Do we need to expand the Playoff?

#77
#77
GetEmVols said:
Whenever the playoff goes to 12 there will be people arguing with who should get the 12th spot. March madness proves this with 64 teams.
Click to expand...

Many times that 12th spot will be taken by a non group of 5 champion.

If folks argue over the 11th to say 15th teams or so……….they really didn’t belong anyway.
 
#78
#78
I have always felt that it needs to be 8 teams - the 5 conference champs and 3 at large “wild card” bids. It’s strange that we are jumping from 4 to 12, but I think 12 is better than 4. Let the results get determined on the field and not in “what if” fan/media theories.
 
#79
#79
Orangepantsforever said:
64 team playoff. Play it out…..or just until the last one keels over. All about them dollar signs
Click to expand...
GetEmVols said:
Whenever the playoff goes to 12 there will be people arguing with who should get the 12th spot. March madness proves this with 64 teams.
Click to expand...

Yes, there will always be arguing no matter how many teams are in the playoffs. It’s much less frustrating hearing a 2/3 loss team arguing why they should be in the playoff than a 1 loss team having to make that argument. Personally, I’d prefer an 8 team playoff, but 12 is better than 4.
 
#80
#80
KoachKrab127 said:
I have always felt that it needs to be 8 teams - the 5 conference champs and 3 at large “wild card” bids. It’s strange that we are jumping from 4 to 12, but I think 12 is better than 4. Let the results get determined on the field and not in “what if” fan/media theories.
Click to expand...

If they were to “ever” do something like your suggesting I surely hope it would be the regular season champion.

I would hate to see some 8-4 Virginia Tech team in the playoff then some 11-1 or 10-2 teams with good wins and great SOS’s left out.

If it becomes, “regular season” champs luck really gets involved……..who got the easier schedules? Mega conferences would be a mess because teams won’t be playing half the other teams.

Conference champions “sounds” like a good idea……….however just because you beat maybe a down Clemson doesn’t mean YOU belong if you haven’t done anything else all season.
 
#82
#82
KoachKrab127 said:
Yes, there will always be arguing no matter how many teams are in the playoffs. It’s much less frustrating hearing a 2/3 loss team arguing why they should be in the playoff than a 1 loss team having to make that argument. Personally, I’d prefer an 8 team playoff, but 12 is better than 4.
Click to expand...
I like 8 team playoff but no automatic bids. I don’t want it like the nfl where a 4 loss conference championship gets in
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raebo, TheVolsFrog and JoAllan
#84
#84
Some of us are old enough to remember when 1 didn't even play 2 most of the time. So 4 is enough. Every week in CFB is a playoff game. Think about the UGA game last week. If there were 12 teams both of us are pretty much guaranteed to get in. With only 4, it was only a certainty if you won. I love that aspect of CFB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sami
#85
#85
I would prefer 8 but16 would be okay.
With a 4 team playoff, you discourage teams playing tough OOC games at the beginning of the season, especially if the first couple games of the season are given the same weight as the games at the back half of the season. The first couple games teams will be making adjustments due to new players/coaching staff etc.. I want to encourage them (not discourage them) to play a strong schedule early to find their weaknesses and to make adjustments.
Early on last year we made some big adjustments (especially at QB) and with a 16 team playoff, we might have been in the mix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDU VOL#14
#87
#87
Jeff Clark said:
I want to see a 16 team Playoff
Click to expand...

I've been wanting a 16 team playoff since the BCS days. It gives each conference champion a berth and a reasonable number of at-large bids. This is what happens at every other level of college football (FCS has a 24 team playoff).

The opponents of such a playoff argue that the group of five conferences aren't at the same level as the power 5, and thus don't deserve automatic bids. Fine. Spin them off into their own subdivision and let them do their own thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Clark
#88
#88
I think it’s crazy that college football is the only sport that has such an archaic post season model. At EVERY SINGLE level of football there is a playoff where teams play multiple rounds and there are byes given to the top seeds, and they play games on campus or on home fields. From Pee Wee to the NFL. Not D1 college football. No no, all the infinite wisdom of The Rose Bowl and other back room $$ bowl reps have kept the sport from reaching its full potential for over a century. It makes zero sense to be held hostage by these Bowl games. And I’ve seen people on here argue for the BCS again or the Bowl Alliance. Why? How can you not want a CFP game in Neyland where we play a team we would most likely never play or we travel to a place we would never go?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KoachKrab127 and Jeff Clark
#89
#89
sjt18 said:
Why not 16 teams with the first two rounds played at home sites?
Click to expand...

That's what I want. I think 16 is the perfect number and you stop there. The 5 power five conference winners get automatic bids and then you select 11 at larges. This potentially can get you, on average, two teams from each conference represented and then you have one available spot if you have a really good group of 5 conference team that deserves a shot. Seed the 16 teams like you do in basketball and have the top 8 host the bottom 8 at home. From there you start factoring in the bowl games where they are on a rotating schedule with who hosts round 2 and round 3. Then you just have a separate championship game at the end.

