ADVERTISEMENT

Ross Dellenger on Playoff Expansion

WoadBlue

Hall of Famer
Aug 15, 2008
20,320
4,271
113
A thorough review

I see this through ACC eyes. If the expanded playoff is going to be worth 400 million dollars or more than the current one, and the SEC and BT can each have as many teams as they can get into it, and the money is divided per league by teams in the playoff, then every league but the SEC and BT should be opposed to any expansion. That is exactly what would make it certain that both SEC and BT expand to at least 20 teams.

I prefer 8 teams in part because that is expanding the playoff by just 1 week. If the playoff is 12 teams, you add 2 more weeks to the playoff. Also, tripling the number of playoff teams to 12 will certainly kill almost all bowls very quickly, and the more teams that get a post-season, the more likely we are to have some semblance of parity.

My preference is an 8 team playoff with auto bids for the P5 and an auto bid for the top ranked champ, and 2 at-large choices. No league should have more than 2 teams in the playoff. I would sweeten bowls for the G5 by guaranteeing that every year each G5 would have its champ play a bowl against a P5 team.

ESPN wants an expansion agreed upon ASAP so ESPN keeps the playoff. That being the case, the ACC needs to play hardball with ESPN to get a much better TV deal.

The ACC should fight tooth and nail against any expansion that does not guarantee an auto bid and that allows the SEC and BT to have as many teams in as they can get. The already huge money disparity will mean that those two leagues will routinely buy 3 or 4 teams into the playoff each year.
 
ACC needs to fight against expansion. I don't see ND joining a conference until the mega conferences are formed, but making it harder for ND to win a national championship is the best thing for the ACC. An expanded playoff makes it easier for ND and reduces the chance, however small it is, for them to join. Plus the SEC really wants to expand the playoffs, so screw them.
 
Also, tripling the number of playoff teams to 12 will certainly kill almost all bowls very quickly, and the more teams that get a post-season, the more likely we are to have some semblance of parity.
Every piece of evidence suggests this is absolutely false. There are so many bowls now that teams with losing records play in a bowl. However, it's always the same 6-8 teams that have a chance to win a national championship. There is almost no parity. That's why bowl season sucks for the average fan.
 
Every piece of evidence suggests this is absolutely false. There are so many bowls now that teams with losing records play in a bowl. However, it's always the same 6-8 teams that have a chance to win a national championship. There is almost no parity. That's why bowl season sucks for the average fan.
Hasn't it always been the same 6 or 8 teams that are college football powerhouses... like... forever? Ohio State, Alabama/LSU/FLA/SEC, Oklahoma, Michigan, FSU/Clemson/Miami (ACC), Southern Cal, Penn State, Texas something or other. Occasionally Notre Dame, of course. Nebraska used to be a powerhouse.

It's always the same teams.
 
Hasn't it always been the same 6 or 8 teams that are college football powerhouses... like... forever? Ohio State, Alabama/LSU/FLA/SEC, Oklahoma, Michigan, FSU/Clemson/Miami (ACC), Southern Cal, Penn State, Texas something or other. Occasionally Notre Dame, of course. Nebraska used to be a powerhouse.

It's always the same teams.
Right, that was my point. Having more bowls hasn't produced more parity. It's produced more crappy bowls for teams who don't deserve to play in them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT