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

Donate To GopherHole
afurry91 said:
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.
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.
Click to expand...

So if this year we had 8 teams and Mississippi state wins the national title, would we not have a third place conference team win the national title??????????
 

EliteOpinionGuy said:
So if this year we had 8 teams and Mississippi state wins the national title, would we not have a third place conference team win the national title??????????
Click to expand...

I was ranking them based on ranking in the CFP poll, but you have a point. They would essentially be the unofficial 3rd place SEC team. I would have a problem with that.

I don't want this to become what basketball has become where 8 seeds win it all because they got hot. Was UCONN the best team in the country last year? No way.

Was Michigan State deserving of playing for a title? No, and they shouldn't get to. If that means leaving out TCU, I'm fine with it. And the more teams you introduce, the more that luck is involved. So maybe I'm back on the 4 team side.
 

I am a fan of college football and I would never call someone else's opinon invalid because it differs from mine. But I have still yet to hear a REASON why more than 4 teams is so needed other than people wanting to have a bigger playoff. I think that we can argue (healthy debate) all day long about which FOUR teams should be in the playoffs, but I think it is not practical to simply say "well... I think we should have more because a team that did not get in could have won it all" and I feel that is where most "fans" are coming from when they ask for an 8 team playoff. As for sponsors and business lobbist that are pushing for expanded support are doing so with financial objectives hiding behind personal feelings.
 

I'd like to see the conference championship games as the Quarter-Finals by having 4 Power Conferences. Realign to West/North/South/East. Bowls still all stay intact.

72 teams.
4 Conferences of 18 teams.
8 Divisions of 9 teams.

8 Divisions games to go to quarter-final
2 games have to be against big 72
2 games against any other teams in FBS
 

EliteOpinionGuy said:
I am a fan of college football and I would never call someone else's opinon invalid because it differs from mine. But I have still yet to hear a REASON why more than 4 teams is so needed other than people wanting to have a bigger playoff. I think that we can argue (healthy debate) all day long about which FOUR teams should be in the playoffs, but I think it is not practical to simply say "well... I think we should have more because a team that did not get in could have won it all" and I feel that is where most "fans" are coming from when they ask for an 8 team playoff. As for sponsors and business lobbist that are pushing for expanded support are doing so with financial objectives hiding behind personal feelings.
Click to expand...

People like the 1 and done feeling. Right now playoffs are not set by games played. They are set by a committees feel of the games played.
 


This is what I would like:
- 8 team playoff
- 5 conference champions
- 3 teams selected through a system that doesn't include 12 people trying to figure out who the three best teams are. Maybe a computerized system like the BCS to determine the three "best" teams that weren't conference champions
- Include an * for any D1 team that any undefeated team gets an automatic team (Boise State exception)
- Manually seed the 8 playoff teams
- First round games played at home around Christmas time, second round in bowls on New Years, National Championship like it is this year.
 

EliteOpinionGuy said:
I am a fan of college football and I would never call someone else's opinon invalid because it differs from mine. But I have still yet to hear a REASON why more than 4 teams is so needed other than people wanting to have a bigger playoff. I think that we can argue (healthy debate) all day long about which FOUR teams should be in the playoffs, but I think it is not practical to simply say "well... I think we should have more because a team that did not get in could have won it all" and I feel that is where most "fans" are coming from when they ask for an 8 team playoff. As for sponsors and business lobbist that are pushing for expanded support are doing so with financial objectives hiding behind personal feelings.
Click to expand...

My question then would be whether you were in favor of expanding to a 4 team playoff in the first place? You could make the same argument about the old championship game system (we may need to change HOW we pick the best 2 teams but it's not practical to want more just because).
 

MaxyJR1 said:
People like the 1 and done feeling. Right now playoffs are not set by games played. They are set by a committees feel of the games played.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that point. But still have yet to hear how 8 teams is better than 4. That is my main point, not that we have a perfect system nor that the selection committee got it correct. My point plain and simple is that in terms of FOOTBALL, four is an ideal number because it preserves the importance of the regular season, it provides ample opportunity for teams to become "contenders", it keeps the current "reward" for teams that over-acheive relatively speaking, and it does not allow for cupcaking to be rewarded (eye test can outweigh beating up on much weaker opponents).

In the current system, I would have no problem with the committee knocking out an undefeated FSU team that played noone good and barely passed the artificial eye test. That is why the committe is there but with that being said, I think the bolded point is in a perfect world and to think college football is going to have the PERFECT system is naive.
 

fryguy22 said:
My question then would be whether you were in favor of expanding to a 4 team playoff in the first place? You could make the same argument about the old championship game system (we may need to change HOW we pick the best 2 teams but it's not practical to want more just because).
Click to expand...

