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

Donate To GopherHole
holereader said:
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
Click to expand...

Play them indoors, outdoors, in the warmth, and in the cold.

I don't understand what Station19 is objecting too. The cold is fine, and many northern cities have outdoor football stadiums that would be perfect for the championship game. Lambeau, Soldier Field, The Big House, Happy Valley, Heinz Field, and the Giants/Jets stadium. People play hockey all winters outdoors, ice skate, fish with and without fish houses, ski, build snowmen, sled, snowmobile, etc. Football has been played in the cold for our entire lives. Hundreds of millions of people have entertained themselves in the cold through those activities and others. Football should not be exempt, especially because it's been a fabric of winter sporting for decades.
 

station19 said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, you can disagree, I just don't understand why you don't think so.

Are you against hockey outdoors, skating, sledding, skiing, etc.? As I just mentioned hundreds of millions of people have done that in the cold. People have played football in the cold for decades.

How is playing football in the cold any different from doing any of the other activities in the cold? That's why I don't understand your argument. What makes football different outdoors in the winter, when it's been played in the winter for our whole lives, than those other sports and activities? Or are you against those as well?

Heck, my friends and I played football outside in the winter everyday during recess. We even played it in Bailey Hall my freshman year.
 

GophersInIowa said:
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.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of playing at college stadiums based on the high seed. I think you would have higher overall attendance since fans wouldn't have to travel multiple times (I am assuming a majority of season ticket holders are within "reasonable" driving distance of campuses). If you are going to move towards a system that is beginning to resemble the NFL, why not go all in with logistics and game locations? The core rounds of the playoff could be done before the end of the year and the Championship game could bleed into the new year.

Of course, the caveat here is that the bowl system would basically just go away. But I do think this would solidify the importance of the regular season. Our late season run this year would have been even more exciting if it meant breaking into the playoffs.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Twin Cities record is seven days (January 1-7, 1912) not including the several ice ages that have occurred.
 

These young men are students. Too many games!

NCAA and schools are already making many millions
and not paying the students.
 


If there is going to be many games and hundreds of millions
be generated, the student athletes should
receive at least 50% of all revenue. Why should
coaches, administrators, NCAA and schools
receive millions and the student athletes nothing?

No other industry would be allowed to generate
hundreds of millions and not pay its employees.
 

gopherveteran said:
These young men are students. Too many games!

NCAA and schools are already making many millions
and not paying the students.
Click to expand...

Eight team playoff ... yes 3 more games total... lol to many games now that is funny... so 2 teams in the whole country play 2 extra games a year.. wow now that Is stress and no time for school work... 4 teams play 1 extra game... so most schools in its history never play and extra game, can we put this to rest of school work and no time for extra games. lol
 

gopherveteran said:
If there is going to be many games and hundreds of millions
be generated, the student athletes should
receive at least 50% of all revenue. Why should
coaches, administrators, NCAA and schools
receive millions and the student athletes nothing?

No other industry would be allowed to generate
hundreds of millions and not pay its employees.
Click to expand...

There not employees there are students! Most get scholarships so about 20,000 a year... They don't have to play college football... no one is forcing them to.
 

gopherveteran said:
If there is going to be many games and hundreds of millions
be generated, the student athletes should
receive at least 50% of all revenue. Why should
coaches, administrators, NCAA and schools
receive millions and the student athletes nothing?

No other industry would be allowed to generate
hundreds of millions and not pay its employees.
Click to expand...

Many people disagree with you that they don't get paid. I worked while in college (both during the school year and during the summer). Just from a financial standpoint, virtually everyone would love to trade places with these guys who graduate without a loan.

I think too many people forget or don't understand that a lot of this revenue that comes into a school goes back into the school; to help the other non-revenue sports, and to help build those crazy nice facilities for the players to use.

I also don't think this scenario is that much different than a lot of other real life situations. A CEO of a garbage company makes a heck of a lot more than the people physically doing the work. At least in the college athlete situation, they are receiving training to potentially better their life in the future. If they don't take school seriously, that is their own fault. Plus for the few good enough, at least they have a shot at making millions at the next level.

By the way, Ivy League teams can play up to 15 games if they go all the way, and that would partially be during finals. If they can do it, I think the big boys can.
 



GophersInIowa said:
Many people disagree with you that they don't get paid. I worked while in college (both during the school year and during the summer). Just from a financial standpoint, virtually everyone would love to trade places with these guys who graduate without a loan.

I think too many people forget or don't understand that a lot of this revenue that comes into a school goes back into the school; to help the other non-revenue sports, and to help build those crazy nice facilities for the players to use.

I also don't think this scenario is that much different than a lot of other real life situations. A CEO of a garbage company makes a heck of a lot more than the people physically doing the work. At least in the college athlete situation, they are receiving training to potentially better their life in the future. If they don't take school seriously, that is their own fault. Plus for the few good enough, at least they have a shot at making millions at the next level.

By the way, Ivy League teams can play up to 15 games if they go all the way, and that would partially be during finals. If they can do it, I think the big boys can.
Click to expand...

