What About An Eight Team Playoff?

Mavric

Mavric

Yoda
Staff member
Four teams worked out pretty well this year. Really not any controversy about which four teams got in.

But the committee got really lucky. Lucky that Stanford lost to Northwestern the first game of the year. Had Stanford won that game, there would have been all kinds of arguing about which three teams out of Alabama, Michigan State, Oklahoma and Stanford deserved to be in.

The solution? Eight teams in the playoff. Here's what it would have looked like this year:

#1 Clemson (undefeated) vs. #8 Notre Dame (lost to #1 Clemson and #6 Stanford)

#4 Oklahoma (lost to Texas) vs. # 5 Iowa (lost to #3 Michigan State)

#3 Michigan State (lost to Nebraska) vs. #6 Stanford (lost to Northwestern and #15 Oregon)

#2 Alabama (lost to #12 Ole Miss) vs. #7 Ohio State (lost to #3 Michigan State)

Although you have to wonder if the committee wouldn't have swapped Ohio State and Notre Dame to avoid the rematch.

At any rate, that's a pretty deserving bunch. A couple bad losses in that bunch but most of the losses were to other Top 15 teams. All the one-loss teams would be included.

 
Definitely at least 6 if not 8. I still don't think they got it right with just 4 so hopefully they'll add more teams.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I think it's kind of a travesty that Ohio State never even got the chance to prove they were worthy of playing off for a repeat.

Michigan State got the game against Iowa, fine. But Ohio State couldn't have beaten Iowa? And Michigan State lost to 5-7 Nebraska. Ohio State's only loss came to Michigan State, one of the top teams in the country.

There should be an 8, or even 12 or 16-game playoff. There are a lot of pretty good teams that could make some awesome postseason magic if they are just given the opportunity to do so.

 
I'm good with an 8 team playoff, as long as it's the top 8 ranked teams like you have it. I keep hearing people say, "It should be the Power 5 Conference champions, and 3 at-large", which doesn't work if let's say USC won this past weekend. We're going to put a 4 loss USC team over a 1 or 2 loss team? I'm not for that.

 
I'm good with an 8 team playoff, though I don't think it's a travesty that Ohio St didn't get in. They knew they had a must win game, at home, and they didn't do it. If you want to make sure you get in, win all your games. Otherwise you run the risk of being left out. There's no previous system we've had where they would've had a chance either, so the 4 team playoff didn't cause this. Other than the Michigan team they never did look like a top team. Last year is history. You can't say Ohio St deserves a shot after last year and in the next breath complain about SEC bias from past championships.

 
zoogs said:
Yeah, I think it's kind of a travesty that Ohio State never even got the chance to prove they were worthy of playing off for a repeat.

Michigan State got the game against Iowa, fine. But Ohio State couldn't have beaten Iowa? And Michigan State lost to 5-7 Nebraska. Ohio State's only loss came to Michigan State, one of the top teams in the country.
Click to expand...
Disagree about Ohio St. They lost to Michigan St, who was playing their 2nd and 3rd string QBs, in Columbus. They have nothing to complain about.

 
Meh, I'm good with four teams. My biggest criticism with the BCS was that it sometimes didn't get the best two teams in the final playoff game. The four team playoff almost guarantees that the two most deserving teams will get a chance.

 
Unless we're going to have 16 or 32 teams make it, I don't want a college football playoff that features more than one team from any conference. It'd be one thing if Ohio State and Michigan State had been destroying everyone else on their schedules but having Iowa in there also is just plain ridiculous. I think the best team they played ahead of the CCG was Wisconsin such that you'd have to look at other one-loss teams that played tougher schedules. I don't understand why college football fans seem placated with what we have. I'm thrilled there has been progress but I think it's fair to point out that the BCS did some things better and I've already gone into that in other threads. The more we think a few pundits have figured out, in terms of what teams/conferences are the best, the more likely it is we'll be waiting longer than we should for a simpler and better solution to the question of who deserves the national title. My 8 would look like this (though I haven't gone into much detail - I'm just using the AP Top 25 and favoring conference champs unless an independent exists that looks "unequivocally" better):

#1 Clemson versus #8 Western Kentucky

#2 Alabama versus #7 Houston

#3 Michigan State versus #6 Notre Dame

#4 Oklahoma versus #5 Stanford

A team that can't win its conference shouldn't be playing for the national title and a non-P5 team should still have a chance to play for it. That's all I'm trying to satisfy. You can't tell me that anyone who's not a fan of a particular team in that situation (P5 team without a conference championship to its name) would want that team in the mix when spots are at a premium. Finally, it should be noted that Notre Dame played 5 teams from the current Top 25. Clemson played 3 (including CCG). Western Kentucky played 1. Alabama played 4 (including CCG). Houston played 2 (including CCG). Michigan State played 4 (including CCG). Oklahoma played 3. Stanford played 3 (including CCG).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which two top 25 teams did Western Kentucky play? I see LSU, who they lost to, and that's it. Ridiculous to put them in over any of about a dozen teams.

 
VA Husker Fan said:
Which two top 25 teams did Western Kentucky play? I see LSU, who they lost to, and that's it. Ridiculous to put them in over any of about a dozen teams.
Click to expand...
I think my eyeballs failed me when I looked at my spreadsheet is all. MTSU is just one line below Michigan State. I'll update that - thanks! As for this being ridiculous, these are the highest-ranked conference champions from outside the P5. Do you think Boise State never deserved to play for a title, too? I think it's silly we don't have two separate divisions when there are 64 in the P5 and 64 outside the P5 to make up the FBS but, for now, that's what we have. A playoff of five is not ideal, either, but the OP called for eight so I wasn't going to diverge.

I think you're skimming what I've written and then responding. To repeat, I'm trying to satisfy two venerable arguments with a playoff scenario:

1) a team that didn't win its conference shouldn't play for a national title; and

2) a team from outside the BCS/P5 should be able to play for the national title.

Now, I'll grant you that we don't have as deserving a field as we have in other seasons...but I don't think anyone expects that a playoff participant selection process can be flexible enough to adjust to any possible season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think an undefeated Boise St deserved a spot. A 2-loss WKU with 0 noteworthy wins does not. As I've said in other threads, a conference championship is based on only a subset of the games and not the entire season. The national championship should be based on the whole season. Winning a conference championship should carry serious weight but not be an absolute.

 
If that subset wasn't, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the only meaningful portion of a team's resume, I might agree. The fact is that most teams don't play anyone outside their conference. Alabama had Wisconsin. Oklahoma had Tennessee. Michigan State had Oregon. Clemson had Notre Dame. One game does not a substantial subset make. Add in the FCS portion of most teams' resumes and that consideration unravels further...

Back to the smaller programs' involvement in the playoff, you're ignoring a simple fact. We can't just change the rules every season to allow for the possibility of an undefeated "Boise State." Allowing for them to get in might mean we get a 1-loss Marshall last season, a 1-loss Houston and 2-loss WKU in this one (if you had to find 8 based on the criteria I know there has been popular support for in the past and recounted twice above).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought conference champs only was a poor criteria when it was that way for hoops, and I think it'd be a poor idea for football. We're just going to disagree on that. I've rehashed that argument enough on this board.

For the smaller teams, I don't get what rules we'd be changing every season so I have no idea what you think I'm ignoring. The committee picks 4 teams on a variety of factors. If Houston had gone unbeaten, they'd very likely be in an 8 team playoff. Unlikely they'd have made the 4 team playoff but that's for the committee to decide. But they lost a game, and beat a couple teams barely in the top 25 and another just out, nothing that says they belong with the big boys. There's no rule that says the committee can't take a non-power conference team. The only rule I'm aware of, and I'm not certain of it but too lazy to check, is that one of them has to be in one of the major bowls or playoffs.

 
The only way to make it work is:

5 power conference champions

1 mid major conference champ ranked highest

2 at large (can be power 5 runner up, non division winners, independents or other mid majors that would qualify ranked in the top 10)

I prefer the 16 team playoff that uses conference championships as a 1st round:

SEC EAST

SEC WEST

ACC COASTAL

ACC ATLANTIC

BIG TEN EAST

BIG TEN WEST

PAC 12 NORTH

PAC 12 SOUTH

BIG 12 CHAMP

Independent with highest ranking

Then use 1 or 2 of the mid major champs + 1 or 2 at large teams that didn't win a power 5 champiinship game or a divisin runner up

MtnWest

MAC

SunBelt

C-USA

American

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top