Expand the playoffs?

#1

hUTch2002

Wait til next year!
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
2,931
Likes
2,279
#1
There has been more and more talk about expanding the college football playoffs. Most people think 8 is the right number. I’m probably in the minority but I like it at 4. The point was never to allow every conference to participate. The point of going to 4 was to stop a year like 2004 where you had 3 undefeated major conference teams and Auburn didn’t get a shot to play for the title. Going to 4 means there will always be 2-loss teams playing and possibly even the occasional 3-loss team. Some people have issues with teams that don’t win their division making the playoffs like Bama in 2017 but if that team is clearly one of the 4 best teams then I don’t have a problem. The committee said from the beginning it will be the 4 best teams. A lot of people are struggling with that because they want to define the criteria. I don’t think you can with unbalanced schedules unless you want computers to decide everything and we’ve been there done that. I’d love to hear what others think. Do you like the idea of expanding and, if so, what number is the right number? Why do you want to expand or why do you not want to do so? Honestly, if we are going to expand I say just go to 16 and let’s do like basketball. Let every conference champion in (all 10 FBS conferences) and then have 6 at-large with some kind of RPI-like formula as an aid.
 
#3

all washed up

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2015
Messages
144
Likes
127
#3
I've changed my mind a few times on this, but I would either keep as is or have 5 teams with a play in game. The added play in game would include the highest ranking mid major. Anything more than 5 and I think you run the risk of teams sitting players at the end of year if they know they're in.

Also, I wouldn't be opposed to removing a few bowl games.
 
#4

hUTch2002

Wait til next year!
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
2,931
Likes
2,279
#4
I have to say that I haven’t heard that one yet. I have heard a few people say 6 teams. My guess is then people would want the P5 conference winners and an at large but I just don’t like that. The Pac 12 Champ isn’t better than the second best team in the SEC. not right now anyway. I want to see the best teams, not the league champs. If league champs automatically get in then you need to also make room for the best teams and thus need 16. But then you diminish the regular season. Just leave it alone at 4.
 
#7
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
57,972
Likes
25,555
#7
I want it to get to 8. And it will eventually.

But I don't want 16 because that's too many and unfortunately I think when they go 8 it will only be a matter of time before it goes to 16.
 
#9

508mikey

1998 National Champions
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
36,115
Likes
19,022
#9
If more regular season games featured P5 conf playing each other instead of the cupcakes and bottom feeders, then it could probably stay at 4 teams - I dont see it going 8 because of the precious NFL
 
Likes: malinoisvol
#10

Otis1105

Active Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Messages
35
Likes
13
#10
The last few years there has been a significant drop off between teams 1-4 and 5-15. If there is an argument for expansion it is to 5. Anything else would just be ugly!
 
#11

knox-townVOL

First of his name
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
14,323
Likes
16,671
#11
8.

5 p5 conference winners.

Best Group of 5 team

2 At large.
Ding ding ding

The only thing I would change would be 3 at large. That can be the best G5 team, 2 of the best G5 teams, the 3 best P5 teams that didn’t win the conference, whoever.

We already have 4 at larges in the current system, just make it 3.
 
#12
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
22,893
Likes
10,822
#12
They could model it like basketball on obviously a much smaller scale and make people happy along with millions of $$.

But there needs to be some sort of cap. 8-10 teams at most.
 
#14

RDU VOL#14

I’m a Flawed Character
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
11,118
Likes
9,028
#14
I’m a proponent for an 8 team playoff for a lot of reasons. The way I would do things would drastically change how things currently are with total Conference games played, scholarship numbers, conference allignment, etc. In short, i believe College football is archaic in a lot of ways, but I also love it more than anything and would love to see it in a mold that i think would get the most out of a great game. For now though...

1st games played at home sites of top 4 seeds 2 weeks after Conference Title Games (Timing is important)

Keep Final 4 and Championship as is to appease Bowl and TV sites.

As pointed out, we keep getting these dud semifinal games at way too high of a rate. Why is that? I have my opinions on it.
First, is there another sport that gives you basically 4 weeks to prepare for your next opponent in a playoff/bowl game format other than College Football? I dont think there is. You give a team like Bama with superior talent and coaching 4 weeks to prepare for an overmatched opponent you’re largely going to get the results we’ve been getting.
If given just 2 weeks to prepare for a team coming off of a Conference title game that changes things drastically. Injuries, travel, finals, gameplanning, all level the playing field just a bit . Add in the prospect of the incredible matchups that could occur in storied venues in the Elite 8 part of the Playoffs it would be amazing. You are also keeping the integrity of the regular season intact by rewarding the top 4 teams with a home playoff game. We the fans get rewarded because either our team still has a chance to win a national title or we get to watch more than 3 meaningful football games. I don’t understand why anyone would want less football and especially less meaningful football.