Don't forget D2 and D3 and FCS. NDSU was 15-0.
 

tinyarch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Too much travel for fans in that model. In an 8-game playoff, the first round games have to be played at the home site of the higher seed. There's no other way it works. Asking fans to travel across the country multiple weeks in a row isn't a sustainable model. Heck, asking fans to travel back-to-back weeks filling up a 80k stadium is probably too much to begin with. Not to mention conferences ask fans to travel to the conference championship game.
 

Pewterschmidt said:
Too much travel for fans in that model. In an 8-game playoff, the first round games have to be played at the home site of the higher seed. There's no other way it works. Asking fans to travel across the country multiple weeks in a row isn't a sustainable model. Heck, asking fans to travel back-to-back weeks filling up a 80k stadium is probably too much to begin with. Not to mention conferences ask fans to travel to the conference championship game.
Click to expand...

I can see your point but what about double-headers the first round. 4 games at 2 sites on 2 days.

BB has multiple games at sites.
 

station19 said:
I can see your point but what about double-headers the first round. 4 games at 2 sites on 2 days.

BB has multiple games at sites.
Click to expand...

Interesting but the field couldn't be grass then. Too much ground repair needed.
 




I know this doesn't work to fill the pockets of the bowl people, but what if the first rounds were played similar to the NFL - best team's record/etc gets it at their home field. This would solve attendance.
 

vinko bogataj said:
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)
Click to expand...

I had heard this elsewhere and like it - you have to win your conference to qualify. Now, this is a little half-baked, as I haven't thought too much about it, but I like the idea of up to 8 teams.

Take the 5 conference winners every year and then other conference winners or independents in the top 10, up to 8 teams. If there are less than 8 teams, higher seeds get a bye.

This keeps pressure on the regular season - as the conference really matters. The big issues is that you still have some reliance on subjective polls (although to a lesser extent) and may make it easier for an independent than a conference team.
 

I think the question here is what happens to the bowl games.

Let's face it - if you have an 8-team playoff, those teams and games will receive all of the attention/hype from the media, leaving the "other" bowl games as also-rans. The bowl committees and chambers of commerce will fight any system that reduces the prestige of their sites. If there is less TV money and less sponsorship money, I could see some of the low-tier bowl games folding (which might not be a bad thing.....). So, I think any 8-team playoff has to incorporate existing bowl games in some fashion. I second the notion that teams in the playoffs should not play in a bowl game after losing in the playoffs.

I'm not saying it won't happen at some point in the future, but I think we need to give the 4-team playoff system a few years to see how it works and what the reaction is.
 

We should just have a 12 team tourney.
10 conference champions with 2 at larges.

Top 4 get a bye than a home game.
5-8 get home games against 9-12 and the winners play 1-4 on the road.

The final 4 are at neutral sites.




Just like every other level of NCAA college football. It would get huge tv ratings.


And before you say the mountain west champion doesn't deserve a shot at the title. Keep in mind that it is possible to beat them in the playoff and prove that.

Selection comittee determines seeding and the two at large bids.
I would suggest a rule that at large bids cannot be seeded in the top 4, but that is personal preference.
 

Rosemountian said:
We should just have a 12 team tourney.
10 conference champions with 2 at larges.

Top 4 get a bye than a home game.
5-8 get home games against 9-12 and the winners play 1-4 on the road.

The final 4 are at neutral sites.




Just like every other level of NCAA college football. It would get huge tv ratings.


And before you say the mountain west champion doesn't deserve a shot at the title. Keep in mind that it is possible to beat them in the playoff and prove that.

Selection comittee determines seeding and the two at large bids.
I would suggest a rule that at large bids cannot be seeded in the top 4, but that is personal preference.
Click to expand...

I would love something like this.
 

Rosemountian said:
We should just have a 12 team tourney.
10 conference champions with 2 at larges.

Top 4 get a bye than a home game.
5-8 get home games against 9-12 and the winners play 1-4 on the road.

The final 4 are at neutral sites.




Just like every other level of NCAA college football. It would get huge tv ratings.


And before you say the mountain west champion doesn't deserve a shot at the title. Keep in mind that it is possible to beat them in the playoff and prove that.

Selection comittee determines seeding and the two at large bids.
I would suggest a rule that at large bids cannot be seeded in the top 4, but that is personal preference.
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of having such a high percentage being represented by automatic bids, but that is just me. You're essentially making the non conference games not mean anything. I'd maybe be okay with it if they all went to at least 10 conference games.

As mentioned, I'd prefer the 8 team with the first round being at the higher seed's home stadium. I'd take the big five conference champions but they have to be in the top 15. Therefore their performance in the non conference schedule still matters. You need to have some kind of way out if something happens like Wisconsin last year or UCLA almost winning the PAC 12 with a 6-6 record. Those teams wouldn't deserve to be in the playoffs in my opinion.

Then take the top ranked small conference team champion as long as they are in the top 15. And then the last two (or more) go to the best at-large.
 

GophersInIowa said:
I'm not a big fan of having such a high percentage being represented by automatic bids, but that is just me. You're essentially making the non conference games not mean anything. I'd maybe be okay with it if they all went to at least 10 conference games.

