RandBall: Pessimism? Nah. Now the best Gophers teams can compete in College Football Playoff

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Making an expanded 16 team playoffs really takes the sense of achievement out of the idea, no? 12 is far enough.

Achievement out of what? Making the playoffs?

What do I care if it seems like less of an achievement?

If we left it at just 2 teams it would be more of an achievement but that's dumb.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

with the 12-team playoff, the odds are pretty high that the top-ranked G5 conference champ is probably going to be rated lower in the CFP ratings. in '23 Liberty was #23. so realistically, the Gophers would have to be 11th or higher in the CFP to get a playoff spot.

and I will note that in 2019, the 10-2 Gophers - prior to the Bowl Game - were 18th in the final CFP ratings. (Wisconsin was 8th with a 10-3 record......)

so Randball is saying that every 5 to 10 years, the Gophers should be expected to have a season that is (on paper) better than their best season since winning a National Championship in 1960.

that's a tall order.

Now, there is already talk of expanding the playoffs to 14 or 16 teams, which would improve the odds of qualifying, but it's still going to take a really good season - probably at least 10 wins.

And Liberty scheduled the worst schedule in the world this past year and got in to a good bowl game ... that was some bullshit.

 

[Some guy]

with the 12-team playoff, the odds are pretty high that the top-ranked G5 conference champ is probably going to be rated lower in the CFP ratings. in '23 Liberty was #23. so realistically, the Gophers would have to be 11th or higher in the CFP to get a playoff spot.

and I will note that in 2019, the 10-2 Gophers - prior to the Bowl Game - were 18th in the final CFP ratings. (Wisconsin was 8th with a 10-3 record......)

so Randball is saying that every 5 to 10 years, the Gophers should be expected to have a season that is (on paper) better than their best season since winning a National Championship in 1960.

that's a tall order.

Now, there is already talk of expanding the playoffs to 14 or 16 teams, which would improve the odds of qualifying, but it's still going to take a really good season - probably at least 10 wins.

Disagree with a lot of your analysis

 

[JoeCool]

Achievement out of what? Making the playoffs?

What do I care if it seems like less of an achievement?

If we left it at just 2 teams it would be more of an achievement but that's dumb.

12 feels right, but at some point it'll feel more like making the AP top25 than making the CFP with a legitimate shot at the national championship.

 

[MplsGopher]

Eventually, the powers that be will see that the best way to keep growing the pie will be to create more parity among the teams (following the NFL model where they have found that keeping a larger percentage of the teams in playoff contention increases the revenue pool for everybody). In that framework, the Minnesotas of the world may not be annual contenders, but they will find themselves in the running from time to time.

I would love for this to be true, but I fear the southern schools, fans, politicians, and people in general have this inbred bitterness towards the north, that won’t allow them to “share” their in-built advantages in football over most other states outside the south, so easily.

College football is their thing. They have immense pride and love to be able to say they’re better than the north at it.

 

[MplsGopher]

Disagree with a lot of your analysis

Thanks for contributing to the thread

 

[MNfootballfan]

I am a fan of the proposed playoff setup - for the reason that it keeps priority on the regular season, especially the conference schedule. By guaranteeing conference champions a bye I think you allow for some slips earlier in the non-conference season. To us fans, this could be beneficial because you could see more matchups between big time programs. Hypothetically, lets say Georgia plays Ohio State week 1 and whoever loses isn't really any worse off IF they move through the season and win their respective conferences.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

I think you allow for some slips earlier in the non-conference season. To us fans, this could be beneficial because you could see more matchups between big time programs. Hypothetically, lets say Georgia plays Ohio State week 1 and whoever loses isn't really any worse off IF they move through the season and win their respective conferences.

So who cares about the game then if there isn't much consequence for losing, and both those teams make the playoff like you said? Case in point: this past season Texas went to Alabama and beat them in week 2(?). I didn't bother to watch for precisely the reason you stated - the loser isn't really worse off going forward. (And it doesn't provide any sort of indication about how the teams will fare if they do get matched up in the playoff, since injuries and such will have the teams looking different, and the game would be played at a neutral site.)

Now back before there was ANY playoff, having Texas and Alabama meet in week 2 would be HUGE because the loser would be playing catch-up behind a bunch of teams for the rest of the season.

Sorry, you don't get great regular season match-ups with something meaningful on the line and a college football playoff. It's one or the other.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

I would love for this to be true, but I fear the southern schools, fans, politicians, and people in general have this inbred bitterness towards the north, that won’t allow them to “share” their in-built advantages in football over most other states outside the south, so easily.

College football is their thing. They have immense pride and love to be able to say they’re better than the north at it.

You may be right and the advantages that their emphasis on football gives them will never go away. My vision is largely premised on the idea that, eventually, the Mississippi States and Kentuckys of the south will see that they aren't ever going to get any closer to the playoffs than the Minnesotas and Purdues unless there are fundamental changes to framework around college football. I'll certainly acknowledge that it's just as likely that the system continues along the current path and schools like Minnesota are forever left behind.

