Is a 4-team playoff the best model?

I'll channel Andy Staples a bit and say it should be 8 teams. I look at that and as a fan salivate over some of those matchups. 

1 Clemson vs 8 Notre Dame (First game was epic, 2nd game probably just as much)

2 Alabama vs 7 Ohio State (Saban's revenge??)

3 MSU vs 6 Stanford (beat each other with large rocks football, B1G vs Pac 12 tradition)

4 Oklahoma vs 5 Iowa (Air Raid vs Ferentz's pretty great secondary)

 

Of course with an 8 team playoff these ranking and teams may be a bit different but still. I really think some amazing games would ensue

 

 

I don't think you can necessarily say that the big ten champ game was just for seeding. If there actually were 6 teams getting in the playoff, the committee may decide that Iowa doesn't deserve to get in and move them down so that some other team gets in. Since there's only four teams in, anything outside of 4 is more or less irrelevant.

However, if expansion comes along, I have always thought 12 was the perfect #.  16 is too much.  6 or 8 will usually leave out a few good teams.  12 should get all the teams who could actually win it all, and you can reward the best 4 with a bye.  This also helps good teams in smaller conferences have a better opportunity to get in the playoffs.

I like it the way it is.

In terms of watching the games and who is capable of beating who I don't see much difference between #1 and #8, but I do like the idea of maintaining the importance of the regular season and conference championship.  But, at the same time there are teams like Iowa who are there primarily due to being in the right half of the conference.  Everyone knows OSU is better than Iowa, but Iowa didn't play UM, MSU, or OSU.  So, is that fair either?  If we want fairness then we should get rid of divisions and let everyone play a rotating schedule or just play in-conference and get rid of out of conference games.  I don't think 4 teams is enough though.  What the right number is probably is different every year.

 

I do agree that too many games is not always good.  But, the toll of the season is not when these extra games are being played when there's been 3-5 weeks to rest.  The toll of these games happens in the last 3-4 games of the regular season IMO.  That's from a purely physical standpoint however without considering the effect of the games on travel and academics of young kids lives.

It makes the conference championship games count and it forces conferences as a whole to play tougher OOC games and get better.

I think the top 4 from this and last year have been spot on, so it's worked for 2 years at least.

I think 6 teams is the route to go. The Playoffs should include the P5 conference champs and 1 additional team. This year you would have Bama, MSU, Clemson, Oklahoma, Stanford and Iowa with Clemson and Bama getting byes.

Season games in some case are too important. I like an eight team model. The power five conference champs and three at-large. You insulate against a start of the year stumble while allowing the teams playing the best to get in.

I side with the people that advocate 8 and give home field to the higher seeds in the first round, how huge would that be? I do think we will stick with 4 for a few more years. This year the top 4 seemed pretty logical. Stanford might argue but they did have 2 losses. There will be years though when the top 4 won't be sorted out so logically.

I think 8 teams is the best way to go. The 5 conference winners and 3 at large teams. If you only go with one at large team then I foresee a lot of complaining about which team should go. Plus which two teams get byes will be another debate.

I am fine with 4 teams but want no more than 6. In both cases the playoffs really start with the conference championship games. More teams than that and you start minimizing the conference championship.

I like 4 and I think as time goes by people will realize how difficult it is to get in and playoff births will mean more. I think people will be surprised at the program's who don't get in even once after 10 years. 4 teams makes it really exclusive and if your conference is week that year you might not have a team get in. There will be years that the Big Ten doesn't get a team in. 4 teams seems perfect and 4 and only 4 teams deserved to get in this season.

Sign me up for 6-8. No more, but that would be fun.

And I think and Iowa/Stanford game could be fun.

Considering conference championships outside of the quality of the win that comes from the game itself is silly. Should USC have been automatically in if they beat Stanford? Should Florida have been in if they beat Bama?

8

literally every other college sport (including the other levels of college football) has a full playoff. I believe it should be similar to college basketball where if you win your conference you get an automatic bid, that makes eleven. Then to give the power conferences the advantage you create 5 at large bids and have a 16 team playoff just like a single bracket of the ncaa tourney. I don't want to hear any bullshit about "well that's too many games" because all other levels of football do that. There is plenty of time in December to have three playoff Saturdays, then you sort out the bowls and have a true championship game.