Should the playoffs be expanded to 8 teams?
- Thread starter RiverCityHawk
- Start date
I'd personally like 1 of those at large bids to be reserved for the top Group of 5 team.
In years they are deserving, it may be harder through schedules and such for a G5 team to grab one of the outright at-large bids.
In years they aren't deserving, they offer a reward matchup to the overall #1 seed for having the best season.
Who wouldn't want to see:
Game 1: 1 Clemson vs 8 Houston 2:30 12/24 New Orleans
Game 2: 4 Oklahoma vs 5 Iowa 7:00 12/24 Miami
Game 3: 3 Michigan St vs 6 Stanford 2:30 12/25 Atlanta
Game 4: 2 Alabama vs 7 Ohio St 7:00 12/25 San Diego
Game 5: Game 1 winner vs Game 2 Winner 2:30 1/1 Glendale
Game 6: Game 3 winner vs Game 4 winner 7:00 1/1 Dallas
National Championship Monday Jan 11th Pasadena
Game 1: 1 Clemson vs 8 Houston 2:30 12/24 New Orleans
Game 2: 4 Oklahoma vs 5 Iowa 7:00 12/24 Miami
Game 3: 3 Michigan St vs 6 Stanford 2:30 12/25 Atlanta
Game 4: 2 Alabama vs 7 Ohio St 7:00 12/25 San Diego
Game 5: Game 1 winner vs Game 2 Winner 2:30 1/1 Glendale
Game 6: Game 3 winner vs Game 4 winner 7:00 1/1 Dallas
National Championship Monday Jan 11th Pasadena
The only way I could see that happening is by putting the first round on campus in the week after the conference championships. That in itself might be a bit challenging and the SEC would howl. But the bowl system is too lucrative for them to drop it entirely.
I can't imagine the CFP would have any problems integrating an 8-team playoff into the bowl system in a manner very similar to what is done now.
It'll happen. Probably sooner rather than later. My feeling is that at some point, one of the P5 conferences, probably the SEC, will somehow get 2 teams in the final 4 and the other conferences will throw a hissy fit and accelerate the process.
Not as an add-on to the current system. If you're going to go to playoff, push reset and build a sensible, balanced system from the ground up.
This is relevant since Iowa would be in if there were 8 teams. But, we really were in. We played in the 4/5 game against MSU and lost. So, there you go.
This is relevant since Iowa would be in if there were 8 teams. But, we really were in. We played in the 4/5 game against MSU and lost. So, there you go.
The rich will get richer. Those teams that are already strong will continue to make the bowls and will get 15 extra practices, plus money. Those that aren't coming close to making it will continue to miss out on those extra practices and it will widen the gap even farther between the top and the bottom.
Yes....I think it's entirely possible that Ohio State is a team capable of winning the national championship. ...but won't this year. I don't care for them but I want the best in the playoffs for it to be legit..and I think top 8 covers that.
I would like there to be only 4 conferences. Sorry Big 12 but you're gone. Texas & Kansas come into the Big Ten (west and Purdue moves to the east to be with Indiana). TCU & WVa go to the ACC. Baylor & Texas Tech to the SEC. K. State, Iowa State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the PAC 16. Notre Dame can try to find a home but I don't care.
The conference championship game is the first round of the playoffs. That way it is in a local relatively near all of the conference teams.
The semi finals are predetermined. One year it is Big Ten vs SEC and PAC16 vs ACC. That will change each year. The winners of the semi finals will play in a stadium that has been put out for bids.
In this way there is no need for a committee or seeding. It is like the NFL, you know what is required. Just win and move on.
I'm sure there are problems with the teams that I have omitted but we'll work on that later.
The conference championship game is the first round of the playoffs. That way it is in a local relatively near all of the conference teams.
The semi finals are predetermined. One year it is Big Ten vs SEC and PAC16 vs ACC. That will change each year. The winners of the semi finals will play in a stadium that has been put out for bids.
In this way there is no need for a committee or seeding. It is like the NFL, you know what is required. Just win and move on.
I'm sure there are problems with the teams that I have omitted but we'll work on that later.
I think the 8 spots should be seeded. If not, a whole new controversy arises when the top 2 teams play each other in an early round. Otherwise, I think you have some good ideas there.
Yesterday, David Shaw, Stanford's coach, said he wanted an 8-team playoff when they ditched the BCS. And he said it will go to eight teams, it's just a matter of how soon. And KF basically agreed.
And here's how I think it should be done:
All conference champions are IN. Period. No debate. No freaking "style points." Win your conference and you get a shot at the national title. Then you only have three political, subjective judgments to make.
