FSU, ACC pushing for 8 team playoff

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on

Keep going. 

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25156475

"I think the perceived bias of the ACC in general, [with] Florida State falling to No. 4 in the rankings and still being undefeated and being [No.] 3 at the end of the season … a one-loss ACC team or two-loss ACC team is going to have a hard time breaking that top four," Gruters said. "I think the top ACC team over the next four or five years, we're going to be in that [No.] 5 to 8 category. And we're going to be on the outside looking in."

Gruters then urged Wilcox to encourage the ACC to push for an expansion of the new playoff system - from four to eight teams. He said that was the only way, "to guarantee an ACC team will have a shot at winning the national championship each year."

Tater

April 21st, 2015 at 2:54 PM ^

Until every major conference champion is guaranteed a playoff berth, the "National Championship" is a joke.  I would make it eight teams with champions only.  Let the five major champions in and take the other three teams from a pool of lesser conference champions and the "indie champion."

I detest ND, but either they or BYU would sue if there wasn't a way for them to get in.

 

UMCoconut

April 21st, 2015 at 3:06 PM ^

Nobody really knows which conferences are 'good' or 'bad' until they go best-on-best.  In today's climate, that very rarely happens, and if it does, it happens at the beginning of a season when teams can be vastly different than later.  I mean, the #4 seed from the inaugaural playoff won the whole thing, and almost didn't even make it in due largely to the perception people have/had about the strength of the B1G.  Meanwhile, the SEC fared quite poorly in bowl season.  

I think it's a great idea to do a 6-8 team playoff with a guaranteed berth for conference champs from P5.  That still leaves 1-3 spots for other 'deserving' teams who played in tougher conferences, are independents, or mid-majors.  

JamieH

April 21st, 2015 at 3:11 PM ^

there is so much bullshit about X conferece being great and Y conferece being weak but no one really knows anything.  It's all just talking out their ass until the teams actually play on the field.



Last year no one gave Ohio State any chance at all to beat Alabama, yet look what happened?  And Ohio State almost didn't even get into the playoff at all--they could have easily been left out for TCU or Baylor.  And TCU and Baylor both had very legitimate complaints about being left out.  Heck TCU might have been the best team in the country, we don't really know.



All of the subjective crap is pretty much handled by automatically taking the champ of each conference.  Let it be decided on the field, not by which conferece (cough SEC cough) is able to propagandize themselves the most. 

karpodiem

April 21st, 2015 at 4:17 PM ^

Remember when the rest of the country was laughing at the Big Ten for being a joke of a conference during the regular reason? OSU helds its own, and their only loss was early in the season.

 

jmblue

April 21st, 2015 at 3:15 PM ^

With the advent of conference title games, we have situations where teams with 3-4 losses can win league titles, like Wisconsin did a couple years back.  Did they deserve to play for the national title?  I certainly don't think so.

If you have eight teams in the playoff, any deserving team will get in.  You don't need to make it automatic for the odd 8-4 straggler that pulled the upset in the conference title game.  (I think conference title games should be abolished anyway and that weekend used for the opening week of the playoffs, but that's another issue.)

wolverine1987

April 21st, 2015 at 3:56 PM ^

Brian did an excellent job of proving that a couple of years back when he was pushing his own 6 team playoff idea. He went through recent history and it was very clear. And I totally agree. Unless you are ok with two loss teams having a shot at the title (and I am categorically not) an 8 team playoff will always be unfair. The beautiful thing about college football is how critical the regular season is to your chances, and two loss teams SHOULD be out of it. And I'd say that for a 10-2 M team too. I really detest this constant push for greater number of playoff teams in every sport. Enough already. 

bjk

April 21st, 2015 at 5:50 PM ^

it works as a tie-breaker in some of these bloated 14-team conferences, all a "conference championship (= otiose and flatulent money grab)" does is create the condition for a 6-loss conference champion (wasn't that UCLA one year?). If the "conference" is big enough that no team from one division ever need see one from the other, then it is a de-facto playoff. More often, it is just a symptom of season bloat. I have despised this concept ever since K State sent Oklahoma to a MNC game against LSU as a conference runner-up, or whatever you call the indisputably better overall team that loses a "conference championship." If you are going to have the goddamn thing, then go ahead and send UCLA to the MNC playoff as the officially designated conference champion with six losses, just so long as every team at least has a path to get there.

That said, I don't mind eight slots rather than four in a playoff any more than I mind "wild card" slots in the pros. If a three-loss team can endure three rounds of single-elimination against the other best teams, or at least, conference champions, around, then, to me, they are a champion. College teams can develope during the course of a season, too, and the team that wins when put in a playoff situation is the champion.

If we have to chose between eight and four, I take eight, because I think you get less skew in the results by putting "too many" teams in than by leaving teams out. 2004 Auburn.

danimal1968

April 22nd, 2015 at 12:32 PM ^

Played in the Pac12 title game a couple years back at 6-6 because USC was ineligible, but got beaten like a drum by Oregon.

UCLA did make it to the Rose Bowl in 1982 with a 6-4-1 record - and beat the living daylights out of a 10-1 Illinois team.

mastodon

April 21st, 2015 at 7:13 PM ^

If you want to discourage teams from playing cupcakes, and I hope that's all of us, do not punish them for a tough OOC loss.  The perfect-season-or-bust mentality is a holdover from the BCS era, that encourages the scheduling of cupcake games.  Anything that does that sucks, and is not healthy for CFB.  The "quality/integrity/sanctity of the regular season" argument is just so lame, and from a post-season hopes standpoint, only applied to the dwindling handful of teams that managed to stay undefeated as the season played out. Where was the "importance" of the remaining regular season for teams that lost twice early (and for many, once, given the unfair preseason rankings)? 

In an auto-P5-8-team-PO, the 3 at-large teams should be those rewared for a tough OOC schedule.  This should encourage teams to schedule accordingly.  A 1-2 loss OOC team can still win their championship.  That's a heck of a lot more teams continuing the season where "every game counts", and more quality football was played.

There's been just one playoff and already there were two teams that have a right to bitch about the cut.  This will be the case every year, and it just might be UM at no. 5 some year(s).  There will always be controversy involving those teams on the bubble, but that's an argument in favor of 8 teams, not 4.  And I don't understand the logic of 6 teams.  DO NOT start subjectively awarding the 2 "best" teams with a huge advantage, while carving out a third week for the PO, and not taking advantage of it with an 8 team field.

MI Expat NY

April 21st, 2015 at 4:25 PM ^

A two-loss team is going to have a shot some years.  Hell, a two-loss LSU already won the BCS.   An 8 team playoff would mean that's true every year and would probably give 3-loss teams a shot now and then.  

I'm not disagreeing with you that it would be difficult for a season to produce 8 deserving teams, but you also can't draw a line in the sand and say teams with 2 loses don't get a shot.

The absolute best system is also completely unrealistic, where you determine the number of teams at the end of each system based on what the season dictates.  This year would have been a year to be expansive, with maybe 6 teams.  Other years there is going to be a clear 1 and 2 when we will have too many teams in the playoffs.  

gbdub

April 21st, 2015 at 6:05 PM ^

The "best" basketball team doesn't always win the NCAA tournament. Does this diminish the quality or watchability of the tournament? If all you're doing is rigging the playoff so the "deserving" teams in your subjective opinion get a shot, that's no better than just picking one "best" and being done with it, the way they used to years ago.

8 teams, 5 champs plus 3 at large. Some years a crappy 3 loss conference champion will go on a monster run and win it all. Who cares? That's fun! Sometimes Peyton's younger brother beats the undefeated Pats, and sports are better for it.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

wolverine1987

April 21st, 2015 at 6:13 PM ^

in the extreme. That doesn't mean it's the best or fairest way of determing a champion. 

And limiting the # of teams in a playoff is "rigging" nothing. It's not subjective who the best teams are--it's objective, and proven over the course of the season in college football. if you lose 2 or 3 games, it's actually more subjective to include such a team.

Old Lax Wolve

April 22nd, 2015 at 11:36 AM ^

is to have rankings mean nothing and have on-field play determine everything.  That means P5 conference champions make it in, and P5 non-champions do not. 

I don't want to see the National Championship game be a repeat of the conference championship game.  Give some other teams a shot.

Don't complain - just win your conference.

UMCoconut

April 21st, 2015 at 6:04 PM ^

You can create a lot of hypothetical situations where a 6-8 team playoff may sneak in non-ideal teams.  I guess my pushback is that situation is much preferable to a situation where an otherwise deserving team gets left out.  The whole point of a playoff is to find the best team.  It's better to ensure that you have those teams with the risk of an undeserving team getting in once in a while than the other way around.  

This season was a great example. By the end of the season, there was a very real argument that OSU and TCU were the two best teams in the country.  We'll never know for sure, because it was guaranteed that one of those two teams would not make it to the playoff.  I'd rather both teams made it in at the sacrifice of a lesser team making it in as the sixth.  

Plus, there are lots of ways to mitigate this in general, which we already instituted in the BCS era.  e.g. you finish in top 12 to be eligible, etc...

gbdub

April 21st, 2015 at 6:08 PM ^

Why does everyone say TCU? I've still yet to hear a convincing argument for why TCU should have gotten in ahead of the team that beat them. TCU only lost to Baylor, and that's better than losing to WVU - therefore losing to Baylor is better than being Baylor?




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

turtleboy

April 21st, 2015 at 6:59 PM ^

Because of how completely TCU dominated a highly ranked SEC team in their bowl game. Ole Miss was the new SEC flavor of the year, making it to #3 in the rankings by being (default undefeated SEC school x) and they had no business even being on the same field as TCU.

Old Lax Wolve

April 22nd, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^

 

 

8-teams:

  • Conference champion of each Power 5 conference (ACC, Big 12, B1G, Pac-12, SEC)
  • 3 at-large bids, cannot go to Power 5 conference non-champion

Goals:

  • Emphasize conference play
  • De-emphasize rankings
  • Accelerate national parity
  • True national champion determined on the field, not by sports writers or committees

 

 

The Mad Hatter

April 21st, 2015 at 3:13 PM ^

they can join a conference if they want to compete for national titles.

Honestly, I never understood why ND wasn't in the Big 10.  They're the closest thing to Michigan in terms of academics and football that there is.

And BYU can learn to play on the  same days that everyone else does. 

Mr. Yost

April 21st, 2015 at 2:55 PM ^

Hope they're successful.

I don't care if there is a team or two that shouldn't be in the tournament. That's better than a team or two NOT being in the tournament.

If the 1 and 2 seeds have to play "walkovers" (lol...we're calling a top 10 team in the country a walkover), then so be it. They get that honor for being #1 and #2.

This also brings even more excitement to the end of the year or to conference championship games.

Mr. Yost

April 21st, 2015 at 3:00 PM ^

Easy formula...

5 conference winners IF you're ranked in the top 12 of the final standings...if not, your conference losses the automatic bid and it becomes an at-large.

Seeding is based on ranking only. So just because you won your conference doesn't mean an at-large can't be higher than you in the tournament.

....these 2 are no-brainers, IMO.

The third one is more personal preference. #3, I'd play the quarterfinals at the home site of the top 4 seeds. Give that advantage to the teams who did better. #2 Michigan shouldn't have to travel to the Citrus Bowl to play #7 Florida, #3 OSU shouldn't have to travel to the Peach Bowl to play #6 Georgia. That's bullshit - play the quarters at the home site of the top 4.

This also saves on travel for your fans.

Once you get to the semifinals...keep everything the same.

P.S. - I'd actually have a fourth one that is personal preference...send the quarterfinal losers to bowl games (since the quarterfinals would have to be played so early - otherwise your New Year's Day bowls suck).

animalfarm84

April 21st, 2015 at 3:08 PM ^

I really like this approach.  8 is a great number--one can envision seasons in which the 5th best team could have a plausible claim to be the best team in the land, but it's pretty hard to envision the 9th best team having such a claim.

8 teams, as you say, also lets have all 5 power conference champs plus a few wild cards.  And the added wrinkle you propose eliminates the possibility of giving out one of the precious few 8 slots to the champion of a conference that has had really down year.

JamieH

April 21st, 2015 at 3:14 PM ^

Keep them out of it.  You win your conferece, you're in, period.  Keep all of that figure skating judging crap out of football. 



The NFL would be ridiculous if they had a "You're in the playoffs if you win you division, unless you're power ranking isn't high enough.".  No, you win your division and you're in period.  Every once in a while that means a weak team makes the playoffs, and they are summarily destroyed.  Same will happen in college football.  It isn't a big deal. 

 

You can use the rankings to argue the 3 at-large bids because you have to use something.  But auto-bids should be auto bids.  Keep the politics out of them.

wolverine1987

April 21st, 2015 at 4:13 PM ^

Sometimes they go to the Conference title game or win one game, which is IMO totally unfair and wrong. Of course, this also fits my view that we let way too many teams in the playoffs--my preference would be that no one with a record worse than 11-5 could even get into the NFL playoffs. That's the only way to ensure a poor team doesn't get hot at the right time and beat better more deserving teams. I think playoffs should only go to elite teams in every sport--and you prove whether you are elite or not in the regular season. 

Mr. Yost

April 21st, 2015 at 7:34 PM ^

If 6-6 Iowa beats 12-0 Ohio St. for the B1G championship it should not be in the CFB Playoff. PERIOD.

So take all of your overreaction and think about that for 2 seconds and you'll realize that having conference champions is not the end all-be all. 

The NFL doesn't have championship games, so your comparison is stupid.

mastodon

April 21st, 2015 at 10:24 PM ^

For the once-every-two-decades of such matchups, if 12-0 OSU loses that game, i.e. when it matters, that's an equally strong argument that they don't belong either.  Think about that for two seconds.

How about a new rule for conference championship games, where if the winning team had at least 3 losses coming in, gets outplayed (trails in all statistics), but somehow pulls it off, there will be some kind of panel vote to determine if the outcome should be reversed,

Subjectivity has no place.  Everybody needs to deprogram their BCS-brainwashed minds that it's all about who's got the best resume.  PO teams should earn it on the field, i.e. conference champs.

One thing the playoffs will continue to show is that it's very difficult to consistently pick the best 2 teams out of the field.

 

cutter

April 21st, 2015 at 3:17 PM ^

The only thing I might like to see is for the semi-finals to also be played on campus, but everything else you suggest is spot on, including the requirement that a conference autobid only comes if its champion is in the Top 12 (I could even go with Top 14).  

I wouldn't be surprised if this is where college football goes sooner rather than later.  Yes, there is in a contract in place that runs through the late 2020s, but CFB isn't going to wait that long because each year, at least one of the five major conferences is going to be left out of the playoff and they'll all want skin in the game.

 

Soulfire21

April 21st, 2015 at 3:12 PM ^

I don't mind either the 6 or 8 model.  If it's 6 you can do P-5 champs + 1 at large with the top 2 receiving byes.  If it's 8 then it's the P-5 champs + 3 at large bids, no byes.

I should add that I loathe the idea of a 2 loss team making the playoff though.

umbig11

April 21st, 2015 at 2:56 PM ^

I think 8 is the right number. That provides each of the Power 5 conferences a seat at the table plus at-large bids from Mid-majors and Power 5's.

Wolverine Devotee

April 21st, 2015 at 3:02 PM ^

A mid major will never win the thing in football so what's the point of inviting them when they would be taking up a spot of a team that actually has the athletes to compete?

 

The Mad Hatter

April 21st, 2015 at 3:16 PM ^

If a mid-major makes it into the top 8 at the end of the season, probably due to being undefeated and an unusually strong schedule, then they absolutely deserve to be invited to the big dance.

It would probably never happen, but they shouldn't be excluded just for not being a P5 school.

Wolverine Devotee

April 21st, 2015 at 3:22 PM ^

8 teams is too few to be giving bids to mid majors. I want a 16 team playoff.

The NCAA DI Playoff is a 20-team field. Sam Houston State would have played 17 games if they beat NDSU in the semifinals last year.

It can be done. 16 is enough to give mid major conference champions autobids and still give out at-large bids to teams that actually have a chance to win it that didn't win their conference.

gwkrlghl

April 21st, 2015 at 3:21 PM ^

but people were saying OSU would never beat Alabama, then they put em on the field and the impossible happened. I think it would take a once-in-a-decade kind of mid-major to pull it off, but someone will eventually.