Fun to think about....What If.....I know you have thought it

[Deano]

I have argued for an expanded playoff system in FBS for years (even wrote a piece that was published), right now without controversies each year the 4 playoff system is here until the contract expires at the end of the CFP game in 2026. While there have been some talk of expansion to an 8 team format, I just can't see them expanding it that much more than 8 to 10 teams. With an 8 team format all of the P5 Conference champs will automatically make it, 5 teams, with 2 at large bids (probably coming from the SEC) and that leaves 1 slot for a potential best G5 program, But how could this G5 school be picked? Another playoff for the conference champs of G5? I could easily see with an 8 team playoff with the powers that be still not wanting to allow a G5 school to make it, but it would make for some great ratings and fan hysteria.

I think the P5/G5 labels should be disbanded should the playoff expand. 8 to 16 team playoffs would require a larger pool than 65 teams to pull from, I'd think. The problem is that there is a rather large gap between Numbers 1 through 4 and number 10. Regardless of if it's Boise or not, the first seed is going to most likely blowout the eighth seed 9 times out of 10.

Would the top seed blowout the last seed? Probably, but there is always a chance of a different outcome when you actually get to play the game. I remember that Boise state team that beat Oklahoma and went undefeated, I thought it was a travesty that it was the end of their season. There have been a few other undefeated G5's, who would probably lose to the #1 seed but you never know unless you play the game.

[Black Saturday]

I have argued for an expanded playoff system in FBS for years (even wrote a piece that was published), right now without controversies each year the 4 playoff system is here until the contract expires at the end of the CFP game in 2026. While there have been some talk of expansion to an 8 team format, I just can't see them expanding it that much more than 8 to 10 teams. With an 8 team format all of the P5 Conference champs will automatically make it, 5 teams, with 2 at large bids (probably coming from the SEC) and that leaves 1 slot for a potential best G5 program, But how could this G5 school be picked? Another playoff for the conference champs of G5? I could easily see with an 8 team playoff with the powers that be still not wanting to allow a G5 school to make it, but it would make for some great ratings and fan hysteria.

I think the P5/G5 labels should be disbanded should the playoff expand. 8 to 16 team playoffs would require a larger pool than 65 teams to pull from, I'd think. The problem is that there is a rather large gap between Numbers 1 through 4 and number 10. Regardless of if it's Boise or not, the first seed is going to most likely blowout the eighth seed 9 times out of 10.

Exactly, Drink even acknowledged on Sirius yesterday the fact that "we have good players, but not multiple at all positions." Therein lies the problem of being able to compete consistently. Next man up or subs for our level may be a significant drop in talent. the way it is formatted or reformatted, it'll still be the top few teams that win. No Cinderellas or darkhorses or underdogs.

In the I-AA and FCS, it wasn't chalky. we did see lower ranked teams win titles.

[ericsaid]

I have argued for an expanded playoff system in FBS for years (even wrote a piece that was published), right now without controversies each year the 4 playoff system is here until the contract expires at the end of the CFP game in 2026. While there have been some talk of expansion to an 8 team format, I just can't see them expanding it that much more than 8 to 10 teams. With an 8 team format all of the P5 Conference champs will automatically make it, 5 teams, with 2 at large bids (probably coming from the SEC) and that leaves 1 slot for a potential best G5 program, But how could this G5 school be picked? Another playoff for the conference champs of G5? I could easily see with an 8 team playoff with the powers that be still not wanting to allow a G5 school to make it, but it would make for some great ratings and fan hysteria.

I think the P5/G5 labels should be disbanded should the playoff expand. 8 to 16 team playoffs would require a larger pool than 65 teams to pull from, I'd think. The problem is that there is a rather large gap between Numbers 1 through 4 and number 10. Regardless of if it's Boise or not, the first seed is going to most likely blowout the eighth seed 9 times out of 10.

Would the top seed blowout the last seed? Probably, but there is always a chance of a different outcome when you actually get to play the game. I remember that Boise state team that beat Oklahoma and went undefeated, I thought it was a travesty that it was the end of their season. There have been a few other undefeated G5's, who would probably lose to the #1 seed but you never know unless you play the game.

But the question is how does the ability to Game Plan for these big games change as time between the end of the season is compressed? I think that in order for an expanded playoff to work, conference championship games need to be disbanded.

I like the rosy colored glasses outlook of "Any Given Saturday" but the reality is that Clemson, LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Ohio State are going to boat race most teams. We would all like to have seen UCF and Boise State get a shot, and I think that they would compete. But what is compete? A 21 point loss? 17? 14? Clemson blew out both Notre Dame and Alabama last year yet Notre Dame is the team catching flak for losing by 28 when Alabama lost by even more. It's about perception.

In order to change perception, games based on competition needs to be played. For the casual fan, they most likely see a SEC tag next to Ole Miss and believe that they would be better than Boise State or App. That casual fan makes up most of the revenue generating population from which the NCAA, networks, corporate sponsorship, etc. pull from.

Despite Notre Dame having a better showing than Alabama in the playoff last season, if all else is equal this year, who gets the higher seed? Not Notre Dame. Because perception.

[ericsaid]

I have argued for an expanded playoff system in FBS for years (even wrote a piece that was published), right now without controversies each year the 4 playoff system is here until the contract expires at the end of the CFP game in 2026. While there have been some talk of expansion to an 8 team format, I just can't see them expanding it that much more than 8 to 10 teams. With an 8 team format all of the P5 Conference champs will automatically make it, 5 teams, with 2 at large bids (probably coming from the SEC) and that leaves 1 slot for a potential best G5 program, But how could this G5 school be picked? Another playoff for the conference champs of G5? I could easily see with an 8 team playoff with the powers that be still not wanting to allow a G5 school to make it, but it would make for some great ratings and fan hysteria.

I think the P5/G5 labels should be disbanded should the playoff expand. 8 to 16 team playoffs would require a larger pool than 65 teams to pull from, I'd think. The problem is that there is a rather large gap between Numbers 1 through 4 and number 10. Regardless of if it's Boise or not, the first seed is going to most likely blowout the eighth seed 9 times out of 10.

Exactly, Drink even acknowledged on Sirius yesterday the fact that "we have good players, but not multiple at all positions." Therein lies the problem of being able to compete consistently. Next man up or subs for our level may be a significant drop in talent. the way it is formatted or reformatted, it'll still be the top few teams that win. No Cinderellas or darkhorses or underdogs.

In the I-AA and FCS, it wasn't chalky. we did see lower ranked teams win titles.

It seems to me that the issue in problems with depth come from physical maturity of the younger players that fill out the bottom of the depth chart. A freshman at App State isn't going to look the same as a freshman at Alabama. The ability levels may be similar, but physical maturation matters when it comes to dealing with injury problems and those freshman that usually get to play at App won't be at that level for another 3 seasons.

[Rick83]

If the formula changes it doesn't mean that the variables will stay the same. So, if there was an expanded playoff to 10 or more teams you might see a wider distribution of talent as opposed to now where the top 4 or 5 schools are getting the best players year-in-year-out thus creating these juggernauts we're all getting tired of.

[ericsaid]

If the formula changes it doesn't mean that the variables will stay the same. So, if there was an expanded playoff to 10 or more teams you might see a wider distribution of talent as opposed to now where the top 4 or 5 schools are getting the best players year-in-year-out thus creating these juggernauts we're all getting tired of.

Let's not kid ourselves, the juggernauts were around long before this "playoff" system was derived. Ultimately, its a play in game to appease the masses. Further, I only recall one decent game in the play in round and that was between Oklahoma and Georgia.

[AtlAppMan]

The original premise is an extreme scenario and I still don’t think App would get in, but we would be the point of huge discussions around college football. I would also take us in a heartbeat in a four team playoff any day. It would be huge for our long term reputation.

[BeauFoster]

I'd absolutely take getting into the playoff, if we were invited. It would be a tough situation, however. We'd for sure be a 4 seed, meaning we're up against the perceived best team in the country. If we were to be beaten by, say, 24 points (like ND last season and so many others), then it would immediately be spun that no G5 is on the level and should not be in the playoff. Even though there is precedent for such "blow outs", it wouldn't matter. Now if we won that game, on the other hand, we'd likely receive no credit. Instead, the talking heads would spend the next week going through every mistake our opponent made and would focus on why they lost instead of why we won.

I'd still take either option (especially B). It's a moot point, though.

[bigdaddyg]

UCF got all of that press last year and into this season. They did the whole "fake national championship" thing, got lots of national talk, etc. They lost two games and you don't hear a peep about them anymore. You really don't hear the same chatter about Boise even though they are up to 14 in the polls. They really don't have another opponent that moves the needle so they will probably get the NY6 slot and end up about 12th before that game. I really can't see the playoff expanded past 8 teams if they even do that. I used to think that the best solution was to use the 4 major bowl games to serve as the first round for 8 teams. The four winners play in the semis a week later and then the winners advance to the championship. The conference championship games really need to go away. The ACC coastal winner could have 3 losses or more when it is all said and done. If a UNC or Duke wins and upsets Clemson do they really deserve a shot at the national championship? Same could be said for several other conferences. If, say the top 8 teams at the end of the season play in those 4 games it would still be tough for the best G5 to move up that far. There would have to be a whole lot of P5's with 2 losses.

[appstatealum]

If the formula changes it doesn't mean that the variables will stay the same. So, if there was an expanded playoff to 10 or more teams you might see a wider distribution of talent as opposed to now where the top 4 or 5 schools are getting the best players year-in-year-out thus creating these juggernauts we're all getting tired of.

You nailed it. The reality of what is happening in CFB is the seperation between "Big" and "Small" schools is getting smaller and that scares the hell out of the major programs. The more relevant other programs get outside of the P5, the more spread out the talent will get. The more teams with a chance to make a playoff, the well just gets dryer.

[ggasu]

Division 1-A (fbs) College Football

Is the only sport in the WORLD ....from Back Woods Pee Wee Baseball to Chinese Professional Table Tennis that you can go undefeated in your "league" and not play for a championship.

It really is Ludicrous

[ericsaid]

I'd absolutely take getting into the playoff, if we were invited. It would be a tough situation, however. We'd for sure be a 4 seed, meaning we're up against the perceived best team in the country. If we were to be beaten by, say, 24 points (like ND last season and so many others), then it would immediately be spun that no G5 is on the level and should not be in the playoff. Even though there is precedent for such "blow outs", it wouldn't matter. Now if we won that game, on the other hand, we'd likely receive no credit. Instead, the talking heads would spend the next week going through every mistake our opponent made and would focus on why they lost instead of why we won.

I'd still take either option (especially B). It's a moot point, though.

Sort of like it was for Notre Dame. Funny how no one said the same thing about Alabama after Clemson took them behind the woodshed even more than they did to Notre Dame.

[Black Saturday]

Division 1-A (fbs) College Football

Is the only sport in the WORLD ....from Back Woods Pee Wee Baseball to Chinese Professional Table Tennis that you can go undefeated in your "league" and not play for a championship.

It really is Ludicrous

G5 is glorified FCS without the championship. Everything has been changed but still remains the same. Don't want to go back to FCS though.

[VNova]

Division 1-A (fbs) College Football

Is the only sport in the WORLD ....from Back Woods Pee Wee Baseball to Chinese Professional Table Tennis that you can go undefeated in your "league" and not play for a championship.

It really is Ludicrous

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... id=rrpromo

This is based on CFP Committee behavior. When you mess around with the win-out blocks, it shows interesting probabilities. For example, Oklahoma State going into the bowl season with 2 losses has a 27% chance of making the playoffs, while a 2-loss Iowa State has 56%. SMU going undefeated is 5%, Boise is 4%, and App State is <1%.

More importantly, we have a 66% chance of being conference champs. If we beat ULM, it jumps to 73%. If we lose, it drops to 25%.

None of it is surprising, or really means a whole lot to us, but the tool is a fun little time waster.

[Black Saturday]

Division 1-A (fbs) College Football

Is the only sport in the WORLD ....from Back Woods Pee Wee Baseball to Chinese Professional Table Tennis that you can go undefeated in your "league" and not play for a championship.

It really is Ludicrous

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... id=rrpromo

This is based on CFP Committee behavior. When you mess around with the win-out blocks, it shows interesting probabilities. For example, Oklahoma State going into the bowl season with 2 losses has a 27% chance of making the playoffs, while a 2-loss Iowa State has 56%. SMU going undefeated is 5%, Boise is 4%, and App State is <1%.

More importantly, we have a 66% chance of being conference champs. If we beat ULM, it jumps to 73%. If we lose, it drops to 25%.

None of it is surprising, or really means a whole lot to us, but the tool is a fun little time waster.

Support for what I said earlier about winning all our game and we are going back to the same bowl as last year or one like it.

[Rick83]

Division 1-A (fbs) College Football

Is the only sport in the WORLD ....from Back Woods Pee Wee Baseball to Chinese Professional Table Tennis that you can go undefeated in your "league" and not play for a championship.

It really is Ludicrous

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... id=rrpromo

This is based on CFP Committee behavior. When you mess around with the win-out blocks, it shows interesting probabilities. For example, Oklahoma State going into the bowl season with 2 losses has a 27% chance of making the playoffs, while a 2-loss Iowa State has 56%. SMU going undefeated is 5%, Boise is 4%, and App State is <1%.

More importantly, we have a 66% chance of being conference champs. If we beat ULM, it jumps to 73%. If we lose, it drops to 25%.

None of it is surprising, or really means a whole lot to us, but the tool is a fun little time waster.

Sooooo....you're saying there's a chance!!!

[bigdaddyg]

Didn't want to start a new thread but an article just popped up on ESPN talking through the "what if scenarios" and low and behold App State is mentioned along with SMU and Boise- What if we all go unbeaten to include our win at South Carolina. Great to be in the discussion.

[Rick83]

Didn't want to start a new thread but an article just popped up on ESPN talking through the "what if scenarios" and low and behold App State is mentioned along with SMU and Boise- What if we all go unbeaten to include our win at South Carolina. Great to be in the discussion.

I love being in the "discussion!" Could you post a link to the article?

[appstatealum]

Exactly, Drink even acknowledged on Sirius yesterday the fact that "we have good players, but not multiple at all positions." Therein lies the problem of being able to compete consistently. Next man up or subs for our level may be a significant drop in talent. the way it is formatted or reformatted, it'll still be the top few teams that win. No Cinderellas or darkhorses or underdogs.

In the I-AA and FCS, it wasn't chalky. we did see lower ranked teams win titles.

It seems to me that the issue in problems with depth come from physical maturity of the younger players that fill out the bottom of the depth chart. A freshman at App State isn't going to look the same as a freshman at Alabama. The ability levels may be similar, but physical maturation matters when it comes to dealing with injury problems and those freshman that usually get to play at App won't be at that level for another 3 seasons.

But football is more of a “team game” than it ever was in the past. Colleges get young football coaches with different approaches to the game and schemes involve more than “big guy run over small guy” or “big guy make catch over small guy”. App State has been the face of this shift in college football dating back to the upset at Michigan. It was the first time people saw what I well coached spread offense could do with the right skill players. Fast forward to the last few years of games against P5s for us, talking heads always say “well, they are small in the trenches blah blah blah” and then postgame say “their Defensive lines and Offensive lines make up size with speed and strength to match”. The game is changing and a handful of P5s are having to stay on or ahead of the curves to stay competitive. On top of that, the relevant G5’s are getting better skill position players in transfers or guys that don’t want to be passed over at a bigger school. We lucked into Corey via transfer due to his Dads connection, but Henni and Peoples could’ve contributed at a lot of schools. All three of them are bigger physical builds and translate well to higher levels.

[bigdaddyg]

Didn't want to start a new thread but an article just popped up on ESPN talking through the "what if scenarios" and low and behold App State is mentioned along with SMU and Boise- What if we all go unbeaten to include our win at South Carolina. Great to be in the discussion.

I love being in the "discussion!" Could you post a link to the article?

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... yoff-chaos