CBS: Urban Meyer is against expanding the playoff to eight teams

[BleedGopher]

per CBS:

It honestly feels like it's only a matter of time before the College Football Playoff expands from four teams to eight, even though we haven't completed the first four-team version yet. If -- or when -- it does happen, you can bet that Urban Meyer won't be pleased with the development.

Meyer appeared on The Dan Patrick Show and discussed the idea. He's not exactly for it.

"You can't do that," Meyer said. "Now that I've done it and, once again, there better be coaches on these committees. I think we learned a lesson, you know with all the family travel and there better be student-athlete representation on any conversation and I'm going to be very outspoken about that if there's any more conversation about adding games there better be coaches on that and there better be student athletes."

Meyer also went on to say that due to adding more games to the schedule, the NCAA would need to expand scholarship limits on teams.

"You can't," he said. "You better give us 110 scholarships then, because you're down. I can't speak for Oregon, I can speak for Ohio State. That when they added — When they had 85 scholarships there were 12 games. Now there's 15. And the last three they added aren't against smaller — they're heavyweight prizefights. You just can't do it."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-against-expanding-the-playoff-to-eight-teams

Go Gophers!!

 

[Goldmember]

Urban is right. There are a lot of reasons there shouldn't be an 8-team playoff. But I haven't heard a single decent argument in-favor of it.

Why 8? Did we really need MS State, Michigan State, Baylor and TCU in the playoff?

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

Urban is right. There are a lot of reasons there shouldn't be an 8-team playoff. But I haven't heard a single decent argument in-favor of it.

Why 8? Did we really need MS State, Michigan State, Baylor and TCU in the playoff?

I think TCU made a pretty good argument that we do need them in the playoff.

 

[Gophers09]

I agree you can't just keep adding games and in general, I was happy without the playoff (though I can't say I wasn't happy to watch the semi-finals. That said, I'd be in favor of the conferences going back to 10 or 12 teams (not that that's likely), playing 10 conferences games, killing the conference championship games, and then going to an 8 team playoff, where at least the first round is hosted by the higher seeds.

 

[Goldmember]

That said, I'd be in favor of the conferences going back to 10 or 12 teams (not that that's likely), playing 10 conferences games, killing the conference championship games, and then going to an 8 team playoff, where at least the first round is hosted by the higher seeds.

Conferences are still exploring expanding, not breaking apart. So this isn't going to happen. Yet another reason why 8 just doesn't work. With so many teams, you will end up punishing teams ranked 6 or 7 that play in a CCG and lose to a Top 2 or 3 team, while a divisional runner-up gets in.

8 is just waaaaaaay too many teams. There are only 5 power conferences. And that number will go to 4 before it goes to 6 or 8 anyway.

 

[Gopherfan12]

How about a 6 team playoff and the 1 and 2 seeds get a first round bye

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

Urban assumes that there are basically no changes to the current structure. Not that I'm advocating for all these changes, but who is to say that conference championships and playoff games cannot be played at one team's home field? If they can add regular season games, why not eliminate one (non-conference) game? Why is there an assumption that travel for family members needs to be subsidized?

I know there is a desire to incorporate the existing bowls into the playoff structure but maybe it's time to reassess this situation. The old alignments (e.g., B1G vs. PAC-12) are long gone and maybe only the championship game should be played on a neutral site? Yeah, it sounds very NFLish which I despise but we are already well on our way in going that route.

I realize because of TV revenues it would be difficult to take away one game from every team's schedule to help minimize the impacts of an eight-team playoff. However, rather than add scholarships and travel costs maybe it's time to take away a game. I'd like to know the TV revenue trade-off between having an 8-team playoff vs. a sh!tload of meaningless non-conference games that hardly anyone watches.

