16 Team Playoff

[Cdog923]

I think 4 is absolutely fine. It keeps the product itself from getting watered down, and the regular season still has meaning.

The Bowl system is what watered the post season down.

And the playoff is what brought some semblance of meaning to it. Expanding past 8 (which should be the absolute max) would kill 90% of the drama.

 

[Cdog923]

I hope we get to play Louisville in a bowl game.

Jebus, how big of a masochist are you?

 

[RunMickeyRun02]

The playoff system is an example where everything scales.

Prior to the BCS, you didn't have championship games. You just had bowls and polling picked the National Champions at the end of the season.

Then they introduced the BCS, which solved what most people wanted "We want to actually see the top two teams play". It introduced the issue, however, where we don't get to see the teams that missed the cut, through whatever reasons, even given the chance to compete.

So the CFP is introduced. It has all the same issues that the BCS had, but now we have 4 teams instead of 2.

So we introduce the 8 team playoff, and it doesn't solve any of the issues.

So we introduce a 16 team playoff, and it doesn't solve any of the issues.

So we intro...

In the end, what are we trying to accomplish?

Yes and playoff creep is something the NCAA was wary of between every step swearing the next step wouldn't come to pass.

As for the bolded,I like to use the example of the NFL or the NCAA in Basketball. The playoff gets big enough you are determining who won the playoff instead of who the best team is. I know it doesn't sound like there is a difference but there is. The two examples I point to (they are getting somewhat old now) are the last time the New York Giants won the super bowl they went 9-7 in the regular season, lost 4 games in a row at one point, 5 out of 6 in a stretch and 5 out of their last 8 regular season games yet won the Super Bowl. Now they WON the playoffs but were they really the best team that season?

My second example is in basketball, UCONN won it all in 2014 but only finished third in their own conference yet they won the big dance so does that mean they were truly the best team in the country that year? Or simply the hottest at the end of the season?

My point is at some point it becomes less about finding out who the best team is and more about crowning a survivor. Where that line is exactly, I don't know.

Edit: Thought of lots of other stuff....

 

[Blackshirt96]

No to 16.

8 team playoff after CCGs.

That would be my guess. The 5 power 5 champions & 3 at large.

 

[Fru]

8 teams max. Power 5 Conference Champs are in. 3 at large.

 

[Nebfanatic]

The playoff system is an example where everything scales.

Prior to the BCS, you didn't have championship games. You just had bowls and polling picked the National Champions at the end of the season.

Then they introduced the BCS, which solved what most people wanted "We want to actually see the top two teams play". It introduced the issue, however, where we don't get to see the teams that missed the cut, through whatever reasons, even given the chance to compete.

So the CFP is introduced. It has all the same issues that the BCS had, but now we have 4 teams instead of 2.

So we introduce the 8 team playoff, and it doesn't solve any of the issues.

So we introduce a 16 team playoff, and it doesn't solve any of the issues.

So we intro...

In the end, what are we trying to accomplish?

Yes and playoff creep is something the NCAA was wary of between every step swearing the next step wouldn't come to pass.
As for the bolded,I like to use the example of the NFL or the NCAA in Basketball. The playoff gets big enough you are determining who won the playoff instead of who the best team is. I know it doesn't sound like there is a difference but there is. The two examples I point to (they are getting somewhat old now) are the last time the New York Giants won the super bowl they went 9-7 in the regular season, lost 4 games in a row at one point, 5 out of 6 in a stretch and 5 out of their last 8 regular season games yet won the Super Bowl. Now they WON the playoffs but were they really the best team that season?

My second example is in basketball, UCONN won it all in 2014 but only finished third in their own conference yet they won the big dance so does that mean they were truly the best team in the country that year? Or simply the hottest at the end of the season?

My point is at some point it becomes less about finding out who the best team is and more about crowning a survivor. Where that line is exactly, I don't know.

Edit: Thought of lots of other stuff....

in all fairness though that happens with a 4 team playoff too. Ohio State would have gotten blown out by Alabama mid-season in 2014-2015, but they were on a roll at the end so they won

 

[SandhillshuskerW]

I definitely think they will go to an 8 team playoff within the next 5-10 years and that will probably be plenty for quite a while. Most years, if you aren't good enough to be in the top 8 you probably don't belong in the playoff. There would definitely be some upsets if they ever do go to 16 teams though.

