Power 5 AD in New York this week said a specific 8-team playoff model is circulating around the CFB

Donate To GopherHole



If they go this route to pick the teams, I hope the first round games are played at the higher seeds home fields. Expecting a fan base to travel well to three playoff games is a tough ask.

I would also like to see the first round games played in mid-December with the losers slotted into the traditional New Years Day bowl games.
 

HopHead said:
If they go this route to pick the teams, I hope the first round games are played at the higher seeds home fields. Expecting a fan base to travel well to three playoff games is a tough ask.

I would also like to see the first round games played in mid-December with the losers slotted into the traditional New Years Day bowl games.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine a Deep South team crying about playing a far north team in December? That would be awesome.
 


Would definitely LOVE to see a Florida, Bama, or LSU have to play in TCF or the Big House in December! Imagine a night game!
 

I might be the only one, but I like the system as it is.
Nobody cares who the number 2-8 teams are, we just want a definitive #1.
Give me an example for this year, which team outside of #1-4 should be in the conversation at this point to be national champion based on the entirety of the season?
 

I wonder if this could be implemented before the current TV contract expires in 2026.
 

No system is perfect.
However, I think Klatt is one of the best, objective football minds around. His argument if this scenario were to happen is we can expect a lot more little sisters of the poor on the non con schedule.

I tend to agree w him. This provides only 2 at large rather than 4 at large. The conference season means everything (you think other teams (or our own fans) whined about the gimme Gophers B10 schedule this year...wait until this happens...). While one can argue it will not affect the non con bc their team should be 'battle tested', injuries occur w such games (see FL-Mich 2017) and it just will not be worth it under this format.

This model greatly diminishes the regular season. It also dilutes the playoff by default as stated above (I think you look back nearly every year and say there are only 4 teams who truly dominated the regular season/conf championship to have a chance to play for the title).

But I think the idea of home playoff games until the championship round is great!
 



This year I think you could argue the old system would work. LSU and OSU are head and shoulders above anyone else. Yeah, Clemson is undefeated, but you could argue that ten teams below them could be undefeated with the same schedule including the Gophers.

Iowa could be undefeated with that schedule.
 

Quite obvious how you do it, from what we have now: 4 quarter-finals and 2 semi-finals = 6 bowls, oh look at that, exactly the number we have in the system now.

Only thing that doesn't jive/I'm curious about what they mean is the "bowl sponsored national championship". In my opinion, they have the national championship game exactly right. Bid out to a city to host.

I guess I could understand a bit of the following thinking, if this is where they're going: have the natty be at the same site as one of the semi-final games, and play it a week after the semi-final, so the teams can reduce travel by just staying out there. Possibly fans too ... but dang, people gotta work! Also, if you go that route, how do you make it "fair" by determining which semi gets to host the natty? What if the #1 doesn't make it to the semi, so you end up having that natty at the lower seeded semi? Etc.

And I'm not sure if it's fair to have the natty "only" a week after the semi. Two weeks might be better. So I think they have it right for now, with the natty.


The question then would be ... what do the contract bowls want? Take the Rose for example. Would they rather always host the Big Ten v PAC auto-bids, no matter what the seeds are, as a quarter-final game on NYD? Same with Sugar, always SEC v Big XII? Same with Orange, always ACC v highest rated at-large? Leaving one of the other bowls to be the other at-large v the G5, likely the Fiesta because of below (plus Boise is likely to get it often).

I think that makes the most sense. Then the remaining two bowls are the semi. I would vote for the Cotton and Peach to be the semi's permanently in such a setup, as DAL and ATL are both major airline hubs. Easy and cheap flights, as opposed to the Fiesta, for the most of the country.
 
Last edited:

Bruno22 said:
His argument if this scenario were to happen is we can expect a lot more little sisters of the poor on the non con schedule.
Click to expand...
Frankly -- GOOD.

Major non-conf P5 matchups should be saved for the bowl games. Don't like seeing them too early on the schedule. Save for the traditional non-con P5 matchups (Iowa Iowa St, Clemson SC, GA Tech UGA, FL St Florida, Louisville Kentucky).


Won't dilute the regular season. Rather it will emphasize the CONF games, as should be. Big Ten conf games will be the most important, as they should be.
 

LASTLY -- and most importantly ...... does this *finally* force Notre Dame to join a conference in football?????

Or can their fan base accept the fact that if they stay independent with their brutal schedule, that they'll probably only get one of the 2 at-large spots maybe once per 10 years on average?
 



