When Can the Playoff Expand to 8?
December 7th, 2014 at 1:47 AM ^
1. When you stop touching yourself.
2. No.
December 7th, 2014 at 1:48 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 1:48 AM ^
2. Yes. Shorten regular season to 11 games to compensate.
December 7th, 2014 at 1:50 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2014 at 4:23 AM ^
I've always found this argument the worst one. It's not like anyone is saying 64 teams. It's 8, lol.
It doesn't ruin the regular season and could actually make it better.
Why? Because it makes the race for a conference championship and the automatic bid so compelling. You'd have more regional games of importance at the end of the year because a team may not be in the hunt to make the top 4, but they still have a shot to win the conference championship and get in.
So you've just made your regular season matter even more to a lot of schools.
Yesterday Missouri, Wisconsin, Georgia Tech and Arizona on Friday would've all been playing for a spot in the playoff rather than just a spoiler role. I realize Arizona may have gotten in THIS playoff with a win over Oregon, but you get my point.
I would just say that the conference champion MUST be ranked in the top 10 to get that automatic spot. That eliminates your 7-5 championship game winner getting in.
The regular season would matter, conference championships would matter, head to head victories would matter. What else do you want?
8 teams. 5 automatic bids. 3 at-large bids. Play the quarterfinals at the home stadium of the top 4 seeds. Play the semifinals and the finals just like you do now.
December 7th, 2014 at 6:28 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 6:48 AM ^
You thought that Wisconsin, Arizona and Missouri were even worth being discussed for the national title? All three teams were dismantled completely. The SEC East and B1G West are just plain lousy divisions. Wisconsin had one weapon, Gordon, no QB and a sub-par defense that looked all world until they played a very good team. Gordon average 2.9 YPC last night.
Sometimes less is more. If 8 is good why not 16? There will always be one or two teams that feel it should have been considered for the NC.
While the NCAA tournament in bball is great, I believe it diminishes the value of a conference championship, to say nothing about conference playoffs.
Then there are the logistics. Unless you play games on a Friday night, just how would you play four games on a Saturday? Do you think the NFL, which schedules two games on one Saturday in December, this year Decembe 20, a date that you would have to be playing several college playoff games, would just give up the date?
I would not consider any team that does not belong to a conference without a playoff game. That is simply unfair. Fuck ND and any conference that doesn't have a playoff game.
What this makes a case for is playing some real teams outside your conference and leave the creampuffs to play each other, and schedule the out of conference teams over the course of the year.
Probably most important is the quality of the games which will become less and less competitive in the early round(s) of the playoffs. If you like blowouts, the more teams you add makes for greater disparity. Was the second half of the Oregon - Arizona, or OSU - Wiscy even worth watching?
Then, add injuries, academics, logistics and university presidents to the mix and how more games exacerbates these issues.
Eight games will probably happen, but should it?
December 7th, 2014 at 10:07 AM ^
Could be starting to play quite a few late december/early january big-time games in climates that are not so suited to football. Not that it necessarily matters, but it's not so much fun to watch very, very cold games. Also snow. Although that seems kinda fun.
December 7th, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^
The 4 team format is a total and utter farce.
December 7th, 2014 at 8:33 AM ^
I'd like to see 6 teams - with the top 2 teams getting a bye. Thus there is an incetive to finish in the top 2 and all major conference winners would have a "chance" to make it in.
December 7th, 2014 at 10:39 AM ^
I like this better than 8 teams. It makes seeding much more important:
#1-#2: Bye into final four
#3-#4: Home game against worse seed to get to final four
#5-#6: Road game against better seed to get to fnal four
There will always be "bubble teams" regardless of the cutoff. But taking the major conference winners plus one at-large should be good enough. ("If you want in, win your damn conference. If you can't do that, shut up.")
December 7th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
Letting the committee hand out BYEs to the SEC every year is total bullshit.
December 7th, 2014 at 1:56 PM ^
That format would have screwed one of Auburn, Oklahoma, or USC in 2004. (All were undefeated in the regular season.)
December 7th, 2014 at 9:04 AM ^
Any playoff in which deserving teams are left out for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance on the field is not a true measuring stick of who should be champion. I think they need eight teams with every power five conference champion getting in. The other three teams should be from a pool of lesser conference champions and the independent "champion."
If the regular season is to truly be important, make conference championships count. That also turns every conference championship game into a de facto first round of the tournament.
Until last year, every NCAA Basketball Tournament Winner since the turn of the millennium was a three seed or better. UConn was a seven seed. Remember that basketball has more upsets than football due to the uncertain nature of having to shoot the ball through a small hoop.
If last year hadn't happened, it could be said that the NCAA had gotten it right in seeding their top 16 teams. Now, maybe the pool of those with a "realistic" chance to win would have to be expanded to 32.
In football, eight would be enough. Even five would be enough. There is such a disparity between the power five and the other conferences that the others don't realistically belong, eve if they go undefeated. However, to prevent the possibility of anti-trust suits, they have to let at least one of the "other" teams in.
To me, eight is the perfect number. The first round could be next week. As for how long it takes to get to eight, it depends on how badly the team that is going to get screwed this year complains, how much their conference complains and how much power that conference has.
December 7th, 2014 at 1:52 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 4:40 AM ^
And the further the playoff expands, the more valuable NFL experience will be with its winner take all playoff system. A man who has NFL playoff experience will have an increasingly valuable skill set for coaching collegiate teams.
I agree 8 teams makes a lot of sense.
Come on home, Jimmy . . . .
December 7th, 2014 at 1:54 AM ^
I like 8, guarantee a spot to each power 5 champion, guarantee a spot to the best other 5 team (or whatever theyre calling them) and 2 wild cards. Not much to quibble over then, I'd even be fine without the 2 wild cards and just having byes in a 6 team playoff.
December 7th, 2014 at 2:31 AM ^
This weekend would be a good example. What happens when you have 2 in the Top 8 playing each other in a conference title game like with Arizona vs Oregon? Does Arizona get punished for losing the conference title game while a team that didn't have to play a conference title game slides in? When the rankings come out tomorrow, Arizona will have dropped and both MSU's, if not more teams, will have moved in front of them.
Agree the playoff needs to get to 8, but that is one item they'll need to figure out.
December 7th, 2014 at 2:32 AM ^
For your example, Arizona does not deserve the chance at a rematch after the way they played. So yes, they should be punished for getting destroyed in their conference championship game.
December 7th, 2014 at 2:36 AM ^
They've split the 2 games they've played with Oregon. Arizona won in Eugene and Oregon won a neutral field.
December 7th, 2014 at 2:46 AM ^
If both games were close and entertaining, then maybe. But if they were allowed the chance to have a rematch, then what is the point of even playing the conference championship game?
December 7th, 2014 at 5:14 AM ^
Wait, what? The championship game itself was already a rematch. Why allow Oregon that chance?
He made a good point. The 2 deserving wild card teams would often be conference championship game losers. So putting them in a playoff with teams who just beat them seems dumb, but then it's not fair to penalize them for having played an extra game and have some 3rd-place team who gets a chance to go in and make a run for the championship, and those teams would still be plenty good enough to pull a couple upsets and win it all. It would reward good teams who didn't win their division. Hell, if you were pegged for the conference championship game, it might even sometimes be beneficial to throw a final game and finish 2nd in your division to avoid another loss, especially if you're going up Alabama or something.
With that said, I think you either have to stick at 4, or more and more I like the idea of a 6-team playoff. 5 conference champs and 1 from the Group of Five. Top 2 get a bye. You can't really argue about undeserving teams getting in when you're talking about teams who won their conferences. The Group of Five team often won't be deserving, but it's a reward for the higher-seeded teams and sometimes they will be deserving (I think), so you have to include them somehow. Although everyone has their opinions about who should get in this year, any reasonable person has to admit it's just not going to be fair to the 2 teams who get left out.
December 7th, 2014 at 6:08 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 6:49 AM ^
I'm not sure what you're arguing against. What if Arizona did indeed lose by 2? They'd still be out of a 4 or 6 team playoff, as they should be...And I don't get the Alabama thing either. Yes, I would want them outside, and conference champs, including Auburn, in instead.
"The best playoff system is one that puts in every team that has a legit shot at winning the title."
I don't agree with that at all. You mean who could make a run? That could be almost any team in the top 25. It shouldn't just be which teams might win it all, it should just not leave out teams that we can't fairly say don't match up with the rest of the elite teams in any particular year. Is Bama really better than TCU right now? I don't know. Is Bama better than Miss. St. or Auburn or Arizona or Wisconsin or Georgia Tech or Kansas St.? Definitely.
December 8th, 2014 at 1:41 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 2:40 AM ^
There are two sides to CCGs, though. What if one or both teams are not in the top 8? They get a shot at playing themselves into a playoff that a team outside of the top 8 with no CCG doesn't get.
December 7th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^
you just require a CCG for all 5 of the major conferences. Problem solved.
December 7th, 2014 at 9:47 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 1:54 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 4:17 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 5:03 PM ^
make sense to schedule. SOS has never been given enough weight and probably never will. People always come up with other arguments. Baylor jumped TCU despite playing a nearly identical, but clearly weaker schedule. They won head to head at home 61-58 and that mattered more.
December 7th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
You have to go all the way back to 2007 to find a season in which there weren't more than four one loss or fewer teams in the top eight at the end of the regular season. Hell, in 2009, five of the top six teams were undefeated.
December 7th, 2014 at 1:56 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 1:57 AM ^
It'll eventually expand into an NFL-like format - power 5 champions plus however many wildcards. A majority will agree that this is fair, and it will stay like this until the next generation gets unruly.
December 7th, 2014 at 1:59 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2014 at 2:21 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 2:37 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 5:33 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 10:12 AM ^
with marshmallows, please!
December 7th, 2014 at 2:46 AM ^
right now you're looking at 1 loss team from a 'power 5' conference getting left out. If you go to 8 teams, you say the 5 conference champions get in and 3 at large. Will there be bickering about the 3? Yes but imo once you start getting into the 2 loss teams the cry won't be given as much weight as the cry coming from a 1 loss conference champion being left out.
December 7th, 2014 at 2:00 AM ^
1. When Jim Harbaugh says
2. Whatever Jim Harbaugh says
December 7th, 2014 at 2:15 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 3:12 AM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^
How has it been debunked?
It logically follows that the smaller a playoff is, the more importance is placed on the regular season. One extreme is the European soccer leagues with no playoff at all, so everything rides on the season. At the other is college basketball, which has a playoff so huge that no one remembers what happened in the regular season.
College football needs to be careful with this. An 8-team playoff would allow for a lot more margin of error during the regular season. I think four is fine.
December 8th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^
December 7th, 2014 at 9:59 AM ^
Yesterday was awesome for college football. It was like the end of the EPL: #4, 5 and 6 were all playing at the same time, all fighting for that last spot. It was awesome