Ohio State squeaks in an at large bid because they got smoked by 30 on the road to Purdue but still makes the top 8? Have fun playing in Baton Rouge or Clemson or Norman. That’s the kind of thing i want to see.

You win, then you get 2 weeks to prepare, travel, rest, holidays and then play. Win and go to the Title game.

It’s not perfect, but keeping things more in a format that basically every other sport uses shouldn’t be that hard.
 
#15

tpsdave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2017
Messages
116
Likes
90
#15
I’m a proponent for an 8 team playoff for a lot of reasons. The way I would do things would drastically change how things currently are with total Conference games played, scholarship numbers, conference allignment, etc. In short, i believe College football is archaic in a lot of ways, but I also love it more than anything and would love to see it in a mold that i think would get the most out of a great game. For now though...

1st games played at home sites of top 4 seeds 2 weeks after Conference Title Games (Timing is important)

Keep Final 4 and Championship as is to appease Bowl and TV sites.

As pointed out, we keep getting these dud semifinal games at way too high of a rate. Why is that? I have my opinions on it.
First, is there another sport that gives you basically 4 weeks to prepare for your next opponent in a playoff/bowl game format other than College Football? I dont think there is. You give a team like Bama with superior talent and coaching 4 weeks to prepare for an overmatched opponent you’re largely going to get the results we’ve been getting.
If given just 2 weeks to prepare for a team coming off of a Conference title game that changes things drastically. Injuries, travel, finals, gameplanning, all level the playing field just a bit . Add in the prospect of the incredible matchups that could occur in storied venues in the Elite 8 part of the Playoffs it would be amazing. You are also keeping the integrity of the regular season intact by rewarding the top 4 teams with a home playoff game. We the fans get rewarded because either our team still has a chance to win a national title or we get to watch more than 3 meaningful football games. I don’t understand why anyone would want less football and especially less meaningful football.

Ohio State squeaks in an at large bid because they got smoked by 30 on the road to Purdue but still makes the top 8? Have fun playing in Baton Rouge or Clemson or Norman. That’s the kind of thing i want to see.

You win, then you get 2 weeks to prepare, travel, rest, holidays and then play. Win and go to the Title game.

It’s not perfect, but keeping things more in a format that basically every other sport uses shouldn’t be that hard.
Or, in past years; have fun playing in Columbus, Ohio in December.
 
#17

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
58,950
Likes
33,204
#17
I’d prefer the #4 thru #8 teams not be a galaxy away competitively from Bama, UGA and Clemson before subjecting us to more blowouts leading to the championship game.

That's the whole issue, in a nutshell. The reason 4 is fine is that you have two programs that are light years in front of everyone else. They get the best players, anyone they want really. This is not like the NFL where you can draft and trade your way to a more competitive team. There are two more teams allowed in, who might be close in a given year and could get lucky. But after that the drop off is so huge that its pointless to complicate it any more than it already can be.
 
#19

MemphisVol77

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,163
Likes
1,567
#19
8.

5 p5 conference winners.

Best Group of 5 team

2 At large.
Whether it's 5 years or 10 years from now once the powers that be figure out how to monetize and split the payout, playoff expansion is inevitable.

If the playoffs were to expand to 8 teams I'd like that with some kind of qualifier for the Group of 5 team, at least finish top 15 in the final CFB playoff rankings, before they get an automatic entry. I think the talent disparity between the 6-8 teams is still too much to make an 8 team playoff necessary though.

I'd personally prefer 6 teams with no automatic qualifiers for conference champs. 1&2 seed get a bye. Group of 5 needs a top 8 or better CFB playoff ranking for inclusion.

There's always gonna be a school with an argument that they should have been included. On the very rare year an undefeated Group of 5 team upserps a 1loss 6-8ranked Power 5 school so be it.
 
Likes: RDU VOL#14
#20

RDU VOL#14

I’m a Flawed Character
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
11,118
Likes
9,028
#20
Whether it's 5 years or 10 years from now once the powers that be figure out how to monetize and split the payout, playoff expansion is inevitable.

If the playoffs were to expand to 8 teams I'd like that with some kind of qualifier for the Group of 5 team, at least finish top 15 in the final CFB playoff rankings, before they get an automatic entry. I think the talent disparity between the 6-8 teams is still too much to make an 8 team playoff necessary though.

I'd personally prefer 6 teams with no automatic qualifiers for conference champs. 1&2 seed get a bye. Group of 5 needs a top 8 or better CFB playoff ranking for inclusion.

There's always gonna be a school with an argument that they should have been included. On the very rare year an undefeated Group of 5 team upserps a 1loss 6-8ranked Power 5 school so be it.
I totally agree about the qualifier. When i posted yesterday about what i wanted with expanded playoffs i prefaced my statement that there were other things I’d like to change. I think you hit the nail on the head with the qualifier, I totally agree. If 10-2 Oregon team lost to a 7-5 Arizona State team in PAC12 title they shouldn’t get an automatic bid without being a top 12 or 15 ranked team. I’m sure the conference commissioners would fight that and never allow that to happen, but it should if we ever move to an expanded playoff format.

As I said, I’m in favor of an 8 team playoff for a lot of reasons, but also the fact that you’re starting to see more and better home and homes being scheduled for the regular season makes it that much more intriguing.
 
Likes: MemphisVol77
#21

XknoxvolsX

The only people who dislike winners are losers!
Joined
Mar 11, 2019
Messages
1,154
Likes
1,049
#21
I just think about the year Auburn was left out of the BCS. I had to eat crow that year. I had always said that if an SEC school went undefeated and won the SEC that they would be in the NC game.

The problem with Auburn that year was they started so far back. I can't even remember if they began the season unranked. I do remember the talking heads stating that because they had to play us twice that brought down one of their parts of the BCS rankings.
 
#22

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
61,882
Likes
33,298
#22
I just think about the year Auburn was left out of the BCS. I had to eat crow that year. I had always said that if an SEC school went undefeated and won the SEC that they would be in the NC game.

The problem with Auburn that year was they started so far back. I can't even remember if they began the season unranked. I do remember the talking heads stating that because they had to play us twice that brought down one of their parts of the BCS rankings.
People were counting their loss to USC the previous year against them, that's how ridiculous things were with the BCS.

A 4 team playoff makes no sense when there are 5 power conferences and occasionally 2 elite teams from one conference and/or an elite mid-major. Why are we even having this discussion? Get rid of one of the 3-5 BS matchups every team has and add another round to the playoffs.
 
#23

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
61,882
Likes
33,298
#23
That's the whole issue, in a nutshell. The reason 4 is fine is that you have two programs that are light years in front of everyone else. They get the best players, anyone they want really. This is not like the NFL where you can draft and trade your way to a more competitive team. There are two more teams allowed in, who might be close in a given year and could get lucky. But after that the drop off is so huge that its pointless to complicate it any more than it already can be.
A #8 quality team with a dynamic dual-threat QB can absolutely beat Bama any year.
 
#24

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
61,882
Likes
33,298
#24
I’d prefer the #4 thru #8 teams not be a galaxy away competitively from Bama, UGA and Clemson before subjecting us to more blowouts leading to the championship game.
You don't have to watch, tho. If we have 7 games and 3 of them are bad, that means we got 4 good games, more than what's possible under the current system. Bad matchups in meaningless games is largely the story of the college football season, unfortunately. I'd rather risk more bad matchups in the playoffs for the sake of having more meaningful games.
 
Likes: RDU VOL#14
#25

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
11,507
Likes
7,778
#25
I just think about the year Auburn was left out of the BCS. I had to eat crow that year. I had always said that if an SEC school went undefeated and won the SEC that they would be in the NC game.

The problem with Auburn that year was they started so far back. I can't even remember if they began the season unranked. I do remember the talking heads stating that because they had to play us twice that brought down one of their parts of the BCS rankings.
Auburn started that season #17.

That 2004 season is the epitome of how much college football has changed since then. Can you imagine an undefeated SEC champion today being ranked outside the top 2? Any undefeated SEC champ, even if it was Arkansas or Vandy who began the season way outside the top 25, would be ranked #1 or #2 at season's end today without question.
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top