Panthadad2 said:
Can you imagine a Deep South team crying about playing a far north team in December? That would be awesome.
Click to expand...
Not gonna happen though.

Bowls are too important and too powerful. They have all the seats at the table now, and they will craft the system to keep themselves prominently part of the system.
 


Notre Dame would likely join the ACC. Much easier than the B1G or SEC to win, although the Big 12 would also be an option.
 

Otis said:
Notre Dame would likely join the ACC. Much easier than the B1G or SEC to win, although the Big 12 would also be an option.
Click to expand...

I think they might remain independent. Probably nothing easier than for them to snag an at large bid every year without having to play a full conference schedule. Win one out of two tough games every year and walk in with an 11-1 record after beating the bottom feeders of g5 and p5
 

To preserve the importance of the regular season and encourage competitive non-conference games I’d prefer only conference champions be eligible for the playoff. Whether that’s a 6 team or 8 team format makes no difference to me.

I’d also like to eliminate the selection committee and revert to either national polls (as imperfect as they are) or a combination system like the old BCS to determine the highest ranked G5 conference champions, determine seeding particularly important for a first round bye if a 6 team format. I don’t like the non-transparency aspect of the computer rankings, particularly Sagarin.

Finally, nobody “knows” who the best teams are until the conclusion of the playoff. In its short existence twice now the champion wouldn’t have even been eligible under the old BCS model. I’ll allow there is maybe only one or two G5s that are good enough to compete with the big boys every blue moon but that’s part of the excitement of sports.
 

LakerFan said:
I think they might remain independent. Probably nothing easier than for them to snag an at large bid every year without having to play a full conference schedule. Win one out of two tough games every year and walk in with an 11-1 record after beating the bottom feeders of g5 and p5
Click to expand...
This isn't at all how it will work for them, though. They play a bunch of traditional, tough opponents every year. With only 2 at-large spots, and a ton of great SEC and Big Ten teams that won't win the conference? No championship game in the last week to impress the committee? ND is pretty much gonna have to go 12-0 to get an at-large. How often does that happen??

It will come down to what the big boosters can live with, for the sake of the independence tradition: is making the playoff as an at-large one every 10 years on average good enough, or not?

If not, then I agree it will be the ACC.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
To preserve the importance of the regular season and encourage competitive non-conference games I’d prefer only conference champions be eligible for the playoff. Whether that’s a 6 team or 8 team format makes no difference to me.
Click to expand...
Perfectly valid argument. TV won't buy it, though. They need top teams, top matchups, top ratings. 3 G5 champs ain't gonna get it done.
 

MplsGopher said:
Perfectly valid argument. TV won't buy it, though. They need top teams, top matchups, top ratings. 3 G5 champs ain't gonna get it done.
Click to expand...

Thus a 6 team format is probably more valid. There is usually a competitive G5 team every year. First round bye for top 2 seeds, determined by polls/computers, or maybe Rock Paper Scissors between the ADs.
 

A few questions and/or comments. No one mentions academics. How do they do the above within the current 15 game limit? Why is 8 better than 4? And if so, why would 16 or 64 not be better than 4 as well? "Give the little guys a chance!!!!" Who wants to go to an outdoor game here in December? Not me. Not 98% of the football fans in this country. If not here, won't we always be the "away" team? Is that fair to us? Won't 16 games increase the risk of serious injuries to worn out players? Why conference champs? 8-4 Smith beats 11-1 Jones in the conference champion game. Jones had already beaten Smith in the regular season 81-2. Smith goes? Why, they are no good.
 
Last edited:

Pompous Elitist said:
Thus a 6 team format is probably more valid. There is usually a competitive G5 team every year. First round bye for top 2 seeds, determined by polls/computers, or maybe Rock Paper Scissors between the ADs.
Click to expand...
Perfectly valid. 6 team playoff is an easier to swallow "baby step" from the 4 team.

I'm just going by the OP, that said they're talking 8 team. And it makes sense to me, that TV wants to get at least some at-larges in there to ensure ratings.
 

Veritas said:
A few questions and/or comments. No one mentions accademics. How do they do the above within the current 15 game limit? Why is 8 better than 4? And if so, why would 16 or 64 not be better than 4 as well? "Give the little guys a chance!!!!" Who wants to go to an outdoor game here in December? Not me. Not 98% of the football fans in this country. If not here, won't we always be the "away" team? Is that fair to us? Won't 16 games increase the risk of serious injuries to worn out players? Why conference champs? 8-4 Smith beats 11-1 Jones in the conference champion game. Jones had already beaten Smith in the regular season 81-2. Smith goes?
Click to expand...
Only two teams in the nation would be playing 16 games. Possible fewer, if an at-large that didn't play in the conf champ games makes it to the natty.

