it included the top 5 seeds automatically going to P5 conference champs, and the top 4 get byes.  
I don't think there's any scenario where including the Sun Belt champion in the playoff makes sense - I get the rationale for it, but watching them get blasted by a P5 champion (more often then not) also devalues the regular season in a way.  There isn't enough parity in college football to guarantee a spot for the G5 champs, that said, expanding to 12 almost guarantees that one of them might get in each year (and maybe two) - which does make their conference race matter more.  At 8, I still think you see the G5 schools left out more often then not.
Also, if it expands to 8 or 12, the games need to be played in college stadiums in the quarterfinals & semi-finals - only neutral site game should be the national title game.  That way, seeding has a major impact on the post season and the regular season still matters a lot - getting the 1/2 seed is critical if you're USC or Alabama and don't want to travel to Columbus in December.

You can still keep the other bowl games, but move their selection process to more of a straight draft where the Rose has first pick and gets to select two teams, then the Sugar selects two, etc.  Bowl selection order can be selected by the purse for the game.  Doing it this way means that you'll still get good match ups in bowl games that can be played on 1/1.  Definitely watered down compared to the past (when you take out the top 12), but doing a draft style selection means you'd still get good match ups.

so.. the game...


Lots of football left to be played.

yup, gotta remember that last season the Hawks lost to Purdue