Bill Connelly lays out some insight into how the expanded playoffs will further deteriorate the meaning of the regular season, and especially the rivalry games:
With this in mind, let’s think about how Rivalry Week would have played out with a 24-team playoff and compare that with what happened with a 12-teamer.
• In real life, Michigan needed a miracle upset of Ohio State to have any playoff hope. Instead, the Wolverines lost by 18. With a 24-team CFP, they’re comfortably in regardless.
• Alabama had to beat Auburn to keep its place in the CFP field and proceeded to blow a 17-point lead before rallying to win late. Meanwhile, Oklahoma needed to beat LSU to hold on to a berth and trailed with five minutes left before a late score. With a 24-teamer, both teams are comfortably in (and have opening-round home games) regardless.
• Texas and Vanderbilt needed to beat rivals Texas A&M and Tennessee, respectively, and hope for some chaos above them to get into the field. (They won, but they didn’t get the chaos.) With a 24-teamer, they’re both in regardless.
• In theory, No. 23 Georgia Tech facing Georgia could have had playoff stakes with a 24-teamer, but the committee actually boosted the Yellow Jackets in the rankings after another loss to the Dawgs. Turns out, they’re in regardless.
• Only two rivalry games are enhanced by a 24-teamer: Arizona would have replaced Arizona State in the field with a 23-7 win in the Territorial Cup, and Virginia would have clinched both an ACC title and a CFP berth with a 27-7 win over Virginia Tech. Meanwhile, No. 19 Tennessee got beaten so badly by Vandy that the Vols would have fallen out — resulting in some solid schadenfreude — and No. 21 SMU would have fallen out with an upset loss to Cal. They’re replaced by Iowa (which blew out Nebraska) and, in theory, North Texas (which blew out Temple).
(Why “in theory”? Because with the CFP committee’s historic view of mid-major teams, I can’t say it would be a surprise if the second-best Group of 6 team tended to rank no higher than 25th. The cynic in me says that Tennessee might have grabbed that last spot in the field instead.)
Now let me be clear: I’ll root against Tech and be crestfallen if we lose even if we both entered the game with zero wins and nothing to play for post-season. I’ll pull for anyone who plays Tech. I’ll take joy in beating Tech whether it means a #1 seed or a #24 seed or a #168 seed in a post-season playoff or a trip to the Poulan Weedeater Bowl. The playoff doesn’t have any impact on my disdain for Tech, Auburn, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, or anyone else we play as a rival.
But Bill does have a point about the magnitude and impact of the game, which, even though it’s a rivarly game, it is another game in the season where games and their individual importance is being diluted by the opportunity to earn a participation trophy in the post-season. That isn’t that much different from the pre-BCS era, where we were competing and hoping to win at least six games to make a bowl. Man, the 90’s sucked.
But does the expansion really diminish your hatred for a rival? Does it take the sheen off the win as a result?
Discuss.
A 24 team playoff will significantly reduce the hate for other teams for future fans. I’m too far gone, In want Georgia to beat the nats by 50 every time.
I don’t think it will impact the two rival fan bases a lot, but what it will do is decrease interest for neutral fans who would have watched on TV. I enjoy many of the rivalry games outside of the southeast like Oregon/Oregon St. or UCLA vs. USC and have good memories of watching a lot of them as a kid. However, for more casual fans I feel like the ratings for these games are better when CFP implications are in play. That will be diminished with a 24 team field. As has been said in this group for years, they are ruining the best regular season in sports.
Not sure if reducing the stakes of rivalry games makes them less interesting or not. Increasing the playoff field just picks different winners and losers of the spotlight. The blue blood teams are almost always going to be in, so those games are less interesting for the casuals. With 24 teams, all the fringe top-25 programs gain casual interest (Nebraska, Iowa, Mizzou, Tech, blah, blah). As I have said a lot, you can’t make CFP into the NFL playoffs because college football itself can never have as much parity to support that. We will be stuck with more shitty teams and games. And, as everyone outside Big Ten HQ knows, the regular season will be rendered almost worthless.
Let’s just go straight into Micky’s 175 team cfp in September, come mid of December, we’ll have a true ranking, play a couple of ooc/rivalry games, season is over in mid January…
I liked it when the playoffs started in late August/early September.
Win and advance. Lose and you’ll need lots of help.
Once the natty was out of the question then you focused on your traditional rivalry games and maybe getting a chance to ruin their natty dreams. It wasn’t about seeding.
Occasionally arguing over who deserved the “mythical” national championship was far superior to watching a team that lost to unranked Louisville (at home) and unranked SMU play for a natty.
Fucking disgrace.
The only possible saving grace is that we might have 3 to 4 games of interest in Dec./Jan. Only playoff season intrigue can offset the regular season blah.
Its all about money, gambling and the modestly engaged fan. Us “football is bigger than life” folks have, for our sins, been totally screwed over.
“But does the expansion really diminish your hatred for a rival? Does it take the sheen off the win as a result?”
A quick trip over to StingTalk if, God forbid, we ever lose to these cretins will pretty much reinforce how much losing to these assholes hurts far worse than beating ’em. FTMF.
This
Yep, came to say this as well.
It certainly sacrifices urgency and consequence.
Michael Johnson making that catch at the barn doesn’t much matter in a 24 team playoff.
Nor does Lindsey Scott for that matter.
Anyone who finds that result to be an improvement for the fan is an asshole.
StinkTalk – FIFY
Why play Stockton and maybe some other banged up starters from a brutal SEC schedule when we’re already in the dance? It’s not Kirby’s MO to operate like that but hot seat coaches sure will and NIL bonus money for the playoffs means a player might just have the flu bug and need to skip the last game of the season and avoid injury. NFL does it all the time for end of season meaningless matchups.
I would assume seeding will prevent that. Only if we get to super conference, divisions, objectivity, etc… will sitting starters be a thing.
As long as there’s a committee, you’re an attention whore until the end.
Lets face it, with the exception of the SEC, B1G, and ACC, football has lost a lot of fans. The lesser schools still have alumni support but the average football fan could care less. I’m college football addict so I’ll watch Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday. But as far as my former offseason obsession with my Dawgs, it has gone with the wind. Starting with the Transfer Portal, keeping up with players has lost me. In reality we do not know who will be on the team in the fall until the first game. Once injuries or academics could take out a player but now the Portal and NIL makes the job of knowing “Whose On First ” more than my old butt wants to keep up with.
The powers that be don’t care what we think. The B1G has gone from saying no to the 4 team playoff to protect the Rose Bowl to demanding a 24 team format to placate their media rights holder, Fox. The SEC is willing to give up possibly the most valuable college conference sports asset in the SEC championship game in exchange for a couple of additional playoff games for ESPN to add eyeballs from the casuals. The ACC and the Big 12 see the 24 team expansion as the only way to remain viable as athletic conferences.
Fans don’t want this.
I’m starting to wonder when I’ll start spending fall Saturdays doing other things.