And you play the quarterfinals in 4 top traditional bowls: For example:
* Orange Bowl on Dec. 31: ACC vs. at-large
* Sugar Bowl: Dec. 31: SEC vs. at-large
* Rose Bowl: Jan. 1: Big Ten vs. Pac 12
* Fiesta Bowl or Cotton Bowl: Jan. 1: Big 12 vs. at-large
* Semi-finals a week later at sites TBA (cities bid to host or rotate among a set of top bowl sites, similar to now)
* Championship Game around Jan. 15. (It's Jan. 11 in 2016).
This would return the Rose and other traditional bowls to national prominence EVERY year. Think about it: The Big Ten champ would be GUARANTEED to play in the Rose Bowl every year and, at the same time, be playing in a national playoff quarterfinal. I really don't see how it could be better than that.
And here's how I think it should be done:
All conference champions are IN. Period. No debate. No freaking "style points." Win your conference and you get a shot at the national title. Then you only have three political, subjective judgments to make.
And you play the quarterfinals in 4 top traditional bowls: For example:
* Orange Bowl on Dec. 31: ACC vs. at-large
* Sugar Bowl: Dec. 31: SEC vs. at-large
* Rose Bowl: Jan. 1: Big Ten vs. Pac 12
* Fiesta Bowl or Cotton Bowl: Jan. 1: Big 12 vs. at-large
* Semi-finals a week later at sites TBA (cities bid to host or rotate among a set of top bowl sites, similar to now)
* Championship Game around Jan. 15. (It's Jan. 11 in 2016).
This would return the Rose and other traditional bowls to national prominence EVERY year. Think about it: The Big Ten champ would be GUARANTEED to play in the Rose Bowl every year and, at the same time, be playing in a national playoff quarterfinal. I really don't see how it could be better than that.
No!!!!!! These are student athletes for God's sake. Just how much do you want to exploit them?
Bowl games have always been exhibitions.
Absolutely go to eight teams, with first spots going to conference champs. It would take away a LOT of the angst.
But only teams in a conference are eligible.
No way. Think how expensive it is to go to the Rose Bowl this year. Or how expensive it would be to travel to the playoff and then championship game this year. Now imagine continually making it one game more. Fan bases cannot afford to go to Conference Championship game and then 3 (or more) bowl games. Even if you think the average fan can afford that, can the average fan afford to take that much time off of work?
The only way you could make it work is if you played the first round or two at the higher seeds home field. People would be more upset about that. 4 is fine
The only way you could make it work is if you played the first round or two at the higher seeds home field. People would be more upset about that. 4 is fine
Also to continue my post, a teams ability to travel well will be more and more valuable with more playoff games and will certainly be in the criteria for selecting 8 teams. It would widen the teams that would get in but give more incentive to just pick the most popular or well traveled teams
"Student athlete" is a stretch for most of the powerhouse teams.
If you recognize the need to preserve the bowl system, why would you move postseason games to on campus? Those two thoughts seem at odds.
Please explain what you mean by "Student Athlete" as a stretch. I don't follow. Thanks.
And, just in case you don't respond, let me make a couple quick comments:
- 82% of Iowa football players earn their degree.
- A very small % ever play professionally.
The other reason for my remark is Kirk Ferentz. I remember hearing Kirk make a remark that he was opposed for "humanitarian" reasons. These are kids. Their bodies can only take so much. Why put them through schedules similar to pro athletes.
Say what you wish, but this is about money. And the money is not being funneled to the players. For me personally, this passes the tipping point. It is not in the best interest of the kids.
I can see it happening. I think they're trying to figure how to feasibly do it. Picking the 8 teams is the smallest problem. The biggest problem is if you're going to use bowl games as the quarterfinals and semifinals, plus a neutral site for the championship game, you're asking at minimum 65,000 combined fans of 2 teams to have enough money to travel to their conference championship game, plus the 3 games of the playoffs. Are there schools with big enough fanbases to accomplish that?
Herkmeister, ask the kids who play at UNI and other FCS schools all about it. They have had national championship football playoffs at every level from D-III on up to FCS for at least 50 years. No student-athletes have complained that I've ever heard of, but facts don't make much of an impression on folks like you--and Colin Coward.
Another fact: The coach at Stanford, as I noted in my original post, is in favor of it. Kids don't go to school after about the first 10 days of December and don't return to class until at least mid-January. So there's that, too.
But sorry to bore you with FACTS.
Another fact: The coach at Stanford, as I noted in my original post, is in favor of it. Kids don't go to school after about the first 10 days of December and don't return to class until at least mid-January. So there's that, too.
But sorry to bore you with FACTS.
Here is my thought. Not a conference champion, you do not get in. Not in a conference you do not get in. Period. Here is my format:
10 conference champions:
B1G, SEC, PAC, Big 12, ACC, AAC, MAC, Sun Belt, MtWest, Conference USA,
Big 6 conferences get bye;
B1G, SEC, PAC, Big 12, ACC, AAC
The other 4 conference champions play each other to get into field of 8.
2nd weekend of December:
MAC Champion vs. Sun Belt Champion
MtWest Champion vs Conference USA Champion
You then seed the 8 conference champions. This year would look something like this:
3rd weekend of December: At higher seeded home
1.. ACC vs MAC/Sun Belt
2. Big 12 vs PAC
3. B1G vs AAC
4. SEC vs MtWest/ConfUSA
4th weekend of December: Semifinals at site TBD
1st weekend in January: Finals at site TBD
No arguing who should get in. Win your conference and you are in. Each conference sends their best team however they want to determine their best team. All other non-champion and bowl eligible teams could go to bowl games and there would still be a ton of great matchups in non-playoff games.
10 conference champions:
B1G, SEC, PAC, Big 12, ACC, AAC, MAC, Sun Belt, MtWest, Conference USA,
Big 6 conferences get bye;
B1G, SEC, PAC, Big 12, ACC, AAC
The other 4 conference champions play each other to get into field of 8.
2nd weekend of December:
MAC Champion vs. Sun Belt Champion
MtWest Champion vs Conference USA Champion
You then seed the 8 conference champions. This year would look something like this:
3rd weekend of December: At higher seeded home
1.. ACC vs MAC/Sun Belt
2. Big 12 vs PAC
3. B1G vs AAC
4. SEC vs MtWest/ConfUSA
4th weekend of December: Semifinals at site TBD
1st weekend in January: Finals at site TBD
No arguing who should get in. Win your conference and you are in. Each conference sends their best team however they want to determine their best team. All other non-champion and bowl eligible teams could go to bowl games and there would still be a ton of great matchups in non-playoff games.
It may happen eventually. I like the 4 as it keeps the regular season as a playoff. I do think these student athletes need supplemented in some way. At the very least, an extra year of school paid for. These young men have no holiday break, may not have the resources to go home if they get a week off, and cannot work to make a little money.
To avoid making teams and fans travel a long way for 3 possible games, I would put the first round close to the higher seeds home but not in their actual home venue. For instance, if a B1G West team was a top 4 seed they'd play in Minneapolis. If a B1G East team were a top 4 seed, they'd play in Detroit, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Philly, New York, Tampa, etc. If an ACC team were a top 4 seed, they'd play in Miami, DC, Charlotte, etc. If an SEC team were a top 4 seed, they'd play in Atlanta or New Orleans. If a Big 12 team were a top 4 seed, they'd play in Dallas. If a Pac 12 team were a top 4 seed, they'd play in Phoenix, LA, San Francisco, or Seattle. So this year Game 1 would be in Charlotte or DC. Game 2 in Dallas. Game 3 in Detroit. Game 4 in Atlanta. Semifinals and finals would rotate between the New Years six bowls.
And often less then 10K show up to the playoff games at UNI.
I missed your facts. Instead of hurling insults how 'bout stating FACTS. And explain to me why the Stanford coach's opinion is more important than Kirk's opinion. I missed that FACT. You argue like a whinny kid.
Cushawk, I heard some talking heads discuss this on XM Radio. They brought up some excellent points;
- If you're in a lesser conference you don't play the same quality of teams.
- A good % of Power 5 teams are better than some conference champions
- They mentioned that if an Oklahoma for example would move to the MAC, they'd dramatically increase their chances for a National Title because they'd make the playoffs every year.
Adding another round to the playoff wouldn't solve a thing.
The teams included would still be decided by committee.
The teams included would still be decided by committee.
Last edited:
My idea (although it will never happen):
6 teams, top two seeds get first round byes (I think this is NFL format).
Automatic bid from the power 5's plus an at large bid (can be any conference, and Notre Dame has to join a conference). As far as bowl games go, get rid of the Peach (and by that I mean relegate it to minor). Then, the Quarterfinals, Semifinals, and Championship are all "bowl" games, with the bowls being rotated each year (I get that many wouldn't like this because then a team can play in multiple bowls, but they really aren't bowls anyways now. Bowl is just a name)
I think 6 is a fair number, where it doesn't require too much time for the players away from school, and it places a very high emphasis on winning your conference. As a viewer, I think this scenario would be ideal
6 teams, top two seeds get first round byes (I think this is NFL format).
Automatic bid from the power 5's plus an at large bid (can be any conference, and Notre Dame has to join a conference). As far as bowl games go, get rid of the Peach (and by that I mean relegate it to minor). Then, the Quarterfinals, Semifinals, and Championship are all "bowl" games, with the bowls being rotated each year (I get that many wouldn't like this because then a team can play in multiple bowls, but they really aren't bowls anyways now. Bowl is just a name)
I think 6 is a fair number, where it doesn't require too much time for the players away from school, and it places a very high emphasis on winning your conference. As a viewer, I think this scenario would be ideal
Latest posts
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
