8 Team Playoff
December 8th, 2013 at 2:20 AM ^
Absolutely. 4 teams is not enough.
December 8th, 2013 at 2:25 AM ^
I do think it expands eventually, but i don't know how far. i kind of like the idea of a six team playoff. Top two teams get a bye, then you go 3-6 and 4-5. So you'd get something like Alabama v Ohio State and Stanford v MSU. But even that starts to get a little messy. With the conference championship games involved, you'd wind up with a lot of tricky matchups trying to avoid rematches.
December 8th, 2013 at 2:32 AM ^
Sure, provided they go back to a 10 game regular season. The "student athletes" are playing too many games, nearly an NFL season now.
December 8th, 2013 at 3:14 AM ^
If they did go to a larger playoff, it would be an easy way to pay the players. Take a large chunk of the billions an 8+ playoff would generate and put it into a fund for the players. If you want to cling to the amateurism of it all, make it payable upon graduation.
December 8th, 2013 at 6:51 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^
Football is far more physically punishing than basketball. And the higher the level of football, the more punishing it gets. There are no 250-pound guys with 4.5 speed playing in D2 or D3. It's a much less hard-hitting game at those levels.
If you go to an eight-team playoff, it makes sense to go back to an 11-game regular season, and drop the conference title games. Otherwise we're talking about these guys playing 16 games, and they can't make midseason free-agent signings like in the NFL.
December 8th, 2013 at 10:43 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 9:17 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 10:00 AM ^
and DII and DIII as well
The arguments against a FBS playoff are silly. Basketball and hockey play several away games on weeknights per season. I havent heard anyone complain against that
December 8th, 2013 at 10:32 AM ^
It's not just an issue of missing class time (although that should be a consideration whenever they schedule these things). It's an issue of how much you can physically ask of these guys. Elite college football teams are a lot faster and harder-hitting than teams in the lower classifications. If they go to a playoff that involves three rounds, they should think about trimming the length of the regular season.
December 8th, 2013 at 2:32 AM ^
Michigan would need a 64-team playoff this season to get an invite.
December 8th, 2013 at 2:50 AM ^
you must be fun at parties.
December 8th, 2013 at 5:11 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 6:56 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 2:00 PM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 2:47 AM ^
I want to see champions only: the "big 5" major conferences and three others chosen by rank. Make the division races and championship games actually mean something. Conference Championship games would be de facto playoff games, producing a playoff that actually has from 12-16 participants.
December 8th, 2013 at 3:16 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 4:11 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 7:45 AM ^
ND doesn't have to deal with a conference championship game, a huge advantage and something that I would rquire to be considered for a playoff.
I would give nobody a bye.
Football, unlike basketball, is a logicstical nightmare when you consider that you must move close to 500 people for three weeks right around exam time. Band members and cheerleaders typically don't end up in the NFL. I suspect you would see considerable resistance from school presidents if you were to consider an eight game format.
December 8th, 2013 at 8:28 AM ^
After the see how much money the four team playoff makes that resistence will disappear.
December 8th, 2013 at 3:05 PM ^
This. It will happen alot sooner than most think.
December 8th, 2013 at 9:25 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 11:35 AM ^
I could do without the band or cheerleaders if that was seriously an impediment.
December 8th, 2013 at 3:22 PM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 6:58 AM ^
That's a format I would like to see.
December 8th, 2013 at 8:33 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^
But with 3 At-Larges you mitigate somone like Alabama this year being left out.
December 8th, 2013 at 1:01 PM ^
Didn't he say the at large couldn't be from the big conferences? That would have Alabama stay home so UCF gets a shot.
December 8th, 2013 at 3:03 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 3:56 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 4:14 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 6:09 AM ^
I agree that the current model screws over teams like MSU. They only lost one game. Same as Auburn. Hell, Stanford lost two and they are ranked higher than MSU. Yet, they don't get a shot at being in the title game because they werent ranked high to start the season. And by the time they were in the top 10, it was too late. A playoff (in theory) fixes those types of scenarios. But four teams is likely still too small since its doubtful MSU would be one of the four teams in a playoff (most likely FSU, Auburn, Alabama, Stanford).
December 8th, 2013 at 7:31 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 8:49 AM ^
Auburn did nto receive any votes in the preseason poll. MSU was the top "vote-getting" team outside of the top 25. Auburn made their big leap up when they beat then #7 Texas A&M. That win moved them from #24 to #11. They lost the same day that MSU lost too (Sept. 21) and both dropped out of the polls. MSU didn't have a signature win until they beat us (we were ranked #21 at the time). The timeline looked like this -
| MSU | AUB | ||
| preseason | 26 | NR | |
| week 2 | 29 | NR | |
| week 3 | 27 | NR | |
| week 4 | 26 | 33 | |
| week 5 | 34 | NR | loss to LSU and ND |
| week 6 | bye | bye | |
| week 7 | 30 | 26 | |
| week 8 | 26 | 24 | |
| week 9 | 26 | 11 | win vs TAMU |
| week 10 | 22 | 11 | |
| week 11 | 17 | 9 | win versus U-M |
| week 12 | 16 | 7 | |
| week 13 | 13 | 6 | |
| week 14 | 11 | 4 | |
| week 15 | 10 | 3 |
Both teams continued to climb the polls as they continued to win; the difference was the big jump made by beating a top 10 team - which MSU didn't have mid-season.
December 8th, 2013 at 9:54 AM ^
Two other factors to add in to the equaion, though:
1) Not only did they beat A&M, but also the reigning Heisman winner, "Johnny Football", which helped them in the giant leap from #24 to #11.
2) They have the mystique of "SEC! SEC! SEC!" going for them, while the B1G's image of weakness did nothing to help spartie.
December 8th, 2013 at 10:25 AM ^
For visual...
They both jumped at the same time, then continued to climb as teams dropped out.
December 8th, 2013 at 11:05 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 11:15 AM ^
Yup, pre season polls are just stupid.
December 8th, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
MSU played a weak schedule. That was their bigger problem. Auburn went through a meat-grinder of a schedule, beating Georgia, Alabama and Missouri in three straight weeks.
December 8th, 2013 at 5:20 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 7:12 AM ^
That pressure isn't going to go anywhere and the NFL comparisons don't hold water. There's a world of difference between 32 teams fighting for 12 playoff spots and 120 teams fighting for 8. For every regular season game that you claim would become less meaningful, I could name three or four that would become more meaningful due to so many more teams being in the hunt.
Yesterday, for example, we had three teams playing for two spots. Just imagine if Oklahoma State, Stanford, ASU, and even Texas and Baylor had all been playing to get into an eight-team playoff. The stakes for the other games would have been even larger with Duke, MSU, and Missouri all playing to get in as well. Maybe NIU blew a shot at a possible playoff spot and maybe somebody like Oregon sneaks in after yesterday's games as well.
If anything, the regular season would become more meaningful to more teams in the later stages.
December 8th, 2013 at 8:21 AM ^
but Alabama vs. Auburn would have been meaningless then.
I think that most of the time you would devalue the games and that's a bad decision in college football. All of the conversation about national championships already makes the games mean less to lots of people.
December 8th, 2013 at 8:29 AM ^
No it wouldn't have been. If Auburn losing that game they would have been out of the top 8. Bama would be playing for the #1 seed and a much easier opponent.
December 8th, 2013 at 9:13 AM ^
No. Again, most of the time, you would add value to the games. Again, for every game that you claim would become less meaningful, I will show you multiple games played that same day that would become more meaningful.
I gave how many examples of games that would have had more meaning yesterday and your response is, "but what about that Alabama-Auburn game?" Come on. From that same day, what about South Carolina-Clemson or Stanford-Notre Dame? What about Missouri beating A&M on a late fourth quarter TD to remain in the playoff picture or Baylor beating TCU by a field goal?
Go back and pick any game from, say, the last three weeks of any season of the last decade and that would not have been as big if there were an eight team playoff. I'll show you multiple games played that same day that would have been bigger thanks to one.
December 8th, 2013 at 2:22 PM ^
If you were to go to eight games, that would definitely diminish in some conferences the importance of the conference championship.
December 8th, 2013 at 3:58 PM ^
Of course, some games will be diminished in some capacity. There will be examples of that under any given hypothetical system.
But I'll say the same thing again. Go ahead and go back and show me specific conference championship games that would have been diminished from the past decade and I'll bet you anything that I can show you more examples of games from that same year that would have had more on the line.
What conference championship games would have been diminished if an eight team playoff were in place this year, for example?
SEC championship game would have been bigger.
B1G: bigger
Big 12: no championship game but both Oklahoma-Ok. St. and Texas-Baylor would have been bigger.
ACC: Duke playing to get in.
Pac 12: bigger
AAC: bigger
NIU may have been playing for a spot, as well.
Surely, you can imagine how much more important yesterday would have been to the fans of Texas, Stanford, MSU, etc.
I see people claim all the time a playoff would diminish the importance of the regular season, but I have yet to see any concrete examples beyond a specific game here or there. I don't believe that they are seeing the big picture as it seems to me that a playoff accomplishes exactly the opposite.
Also, we get to take eight of the best teams in the country and put them in a system that brings about matchups that we very rarely get to see. I will never understand why any college football fan sees that as a bad thing.
And if all that you're saying is that some schools won't value their conference championship as much if there is a playoff, I have to disagree with that for the most part as well. There would be exceptions, of course, but if we went with six qualifying conferences with only two at-large bids, winning the conference championship game would be the only way into a playoff for the vast majority of teams playing in those games.
December 8th, 2013 at 6:12 AM ^
I think a 6-8 team playoff would actually make the season more enjoyable. In the current model (and even with the 4-team playoff) if your team loses a game, you're pretty much screwed. Lose two and things are even worse. And like we saw around here, when the season gets to that point, things get pretty bleak. And that's only for a team with two losses, which is insane. A greater margin of error should provide more hope and make for a better season.
December 8th, 2013 at 8:46 AM ^
It is all stupid; the BCS, playoffs, etc. The desired model seems to be the NFL. College football would do better by distinguishing itself from the NFL.
Here's hoping that the new college football playoff system will run into some terrible problems as soon as it goes into effect, with fifth- and sixth-rated teams complaining about being left out, and with blowout games that leave everyone dissatisfied and cheated.
The men who built college football and who knew it best pretty much all hated the idea of cfb playoffs.
December 8th, 2013 at 6:47 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 7:17 AM ^