Northwestern Is Case Study On Why We DO NOT Expand Playoff

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

I agree with this 100%. I say keep it at four teams, with a human element we will always argue about something. Next up will be a 12 or 16 team playoff until we get to 24 or 32. I actually was a fan of the BCS because computers did not care who you were, they just looked at the data. Iowa was #1 by all the computers prior to the Stanzi injury in 2009 which sparked outrage because we are Iowa.

https://saturdaytradition.com/northwestern-football/northwestern-why-dont-want-expansion-yet-2018/

 

[CP84]

Non sequitur.

The playoffs are to settle the rightful national champion. It's obvious a team ranked #16 is not in that conversation, however, OSU and Oklahoma, very possibly are.

8 teams would cover those in the conversation in most years.

 

[Frank Cannon]

I've been saying eight (8) for 20 years. I love the way Galloway and Herbstreet get credit for being unbiased and giving the 5th spot to OU....they know damn well that OSU will beat NU by 60 and easily jump up to #4.

 

[gonegolfing]

Six at minimum next iteration, but I would expect to see it at the right number of 8.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

We already have more than 4 spots. They are called "conference finals".

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

With 8 teams I fully expect them to say each major conference champ plus Notre Dame and 2 at large. That would get a team like NW in. It would also give a team like Pitt a chance.

 

[Titanhawk2]

I'm not sure why we'd have any playoff this year. Is there really a debate that Alabama is not the best team?

 

[N.Legend]

Perhaps...but who rules college football? ESPN. Who has ESPN put their money on? Alabama. How eagerly does ESPN want Alabama to play three games (could lose one of the first two). How many of you are naïve enough to believe it doesn't work this way.

 

[David1979]

This post doesn't make any sense. In no way is Northwestern in the conversation for even a 12 team playoff.

 

[Im4Iowa]

Perhaps...but who rules college football? ESPN. Who has ESPN put their money on? Alabama. How eagerly does ESPN want Alabama to play three games (could lose one of the first two). How many of you are naïve enough to believe it doesn't work this way.

Here’s the thing though, why wouldn’t ESPN be all over Alabama? This dynasty they’re on is unreal and until they start losing on a regular basis, it’s their sport and the rest of us are just observing it. Hell, I enjoy watching Alabama play. Not only are they great, but I enjoy the thrill of potentially seeing someone knock them off. People tune in to see great football and cheer against them.

People (not saying you), always argue that ESPN is biased because of the SEC Network but ESPN also tried to get the rights to a Big Ten Network (this was their top choice) and Delaney chose to go in a different direction because it would be more profitable.

I guess the point Im trying to make is this isnt an ESPN thing, this is a cfb thing. I hate the SEC as much as anyone, but until their conference stops dominating the sport, nothing will change.

 

[zman84]

We already have more than 4 spots. They are called "conference finals".

So a non conference champion has not made the CFP?

 

[scotthawk1964]

8 team playoff with the powerpuff conference champs getting an automatic bid, regardless of their record. 43 at large teams they can still pluck the best team out of the power five that didn't win the championship. The overall win loss record shouldn't matter as it doesn't seem to matter in the ncaa basketball tournament. Hell, teams have even the basketball tournaments that were not highly rated in their bracket.

 

[hexumhawk]

The scheduling and conference layouts are not equal over a large base of teams. For them to have only four participants is beyond idiotic considering all of the factors that make up the whole.

 

[Iafootballfan]

P5 champs + 3 at large is perfect for giving the UCF/Fresno State's out there a chance yet still keeps the regular season just as important.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

So a non conference champion has not made the CFP?

I get your point. My point is that this is the fault of the committee, not the system.

 

[K OKeefe]

Non sequitur.

The playoffs are to settle the rightful national champion. It's obvious a team ranked #16 is not in that conversation, however, OSU and Oklahoma, very possibly are.

8 teams would cover those in the conversation in most years.

An expansion of more than 8 teams would be strictly to increase revenue. I do understand that it is all about revenue; however, the likelihood of a 10th seed winning the national championship is probably close to zero. Florida (current 10th ranked team) or WVU (current 16th seed) are not going to beat Bama. 8 teams gets every conference champ in the playoff and then 3 at large bids, which would include, this year, UCF. I, for one, am curious how good UCF is. In addition, the an 8 team playoff system does not allow for bye weeks for some teams like a 6 team playoff would.

 

[here_for_the_hawkeyes]

No other sport cares whether or not the "objectively best" team wins the championship. I don't understand why everyone in CFB is so obsessed with awarding the championship to the team that theoretically should beat all of the others at the end of the year. Just make it a tournament and see who wins like every other sport. I think an 8-team playoff would be awesome.

 

[hawkfeever]

I agree with this 100%. I say keep it at four teams, with a human element we will always argue about something. Next up will be a 12 or 16 team playoff until we get to 24 or 32. I actually was a fan of the BCS because computers did not care who you were, they just looked at the data. Iowa was #1 by all the computers prior to the Stanzi injury in 2009 which sparked outrage because we are Iowa.

https://saturdaytradition.com/northwestern-football/northwestern-why-dont-want-expansion-yet-2018/

Be hot when it matters. Teams get big Mo end of season and possible they can roll .............

 

[zman84]

I get your point. My point is that this is the fault of the committee, not the system.

You mean the system that has 4 spots for 5 major conferences plus independents? Also the selection committee is THE system

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Perhaps...but who rules college football? ESPN. Who has ESPN put their money on? Alabama. How eagerly does ESPN want Alabama to play three games (could lose one of the first two). How many of you are naïve enough to believe it doesn't work this way.

Count me in as someone that doesn't believe that ESPN rules CF. Now, if said MONEY rules CF, I have no problem with that.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Everyone thinks it's awesome when a Cinderella team makes it to the Final 4, but everyone hates the idea of NW getting into the playoff it were expanded? Not sure I get that.

Imagine the national exposure and excitement if the winner of the B1G Championship game got into the playoff? Of course, at 4 teams there is no chance - but what if there were 6 or 8 and all the P5 champs got in?

I would like to have the P5 Championship games be the first round of the playoffs. Much more excitement an added interest in the conferences IMO.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

P5 champs + 3 at large is perfect for giving the UCF/Fresno State's out there a chance yet still keeps the regular season just as important.

Agreed, except that it actually makes the regular season MORE important You have to win your conference to get in.

I would also argue that letting all the P5 Champs in would make it more enticing for the blue bloods to play each other more often in the non-conference, since a loss would hurt.

 

[HawkOn15]

If it were up to me I would make the conferences get rid of divisions and the 2 top teams in conference play in the championship game. Keep the playoff at 4 and have the committee choose from the five winners and any of the G5 or ND.

 

[DaCDiggity]

Most realistic chance of us ever making. Let's be honest we're not going 12-0 again anytime soon granted I'll gladly eat crow if we do lol

 

[cidsports]

If the playoffs are expanded from a +1 game, it will likely be with all five Power 5 champions and one at-large, in my humble opinion. Not advocating the change though.

The College Football Playoff and bowl set up works fine. I hope Memphis or whoever plays UCF this weekend takes them down!

 

[DodgerHawki]

Everyone thinks it's awesome when a Cinderella team makes it to the Final 4, but everyone hates the idea of NW getting into the playoff it were expanded? Not sure I get that.

Imagine the national exposure and excitement if the winner of the B1G Championship game got into the playoff? Of course, at 4 teams there is no chance - but what if there were 6 or 8 and all the P5 champs got in?

I would like to have the P5 Championship games be the first round of the playoffs. Much more excitement an added interest in the conferences IMO.

Yes I'm not sure why 16 or 24 teams in a playoff would be a travesty. FCS division handles it just fine. Having 16 or 24 teams would also give literally every team a realistic chance to make the playoffs. First couple rounds of playoffs could be lower seed playing at the higher seed.

Imagine if only the 1 seeds made the NCAA basketball tournament. If you are fans of Kansas and Duke, you would be excited. Expanding the playoffs would incentivize teams to play stronger schedules, etc. But just one man's opinion.

 

[jellyfish10]

I don’t understand why so many smart people can’t figure out how to expand it to 8 while keeping the conference championships. No one seems to care about kids missing 6 weeks of school for March Madness so why is this any different? Oh, and make ND join a conference. It is NOT a level playing field. No conference championship game, no playoff.

 

[HKI]

Non sequitur.

The playoffs are to settle the rightful national champion. It's obvious a team ranked #16 is not in that conversation, however, OSU and Oklahoma, very possibly are.

8 teams would cover those in the conversation in most years.

No they aren't. They are to settle which team won the games in the playoff. Are we really pretending that even the huge-field basketball tournament settles the "rightful champion"? It just allows us to go, yeah, sure, good run, congrats, and move on.

For example, let's say Alabama loses by 1 in the opening game to, say, a UCF. UCF loses to Clemson. Are we really pretending that Clemson is the "rightful" national champion? Or how about make it Georgia, after losing to Bama in the SEC game? Come on. Losing one game in the playoff doesn't prove that the eventual winner is the "rightful champion."

Playoff Champion, sure.

 

[HKI]

Yes I'm not sure why 16 or 24 teams in a playoff would be a travesty. FCS division handles it just fine. Having 16 or 24 teams would also give literally every team a realistic chance to make the playoffs. First couple rounds of playoffs could be lower seed playing at the higher seed.

Imagine if only the 1 seeds made the NCAA basketball tournament. If you are fans of Kansas and Duke, you would be excited. Expanding the playoffs would incentivize teams to play stronger schedules, etc. But just one man's opinion.

But I think you'd have to agree it would dilute - to some extent, arguable how much - the "regular season." FCS regular season is definitely diluted. So is basketball's for much of it.

I think the more appropriate consideration when considering FCS and even basketball is the amount of work, physical, in-game, and otherwise that goes in to a major college game. How comparable is it to a basketball game, in which several can be played in one week by the same team? I actually think March Madness should be shorter, not game-wise, but day-wise. Basketball ain't football.

 

[HKI]

Most realistic chance of us ever making. Let's be honest we're not going 12-0 again anytime soon granted I'll gladly eat crow if we do lol

Doesn't that same thought process directly apply to a playoff? If not going 12-0, why are they more likely to go 4-0 against "better" competition in a shorter span?

 

[DodgerHawki]

But I think you'd have to agree it would dilute - to some extent, arguable how much - the "regular season." FCS regular season is definitely diluted. So is basketball's for much of it.

Perhaps. I don't think winning a conference title will ever become old hat, except of course for teams like Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma. Seems like a natural segmentation of regular and post-season would be good for the game. But I respect opposite opinions.

 

[HKI]

Perhaps. I don't think winning a conference title will ever become old hat, except of course for teams like Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma. Seems like a natural segmentation of regular and post-season would be good for the game. But I respect opposite opinions.

I don't think it is old hat even for them. Oklahoma would be pissed not winning this weekend, and they've won the last three. OSU as well. Even Bama, not being in it last year. Conference titles are, imo, more about direct bragging rights over the teams you are closest to in proximity and the ones you likely talk to the most. Championships are about bragging in general, and only a handful of teams even win them. So, yes, winning a conference championship might get old to Bama fans, but not being in one or losing one pisses them off like crazy.

 

[Hawk_82]

No they aren't. They are to settle which team won the games in the playoff. Are we really pretending that even the huge-field basketball tournament settles the "rightful champion"? It just allows us to go, yeah, sure, good run, congrats, and move on.

For example, let's say Alabama loses by 1 in the opening game to, say, a UCF. UCF loses to Clemson. Are we really pretending that Clemson is the "rightful" national champion? Or how about make it Georgia, after losing to Bama in the SEC game? Come on. Losing one game in the playoff doesn't prove that the eventual winner is the "rightful champion."

Playoff Champion, sure.

Yes, whoever wins the tournament is the undisputed champion in basketball, NFL, NBA, etc. You can't just say, well we are better on paper so we are going to be the champion despite losing.
If Alabama loses in the playoffs then they are not champions no matter what you or anyone else thinks. This is why the game is played.

 

[soybean]

The real elephant in the room here is the bowls. Get rid of the bowls and go to a 16 team playoff. There is no legitimate football reason that 6-6 teams are "rewarded" with a bowl in Boise or Timbukto. The college football playoffs should be starting this weekend with all games on the campus of the 8 highest seeds. The following weekend play the 4 games on the campus of the highest seeded survivors. Then the 4 survivors play at two previously designated warm weather sites, The championship is the played at rotating indoors or warm weather venues on New Years Day...then everybody goes back to school.

 

[Eternal Return]

All moot until Nick Saban retires from Alabama. Anyone matched up against them this year will lose. Don't even need a playoff this year.

 

[milehighhawkeye24]

I wouldn't mind 6 or 8. No more than that though. If 6 the #1 and #2 seed get a bye and play winners. I would like for a team like UCF to get in and think if we expand a little bit it would make it possible. Going beyond 8 would be too much IMO

 

[JLDHAWK]

We already have more than 4 spots. They are called "conference finals".

Really not true because Buckeyes made it and weren't even in the title game.

 

[JLDHAWK]

The real elephant in the room here is the bowls. Get rid of the bowls and go to a 16 team playoff. There is no legitimate football reason that 6-6 teams are "rewarded" with a bowl in Boise or Timbukto. The college football playoffs should be starting this weekend with all games on the campus of the 8 highest seeds. The following weekend play the 4 games on the campus of the highest seeded survivors. Then the 4 survivors play at two previously designated warm weather sites, The championship is the played at rotating indoors or warm weather venues on New Years Day...then everybody goes back to school.

Fun hater! Keep the bowls. Maybe just not 6-6 teams

 

[StallmanCurse]

No they aren't. They are to settle which team won the games in the playoff. Are we really pretending that even the huge-field basketball tournament settles the "rightful champion"? It just allows us to go, yeah, sure, good run, congrats, and move on.

For example, let's say Alabama loses by 1 in the opening game to, say, a UCF. UCF loses to Clemson. Are we really pretending that Clemson is the "rightful" national champion? Or how about make it Georgia, after losing to Bama in the SEC game? Come on. Losing one game in the playoff doesn't prove that the eventual winner is the "rightful champion."

Playoff Champion, sure.

Odd take. So subjective evaluation through voting creates a "rightful champion?" Or is there some other criteria you think is more accurate?

 

[StallmanCurse]

This post doesn't make any sense. In no way is Northwestern in the conversation for even a 12 team playoff.

I believe he's referring to the assumption that P5 conference winners get auto-bids in an 8 team playoff. Which, personally, I am in favor of. It puts the emphasis back on conference games and possibly moves the sport away from cowardly OOC scheduling.