 

[MNfootballfan]

So who cares about the game then if there isn't much consequence for losing, and both those teams make the playoff like you said? Case in point: this past season Texas went to Alabama and beat them in week 2(?). I didn't bother to watch for precisely the reason you stated - the loser isn't really worse off going forward. (And it doesn't provide any sort of indication about how the teams will fare if they do get matched up in the playoff, since injuries and such will have the teams looking different, and the game would be played at a neutral site.)

Now back before there was ANY playoff, having Texas and Alabama meet in week 2 would be HUGE because the loser would be playing catch-up behind a bunch of teams for the rest of the season.

Sorry, you don't get great regular season match-ups with something meaningful on the line and a college football playoff. It's one or the other.

If you don't want to watch a non-conference game between two top programs, that's on you.

I do feel there is some importance to the game. Lets say in my scenario that Ohio State plays Georgia in week 1 and Michigan and Alabama go on to win the Big Ten and SEC. The Ohio State/Georgia game is huge when it comes to potential seedings and a possible home game. Only 4 teams (ranked 5-8) will get a home game.

Obviously, you can counter this argument by saying, why play the game because a loss and then another potential loss could knock you out of hosting a game. I just don't think that is the case.

 

[Mr. 131]

You may be right and the advantages that their emphasis on football gives them will never go away. My vision is largely premised on the idea that, eventually, the Mississippi States and Kentuckys of the south will see that they aren't ever going to get any closer to the playoffs than the Minnesotas and Purdues unless there are fundamental changes to framework around college football. I'll certainly acknowledge that it's just as likely that the system continues along the current path and schools like Minnesota are forever left behind.

You both make compelling arguments. I am hopeful that the Mississippi states of the world unite with the Minnesota's in violent football revolution!

 

[GopherTheJugular]

If you don't want to watch a non-conference game between two top programs, that's on you.

Stating that wasn't the point of my post, so I'm not sure why you are refuting it except to just refute because I refuted you? (How's that for a sentence, lol.) Anyways, my point was to ask, why should I watch when the result isn't of consequence? For more examples, the NFL will hype up a Sunday night matchup between Mahomes and Burrow. What's the point of bothering to see who wins? Even if you're a Bengals fan and are happy to beat the Chiefs, you know you still have to deal with them in the playoffs, and that's the win that really matters.

I do feel there is some importance to the game. Lets say in my scenario that Ohio State plays Georgia in week 1 and Michigan and Alabama go on to win the Big Ten and SEC.

Now you diverging from your initial scenario where you stated that Georgia plays Ohio State week 1 and ...they move through the season and win their respective conferences. Now you are changing it so that they don't win their conferences.

The Ohio State/Georgia game is huge when it comes to potential seedings and a possible home game.

Again, you are contradicting yourself here. Your original post stated "I think you allow for some slips earlier in the non-conference season" but now you are pointing out that a slip will hurt one of these teams, which would cause them to not want to schedule the game, which goes against your initial premise that I responded to.

Either it allows for some slips, as you first stated, or it doesn't, as you secondly stated (because dropping in the seeding and losing a home game isn't allowing for slips, it's the consequence of a slip).

Obviously, you can counter this argument by saying, why play the game because a loss and then another potential loss could knock you out of hosting a game. I just don't think that is the case.

Re: bolded - you just gave an example of that happening, and now you say you don't think it's the case?

Honest question - did you take offense to me replying to you and decide that you have to have a comeback, no matter what?

 

[MplsGopher]

You may be right and the advantages that their emphasis on football gives them will never go away. My vision is largely premised on the idea that, eventually, the Mississippi States and Kentuckys of the south will see that they aren't ever going to get any closer to the playoffs than the Minnesotas and Purdues unless there are fundamental changes to framework around college football. I'll certainly acknowledge that it's just as likely that the system continues along the current path and schools like Minnesota are forever left behind.

I would love to see an NFL like structure (key word structure, including a PA and CBA as needed) resulting in truly even parity, from a talent distribution standpoint, over whatever the right number of teams is, 65, 75, 85. Bigger numbers to assuage states like say Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Nee Mexico, Connecticut, very proud in their flagships institutions but aren’t at a P level in football from being left out completely. Maybe try to use federal senators to force inclusion, who knows. Lot to play out yet.

Other states either have no college football period (Alaska, Vermont) or are FCS only (Montana, Dakotas, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island). Delaware is interesting as they’re just moving up, so we’ll see. All others have a P school now. (Syracuse and BC are the biggest stretches, especially as far as “representing” their states, but technically hold.)

 

[MNfootballfan]

Honest question - did you take offense to me replying to you and decide that you have to have a comeback, no matter what?

