What About An Eight Team Playoff?
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
Redux
Assistant Coach
I agree kind of. 8 seems like a lot with a 12 game schedule. If we cut it back to 11 game seasons though it would be fine. Do we really need to thrash a Sun Belt team anyway? But if we are cutting down to 11 I would want us to just do conference championships are round 1 and every division winner is in the hunt, win your title game and you advance.
beorach
Special Teams Player
There are 128 FBS teams and half of them are in P5 conferences. I think that we should jettison half the division and force all the P5 teams to only play teams at their level if we're going to get a better picture as to what teams and conferences are good, great, etc. p.s. - I responded to you in the other thread we were working yesterday, VA, with respect to some of what we left off discussing here...
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
Win your conference and you get a chance to play for the NC. So, I like an 8 team play off with 3 wild card teams. These can be lower conference teams that deserve a shot or a situation like OSU this year where their only loss is to another play off team.
4skers89
All-Conference
Not going to happen anytime soon. I'm definitely OK with it due to the reasons listed here http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-the-college-football-playoff-won-t-expand-anytime-soon-210129640-ncaaf.html
zoogs
Assistant Coach
I really don't see the regular season being all that diminished. All it takes is one crushing loss and you might be falling from Top 8 contention to "just out". This would be true even for 16 teams.
In fact, with a larger field, there's more drama because more teams will have games with playoff implications. They'll be vying for spots and coming up short at the end of the season.
This year we had a Stanford-USC Pac 12 championship that was basically meaningless for the playoffs, unless Clemson got upset by UNC in which case maybe (but that'd probably be a stretch).
A tournament where more teams, more fanbases have the possibility of winning it all? Ending the season with a few whole rounds of games that matter? Yes please.
In fact, with a larger field, there's more drama because more teams will have games with playoff implications. They'll be vying for spots and coming up short at the end of the season.
This year we had a Stanford-USC Pac 12 championship that was basically meaningless for the playoffs, unless Clemson got upset by UNC in which case maybe (but that'd probably be a stretch).
A tournament where more teams, more fanbases have the possibility of winning it all? Ending the season with a few whole rounds of games that matter? Yes please.
VA Husker Fan
All-Conference
Good interview, and he did a good job disputing the rationales. Too bad he didn't seem to get answers to his rebuttals. Maybe I'll just stay out of all these threads since it's clear it won't change for awhile.
I've long been a proponent of eight.
I'd definitely be against any more than that.
I do value the regular season. It definitely hasn't been diminished by a four-team playoff and wouldn't be diminished by an eight-team playoff either. I think it would start to be if it went to 16.
I'd definitely be against any more than that.
I do value the regular season. It definitely hasn't been diminished by a four-team playoff and wouldn't be diminished by an eight-team playoff either. I think it would start to be if it went to 16.
It is interesting to look at the statistical comparison between the number of teams accepted into the Div. I basketball tournament and the Div. I CFB, given the amount of teams in each respective sport.
68 out of 337 teams are chosen for the basketball tournament, or, roughly 20 percent. Four of 128 teams are chosen for the CFB, or 3 percent. Bumping the number up to 8 in football would be six percent of teams, still well below what we allow in basketball.
College baseball, conversely, allows 32 of 295 teams into the regionals or about 11 percent.
Without drawing obvious conclusions about how these sports are different, I do think it's likely we will eventually move up to eight teams but I'm not quite ready for it. I'm also personally very iffy about giving automatic bids to power five conference champions. That means the 7-5 Wisconsin team that beat Nebraska in the B1G title game a few years back would've made it into the CFB over several 1-2 loss teams. That doesn't seem right to me even though it was a rare scenario.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mierin
Assistant Coach
I don't want a big playoff. This is my favorite sport, and part of the reason is because every game matters. If we move it to an 8 team playoff then even 2 loss teams can make it in. The max for me is 6 teams. We could still get 2 loss teams but there won't be more than a couple each year and it won't happen as often.
mrandyk
Starter
Every other level of college football has a 24 team playoff system where every conference champion gets an invite. The revenue from a 24 team playoff would dwarf the revenue from the current bowls and you can still keep your traditional bowl sites involved like they have been with the 4 team system. Just make it happen already.
Mierin
Assistant Coach
Yeah, but a five loss team backing their way in? No thank you. The CFB playoff is about finding the four best playoff teams and you don't get in just for automatically winning your conference, as of now.
Even the current system isn't a perfect (I still believe tOSU is a better team than MSU overall), but that Wisconsin team would have had absolutely no business being in serious title contention that year.
Redux
Assistant Coach
A conference champion winner would have already played 13 games by the time they entered the playoff, so if they reached the title game they would end up playing like 17 games. That is excessive.