I do have an opinion on my third example which is why the he!! is there this assumption that mommy and daddy need to have their travel subsidized so they can be at every game? In what other collegiate sport do they talk about getting mommy and daddy to the regional/national games/events? I know it's a long time ago but I happened to compete at national events in college and I didn't expect mommy and daddy to be there and I don't think it hurt me. These are grown men (yeah, I'm talking about the players) and paying for fan/family travel is asinine! Urban helped to get the ball rolling on this one so he should quit pissing and moaning about it but I digress.

Before the idea of an 8-team playoff is dismissed, I think the conferences along with the all but worthless ncaa needs to take a hard look at the challenges and opportunities to making an 8-team playoff doable without assuming the need for more money to be spent by the participating institutions.

 

[5$BitsOfBrokenChair]

Simple answer. 8 teams. First round is home games for the top 4.

 

[5$BitsOfBrokenChair]

In fact, just have them all be home games until the national championship game.

 

[mnhomer]

Simple answer. 8 teams. First round is home games for the top 4.

This is what I have been thinking. First round is at the home stadium followed by the two bowl games. This way the first round is basically like traveling to an away game for fans/parents.

 

[50PoundHead]

Someone is always going to be left out if it's 4, 8, or 16 teams. I actually think more teams in the playoff, the more teams on the margin that would be able to make plausible arguments as to why they should be in, which would just raise an even bigger fuss.

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

He's right - eight would be a circus, kill the bowls, diminish the value of the season. Greed of course will dictate.

 

[station19]

How many games do the D2 and D3 champions play?????

NDSU will be playing game #16 vs Illinois St on Saturday. Didn't bother to look up D2 D3.

8 teams means every team in the power 5 conferences has a chance to 'play their way in'. Also leaves room for an outstanding independent or strong minor conference champ to make an appearance.

Every time these playoff issues come up we always hear about too many games and too much time away from school. Meanwhile D2, D3 and F?S schools have been doing it for years.

 

[alchemy2u]

How many games do the D2 and D3 champions play?????

NDSU will be playing game #16 vs Illinois St on Saturday. Didn't bother to look up D2 D3.

8 teams means every team in the power 5 conferences has a chance to 'play their way in'. Also leaves room for an outstanding independent or strong minor conference champ to make an appearance.

Every time these playoff issues come up we always hear about too many games and too much time away from school. Meanwhile D2, D3 and F?S schools have been doing it for years.

Sorry, but Illinois State is not like playing a top power 5 conference school. Those lower level teams are not getting pounded like the P5 schools. Also, there is not a bowl system at those lower levels that would get cannibalized by a payoff. That cuts down on the number of schools that will get to play bowl games. I know as an overall fan you may say good, but it means a lot to each of those schools.

You guys are missing the point, Urban said the grind is too much with the current number of scholarships. The schedules keep adding more powerhouse games without giving you enough players to make it through it. It is an interesting take, but I think he is right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

He's right - eight would be a circus, kill the bowls, diminish the value of the season. Greed of course will dictate.

Many of the current bowls are money losers for the teams (or at least the conferences due to revenue sharing from the bowls). I would consider sending 6-6 teams to crappy bowl games that lose money for the conferences so that a bowl committee can turn a profit to be a more egregious example of greed dictating than expanding a playoff to include the 8 best teams in the country so that all five power 5 conferences are represented.

 

[GopherSOB]

Personally I would like to see the playoff expanded. As far a Urban wanting additional scholarships, that would only help the rich get richer. I would be in favor of allowing redshirt freshman to play in the post season, as coach Kill has advocated for, without those players loosing the year of eligibility. This would certainly add depth to the teams who would be playing the extra games.

 

[bottlebass]

If Urban gets his way and teams will have more scholarships I'm scared to see how they revise our ticket price increases the next few years even higher...

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

If Urban gets his way and teams will have more scholarships I'm scared to see how they revise our ticket price increases the next few years even higher...

You're borrowing trouble. I’ve been told that it won’t matter to fans.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

I don't think the playoffs expand, nor do I think they need to anytime soon. I don't think there are more than 4 teams worthy of being in the national title discussion each year. People will point to TCU this year, but if you watched TCU, Baylor, Florida State games, TCU looked better than the other two, there was just no way you could remove an undefeated FSU team. That won't happen every year.

If 8 teams were allowed this year that means Baylor, TCU, Michigan State and Mississippi State would get in. Does anyone think that these other teams are actually national title worthy? I already mentioned TCU would be my replacement for Florida State who I didn't think was national title worthy before they played Oregon. Baylor was beat by Michigan State, who was handled by both Oregon and Ohio State. Mississippi State would have had no chance.

Only allowing four teams, and doing the weekly playoff rankings, kept college football in the national media spotlight all season, even during the meat of the NFL season. Moving to 8 teams would greatly diminish this.

 

[bottlebass]

Only allowing four teams, and doing the weekly playoff rankings, kept college football in the national media spotlight all season, even during the meat of the NFL season. Moving to 8 teams would greatly diminish this.

I like every thing you said about expanding to 8 but disagree with your last statement. The fact that the CFP kept college football in the national media spotlight all season and now is talked about as much as the NFL playoffs is the reason why I think it will expand to 8 very shortly. More games, more spotlight, more money. The 2 playoff games set viewer records which equals BIG money this year and the future which will keep the greed mongers pushing for more by adding more games.

 

[LakerFan]

I don't think the playoffs expand, nor do I think they need to anytime soon. I don't think there are more than 4 teams worthy of being in the national title discussion each year. People will point to TCU this year, but if you watched TCU, Baylor, Florida State games, TCU looked better than the other two, there was just no way you could remove an undefeated FSU team. That won't happen every year.

+1, And I would argue that in the same way Florida State carried a little previous year cred into this year to get that spot, TCU will carry a little of the "should have been in" cred forward to next year's discussion on who fills those 4 spots. With 60+ teams playing different schedules and limited good comparison games there will always be a little bit of history taken into account when figuring out the present. At least TCU's exclusion gave everyone something to talk about, I don't know about anyone else but my interest in the final game is about half of what my interest was for the last round.

 

[EliteOpinionGuy]

I am an advocate to keep the system the way it currently is at a 4 team playoff. I would challenge any of the posters above or to come to give an actual REASON why 8 teams is better than 4 beyond "I want to see an 8 team playoff". I have yet to see a reasonable answer as to why 4 is too little. If you want to go the route of saying TCU this year is the answer as to why I would respond by simply saying, your argument is that the competition committee got spot number 4 wrong. I don't have a position as to which team should have been left out to let TCU in but given that one of the quarter final games was decided by almost 30 points, I think it is plausible to find your answer there. So again I have stated previously as will say again: Anyone who is arguing for more teams based on the teams that get left out is simply forgetting that even if we go to 20 teams, there may be a team ranked 21 that could have done much more damage than the team ranked 16. By saying the 5th ranked team could beat this year's 3rd ranked team shows why we need 8 teams in the playoff, you are forgetting that with SUBJECTIVE rankings there will never be a right or wrong answer, only best guesses!!

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Simple answer. 8 teams. First round is home games for the top 4.

They'd also have to get it out of the bowl system because the loser of the first round game wouldn't go to a bowl unless they reserved a space for the loser which would be kind of dumb.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Sorry, but Illinois State is not like playing a top power 5 conference school. Those lower level teams are not getting pounded like the P5 schools. Also, there is not a bowl system at those lower levels that would get cannibalized by a payoff. That cuts down on the number of schools that will get to play bowl games. I know as an overall fan you may say good, but it means a lot to each of those schools.

You guys are missing the point, Urban said the grind is too much with the current number of scholarships. The schedules keep adding more powerhouse games without giving you enough players to make it through it. It is an interesting take, but I think he is right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If 33 year olds can play 20 games in the NFL on a 53 man roster with 4 preseason games (possibly 24 total), then 19 year olds can play 16 games with 85 players.

And they get two bye weeks. I don't buy the "overworked" argument for one second.

 

[RodentRampage]

Simple answer. 8 teams. First round is home games for the top 4.

