Mike Elko: It's ok for it to be hard to get into the playoffs

[18IsTheMan]

A bit of old news, but I've been out of the loop for a couple weeks. He gave his take on CFP expansion. Basically, of course coaches want expansion because it generates job security. But it's not what's good for the sport.

He's dead on accurate, though. It's crazy that in a system that supposed to be about competition, the conversation has turned to how to make it easier for more teams to get into the playoffs. He's right that it should be a hard thing to do.

Football is the sport that has epitomized toughness for generations. But now the leaders are whining that it's too competitively difficult. Crazy.

Mike Elko gives his brutally honest opinion about expanding the College Football Playoff

Mike Elko gives an honest take on College Football Playoff expansion at SEC Spring Meetings, saying coaches answer for themselves, not the sport.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

From everything I have read, the leaders (talking to you B1G and SEC) want more teams in (of course from the conferences) to generate more money for themselves.
That is the final and bottom line

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

From everything I have read, the leaders (talking to you B1G and SEC) want more teams in (of course from the conferences) to generate more money for themselves.
That is the final and bottom line

And the TV Networks are pushing a broader money grab as well.

 

[muscleknight]

The FCS was at 16 and it worked well for years. I think they expanded to 24 now. If the FCS can do it why can't D1?

 

[atl-cock]

Why does NCAA FCS, D-II, D-III, and the NAIA have 24+ teams in their playoffs?

 

[atl-cock]

The FCS was at 16 and it worked well for years. I think they expanded to 24 now. If the FCS can do it why can't D1?

I think there should be consistency across all NCAA divisions. Create a G5 16-team playoff, and reduce D-II & D-III to 16 teams. I doubt that any division will go for a reduction.

 

[18IsTheMan]

From everything I have read, the leaders (talking to you B1G and SEC) want more teams in (of course from the conferences) to generate more money for themselves.
That is the final and bottom line

Well, yeah, everyone has a different motivation. The conferences want more teams in b/c it generates more revenue.

Coaches are in favor of more teams because it increases their job security by saying they made the CFP.

Nobody wants more teams in for any reasons that are for the good of the sport.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Why does NCAA FCS, D-II, D-III, and the NAIA have 24+ teams in their playoffs?

I don't follow those divisions but I would guess part of the reason is that your lower divisions tend to have more parity. They're all playing with rosters made of 2* or lower athletes. Maybe you more routinely have teams ranked outside the top 10 in those divisions who could legitimately win the title, or maybe the competitiveness is greater from 1-24 than in D1/FBS.

That has never been the case in D1/FBS and will never be the case. Once you get past the top 5ish teams, you're outside of title contender status. The 16th ranked team will never win the title in D1/FBS. Never. There's just far too wide of a gap between the top 3-4 teams and those ranked outside the top 10.

 

[Piscis]

I don't follow those divisions but I would guess part of the reason is that your lower divisions tend to have more parity. They're all playing with rosters made of 2* or lower athletes. Maybe you more routinely have teams ranked outside the top 10 in those divisions who could legitimately win the title, or maybe the competitiveness is greater from 1-24 than in D1/FBS.

That has never been the case in D1/FBS and will never be the case. Once you get past the top 5ish teams, you're outside of title contender status. The 16th ranked team will never win the title in D1/FBS. Never. There's just far too wide of a gap between the top 3-4 teams and those ranked outside the top 10.

Big upsets happen. Look at SC/UGA in 2019. That said, when a #24 team with 3 or 4 losses on the season knocks off a #1 or #2 team to win a championship (it will eventually happen), everyone will know the #24 team was not even close to the best team in the country.

It is all a money grab.

 

[KingWard]

Roll it back to four. Then the entire season is a playoff and lots of teams have hands in it.

 

[SouthernBelly]

For fans, its entertainment. If you're making the decisions it's money. Since I'm not making any decisions I'm squarely in the former so bring back the BCS because it made people more upset than any other format of post-season play. And that was entertaining.

 

[atl-cock]

I don't follow those divisions but I would guess part of the reason is that your lower divisions tend to have more parity. They're all playing with rosters made of 2* or lower athletes. Maybe you more routinely have teams ranked outside the top 10 in those divisions who could legitimately win the title, or maybe the competitiveness is greater from 1-24 than in D1/FBS.

That has never been the case in D1/FBS and will never be the case. Once you get past the top 5ish teams, you're outside of title contender status. The 16th ranked team will never win the title in D1/FBS. Never. There's just far too wide of a gap between the top 3-4 teams and those ranked outside the top 10.

Most D-III schools are private institutions. A larger percentage of D-III schools do not sponsor football than in D-I & D-II. Not sure how all this affects parity, but I'll roll with it.

I would suggest than many FCS athletes are as talented as those competing in FBS, the difference being size/height.

 

[Piscis]

Most D-III schools are private institutions. A larger percentage of D-III schools do not sponsor football than in D-I & D-II. Not sure how all this affects parity, but I'll roll with it.

I would suggest than many FCS athletes are as talented as those competing in FBS, the difference being size/height.

When big and fast meets small and fast, big and fast wins pretty much every time.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Big upsets happen. Look at SC/UGA in 2019. That said, when a #24 team with 3 or 4 losses on the season knocks off a #1 or #2 team to win a championship (it will eventually happen), everyone will know the #24 team was not even close to the best team in the country.

It is all a money grab.

Well, except you’re not talking about a one off fluke win. A three or four lost team on the season will have to win five games in a row against the top 25 teams to win the title. It is just implausible to think that will ever happen.

 

[Piscis]

Well, except you’re not talking about a one off fluke win. A three or four lost team on the season will have to win five games in a row against the top 25 teams to win the title. It is just implausible to think that will ever happen.

I agree it is very improbable. However, if the matchups started out favorably and a couple of the top teams got upset early, the path could be there. The most recent example I can think of was when UGA won the SEC basketball tournament in 2008. UGA finished the regular season last in the East with a 4-12 conference record. UGA managed to stumble their way to the championship game and beat Arkansas to win the tournament and be tournament champion.

My main point is, some day there is going to be a team crowned national champion that everyone knows was not the best team, not even one of the five best teams.

 

[atl-cock]

When big and fast meets small and fast, big and fast wins pretty much every time.

True.

 

[ScWildthing61]

For fans, its entertainment. If you're making the decisions it's money. Since I'm not making any decisions I'm squarely in the former so bring back the BCS because it made people more upset than any other format of post-season play. And that was entertaining.

Only reason I'd bring back the BCS is because of those pregame intros and that music they used when they were on ABC from 1999-2006. That was epic!

 

[Uscg1984]

I don't follow those divisions but I would guess part of the reason is that your lower divisions tend to have more parity. They're all playing with rosters made of 2* or lower athletes. Maybe you more routinely have teams ranked outside the top 10 in those divisions who could legitimately win the title, or maybe the competitiveness is greater from 1-24 than in D1/FBS.

That has never been the case in D1/FBS and will never be the case. Once you get past the top 5ish teams, you're outside of title contender status. The 16th ranked team will never win the title in D1/FBS. Never. There's just far too wide of a gap between the top 3-4 teams and those ranked outside the top 10.

Visibility is also a factor. Even people "in the know" like coaches, sportswriters, and selection committee members can only lay eyes on a couple of FCS teams each week. There is no "eye test" for a team because these teams don't have eyes on them in the first place. So, casting a broader net makes a bit more sense at those levels.

FBS teams are much better known commodities, especially at the P4 level. When we're talking about true national champion contenders, everybody in the country knows which 5 - 8 teams fit that category by the end of the regular season because we've seen them all.

From a philosophical standpoint, I would argue that what FCS, DII, and DIII do are no more relevant for establishing policy for FBS football than the policies and procedures for Little League are to MLB. The tail does not wag the dog.