I'm just not sure about this whole thing. 4 seems like far too small to be an actual playoff, but I like seeing actual playoff games in the season. The Iowa Michigan State game, was such a great game because so much was on the line. Stanford Notre Dame also felt like a playoff game. I just feel like the way college football is set up, there will never be a perfect system, because every year there is a certain difference in how many teams fit in the mold. This year it just so happened to be 4 teams were perfect. I think 8 would have worked perfectly this year as well. Last year 4 did not work perfectly but 8 probably would have. I do think I want it expanded though, as I would like to see the group of 5 get in. They have had a pretty good record in bcs/new years 6 games. Their record is actually 7-3 with one game playing against each other.
Should the playoffs be expanded to 8 teams?
- Thread starter RiverCityHawk
- Start date
That's suggestion is so absolutely idiotic that I don't believe anyone actually said it.
No school is ever going to leave a major conference for any reason other than to get into an even bigger more lucrative conference.
All correct. However, this is all happening over Xmas break, so it doesn't seem like a big deal. Plus, you're talking about a small percentage of players who would actually be playing more games.
I like a 6 team playoff. % Conference champs and 1 at-large from the non-power 5. You win your conference, you are in. You don't win your conference, you are out. No one that finishes 2nd in their own conference can win the NC.
I do think we'll be at 8 teams within 5 years. It's one more week on the schedule for those 8 teams, we can all handle it. I'd like to see them keep a Top 12 or Top 15 requirement on all teams going into the playoff so that we're not just handing out auto-bids to some craptastic champ of a mediocre P5 conference who went 8-4. So you take all Top 12 or 15 P5 conference champs, the top non-P5 team if in the top 12/15 and then fill out with wild cards.
This year, the P5 reps would all be in -- Clemson, Bama, MSU, OU & Stanford. ND would be the top non-P5. That's 6. Top 2 WCs would be Iowa and OSU. This year, you'd actually get the committee Top 8. Matchups would be:
1 Clemson vs. 8 Notre Dame
4 OU vs. 5 Iowa
2 Bama vs. 7 OSU
3 MSU vs. 6 Stanford
There would still be debate over the WCs. You might hear people complaining that FSU or UNC should be in, but that's really as far as it would go and it would be tough to argue either of those teams in ahead of Iowa or OSU.
Last year, P5s would have been Bama, Oregon, FSU, OSU, Baylor (higher ranking). There was no non-P5 in the top 15, so the top 3 WCs would have been TCU, Mississippi St. & Michigan St. Again, the top 8 by rankings. Matchups would have been:
1 Bama vs. 8 MSU
4 OSU vs. 5 Baylor
2 Oregon vs. 7 Mississippi St.
3 FSU vs. 6 TCU
I don't think there would have been a ton of controversy -- everyone else had 3 losses except for #20 Boise St.
I think 8 playoff teams gets it right.
Bowls have always been exhibition games. Even back when there were fewer, you can't really say that the Big Ten #3 playing the SEC #3 really was for anything, even though it was going to be 2 pretty good teams most years. I think you can absolutely have an 8-team playoff and still have the other bowl games. It's more football on TV, why not? If you hate it, then just don't watch.
The problem with this is that these are all major venues and have to be scheduled in advance. You can't just wait until the first week of December to decide whether you're playing in Indy or Minny and Charlotte or DC. First, there are sponsorship and corporate arrangements that have to be made. Press has to be able to plan coverage. Schedules have to be coordinated with NFL teams. Hotels have to block rooms, etc. I'm ok with regional play, but you'd have to rotate venues and have them picked ahead of time.
That would give OU, OSU, and Notre Dame a bit of an advantage as they don't have a conference championship game to play; and getting in with one less game.
I have said from the start it needs to be 16 like all of the other divisions.
Highest seeds gets home field until the championship game. You would finally get to see southern schools have to play in some bad weather which would be awesome. Full stadiums every time. Great matchups that would explode the TV ratings which are more important than butts in seats at this point. You can still have bowls with the teams that don't get in.
You get a better sample of teams that should have a chance to play for it on the field.
Cut out one of the scrub games in the early schedule.
Would be enormous...bigger than the BB tourney IMO.
Highest seeds gets home field until the championship game. You would finally get to see southern schools have to play in some bad weather which would be awesome. Full stadiums every time. Great matchups that would explode the TV ratings which are more important than butts in seats at this point. You can still have bowls with the teams that don't get in.
You get a better sample of teams that should have a chance to play for it on the field.
Cut out one of the scrub games in the early schedule.
Would be enormous...bigger than the BB tourney IMO.
ND isn't even in a conference, so there's that, too. But if we're using a committee for selection, those are the top available ones left. We'll always have some debate and someone that has a perceived advantage by doing something "less than", but I think that kind of system is going to get us down to all the teams that have a legit claim to a shot at an NC.
Flip script a bit. MSU edged OSU, albeit on the road, in a very close game. If they had rolled Iowa, wouldn't there have been a pretty solid argument to make that OSU was better even though they didn't play in a CCG?
It would still be a committee vote with no less controversy. There will always be an issue with the Big 12 and Notre Dame playing one less game. I could argue that IOWA belongs in the final four ahead of Oklahoma this year.
Last edited:
I'm all for the B12 having a CCG and I do think we'll eventually be at 4 super-conferences. Of course there will always be controversy. If we had a 128-team tournament, somebody would be 129 and 130 and feel like they got jobbed. Who cares. We get a little controversy in the NCAA tourney team over the first four left out, but I can live with that. Last year, people were arguing that OSU should have been 5 or 6 behind Baylor/TCU before they went on to win it. I think 8 or 16 is the optimal number. 8 is pretty solid.
I don't like throwing in a bunch of arbitrary things besides maintaining a certain ranking threshold and winning a conference. In any given year, one division of a conference could be REALLY strong (see SEC West) compared to the other, so I don't mind if there are two elite teams and one didn't play in the CCG, but gets in as a WC. Look at MLB this year -- on one hand, the Cubs were rewarded with a playoff bid for finishing 3rd out of 5 in their division...on the other, they had the third best record in baseball. I'm fine with a team like that getting in.
In a way we kinda have the expanded playoff system. The Conference Championship games are like play in games. The only thing that has to happen is B12 has to add a couple teams and have a Championship game and Notre Damn has to actually join a conf. Then you sorta are getting a play in games into the Championships rounds. I agree that the winners of each of the Conf Championships for the B5 should be in not matter what and then the next 3 highest ranked teams would make it in and that is a hellava good play off. The Bowl system would seriously have to be adjusted. maybe take the big 6 bowl games and make 4 of them the semi finals and then rotate to get to the finals and then just have a Championship game no bowl title. Kinda like now but say the Peach, Cotton, Fiesta and Orange this year are the semi's teams are seeded based off the committees rankings and that is who they play, then the winners move up to play in the Rose and Sugar for the finals higher seeds play lower seeds and then those winners move up to the National Championships. I think you would have to cut out the early season FCS game or two to fit the schedule.
The problem with calling the current set-up an "expanded" playoff is that we could legitimately have a strong champion out of each of the P5s and one has to be left out. Let's say Baylor and TCU had played in a CCG last year. You'd have had Alabama, FSU, Baylor/TCU, OSU and Oregon all as strong conference champs who won CCGs with a playoff that only accommodates 4.
You make some good points and I agree with any multiple of 2 as the logical approach. That will never happen. Rebuilding college football into 4 conferences would mean abandoning all traditional rivalries and erasing the history of the game from the chalkboard.....wiping the slate clean.
I would favor this. I think having "regional" sites for the playoff would be smart. I mean I realize the NFL stadiums are nice to use, but some of those teams might still be playing and some of these sites could have "weather" issues.
I would even go as far to say Big 10 west could play (St. Louis, KC, Minny, Chicago). My guess is if its in late December St. Louis would be the best option beings its a DOME. But all these cities are drivable for fans from the Big 10 west.
I would favor this idea if they went to an 8 team playoff and then when it go down to 4 team, then use the bowl games (Rose, Cotton, Fiesta, and other big name bowls and rotate it).
I am guessing within 2-3 years you will see an 8 team playoff. 5 Power 5 champions and 3 at-large teams (must be part of a conference, no ND crap).
Only if...
1) You merge teams into 4 "Super-Conferences" with divisions. (Dissolve/divide the Big 12 between the Pac 12 and the B1G, realign the divisions, same with the AAC between the SEC and ACC and add ND to ACC).
2) Conference Championships become de-facto quarterfinals, like the B1G this year.
3) CFP stays in place with New Year's Six bowls rotating as semi-finals, with the NCG after.
Their are THREE reasons this is the way to go...
1) It eliminates the need for a committee to determine the final 4.
2) It does not add any more game weeks to the calendar than there already are.
3) There are less, maybe even zero, intra-divisional games. This eliminates one conference schedule being tougher than another foe in same division.
1) You merge teams into 4 "Super-Conferences" with divisions. (Dissolve/divide the Big 12 between the Pac 12 and the B1G, realign the divisions, same with the AAC between the SEC and ACC and add ND to ACC).
2) Conference Championships become de-facto quarterfinals, like the B1G this year.
3) CFP stays in place with New Year's Six bowls rotating as semi-finals, with the NCG after.
Their are THREE reasons this is the way to go...
1) It eliminates the need for a committee to determine the final 4.
2) It does not add any more game weeks to the calendar than there already are.
3) There are less, maybe even zero, intra-divisional games. This eliminates one conference schedule being tougher than another foe in same division.
You cant make this argument and then say it is ok for all the other divisions to do this and more.
Yes I did think of that. I know it's sort of comparing apples to oranges but cities often have to make plans with 1 week's notice for NFL, NBA, and MLB playoffs. Seems it could be done with a couple week's notice for NCAA games.
So do they all play 12 games in regular season, plus have a conference championship game? Look that up for me, will ya?
zero chance at eliminating a game. Teams need those home games to you know come close to breaking even.
And you can bash those lower bowls you want, but those are often played by smaller conferences. Either against each other or for a shot at a Power 5 team. They still mean something to the kids involved, for example....
And they could still play those bowls. And they would still be as irrelevant as they are now.
Point is, an expanded playoff does nothing to detract from the already limited attention paid to those games. Hardcore bowl watchers and fans of those schools will still tune in, just like they do now. ESPN will still show them, just as they do now.
In all honesty, I'd much rather watch the FCS playoff games than the lowest half of the bowls.
Point is, an expanded playoff does nothing to detract from the already limited attention paid to those games. Hardcore bowl watchers and fans of those schools will still tune in, just like they do now. ESPN will still show them, just as they do now.
In all honesty, I'd much rather watch the FCS playoff games than the lowest half of the bowls.
Yes, they will go to 8 teams. It is inevitable. However, they need to pay the players more and I would roll the season back to 11 games.....that is plenty
No way. Go 6 with 5 P5 conference champs and 1 G5 at large chosen by the committee. Force the independents to s*** or get off the pot. Otherwise, give the committee the power to replace a P5 champ with an independent if (HUGE if) resumes warrant such a move. Committee would also choose which 2 teams receive a bye.
No way we already have enough games what do you want the NFL(YOU ALREADY HYAVE IT).These are supposed to be student athletes and playing 15 games is too damn many.
Last edited:
Well with the Bowl Scenario playing out like it is this year, I could see the push to 8 teams and then cutting the bowls down from 40 to like 30. I realize that the mid level/smaller schools will struggle to get to a bowl games, but its only fair. I mean having 40 bowls and teams with 5-7 records getting in is just down right a joke. I realize there are teams who go 6-6 in years who do not go bowling, but having a 5-7 team in a bowl is a joke.
My Dream world would be:
My Dream world would be:
- I would like to see them personally go to 8 teams. Power 5's Champs get auto bids. Then have 3 at large spots. use a metric or something to measure to get it right (none of this committee and eye test BS). Play first round games New Years Eve, 2nd round a week later and National Champ a week later.
- Reduce # of bowl games to like 30 or less. Do not have conference affiliations, just have the top 60 teams split and play each other after the rankings are finalized. This crap where a 6-6 team goes to a better bowl than a 9-3 team is a joke. Make it fair for everyone.
- If the little guys feel left out, give them the option of going down to FCS football, they still have a championship and play a playoff schedule. I know none of them will, but if their tired of notting invited, go down to that level.
- Also start the season a week earlier (before Labor Day). I realize that is when most schools start and I think starting on Labor Day is too late.
- I would also like to see schools "cut" one pre-season game. I like the 12 games schedule, but when your playing an FCS school or a lower level team is it really worth it? I would say go to a 11 game schedule. Give the players a bye week during the season.
A larger playoff and eliminating a home game would only help Iowa imo. More of a chance for us to get in and also we are always going to be in better financial position than about every D1 school. There might be about 10 ahead of us financially each year. Point is, people down the list would start hurting a lot more and would make the gap between teams like us and others greater.
The only difference is the conference championship game. I would rather cut out a meaningless game in the non-con, go closer to round robin in most conferences and eliminate the CCG if it meant a bigger playoff. The TV money the conferences will get will eventually make up for the lost gate for a non con.
Latest posts
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
-