Playoffs in 2014 are all but confirmed

[BookVol]

I think six team playoff is the sweet spot. Have numbers one and two get a bye week and the other four duke it out to determine who plays one and two.

[_vol]

There essentially already is a playoff foundation in place with the conference CGs. Seems to make sense that of the major conferences the winner should get an automatic bid, thus making those games worth something more positive than they typically tend to be negatively (ala, 2001 UT vs. LSU -- oh god).

You can still have a few wildcard spots in this model as well. Presently, the conference CGs are a stumbling block/annoyance/risk, not a launching pad.

There is WAY too much weight and attention put on season records in college ball because there is no playoff system. It forces teams to schedule strong opponents -- and they all do so early in the season so they can fight off an early loss where losses late bury you. On the other hand you see programs dodge tough, optional games because they wish to protect their all-important W-L record. By simply going by the W-L without a definitive head-to-head of the best, it's a subjective beauty pageant. With the chaos of a playoff system then a team with three or four loses can still qualify for a National Tournament by winning their conference CG.

Furthermore, it should be an NCAA National Title, not a sponsored and bastardized BCS Title or whatever they want to call it. There are so many exceptions and excuses made for the current system to protect the bowl committees from losing their money, it's depressing. This is the only reason there is not a formal playoff system.

[DarthVisor]

Originally Posted by TrueOrange

16 is too many


One could argue that 8 is too

We need 64, plus a play-in game.

[GAVol]

4 teams is the right place to start.

[utvolpj]

To commemorate the occasion, the 11 FBS conference commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick issued a statement following the conclusion of Thursday's BCS meetings

what a joke. This was the perfect opportunity to make ND equal to the rest

[StoVol]

Originally Posted by BookVol

I think six team playoff is the sweet spot. Have numbers one and two get a bye week and the other four duke it out to determine who plays one and two.

I always thought this was the best idea.. Reward teams one and two, and also enable more teams in years where many go undefeated or say 1 and 2 are undefeated but 2 thru 6 are 11-1. You'd have to decide which 2 of the 11-1 get to go. The regular season is a playoff to try and make the top six.

[VolsSportsFan]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

what a joke. This was the perfect opportunity to make ND equal to the rest

Yes I do hate this part.

[Velo Vol]

Funny, this topic has been debated for years, and the reaction to this seems to be "meh."

[vols-1]

Originally Posted by ukvols

I am tired of hearing stupid arguments like an 8- or 16-team playoff hurting the season. It would actually greatly enhance the season by increasing the number of teams playing meaningful games. 8's a great number, because it would still be difficult to qualify for, when you figure that, under that scenario, a lot of spots would be taken up by league champions. Making the field would go down to the last Saturday for nearly all of the 8 teams. Plus, if they increase to 8 or 16, they would probably play a round on campus, which would make it very important to secure a higher seed.

And, college football being the "greatest regular season in sports" has nothing to do with how the champion is crowned, and everything to do with the simple fact that it's college football. It doesn't matter how crappy the plate is that it's served on. College football will always be hugely successful.

LSU players would have skipped the SEC championship game and started preparing for the the next game if they were already a lock for a playoff. The more the playoff expands the more SEC rematches you get in the NC game.

A playoff makes sense if there is equal competition, but I dont see any competition for the SEC right now.

[bleedorange0037]

Originally Posted by vols-1

LSU players would have skipped the SEC championship game and started preparing for the the next game if they were already a lock for a playoff. The more the playoff expands the more SEC rematches you get in the NC game.

A playoff makes sense if there is equal competition, but I dont see any competition for the SEC right now.

This is kind of what I thought as well. It's funny that this whole thing essentially came about because the Big 10 was butthurt about their teams not getting a fair shot at a NC, but the end result of all this could very easily be more all-SEC championship games in the future. The Big 10 would be wise to be careful what it wishes for.

[Kurtastrophe]

Originally Posted by bleedorange0037

No it's not. Do you realize that in the 46 year history of the Super Bowl, the best team in the NFL has only won it 20 times? Getting it right only 43% of the time is a pretty lousy track record for determining a champion. I'm certain the BCS gets it right more often than that, and gets it right more often than any other system in the country.

[TennesseeVols16]

Originally Posted by bleedorange0037

Because it's pretty easy to look up which team had the best record every season and determine whether or not they went on to win the Super Bowl. It's happened exactly 20 out of 46 times, and there is no disputing that fact. That's why I believe it. Surely you aren't going to try and convince me that somehow a 3 or 4 game sample size is more indicative of who is a better team than a 14-16 game sample size.

Also, why should games in January carry more weight that ones that take place in September or October? If the ones in early part of the season have no ultimate bearing on whether a team can win a championship or not, why are they even being played? Just for our amusement? Why should a team be able to suck for weeks on end (that's you 2010 Green Bay Packers) and still win a championship?

This guy must be off his meds or something.

[ukvols]

Originally Posted by vols-1

LSU players would have skipped the SEC championship game and started preparing for the the next game if they were already a lock for a playoff. The more the playoff expands the more SEC rematches you get in the NC game.

A playoff makes sense if there is equal competition, but I dont see any competition for the SEC right now.

Maybe. In a 4-team playoff, losing the game might have meant a tougher semifinal than locking up the 1-seed and avoiding both Bama and OkSU in the semis. In an 8-team playoff and larger, if the powers-that-be are wise enough to let the top seeds host, they would have wanted to win the game to lock up a home game in at least the opening round.

For the record, I am in favor of neutral sites for the semifinals and final. I think the playoffs should have nothing to do with the bowl games, regardless of whether or not they play in the traditional bowl cities. If it expands beyond 4, I think the higher seeds should host until the semis. And, I think they should arrange the teams so that rematches are avoided until the title game, as much as possible, with a preference to avoiding conference rematches. If three SEC teams are in a field of 8, put the highest-ranked SEC team on one side and the other two SEC teams on the other side, but not in the same first round game (unless two of these SEC teams didn't play in the regular season).

[VolForLife83]

4 is a little low

[BartW]

I'd like to see it at 12 teams like the nfl playoffs where the top 4 get a first round bye. 6 teams from the automatic qualifying conferences and then 6 at large