8 team playoff in the future?

[skersfan]

Actually do away with the conference champions period. Means nothing, proven this year.

The system they promised failed. TCU should have been in the playoff, they were ranked 3rd the week prior, dropped behind Florida State which proved as it had all year long, it was just mirrors and smoke.

Actually the board has a far better perspective of ranking than any other form I think.

We/They got caught up in the undefeated season. ACC was not tough, some years the Big 12 won't be. God forbid the SEC might suck.

Should be ranked by who you play, how close those games are the teams you beat, who they beat. IE SOS, and then looked at by the human eye for fit.

Don't reward them for winning their conference, make out of conference schedules much tougher. Have the NCAA figure that out. No more gimme games. Make them count, every game.

I think we saw the correct National Champion yesterday, might have seen one of the best teams in a very long time, better than Bama the last few years.

I do not want to see anything that guarantees Notre Dame a fee pass, or any other independent for that matter.

As the committee said it would do. Measure each game each week, if that had been the fact, I do not think Florida State would have made the playoff.

Set your rules, live by them. You could have a crap conference where everyone had three losses getting in. The best teams do not lose multiple games. It has happened before.

 

[Redux]

Conference championships are an accomplishment, not a problem.

The Big 12 failed TCU, not the system.

This board is far too biased one way or the other due to SEC fatigue or ESPN hatred.

FSU was the repeating National champion and the only undefeated team...good luck arguing they shouldnt have been in.

It is.

The conferences are eliminating FCS games and scheduling 9 conference games instead of 8. Thats part of it.

Under the old system that game never happens.

They play a harder schedule than most teams most years, hardly a free pass but they do get special treatment.

They did just that, and it resulted in TCU being left out because they shared a title and played one less game. Big 12's fault.

The new rules were followed. No multi loss teams got in so the playoff was successful in that as well.

 

[SWAMI]

I think they should leave it alone. 4 is a great number. It doesn't create a lot more games. It still keeps the importance of the regular season in play. Such as, a team with 2 losses makes the top 8 and somehow pulls an upset over a team that didn't lose a game all season.

If a 2 loss team, for example Michigan State this year, is better than a team with no losses, Florida State, who cares? I want the best teams in the field. There's no one on earth that can convince me that FSU was better than TCU. 8 teams fixes that and doesn't "water down" the regular season. If anything the regular season was heightened this year and prevented the awful BCS matchup of Alabama and FSU based on media hype. Taking 8 teams out of 125 does not diminish the regular season IMO, it's not close to the NBA or NFL ratio. I wouldn't be against doing away with the conference championship games to enable 8. Having the first rounds games at campus sites of the higher seed eliminates any travel concerns.

IMHO Playoff teams should never be awarded home field advantage.

 

[skersfan]

No, FSU got in, and it was proven soundly they did not belong in. And that was stated the whole year. The committee gave the undefeated team the pass and dropped the team the week before ranked 3rd, behind them, after a 59-0 win. Yea that is looking at every game. If that had truly happened, FSU would have started having problems when ND fell apart.

Many undefeated teams have been left out of the NC.

They stated the best four would play. FSU, undefeated, CC, but clearly not the 3rd best team in the country.

SOS would have proven that is my guess. The eye test said it every week.

I do not care what you did last year. Has no bearing on this year. Play the games, rate the games week to week.

I know Sker will go nuts on this, but why do you feel Nebraska was never ranked as highly as some here thought. McNeese State was the reason. It hurt us I think. Some how barely squeaking by, last second wins, and lot of luck did not hurt FSR because of last year. That is hog wash.

But you follow, that is what you do, so understand.

 

[Mierin]

The only thing against going to 8 is that is asking a lot of fans to pay for that much traveling

That's why the 1st round would be played at the top 4 seeds' home stadiums. It would be like a normal game, not many visiting fans. Just like the regular season.

 

[Mierin]

I think they should leave it alone. 4 is a great number. It doesn't create a lot more games. It still keeps the importance of the regular season in play. Such as, a team with 2 losses makes the top 8 and somehow pulls an upset over a team that didn't lose a game all season.

If a 2 loss team, for example Michigan State this year, is better than a team with no losses, Florida State, who cares? I want the best teams in the field. There's no one on earth that can convince me that FSU was better than TCU. 8 teams fixes that and doesn't "water down" the regular season. If anything the regular season was heightened this year and prevented the awful BCS matchup of Alabama and FSU based on media hype. Taking 8 teams out of 125 does not diminish the regular season IMO, it's not close to the NBA or NFL ratio. I wouldn't be against doing away with the conference championship games to enable 8. Having the first rounds games at campus sites of the higher seed eliminates any travel concerns.

IMHO Playoff teams should never be awarded home field advantage.

It's how a lot of playoffs in a lot of different sports work.

 

[skersfan]

Michigan State is a prim example, they were a damned good football team, and in my opinion should have been there before a FSU team.

I just do not want CC guaranteed anything. No problem with the higher ranked having home field advantage, but under no circumstance a bye.

I think 8 is the right number, but against any guarantees. Earn it on the field every week, set a system of values, SOS and let the committee figure out who belongs.

 

[Redux]

Home field advantage also keeps teams motivated to stay as highly ranked as possible. No throw away games by playing backups to keep starters fresh like the NFL.

 

[Redux]

Michigan State is a prim example, they were a damned good football team, and in my opinion should have been there before a FSU team.

I just do not want CC guaranteed anything. No problem with the higher ranked having home field advantage, but under no circumstance a bye.

I think 8 is the right number, but against any guarantees. Earn it on the field every week, set a system of values, SOS and let the committee figure out who belongs.

MSU got decimated by both teams that played last night, they were below TCU and Baylor anyway, moot point.

Conference Championships mean something. Winning your league should be rewarded.

The committee did just that and did it better than we initially thought now that its all played out.

 

[SWAMI]

Exactly, Redux. I'll fully admit to being wrong about the 4 team playoff versus the old system(s). However, a good number of the games that were considered "so exciting to be played" would take on much less importance than they do now. That is one of the main reasons I couldn't care less about who wins a particular NFL game until perhaps the last couple of weeks.

Also, I highly doubt we don't get a deserving national champion with 4 teams. Yes, TCU probably got the shaft at the hands of FSU this year, but at the same time, it doesn't mean TCU got screwed out of a national title. I'll never advocate a ranking system as a way to determine best teams, however I'm not concerned with the voted #6 team not getting a playoff spot.

Did you hear Steven A. Smith this morning bragging about how he backed Ohio St. leapfrogging TCU? That type of thinking is part and parcel to the problem of the old system. The fact is we'll never know if Ohio St. could beat TCU. The new format is far better than yesteryear's, but it's still not optimal; and, quite frankly, never will be regardless of the number of teams invited. I'm not a TCU fan, but it sickens me to think we have a system which allowed for a team to be moved up 2 spots to 3rd then win by 50 and get dropped back to 5th because OSU walloped Wisconsin. That's just wrong. I understand what the ramifications are, but based off of what took place Ohio St. should have been odd man out or, better yet, if you leapfrog Florida St. then you should have stayed atop them. The committee didn't think through the 'What ifs" prior to that last week. I also believe there was a racial component considered.

 

[SWAMI]

I think they should leave it alone. 4 is a great number. It doesn't create a lot more games. It still keeps the importance of the regular season in play. Such as, a team with 2 losses makes the top 8 and somehow pulls an upset over a team that didn't lose a game all season.

If a 2 loss team, for example Michigan State this year, is better than a team with no losses, Florida State, who cares? I want the best teams in the field. There's no one on earth that can convince me that FSU was better than TCU. 8 teams fixes that and doesn't "water down" the regular season. If anything the regular season was heightened this year and prevented the awful BCS matchup of Alabama and FSU based on media hype. Taking 8 teams out of 125 does not diminish the regular season IMO, it's not close to the NBA or NFL ratio. I wouldn't be against doing away with the conference championship games to enable 8. Having the first rounds games at campus sites of the higher seed eliminates any travel concerns.

IMHO Playoff teams should never be awarded home field advantage.

It's how a lot of playoffs in a lot of different sports work.

That doesn't make it fair. Don't we want the fairest system? Isn't that what this is all about?

 

[SWAMI]

I think they should leave it alone. 4 is a great number. It doesn't create a lot more games. It still keeps the importance of the regular season in play. Such as, a team with 2 losses makes the top 8 and somehow pulls an upset over a team that didn't lose a game all season.

If a 2 loss team, for example Michigan State this year, is better than a team with no losses, Florida State, who cares? I want the best teams in the field. There's no one on earth that can convince me that FSU was better than TCU. 8 teams fixes that and doesn't "water down" the regular season. If anything the regular season was heightened this year and prevented the awful BCS matchup of Alabama and FSU based on media hype. Taking 8 teams out of 125 does not diminish the regular season IMO, it's not close to the NBA or NFL ratio. I wouldn't be against doing away with the conference championship games to enable 8. Having the first rounds games at campus sites of the higher seed eliminates any travel concerns.

IMHO Playoff teams should never be awarded home field advantage.

It's how a lot of playoffs in a lot of different sports work.

That doesn't make it fair. Don't we want the fairest system? Isn't that what this is all about?

I can't believe you who are fine with awarding a home field game. One of the reasons I'm against it is that bitter taste I still have when Nebraska had to play Miami on what was essentially their home turf back in the "Go for 2 game." Bring them up here and we win by 2 TDs.

 

[skersfan]

Your opinion.

You get change by asking for change, not accepting it like a lap dog.

This was the best we have had, I totally agree, but do not feel Florida State was a top 4 team, especially after they had been behind TCU the week before. If that had not happened, it would not bother me as much. Not a TCU fan or Baylor fan, a college football fan.

But they were the only two teams to beat them, that says something I think. If we had an eight team play off they most likely would have been in if it was a merit of SOS. Losses are never good, but can mean more than beating the citadel or SE Louisiana State. (I must admit Sker, I wanted to say the M word) lol

You are of the feeling that wins are all that are important, according to what was stated about the playoff, wins and losses would be considered, quality losses worth more than meaningless wins possibly. I think we saw it a few years ago with the Big East winner and Oklahoma. That is what you can end up with when you guarantee slots.

I just want the best 4, 8, 16. Whatever they decide. Conference Champions do not mean you are one of those teams. I would guess at 16 you would be, not necessarily in the top 8. Having 5 locked down and one promised to Notre Dame leaves two

 

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

So for a 8 team playoff you would potentially have a 12 game season, then a CC and then 3 rounds of playoff.

Does that seem like a little much?

 

[Mierin]

So for a 8 team playoff you would potentially have a 12 game season, then a CC and then 3 rounds of playoff.

Does that seem like a little much?

It would be one more game than what we currently have, for a small number of teams. (For the four losers of the 1st round, it'd be their bowl game). The lower divisions already do this. NDSU played 16 games this year. Ohio State played 15.

The first round could be played 2 weeks after the conference championships. Then they'd get another 10 days or so before the semi-finals.