Yes I was for this reason: It allows teams to truly have a chance which did not in recent years. In the year Boise beat OU in the statue of liberty play, that boise state team had a good enough resume and performance level to gather consideration by the committee. I think with all else being equal, they would have been in the four team playoff and at that time, may the best team win.

My argument is not that only two teams should get consideration for the playoff, it is that four teams is the BEST number of teams to have in a playoff system for COLLEGE football.
 



EliteOpinionGuy said:
I don't disagree with that point. But still have yet to hear how 8 teams is better than 4. That is my main point, not that we have a perfect system nor that the selection committee got it correct. My point plain and simple is that in terms of FOOTBALL, four is an ideal number because it preserves the importance of the regular season, it provides ample opportunity for teams to become "contenders", it keeps the current "reward" for teams that over-acheive relatively speaking, and it does not allow for cupcaking to be rewarded (eye test can outweigh beating up on much weaker opponents).

In the current system, I would have no problem with the committee knocking out an undefeated FSU team that played noone good and barely passed the artificial eye test. That is why the committe is there but with that being said, I think the bolded point is in a perfect world and to think college football is going to have the PERFECT system is naive.
Click to expand...

I agree that 8 is not better than 4, but how you get to the 8 or 4 is the problem. There should be 5 or 6 teams currently because of the difficulty in comparing conferences. I lean toward 6 with 5 conference champs and 1 at-large. However like the proposal a 72 team restructure with 4 power conferences better.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
I agree that 8 is not better than 4, but how you get to the 8 or 4 is the problem. There should be 5 or 6 teams currently because of the difficulty in comparing conferences. I lean toward 6 with 5 conference champs and 1 at-large. However like the proposal a 72 team restructure with 4 power conferences better.
Click to expand...

I like 8. Get all five power conferences an autobid, give the top four seeds homefield advantage. If there is an undefeated mid-major, get them involved. This seems to solve a lot of people's problems. The undefeated mid-major can't complain they were excluded. People can't complain that the undefeated mid-major doesn't deserve to be there if they are still undefeated after going on the road to play the number one team in the country. The top four teams getting homefield advantage and the top seed getting some crappy mid-major who ran the table at home maintains the rewards and importance for the regular season.
 

I like it at 4. I don't like the idea of getting match ups in the play off where you have to come back and beat a team that you just beat in the conference championships. I really don't understand the TCU complaint. They lost to Baylor. Baylor had 1 lose. End of story. Maybe Baylor has the complaint. Urban makes some good points before he gets into his self serving rant. Let's just let the 4 team play off settle in for a few years and then take a look at the options
 

I think it is time for the Power 4 conferences to cannibalize what little is left of the not so Big 12 by taking in TCU, Oklahoma, WVU, and/or UT so that an 8-team playoff can be created from the top two teams from each conference. The conference champ from each division gets home field advantage in the first round with runner-ups getting sent on the road. Screw any non-Power 4 conference teams including semi-independents like ND (this would force them to join the ACC full-time). A lot of details would need to be figured out but you get the idea.
 



I believe all the pro sport leagues have roughly 35-40% of their teams make the playoffs. College basketball playoffs is 68 teams........................and people are worried that 8 teams for CFB is too many and watered down?
 

Would Meyer be against it if Ohio state was team 5-8 this year?
 

station19 said:
I believe all the pro sport leagues have roughly 35-40% of their teams make the playoffs. College basketball playoffs is 68 teams........................and people are worried that 8 teams for CFB is too many and watered down?
Click to expand...

Yes. This isn't pro sports. Preserving the importance of the regular season is a big deal to a lot of us.
 

afurry91 said:
Yes. This isn't pro sports. Preserving the importance of the regular season is a big deal to a lot of us.
Click to expand...

Neither is the road to the final four in BB.

The importance of the regular season is very important to me.......don't leave me out of that group. I want room for all 5 of the conference champions, and the opportunity for a mid major champion or independent.
 

The fact that the ADs on the selection committee had Alabama, Univ of Mississippi, and Miss State all in the top 4 at one time this season should blow up the validity of that process.

Ok, since there is resistance to 8 teams, how about 5 teams. Top seed with bye determined by either a) lottery, or b) computer seeding using the BCS formula. Leave the "experts" out of it.

Or, top seed with bye determined by prior year champion.

A tourney of champions still preserves the regular season. NO wild cards.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
The fact that the ADs on the selection committee had Alabama, Univ of Mississippi, and Miss State all in the top 4 at one time this season should blow up the validity of that process.

Ok, since there is resistance to 8 teams, how about 5 teams. Top seed with bye determined by either a) lottery, or b) computer seeding using the BCS formula. Leave the "experts" out of it.

Or, top seed with bye determined by prior year champion.

A tourney of champions still preserves the regular season. NO wild cards.
Click to expand...

I actually think 5 teams with the top 3 seeds getting a bye would work really well.

The 4th and 5th seeds play in a "play-in" game at a neutral site. The winner goes on to the semi's in the New Year's Six and the loser gets a spot in another non-playoff New Year's Six bowl.

No reason to include the mid major's or independents in the discussion, and get Notre Dame in a freakin conference. If the mid major's want to move up into a power 5 conference, they are more than welcome to come play with the big boys. The more the merrier, but stick to the 5 power conferences and let them determine the 5 champions. If they want to have a conference championship game then go ahead, if they want to be stupid like the Big 12 then declare a champ through tie breakers. The playoffs wouldn't care as long as they send a team.
 

station19 said:
Neither is the road to the final four in BB.

The importance of the regular season is very important to me.......don't leave me out of that group. I want room for all 5 of the conference champions, and the opportunity for a mid major champion or independent.
Click to expand...

Let me help: quit mentioning college basketball.

The major conferences are very well aware that they allowed the NCAA to destroy regular season basketball over the decades with the expansion of the NCAA tournament. They will not let this happen to football, where they oversee a much greater share of the sport's financial interest (and investment).

Those of us who are cool with 4 still haven't heard a reason why 8 is better. The "conference champions" argument is a mediocre argument for 6 (or 5).... It is a non-argument for 8, however.
 

Goldmember said:
Let me help: quit mentioning college basketball.

The major conferences are very well aware that they allowed the NCAA to destroy regular season basketball over the decades with the expansion of the NCAA tournament. They will not let this happen to football, where they oversee a much greater share of the sport's financial interest (and investment).

Those of us who are cool with 4 still haven't heard a reason why 8 is better. The "conference champions" argument is a mediocre argument for 6 (or 5).... It is a non-argument for 8, however.
Click to expand...

Why do you feel this way?
 

I would say that "conference champions" is a damn good argument. The Gophers win the conference championship and are left out of the playoffs because the Big Ten is perceived to be down. You're okay with that?
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Why do you feel this way?
Click to expand...

It is only a mediocre argument for 5 or 6 because it incorporates the assumption that all power 5 conference champions shouldhave approximately equal access to the national championship game.

That would have worked nicely this year (assuming the Big XII had more teams or actually had a true champion). But most years, at least one of the conference champions has 2or 3 more losses than the Top 2 teams. Most years, there actually is a nationally dominant division (as many had imagined the SEC West to be this year).

That said, I think 5 or 6 solves ALL of the problems associated with 4 while avoiding most of the dozens of problems associated with expanding to 8.
 

Goldmember said:
Let me help: quit mentioning college basketball.

The major conferences are very well aware that they allowed the NCAA to destroy regular season basketball over the decades with the expansion of the NCAA tournament. They will not let this happen to football, where they oversee a much greater share of the sport's financial interest (and investment).

Those of us who are cool with 4 still haven't heard a reason why 8 is better. The "conference champions" argument is a mediocre argument for 6 (or 5).... It is a non-argument for 8, however.
Click to expand...

College Basketball.
 

If you're going to have a "playoff," then make it a real playoff. IMHO, the current 4-team setup is an invitational tournament, with the invitations decided by a committee operating behind closed doors.

One of the reasons I would prefer 8 teams (but I could live with 6 teams and two byes) is the idea or prospect of teams improving during the course of the season. Let's say team A loses its star QB to an injury, and they lose 1 or 2 games early. Star QB comes back, and by the end of the year, Team A is playing lights-out. Put them in an 8-team tourney, and they could win the whole thing. But, in a 4-team restricted tournament, the early losses could keep them from proving on the field that they are truly the best team at the end of the season.

Another thought - with a 4-team tournament, it is going to be very difficult for a Cinderella team to make the field - a Boise State-like team that comes out of nowhere, grabs the nation's attention, but may not play in the "right" conference or have its games televised on the "right" network. I would like to see a team like that get a shot in the playoffs. If they get their butts kicked in the 1st round, then so be it - at least they had their shot.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom