CFP Expansion.....

[Pit Bull]

...

[TUSK]

I voted "Nay", but I would LOVE IT if they went to 8 teams...

[Pit Bull]

Most of my BAMA friends prefer to keep it at 4 teams......and that's easy to see why. 8 teams would help MSU and a few others who can't quite get to that top 4 level and stay there. 8 teams opens it up to more competition for BAMA and the teams who frequent the top 4. I was just curious to see what most MSU posters thought.

[Todd4State]

I think expanding to eight is inevitable.

How I hope they do it is the playoff 8 play four games around Christmas.

Then the Final four on or around NYD

Then the Championship at the same time as they do now.

I also hope that they expand the NY6 bowls to the NY8 and add the Citrus and another bowl like say maybe the Alamo Bowl to the current and rotate the playoff 8 between the NY8 bowls. Then have the Final Four at neutral sites and the championship at a neutral site.

[TUSK]

As a selfish, rat bastard Bammer, I'd like an 8 team playoff (provided all bids are "at large")...

It'd provide a greater margin of error for top tier teams.... JMO

[BulldogBear]

I am against it 100%.

But with that said Todd is probably right on it being inevitable. They are already set up for it and probably also know it's going to happen eventually. And no, they don't have to add bowls. Round of 8 uses four NY6. Semis uses the other two. Then a NT game like they have now. If this is not how they're planning to do it then they should.

Then they can justify adding a few more bowls also.

[Leroy Jenkins]

I don't see how the #8 team can make a legitimate argument for having a shot at the title. If people can't make a solid case for differentiating #4 and #5, imagine trying to split hairs between who gets left out at #8 and #9.

[msstate7]

I don't see how the #8 team can make a legitimate argument for having a shot at the title. If people can't make a solid case for differentiating #4 and #5, imagine trying to split hairs between who gets left out at #8 and #9.

Power 5 champs, top out of power 5 conference champ, and top 2 at large according to a computer metric like bcs (kinks worked out)

[Leroy Jenkins]

Power 5 champs, top out of power 5 conference champ, and top 2 at large according to a computer metric like bcs (kinks worked out)

So you want 12? Nah, no communist football for me. No way a #12 team can make a claim they deserve a shot.

4 is good.

[DownwardDawg]

It should have been 8 from the beginning and leave it at 8. Most of us already knew that. But whatever. The “experts” are always a little slow.

[LC Dawg]

Make it 8 with the 1st round on campuses so late season games will still have meaning because they are for seeding.

[chef dixon]

I would love a 16 team playoff although I realize not that feasible.

Bottom line is College Game Day would usually go to a matchup between any of the top 16 ranked teams. If you can't see or enjoy the entertainment value in that many damn good games then do you even like college football?

Also it would make it much more accessible for success for teams like MSU. Even with 8 we ain't threatening very often at all. Let's be real, CFB is a rich get richer system, sometimes when we are playing for the Gator Bowl instead of the Liberty Bowl I wonder why I am a fan.

[Leroy Jenkins]

We already have a playoff that encompasses all the teams in FBS. It's called the regular season. Win and you are in, I dont even know what to say to a person who wants to lower the bar until 8-12 teams get a chance at the championship, regardless of where they finished the year.

[dawgday166]

So you want 12? Nah, no communist football for me. No way a #12 team can make a claim they deserve a shot.

4 is good.

NFL has 12 with fewer teams. I'm for expanding to 8 at least. Then schedule strength (or lack thereof) won't hinder teams from having a very strong schedule and losing 1 maybe 2 vs very weak schedule going undefeated.

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

So you want 12? Nah, no communist football for me. No way a #12 team can make a claim they deserve a shot.

4 is good.

5+1+2=8 comrade

[msstate7]

Delete

[msstate7]

5+1+2=8 comrade

Thanks. Thought I worded it correctly

[Quaoarsking]

Either Oklahoma or Ohio State will likely be left out at 12-1, and if Alabama loses they both probably will, so it seems obvious that there aren't enough slots.

8 is almost certainly enough though unless we get more than 5 power conferences

[Leroy Jenkins]

Gotcha. It was strangely worded. I read it as, power 5 champs + 5 best conf champs from non-power 5, +2 at large=12


5+1+2=8 comrade

[msstate7]

Gotcha. It was strangely worded. I read it as, power 5 champs + 5 best conf champs from non-power 5, +2 at large=12

That would definetely be socialist football lol

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

So you want 12? Nah, no communist football for me. No way a #12 team can make a claim they deserve a shot.

4 is good.

Redo your math, 7 described 8 teams, not 12: 5 P5 conference champs, 1 G5 team (ie UCF this year), and 2 at large teams (UGA and Michigan for this year).

The problem with 4 teams is not that the #8 team "deserves" a title shot (though I could say that any team with 1 loss doesn't 'deserve' a shot either), it's that the CFP committee WILL take 'safe' teams with more established pedigrees of success so they don't get embarrassed. Taking UCF at #4 over an OSU leaves a lot more room for them to be made a fool than if they gave UCF the #8 spot.

As a team without a Bama/OSU/OU/Auburn/UGA/etc pedigree, 4 teams means we're a LOT more than just 1/2 as likely to make the playoffs. Lets take a scenario:

State has a perfect regular season, 12-0, but drops the 13th game to 0/1 loss UGA. UGA gets into the playoffs. Clemson and OU have 1 loss and won their conferences, so they're in. OSU has 2 loses, but they looked really good these past few weeks and won the Big-10. THERE IS A 0 PERCENT CHANCE WE GET PICKED OVER THEM, even with better wins and fewer loses to a higher ranked team. yet as we saw last year, Bama would get picked over OSU. The committee will be worried we're a flash in the pan and that we'll be more likely to get humiliated than OSU, because we haven't had proven recent success outside of that 1 season... But if there's 8 teams, we're playing OSU in the first round and are just as "deserving" of a Natty shot as the other 1 loss teams.

If you want the State's, SC's, WSU's, or UCFs of the world to EVER have a shot we need more teams. If it was about who "deserved" to win, then Clemson and Bama should be the only teams allowed to have a shot since everyone else dropped a game. LSU in '11 should have been handed the Natty no contest since they were the only team that truly "deserved" a shot. If the #5-8 teams are REALLY so far behind those top 4 teams then an etra game wont' matter since they'll loose the first round anyway. Was UCF the best team in the country last year? Probably not, but we didn't get the chance to see. Was TCU or Baylor the best team in '14? probably not, didn't get the chance to see. But I damn sure wish we let them prove it on the field, rather than letting the committee pick which Blue Blood gets the honor of being #4.

I have no idea how letting 11/10 win teams determine who's best on the field is "communist", but letting a few elitist ADs decide which 4 teams can have a shot is A-ok.

[Pit Bull]

I don't see how the #8 team can make a legitimate argument for having a shot at the title. If people can't make a solid case for differentiating #4 and #5, imagine trying to split hairs between who gets left out at #8 and #9.

That's why the selections HAVE to taken out of the committee's hands. No human factor other than predetermining what the input factors will be for a computer formula that spits out 1-25 at about 2/3 of the way through the season. The inputs and algorithms used in the formula will have to be preapproved by all P5 conferences before the season starts. Then just stick with it.

[Pit Bull]

So you want 12? Nah, no communist football for me. No way a #12 team can make a claim they deserve a shot.

4 is good.

Who said 12?.....We are talking about the top 8.