It's a great idea, but I can't see the southern schools agreeing to this.

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

If 33 year olds can play 20 games in the NFL on a 53 man roster with 4 preseason games, then 19 year olds can play 16 games with 85 players.

And they get two bye weeks. I don't buy the "overworked" argument for one second.

Urban just wants more scholarships because he knows OSU is not worried about the arms race in college football and can afford it. He'd like nothing more than to financially stress most other programs since he'll have no problem getting what he needs.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

As to the argument over 4 vs 8: My argument in favor of 8 is this: if given a choice, I would choose to include rather then exclude. Yes, some years there may only be 3 or 4 or 5 legitimate candidates - but I want to see the teams prove it on the field - not be excluded by a committee sitting in a room with no public scrutiny on the decision-making progress.

One of the great things about sports is the chance for surprises. Who is to say that, with an 8-team playoff, another team might not have pulled off an "upset" and played its way into the championship game.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Urban just wants more scholarships because he knows OSU is not worried about the arms race in college football and can afford it. He'd like nothing more than to financially stress most other programs since he'll have no problem getting what he needs.

Ding, ding, we have a winner. With 100 scholarships Urban might be able to have 7 or 8 top-shelf quarterbacks on his roster waiting their turn (who could be playing elsewhere, at schools like Minnesota), as opposed to 3 or 4.

 

[EliteOpinionGuy]

As to the argument over 4 vs 8: My argument in favor of 8 is this: if given a choice, I would choose to include rather then exclude. Yes, some years there may only be 3 or 4 or 5 legitimate candidates - but I want to see the teams prove it on the field - not be excluded by a committee sitting in a room with no public scrutiny on the decision-making progress.

One of the great things about sports is the chance for surprises. Who is to say that, with an 8-team playoff, another team might not have pulled off an "upset" and played its way into the championship game.

Just to play role of devil's advocate, please explain or support how there currently is not a way for teams to "prove it on the field". My point from this year is that FSU proved on the field they were the best team in college football by not losing a game in the regular season. They would have EASILY been a BCS #1 or #2 in the old system due to an undefeated season. Now that same team got beat by a team that may or may not have made the BCS top two rank by year's end (SURPRISE: Ohio State beat #1 Bama). With that said, please explain how your argument differs from what actually happened without only pointing out there was a 4 team playoff instead of 8. Yes, i agree that a playoff system is better than BCS. Yes, I agree that winning a national title should be earned on the field and not just awarded based on some commitee's criteria. But I still have yet to hear a rational explination as to why there is a need to put 8 teams in the playoff system. Can anyone honestly say that Baylor, Michigan State, TCU, or Mississippi State have ZERO chance at beating one of the top four seeds, answer is no. BUT, what are the chances that if you ran a simulated playoff with 8 teams that one of the bottom four seeds actually wins it all more than one of the top 4? If a system of four teams does not include the BEST team, then I argue we should change the people/process determining teams 1-4, instead of just making it 1-8 (because then team number 9 feels like they should be included by saying, we are just as good as team number 8).

 

[mnsportsgeek]

As to the argument over 4 vs 8: My argument in favor of 8 is this: if given a choice, I would choose to include rather then exclude. Yes, some years there may only be 3 or 4 or 5 legitimate candidates - but I want to see the teams prove it on the field - not be excluded by a committee sitting in a room with no public scrutiny on the decision-making progress.

One of the great things about sports is the chance for surprises. Who is to say that, with an 8-team playoff, another team might not have pulled off an "upset" and played its way into the championship game.

I think other sports prove that if you dilute the playoffs, "undeserving" teams will inevitably win the national championship. The last thing we need is a a third place conference team winning the national title.

Are Miss St & Michigan State really deserving of playing for a national title this year?

I've gone back and forth and ultimately I think I support an 8 team playoff, but if you continue to expand, you're going to allow some teams that didn't earn it in the regular season to win the national title.

And I have a hunch that if they go to 8, they aren't stopping at 8. There will be too much money being made to not expand it.