CBS' Dennis Dodd: Eight-team playoff makes more sense; is it worth the complications?

[BleedGopher]

per Dodd:

The average college football fan is way ahead of the next year's playoff.

Why settle for four, when eight teams makes much more sense?

That's the best question about a playoff that has yet to kick off. An eight-team playoff would take care of all the conference champions that matter plus the best at-large teams that didn't win their conferences. It would be, well, perfect.

One answer is the law of diminishing returns. Even the college presidents and commissioners who green-lighted the playoff beginning next season know there are consequences to further expansion.

Adding a round of quarterfinals (four more games) would "diminish" those financial returns. They would be worth less than $50 million, according to industry sources. The current three-game structure beginning after next season (two semis and a championship) are worth $90 million-$100 million each.

While $50 million would be enough for you and I to put gas in the car, networks like return for their dollar. There's no guarantee those games would be worth it.

"I just don't see it," one media consultant said. "The money is not going to be there like most people think. Some money would be there, but you would absolutely but you start risking regular-season value."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-more-sense-but-is-it-worth-the-complications

Go Gophers!!

 

[GopherSteak]

I actually think it would increase viewship during regular season. Imagine if the Gophers were number 10 and played in the championship game against Michigan or something. Image all the teams that are close or just barely in the top 8. Those are HUGE games. Not just one or two games with the top 5, you are talking maybe 5 to 8 games that actually matter. If they think a fan would stop watching their team if they were 12-0 and number 1, you're nuts.

I'm not seeing the point of the 8 game playoff haters.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I'd be fine with an 8 team playoff only if the first round would be played at the higher seed's home stadium. Still make it an advantage to be seeded as high as possible.

Plus I would love to see some of the SEC teams maybe have to travel north in December.

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

Dodd is right that an eight-team playoff would take care of all the conference champions that matter plus the best at-large teams that didn't win their conferences. I'd suggest using the four major bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar and Cotton) for the first round of playoffs using traditional conference alignments (e.g., B1G vs PAC12 in the Rose). It would help preserve the importance of these bowls plus they would probably get played on the same day or at least the same weekend which would be nice.

 

[station19]

Dodd is right that an eight-team playoff would take care of all the conference champions that matter plus the best at-large teams that didn't win their conferences. I'd suggest using the four major bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar and Cotton) for the first round of playoffs using traditional conference alignments (e.g., B1G vs PAC12 in the Rose). It would help preserve the importance of these bowls plus they would probably get played on the same day or at least the same weekend which would be nice.

Missing something there?

 

[Buttcheeks McGaffigan]

ACC, B1G, Big XII, Pac 12, SEC champions qualify every year (5)
Best conference winner from the AAC, Conf USA, Mt West Mac, Sun Belt (1)
At-Large (2)

1. Florida St 2. Auburn 3. Michigan St 4. Stanford 5.Baylor 6.Alabama 7. Ohio State 8. UCF

 

[station19]

ACC, B1G, Big XII, Pac 12, SEC champions qualify every year (5)
Best conference winner from the AAC, Conf USA, Mt West Mac, Sun Belt (1)
At-Large (2)

1. Florida St 2. Auburn 3. Michigan St 4. Stanford 5.Baylor 6.Alabama 7. Ohio State 8. UCF

Or another way to state it:

BCS conference champions (5)
At-Large (3) At least 1 must come from a non-BCS team...(the independents would probably prefer this)

There will always be complaints about someone being left out, however in these scenarios every single BCS team has a chance win it's way in on the field.....just win your conference.

 

[MadtownGopher]

Dodd is right that an eight-team playoff would take care of all the conference champions that matter plus the best at-large teams that didn't win their conferences. I'd suggest using the four major bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar and Cotton) for the first round of playoffs using traditional conference alignments (e.g., B1G vs PAC12 in the Rose). It would help preserve the importance of these bowls plus they would probably get played on the same day or at least the same weekend which would be nice.

That sounds good in theory, but what happens if Oregon is #1 and tOSU is #2. They play each other in the first round of the playoffs? That's not going to work. Keep the bowls separate from the playoffs. The bowls were always a dumb idea so I don't see the point in going out of your way to "preserve their importance." They would still be around, they just wouldn't feature any of the 8 playoff teams.

 

[station19]

That sounds good in theory, but what happens if Oregon is #1 and tOSU is #2. They play each other in the first round of the playoffs? That's not going to work. Keep the bowls separate from the playoffs. The bowls were always a dumb idea so I don't see the point in going out of your way to "preserve their importance." They would still be around, they just wouldn't feature any of the 8 playoff teams.

Sorry Madtown but that is 100% false.

 

[MadtownGopher]

Sorry Madtown but that is 100% false.

Why? It shouldn't have taken this long to go to a playoff. Just because bowl games were the original postseason doesn't mean they are the best postseason.

And my point still stands, you can't have the Rose Bowl with Pac-12 and B1G teams as apart of the playoffs. You either have the playoffs or you have the BCS.

 

[station19]

Why? It shouldn't have taken this long to go to a playoff. Just because bowl games were the original postseason doesn't mean they are the best postseason.

And my point still stands, you can't have the Rose Bowl with Pac-12 and B1G teams as apart of the playoffs. You either have the playoffs or you have the BCS.

Your statement was "The bowls were always a dumb idea". The Rose Bowl was the original. Go back and find out why the Rose Bowl(and many of those that followed) was started. It was not a dumb idea. It was a tremendous and very successful idea.

Most 'dumb ideas" don't last 100 years.

 

[gopherhoopsguy]

I think we will get to a 8 team playoff sooner than later... It would have been a great year for the top 8 again this year! wow I would actually watch some college games outside of the gophers then... Yes play the first round at the highest seed or the 4 top bowls. Play championship game in a big city that has submitted bids to host it just like the superbowl now

 

[tinyarch]

Need we only look to "March Madness" to see how beneficial an eight team tournament would be? Have the first four games played on New Years Day at the Rose Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl as a tip of the hat to the original big four bowls. Let the semi's be played at Fiesta and one other of your choice. Have the final game rotate from the original four sites. It's hard to see how revenue would drop and there would be diminishing returns on the dollar as the media consultant suggests.

 

[Schnauzer]

Perhaps dictate the end of the season MUST be Thanksgiving week and then with an 8 team playoff have 4 top seeds host the quarter finals the first week in December. Then run it the same way the current 4 team playoff is set up from there on out. The 4 losers from the quarterfinals could still play in lesser bowls while the four winners move on to semi finals played on Jan 1. There would be no problem with wearing fan bases out having to travel to 3 neutral site locations, and it would reward the top 4 seeds with home playoff games.

 

[theTurning]

Need we only look to "March Madness" to see how beneficial an eight team tournament would be? Have the first four games played on New Years Day at the Rose Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl as a tip of the hat to the original big four bowls. Let the semi's be played at Fiesta and one other of your choice. Have the final game rotate from the original four sites. It's hard to see how revenue would drop and there would be diminishing returns on the dollar as the media consultant suggests.

Agreed. I see nothing but upside from an 8-team format. It would be bananas.

 

[die hard gopher]

More then 4 is way too many teams, and expanding it just creates more opportunities for lesser teams to play in the championship thatdont deserve it, I don't want a butler in the championship, I want the 2 best teams from the regulars seaseasonn in the playoff, not 2 teams that had a lucky Cinderella run

 

[vinko bogataj]

ACC, B1G, Big XII, Pac 12, SEC champions qualify every year (5)
Best conference winner from the AAC, Conf USA, Mt West Mac, Sun Belt (1)
At-Large (2)

1. Florida St 2. Auburn 3. Michigan St 4. Stanford 5.Baylor 6.Alabama 7. Ohio State 8. UCF

So here we have what an 8 team playoff would look like this year.

1. FSU (BCS #1) - Still to play
2. Auburn (BCS #2) - Still to play
3. MSU (BCS #4) - defeated # 4 Stanford (BCS#5)
4. Stanford (BCS #5) - lost to #3 MSU (BCS #4)
5. Baylor (BCS #6) - lost to #8 UCF (BCS #15)
6. Alabama (BCS #3) - lost to a non-conference Champion Oklahoma (BCS #11)
7. Ohio State (BCS #7) - lost to a non-conference Champion Clemson (BCS#12)
8. UCF (BCS #15) - defeated #5 Baylor (BCS# 6)

Bracket 1

Baylor vs. Stanford
UCF vs. FSU

Bracket 2

Alabama vs. MSU
Ohio State vs. Auburn

 

[MadtownGopher]

More then 4 is way too many teams, and expanding it just creates more opportunities for lesser teams to play in the championship thatdont deserve it, I don't want a butler in the championship, I want the 2 best teams from the regulars seaseasonn in the playoff, not 2 teams that had a lucky Cinderella run

Ummm, we aren't going to see a "Butler" in the championship simply by going to a 8 team playoff. First, there would likely be only one non-BCS auto-qualifier in the playoff and they'd be ranked in the top 15 (ie UCF). Second, this isn't basketball. There are far less David vs. Goliath situations in college football because you need more than a couple of good players to be successful.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

I also think an an 8-team playoff is the way to go. I think it will get there within a decade, hopefully sooner.

I like the idea of preserving the Cotten, Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowls as the first 4 games. I also love the idea of having cities submit for championship games just like the Super Bowl.

However, I also believe teams need to play in the cold. I think the southern teams need to travel north. Football is a three-season sport. We don't need to appease corporate suits and southerners who think cold is 40 degrees Fahrenheit.

Either make the teams travel to the top 4 seeds' stadiums, or rotate the championship game across the country to various climates. Going to the north in only stadiums with roofs is not an acceptable compromise. A championship game or playoff game with more than 100,000 people at the Big House or in Happy Valley would be freaking awesome.

If you rotate the championship, give the championship game a sweet new bowl name, or call it the Rose Bowl. It's the original, so why not permanently make it the most prestigious game?

I'm open to many of these ideas. The ideal scenario would include eight teams and require travel to northern cities.

 

[tinyarch]

May I also add that like the NIT in basketball, all the other "lesser" bowl games could continue to exist. I see nothing inherently wrong with giving other teams an extra game to celebrate decent to good seasons by traveling for a neutral site game against a similar opponent from a different conference.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

May I also add that like the NIT in basketball, all the other "lesser" bowl games could continue to exist. I see nothing inherently wrong with giving other teams an extra game to celebrate decent to good seasons by traveling for a neutral site game against a similar opponent from a different conference.

Excellent point.

 

[station19]

I also think an an 8-team playoff is the way to go. I think it will get there within a decade, hopefully sooner.

I like the idea of preserving the Cotten, Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowls as the first 4 games. I also love the idea of having cities submit for championship games just like the Super Bowl.

However, I also believe teams need to play in the cold. I think the southern teams need to travel north. Football is a three-season sport. We don't need to appease corporate suits and southerners who think cold is 40 degrees Fahrenheit.

Either make the teams travel to the top 4 seeds' stadiums, or rotate the championship game across the country to various climates. Going to the north in only stadiums with roofs is not an acceptable compromise. A championship game or playoff game with more than 100,000 people at the Big House or in Happy Valley would be freaking awesome.

If you rotate the championship, give the championship game a sweet new bowl name, or call it the Rose Bowl. It's the original, so why not permanently make it the most prestigious game?

I'm open to many of these ideas. The ideal scenario would include eight teams and require travel to northern cities.

The bold is 100% correct. The problem is December, January and February are not part of those three seasons. Playing outdoor football those months in norther climates is ridiculous.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

The bold is 100% correct. The problem is December, January and February are not part of those three seasons. Playing outdoor football those months in norther climates is ridiculous.

No it's not. They've been playing football outdoors in December and January for more than 100 years. In fact, winters were colder in the past, so the average outdoor games in those months were even colder.

This warm weather bias started recently. It should end.

I'm also sick of this cold-weather whining. Minnesota winters were much more harsh a couple decades ago. This winter is only approaching what we used to deal with. There were weeks when it didn't get above 0. Now, the longest string of below zero is a couple days at most.

 

[station19]

No it's not. They've been playing football outdoors in December and January for more than 100 years. In fact, winters were colder in the past, so the average outdoor games in those months were even colder.

This warm weather bias started recently. It should end.

I'm also sick of this cold-weather whining. Minnesota winters were much more harsh a couple decades ago. This winter is only approaching what we used to deal with. There were weeks when it didn't get above 0. Now, the longest string of below zero is a couple days at most.

Football is much more of a finesse game now than it was years ago. Though many of the bitter cold and snow games provide TV entertainment they are not a true test.

Will you be outside playing football between posts today?

I don't believe there were too many December football games in MN 100 years ago.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Football is much more of a finesse game now than it was years ago. Though many of the bitter cold and snow games provide TV entertainment they are not a true test.

Will you be outside playing football between posts today?

I don't believe there were too many December football games in MN 100 years ago.

I have been outside, and I plan to be again. It's definitely cold outside, but it's not the end of the world cold. It's been colder. I also don't use skyways.

They may not have played much in Minnesota at that time, but they sure did at the Met, it was colder in the 60s than today.

Moreover, Solider Field was built in the 1920s.

Football has been played in the winter for a long time. What's your aversion to the cold?

 

[station19]

I have been outside, and I plan to be again. It's definitely cold outside, but it's not the end of the world cold. It's been colder. I also don't use skyways.

They may not have played much in Minnesota at that time, but they sure did at the Met, it was colder in the 60s than today.

Moreover, Solider Field was built in the 1920s.

Football has been played in the winter for a long time. What's your aversion to the cold?

Soldier Field was built for high school and college games. Even today those seasons do not extend to Dec and Jan. The Bears moved in in 1971. And WOW is that now an ugly stadium redo. It looks like a Close Encounters invasion.

Sorry but the 60's were not 100 years ago.

Do you feel the Vikings should be building an outdoor stadium?

 

[holereader]

the eight team playoff really only means teams would play one extra game except for the championship game - my system is this

(1) all eight teams play on the same day - the saturday before xmas - games would be at 11:00, 3:00, 6:30 and 9:00 (on west coast) - all games would be neutral site venues - the question I struggle with is should any of them be outdoors say (Chicago, New York, Lambeau?) or just play them inside (Detroit, Indy, Mpls, St. Louis?) but one/tow game(s) needs to be in midwest and/or northeast - the others can be in warmer climes.

(2) Semis are played on new years day (Rose/Orange bowls) - the losers of the quarterfinals also play a new years day bowl game (cotton/sugar/fiesta) - along with second tier new years day bowl games (outback,etc)

(3) Final are played following week - on the Monday or fit it in around NFL games on the week end

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Soldier Field was built for high school and college games. Even today those seasons do not extend to Dec and Jan. The Bears moved in in 1971. And WOW is that now an ugly stadium redo. It looks like a Close Encounters invasion.

Sorry but the 60's were not 100 years ago.

Do you feel the Vikings should be building an outdoor stadium?

What is your problem? You pointed out MN didn't play football in the winter 100 years ago. That's why I brought up the Met. We still played football outdoors there 50 years ago. It was still colder then than now. Why are you being so obtuse?

The fact of the matter is, football has been played outdoors in December and January for decades. Longer than most people have been alive on the face of the earth. And now you're declaring we shouldn't play in that those months because of the cold, even though those months have gotten warmer since football has been played in those months.

I don't understand what you're objecting to. Are you simply anti-cold? Do you think the product is worse? Do you think we never should have allowed football to have been played in those months?

 

[station19]

the eight team playoff really only means teams would play one extra game except for the championship game - my system is this

(1) all eight teams play on the same day - the saturday before xmas - games would be at 11:00, 3:00, 6:30 and 9:00 (on west coast) - all games would be neutral site venues - the question I struggle with is should any of them be outdoors say (Chicago, New York, Lambeau?) or just play them inside (Detroit, Indy, Mpls, St. Louis?) but one/tow game(s) needs to be in midwest and/or northeast - the others can be in warmer climes.

(2) Semis are played on new years day (Rose/Orange bowls) - the losers of the quarterfinals also play a new years day bowl game (cotton/sugar/fiesta) - along with second tier new years day bowl games (outback,etc)

(3) Final are played following week - on the Monday or fit it in around NFL games on the week end

The losers are not going to want to play another game and no one is going to want to watch them. The Final Four used to have a 3rd place game. That ended years ago. No interest.

 

[station19]

What is your problem? You pointed out MN didn't play football in the winter 100 years ago. That's why I brought up the Met. We still played football outdoors there 50 years ago. It was still colder then than now. Why are you being so obtuse?

The fact of the matter is, football has been played outdoors in December and January for decades. Longer than most people have been alive on the face of the earth. And now you're declaring we shouldn't play in that those months because of the cold, even though those months have gotten warmer since football has been played in those months.

I don't understand what you're objecting to. Are you simply anti-cold? Do you think the product is worse? Do you think we never should have allowed football to have been played in those months?

I don't feel football games should be played outdoors in MN+ in Dec and Jan when there are alternatives.

You really don't like it when people disagree with you, do you?