12-Team Playoff On the Way; 14-Team to Follow

[RedDenver]

Just now, jaws said:

Maybe your personal priorities have changed some over the years? 

I'm sure they have.

 

Just now, jaws said:

I tell you, even though OSU got thumped against Bama last year, beating Clemson was a very nice way for OSU to cap off a crap year of college football. Under a new system the stakes are now higher for teams like Cincinnati because their games will actually matter. We had system since the start of AP poll where most of the games didn't really matter because 1/2 of the teams never had a shot to play for a title before fall camp even started. Kind of hard to build and sustain a program under those terms. 

You're assuming only games that lead to a national title matter. And that's a big part of my issue with the playoff vs the old system. In the old system all the games mattered because there was no winnowing of the field to some subset that got to the playoff. Now only games that contribute to getting into the playoff matter.

[NoLongerN]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Sure, that would be fun for me as a Nebraska fan.

 

But I used to watch as many of the bowl games as I could under the old system and as much of the regular season as I could. I rarely watch regular season games in sports with big playoffs at the end because the stakes just don't really matter all that much. And I now barely watch college football games other than Nebraska. I watch a few bowl games but rarely watch the playoffs because I haven't followed the teams during the season and generally don't care who wins. I think overall the old bowl system was better for the sport as a whole. The playoff just attempts to limit the debate over who was best that year but doesn't really add anything IMO.

This was interesting.  Enjoyed your read.  I'm just the opposite.  I watch the whole season.  I watch none of the bowls except for the big playoff game bowls.  I really refuse to watch the lower tier bowls ... all that is a waste as I see it.  I personally wouldn't reward a team nor want any game with less than 8 wins.  Comparing my thoughts to basketball .. I'd watch any game in the bracket of 64 teams and find it intriguing [and I'm a football first guy over basketball] ... but when it comes to the NIT, I won't watch any of it but perhaps the championship game ... and even then ... it's a yawn and below the field of 64.

I'd be a bigger fan of an 8-10 game regular season for football to groom the best teams for a bigger playoff with conference champs from the big 5 conferences and then more of a an evaluation tank for the other spots based on a set standard of selection criteria. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, jaws said:

Why do people have an attachment to the old bowl system? With the time off between the regular season and the bowl season it didn't provide you with a true continuation of the season. It had this odd gap between games that hurt some teams and helped others get healthy. It is such an odd way to play out a football season and it doesn't exists at any other level. 

 

Expand the playoff and shorten the regular season by one game. It would be great if there was an actual limit on conference size so everyone would play each other within their conference every year. 

Completely agree.  The old bowl system was the most idiotic way for a major sport to determine a champion.  

[NoLongerN]

^^ Yep and Yep!

[Mavric]

58 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You're assuming only games that lead to a national title matter. And that's a big part of my issue with the playoff vs the old system. In the old system all the games mattered because there was no winnowing of the field to some subset that got to the playoff. Now only games that contribute to getting into the playoff matter.

 

I think this is something people like to say but really isn't true.  Not all the games mattered before.  Alabama/LSU in 2011 was literally the most worthless game there was yet had a direct effect on the national championship game.  In fact, you could argue that Alabama benefitted from losing that game because it gave them an easier path to the National Championship (no SEC title game).

 

There is really no logical way to argue that games under the old system meant more to determining the national champion than they do now, nor in the future.  Under the BCS and previous versions, most teams were out of consideration after one loss and everyone was out after two losses.  Any further games were meaningless.  Under a four-team playoff one loss doesn't necessarily eliminate you, thus more games are meaningful.  Two losses wouldn't necessarily eliminate you from a 12-team playoff, thus more games are meaningful.

 

It's fine for people to prefer a different system.  But to argue that expanding the playoffs make games less meaningful doesn't hold water.  There may be some games that lose meaning - like there have been before - but there are far more games that gain meaning than lose meaning.

[RedDenver]

46 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I think this is something people like to say but really isn't true.  Not all the games mattered before.  Alabama/LSU in 2011 was literally the most worthless game there was yet had a direct effect on the national championship game.  In fact, you could argue that Alabama benefitted from losing that game because it gave them an easier path to the National Championship (no SEC title game).

 

There is really no logical way to argue that games under the old system meant more to determining the national champion than they do now, nor in the future. 

I'm not arguing this, in fact I'm arguing the opposite: that the old bowl system was better partly because it did not try to determine the national champion. Nor am I arguing that the BCS system was better - it also was worse than the old bowl system. I don't think trying to find the "one true champion" is worth the degradation of the regular season.

 

46 minutes ago, Mavric said:

It's fine for people to prefer a different system.  But to argue that expanding the playoffs make games less meaningful doesn't hold water.  There may be some games that lose meaning - like there have been before - but there are far more games that gain meaning than lose meaning.

I disagree. It's obviously a matter of opinion, but it's very clear that the BCS and especially now with the playoffs far more games have become less meaningful. The number of games that have gained meaning are literally 3 games - the three playoff games.

[jaws]

8 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm not arguing this, in fact I'm arguing the opposite: that the old bowl system was better partly because it did not try to determine the national champion. Nor am I arguing that the BCS system was better - it also was worse than the old bowl system. I don't think trying to find the "one true champion" is worth the degradation of the regular season.

 

I disagree. It's obviously a matter of opinion, but it's very clear that the BCS and especially now with the playoffs far more games have become less meaningful. The number of games that have gained meaning are literally 3 games - the three playoff games.

 

So basically every single sport is wrong and FBS college football has it right? If they did not try in the past to determine a national champion then why did the AP, coaches, and others hand out a national championship trophy? The regular season is just that, a regular season...before it didn't have much meaning and now it does and it will have more once they allow for all teams to have a chance at the playoff. What college football needs to learn, and the NFL can't help themselves, is to not expand the regular season. Cut it back at least a game so wins and losses have more weight. 

[Mavric]

15 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I disagree. It's obviously a matter of opinion, but it's very clear that the BCS and especially now with the playoffs far more games have become less meaningful. The number of games that have gained meaning are literally 3 games - the three playoff games.

 

You are totally discounting the games that determine who gets to play in those three games.  A lot more games have meaning now because there are more spots available, thus more teams vying to make those spots, thus more games are meaningful.  That's not really a matter of opinion.  That is a fact.

[runningblind]

23 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

You are totally discounting the games that determine who gets to play in those three games.  A lot more games have meaning now because there are more spots available, thus more teams vying to make those spots, thus more games are meaningful.  That's not really a matter of opinion.  That is a fact.

This is why in my opinion an 8 or 12 team playoff makes the regular season even more important.  When teams have a valid path in, like winning the conference, it's all important.

[RedDenver]

15 minutes ago, jaws said:

 

So basically every single sport is wrong and FBS college football has it right? If they did not try in the past to determine a national champion then why did the AP, coaches, and others hand out a national championship trophy? The regular season is just that, a regular season...before it didn't have much meaning and now it does and it will have more once they allow for all teams to have a chance at the playoff. What college football needs to learn, and the NFL can't help themselves, is to not expand the regular season. Cut it back at least a game so wins and losses have more weight. 

I'm not saying it's "wrong"; I'm saying it's less interesting and devalues the regular season in exchange for not arguing about the "one true champion". I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze. And not every sport has to be the same or do things the same way. I was hopeful that the playoff would be more interesting than the BCS, but it's not IMO. It's better for determining the national champ on the field, but I don't really care since it's more a popularity contest followed by which team plays the best for a couple games after a month off. The Giants beating the Patriots in 2012 shows that you can't really determine which team is "best", only which team won the last set of games, so it's not like a playoff is infallible or exact even in determining the champ.

 

13 minutes ago, Mavric said:

You are totally discounting the games that determine who gets to play in those three games.  A lot more games have meaning now because there are more spots available, thus more teams vying to make those spots, thus more games are meaningful.  That's not really a matter of opinion.  That is a fact.

Those games existed before the playoffs existed. More games were meaningful because the playoff wasn't the end-all be-all of the season.

 

Look, I like March Madness and watch some of those games, but I never watch regular season college basketball, so it's a trade-off. The CFB could have a compelling playoff like basketball, but I right now I don't care at all if my team isn't in it, so it's not there yet for me. Maybe 8 or 12 teams will pique my interest, but 4 teams and 2 teams are worse than no teams IMO.

[Mavric]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Those games existed before the playoffs existed. More games were meaningful because the playoff wasn't the end-all be-all of the season.

 

Of course they existed before.  They mean as much as they did before and now more because there are more games that have national title implications.

 

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Look, I like March Madness and watch some of those games, but I never watch regular season college basketball, so it's a trade-off. The CFB could have a compelling playoff like basketball, but I right now I don't care at all if my team isn't in it, so it's not there yet for me. Maybe 8 or 12 teams will pique my interest, but 4 teams and 2 teams are worse than no teams IMO.

 

A 68-team basketball tournament has a significantly different effect on regular-season games than a 4- or 8- or 12- team football playoff.  That should be obvious.  Same reason that baseball and basketball regular seasons don't mean nearly as much as the NFL.  

 

There is definitely a tipping point.  Up to a point having more teams in a playoff makes more games matter.  But after that point the regular-season games would lose value.  That's partly why I've always been a fan of an 8-team playoff but not 16.  I'm still on the fence about 12.  I can see the reasoning and it sounds like there won't be enough of a consensus to do eight so 12 is the only  other option and if that's the case I can live with it.  16 is too many because then the value of games does start to go down.  But that's definitely not the case with 8 and it may start to go down at 12 relative to 8 but still more than four because there are a lot more teams in the conversation.  

 

Heck, if nothing else all the G5 games go WAY up in importance under this proposal because those team are basically eliminated be default to start the season right now.

[BigRedBuster]

The argument that a play off is "devaluing regular season games" from what they were before....or "devaluing other bowls" from what they were has always baffled me.

 

Teams have to win games to get into the play offs.  Meanwhile, in the mid 80s, Nebraska against ISU meant something because we needed to win it to win the conference.  Meanwhile, ISU against Missouri really meant nothing.  Those scenarios are still the same.  OSU against Nebraska means something because they have to win it to stay in the hunt.  Meanwhile, Purdue against Rutgers means nothing.

 

Meanwhile, currently, we have three "bowl games" that means something in the play offs.  Everyone else is just playing an extra game for fun.  

 

In the 80s, you might have had a few bowl games that meant something, the rest were just playing games for fun.

 

In 1997, Husker fans would have loved to play Michigan to shut them up and prove we were #1...and vice versa.  

 

Now.....those two teams would meet on the field and prove it (if they were in different conferences like before).

 

I don't see the problem that some people seem to harp on.

[Mavric]

 

[MyBloodIsRed16]

Win your conference get in the playoff.  Plus the non power 5 blah blah.  Instead of traditional bowl games  the fans should vote or schools should decide who and where they play.  Say Nebraska and Florida state had solid years but missed the playoffs.  Fans vote to have them play eachother for nostalgia but this time in an cold weather setting.  Good for ratings even if it doesnt mean anything.  Tom and Bobby can be ceremonial captains for the coin toss.

[J-MAGIC]

17 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

The argument that a play off is "devaluing regular season games" from what they were before....or "devaluing other bowls" from what they were has always baffled me.

 

Teams have to win games to get into the play offs.  Meanwhile, in the mid 80s, Nebraska against ISU meant something because we needed to win it to win the conference.  Meanwhile, ISU against Missouri really meant nothing.  Those scenarios are still the same.  OSU against Nebraska means something because they have to win it to stay in the hunt.  Meanwhile, Purdue against Rutgers means nothing.

 

Meanwhile, currently, we have three "bowl games" that means something in the play offs.  Everyone else is just playing an extra game for fun.  

 

In the 80s, you might have had a few bowl games that meant something, the rest were just playing games for fun.

 

In 1997, Husker fans would have loved to play Michigan to shut them up and prove we were #1...and vice versa.  

 

Now.....those two teams would meet on the field and prove it (if they were in different conferences like before).

 

I don't see the problem that some people seem to harp on.

 

People are acting like you'll be able to lose six games or something and still get in the playoff. In an average year, a P5 school is not going to be able to lose more than once or twice and be guaranteed a spot in, and a G5 school is not going to be able to lose at all.