As mentioned, I'd prefer the 8 team with the first round being at the higher seed's home stadium. I'd take the big five conference champions but they have to be in the top 15. Therefore their performance in the non conference schedule still matters. You need to have some kind of way out if something happens like Wisconsin last year or UCLA almost winning the PAC 12 with a 6-6 record. Those teams wouldn't deserve to be in the playoffs in my opinion.

Then take the top ranked small conference team champion as long as they are in the top 15. And then the last two (or more) go to the best at-large.
Click to expand...

I see your points but respectfully disagree with the significance of non-conference play. I like the idea of playing at least 10 conference games with the league champion of the five major conferences getting an automatic bid. Unless a sixth major conference develops, the remaining at-large spots would go to the three highest ranked teams whether they come from runner ups in the major conferences, lesser conferences or independents.

I really don't care if the independents and lesser conferences wouldn't like it. The lesser conferences don't have the rigor of say SEC or B1G games. The independents can join a conference if they think it unfair. In my way of thinking, losing a game or two doesn't necessarily end a teams hope for getting into the playoffs. Teams may be even less adverse to scheduling quality non-conference opponents since the goal would be to get ready for conference play versus scheduling weak opponents for the sake of rankings.

The bottom line is that I think league champs from the major conferences should get an automatic spot in the playoffs. I know this proposal is far from perfect and I'm sure much brighter minds can offer quality refinements to it.
 

Let's wait until the conference championships sell out before starting an eight team playoff. Neutral site semi finals will be a disaster. Times have changed. The Packers can't sell out a playoff game at home.

The only good argument for eight teams in a world where we already have the conf. Championships is that we could have good teams left standing from all five conferences if the cards fall just wrong.
 

Rosemountian said:
We should just have a 12 team tourney.
10 conference champions with 2 at larges.
Click to expand...

It is silly to give preference to the Sun Belt champion (in an average year) over the third-place team in the SEC or Big Ten, either of whom would be a huge favorite over that conference champion. I agree with you in principle, but they should continue to use a BCS-style rankings system similar or identical to the one in place for quality assurance purposes. Whichever conference champions end the year in the top 14 (or whatever number they agree upon) get an auto-bid, and the remainder of the spots are at-larges.
 

dpodoll68 said:
It is silly to give preference to the Sun Belt champion (in an average year) over the third-place team in the SEC or Big Ten, either of whom would be a huge favorite over that conference champion. I agree with you in principle, but they should continue to use a BCS-style rankings system similar or identical to the one in place for quality assurance purposes. Whichever conference champions end the year in the top 14 (or whatever number they agree upon) get an auto-bid, and the remainder of the spots are at-larges.
Click to expand...

I think it should be a 16 team tournament. That way, there would be no byes, we could give the autobids to all conferences, and then the top teams would be getting to play at home against the Sun Belt champion in what would effectively be a bye. That is already one of the features of the NCAA basketball tournament, plenty of the bubble teams would be favored against some of the 15 and 16 seed conference champions. And, imagine the kind of fun Cindarella stories we could have if a Sun Belt champ went into Florida State and took down the Seminoles on the road in the first round.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I think it should be a 16 team tournament. That way, there would be no byes, we could give the autobids to all conferences, and then the top teams would be getting to play at home against the Sun Belt champion in what would effectively be a bye. That is already one of the features of the NCAA basketball tournament, plenty of the bubble teams would be favored against some of the 15 and 16 seed conference champions. And, imagine the kind of fun Cindarella stories we could have if a Sun Belt champ went into Florida State and took down the Seminoles on the road in the first round.
Click to expand...

Yep, that is my preferred format. Yahoo! did a great write up about it back in 2010:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/college-football-playoff-plan-132100316--ncaaf.html
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I think it should be a 16 team tournament. That way, there would be no byes, we could give the autobids to all conferences, and then the top teams would be getting to play at home against the Sun Belt champion in what would effectively be a bye. That is already one of the features of the NCAA basketball tournament, plenty of the bubble teams would be favored against some of the 15 and 16 seed conference champions. And, imagine the kind of fun Cindarella stories we could have if a Sun Belt champ went into Florida State and took down the Seminoles on the road in the first round.
Click to expand...

I think this is ideal too, but I don't think it will happen anytime soon.
 

MadtownGopher said:
Yep, that is my preferred format. Yahoo! did a great write up about it back in 2010:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/college-football-playoff-plan-132100316--ncaaf.html
Click to expand...

That was a really good article Madtown. Thank you for sharing it.

The system would operate just like basketball. The 16-team playoff=NCAA tournament. The other bowls=NIT. I'm sure the NFL wouldn't be happy with the college playoffs occurring during the NFL playoffs, but nuts to the NFL. The college football championship game would probably be the second highest rated sporting event of the year. They could avoid the clash with the NFL playoffs by playing on Monday night, like they do now, or they could stick it to the NFL and play it on a Saturday.

Jim Tressel was also right. We'll have the playoffs start in 2015. He said there would be a playoff within five years. He made the statement in 2010.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom