I honestly don't want the playoff to expand past 4. I think it will devalue the regular season too much and that's what makes college football so awesome now. Every game counts.
Mullen brought up a good point in the Sallee article...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
I'd be OK with an 8-team playoff if it included automatic bids for the 5 major conference champions plus the highest ranked champion of a mid-major conference. That would reward conference champions and only have 2 at-large bids. Anything beyond that is too much. I'm fine with keeping it at 4 too, though (which is the way it's going to be for the next 12 years anyway).
I'd be worried 8 would devalue the other bowl games too much. I don't know if there's ever been a year where 5 teams had a legitimate argument that their regular season deserved a shot at the national championship, so it's not like any deserving teams have to be left out of a 4 team playoff. The only way moving to 8 makes sense is if you screw up the 4 team playoff where the selection process rewards winning a weak conference over being a good team that beats good competition. If you don't screw up the selection guidelines, there's no reason to have more than a 4 team playoff.
All depends on whether you value the regular season or postseason more I guess. College football may indeed have the best regular season in sports, but give me the NFL playoffs and March madness over the college bowl season any day. Having 4 teams in the playoff will help, but not nearly as much as having 8 would in my opinion. No argument that it's a double edged sword, though. Just depends on when/where you want to generate the most excitement.
I'll go further...I can't think of a year where more than 4 teams should've had a legit shot at the national title after all regular season and championship games had been played. That includes the Boise years.
Yep, this and what Dawgstudent said make my opinion a definite no. Somebody's going to ***** about ending up no. 5 but who cares.
Are we more likely to make it into a 4-team playoff or an 8-team playoff?
I think making into an 8-team playoff in the next two decades is much more plausible. And by having the games at home sites for at least the first round will help it actually matter whether you're the 3rd seed or the 7th, for example.
I think making into an 8-team playoff in the next two decades is much more plausible. And by having the games at home sites for at least the first round will help it actually matter whether you're the 3rd seed or the 7th, for example.
In 2009, there was:
13-0 Alabama
13-0 Texas
12-0 Cincinnati
12-0 TCU
13-0 Boise State
12-1 Florida
And then some very good 2-loss teams like Oregon and Ohio State.
There were 5 undefeated teams in 2004, also. Even this past year, an 8-team playoff of:
Tallahassee
1 Florida State
8 Ohio State
Tuscaloosa
4 Alabama
5 Baylor
East Lansing
3 Michigan State
6 Stanford
Auburn
2 Auburn
7 South Carolina
I think that would have been an amazing 3-week tournament, and it wouldn't have taken away too much from the regular season. Auburn would have been out if they'd lost to Alabama. Michigan State would have been out if they'd lost to Ohio State. Missouri is out because they lost to Auburn and South Carolina. Etc. Every game still counts for something. Even Alabama's loss hurts them because it knocks down their seeding, and that's still an amazing game because of the rivalry, and because it puts Auburn into the playoff (possibly even with a loss in the SECCG, but maybe not).
13-0 Alabama
13-0 Texas
12-0 Cincinnati
12-0 TCU
13-0 Boise State
12-1 Florida
And then some very good 2-loss teams like Oregon and Ohio State.
There were 5 undefeated teams in 2004, also. Even this past year, an 8-team playoff of:
Tallahassee
1 Florida State
8 Ohio State
Tuscaloosa
4 Alabama
5 Baylor
East Lansing
3 Michigan State
6 Stanford
Auburn
2 Auburn
7 South Carolina
I think that would have been an amazing 3-week tournament, and it wouldn't have taken away too much from the regular season. Auburn would have been out if they'd lost to Alabama. Michigan State would have been out if they'd lost to Ohio State. Missouri is out because they lost to Auburn and South Carolina. Etc. Every game still counts for something. Even Alabama's loss hurts them because it knocks down their seeding, and that's still an amazing game because of the rivalry, and because it puts Auburn into the playoff (possibly even with a loss in the SECCG, but maybe not).
Last edited:
History and data disagree. Sure, we're watching a 7 and an 8 tonight, but it's not like that's the norm.
I found it interesting that Mullen brings up 2004 as a year his team Utah got left out and should have made. He says there should have been a 4-team playoff in 2004, but it's very unlikely that Utah would have gotten chosen in 2004:
12-0 USC
12-0 Oklahoma
12-0 Auburn
And then one out of 10-1 Texas, 10-1 California, 11-0 Utah, and 11-0 Boise State. Not looking good for the Utes.
Or they could have taken all 4 and also take a 2-loss Georgia or Virginia Tech team.
12-0 USC
12-0 Oklahoma
12-0 Auburn
And then one out of 10-1 Texas, 10-1 California, 11-0 Utah, and 11-0 Boise State. Not looking good for the Utes.
Or they could have taken all 4 and also take a 2-loss Georgia or Virginia Tech team.
Even though that just wrong, I know better to think that I will change your mind so I won't bother.
my concern is that, at some point, it becomes a popularity contest.
say you have five 1 loss teams and one of them is mississippi state. the other teams are texas, oregon, florida state, and georgia.
who do you think gets invited to the 4 team playoff? hint: its not us. we dont have the sex appeal those other teams have and we are the odd man out. that is my nightmare scenario.
or how about 2 undefeated teams and 3 one loss teams to pick from with similar resumes. bias is unavoidable. if its not sos, they will argue ooc strength, if its neither of those two, they will conjure something else to keep whatever team out they want out. my feelings on the matter anyway. which one of these ******** is giving us a vote in my above scenario?
say you have five 1 loss teams and one of them is mississippi state. the other teams are texas, oregon, florida state, and georgia.
who do you think gets invited to the 4 team playoff? hint: its not us. we dont have the sex appeal those other teams have and we are the odd man out. that is my nightmare scenario.
or how about 2 undefeated teams and 3 one loss teams to pick from with similar resumes. bias is unavoidable. if its not sos, they will argue ooc strength, if its neither of those two, they will conjure something else to keep whatever team out they want out. my feelings on the matter anyway. which one of these ******** is giving us a vote in my above scenario?
I would much rather have interest for the whole season. Basically, college football is a 16 week playoff.
I honestly had no problem with the BCS. It did what it was intended to do - put the top 2 teams against each other.
Are you really concerned about us getting screwed out of a national title shot? I'm more worried about Mothman abducting me.
4 teams are plenty. There may be a case for a 5th team getting a shot at some point, but I'm not letting them in if it means 6, 7, and 8 have to be in the mix.
I hope this format forces the dominant schools in ****** conferences to schedule a couple legitimate big boy teams. While being really good, I felt that BSU, TCU, and Utah milked the system as much as anyone. Those teams only had to get up for 1 game (2 max) a year and they were in the hunt.
4 teams are plenty. There may be a case for a 5th team getting a shot at some point, but I'm not letting them in if it means 6, 7, and 8 have to be in the mix.
I hope this format forces the dominant schools in ****** conferences to schedule a couple legitimate big boy teams. While being really good, I felt that BSU, TCU, and Utah milked the system as much as anyone. Those teams only had to get up for 1 game (2 max) a year and they were in the hunt.
A playoff does nothing to devalue the regular season...
if you do two things. First is that you have to win your conference to get in. And with only one championship game instead of a conference tourney, that prevents a major cinderalla. Second is that at least until the last four, possibly just the last game, the higher seed plays at home. Home field in a college football game is a huge advantage that would benefit the higher seeds. And lets not kid ourselves. The bowl games are just exhibitions outside of one game right now (three this year). How can you decrease the importance of games that mean nothing? The BCS is exactly what made all but one bowl game irrelevant to begin with. So what could a playoff do that hasn't already been done?
if you do two things. First is that you have to win your conference to get in. And with only one championship game instead of a conference tourney, that prevents a major cinderalla. Second is that at least until the last four, possibly just the last game, the higher seed plays at home. Home field in a college football game is a huge advantage that would benefit the higher seeds. And lets not kid ourselves. The bowl games are just exhibitions outside of one game right now (three this year). How can you decrease the importance of games that mean nothing? The BCS is exactly what made all but one bowl game irrelevant to begin with. So what could a playoff do that hasn't already been done?
Last edited:
I would love to see a conference go the other direction. In other words, what if a 12 team conference decided to play 11 conference games every year? No championship game. Just play all the teams, the team with the best record wins. That's the purest way to decide a champion. Any kind of playoff, by it's very nature, devalues the regular season of almost all meaning. Ask LSU in 2012.
They picked Tyrone over Croom?? Their resumes are pretty similar. If anything Ty had it easier for 'croots at ND.
Fair enough and I don't disagree, but there tends to be more money in an exciting postseason than an exciting regular season. College football may be the exception, but I just feel that anyone who thinks that this thing isn't heading towards an 8-team playoff at a minimum is kidding themselves. As soon as the execs see the dollar signs from next season's postseason, the wheels will be in motion
All the bowl games (including the NC game) are meaningless in the grand scheme of things. But people care about them anyway. I'd rather preserve the system where MSU has a good chance of having a 'meaningful' post season more times than not. When we have a '******' bowl experience, we're still going to be somewhere it's easy to travel to that's not terrible, so why not enjoy it. If we have a 4 team playoff, there will still be enough good teams in nonplayoff bowls that people will still care (I think). If there is an 8 team playoff, I think more people will lose interest in the bowls. For a casual fan or a fan of a powerhouse program, an eight team playoff is probably better. For a fan of a team with a good chance of finishing in the 10-30 range but not that great a chance of finishing in the top 8, I like a 4 team playoff and bowl games.
How much does the regular season matter to a team that goes undefeated but doesn't get a chance to play for the title?
What about that great team that loses only once? Oregon was a much bigger threat to bama two years ago than Notre dame.
You can certainly have too many in the playoff but it's more than two teams and possibly more than four.
What about that great team that loses only once? Oregon was a much bigger threat to bama two years ago than Notre dame.
You can certainly have too many in the playoff but it's more than two teams and possibly more than four.
