Texas AD prefers 8-team playoff

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,972
Reaction score
18,168
Points
113
The inaugural game of the College Football Playoff's four-team tournament is still more than 19 months away, but Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds says it's merely a step in the right direction.

"It's a baby step. It's a good step," Dodds said on Thursday at the Big 12's annual spring meetings. "I'm kind of an eight-team person."

Texas has grown into one of the highest-earning and most profitable athletic departments in college sports under Dodds, who has championed a playoff for decades. He argued that an eight-team playoff would lessen the controversy over teams not included in a four-team field.

"I think there'll be a lot of conversation about the fifth team and who didn't get in and an 11-1 team that didn't get in because somebody's 12-0 that maybe wasn't quite as good as 11-1," he said. "If you take eight, you're not going to have that. The ninth team is going to have a concern, but it's not like the fifth team."

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9326041/texas-longhorns-ad-proponent-8-team-playoff

Go Gophers!!
 


Yeah. Not to mention, fully packed train car loads of C-Notes for everyone involved.
 

I've always liked eight teams, too. The six champions from BCS conferences, plus two at-large, which could be a conference runner-up or a Boise State-type.
 

I don't like agreeing with anything Texas, but 8 makes more sense than 4.
 



station19 said:
" He argued that an eight-team playoff would lessen the controversy over teams not included in a four-team field."

Wanna bet?
Click to expand...

No thanks! That is what you would call a sucker's bet. It is certainly not hard to imagine an increased number of teams who will and can make the argument that they should have been one of the eight teams. Basketball I believe has 65.
 

Killjoy said:
No thanks! That is what you would call a sucker's bet. It is certainly not hard to imagine an increased number of teams who will and can make the argument that they should have been one of the eight teams. Basketball I believe has 65.
Click to expand...

sixty eight I think with four play in games to get to sixty four. I think.
 

I'd prefer an 8-team playoff, too, but Dodds is wrong if he thinks the whining will stop at #9.

Whether it's #5, #9, or #17 for football, or #65 (until 3 years ago) or #69 for basketball, there will always be whining.
 




Dr.Don said:
sixty eight I think with four play in games to get to sixty four. I think.
Click to expand...

You are probably right. I knew it wasn't 64 so I just added one to honor parski and station19.
 

The obvious difference between basketball and football is that basketball can do play-in games. Football teams are only going to play 1 game a week, so you can only stretch out the playoffs so far.

Let's see how this 4-team playoff works, but I would not be surprised if we wound up with a 8-team playoff in a few years. Last year, there were 3 teams that were clearly at the top in Bama, Oregon and Notre Dame. (Ohio State would have been the 4th if they had been eligible for post-season play). After that top group, there were 10 teams with 2 losses, so there would have been some arguments from teams that didn't make the top 8.

FWIW, the #5-ranked teams last year were Georgia in the AP and TX A&M in USA Today. The #9-ranked teams were Florida in the AP and Clemson in USA Today.
 

I've always wanted an 8-team playoff with the first round games played at the higher seeds. I want to see an SEC team have to travel on the road to an Ohio St., Notre Dame, or Minnesota :p in early December.
 



for those of you saying that 8 or more is a good number you are just missing the point, any more then 4 is just way too many, you guys are forgetting that the playoff was created to determine a more accurate champion, not neccesarily for excitement, every year at the end of the year there are only 2 sometimes 3 teams that are in serious consideration for playing for the natty, never more then 3 but they had to do 4 cause you cant have a 3 team playoff, and for those of you saying that people will start complaining about the #5 team not making it well when was the last time the 5th best team at the end of the season had a case to play in the natty, never, ideally for certain years you would only need a 2 team playoff when there are say 2 undefeated teams from power conferences and no other undefeated teams, then in some cases you would want a 3 team playoff when there are 3 undefeated teams or an undefeated from a power conference, an undefeated from a non AQ and a very good one loss team(last year's alabama) but you cant change the amount of teams in the playoff every year based on how many contenders there are which is why it is more then a one game playoff and you cant have a 3 team playoff which is why it is at 4, no more then 4
 



SelectionSunday said:
I'd prefer an 8-team playoff, too, but Dodds is wrong if he thinks the whining will stop at #9.