Rematches in conf champ games are a bummer, I agree, but at the end of the day I think you're going to see divisions killed and have the #1 v #2 team play the conf champ game in all the confs. Best ratings, even if it is a rematch. And for confs larger than 10 teams, it won't be a guaranteed rematch.
 

Go Gophers Rah said:
I might be the only one, but I like the system as it is.
Nobody cares who the number 2-8 teams are, we just want a definitive #1.
Give me an example for this year, which team outside of #1-4 should be in the conversation at this point to be national champion based on the entirety of the season?
Click to expand...

You are not alone, I like it just fine now. This year was a struggle to find 4 worthy teams. If it were an 8 team playoff this year, maybe the 4 vs 5 game would be decent but I suspect the other 3 quarterfinals would be blowouts.
 

MplsGopher said:
Frankly -- GOOD.

Major non-conf P5 matchups should be saved for the bowl games. Don't like seeing them too early on the schedule. Save for the traditional non-con P5 matchups (Iowa Iowa St, Clemson SC, GA Tech UGA, FL St Florida, Louisville Kentucky).


Won't dilute the regular season. Rather it will emphasize the CONF games, as should be. Big Ten conf games will be the most important, as they should be.
Click to expand...
To each their own

Should el
MplsGopher said:
Frankly -- GOOD.

Major non-conf P5 matchups should be saved for the bowl games. Don't like seeing them too early on the schedule. Save for the traditional non-con P5 matchups (Iowa Iowa St, Clemson SC, GA Tech UGA, FL St Florida, Louisville Kentucky).


Won't dilute the regular season. Rather it will emphasize the CONF games, as should be. Big Ten conf games will be the most important, as they should be.
Click to expand...
To each their own of course.

I think most enjoy having 15 weeks of college football w interesting games and not just 10.

To me, this reads, that we should let the kids go to class, have 5 weeks of preseason, and a 10 game schedule w conference championship. This is great in my opinion if we just want playoff bids to emphasize the conference schedule (aside from 5 extra fall weekends tuning into interesting, full slates of college football.

I think you lose out on a lot (see all the games you listed above) if you advocate for no meaningful games outside you conference. It does dilute the regular season. I do think that can be argued to a large degree.

You cannot have it both ways if the way to the get to the carrot at the end of the stick is changed per the first post in the thread.
 

Where are you getting 15 weeks? There are 12 regular season games, and I'm in favor of 10 of them being P5 v P5 games. I personally am in favor of a 10 game Big Ten schedule, with some exceptions allowed.

Two home games at the front end vs G5, is the "preseason".

There are byes of course, but they get spread around among the teams. So it's unlikely you get a week where everyone takes a BYE at the same time.
 

MplsGopher said:
Where are you getting 15 weeks? There are 12 regular season games, and I'm in favor of 10 of them being P5 v P5 games. I personally am in favor of a 10 game Big Ten schedule, with some exceptions allowed.

Two home games at the front end vs G5, is the "preseason".

There are byes of course, but they get spread around among the teams. So it's unlikely you get a week where everyone takes a BYE at the same time.
Click to expand...
Getting 15 weeks from every sports website out there... Yes, I understand your math as well.

Like you, I also would be in favor of more conference games if this was the format.

Correct that not everyone takes a bye at the same time. That is why I said full slate and not just 1-2 marquee games a week early on).

Again, I think it is unfortunate that the OOC scheduling is greatly diminished (one cannot argue that it does not create buzz around the start of the season rather than AL vs The Citadel). P5 will rightfully not want to schedule another P5 from another conference on a regular basis (as you pointed out above).

It is okay that you do not care about OOC home/away games. I am sure not every does. While you miss out on some great football and rivalries, you won't miss out on all of it.

To each their own.
 

If they expand to 8, it should still all be at-large teams.

If you do need one group of 5 team, seeding for spots 6-8 should be random selection, and #1-5 get seeded normally.

I have no urge to watch an annual battle between the #1 seed (SEC Champ) routinely get a game against a Power 5 (20th ranked) team and see a blow out while the future opponent of the SEC Champ is playing in a legit game.

At least give seeds #1 - #3 the same chance to get a first week "near bye" of getting the group of 5 team.
 

I think the first round would have to be at the higher seed's home field and the existing bowl format would follow. I really don't see how you can expect fans to travel to up to 4 post season games (conference championships and 3 playoff games.)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom