College football doesn’t have an entertainment problem. It has a parity problem.

I don’t think it comes as any surprise to someone who’s read this blog for any length of time that I’m not exactly enthused by the notion of college football postseason expansion.  Not that my attitude matters one whit — the powers that be are going to take expansion and run with it as soon as they see how many zeroes ESPN or whomever is willing to put on that check for the broadcast rights.  But I digress.

I was in a fairly robust debate this weekend about CFP expansion on Twitter, and I think it’s something that can be boiled down to a couple of tweets.

It’s DawgStats first point that I want to address in this post.  Quite simply, if your concern is that the way college football is currently structured severely restricts the number of teams that have a legitimate shot to play for a national title, expanding the playoffs is an ineffective way to address that.  Sure, you’ll have some fresh faces — at least at the beginning — who will be able to slap that shiny new “PLAYOFF BOUND” label on themselves.  But the idea that an eighth seed is going to run the table and beat those same two or three powerhouses after playing an extra game is wishful thinking at best.

Here’s why.  (And thanks to reader Henry for supplying the chart.)

Screenshot_2021-01-11 Fwd Where the stars are and other thoughts - mbroch gmail com - Gmail

Look at that carefully.  There is a gap that emerges after, say, the top five or six and grows enormously after 12-14.  Not so coincidentally, those are the schools that have dominated in populating the CFP fields to date.

As I said in the header, if college football has a problem, it’s a parity problem.  And playoff expansion won’t do a damned thing to address that.  (It will do wonders for ESPN viewership and fans with a Cinderella fetish, though.  And brackets!)

If college football really wants to do something about parity, that means dealing with the lack of balance on rosters throughout the sport.  The NCAA is about to do something in that regard in the very near future in terms of allowing a free, one-time transfer for football players, but it’s only a one-shot deal and even with that limitation in mind, schools pretty much had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table to allow it.

The bigger and more dramatic move to level the playing field would be to reduce the number of scholarship players allowed on an FBS school’s football roster from the current level of 85.  Such a proposal, of course, would lead to an outright rebellion on the part of the haves to keep what they perceive as their rightful status.  (Would that change if schools suddenly had to pay those players directly?  Beats me.)

That P5 schools are on board with more playoffs — of course they are, don’t kid yourselves — but are anywhere from reluctant to downright opposed to roster modifications should tell you everything you need to know about their parity concerns.  Namely, as long as it doesn’t affect the pocketbook, parity isn’t a problem for them.

Nor is it, apparently, for fans of expansion.

127 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

127 responses to “College football doesn’t have an entertainment problem. It has a parity problem.

  1. gotthepicture

    This discussion also happened on Dawg Sports this weekend. If you are interested I cited you several times in my presentation.

    Like

  2. dawg100

    Forget one time transfer, let’s institute a draft. After their freshman year, we re-order it all. Justin Fields goes to UTEP and Trevor Lawrence to Nichols!

    I’m just kidding, but couldn’t be worse than what we have now, a 4-6 team perpetual playoff.

    Like

  3. Hogbody Spradlin

    How would you feel about an expanded playoff field with a 65 scholarship limit? (In 2012 Mark Richt woulda said no problem, sigh)
    I agree that playoff expansion is inevitable, and they will continue expanding as long as each added game produces marginal profit. Stockholders, ya know.
    The best to hope for is to make them more competitive. Query though whether smaller scholarship limits would cause a more homogenous more dull product, like the NFL?
    The money spent on football game advertising, and the seemingly endless flow of it, makes me think of the opening line from the Stephen Fry bit at Auburn. “It’s an indication of the size of the American economy . . . “

    Liked by 2 people

    • dawg100

      I say a double elimination tourney starting after everyone plays 6 games. That’d focus the minds of the players and fans. Win or go home!

      Again, just kidding, but either let UGA go on a Clemson style 5-6 year run or blow it all up and start over. 😊

      Like

  4. I’m not an expansion supporter primarily because the best regular season in sports loses its luster in an expanded playoff.

    The issue is that the Pac 12 sucks and there are too many schools in FBS. If the Pac 12 got its act back together (ESPN so desperately wants USC in its invitational) and had a team worthy of the 4 regularly, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    When Notre Dame makes the playoff (and they are going back to independent status in 2021), that reduces the number of spots again.

    Since FSU and Miami haven’t challenged Clemson and the rest of the Big 10 hasn’t consistently challenged Ohio State, that makes two spots that are practically spoken for before toe meets leather. You could make the same case for Texas with Oklahoma.

    If you want more teams in the playoff, tell the non-SEC conferences to up their game. At least the SEC championship game is a true playoff quarterfinal (at times, the Big 12 has been as well). Finally, if you want more teams in, tell the committee to punish teams that don’t participate (Bama, Ohio State in the past) or get blown out of their conference championship games (ND this year).

    Liked by 4 people

    • originaluglydawg

      Excellent points, ee.

      Like

    • otto1980

      Some valid points.

      Bring back the BCS, bowls matter because preseason rankings matter more. Random games have more impact as one up set can change the entire national title picture.

      Like

    • I’ve long said there are way to many teams. 60 teams and regulation would be a big help. Some sort of major geographic overall. 4 big super conferences.

      You’re right, its not anybodies fault FSU sucks. or basically anyone ACC. And now the PAC doesnt much care as fanbases.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. A five year average recruiting ranking of 2, tied with Alabama, and nothing more to show for it than an SEC Championship is slightly alarming. I defer to your previous post about leaks in the dam as explanation, which seems to be the 21st century “Georgia Way”.

    Like

  6. GruvenDawg

    I don’t have an opinion on expanding the playoff, it might help and it might hurt. However I think the distribution of talent is going to change with the one time transfer rule. That along with early NFL entry by players will also help equalize talent disparities. The days of the top programs stocking talent and players waiting their turn is going to be difficult to maintain in it’s current state. We saw that a senior laden team like Cincinnati is going to be hell on wheels every 3-4 years.

    I think that a transcendent QB and offense can make up for a lot of deficiencies on a team. That doesn’t mean a playoff win (ala Clemson this year). I also think the upcoming NIL laws will help stabilize the transfers and early entries. Hopefully the NIL laws are implemented sooner than later.

    I do know that when a team is eliminated from the playoffs a portion of that fan base checks out of cfb. I also believe that an expanded playoff would increase fan engagement for longer in the season across the country. This could lead to an increase in youth football numbers in portions of the country where kids playing football have been on the decline for years. In addition the fringe and cinderella teams (Cincinnati this year) would get a chance to settle it on the field. I do believe the playoffs will expand at the next tv contract negotiations, hopefully it doesn’t take away what is special about college football.

    Like

    • When Bama starts having wholesale transfers out due to playing time, I’ll believe the axiom about players not wanting to wait their turn. It seems guys go to Alabama expecting to wait their turn. You haven’t heard grumbling from Bryce Young that I deserve more playing time over Mac Jones. You certainly haven’t seen Bama fans say Young is the future so he should be playing over Jones while we’re in the middle of a national title push.

      Like

    • Youth football participation is on the decline due to safety and long-term CTE risk. Throw in the expense associated with equipment and the time for coaching and practice. It’s just isn’t worth it unless your kid is uber athletic.

      Liked by 3 people

      • GruvenDawg

        Whole heartedly agree on the long-term CTE and safety issues and youth football enrollment. I also think the teaching at the youth level to implement rugby type tackling (hawk tackle) and increased emphasis on targeting will hopefully reduce that trend. I don’t think that’s the only reason for decline, I also think the lack of excitement for college football in parts of the country have led to the decline in youth enrollment in these regions as well.

        Like

    • originaluglydawg

      And maybe the opposite will happen. Maybe (surely) the top programs’ coaches will find a way to use the transfer portal as a gentle tool to ease a disappointing kid out the door.
      And maybe (surely) they’ll find a way to use it to firm up the soft places on the roster. (Of course this has already happened. Even in our favorite program…and our not-so-favorite program. He’s not called “The Portal Master” for nothing)
      We all know how it works.
      “Look kid, we love you and want to keep you here, but it just doesn’t look like you’ll ever get on the field. Now, over at UX, they’re really short on your position and that’s a good program too, with a good coaching staff…”
      “Look man. I’m just a ball boy and nobody told me to tell you this, but UZ is almost a shoe-in for the playoffs and they love you over there. I heard their coach won’t say it, but he’d love to see you up for grabs in the portal. You’re wasting your talent here. You’d be on TV every Saturday at UZ”..
      The TP has been poorly thought out.
      It was a reaction to the ugliness of the JF transfer. It became a choice of having to constantly hear accusations of mistreatment (whether exaggerated or not) and investigate and sort them out..with lawsuits and counter lawsuits looming…or just to give in. The NCAA just gave in.
      I’m not saying something wasn’t needed…just think it might have been more carefully thought out.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. timphd

    The concern with scholarship limits is the impact that has on the high school player looking for an education. If there are limits to how many any school can give, that means that fewer kids overall have a chance to get a scholarship.There are 130 FBS schools, if you reduce their scholarship total by 20 per team, you are eliminating a total of 2600 scholarships. What happens then? Do they all shift down to the lower divisions? Their options would be extremely limited which seems unfair to them.

    Liked by 4 people

    • 79dawg

      Yep, nothing says “doin’ it for the kids” like cutting a quarter of the available scholarships!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Well, gosh darn it, let’s just eliminate scholarship limits altogether!

        Liked by 1 person

        • timphd

          I’m certainly not advocating for unlimited scholarships, just pointing out that limiting them has an impact on the kids who have always paid the price for our entertainment. In my opinion, the “competitiveness” issue comes down to quality of a program. The NFL has a draft and it is geared to help the weakest teams, yet the Falcons suck annually. That is not because of the “system” it is because of poor management. Same is true for college football. The best programs are able to get the best players because they are better run. If we limit scholarships, it would be my bet that Saban and Alabama would still win more than anyone else.

          Like

          • The draft is stupid. If the draft meant anything the browns would have 5 superbowls. As it turns out, the patriots drafting last or near last were stacking up superbowls.

            Like

            • amurraycuh

              Its becoming apparent that Brady had a lot to do with the patriots success…was is brady or belechick to thank for their success?
              Perhaps we create a “salary cap” of sorts where a team can only sign a certain number of blue chips?

              Like

        • When Booker’s legislation passes, won’t NCAA schools just eliminate athletic schollies altogether?

          Like

        • 79dawg

          The problem with all these issues – competitive balance, NIL, compensation, antitrust, etc. – is that the Universities like the benefits of operating semi-pro football and basketball leagues, with the veneer of “amateurism” and “doin’ it for the kids” to provide it with a gloss. As long as they continue to try to straddle this divide, they will continue to fail.
          Of course, I’m one of the ones who would prefer that the Universities move the needle back towards more athletics as an adjunct to an educational institution rather than its near raison d’etre, but recognize I am in the extreme minority in that position…

          Liked by 1 person

          • amurraycuh

            I agree with your first statement. Regarding your second statement…do you watch FCS or D2/D3 sporting events? I would argue that they are situationally competitive, but I find it very easy for me to walk away from a competitive FCS game. If it were an equally competitive FBS game I would be more likely to tune in.

            Like

    • How many college football players graduate? Theres also 127 FCS teams, and they are often hurting to fill with decent players. many of whom arent on scholarship. Btw, where was my schoolie, i just had to pay for college and stuff. But, by your argument, what is the magic number then? 100 scholies to help the kids? Bama would LOVE that.

      Like

      • timphd

        I don’t know where your scholarship was. What was the skill you offered the university to warrant one? Again, I am not advocating for more scholarships, just pointing out the consequences to potential student athletes if they are limited.

        Like

  8. Bay Area Dawg

    I am all for expanding the playoff to 8 teams and have given my format numerous times. I don’t think limiting scholarships is the answer.

    Honestly, I don’t think anything needs to change, except paying players (I’m not for it but its going to happen). The biggest problem with parity is Saban. If Alabama wins today they will have won 6 of the past 12 national titles. That has not been done since I think the early 1900’s. Saban is the greatest coach to ever coach and if you don’t that’s true we can have that argument another time. He totally revamped his offense and changed his defense during this reign. He changes with the times and doesn’t try to fit a square peg in a round hole.

    Anyway, once Saban steps down college football will be back to normal. There is only one Nick Saban.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Remember the Quincy

    Take my comments for what you will, as I’m certainly not intelligent enough to have my own blog.

    The argument for expansion to 8 seems somewhat logical to me. As it stands, the regular season isn’t all that special to me. Everybody has a chance until they run into Bama, Clemson, or OSU (and occasionally UGA, LSU, or Oklahoma). The regular season isn’t special for any of the 60+ G5 teams or the 55+ P5 teams not mentioned above. So the argument that having 8 available spots rather than 4 makes sense to me…you open the door to more participants, thus giving most fan bases a little more excitement.

    The argument that it would help re rioting seems null to me. It appears that the elite talent values a program or coach(es) who have proven that they can develop you into a 1st or 2nd round pick. That won’t change all that much as those kids are going to still want their best crack at the NFL, which comes from the 5-6 teams that are always in the hunt.

    Like

    • Remember the Quincy

      *recruiting (I don’t know why it corrected to “re rioting” in the last paragraph)

      Like

    • Take my comments for what you will, as I’m certainly not intelligent enough to have my own blog.

      I can assure you that intelligence isn’t a requirement to have your own blog. 😉

      Liked by 3 people

    • Then why do they play at all? If georgia lost to florida every single year forever, but made it to the #8 slot, you’re good with that?

      Cause I’m not. FTMFs.

      Like

    • Tony BarnFart

      At some point, one either likes college football a lot or they don’t. All I’m hearing is expand it because “this guy hates it, this other guy thinks its boring, we’re not really that interested our team is playing….. so we should expand it so we can mathematically extend for a few more weeks a few more lukewarm interests in the sport.”

      I’m of the mind that the interest in the sport is doing pretty good. Maybe the people who check out by mid-october during the regular season should just sit this one out. There’s only so long, for so many, a system can keep the charade up of “maybe you can beat Alabama.” So expand it so these folks will stay interested through Halloween ?

      Liked by 1 person

      • dude, I have met and known a TON of people that dont care about college football or watch it but want a big playoff. They want to do exactly what so many do with the pro sports, not pay any attention until post season. These people are a big chuck of the pie too. Just like there’s 4 million Bama “fans” here that never crossed the state line and have no connection to bama. Which is interesting because they would be FSU fans if FSU was good.

        Like

  10. spur21

    How do you kill the “Golden Goose” force it to lay more golden eggs.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Dylan Dreyer's Booty

    “Would that change if schools suddenly had to pay those players directly? Beats me.”

    Eh… you know the answer is No. They have money to burn. Architects for waterfalls in locker rooms might suffer, but someone has to suffer.

    Like

  12. sniffer

    First, any enterprise chases revenue. Sometimes, to their own detriment. College athletic departments are market makers right now and determining the value of their product. They know that today’s underclassmen will follow them into the future and we who remember the good ol’ days will slip into history and our voice will fall silent. With many university’s finances suffering due to Covid, I see the playoff expansion accelerating. It will happen as soon as possible. There will be no apologies.

    Like

  13. Holiday Inn Bagman

    Conferences simply are not put together in a way that fits with a large playoff model – too many teams & too much talent disparity. To make a playoff really attractive in my mind you have to blow up the conferences and start from scratch which is just not going to happen. Of course they’ll do it anyway and make a total cluster out of it.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. sundiatagaines

    I’m 42 years old and this is the first year that I can’t name UGA’s starting 5 in basketball. I can’t pin down the reason, but I just don’t have the interest anymore. But I think I WILL watch the SEC Tourney to see if we can make a run. But every football game remains appointment viewing. This seems like it should mean something.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Migraine Boy

      Using perpetual sad-sack UGA basketball is a bad example, IMO. And the slim number of games in CFB is a big point in it’s favor. I don’t think that I’ll lose interest when there’s only 12 games. I DO have trouble giving a damn about games sv pay-to-play schools which is a bigger issue to me.

      Like

  15. classiccitycanine

    I’ve been thinking for some time that a playoff is not a good fit because of the lack of parity. Even the FCS has relative parity compared to the FBS.

    Like

  16. I don’t want to see expansion, but lets face it; the regular season is not what it used to be and has not been for a long time. Why are we so hell bent on protecting it? We play freaking Mizzou every year for crying out loud. It’s already watered down bull$@&%.

    Like

  17. back9k9

    And don’t forget that any football scholarship reduction would be doubled in the form of Title IX offset. For every football scholarship that is reduced, that’s another female scholarship that is no longer required.

    Like

  18. Faltering Memory

    I don’t favor expansion of the regular season or the playoffs. First and foremost is the age of players versus the NFL. Some freshmen are as young as 16 when the season starts and leave around age 20. Even if they are playing the same age group, there is a lot of difference in a 16-year old body which is still growing and a mature 26-year old player in the pros. Pay, what will a college player get, maybe $12,000 to $20,000 per year. Certainly not millions per year or ever $450,000 for the minimum NFL salary. Someone is going to have to carry the load for the expanded playoffs and I dont’t think it should be teenagers.

    Like

  19. willypmd

    As a Georgia fan, that graph perfectly illustrates why something needs to change.

    UGA would have likely been in every single playoff since 2017 if it wasn’t in the SEC.

    Not sure what the fix for that is, but I don’t know why we should continually be punished for being in the same conference as Alabama, while Clemson and OSU cakewalk into the final four every year.

    I do not want to devalue the regular season, but I am also damn tired of not getting a shot because we are forced to play the best team in the country in the regular season or SEC championship every year.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Imo, a playoff of only 4 teams has helped widen the gulf in recruiting and pretty much anyone in the recruiting business will echo that. I don’t believe that perfect exists anything, especially cfb. The AP, BCS and CFBP are all flawed but the playoff is the best of the 3.

    I for one believe you can still have a meaningful regular season and bowls while also having a more legitimate means of determining a national champion. All a 4 team playoff does is ensure that the same teams will be there. Double that number and you get wildcards and teams who are better at season’s end but no would would realize under previous angle the current system. We’d see better parity and recruiting would be a little more balanced. Cfb is my favorite sport by far but the means of determining a champion are about the dumbest of any sport at any level.

    Like

  21. MGW

    I’d like for us to snag a title or two before it happens but reducing scholarships is the most effective way to make the entire sport better. I’d be reluctantly for it. 8 team playoff will make rivalry in general less meaningful but will have more teams “playing for something” for more of the season. But without fixing the underlying parity issue, it’s a bandaid and it’s totally hollow because that “something” is an illusion; it’ll still only be the same few teams who have any meaningful chance to win. Once that realization hits and 5-8 seeds start seeing players still opt out maybe we’ll see some actual effort to fix the sport.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. I really don’t get great the “the playoffs are ruining the regular season” argument. You still have to be successful in your region/conference/division to make the playoff and would we really miss playing Charleston Southern or UMASS? LOL

    Like

    • otto1980

      Playoffs are ruining the regular season. Why should I watch Texas A&M vs Bama when I know that 1 loss does not take a team out of the playoff? In the BCS 1 loss could take even a SEC out of the BCS Championship game.

      Like

    • Derek

      Unless you’re Alabama in 2011 or 2017.

      No conference title. No division title.

      But a national title? Sure, why not?

      Liked by 2 people

      • I also remember two Georgia teams that everyone called one of the best two teams in the country getting left out because there wasn’t a playoff. Didn’t that 2011 Bama team beat a Notre Dame who was the beneficiary of another weak schedule? This just further supports the need for a legit playoff.

        How is it that literally any other sport at any other level can manage a season and playoff? Why are folks so adamant about protecting a regular season of playing programs that aren’t even on your level? If determining a champion isn’t the end goal then what is? Why even play?

        Liked by 1 person

        • There are 130 FBS teams, there is no perfect system with that many teams, with the conferences, with regional and historic rivalries, with the fact these are supposed to be students.

          Like

        • Derek

          Its amazing what conclusions you can draw if you start from a place of abject ignorance.

          Alabama played LSU, a team it had lost to at home in November, for the national title after the 2011 season. LSU won the west. Won the sec. LSU beat 8 ranked teams.

          But, in order to satisfy the fans who want an objective champion but who will forget about how they won it in less than a decade, they couldn’t beat alabama twice.

          Alabama crushed notre dame the next year. And no there was was no need for a two team play off that year. It was played in atlanta in early december.

          But why not 8 huh? You’ll have all the more reason not to be able remember wtf happened in a few years.

          Like

    • DawgStats

      Can we be friends?

      ____ Yes

      _____No

      -@Dawg_Stats

      Liked by 1 person

      • Down Island Way

        Always got a warm feeling when UGA was recruiting in the top 10 with a some times stop in the top 5 class….now, not so much, cause you actually see what it means to play with the top 2/3 year in year out, getting a 5* is one thing, getting the 5*s that can/will make a marked difference, year in, year out is where CKS has UGA headed…

        Like

  23. charlottedawg

    There aren’t more than 4 deserving teams in a given season. Expand the playoffs to 8 and we’ll see 2 rounds of blowouts instead of the current single round. Too lazy to look it up but there’s a reason the average margin of Victory in the cfp semi finals is like 17 points.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Tony BarnFart

    Ohhhh, it’s more “modern” he says, and therefore we should do it.

    Wait…..what does modern in this context mean and why should I want it ? You know mom, I’ve been screaming for dessert for a while now, and I’m only getting louder, you should probably give me that ice cream.

    Like

    • DawgStats

      This is a winning argument

      Liked by 1 person

      • originaluglydawg

        There are some good arguments that you should address instead of just sticking with your premise.
        It would seem that your premise is diminished by the arguments here today.
        It seems established that adding teams would not change outcomes..and if it did change the outcome it would be an unfortunate fluke (and possibly caused by injuries in an early round..or suspensions for targeting, etc.)
        You are advocating for a tournament, not a playoff. And as long as the old favorites like ND get their special considerations (which IS the case) then it’s still going to be screwing the last deserving team not chosen.
        The problem no one seems to have a solution to is how to keep biased human meddlers out of the selection process. Human based polls, television diatribes and campaigns spoil the purity of the selection process. We might not have to have this conversation if it were truly un-biased, but sadly, we seem to always have the Herbstreits among us.

        Like

      • DawgStats, with all due respect you brought “modern” into the argument.

        Allow me to rebut:

        The very thing that makes CFB unique is the traditions, regional focus, and acknowledgment that it’s not homogeneous. Every effort to make it NFL “Lite” is simply a step in the wrong direction. Winning the Sugar Bowl used to mean something. Now it means nothing unless it’s hosting the MNC game. We’ve stolen that experience from younger generations…how’s that for modern? Modern fans demand a champion but once they get one, they cry foul and demand a different format until they get the result they want. How modern.

        Tech did NOT win the 1990 championship…Colorado did. That was the beauty of the pre-playoff system. We had a subjective newspaper writer’s poll, biased coaches poll, and nothing but “what if’s” to ponder and argue. An 8, 12, 16 or 64 team college tournament is never going to confirm the regional disparities and subjective view of who’s best. The playoff is just an invitational made for TV event. Call it that and I’m OK with it, but don’t for a minute try to pass off the BS that we’re crowning the national Champion.

        We will forever have 1980…so much sweeter than 2017. Imagine if the season stopped after the Rose Bowl. We still would be enjoying the argument today of who was better…us or Bama? Instead we live with 2nd & 26 forever.

        Liked by 2 people

        • with everything you listed, and 130 teams, maybe the answer is, you really cant have a definitive answer. That ambiguity bothers some people. Like someone commented, maybe they just dont like college ball.

          Also, 7-9 Washington No Names played in the wildcard this weekend. They lost, but in theory, a losing team, that didnt win their division, can go on to win the superbowl. And thats exactly what greater playoffs bring. See the Florida Marlins and the year they won the world series.

          Everything creeps, and more doesnt mean better.

          Like

        • DawgStats

          Nothing wrong with those takes. I’m thinking the sport has moved into a new era. I’m all for it. But, nothing like finding out how much in am in the minority. Cheers

          Like

          • Well, you arent in the minority. You are just on an old blog that happens to also have older people. I’d say well over 50% of the folks want a playoff, well over. And Disney and Vegas REALLY want it. 4 games was always a ruse to get to right here in this discussion. They couldnt come out with 6, 8, 12, 16 so they had to sneak in a “4 is perfect” .

            Just remember, everything creeps, and more doesnt mean better.

            Like

  25. PTC DAWG

    The reason that more teams in the playoffs works for the NFL is parity, salary caps, etc…Most every year, half of the NFL playoff teams were not there the year before. Sure teams have had a run, but it’s not the same two in the Super Bowl every year.

    That’s the exact reason they won’t work in the NCAA, the parity is just not there, and really never has been. Unless scholarship limits are put in place, say to around 60 or so, it will never happen. And sometimes the Coaches are just better..ie Saban and Dabo..

    Like

  26. For me, I typically advocate for my own best self interest (that includes my family’s). In this case I’d advocate in the perceived best interest of UGA football, not the SEC conference, not the tradition of the game, or preserving the regular season. Expansion is in the best interest of UGA football. Like it or not, we have us an Alabama problem when it comes to making the playoffs. For other power 5 conferences, that’s not an impediment. Clemson, Ohio State and typically even Oklahoma can cruise to the playoffs without the enormous hurdle known as Bama. When we screw up and win the SEC championship, we still end up playing Bama for the Natty. But at the very least, to be in the hunt, we should expand the playoffs, if for no other reason than to give UGA football a puncher’s chance if we have a season that has a couple hiccups along the way. I think this GA team, having established the QB, could have reeked havoc had it gotten an invite this year, and in most seasons our Dawgs could be contenders. Btw, we worry about preserving the regular season, look how badly the 4 team playoffs destroyed the post season for teams outside the 4 spots. Many of the highlight reel players opt out as soon as their team is out of contention…I think 8 spots is doable.

    Like

  27. Derek

    For all of those who want an expanded playoff, we have one. It starts in late-august or early September and goes into early january. If you win your games, you win a title.

    Its amazing. You should check it out sometime.

    Like

    • originaluglydawg

      Cincinnati would disagree. And that’s the problem. The selection process is tainted by biases and “Name Recognition”. As long as we have this shit where ND is given preferential consideration because of their status (and the same can be said of anOSU at times) we’re going to have this argument about the playoffs. As I said in an earlier post, until someone finds a way to keep the meddlers like Herbie out of the conversation..and to eliminate all human bias, we’re going to have to argue about this stufff. Cincinatti played a tougher schedule than Clemson did. Possibly a tougher schedule than ND did. As happy as I am that Georgia burst their growing claim to “we should have been in”, they did deserve it more than ND or Clemson.

      Like

      • Got Cowdog

        ^^^This. Clemson played nobody, other than ND. ND played nobody other than Clemson and managed to beat Clemson sans Trevor, but they’re big name programs so they get the nod. Aaannd predictably they get smoked when they run into good football teams.
        Cincy should have been 4 seed and Oklahoma (?) 3. Is Cincy going to beat Bama? No. Oklahoma had a hell of a lot better chance to beat OSU than Clemson did, though.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Derek

          If cincy feels disrespected they can go out and schedule themselves into relevance. BYU, Penn State, FSU all earned respect by playing the best teams that would schedule them. Cincy, Central Florida, et al can do the same.

          Like

  28. stoopnagle

    Let boosters pay players above the table and you’ll see which programs really want to win.

    Like

  29. dawgphan34

    I am not sure that there are rule tweaks you can make to increase parity.

    The way the sport is managed would need to be completely changed.

    You can expand the playoffs, increase scholarships, decrease scholarships, play more conference games, play more top 25 OOC games, whatever you want.

    You would need to totally limit how much schools can spend on football, from analyst to recruiting mailers. Recruiting is money. You can’t recruit without spending money. The more you spend the better the recruits.

    But those limits would be a violation of anti-trust, I believe.

    Like

  30. MGW

    All BS aside this looks to be an amazing game.

    Like

    • Got Cowdog

      I’m tuning in. Last chance to watch CFB for a looong time. I can’t say I care who wins, but it ought to be a really good game. I think I may lean towards wanting JF to be successful.

      Like

      • I’ll be watching to see 2 teams that have just about 22 on each siding going pro. OSU was going to be very good this year, and you got 2 QBs that the NFL is dying for.

        Like

  31. TripleB

    I want expansion for several reasons. First, I would like to see more of the bowl games become playoff games so they are more interesting (and the kids want to play in them). It would take seven games to complete an eight team playoff. That would give us at least seven really good bowl games!
    I also think it will help the regular season in many ways because more teams have an actual shot at making the playoff well into the season. Also, from a selfish standpoint, UGA would get into it a lot more often, and I think teams like UGA would have a chance even as an eight seed (sometimes teams peak at the end of the season).

    Like

  32. Dawg in Austin

    I think 4 is perfect. I can’t think of a single eye when 5 teams deserved a shot at the title, unless you count the Baylor year, but that involved 3 teams who were good but not great slotting into the final 2 spots against 2 great teams at the top.

    And I agree that scholarship reductions is the way to achieve more parity, if that’s what you want. It’s worked before.

    But I think this chart doesn’t do enough to buttress your argument. Averaging the ranking of teams is weak and all I see are gradual dips throughout. Showing the 5-year average player ranking or the total ranking of each class will show more definition to the gaps, which are really significant after the first 4, then 7, then 12-ish. Then those on the “expansion will deliver parity” bus will see how drastic 1 vs 8 will look.

    Like

  33. At least we seem mostly in agreement that this committee thing is bogus.

    Like

  34. Ozam

    Kill the playoffs and this issue disappears.

    Like

  35. rigger92

    Expanding the playoff means that the #3 SEC team could back in to the brackets ahead of the championship game loser. For example, if it’s Alabama winning, Georgia losing, then a 1 loss Florida would be picked by the committee, for narrative reasons obviously.

    It’s just a mess and they really need to leave it alone and change it to an invitational tournament and name the winner the ESPN CFB champions.

    Furthermore, they should market the various conference championships with more emphasis and be placed on equal footing with the ESPN champion.

    Like