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

[MplsGopher]

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.

If the Sugar is a quarter game pitting the SEC champ vs Big XII champ, it is hardly going to be #1 vs #20. That's what I'm thinking. Same with Rose and Orange, for their contracted tie-ins.

No chance all 8 will be at-large. DOA. P5 confs won't sign on the dotted line, they're demanding auto-bids.

 

[Veritas]

They will do whatever produces the most new money, as always. What effect that has on the fans will be totally irrelevant, as always.

 

[GFBfan]

I'm guessing that this will turn into which 2 SEC teams will get the at large bids, because they all play such tough schedules in conference. If this were in place this year, The teams would be:
1-LSU-SEC Champ
2-OSU-BIG Champ
3-Clemson-ACC Champ
4-OU-Big12 Champ
5-Georgia-At Large
6-Alabama-At Large
7-Oregon-PAC Champ
8-Memphis-G5
Would be some good quarterfinal match-ups

 

[1983]

This would be better than the beauty contest we have now. You win your conference, you go regardless of your record, your brand, or your popularity with the media. No wild card can be from a Power 5 so none of this picky an extra SEC team because rubes think they deserve it. Win your conference or stay home. And there are no home field games in most of BIG country in mid to late December so get that out of your heads.

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

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.

But then why have playoffs at all? The "best" team doesn't always win. It's who was best that day. I mean, what if LSU and tOSU get upset, are you really going to say they weren't better teams than Oklahoma and Clemson? Is Illinois a better team than Wisconsin?

I've always felt that if it's a four team playoff, all members should have to be conference champs. If it's eight, I have no issue with two at large bids.

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?

Right now, no it's hard to say someone got screwed. Had Utah won, however, either they or Oklahoma would have been left out. I would also say the last two years undefeated UCF arguably deserved to be in the playoff, along with a handful of others.

The major conference commissioners are not going to tolerate not having teams in the playoffs much longer. PAC-12 commish just made some comments the other day about how it's damaging their conference.

 

[Section2]

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?

Then go back to the old system, and vote on a national champion after the bowl games.

This is the ultimate no brainer. The eye test is not very good. Most SEC teams don't leave their state until conference season. The relative strength of conferences can be obvoius in some years. But it can turn. I remember when Auburn was left out in 2004 and after the bowls, it was clear they were one of the top 2 teams. Funny to think of the best SEC team being left out now. Same thing happened to USC in 2002 when they smoked Iowa in the Rose Bowl. At season's end, they were clearly a top 2 team.
We don't know which conference is best. Let the conference champs prove it on the field. Give David a shot. Nobody can possibly have any complaints. Sure, like the basketball tournament, the 65th team might complain. But nobody can say they didn't have a chance. Everyone has a chance.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

The main reason for an 8-team playoff is not to get the "best" team. It's to stop teams 5-8 from complaining that they didn't get a chance. so fine, give them a chance. If they win, great. if they get stomped, well, at least they were in the playoffs.

Sure, there will be years when there is a clear-cut order for the top 4. But, there will also be years when there are 5 or 6 solid teams and it's really hard to cut the field down to 4. So, take 8 and everybody is happy. It's hard to see a scenario where the #9 team in the country has a legitimate claim that they could have won if they had been included. but, there have been years where the #5 or #6 team might have had a shot.

the 8-team format is a way to shut up most of the complaining about the process.

 

[disco]

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!!!!"

It works perfectly well at every lower level, from D1-FCS all the way down to D3 and NAIA.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

The main reason for an 8-team playoff is not to get the "best" team. It's to stop teams 5-8 from complaining that they didn't get a chance. so fine, give them a chance. If they win, great. if they get stomped, well, at least they were in the playoffs.

Sure, there will be years when there is a clear-cut order for the top 4. But, there will also be years when there are 5 or 6 solid teams and it's really hard to cut the field down to 4. So, take 8 and everybody is happy. It's hard to see a scenario where the #9 team in the country has a legitimate claim that they could have won if they had been included. but, there have been years where the #5 or #6 team might have had a shot.

the 8-team format is a way to shut up most of the complaining about the process.

Agreed.

The first year of the playoffs a 4 seed won it... not too crazy to think a 5 could some years.

If #8 gets blown out every year I don't mind. Nobody complains that there are blowouts in the Bouncy Ball tournament, we just want games.

And yeah #9 probabbly has a boat load of reasons not to make it and I'm not going to sweat being a #9 and not making it as much as a 5.

 

[Bruno22]

But then why have playoffs at all? The "best" team doesn't always win. It's who was best that day. I mean, what if LSU and tOSU get upset, are you really going to say they weren't better teams than Oklahoma and Clemson? Is Illinois a better team than Wisconsin?

I've always felt that if it's a four team playoff, all members should have to be conference champs. If it's eight, I have no issue with two at large bids.


Right now, no it's hard to say someone got screwed. Had Utah won, however, either they or Oklahoma would have been left out. I would also say the last two years undefeated UCF arguably deserved to be in the playoff, along with a handful of others.

The major conference commissioners are not going to tolerate not having teams in the playoffs much longer. PAC-12 commish just made some comments the other day about how it's damaging their conference.

Let's not make the Pac 12 out to have outstanding resumes if the scenario above happened... You are being a bit extreme. One could argue neither was that deserving to go still.

Maybe Utah shouldn't schedule North Dakota, N IL, and Idaho St (all at home) so they can stay in the discussion even after it is all said and done.
Just a thought.

The PAC 12 should not tolerate having such a weak product top to bottom and doing nothing OOC to help themselves (Yes, Oregon tried but they lost, so only partial credit when full credit is needed to come back from that weak conference)

 

[metrolax]

My impression was that the day of all the conference championship games were, basically, single-elimination quarter final games.

 

[metrolax]

You're gonna see more and more top players sitting these out for their pro prospects. You'll be getting slightly different teams on the field than you saw during the regular season. Just my thoughts, fwiw

 

[Pompous Elitist]

It could be argued we already have a 10

You're gonna see more and more top players sitting these out for their pro prospects. You'll be getting slightly different teams on the field than you saw during the regular season. Just my thoughts, fwiw

This does even the playing field a little for G5s and weaker P5s. Who wouldn’t want to see these games?? Upset victories are one of the best parts of all sports. You can preserve the importance of the regular season and still make it fair (and entertaining). No team is unbeatable.

 

[GoForGold]

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?

One possibly to address the above in the first round is to have four regionals at neutral sites. The northern regionals would be in dome stadiums. Teams would ideally stay in their regions to cut down on travel distances/costs. It would be much like what they do in college basketball, just on a much smaller scale. The could call the next round the Football Four.

 

[Veritas]

But then why have playoffs at all? The "best" team doesn't always win. It's who was best that day. I mean, what if LSU and tOSU get upset, are you really going to say they weren't better teams than Oklahoma and Clemson? Is Illinois a better team than Wisconsin?

I've always felt that if it's a four team playoff, all members should have to be conference champs. If it's eight, I have no issue with two at large bids.


Right now, no it's hard to say someone got screwed. Had Utah won, however, either they or Oklahoma would have been left out. I would also say the last two years undefeated UCF arguably deserved to be in the playoff, along with a handful of others.

The major conference commissioners are not going to tolerate not having teams in the playoffs much longer. PAC-12 commish just made some comments the other day about how it's damaging their conference.

I never saw the need for any playoff system at all except that the media wanted it for their paychecks and the universities were talked into it for the same reason any prostitute is talked into it: the money. The old system worked just fine as it was.

 

[Section2]

I never saw the need for any playoff system at all except that the media wanted it for their paychecks and the universities were talked into it for the same reason any prostitute is talked into it: the money. The old system worked just fine as it was.

It has always been fan driven, not media or NCAA driven. The amazing thing was that the obvious increase in money was ignored. The old system of bowls worked just fine for the moneyed interests. The playoffs is about the fans not being satisfied with the insane process that only CFB and not one other, sport pro or college used.

 

[Section2]

Who wants to go to an outdoor game here in December? Not me.

GTFO!!! You don't want to go to a playoff game here? Then watch it at home. We don't need you.

 

[Veritas]

It has always been fan driven, not media or NCAA driven. The amazing thing was that the obvious increase in money was ignored. The old system of bowls worked just fine for the moneyed interests. The playoffs is about the fans not being satisfied with the insane process that only CFB and not one other, sport pro or college used.

Old system: Win the BT go play the winner of the PacT in the Rose Bowl. Win the Big 12 go play the winner of the whatever in the Cotton Bowl. Win the SEC go play the winner of the ACC in the Orange Bowl, etc. Committees meets and chose their National Champs. Same system as today, just moving the chairs around a little bit. But a lot more money for the media and the universities.

 

[disco]

I never saw the need for any playoff system at all except that the media wanted it for their paychecks and the universities were talked into it for the same reason any prostitute is talked into it: the money. The old system worked just fine as it was.

We're all aware of your antiquated opinions.

 

[Section2]

Old system: Win the BT go play the winner of the PacT in the Rose Bowl. Win the Big 12 go play the winner of the whatever in the Cotton Bowl. Win the SEC go play the winner of the ACC in the Orange Bowl, etc. Committees meets and chose their National Champs.

Partially correct. Committees did not meet. Coaches had a poll and the AP had a poll, and they chose the national champion.
who liked this system? Bowls, schools and the media. Who didn't? The fans.
What did the fans want? A playoff.

Same system as today, just moving the chairs around a little bit. But a lot more money for the media and the universities.

Today is similar to the old system, because it was a compromise to appease the fans, while still retaining the same elements from before. Bowls all remained. They only added a single new game.

You can like whatever system you want. You don't have to like any new system. But to discount it as a money grab is wrong. The moneyed interests are agreeing to a real playoff system kicking and screaming.

 

[kix4kix]

So 5 P5 champs and 2 additional SEC teams? I want no parts unless there are stipulations against 3 teams from 1 conference making the tournament.

 

[disco]

So 5 P5 champs and 2 additional SEC teams? I want no parts unless there are stipulations against 3 teams from 1 conference making the tournament.

It will never happen, but I'd prefer a 12 team playoff. Each FBS conference champion gets in, that's ten, and two at large. Otherwise we might as well just formally split FBS again, because what is the point of being at the FBS level if you're a Sun Belt or CUSA school?

At D3, even the worst conference in the country, the UMAC, gets an auto-bid.

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

Bad idea - it creates a mini-season that negates the regular season to a degree - a ringer could win it all on a hot streak. Also, automatic inclusion for conference champs makes no sense as they may differ widely in caliber. Just take the top four (or eight). Even with eight, the usual whining and complaining will come from numbers nine through fifteen, etc. Bad for the bowls, too, and will add extra games to schedules already too long with conference playoffs.

 

[disco]

Bad idea - it creates a mini-season that negates the regular season to a degree - a ringer could win it all on a hot streak. Also, automatic inclusion for conference champs makes no sense as they may differ widely in caliber. Just take the top four (or eight). Even with eight, the usual whining and complaining will come from numbers nine through fifteen, etc. Bad for the bowls, too, and will add extra games to schedules already too long with conference playoffs.

It works perfectly well at every other level of the game.

And as I said, if the conferences are that different in caliber, why isn't the split between the P5 and G5 just made formal so the teams at the G5 level actually have something to play for other than a trip to the Potato Bowl?

And if a ringer on a hot streak wins it, so what? That can happen in almost every other sport. And it's fun, people like those kinds of stories.

As for being bad for the bowls - they're just meaningless exhibition games anyway. Fun, and entertaining, but essentially meaningless. You simply cut the number of bowl games by the number of extra games in the playoff, and the overall number of games is essentially the same (meaning a team in the playoffs that loses first round would end their season - no additional bowl game.)

 

[MplsGopher]

I'm guessing that this will turn into which 2 SEC teams will get the at large bids, because they all play such tough schedules in conference. If this were in place this year, The teams would be:
1-LSU-SEC Champ
2-OSU-BIG Champ
3-Clemson-ACC Champ
4-OU-Big12 Champ
5-Georgia-At Large
6-Alabama-At Large
7-Oregon-PAC Champ
8-Memphis-G5
Would be some good quarterfinal match-ups

This year it would've been Baylor though, not Alabama. Think it would be like this, if I understand where they're going correctly.

Sugar quarter final - LSU vs OU
Rose quarter final - OSU vs Oregon
Orange quarter final - Clemson vs Georgia
Fiesta quarter final - Baylor vs Memphis

Fiesta and Rose lead into the Cotton
Sugar and Orange lead into the Peach

Natty I would prefer remain as a bid out game to an NFL stadium somewhere (LA, Vegas, New Orleans, Minneapolis!)

 

[gophernewbie]

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.

But in your scenario with ND not playing in a championship game to impress the committee you realize only 10 P5 teams would be doing this. And 5 would lose. This would actually benefit ND. So they would be sitting at home that week just like Penn State or Bama was this year

 

[MplsGopher]

But in your scenario with ND not playing in a championship game to impress the committee you realize only 10 P5 teams would be doing this. And 5 would lose. This would actually benefit ND. So they would be sitting at home that week just like Penn State or Bama was this year

And both ended up being on the outside looking in. As far as the top 8 goes. Granted neither were in the top 8 going into champ week.

 

[fair]

A solution to the problem of a team like Virginia miraculously winning against Clemson in the ACC Championship and qualifying is to have caveats on the auto bids. Something like you can't have more than 2 conference losses, otherwise that spot becomes an at-large.

 

[fair]

Bad idea - it creates a mini-season that negates the regular season to a degree - a ringer could win it all on a hot streak. Also, automatic inclusion for conference champs makes no sense as they may differ widely in caliber. Just take the top four (or eight). Even with eight, the usual whining and complaining will come from numbers nine through fifteen, etc. Bad for the bowls, too, and will add extra games to schedules already too long with conference playoffs.

I've never bought into the "weakens the regular season" argument. An auto bid scenario would have far more teams in the hunt to either get an at large or steal an auto bid. Under the current system, there are at most 10 teams with a chance halfway through the season. Why should the regular season matter for the rest of the 100+ teams then?

 

[Goldmember]