Whether it's #5, #9, or #17 for football, or #65 (until 3 years ago) or #69 for basketball, there will always be whining.
Click to expand...

I think that there will be whining wherever we draw the line (as you pointed out, there is always someone complaining that they got shafted when they miss the 2,456 team basketball field). However, I think if 8 teams made it, less people (besides fans of the school who missed the cut) would whine and less people would take it seriously. If the cut off is at 5, I could still see the committee having to pick between an undefeated team with an unimpressive schedule and a one loss team who lost to the undefeated number one and played a tougher schedule. At 8 teams, I think the team missing the cut has a much tougher argument to make that they really deserve to be playing for the title.

If we use last year as an example (and assume for illustration purposes that OSU was not on probation), then then one of the following teams would have been left home:
1. an undefeated Notre Dame team
2. an undefeated B1G champion OSU team
3. a one-loss Pac-12 champ Oregon team
4. a two-loss Georgia team that lost to SEC champ Alabama and then #6 South Carolina
5. one-loss SEC champ Alabama

I think that would have generated a lot more controversy then having to choose among some of the 2 loss teams from weaker conferences in an 8 team format.
 



die hard gopher said:
for those of you saying that 8 or more is a good number you are just missing the point, any more then 4 is just way too many, you guys are forgetting that the playoff was created to determine a more accurate champion, not neccesarily for excitement, every year at the end of the year there are only 2 sometimes 3 teams that are in serious consideration for playing for the natty, never more then 3 but they had to do 4 cause you cant have a 3 team playoff, and for those of you saying that people will start complaining about the #5 team not making it well when was the last time the 5th best team at the end of the season had a case to play in the natty, never, ideally for certain years you would only need a 2 team playoff when there are say 2 undefeated teams from power conferences and no other undefeated teams, then in some cases you would want a 3 team playoff when there are 3 undefeated teams or an undefeated from a power conference, an undefeated from a non AQ and a very good one loss team(last year's alabama) but you cant change the amount of teams in the playoff every year based on how many contenders there are which is why it is more then a one game playoff and you cant have a 3 team playoff which is why it is at 4, no more then 4
Click to expand...

You only have to go back to 2011 to find four teams before bowl games that could have made a serious argument for the NC. In 2008 there were zero BCS conference teams with 0 losses, seven with 1 loss, and two non-BCS teams with no losses after conference championships. The 8th ranked team in the BCS after the regular season that year was Penn St. with one loss.
 


My vote would be that they have a tourney with all of the conference champs. Then there is not controversy. If you didn't make the championship game that means you lost a tie breaker to another team. If you lost the conference championship game, you missed your chance. You can argue weak conferences, but nothing is stopping Texas from joining the MAC to try and win the conference every year. So right now if I'm not mistaken there are nine conferences (B1G, Big 12, former Big East, ACC, SEC, PAC 12, MWC, Sun Belt, Conf USA with no WAC anymore). And I'd say too bad, so sad to the independents. Just do byes for the top 7 teams and go from there. Simple. Number of conferences changes? Change the number of teams. Easy.
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
My vote would be that they have a tourney with all of the conference champs. Then there is not controversy. If you didn't make the championship game that means you lost a tie breaker to another team. If you lost the conference championship game, you missed your chance. You can argue weak conferences, but nothing is stopping Texas from joining the MAC to try and win the conference every year. So right now if I'm not mistaken there are nine conferences (B1G, Big 12, former Big East, ACC, SEC, PAC 12, MWC, Sun Belt, Conf USA with no WAC anymore). And I'd say too bad, so sad to the independents. Just do byes for the top 7 teams and go from there. Simple. Number of conferences changes? Change the number of teams. Easy.
Click to expand...


Over the past year, I have advocated a 12 team playoff, as I feel it would be good for college football in general (access to all conferences) and provide some balance to FBS football. Here is some detail on my plan:

12 Team Playoff would Include:
8 Conf Champs (6 Top seeded Conf Champs IN; Bottom 4 seeded Conf Champs Play-In for 2 Spots)
4 At Large Teams (At Large Teams can be ranked higher than Champs; Ranking system would be used to Seed teams)
Example: If Top 6 Conf Champs are in (Sec, B1G, P12, B12, ACC, BigE) Then 7-10 (MWC, SunB, CUSA, MAC) These 4 Play-In for 2 Spots at Site of Higher Seeds
Playoff Payouts would be paid shared amongst the conferences of the 12 tournament teams or Indies (after Play-In). Conferences with more teams in Playoff would get greater share of $.

All 12 Teams Seeded, Top 4 Seeds have Bye in the 1st Round
Round 1: 5v12, 6v11, 7v10, 8v9 at the sight of Highest Seeds (Teams 1-4 with bye)
Round 2: 1v8/9, 2v7/10, 3v6/11, 4v5/12 at the sight of Highest Seeds
Round 3: Final 4 Site(s)
Round 4: Championship Site

Only 3 Games Required to championship for Top 4 Seeds (give a little advantage to Top Seeds); 4 Games to Championship for Seeds 5-12
Play-In Games for Bottom 4 Conferences would Give every conference Champion a Shot at the Tournament, but Not every conf gets in each year. (aka losers of Play-In games are out)
I would Eliminate Conf Championship games in Lue of 12 team championship. Choose the conf champs in 12 game regular season.
Teams outside the 12 Team Playoff could still play in pre-Christmas Bowl games (Includes teams that lose Play-In Games)

Hypothetical Tourney Teams & Seeding:
#1 Seed: SEC Champ Alabama
#2 Seed: P12 Champ Oregon
#3 Seed: B12 Champ Kansas State
#4 Seed: At-Large #1 SEC - Florida
#5 Seed: ACC Champ Florida State
#6 Seed: B1G Champ Ohio State
#7 Seed: At-Large #2 Notre Dame
#8 Seed: MWC Champ Boise State
#9 Seed: At-Large #3 SEC Georgia
#10 Seed: BigE Champ Louisville (Play-IN)
#11 Seed: At-Large #4 P12 Stanford
#12 Seed: MAC Champ - Norther ILL (Play-IN)
--------------------------------------------
#13 Seed: SunB Champ Arkansas St (Play-IN)
#14 Seed: CUSA Champ Tulsa (Play-IN)
Play-IN Games(Bottom 4 Conf Champs): Tulsa @ Louisville - W, Ark State @ Northern IL - W (Losers Out)

Round 1: N ILL @ Florida State, Stanford @ Ohio State, Louisville @ Notre Dame, Georgia @ Boise
Bye: Alabama, Oregon, KSate, Florida

Tournament would generate massive Revenue and Fan interest.
 

If it were to go 8 I'd prefer the top 5 ranked conference champs and 3 wild cards. That way people don't complain about good teams being left out and keeps conference champs out that don't have a great record.
 

If I got to choose, I would have an 8-team tournament, with only the top 8 conference champions. First round at the higher-seeded team's home stadium. No one would have incentive to take a "game off", because that could cost them a home tournament game. With only the conference champions participating, it would enhance the value of winning the conference.
 

RodentRampage said:
If I got to choose, I would have an 8-team tournament, with only the top 8 conference champions. First round at the higher-seeded team's home stadium. No one would have incentive to take a "game off", because that could cost them a home tournament game. With only the conference champions participating, it would enhance the value of winning the conference.
Click to expand...

Unless some sports starts to realize this there will soon be no more need or interest for regular seasons.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom