Which is better, a 4, 8 or 16 team playoff?

[Urban Myth]

I think it should and will stay at 4 teams (at least for now). We haven't even seen the first playoff play out, yet people are already wanting to expand the playoffs to 8 or more teams. There is nothing wrong with the discussion. But let's just see how it works out for a couple years or so.

The committee did a great job picking the four most deserving teams. Now lets see how it translates on the football field.

 

[r06ue1]

I don't like the five conference champions getting an automatic invite. I've always liked the thought of having a model like the BCS choose the top however many teams. I haven't been a fan of the committee since it was announced. There's too many biases. At least the BCS format took some of the bias out with part of it being computer generated.

I agree with the conference champions (Big5) getting automatic bids. You could have a conference champion some year with 3 or 4 losses but they could actually be the best team in the country due to the difficulty of their conference (or they could suck and lose in the first round).

You would have been completely fine in 2012 granting Wisconsin an automatic berth because they won the B1G despite being unranked?

Point taken, but at the same time can you imagine a SEC where the conference champion might lose 3 games, be outside the top 8 but in all probability, be the best team in the country and win the national championship had they gotten in? I guess there simply is no foolproof method.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I don't like the five conference champions getting an automatic invite. I've always liked the thought of having a model like the BCS choose the top however many teams. I haven't been a fan of the committee since it was announced. There's too many biases. At least the BCS format took some of the bias out with part of it being computer generated.

I agree with the conference champions (Big5) getting automatic bids. You could have a conference champion some year with 3 or 4 losses but they could actually be the best team in the country due to the difficulty of their conference (or they could suck and lose in the first round).

You would have been completely fine in 2012 granting Wisconsin an automatic berth because they won the B1G despite being unranked?

You're fine with a team that doesn't even win it's own division being in the NC discussion and game but have a problem with a team that wins a Big 5 conference in a CCG.

That to me is a really really odd thought process.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

You can cry bias about anything. Even computers have to be fed criteria by humans. Humans who went to college.

If you watched the Selection Committee week by week, it honestly seemed like knowledgeable people making subjective choices about the four best teams, ignoring the typical pollster protocols which often get lazy and biased themselves.

Was Ohio State a payoff to the Big 10 or a punative action against the Big 12? I don't know. But when I saw Ohio State absoutley whup-a$$ Wisconsin with its third string quarterback, I realized how much I wanted to see Urban Meyer have a shot at Nick Saban.

If Ohio State had prevailed say, 34 - 21, I don't think they squeeze in. I'm all about the eye-test.

I honestly don't think the Selection Committee had to answer to or apologize to anyone. That was the whole point of the excercise, and why the NCAA chose the judges they did.

 

[SandhillshuskerW]

6 teams with 1 & 2 getting a bye.

I like this format as well. If they ever do expand, I hope they don't have go any bigger than 8 teams though. I think it would just water things down and put less emphasis on the regular season.

 

[huskerfan92]

8 teams for me! An Alabama, Oregon, Florida St, Ohio St, Baylor, TCU, Michigan St, and Mississippi St playoff would have me drooling. 16 teams is way too much, the rest of the top 16 would include 7 3-loss teams. 8 Teams works though.

 

[irafreak]

None

 

[dvdcrr]

I think we should extrapolate the Big 12 model. First we eliminate any championship games and start an ad campaign touting one true champion because the whole regular season matters. Next we sit back and see which two emerging teams would generate the most money and interest if they played each other. Then we do whatever we can to ensure those two teams play, even if there is a third team more deserving, as long as the third team would not generate more money if they were in. Fairness would be something we would value so long as it did not interfere with money and clout especially where a certain state is involved that rhymes with "Shmexas".

 

[shyndy]

I don't like the five conference champions getting an automatic invite. I've always liked the thought of having a model like the BCS choose the top however many teams. I haven't been a fan of the committee since it was announced. There's too many biases. At least the BCS format took some of the bias out with part of it being computer generated.

I agree with the conference champions (Big5) getting automatic bids. You could have a conference champion some year with 3 or 4 losses but they could actually be the best team in the country due to the difficulty of their conference (or they could suck and lose in the first round).

You would have been completely fine in 2012 granting Wisconsin an automatic berth because they won the B1G despite being unranked?

I would have been completely fine with Osu and penn st not having postseason bans

 

[Count 'Bility]

I just sit back and laugh at the "it takes away from the season" crap. You guys know that's the most ridiculous concept in the history of football right?

 

[admo]

4 teams. I like it because in the previous model there was an argument that one team was equally deserving to play for the championship and got left out. For example, Alabama vs FSU for the championship game. A good argument is that Oregon deserves to play for the CG as much as Bama or FSU. Now the 4 team playoff eliminates this mess and gives all three that are deserving a fair shot. The 4th team is just gravy at this point, and it provides the extra team needed to accomplish this. Moving forward, I don't believe that a team ranked 4th at end of the season is as good as #1 or #2, but might be debatable against a #3 team. I think the 4th team is the clear underdog.

More than 4 teams waters it down. Most years 5-8 will enter the playoffs and be "one and done". And those are wasted games. Especially if you run the table, earned the top 1 or 2 spot, and in round one - your QB hurts an ankle and is out of the picture - and it happens in a game playing the 7th or 8th seed. That would suck for the program and people that want to see the 2 best teams playing for a championship. I don't think college football is for Cinderella stories that have 2 losses and knocks off a top team without that teams best player available. Because it becomes another debate and room for arguments. The playoff is fine with 4...lets get the best 2 in the championship and enjoy a great game.

Good luck to Ohio State. I don't think they are deserving just because they beat Michigan State and Wisconsin and NOBODY else, and now get to play Alabama without their best player at QB. Pretty sure Bama will game plan stuff that the 3rd stringer will be unprepared and freak out about while the Tide cruises to an easy win..........but whatever. Not so sure the results would be the same if Bama was playing TCU since they are full strength and more tested then the Buckeyes, while statistically having the better offense, defense and QB.

 

[NebraskaHarry]

I said 8 team playoff in another thread the other day.

Power 5 conference champs with 3 highest ranked wildcards in playoff. No more than 2 teams in same conference in.

Look at how they would have matched up this year.

1 Alabama vs 8 Michigan St

(vs)

4 Florida St vs 5 Baylor

2 Oregon vs 7 Mississippi St

(vs)

3 Ohio St vs 6 TCU

That looks pretty damn fun to watch.

 

[dvdcrr]

Addison

Wow good points.

 

[NebraskaHarry]

This also means the Big 12 needs to have a conference champ game again. So Big12, better start looking for some more teams to add.

 

[zoogs]

I voted 16 because why not (practicality aside). But there will always be a +1 issue here, I think. Teams just left out. This year has a strong top 8, but there will be years where a lesser team would get #8 seed consideration, leaving other teams, such as the ones that beat them, wondering "why not us?"

Especially with how fluid the playoff rankings are, which is a good thing.

The issue with guaranteed conference champions is when a conference has a down year and don't produce a playoff-worthy team. It could certainly happen in an 8-team field, which leaves only three at-large spots. Look at the NFL with its 12-team field and the state of the NFC South this year. People are calling for a change there, too.

I think the most fun would be 16 teams with guarantees for *all* conferences. The Sun Belt can try for a Cinderella story, but they'll have to go through the top-seeded teams to do it. And having guaranteed champs in this case gives nearly free byes for the top seeded teams; they just have to take care of business against likely a nobody, rather than a Top 20 team. So teams will really want to earn a #1-4 seed during the regular season, just like now.

As for the watered down regular season, it's already happening/happened and while it sucks for nostalgia's sake, I don't think anybody will really care in the end. Even with this 4-team playoff, I think we see conferences doing all they can to protect their playoff hopes. The SEC does the best job with their scheduling practices. I don't think the incentives are lining up for quality regular seasons anyway.