Round 1

Top 8 hosts bottom 8 at home

Round 2

4 of the major bowls (listed as example)

Cotton
Rose
Sugar
Peach

Round 3

The remaining 2 major bowls (listed as example)

Orange
Fiesta

Round 4

Championship Game


RDU VOL#14 said:
I think it’s crazy that college football is the only sport that has such an archaic post season model. At EVERY SINGLE level of football there is a playoff where teams play multiple rounds and there are byes given to the top seeds, and they play games on campus or on home fields. From Pee Wee to the NFL. Not D1 college football. No no, all the infinite wisdom of The Rose Bowl and other back room $$ bowl reps have kept the sport from reaching its full potential for over a century. It makes zero sense to be held hostage by these Bowl games. And I’ve seen people on here argue for the BCS again or the Bowl Alliance. Why? How can you not want a CFP game in Neyland where we play a team we would most likely never play or we travel to a place we would never go?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with byes at all and I never have. The top ranked teams already have enough of an advantage. Why award them with some arbitrary bye week to even further widen that gap?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sjt18
#91
#91
Brave Volunteer said:
That's what I want. I think 16 is the perfect number and you stop there. The 5 power five conference winners get automatic bids and then you select 11 at larges. This potentially can get you, on average, two teams from each conference represented and then you have one available spot if you have a really good group of 5 conference team that deserves a shot. Seed the 16 teams like you do in basketball and have the top 8 host the bottom 8 at home. From there you start factoring in the bowl games where they are on a rotating schedule with who hosts round 2 and round 3. Then you just have a separate championship game at the end.

Round 1

Top 8 hosts bottom 8 at home

Round 2

4 of the major bowls (listed as example)

Cotton
Rose
Sugar
Peach

Round 3

The remaining 2 major bowls (listed as example)

Orange
Fiesta

Round 4

Championship Game




I don't agree with byes at all and I never have. The top ranked teams already have enough of an advantage. Why award them with some arbitrary bye week to even further widen that gap?
Click to expand...
I would actually prefer 8 with each big conference champ getting an automatic bid.

As part of that, I would like to see the Big12 dropped to make it "Power 4". In my opinion, they do not qualify as a "power" conference once OU and Texas are gone. The SEC will be at 16 teams. There is no reason the Big 10, Pac12, and ACC cannot expand to give the other worthy schools a home. There will be 8 schools left after OU and Texas move. Four to the Pac12 and 2 each to the Big 10 and ACC.
 
#92
#92
11 game schedules, no divisions, no conference championship game. Take top two from each P5 and two at large, rank em’, and get down to best team standing.
 
#93
#93
sjt18 said:
I would actually prefer 8 with each big conference champ getting an automatic bid.

As part of that, I would like to see the Big12 dropped to make it "Power 4". In my opinion, they do not qualify as a "power" conference once OU and Texas are gone. The SEC will be at 16 teams. There is no reason the Big 10, Pac12, and ACC cannot expand to give the other worthy schools a home. There will be 8 schools left after OU and Texas move. Four to the Pac12 and 2 each to the Big 10 and ACC.
Click to expand...

Yeah I see your point. But we're already going to 12, so wishing for 8 at this point is...well, pointless LOL. I do believe it will eventually get to 16 though. The issue I have with 12 is the whole bye thing. I think it creates too much of an arbitrary advantage for teams that typically already have a big enough advantage in raw talent as it is. Why artificially create an even wider gap there when the goal is to see highly competitive games?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sjt18
#95
#95
If expanded, it shouldn't be more than 8 teams. The possibility of a #5 player possibly hurt while blowing out a #12 team is a real possibility.

#1 play #5
#2 play #6
#3 play #7
#4 play #8
 
#96
#96
Total waste of time to expand the playoffs; Nobody ever thinks "gee whiz, there are 5 teams here that might be the best" and it seems like that'll never happen. People who don't have much of a life like to bleat about who is #5. If you expand the playoff to 64 teams, the same drama-lovers will just bleat about who is #65. It's just human nature to do a lot of whining. over the last 100 years, it's been clear enough that if you're #5, you're truly not #1, and that's what really matters.

It could be less awful if somehow you avoid the normal #1 plays #N scenario.

If the 1 seed gets knocked out, I'm not sure what that does to the normal bleating about the bowl games being irrelevant, but it seems like it may actually help. You could actually start with #1 vs #2 first and then you get everybody all riled up right from the get-go.
 
#97
#97
It also seems like we're not ever going to have conference stability, which to me is would have been the best argument for 8 teams. If you had, (I wish) 6 "good" conferences of 12 teams, like you could imagine being a good idea years ago, you could just give 6 spots to the champions no matter what, and that would at least make some sort of sense. The underlying structure is falling apart now, though. There's nobody working to keep any sort of nominal equality among, say, the top 60 or 70 teams.
 
#99
#99
Vol8188 said:
The goal is to identify the best team. There’s not 8 candidates for that (or won’t be by the end)
Click to expand...

And by the end of it the best team is left standing. If that’s your logic there shouldn’t be a playoff group at all.
 
#100
#100
Dudleys87 said:
And by the end of it the best team is left standing. If that’s your logic there shouldn’t be a playoff group at all.
Click to expand...

Of course there should be a playoff. Otherwise how do we know who is the best in years with 3 undefeated teams from separate conferences? That’s the entire reason we have a 4 team playoff.

And as far as “best team is left standing”, that’s what the regular season is for. Whoever the four best remaining teams are get a shot.

Why expand?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top