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

Well, I would definitely disagree on their being no improvement. We already killed the big games by making them "data points" instead of games where the results matter. Games should matter! The results should matter. Last year, Michigan and Purdue played in the Big Ten championship. It was a meaningless game, because Michigan still would have enough "data points" to make the playoffs and Purdue had no path even if they won the conference. Meaningless games are what is making the sport bland, and there are far, far too many of them.

The argument that @OrangeAfroMan and I (and others) have been making since we've been discussing this is that expanding the playoff necessarily diminishes the importance of the individual games before the playoff starts.  Your example of the B1GCG last year being meaningless (the B12CG was as well) is a good one.  Last year's final CFP rankings:

• 13-0 UGA, SEC Champ
• 13-0 M, B1G Champ
• 12-1 TCU, lost last game - B12CG to #9 KSU
• 11-1 tOSU, lost last game - The Game to #2 M
• 10-2 Bama
• 10-2 Tn
• 11-2 Clemson, ACC Champ
• 10-3 Utah, Pac Champ
• 10-3 KSU, B12 Champ
• 11-2 USC, lost last game - Pac CG to #8 Utah
• 10-2 PSU
• 10-2 Washington

P5 Champs in bold.  

Your implied hypothetical of Michigan losing to Purdue in the B1GCG raises an interesting point, lets look at what the rankings would have been if Purdue had won the B1GCG:


Purdue was 8-4 and unranked heading into the B1GCG but they were 5th among "ORV" and obviously a win over undefeated #2 Michigan would have vaulted them up the rankings.  However, in the final pre-bowl AP and CFP rankings the highest ranked 4-loss team was #16/17 LSU (lost SECCG to #1 UGA) so if Purdue had managed to win the B1GCG I think we can assume that a 9-4 B1G Champ Purdue would have landed roughly where 9-4 SECCG loser LSU was or maybe a little bit higher.  Lets call it #13 ahead of the 3-loss teams but not the 2-loss teams.  

So the rankings would have been something like this:

• 13-0 UGA, SEC Champ
• 12-1 M, lost last game - B1GCG to #~15 PU
• 12-1 TCU, lost last game - B12CG to #9 KSU
• 11-1 tOSU, lost last game - The Game to #2 M
• 10-2 Bama
• 10-2 Tn
• 11-2 Clemson, ACC Champ
• 10-3 Utah, Pac Champ
• 10-3 KSU, B12 Champ
• 11-2 USC, lost last game - PAC CG to #8 Utah
• 10-2 PSU
• 10-2 Washington
• 9-4 Purdue, B1G Champ

P5 Champs in bold.  

The hilarity of this is that in this case three of the four CFP participants would have made it in spite of losing their last game.  Two of them (M and TCU) would have lost their last game and not even dropped one spot.  

If I recall correctly, you want to put the champs in and your argument is that this will make the CG's matter.  Ok, but that doesn't actually create more games that matter it simply rearranges which games matter.  Sure, Purdue's and KSU's wins over M and TCU matter more but their four and three prior losses respectively no longer matter.  Similarly, Michigan's and TCU's CG losses hurt more but their 12 prior wins matter less.  

I opposed expansion generally but always argued for an eight-team model if expansion was necessary that would have included the P5 Champs, the highest ranked non-P5 Champ (#16 Tulane last year) and two at-large.  I also would have had the top-4 Champs host the first round.  In that case the CFP field would have been:

• 13-0 SEC Champ UGA
• 11-2 ACC Champ Clemson
• 10-3 PAC Champ Utah
• 10-3 B12 Champ KSU
• 12-1 Michigan at-large
• 12-1 TCU at-large
• 9-4 B1G Champ Purdue
• 11-2 G5 Champ Tulane

First round games:

• Tulane at Georgia
• Purdue at Clemson
• TCU at Utah
• Michigan at KSU

Second round games:

• UGA/Tulane vs M/KSU
• Clemson/Purdue vs TCU/Utah

Championship:

• UGA/Tulane/M/KSU vs Clemson/PU/TCU/Utah

As I see it the advantages are:

• Every game matters because even one loss can leave you out.  See above 11-1 tOSU doesn't make it.  
• CG's matter because you can't host a CFP game without winning your CG.  See above 12-1 TCU and M travelling to Utah and KSU.  
• The Playoff doesn't completely suck the oxygen out of the room because you still have some VERY good teams in non-CFP bowls.  See above 11-1 tOSU, 11-2 USC, and 10-2 Bama, TN, PSU and Washington all being top-12 teams in non-CFP bowls.  

You keep saying that giving Champions auto-bids makes games matter presumably because it makes all the league games matter.  You are ignoring the fact that giving auto-bids to the Champions makes OOC games effectively irrelevant.  Bama/Texas and tOSU/ND this year are HUMONGOUS games but if the SEC and B1G Champs had an auto-bid they would be less-so.  Giving auto-bids to the league champs also makes at least one crossover (assuming you have divisions) irrelevant.  

I'll use tOSU's schedule this year as an example.  Assume that Ohio State loses in South Bend next Saturday then turns around three weeks later and loses in West Lafayette.  They'd be 4-2 and unlikely to be able to make the CFP because no 2-loss team has yet made it.  In the BCS era that team would have been effectively eliminated because only one 2-loss team ever made the BCSNCG.  In the pre-BCS era they'd have been done.  Ie, in the CFP, BCS, and pre-BCS eras Ohio State's games against Notre Dame and Purdue matter a lot.  However, in a larger CFP with auto-bids the 4-2 Buckeyes would still completely control their own destiny.  By winning out they would win the B1G-E and a win in the B1GCG would make them a league Champion and get them an auto-bid.  The OOC and crossover loss don't matter.  

I'll use tOSU's schedule this year as an example.  Assume that Ohio State loses in South Bend next Saturday then turns around three weeks later and loses in West Lafayette.  They'd be 4-2 and unlikely to be able to make the CFP because no 2-loss team has yet made it.  In the BCS era that team would have been effectively eliminated because only one 2-loss team ever made the BCSNCG.  In the pre-BCS era they'd have been done.  Ie, in the CFP, BCS, and pre-BCS eras Ohio State's games against Notre Dame and Purdue matter a lot.  However, in a larger CFP with auto-bids the 4-2 Buckeyes would still completely control their own destiny.  By winning out they would win the B1G-E and a win in the B1GCG would make them a league Champion and get them an auto-bid.  The OOC and crossover loss don't matter.  

Yeah, but if they go 4-2 and are out of the playoffs, then their last six or seven games also don't matter. The good thing about auto-bids is that teams have a known way to get in the playoffs that is certain. We can say what the stakes of a particular game are, which is far different than now, where everyone just sort of guesses. Does this game matter? Only the committee truly knows, and they will tell you after the season is over. Not exactly a barrel of excitement. 

Only they did. In the old days when Ohio State lost a couple early games that just recalibrated things and the goals became the same for us as @betarhoalphadelta 's goals for Purdue, see above. A 4-2 tOSU in the old days could potentially still:

• Beat rivals
• Win the Big Ten
• Go to the Rose Bowl
• Win the Rose Bowl
• Finish in the top-10 (maybe top-5).

Right. And I don't know how this topic (which IMHO had more to do with the transfer portal and NIL) keeps coming back to the playoff. 

It seems like college football has to solve for two things:

• How to best crown a champion.
• How to keep the game interesting for the fans of the 80% of schools that are out of the NC picture. 

And constraints placed on both come from realignment, conference structure, the transfer portal, and NIL. 


I personally believe that if you're going to have a playoff, you need an objective way to gain entry. So whether it's 12 teams or 8 teams, you need auto-bids for the P5 P4 conference champs, plus an autobid for at least one G5 so you have access. 

But let's look at what has happened, through the eyes of a school like my alma mater, Purdue. 

@MaximumSam says "hey, you should be super excited about this playoff--all you have to do is win the B1G and you're in!"

Well, the last time Purdue won the B1G, there were only 11 schools in the conference and no CCG. Starting next year, there will be 18 teams and a CCG. Immediate dilution of chances. 

The last time Purdue won the B1G, there was no transfer portal nor NIL. Purdue was helped by a generational talent at QB who was overlooked due to a HS injury (and probably not being tall enough). In the transfer portal / NIL world, it's entirely possible that a helmet who was light at QB for whatever reason might try to lure a QB like that away. (Not that I think Brees is the type who would take them up on it, but it wouldn't be from Purdue's boosters having the firepower to compete.) NIL is going to destroy whatever parity we wanted to have in the sport, and the transfer portal will whittle the rest away. 

The last time Purdue won its division and made it to the CCG, they did so with 3 conference losses and was clearly not the #2 team in the conference. Which is why there's been a lot of discussion that the B1G should scrap divisions and select the top two schools for the CCG. I"m not going to call it the "anti-Purdue rule", but it's clear that the purpose of the rule would be to keep teams like 2022 Purdue out of the CCG. 

So as Sam talks about the door being opened for schools like Purdue, an 18-team conference with a top-two CCG in a transfer portal / NIL dominated world means this is what our path to the playoff ACTUALLY looks like:



And then what happens? Winning the B1G and going to the Rose Bowl was a destination. A culmination of a beautiful season, win or lose. The playoff, for a team like Purdue? Well that's just a chance to enter the meat grinder and be exposed for not having the talent that the helmets have in round 1. Which we knew going into the season. 



Yeah, exciting 

Only they did. In the old days when Ohio State lost a couple early games that just recalibrated things and the goals became the same for us as @betarhoalphadelta 's goals for Purdue, see above. A 4-2 tOSU in the old days could potentially still:

• Beat rivals
• Win the Big Ten
• Go to the Rose Bowl
• Win the Rose Bowl
• Finish in the top-10 (maybe top-5).

Yeah but these aren't the old days. They are gone, dead and buried. These are these days, where I agree everything is focused on the playoff and the national championship, to the detriment of many teams. My point is that there are ways to include many more teams and make many more games meaningful, which ultimately improves the sport and makes for better television, to boot. Playoffs with autobids make sense. Super leagues with promotion/relegation makes sense. Sitting and waiting and hoping ... probably leads to a super league and everyone else just does their own thing.

So Purdue's path (after winning the B1G-W) is:

• Beat Michigan in Indianapolis.  
• Beat TCU in Ft. Worth.  
• Beat Clemson in a Bowl probably MUCH closer to SC than IN.  
• Beat Utah, USC, or tOSU at a neutral site.  
• Beat Georgia, Tulane (yeah right), Michigan (again), KSU, Tennessee, or Alabama in a neutral site NC Game

I challenge anyone on earth to say they would rather play in the Who Cares Bowl over being in the playoffs. Under this system, they have a shot to win an actual playoff game. To even suggest that wouldn't be exciting for Purdue fans is a Trumpian level of denial.


What are we saying here? Everyone only cares about the playoffs. Well, add more teams to the thing everyone cares about. That's a simple win with the only downside being, apparently, it doesn't damage the helmet teams enough. The helmet teams currently dominate the landscape, so that's not a particularly convincing argument.

I think it also leads to more of what we want, which is big games against big teams. Yes, Bammer, Georgia, OSU, Michigan and whomever will make the playoffs more and win more, which leads to more games against each other. Which is also what we want.

Maybe an NCAAT model is what you think is amazing. But nobody outside CBB diehards care about the NCAAT (or college basketball) except for bracket pools. 

Let's see, a postseason which draws in people from all walks of life who don't care about the sport and causes work productivity to come to a standstill is something we shouldn't want? Did they promote you to manager or something?

Again, this made the world better for 20 or so schools. And the other 110, well, might as well be Tiddlywinks.

I absolutely agree, though where I disagree is that this is somehow something that can't be changed or influenced. When you create an invitational only 4 team playoff, it's going to reward the very tip top of the sport. Rewarding the rest of the teams is where the schools should be trying to throw their weight around, instead of chasing every dollar.


Without some commitment to that, I think the Purdues and whomever will eventually get dropped from the Big Ten. Why would NBC/FOX/Disney Plus/Amazon keep paying for them when there is nothing they can do to stay relevant?

I challenge anyone on earth to say they would rather play in the Who Cares Bowl over being in the playoffs. Under this system, they have a shot to win an actual playoff game. NO THEY DON'T, STOP PERPETUATING THE LIE !!!  To even suggest that wouldn't be exciting for Purdue fans is a Trumpian level of denial.


What are we saying here? Everyone only cares about the playoffs. Well, add more teams to the thing everyone cares about. That's a simple win with the only downside being, apparently, it doesn't damage the helmet teams enough. The helmet teams currently dominate the landscape, so that's not a particularly convincing argument.

I think it also leads to more of what we want, which is big games against big teams. Yes, Bammer, Georgia, OSU, Michigan and whomever will make the playoffs more and win more, which leads to more games against each other. Which is also what we want.

16 teams?  32?  Let's do 64.  Oh, play-in games, let's go to 68.  Half of everyone gets a "chance" to win the NC.  Go Zips!!!