Nope, just having a conversation. You have stronger opinions on this than I have. I think the expanded playoff puts more of a priority on the regular season and allows for teams to schedule marquee games without the fear of being knocked out of the playoffs by September and having to work your way back in. Based on your response, we are going to agree to disagree.

Your point on a Chiefs/Bengals matchup on a Sunday night. You are right, it doesn't mean anything as far as getting directly to the Super Bowl, but could potentially mean home field, etc. Besides as a fan, I would spend my Sunday night watching Mahomes vs. Burrow instead of random Browns QB of the month vs. random Jets QB of the month just like I would rather watch LSU/FSU instead of FSU vs. Jacksonville State.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

Nope, just having a conversation.

Thanks. Nice to have good conversation. It seems some people just like to dig their heels in no matter what, so glad to hear you're not doing that.

You have stronger opinions on this than I have.

That's probably a lot of it lol. I mean, I was a HUGE fan of college ball before the CFP came around.

I think the expanded playoff puts more of a priority on the regular season and allows for teams to schedule marquee games without the fear of being knocked out of the playoffs by September and having to work your way back in. Based on your response, we are going to agree to disagree.

Yeah, I can kinda see the point you're making and I think we are both correct if we look at it from our own perspectives. You'll get some more marquee matchups in September that you'll like, and I'll get marquee matchups in September that I don't care for at all.

Your point on a Chiefs/Bengals matchup on a Sunday night. You are right, it doesn't mean anything as far as getting directly to the Super Bowl, but could potentially mean home field, etc. Besides as a fan, I would spend my Sunday night watching Mahomes vs. Burrow instead of random Browns QB of the month vs. random Jets QB of the month just like I would rather watch LSU/FSU instead of FSU vs. Jacksonville State.

I think this kinda sums it up, in addition to my above comment. I don't really wanna see football just to have something "live" on TV. I'd prefer less games and make 'em count, i.e no do-overs. You lose in September and you need help or your natty hopes are toast. THAT'S EXCITEMENT, to me.

 

[Dakota2]

Stating that wasn't the point of my post, so I'm not sure why you are refuting it except to just refute because I refuted you? (How's that for a sentence, lol.) Anyways, my point was to ask, why should I watch when the result isn't of consequence? For more examples, the NFL will hype up a Sunday night matchup between Mahomes and Burrow. What's the point of bothering to see who wins? Even if you're a Bengals fan and are happy to beat the Chiefs, you know you still have to deal with them in the playoffs, and that's the win that really matters.



Now you diverging from your initial scenario where you stated that Georgia plays Ohio State week 1 and ...they move through the season and win their respective conferences. Now you are changing it so that they don't win their conferences.



Again, you are contradicting yourself here. Your original post stated "I think you allow for some slips earlier in the non-conference season" but now you are pointing out that a slip will hurt one of these teams, which would cause them to not want to schedule the game, which goes against your initial premise that I responded to.

Either it allows for some slips, as you first stated, or it doesn't, as you secondly stated (because dropping in the seeding and losing a home game isn't allowing for slips, it's the consequence of a slip).


Re: bolded - you just gave an example of that happening, and now you say you don't think it's the case?

Honest question - did you take offense to me replying to you and decide that you have to have a comeback, no matter what?

Why would you watch? If you're a college football fan you watch to see a great game. Fans don't look at games all season only through the lens of how does it impact post season chances. Most fans care about the game starting today and enjoy it because they love football.

 

[FanSinceTheFifties]

That was a refreshing read, though I think he is too quick to dismiss the possibility of us winning a conference title. I am so sick of the lazy take that, just because it is hard, there is some magical ceiling of success we can't possibly break through.

Washington remains my example. There is no reason we can't achieve what washington did this year. Washington is in an urban environment, with major pro sports competition, and is in the same conference as USC and Oregon. Sure, they had some Nebraska type success more than a decade before today's players were born, but that is about as relevant to today as our Bierman days are. During the four Brewster years, a low point in our program, Washington won fewer games than we did (and that was right after they won a combined total of 3 games in the prior two seasons). No one is going to convince me that, with the right coach, we cant achieve what Washington did this year.

I agree that Washington is doing well in a difficult environment. What have they done to succeed that UM hasn't?

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

If they keep expanding out these playoffs, were bound to make them eventually.

JK. I love the optimism and here's hoping Rand makes sense. It actually all checks out logically except for 1 small thing. I am a MN sports fan, so this feels like it will help IA and WI and not us. I haven't quite figured out how yet though.

 

[ottertail]

Pro’s and Con’s to everything.
If someone smarter than me had the answer to everything wouldn't be any argument or we be North Korea.

I just enjoy watching gopher football. A Rose Bowl would have been nice though.

 

[MaxyJR1]

10-2 might not be the mark. Being top 4 in the league will be the mark. I assume that will need to be 10-2, but could be 9-3. SEC and B1G are going to get 4 and 4 every year likely.

In 2026
SEC 4
B1G 4
ACC 2
B12 2
G5 1
3 At Large