Long past time for an 8-team cfb playoff

[Riveting]

...especially since the 4-team system has the same boring teams and coaches year after year, and seems to completely exclude deserving teams outside the P5 from serious consideration.

An 8-team playoff would only require one more week and two more games.

 

[Purdue85]

meh ......

It's like the junky, with a "just gimme one more hit and I'll be done". It won't solve anything. This was foreseeable when they went to the playoff.

Consider the NCAA basketball tournament. Every year there's at least one team's fans clamoring on about being "left out".

In CFB 8 teams won't do it. Nor will 16 or any other number.

Look at the silliness surrounding UCF's undefeated season. They weren't the first. I also remember a Marshall team that thoroughly dominated, going undefeated.

There wasn't a d@mn thing wrong with the "mythical" (as the detractors called it) National Championship. There was controversy, you say? Yes, there was. There always will be. Two... four... eight... sixteen... no number will stop it.

"Yes, but....!", you say? Yeah... yes, but. There's always one of those.

 

[Riveting]

meh ......

It's like the junky, with a "just gimme one more hit and I'll be done". It won't solve anything. This was foreseeable when they went to the playoff.

Consider the NCAA basketball tournament. Every year there's at least one team's fans clamoring on about being "left out".

In CFB 8 teams won't do it. Nor will 16 or any other number.

Look at the silliness surrounding UCF's undefeated season. They weren't the first. I also remember a Marshall team that thoroughly dominated, going undefeated.

There wasn't a d@mn thing wrong with the "mythical" (as the detractors called it) National Championship. There was controversy, you say? Yes, there was. There always will be. Two... four... eight... sixteen... no number will stop it.

"Yes, but....!", you say? Yeah... yes, but. There's always one of those.

Of course there will always be unhappy fans at the margin, but what it will solve is the boredom of the same 3-4 teams and coaches every year, and give more teams more hope of getting in. 8 is good because it can be added with just one more week and two extra games.

 

[izakman]

I say top 12; the top 4 get a bye week; it would be 4 on 4 two weeks in a row. That would make it more exciting.

 

[Hausta01]

I say top 12; the top 4 get a bye week; it would be 4 on 4 two weeks in a row. That would make it more exciting.

I think 16 would be even MORE exciting!

 

[nat100]

Go to 6 teams. Let the 5 conference champions in and one group of 5. That gives the top two seeds a bye.

 

[Purdue85]

Go to 6 teams. Let the 5 conference champions in and one group of 5. That gives the top two seeds a bye.

THIS

If we're going to have a "playoff", this is what I've been advocating for years. No duplicates from conferences, and leave an open spot for non-P5. It resolves most every complaint.

Of course, we'll always have the conspiracy theorists, especially when they have their best season EVER and still don't deserve to get in.

 

[Riveting]

I think 16 would be even MORE exciting!

The next logical step is simply to go to 8 teams and see how it works before considering greater expansion. It will make the bowls a little more interesting to have four games that matter instead of just two as we have now.

 

[kvc]

Just dont see how adding teams does much good. An eighth seeded team likely wouldn't have anything for the top seeded team. More money...sure. Dont see how it helps student athletes.
Then there will be those teams left out harking that they should have been the eighth seed.
I would rather see it go back to the best two teams. Make bowl games mean something again.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

Needs to be 12 or 16 to give group of 5 conferences auto bids.

If 12 then there would be 7 combined teams of 5 power 5 conference winners plus 2 at large teams.


If 16 then there would be 11 combined teams of 5power 5 conference winners plus 6 at large teams.

In a 16 team playoff IU and Florida would be in this year. Do they really deserve it?

12 is a good balance

 

[njm8845]

Go to 6 teams. Let the 5 conference champions in and one group of 5. That gives the top two seeds a bye.

I like this the best. It removes most of the subjectivity of the committee. And it sets us up for even more rivalry between conferences, which is good.

no more whining. You didn’t get in? Well, should have won your conference.

 

[purduedavie]

I like this the best. It removes most of the subjectivity of the committee. And it sets us up for even more rivalry between conferences, which is good.

no more whining. You didn’t get in? Well, should have won your conference.

6 is perfect, this year they should have done 8.

 

[KentuckyBoiler]

We cannot do a 8 team playoff. NCAA has said in the past that this would take the student athletes out of the classroom too long. We know how much some of those athletes at schools like Alabama, LSU, Ohio State probably hit the books (playbooks) night and day. It would also take them out of their studying of the NFL Combine.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Go to 6 teams. Let the 5 conference champions in and one group of 5. That gives the top two seeds a bye.

But then people will bitch about “such and such team got a bye, but that should have been us.” There will always be unhappy people regardless of who gets in.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

But then people will bitch about “such and such team got a bye, but that should have been us.” There will always be unhappy people regardless of who gets in.

I don't think there should be a system where a team can go undefeated and not even get a chance to compete in the playoffs for a championships.

 

[Purdue85]

I don't think there should be a system where a team can go undefeated and not even get a chance to compete in the playoffs for a championships.

That's not a compelling argument. Playing a non-P5 conference (and OOC) schedule doesn't put a program in a position to play for a NC.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

That's not a compelling argument. Playing a non-P5 conference (and OOC) schedule doesn't put a program in a position to play for a NC.

You could say the same thing about college basketball. They should just create another division then since G5 are de facto non fbs division teams

 

[Purdue85]

You could say the same thing about college basketball. They should just create another division then since G5 are de facto non fbs division teams

Maybe. It doesn't help the football point to bring basketball into the discussion. Apples and oranges.

There are 350 D1 bball teams.

There are 129 D1 (FBS) fball teams.

There are many more legit contenders in basketball than there are in football.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I don't think there should be a system where a team can go undefeated and not even get a chance to compete in the playoffs for a championships.

Who you play doesn’t matter? Just because a team runs the table against a weak schedule shouldn’t automatically qualify them for the playoff, IMHO.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

Maybe. It doesn't help the football point to bring basketball into the discussion. Apples and oranges.

There are 350 D1 bball teams.

There are 129 D1 (FBS) fball teams.

There are many more legit contenders in basketball than there are in football.

Seeds of NCAA Tournament Champions | BracketResearch.com

bracketresearch.com

Are there really significantly more legit contenders in basketball?
I'd agree that there are more but the tournament is still dominanted by top teams.

The highest seed to win was #8 and 88% of champions are seeds #1, #2, and #3.

66% of the champions are #1 seeds.

If we applied the logic to college basketball we could cut the tournament to 12 teams.

If the top teams are really so much better then why can't they prove it on the field? Isn't that the point of athletic competition?

Obviously I'm a Purdue fan and alum but all teams should have a chance to make the playoffs to play a championship.

You would see upsets in the playoffs with more teams, like Appalachian State vs Michigan and many others.


At some point limiting the teams that can compete in the playoffs becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

The teams that make the playoffs obtain more money and exposure. All the recruits want to go a team that makes the playoffs to get national exposure.

Football could have some of the same magic that college basketball has if they expanded tournament and more teams had playoff wins

 

[Purdue85]

Seeds of NCAA Tournament Champions | BracketResearch.com

bracketresearch.com

Are there really significantly more legit contenders in basketball?
I'd agree that there are more but the tournament is still dominanted by top teams.

The highest seed to win was #8 and 88% of champions are seeds #1, #2, and #3.

66% of the champions are #1 seeds.

If we applied the logic to college basketball we could cut the tournament to 12 teams.

If the top teams are really so much better then why can't they prove it on the field? Isn't that the point of athletic competition?

Obviously I'm a Purdue fan and alum but all teams should have a chance to make the playoffs to play a championship.

You would see upsets in the playoffs with more teams, like Appalachian State vs Michigan and many others.


At some point limiting the teams that can compete in the playoffs becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

The teams that make the playoffs obtain more money and exposure. All the recruits want to go a team that makes the playoffs to get national exposure.

Football could have some of the same magic that college basketball has if they expanded tournament and more teams had playoff wins

in short, yes.

The games are completely different. You're not going to have a "Butler" football-equivalent knocking off (or being able to play with) the Alabamas and ClemPsons or Ohio States. You're just not being realistic by trying to compare the two sports.

 

[Wolegib]

I'm totally against the idea of expanding the play-offs jus t because some fan says he's bored because it's always the same 4 teams. I'm sorry you don't like the fact OSU Alabama and Clemson are awlays in it. Being "BORED" is not justification for expansion.

and has been said, if you expand, there will always be somebody left out.

somebody pointed out if the NCAA really wanted to, they could have a 16 or 32 team play-off and it could start the last week of November and be over on the first week of January! Essentially 5 weeks. However, they would have to revamp their Bowl games. and some bowl games wouldn't have their traditional rivalries. Some of the lesser bowls could be used as part of the play-off process. it would be very easy to set up.

A question that would come up, would fans come out to watch all 4 of their team's games if the games were not held at their home stadium? let's say purdue was one of the 32 teams. The first game was played at the Liberty Bowl. the next game was played at the gator bowl. the third game was played at the Cotton bowl, and the championship game was played at the rose bowl. Would purdue fans actively support and attend all 4 games? because that's what it's going to take to try to implement a play-off system. much like march madness, teams are going to have to play on the road at different stadiums.

on paper it would be easy to implement. however a lot of Bowl games would have to have their schedules altered and also their teams changed to accommodate a play-off schedule. instead of the last 2 weeks of December, there will have to be a lot of Bowl games in the first two weeks of December.

and conferences would have to adjust their schedules to have their conference championships completed by the last week in November. it could easily be done, but in doing so, conferences would have to cancel their bye weeks during the season.

My thoughts on expansion of the football play-offs would be to eliminate the power 5, and just have conference champions participate. i don't care if you're rated in the top 5. if you don't win your conference, you don't participate. It should be a tournament of champions much like the old college basketball tourney was. Sure , somebody would complain. But to me, if you want to be included, just win your conference championship. if you can't do that, tough luck. . I'm tired of seeing second place teams battling for championships. and it's time we started allowing teams of lesser conferences participate much like we do for basketball. Sure, they would usually lose, bt every now and then, there could be an upset. Look at loyola and butler in basketball. it would be a fun story if a MAC or MVC team made the final 8 or final 4 teams.

 

[NVboiler]

My thoughts on expansion of the football play-offs would be to eliminate the power 5, and just have conference champions participate. i don't care if you're rated in the top 5. if you don't win your conference, you don't participate. It should be a tournament of champions much like the old college basketball tourney was. Sure , somebody would complain. But to me, if you want to be included, just win your conference championship. if you can't do that, tough luck. . I'm tired of seeing second place teams battling for championships. and it's time we started allowing teams of lesser conferences participate much like we do for basketball. Sure, they would usually lose, bt every now and then, there could be an upset. Look at loyola and butler in basketball. it would be a fun story if a MAC or MVC team made the final 8 or final 4 teams.

I think championships should be open to all with all conferences participating with just the winners of the conferences being eligible.. It's a shame now that you don't see something like this anymore- 1952 - Illinois High School Boys Basketball Championship | Village of Hebron - where a school of 98 students won the Illinois High School State Basketball Championship. David should be given the chance to slay Goliath! Imagine Appalachian State defeating and eliminating Michigan in the playoffs.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I think championships should be open to all with all conferences participating with just the winners of the conferences being eligible.. It's a shame now that you don't see something like this anymore- 1952 - Illinois High School Boys Basketball Championship | Village of Hebron - where a school of 98 students won the Illinois High School State Basketball Championship. David should be given the chance to slay Goliath! Imagine Appalachian State defeating and eliminating Michigan in the playoffs.

