4 team playoff looming...

[LarstheRed]

What does an 8-team playoff accomplish that a 4-team play off does not other than muddy the waters?

Like I said before, with a 4-team playoff, a couple of teams might have an argument for being included if they are left out.  With an 8-team playoff, anyone ranked in the top 15 could have a legit gripe for not being included.

I'll say it again, the smaller the number of teams in a playoff, the better the field is.  The more teams, the more the playoff starts to resemble the current bowl bid system which as become a joke.

4-teams is perfect and every FBS league commissioner agrees with that number, hence the reason why the 4-team model was agreed on and everything larger was shot down.

8 teams makes the field watered down and if you look at the pre-bowl season rankings over the past 20+ years, there are teams ranked in that top 3-4 who have separated themselves from the rest of the top 10 and have a legit claim to playing for a national title.

Everyone else from about #6 on down to #15 is interchangable.

We all know that some teams peak at the end of the season, and I can't think of a year going by that we don't hear about how we wished team X could have played team Y, because X was the best team at the end of the year. People are always quick to say that every game has to count, well what is so different expecting a 1 seed to be able to win a home game against an 8, or a 2 against a 7? I look at some of those match ups over the last 10 years or so and I just drool at some of the great football we could have seen, not to mention that we could have seen some of our southern brothers coming north to play in some tough conditions. I don't hear too many bemoaning the fact that northern teams have to go down and play in some pretty nasty heat. After living in AZ for 20 years, knowing the NFL wouldn't schedule any early home games for the Cards for health reasons, it's pretty obvious that people do recognize that warm temps are also a 'home field advantage'.

Just for a moment, open up your mind and consider the match ups that an 8 team format would have given us over the last 10 years:

2002
OK at Miami
WSU at tOSU
KSU at Iowa
USC at UGA

2003
tOSU at OK
Tenn at USC
Tex at LSU
UGA at Mich

2004
UGA at USC
Louisville at OK
Tex at Auburn
Utah at Cal

2005
UGA at USC
Aub at Tex
Oreg at PSU
ND at tOSU

2006
USC at tOSU
OK at UF
Wisc at Mich
Louisville at LSU

2007
KU at tOSU
USC at LSU
Mizzou at VTech
UGA at OK

2008
PSU at OK
TT at UF
Utah at Tex
USC at Ala

2009
tOSU at Ala
Oreg at Tex
BSU at Cincy
UF at TCU

2010
Ark at Aub
OK at Oreg
tOSU at TCU
Wiscy at Stan

2011
KSU at LSU
BSU at Ala
Ark at OSU
Oreg at Stan

By my calculation, only 3 of the 40 games listed would have issues with smaller stadiums, and the fear that the SEC has that they will have to travel to some colder climate doesn't really play out often either. UGA at Mich, OK at Oregon (to some degree), USC at tOSU and Oregon at PSU (to some degree as well). Overall, I'd love to see some of these games, and I believe it would add a 'March Madness' level of excitement to college football. There are definite upset possibilities on this list. The top 4 argument has some merit, but I see too many good match ups in this scenario. It's also frustrating to continue to see years like 2008 when we had 2 undefeated and 7 one loss teams prior to the bowl games.

Home games, the sticking point with many, guarantee sell outs and fan participation. Going on the road to bowl games while fun, is brutally expensive and if you have 2 of these games that will require large financial investment, you will see those games struggle to find support. The NFL does not go to neutral fields for the playoffs, they only use one for the Super Bowl. Funny thing about the Super Bowl is based on what numerous friends who have attended one, they are not about the fans of the teams playing. You see it more as a 'place to be' for those who can afford the extreme expense (corporate sponsors, celebs, etc.).
 
This could be managed, and if who ever ponies up the cash for this new system said they want 8 teams, which would add 7 games of high television ratings, I think the powers that be just have to swallow the pill and be happy with the cash that hits their pockets. This would also give those non BCS guaranteed conferences some much needed leverage to get into the big game. We wouldn't be hearing much about a lack of opportunity to play for big $ if an 8 team playoff were put into play.

[BigRedArmy]

Apart from the fact that its been said over and over again that home sites will not be used for a College Football playoff.

Bowl sites will be used.

Like I said, all of that looks great on a Sony Playstation, but the logistics of a College Football playoff do not allow the use of home sites.

End of subject.

I'm not sure how to put this.  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with everyone's favorite playoff format, but the powers that be, who's job it is to figure this out and have done years of research on how to make it work, have made the decision that the best playoff model for College Football is a 4-team playoff that uses bowl games.

The plus one model, and I agree.  Who really benefits from expanding the field?

I'll use the Big 12 Championship game as an example.  Dr. Tom was not in favor of it and for good reason.  Does it truly crown the Big 12 conference champion?

In 1996, Nebraska was 11-1 and Texas (unranked) was 6-4 heading into the "Conference Championship Game."  Two of Texas' 4 losses came in conference.  Under Big 10 and Pac 10 rules, without a championship game, Nebraska was the Big 12 winner.

But, NU lost the "Championship Game" to Texas and lost a shot at their 3rd straight National Championship.

7-4 "Big 12 Champions: Texas went on to get blown out by PSU in the Fiesta Bowl.

In fact, if the Big 12 "Championship Game" wasn't played, a Big 12 Team would have played for a National Championship in 8 of the leagues first 10 years of existence.  And in each case, the higher ranked team had clearly "won the league" without the use of the "Championship Game" just by the conference win/loss record alone.

Hence my point.

You will always have an arguement for who that 4th team might be, but each one of those teams playing in a 4 team playoff have separated themselves from every other team in the FBS.

They BELONG there.

Setting up a larger field only exists as an extra hurdle for teams who have earned their right during the ENTIRE season to play for a National Championship.

Having a field larger than 4, rewards teams 5-8 (or 5-16) while handicaps teams 1-4 by making them play, essentially, meaning less games the same way the Big 12 "Championship" game has done.

You basically pat the 4 best teams in the nation on the back for a job well done, and instead of matching them up for all the marbles, basically say "but before you get your reward, we have to give these also-rans a shot because, well, because they tried really hard to match your success, but didn't quite get it done.  So we're penalizing you for being successful."

Basically a welfare system for College Football.

[LarstheRed]

Apart from the fact that its been said over and over again that home sites will not be used for a College Football playoff.

Bowl sites will be used.

Like I said, all of that looks great on a Sony Playstation, but the logistics of a College Football playoff do not allow the use of home sites.

End of subject.

I'm not sure how to put this.  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with everyone's favorite playoff format, but the powers that be, who's job it is to figure this out and have done years of research on how to make it work, have made the decision that the best playoff model for College Football is a 4-team playoff that uses bowl games.

The plus one model, and I agree.  Who really benefits from expanding the field?

I'll use the Big 12 Championship game as an example.  Dr. Tom was not in favor of it and for good reason.  Does it truly crown the Big 12 conference champion?

In 1996, Nebraska was 11-1 and Texas (unranked) was 6-4 heading into the "Conference Championship Game."  Two of Texas' 4 losses came in conference.  Under Big 10 and Pac 10 rules, without a championship game, Nebraska was the Big 12 winner.

But, NU lost the "Championship Game" to Texas and lost a shot at their 3rd straight National Championship.

7-4 "Big 12 Champions: Texas went on to get blown out by PSU in the Fiesta Bowl.

In fact, if the Big 12 "Championship Game" wasn't played, a Big 12 Team would have played for a National Championship in 8 of the leagues first 10 years of existence.  And in each case, the higher ranked team had clearly "won the league" without the use of the "Championship Game" just by the conference win/loss record alone.

Hence my point.

You will always have an arguement for who that 4th team might be, but each one of those teams playing in a 4 team playoff have separated themselves from every other team in the FBS.

They BELONG there.

Setting up a larger field only exists as an extra hurdle for teams who have earned their right during the ENTIRE season to play for a National Championship.

Having a field larger than 4, rewards teams 5-8 (or 5-16) while handicaps teams 1-4 by making them play, essentially, meaning less games the same way the Big 12 "Championship" game has done.

You basically pat the 4 best teams in the nation on the back for a job well done, and instead of matching them up for all the marbles, basically say "but before you get your reward, we have to give these also-rans a shot because, well, because they tried really hard to match your success, but didn't quite get it done.  So we're penalizing you for being successful."

Basically a welfare system for College Football.

The Big 10 didn't have an issue with the home field game, it was the SEC and ACC that seemed to be troubled by it. And frankly, if the system they try to hammer out isn't attractive to those who will be paying for it, that could easily get changed by someone with a fat checkbook.

No matter how you try to trivialize teams beyond 1-4, several would likely beat the higher ranked teams. And if you look at several of the match ups I have on the previous post, those games actually were played in other bowl games, so why not make them a part of a greater outcome? The system to rank is flawed, and I don't know anyone who argues if that's the case or not. We put so much weight on wins in one conference or another that it discounts all the teams in a non BCS guarantee situation, or rewards certain conferences unfairly for supposed superior teams. The truth is we used to make fun of that regularly when the mighty Big 10 would go 1-6 in bowl games not so many years ago.

Sorry, I realize you are trying to make the point that it doesn't matter what the fans think, but I would have to say you are wrong about that. The fans didn't like the MNC to be based on a beauty contest years back, but the commissioners kept doing what they wanted....right up until they were forced to make some changes and came up with the BCS. Only 2 years ago we saw a call for more of a playoff system to come into play, but it was rejected by the commissioners, only to find ourselves again on the doorstep of change. No, if the fans want 8 teams, we will have 8 teams. It may not be this year, but we will get what we want if 8 games is what most fans want.

To think otherwise would be ignoring history. You are assuming the powers that be are firm in their convictions, even though they have proven to be a rock solid as the cup of yogurt I'm currently eating. Oh, and the bowls being used as sites will also prove to be a weakness in the system. Lets assume you will see some repeats of this years snoozer that pit Alabama and LSU in a repeat of the regular season game, only this time lets make the fans travel out to Tempe or Pasadena to watch the rerun. And don't tell me the teams have to be the conference champs because what  I read says the SEC refuses to budge on that point. Top 4 would mean top 4, no matter how many times they play in a season.  

[BigRedArmy]

I dont agree that mich about home sites. But I will argue regarding a large playoff field.

Virtually every controversy going back about 35 years could have been put to rest using the plus one model.

All of them.

Never once can I remember any team ranked outside the top 5 having a legitimate arguement for playing for the national title.

I am a fan, and I like college football. I also like seeing teams play for it who actually deserve to be there.

You list Kansas State as being part of your playoff model for last year. Why? Because they were ranked 8th?  They got manhandled in the Cotton Bowl by Arkansas who was a legit top 5 team.

So this is the College playoff? An clearly over matched and outclassed KSU, plays LSU in the first round and loses worse than they did against Arkansas.

I want GOOD playoff matchups, not mercy killings. And like I said I cant think of one year when anyone ranked outside the top 5 had a legitimate grip to be included in title talk, so why include them in a playoff?

Even when Nebraska has been ranked 8thoutside going into a bowl (ie against Miami, late 80'slunch early 90's) anyone watching those games could tell they werent even in the same class. Due to conference affiliations w the bowls that matchup was made, but a better game would not have been #1 Miami vs. #8 NU.

Its been that way for an extremely long time and I dont see that changing. In fact to tell you the truth, in most years the #1 and #2I teams have looked so good, I question the need for a 4 game playoff, but the past two years make it necessary, but like I said, the only thing the past two years have shown is exactly my point.

4 game teams? Yes. More than that? Unnecessary and counter productive.

[Omaha_Phil]

Using only bowls is going to kill attendence, IMO.

Even if you schedule all 3 games at the same bowl (which is best case scenrio, IMO) that means people will have to stay in the city for at least 7 nights and longer if the first two are on a Saturday and the NC is on a Monday. 

Who can travel to those like that? 

If it's a small stadium issue, select alternate sites for said small stadiums in the unlikely event said team makes it.  There can't be more than 2 or 3 teams that will really ever get into the top 4 and have a stadium too small. 

Plus, is it really the ticket's that drive the money?  I thought it was the tv packages.  Those numbers aren't going to change for a small stadium. 

Imagine LSU having to travel to Ames in January to play in the "lovely" stadium or to Northwestern in January. 

Love the 4 team (not big on , hate the bowl sites only.

[LarstheRed]

I dont agree that mich about home sites. But I will argue regarding a large playoff field.

Virtually every controversy going back about 35 years could have been put to rest using the plus one model.

All of them.

Never once can I remember any team ranked outside the top 5 having a legitimate arguement for playing for the national title.

I am a fan, and I like college football. I also like seeing teams play for it who actually deserve to be there.

You list Kansas State as being part of your playoff model for last year. Why? Because they were ranked 8th?  They got manhandled in the Cotton Bowl by Arkansas who was a legit top 5 team.

So this is the College playoff? An clearly over matched and outclassed KSU, plays LSU in the first round and loses worse than they did against Arkansas.

I want GOOD playoff matchups, not mercy killings. And like I said I cant think of one year when anyone ranked outside the top 5 had a legitimate grip to be included in title talk, so why include them in a playoff?

Even when Nebraska has been ranked 8thoutside going into a bowl (ie against Miami, late 80'slunch early 90's) anyone watching those games could tell they werent even in the same class. Due to conference affiliations w the bowls that matchup was made, but a better game would not have been #1 Miami vs. #8 NU.

Its been that way for an extremely long time and I dont see that changing. In fact to tell you the truth, in most years the #1 and #2I teams have looked so good, I question the need for a 4 game playoff, but the past two years make it necessary, but like I said, the only thing the past two years have shown is exactly my point.

4 game teams? Yes. More than that? Unnecessary and counter productive.

Come on, BRA, you pulled the worst stinker of the bunch to take issue with. In most of the other years you have 4 darn solid games, and in many cases, you get some match ups that could give the 4 favorites trouble. Personally I think if the courts eventually get involved and tell the BCS that their way of doing business is discriminatory to certain teams, they will be forced to open up the process again and that will bring in 8. The other possibility is you give the top 2 teams a bye and let the next 4 do a play in. That expands it to 6 and rewards the top teams for an excellent regular season.

[BigRedArmy]

So we just witness one of the lowest rated National Championship TV games in history due to it being a rematch, and propose a playoff system that increases the chances for a rematch that wouldn't even be for the National Championship, but a first round and second round game?

The fans already spoke when they turned their sets off from this past year's LSU/Alabama National Championship game.

As an avid College Football fan, I want quality games to watch, not rehashes of games already played previously.

You increase the field, you almost guarantee rematches.

Take 2010.

A four team field would have consisted of:
#1 Auburn (undefeated) vs. #4 Wisconsin (1 loss)
#2 Oregon (undefeated) vs. #3 TCU (undefeated)

While an 8 team field would have consisted of:
#1 Auburn (undefeated) vs. # 8 Arkansas (2 losses) - Rematch
#2 Oregon (undefeated) vs. #7 Michigan State (1 loss)
#3 TCU (undefeated) vs. #6 Ohio State (1 loss)
#4 Wisconsin (1 loss) vs. #5 Stanford (1 loss)

Under the 4 team model, there are ZERO rematches from earlier in the season.

Under the 8 team model, you already have one in the first round, a potential rematch in the 2nd round, and another potential rematch in the final.

In 2009, an 8 team playoff would not have seen potential rematches, but consider the match-ups for the 4-team model vs. 8.

Four team model:
#1 Alabama (undefeated) vs. #4 Cincinati (undefeated)
#2 Texas (undefeated) vs. #3 TCU (undefeated)

Eight team model:
#1 Alabama (undefeated) vs. #8 Ohio State (2 losses)
#2 Texas (undefeated) vs. #7 Oregon (2 losses)
#3 TCU (undefeated) vs. #6 Boise State (undefeated)
#4 Cincinnati (undefeated) vs. #5 Florida (1 loss)

I'm sure fans of Boise State would be jumping for joy, but the 4 team model clearly had the best match ups.  

You can go on down the line and see the disadvantages of the larger field when expanded to 8 teams.  You either run the greater risk of creating rematches from earlier in the season or including teams with multiple losses.

From a pure "football" and "matchup" standpoint, the four team model is superior to the 8 and higher.

Minus 2008 when rematches would be unavoidable regardless of the number of teams in the field, the 8 team model would always feature at least one regular season rematch and include at least 2 teams with multiple losses.

IMO, the point of College Football is the "win them all."  Perfection is the goal and teams that finish the season with the least amount of losses deserve a shot at the national championship.

If a team drops a few games but gets hot at the end of the season, congrats on the your winning streak, however there were teams that didn't take a couple of weeks to find themselves and were "hot" every Saturday.

Every week counts...but not if the playoff field is 8 teams or more.

The following is a list of years when an 8-team playoff would have featured teams with multiple losses:
2011 - three teams
2010 - 1 team
2009 - 2 teams
2007 - 6 teams (please note everyone had at least 1 loss and a 4-team field would've feature 3 teams with 2)
2006 - 3 teams
2005 - 4 teams
2004 - 2 teams
2003 - 5 teams (#8 Kansas State had 3!)
2002 - 4 teams
2001 - 3 teams
2000 - 2 teams

I could go on and on through the years.

So do we reward mediocrity?  Or is College Football about being the best you can be, week in and week out?

4 teams = best vs. the best.

8 teams = certainly not in the first round....and after the first round is played, how many teams are left?

Four.  So why not just start there instead of wasting our time?

[Solly]

Like I said, all of that looks great on a Sony Playstation, but the logistics of a College Football playoff do not allow the use of home sites. End of subject.

They manage in all the lower Divisions of college football, (1-AA, II, III), even without the huge advertising and television revenues, so it most certainly can be done - because it is being done, and has been done for decades..

End of subject.

[BigRedArmy]

I kind of go back and forth on the whole home site thing.

I get the small stadium arguement, but most teams w small stadiums are in the vacinity of an NFL stadium.

Also, the use of the bowls sounds like a good idea until your team wins and you have a week to make travel arrangements to go to the Championship game.

Basically, a bowl game is already an expensive trip as it is. Now fans are expected to travel to two of them two weekends in a row?

Im thinking theyll try the bowls for a couple of years and end up doing home sites when fans start to complain or attendence at the 1st round games start to dramatically drop off.

By having the first round in a bowl, you force fans to choose to either attend the 1st round game, or take a chance and book tickets and hotels for the Championship Game.

I cant see fans going to both.

I think the NCAA bowls just want to be involved at this stage, but soon theyll see it might not be to their advantage unless their used in a regional sence.

[BigRedArmy]

Btw, when I said "End of Subject" I meant that it had already been voted on by the FBS league comissioners, not that it couldnt be done.

[Solly]

Btw, when I said "End of Subject" I meant that it had already been voted on by the FBS league comissioners, not that it couldnt be done.

Gotcha. I should have added a " "

[Hort]

Don't think I care for this proposal... http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7884581/conference-champions-wold-get-preference-college-football-playoff-idea

So... let's say you have Boise St. #1, Notre Dame #2, Big Ten #3, SEC #4, Big XII #5 and PAC 12 #6.... Boise St and Notre Dame get passed?

The BCS conferences succeed in making a play-off worse than the current situation?

[njhuskerfan]

Even if you open the field up to 64 temas, #'s 65, 66, etc. will be upset they weren't included and be able to present a case with some validity.  Obviously, nomatter how big the field, someone will be unhappy. 

I like home field advantage to the higher ranked conference winner for the first round.  That won't always skew it in favor of the SEC area teams.

[BigRedArmy]

Don't think I care for this proposal... http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7884581/conference-champions-wold-get-preference-college-football-playoff-idea

So... let's say you have Boise St. #1, Notre Dame #2, Big Ten #3, SEC #4, Big XII #5 and PAC 12 #6.... Boise St and Notre Dame get passed?

The BCS conferences succeed in making a play-off worse than the current situation?

Actually, its a really good idea.

Lets say the media got together (and this never happens) and said eventhough Alabama lost to #1 LSU, and didnt win the SEC, we still think they are the #2 team in the nation, so because of the voting, Bama is ranked ahead of the Big 10 champ, Big 12 champ, Pac 10 champ and MWC conference champ.

Under this proposal, Bama would not be included in the playoff because they didnt win their own conference.

Basically its a way to avoid regular season rematches.

If that would have been in place this past year, the matchups would have been:
#1 LSU vs. #6 Boise State
#3 Oklahoma State vs. #4 Stanford

Odd men out would be #2 Alabama and #5 Arkansas.

I dont have a problem with that.

[Hort]

I know you hated last season's rematch... and on the odd occasion that that might be possible I get it... but I don't oppose rematches personally.

I think it's a terrible idea because it again gives preference to a few conferences and leaves out the other schools... for example... Nebraska had decided to go independent... and ends up #2... they're out.

Just solve it on the field and by the votes... take the top four or eight teams and play the games. Stop trying to build in guarantees.