Mike Leach wants a 64 team College Football Playoff

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on

Leach says the regular season should be cut to 10 games in order to make room for a larger playoff. The first round would become a home-and-home series, and bowls that currently exist would make up the rest of the games. In his ideal scenario, the playoff champion would play in 16 games total. 

“I don’t know why you don’t have 64 teams,” Leach told Dinich. “...The notion of pinpointing and selecting four perfectly, well that’s not going to happen. That can’t happen effectively.”

Full article

Wu

July 30th, 2015 at 2:09 PM ^

Why 26? I believe he means 10 regular season games plus 6 in the playoffs if you make it to the title game. Still dumb, but not 26-game dumb.

wolverine1987

July 30th, 2015 at 2:43 PM ^

Brian did a great job a couple of years back, when he was advocating for a 6 team playoff stystem, in demonstrating that in no time ever in the modern era did more than 6 teams ever deserve to win a title. And I believe that wholeheartedely. To those who say "who decides who 'deserves' to win a title other than a playoff?" I say if you lose a couple games I don't care how good you are at the end of the season--a title should only be won by a great team over the entire course of one season, not just the last few games. That is what makes football great. If a 3 loss M team got in the large playoff and won, I'd say the same thing--we won the title, I'm happy, but wer'e not the best team in the country. And I want only teams that can make a great case for being the best team over the course of a season, winning the title.

In reply to by umfan323

bsand2053

July 30th, 2015 at 3:15 PM ^

The problem is how grueling it is.  Not saying basketball is easy by any means, but we need to look at how many games we are asking these kids to play.  We are already at the point where the two teams in the championship are going to be playing 15 games (Reg season, Conf championship, semi finals and finals).  How much more is sustainable?

In reply to by umfan323

wolverine1987

July 30th, 2015 at 7:14 PM ^

there is more parity among the top teams than football, there are more than 4-5 teams who prove themselves over the course of a season--plus 34 game season allows for more losses than a 12 game season. But one thing does apply--often the tournament winner was not one of the best 3-4 teams that season.  My opinion is that for example, if a team with say, a 21-10 season record wins it all, that is actually not fair and a minor injustice--I do think there should be fewer teams in the tournament, 32 at most.

Yeoman

July 31st, 2015 at 10:28 AM ^

...that a large playoff field doesn't necessarily result in unworthy teams winning championships. In some sports--baseball, hockey--individual games are too short (in a statistical sense) for single-elimination tournaments to work, but football's not like that at all. Mount Union's been in the last ten finals, Whitewater's made it to nine of ten. I can't remember the last time a team with two losses won the championship, let alone three.

It's maybe worth noting that D3 has twice as many teams as FBS. The equivalent would be 16 teams, not 32.

mGrowOld

July 30th, 2015 at 2:11 PM ^

The thing is with Mke Leach talking this could very well be a goof and not seriously what he thinks.

He does tend to have a pretty good sense of humor.

sdogg1m

July 30th, 2015 at 2:13 PM ^

Bring back the Mythical National Championship reduce the regular season to twelve games excluding a bowl. Let the student athletes actually be... students!

sdogg1m

July 30th, 2015 at 2:20 PM ^

Leather helmets no thanks. Nine games is not a bad idea, is it?

Proposals like these will only be implemented for revenue reasons. The same people here who bemoan college football being a big business entertain ideas that will benefit the organizations and coaches but most certainly not the athletes.

Timnotep

July 30th, 2015 at 2:14 PM ^

I think the ideal number is either 6 (with two teams on a bye the first round) or 8 teams. I don't see them expanding it any further that that. 64 teams is just plain insane.

BlueWolverine02

July 30th, 2015 at 10:18 PM ^

I'd rather let in a team that doesn't deserve it then not include one that did.  And with conference AQ you completely remove any ESPN SEC bias.

 

And besides... how can anybody tell when a conference is down when they hardly play each other before the bowl.  Remember how the SEC was so tough and the B1G so weak before the bowl season last year?

 

8 teams with AQ is the perfect solution barring realignment of the conferences.  It rewards winning your conference first of all, takes out all bias for at least 5 teams, and isn't too big that it will negatively effect the regular season like a 16 team playoff would.

Btown Wolverine

July 30th, 2015 at 3:25 PM ^

I was just going to post this. It seems to make perfect sense to me. It leaves plenty of room for the Boise States of the world to play their way in, makes the conference championships matter, and only requires one game more than the national champion plays in the current system.

Tuebor

July 31st, 2015 at 2:47 PM ^

I don't think so.  With this arangement we would have had TCU and Baylor.  MSU may have been in as well.  So I don't think the SEC will get 4 teams in.  By the end of the season they have caniballized each other too much.  Now if you had three 1 loss SEC teams that would be a different story.

aratman

July 30th, 2015 at 4:25 PM ^

I don't want a 2 lose team to win?  They have to win on the field, I think auto bids to conference makes the playoff go from 8 to 13.  It makes the championship games mean something.  It makes the regular season mean something as only winning the division gets you to a sure playoff birth.  It gives Cinderella a chance to dance.  The underdog almost never wins but when they do it is exciting. 

bsgriffin1

July 30th, 2015 at 2:19 PM ^

I actually like the 4 team playoff, with one of the major 5 confrences being left out each year. Adds some spice to the whole thing. Maybe influences the conferences/teams to make tougher scheduals.

gwkrlghl

July 30th, 2015 at 3:04 PM ^

if Wisconsin (for example) knows they pretty much only have to have a nice record and win the B1G, then what incentive is there for them to schedule anyone with a pulse in the non-conference? There's actually incentive not to if your Big 5 champs all get in as long as they have 1-loss or less

LSAClassOf2000

July 30th, 2015 at 2:31 PM ^

With as many bowl games as there are now, the base elements are already there - now we just need to find a way to get the committee to choose that many teams and then prioritize the bowls accordingly. For example, the winner of the AutoNation Cure Bowl can play the winner of the Gildan New Mexico Bowl and thereby create a situation where a C-USA team is playing a Sun Belt team to advance to.....wait no, this is an awful example.