Football and basketball aren’t remotely close in terms of what it takes to win a NC. Just not a good argument, IMHO.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

Football and basketball aren’t remotely close in terms of what it takes to win a NC. Just not a good argument, IMHO.

So much gatekeeping, how about we just let the teams play. Surely that's the point of athletic competition.

You don't get upsets like Appalachian State vs Michigan if people refuse to let the game happen.

The champion should prove it on the field and everyone should have a possible path to the playoffs and ultimately the championship.

 

[NVboiler]

So much gatekeeping, how about we just let the teams play. Surely that's the point of athletic competition.

You don't get upsets like Appalachian State vs Michigan if people refuse to let the game happen.

The champion should prove it on the field and everyone should have a possible path to the playoffs and ultimately the championship.

And I would also go as far as not seeding the games. Let it be a random draw, otherwise you are influencing the results to turn out like you want them. The team that loses no games becomes champion, and whether a team loses at the start of the play offs or the end makes no difference, they are just another loser as you're not really trying to determine 2nd place but a true unbiased champion.

 

[Purdue85]

So much gatekeeping, how about we just let the teams play. Surely that's the point of athletic competition.

You don't get upsets like Appalachian State vs Michigan if people refuse to let the game happen.

The champion should prove it on the field and everyone should have a possible path to the playoffs and ultimately the championship.

it's not "gatekeeping" (whatever that means), it's an honest evaluation of an idea/suggestion.

It's also not that anyone is refusing anything. Something has to have merit to proceed. This idea really doesn't, in the view of many.

So you run the table against weak competition. So what. There's zero argument there for playing Alabama for the NC.

 

[NVboiler]

So you run the table against weak competition. So what. There's zero argument there for playing Alabama for the NC.

As there are other games to the championship, I take it that the final competition wasn't that weak to get to playing Alabama for the NC. A team should never be penalized for having weak competition, it's not their fault, but the teams that they play.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

it's not "gatekeeping" (whatever that means), it's an honest evaluation of an idea/suggestion.

It's also not that anyone is refusing anything. Something has to have merit to proceed. This idea really doesn't, in the view of many.

So you run the table against weak competition. So what. There's zero argument there for playing Alabama for the NC.

It is certainly gatekeeping to regulate half the teams in college football to be unable to make it to the post season no matter the results of their season.

The idea doesn't proceed because it threatens the viewership and economic viability of the bowls. As we've seen players and fans want playoffs and don't care about meaningless exhibition bowls at the end of the season.

No one is advocating placing a team directly in the championship against Alabama, just that the playoffs are expanded so group 5 schools have a chance to make the post season.

In basketball conference champions are placed into the tournament. There's no reason that the current playoff can't add two more rounds. You would certainly see upsets and more teams would notch playoff wins.

If you're claims are true then why not prove it on the field instead of by an opaque committee.

 

[Purdue85]

It is certainly gatekeeping to regulate half the teams in college football to be unable to make it to the post season no matter the results of their season.

The idea doesn't proceed because it threatens the viewership and economic viability of the bowls. As we've seen players and fans want playoffs and don't care about meaningless exhibition bowls at the end of the season.

No one is advocating placing a team directly in the championship against Alabama, just that the playoffs are expanded so group 5 schools have a chance to make the post season.

In basketball conference champions are placed into the tournament. There's no reason that the current playoff can't add two more rounds. You would certainly see upsets and more teams would notch playoff wins.

If you're claims are true then why not prove it on the field instead of by an opaque committee.

Weird.

NCAA is "gatekeeping", "regulating" 80% of the teams in basketball ... meaning they're unable to make it to the post season no matter the results of their season.

The only thing driving the CFB playoffs is MONEY for the networks.

If you want it proven on the field/court, all teams play for the title in both sports. (Instead of by an opaque committee...) That's not what you're advocating.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

Weird.

NCAA is "gatekeeping", "regulating" 80% of the teams in basketball ... meaning they're unable to make it to the post season no matter the results of their season.

The only thing driving the CFB playoffs is MONEY for the networks.

If you want it proven on the field/court, all teams play for the title in both sports. (Instead of by an opaque committee...) That's not what you're advocating.

This is a mischaracterization of what I said.

In basketball if you win your conference tournament then you make it to the playoff tournament. Every team has a chance to make it.

It's proven on the field/court.

I would also like at large teams to be selected by an algorithm that's publicly available (output reproducible with algorithm set before the season starts) instead of by committee

 

[Purdue85]

This is a mischaracterization of what I said.

In basketball if you win your conference tournament then you make it to the playoff tournament. Every team has a chance to make it.

It's proven on the field/court.

I would also like at large teams to be selected by an algorithm that's publicly available (output reproducible with algorithm set before the season starts) instead of by committee

It's not a mischaracterization. Not at all

It's not proven on the field/court. Numerous teams advance in the NCAA MBB tournament without ever winning their conference. Every team does NOT have a chance to make it.

Your argument does not hold.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

It's not a mischaracterization. Not at all

It's not proven on the field/court. Numerous teams advance in the NCAA MBB tournament without ever winning their conference. Every team does NOT have a chance to make it.

Your argument does not hold.

Winning their conference tournament. Conference tournament for those conferences that have them. How many teams win their conference tournament and don't advance?

Zero.

My argument was NOT that every team in the tournament won the conference. It was that winning conference or conference tournament is a possible path to the playoff tournament.

In basketball you can play your way to the playoff tournament.
If you win every game in basketball you will be in the playoff tournament.


My argument holds.

 

[Purdue85]

Winning their conference tournament. Conference tournament for those conferences that have them. How many teams win their conference tournament and don't advance?

Zero.

My argument was NOT that every team in the tournament won the conference. It was that winning conference or conference tournament is a possible path to the playoff tournament.

In basketball you can play your way to the playoff tournament.
If you win every game in basketball you will be in the playoff tournament.


My argument holds.

You're still gatekeeping.

That was your argument.

Many, many teams advance well into the MBB tournament without winning their conference. Many programs get better as the season progresses. AND... not all teams play the same level of competition.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

You're still gatekeeping.

That was your argument.

Many, many teams advance well into the MBB tournament without winning their conference. Many programs get better as the season progresses. AND... not all teams play the same level of competition's.

No it is not my argument. Never once did I say that the playoffs should be restricted to ONLY conference champions.

Not sure why you have fixated on this. I'm explicitly saying that conference champions should be included in a playoff.

I'm NOT arguing that every team in the playoff needs to be a conference champion.

A college playoff where all 10 conferences have a spot plus x number of at large teams.

Every team in college football would have a chance to make it into the playoffs without needing an at large decision.

 

[Purdue85]

No it is not my argument. Never once did I say that the playoffs should be restricted to ONLY conference champions.

Not sure why you have fixated on this. I'm explicitly saying that conference champions should be included in a playoff.

I'm NOT arguing that every team in the playoff needs to be a conference champion.

A college playoff where all 10 conferences have a spot plus x number of at large teams.

Every team in college football would have a chance to make it into the playoffs without needing an at large decision.

No, dude. I'll slow down.

Your argument was about "gatekeepers". That absolutely was your argument for allowing more teams into the CFB playoffs. I'm not ... "fixated" ... on "this". It's your argument.

There are gatekeepers in the MBB tournament.

If you want to argue for ... "A college playoff where all 10 conferences have a spot plus x number of at large teams" .... you're still arguing for "gatekeepers".

There is no way around it. In recent years not every conference has had a conference championship.

What's more, there are MANY program that get substantially better during the year, who would be shut out by ... "gatekeepers".

There are many more reasons, but, it's clear... there will still be "gatekeepers", keeping teams out of a CFB playoff who would (arguably) "deserve" to be in.