 

[RunMickeyRun02]

The playoff system is an example where everything scales.

Prior to the BCS, you didn't have championship games. You just had bowls and polling picked the National Champions at the end of the season.

Then they introduced the BCS, which solved what most people wanted "We want to actually see the top two teams play". It introduced the issue, however, where we don't get to see the teams that missed the cut, through whatever reasons, even given the chance to compete.

So the CFP is introduced. It has all the same issues that the BCS had, but now we have 4 teams instead of 2.

So we introduce the 8 team playoff, and it doesn't solve any of the issues.

So we introduce a 16 team playoff, and it doesn't solve any of the issues.

So we intro...

In the end, what are we trying to accomplish?

Yes and playoff creep is something the NCAA was wary of between every step swearing the next step wouldn't come to pass.
As for the bolded,I like to use the example of the NFL or the NCAA in Basketball. The playoff gets big enough you are determining who won the playoff instead of who the best team is. I know it doesn't sound like there is a difference but there is. The two examples I point to (they are getting somewhat old now) are the last time the New York Giants won the super bowl they went 9-7 in the regular season, lost 4 games in a row at one point, 5 out of 6 in a stretch and 5 out of their last 8 regular season games yet won the Super Bowl. Now they WON the playoffs but were they really the best team that season?

My second example is in basketball, UCONN won it all in 2014 but only finished third in their own conference yet they won the big dance so does that mean they were truly the best team in the country that year? Or simply the hottest at the end of the season?

My point is at some point it becomes less about finding out who the best team is and more about crowning a survivor. Where that line is exactly, I don't know.

Edit: Thought of lots of other stuff....

in all fairness though that happens with a 4 team playoff too. Ohio State would have gotten blown out by Alabama mid-season in 2014-2015, but they were on a roll at the end so they won

Yeah you could make the argument even pre-BCS. I could be wrong but I bet a lot of people would say the 83 team was better than the Miami team that upset them.

So it again becomes a question like HuskerMav said, "In the end, what are we trying to accomplish? "

It's another reason why I'm /meh about national championships. The trophies and the recruits it attracts are nice but I'd rather just win games.

 

[Michiganball]

The playoff system is an example where everything scales.

Prior to the BCS, you didn't have championship games. You just had bowls and polling picked the National Champions at the end of the season.

Then they introduced the BCS, which solved what most people wanted "We want to actually see the top two teams play". It introduced the issue, however, where we don't get to see the teams that missed the cut, through whatever reasons, even given the chance to compete.

So the CFP is introduced. It has all the same issues that the BCS had, but now we have 4 teams instead of 2.

So we introduce the 8 team playoff, and it doesn't solve any of the issues.

So we introduce a 16 team playoff, and it doesn't solve any of the issues.

So we intro...

In the end, what are we trying to accomplish?

Yes and playoff creep is something the NCAA was wary of between every step swearing the next step wouldn't come to pass.
As for the bolded,I like to use the example of the NFL or the NCAA in Basketball. The playoff gets big enough you are determining who won the playoff instead of who the best team is. I know it doesn't sound like there is a difference but there is. The two examples I point to (they are getting somewhat old now) are the last time the New York Giants won the super bowl they went 9-7 in the regular season, lost 4 games in a row at one point, 5 out of 6 in a stretch and 5 out of their last 8 regular season games yet won the Super Bowl. Now they WON the playoffs but were they really the best team that season?

My second example is in basketball, UCONN won it all in 2014 but only finished third in their own conference yet they won the big dance so does that mean they were truly the best team in the country that year? Or simply the hottest at the end of the season?

My point is at some point it becomes less about finding out who the best team is and more about crowning a survivor. Where that line is exactly, I don't know.

Edit: Thought of lots of other stuff....

in all fairness though that happens with a 4 team playoff too. Ohio State would have gotten blown out by Alabama mid-season in 2014-2015, but they were on a roll at the end so they won

Yeah you could make the argument even pre-BCS. I could be wrong but I bet a lot of people would say the 83 team was better than the Miami team that upset them.

So it again becomes a question like HuskerMav said, "In the end, what are we trying to accomplish? "

It's another reason why I'm /meh about national championships. The trophies and the recruits it attracts are nice but I'd rather just win games.

What do you mean "In the end, what are we trying to accomplish? "

Huskers? Well win a championship, what else? Go to the Rose bowl?. Same for any other team. For the fans, knowing that a large enough group of teams was invited as to avoid leaving out a team deserving a shot at the finals, and most of all for fans to get some great entertainment.

And no if you loose a game on the field, you were not better then that team, upset or not, because you did not loose on paper, on charts, on comparison to other teams, but on the field, and thats all that matters.

 

[Mavric]

No to 16.

8 team playoff after CCGs.

8 teams is perfect. Power five champions, one group of five, and two at-larges. If any team has beef, well, win your damn conference (or join a conference, Notre Dame!)

I still think 8 would be perfect. 1-I think anyone can make a legit argument on any given year in the 4 team format for teams 5-8. Esp this year. With Bama the obvious 1 right now, the rest is pretty even.

2-with 8, you can really simplify by allowing power 5 conference champs automatic bids. I know this is weird cuz the big 12's issues and on the cuff of being dismantled, but as it stands now,...

3-you'd have 3 more spots for wildcards, 1 of which should be reserved for the best non-power5 program. This is way I've always thought it should go. it would only add one more game to what we already have. the quarters could be played in middle of december at home sights, 2 weeks after CCG's. Would be just enough dose to keep folks intrigued.

8 teams max. Power 5 Conference Champs are in. 3 at large.

These guys get it.

 

[GBRFAN]

I really like the idea of all 5 conferences being represented. It's just another way to show if they belong or don't. With less and less non-conference games coming in the future there needs to be away besides the media to determine how strong a conference is. 5 +3(at large) seems good.

Can't see what the strong argument for 16 would be? and 4 is ok, however there have been years where the the difference between #2 and #5 is too tight to call.

This to me makes about as much sense as putting the Big East Champion into a BCS bowl used to make. Oklahoma is in the driver seat of the Big 12 this year. They already got spanked like a red headed stepchild by Ohio State who may not even win the B1G. They play next to zero defense. I don't see why they should automatically qualify just for winning a $hitty conference this year. Every power 5 conference goes through its down years. Champions during those years shouldn't be rewarded with a playoff berth. Take 2012 for example, 8-6 Wisconsin would have been in the playoff. Watching that would have been about as exciting as watching unranked UConn getting steamrolled in a BCS bowl.

You make a couple great arguments, however you are talking about a OU team that got beat early in the year and a Wisc team that was 3rd or 4th best in their division (total fluke). As long as 6 or 7 of the teams in the playoff are considered the "best" it is ok to have some representation with the other 1 or 2.

 

[HuskerMav11]

The playoff system is an example where everything scales.

Prior to the BCS, you didn't have championship games. You just had bowls and polling picked the National Champions at the end of the season.

Then they introduced the BCS, which solved what most people wanted "We want to actually see the top two teams play". It introduced the issue, however, where we don't get to see the teams that missed the cut, through whatever reasons, even given the chance to compete.

So the CFP is introduced. It has all the same issues that the BCS had, but now we have 4 teams instead of 2.

So we introduce the 8 team playoff, and it doesn't solve any of the issues.

So we introduce a 16 team playoff, and it doesn't solve any of the issues.

So we intro...

In the end, what are we trying to accomplish?

Yes and playoff creep is something the NCAA was wary of between every step swearing the next step wouldn't come to pass.
As for the bolded,I like to use the example of the NFL or the NCAA in Basketball. The playoff gets big enough you are determining who won the playoff instead of who the best team is. I know it doesn't sound like there is a difference but there is. The two examples I point to (they are getting somewhat old now) are the last time the New York Giants won the super bowl they went 9-7 in the regular season, lost 4 games in a row at one point, 5 out of 6 in a stretch and 5 out of their last 8 regular season games yet won the Super Bowl. Now they WON the playoffs but were they really the best team that season?

My second example is in basketball, UCONN won it all in 2014 but only finished third in their own conference yet they won the big dance so does that mean they were truly the best team in the country that year? Or simply the hottest at the end of the season?

My point is at some point it becomes less about finding out who the best team is and more about crowning a survivor. Where that line is exactly, I don't know.

Edit: Thought of lots of other stuff....

in all fairness though that happens with a 4 team playoff too. Ohio State would have gotten blown out by Alabama mid-season in 2014-2015, but they were on a roll at the end so they won

Yeah you could make the argument even pre-BCS. I could be wrong but I bet a lot of people would say the 83 team was better than the Miami team that upset them.

So it again becomes a question like HuskerMav said, "In the end, what are we trying to accomplish? "

It's another reason why I'm /meh about national championships. The trophies and the recruits it attracts are nice but I'd rather just win games.

What do you mean "In the end, what are we trying to accomplish? "

Huskers? Well win a championship, what else? Go to the Rose bowl?. Same for any other team. For the fans, knowing that a large enough group of teams was invited as to avoid leaving out a team deserving a shot at the finals, and most of all for fans to get some great entertainment.

And no if you loose a game on the field, you were not better then that team, upset or not, because you did not loose on paper, on charts, on comparison to other teams, but on the field, and thats all that matters.

First off, lose only has a one 'o' in it.

Second, use some context clues, bud. The whole statement was about the NCAAF post-season. So obviously, the question is, what are we trying to accomplish by changing the post-season? Crowning the champion? Well, playoffs don't always do that.

Finally, no, the best team does not always win the football game. Winning is all that matters, but sometimes the worser team wins. Example, my brother-in-law is a way better basketball player than I am. With that said, sometimes I beat him in 1-on-1. I don't become better than him just by beating him. He still beats me 9 times out of 10.

 

[junior4949]

I really like the idea of all 5 conferences being represented. It's just another way to show if they belong or don't. With less and less non-conference games coming in the future there needs to be away besides the media to determine how strong a conference is. 5 +3(at large) seems good.

Can't see what the strong argument for 16 would be? and 4 is ok, however there have been years where the the difference between #2 and #5 is too tight to call.

This to me makes about as much sense as putting the Big East Champion into a BCS bowl used to make. Oklahoma is in the driver seat of the Big 12 this year. They already got spanked like a red headed stepchild by Ohio State who may not even win the B1G. They play next to zero defense. I don't see why they should automatically qualify just for winning a $hitty conference this year. Every power 5 conference goes through its down years. Champions during those years shouldn't be rewarded with a playoff berth. Take 2012 for example, 8-6 Wisconsin would have been in the playoff. Watching that would have been about as exciting as watching unranked UConn getting steamrolled in a BCS bowl.

You make a couple great arguments, however you are talking about a OU team that got beat early in the year and a Wisc team that was 3rd or 4th best in their division (total fluke). As long as 6 or 7 of the teams in the playoff are considered the "best" it is ok to have some representation with the other 1 or 2.

At the end of the day, OU just isn't very good this year. They struggled against 1-7 Iowa State last night. I don't like them being an automatic qualifier just for winning a lesser conference this year. What really needs to be addressed though is what do you do in a year like 2012 when 8-6 Wisconsin wins the B1G. To me, it would be a travesty to put an unranked team in the playoff just because they won a power 5 conference.

We all know that conference realignment is far from over. Considering the ultimate goal is to make the playoff and win a NC, automatically qualifying power 5 champions in an 8 team playoff could have huge implications.

No matter what is done, it won't be perfect. However, I've got to think most fans just want to see the best teams compete at the end of the year for the NC. By automatically qualifying power 5 champions, at times this won't happen.

The other thing that needs to be addressed is the thing most who were against a playoff which is games becoming meaningless. By having a conference championship game and that winner automatically making the playoff, a lot of times a game played during the regular season becomes that: exactly meaningless. Conference championship games over the years have resulted in a repeat game for two teams within the conference that played during the regular season. In 2012, we had already played Wisconsin during the regular season. This year, it appears Wisconsin will play either Ohio State or Michigan. We've already seen that game.

What I'm advocating isn't perfect. However, I believe it is closer than having conference championship games and then automatically taking the winners of the power 5's. Do away with the conference championship games because it is somewhat common the two teams have already played in the regular season. Take the top 8 rated teams at the end of the season and put them into a playoff regardless of what conference they belong. At times a conference may get two or three in while at others they may not get any.

 

[macroboy]

Every other level of college football - FCS, D2, D3, NAIA - has 16-24 team playoffs. There is absolutely no good reason why FBS only has four damn teams in their playoff. How did this even happen? How did we break from the complete lack of a playoff to just a 4 team playoff?

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner!

"I don't see how this could ever work!" Really? Everyone else already figured it out.

 

[macroboy]

If you don't like 16 don't watch it when it expands that far…

I will watch every one. I will tell my wife to take the kids to her dads and stay away until it is over. This would be one of the greatest things ever!