Don't complicate it any more than that. It's really that simple.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

No, dude. I'll slow down.

Your argument was about "gatekeepers". That absolutely was your argument for allowing more teams into the CFB playoffs. I'm not ... "fixated" ... on "this". It's your argument.

There are gatekeepers in the MBB tournament.

If you want to argue for ... "A college playoff where all 10 conferences have a spot plus x number of at large teams" .... you're still arguing for "gatekeepers".

There is no way around it. In recent years not every conference has had a conference championship.

What's more, there are MANY program that get substantially better during the year, who would be shut out by ... "gatekeepers".

There are many more reasons, but, it's clear... there will still be "gatekeepers", keeping teams out of a CFB playoff who would (arguably) "deserve" to be in.

Don't complicate it any more than that. It's really that simple.

My argument is that gatekeepers are stopping half of the college football teams from having ANY chance to compete for a championship before their season even begins. A perfect season won't earn them a chance to compete for a championship.

Such a system is inherently flawed.

 

[Purdue85]

My argument is that gatekeepers are stopping half of the college football teams from having ANY chance to compete for a championship before their season even begins. A perfect season won't earn them a chance to compete for a championship.

Such a system is inherently flawed.

No, they're not.

Every system is flawed. Even basketball.

The fact remains, your argument about gatekeepers is a non-starter. There will always be gatekeepers. Unless you're an advocate of a full tournament (completely unworkable for FB, absolutely doable for basketball), you'll always have gatekeepers.

In your scenario, a G5 team losing to Clemson on the first game of the season, then running the tables, is not perfect, but would still be subject to the same "gatekeepers", and we would still hear the same old song and dance.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

No, they're not.

Every system is flawed. Even basketball.

The fact remains, your argument about gatekeepers is a non-starter. There will always be gatekeepers. Unless you're an advocate of a full tournament (completely unworkable for FB, absolutely doable for basketball), you'll always have gatekeepers.

In your scenario, a G5 team losing to Clemson on the first game of the season, then running the tables, is not perfect, but would still be subject to the same "gatekeepers", and we would still hear the same old song and dance.

You're essentially saying that because playoffs don't include every team that there are gatekeepers. What you're saying is irrelevant to my point.

The fact remains that half the teams in college football have no chance of playing in the playoff before the season begins. A perfect season will not earn them a spot in the playoff.


Obviously such a system is inherently flawed.

Advancing an arguement that we have to pick some subset of teams so let's maintain a system that makes it impossible for half the teams to compete regardless of the results of their season is simply nonsensical and unacceptable.

Right now there will always be at least one P5 conference not in the playoff as well.
All of these issues can be fixed by adding two rounds to the playoff. It's hard to understand the logic of those that oppose playoff expansion. Why not let the teams settle this on the field?

 

[Purdue85]

You're essentially saying that because playoffs don't include every team that there are gatekeepers. What you're saying is irrelevant to my point.

The fact remains that half the teams in college football have no chance of playing in the playoff before the season begins. A perfect season will not earn them a spot in the playoff.


Obviously such a system is inherently flawed.

Advancing an arguement that we have to pick some subset of teams so let's maintain a system that makes it impossible for half the teams to compete regardless of the results of their season is simply nonsensical and unacceptable.

Right now there will always be at least one P5 conference not in the playoff as well.
All of these issues can be fixed by adding two rounds to the playoff. It's hard to understand the logic of those that oppose playoff expansion. Why not let the teams settle this on the field?

No. I'm saying, you invoking the "gatekeepers" is wrong. It's completely related to what you claimed.

Nobody is excluded, "perfect" season or not.

A "flawed system" is irrelevant. Every system will be flawed, and will always be so, as I've so patiently explained to you over the past few posts.

The issues will not be fixed with one, two or any other "magical" solution. As I've offered before, the NCAA MBB tournament is a prime example. You can argue against that all you like, we have an abundance of history as evidence.