Why 9 Teams is the magic number for PLAYOFF

[GoldCard_rivals380556]

“Wait a second,” you’re thinking. “How in the heck would 9 teams fit into a playoff bracket?”

This is how:

“Semi-automatic” bids go to the top 7 conference champions. This ensures that at least 2 G5 programs get in every year AND that conferences will make sure that their 2 best teams are in the CCG. No more silly imbalanced divisions where you risk an upset by a mediocre team.

How do you fit in the other 2 at large bids?
These 2 schools are selected immediately after the regular season and will square off during CCG week at a neutral site. This will ensure that at-large teams played the same number of games as their playoff opponents.
Criteria for at-large:
1) tied for spot in CCG, or one spot behind CCG qualifier, but lost to qualifying team on the road AND ranked higher than half of the teams in CCG.
2) have to have played a true road game out of conference

Criteria #2 should also make the regular season more interesting. If you lose your CCG, you cannot make it in as an at-large, as the at-large play-in game occurs on the same weekend.

If not enough teams qualify for at-large bid, then select another conference champion.

There is still a degree of subjectivity to selecting teams, but the criteria are rigid enough to mitigate that in most years. Teams would be seeded and paired 1-8, with matchups rearranged after upsets, like the NFL.

I read the arguments for a larger playoff in other threads, but I believe this idea is most realistic, by only adding one more game to the schedule for the championship participants, and more fair by including G5.

I know the P5 want more teams to get in so they can hog all the cash, but they will kill the golden goose. If you continue to shut out most of the country, people will lose interest and the money will stop coming in.

 

[PHCARD]

I agree, it seems like some really good FB teams are left out just about every year because of The Golden Boys teams. You never know, it might be a Cinderella type hype that happens in the Final 4 or even F2.

Some folks will need to think outside the box when life gets back to normal. Same ole same ole, isn’t going to get it.

 

[beantowncard]

“Wait a second,” you’re thinking. “How in the heck would 9 teams fit into a playoff bracket?”

This is how:

“Semi-automatic” bids go to the top 7 conference champions. This ensures that at least 2 G5 programs get in every year AND that conferences will make sure that their 2 best teams are in the CCG. No more silly imbalanced divisions where you risk an upset by a mediocre team.

How do you fit in the other 2 at large bids?
These 2 schools are selected immediately after the regular season and will square off during CCG week at a neutral site. This will ensure that at-large teams played the same number of games as their playoff opponents.
Criteria for at-large:
1) tied for spot in CCG, or one spot behind CCG qualifier, but lost to qualifying team on the road AND ranked higher than half of the teams in CCG.
2) have to have played a true road game out of conference

Criteria #2 should also make the regular season more interesting. If you lose your CCG, you cannot make it in as an at-large, as the at-large play-in game occurs on the same weekend.

If not enough teams qualify for at-large bid, then select another conference champion.

There is still a degree of subjectivity to selecting teams, but the criteria are rigid enough to mitigate that in most years. Teams would be seeded and paired 1-8, with matchups rearranged after upsets, like the NFL.

I read the arguments for a larger playoff in other threads, but I believe this idea is most realistic, by only adding one more game to the schedule for the championship participants, and more fair by including G5.

I know the P5 want more teams to get in so they can hog all the cash, but they will kill the golden goose. If you continue to shut out most of the country, people will lose interest and the money will stop coming in.

How do you “select” the. “Top 7” conference champs? How do you include the G5 but treat them like second-class citizens, making it more difficult for them to get a playoff bid than the P5 schools? If they are at a lower level, put them there and let them have their own playoff. If they are at the same level, then they should not be treated differently. Anything that works through “committees” , rankings, resumes, eye tests, etc is all opinions and essentially what we have now. Just give me objective criteria known to all before the season ever starts. That would be a step in the right direction.

 

[GoldCard_rivals380556]

How do you “select” the. “Top 7” conference champs? How do you include the G5 but treat them like second-class citizens, making it more difficult for them to get a playoff bid than the P5 schools? If they are at a lower level, put them there and let them have their own playoff. If they are at the same level, then they should not be treated differently. Anything that works through “committees” , rankings, resumes, eye tests, etc is all opinions and essentially what we have now. Just give me objective criteria known to all before the season ever starts. That would be a step in the right direction.

... as opposed to now? The G5

I believe I did give specific criteria. 7 bids MUST be conference champions, as opposed to the current system, which automatically shuts out UCF, Cincinnati, CC or Liberty. A 9 team playoff ensures that at least 2, possibly more, G5 teams get selected. Even if they are always seeded 7 and 8, they still have a shot at a National title. (Similar to hoops, where a George Mason might be seeded 11, for example, but they still get a shot.)

As for how to pick the Top 7 champions, we’ve all seen the abysmal committee in action, so I suggest using the Associated Press poll instead. Nobody would be treated as second class, certainly no worse than now. In fact, recruiting in these conferences would pick up a little, as they would have an actual shot at a national championship.

I’m trying to be both inclusive and realistic here. A playoff with all 10 conference champions isn’t happening any time soon. An 8 team bracket could happen, though, and I’d like to see it done as fairly as possible.

 

[Thecycle27]

Now that the national sportswriters and talking heads are talking about the imbalance a playoff expansion is likely. I think they will have to figure out a way to get to 8.

The reason for expanding initially isn’t about changing the end result it is about giving others the opportunity. The goal overtime is spreading out the talent. The more teams the better chance talent is distributed more widely.

With that said if the narrative is to get the best teams and not about the overall state of the sport then we will see 6 teams.

Reduce scholarships for football by 10. Then even more talent is spread out. Other sports can benefit by getting those 10 scholarships.

 

[beantowncard]

... as opposed to now? The G5

I believe I did give specific criteria. 7 bids MUST be conference champions, as opposed to the current system, which automatically shuts out UCF, Cincinnati, CC or Liberty. A 9 team playoff ensures that at least 2, possibly more, G5 teams get selected. Even if they are always seeded 7 and 8, they still have a shot at a National title. (Similar to hoops, where a George Mason might be seeded 11, for example, but they still get a shot.)

As for how to pick the Top 7 champions, we’ve all seen the abysmal committee in action, so I suggest using the Associated Press poll instead. Nobody would be treated as second class, certainly no worse than now. In fact, recruiting in these conferences would pick up a little, as they would have an actual shot at a national championship.

I’m trying to be both inclusive and realistic here. A playoff with all 10 conference champions isn’t happening any time soon. An 8 team bracket could happen, though, and I’d like to see it done as fairly as possible.

Polls? No way. There is a simpler to do it that excludes opinions. The other problem I have with your proposal is that it doesn’t treat P5 and G5 equally. I like that you place a premium on championships. That’s the best feature.

 

[nccardfan]

Until there is less disparity between #1 and #8, I can’t see where expanding the playoffs to more teams will result in anything different.
Bama is a 20 pt favorite over ND. Hell, even the game between 5 and 6 became boring...

 

[Thecycle27]

Until there is less disparity between #1 and #8, I can’t see where expanding the playoffs to more teams will result in anything different.
Bama is a 20 pt favorite over ND. Hell, even the game between 5 and 6 became boring...

This is why I would want 16. That’s probably not going to happen anytime soon. It will get there just not in the first alteration.

College football is not in a good spot right now. The best teams will always be the best teams under the current system. At the end of the day fans for teams wto compete for titles.

Recruits will travel but why travel if that other school have no shot at a title? Recruits will stay hone but why stay home if you have no shot at a title?

Until staffs can sell that opportunity nothing will change. Louisville and Kentucky will continues to get the scraps. The one way is finding that QB that is a Jackson, Brohm, Lefors, Redman, Bridgewater, Couch or Woodson.

 

[GoldCard_rivals380556]

Until there is less disparity between #1 and #8, I can’t see where expanding the playoffs to more teams will result in anything different.
Bama is a 20 pt favorite over ND. Hell, even the game between 5 and 6 became boring...

The CAUSE of the disparity is the small playoff. A handful of schools stockpile all of the elite talent, because those are the places that routinely get a shot at the mythical championship.

 

[Mayoman]

The CAUSE of the disparity is the small playoff. A handful of schools stockpile all of the elite talent, because those are the places that routinely get a shot at the mythical championship.

As an alternative thought, reduce the number of schollies to 65-70 in total to redistribute the stock pile and place a limit on number of walk ons too.

Diluting the FF playoff by adding more teams just increases the "everybody gets a participation trophy" invite that is undeserved and rewards mediocrity.

Simultaneously, institute a G5 FF playoff system for them to determine the best G5 team and recognize the winner as a NC too.

Then maybe have a challenge 'super bowl' between the winners of the 2 playoff systems. The old AFL vs NFL super bowl scenario that forced those 2 leagues to merge into one NFL.

This would level the playing field and spur massive nation wide interest in that all the leagues and schools would have a chance to play their way into the NC game.

Just thinking outside the box.

 

[Thecycle27]

The talent disparity is so great I don’t think an expanded playoff changes the final result. The offensive explosion the last couple of years is almost impossible for less talented teams to compete. The lines are so good a really good QB has plenty have time to find really good WR.

College basketball was no different before it went to a playoff. It spread out the talent fairly quickly. Not sure that happens as fast in football that is why I like the reduction of scholarships. Moving down to 65 would have an immediate impact.

The other thing to consider is college coaching may start jumping to the NFL. The recruiting and transfer rules make the NFL more attractive. Big time schools within 3-4 years you better be competing for titles. In this player empowerment environment could be even more challenging.

College football needs a reset and TV numbers are starting show that.

 

[beantowncard]

The talent disparity is so great I don’t think an expanded playoff changes the final result. The offensive explosion the last couple of years is almost impossible for less talented teams to compete. The lines are so good a really good QB has plenty have time to find really good WR.

College basketball was no different before it went to a playoff. It spread out the talent fairly quickly. Not sure that happens as fast in football that is why I like the reduction of scholarships. Moving down to 65 would have an immediate impact.

The other thing to consider is college coaching may start jumping to the NFL. The recruiting and transfer rules make the NFL more attractive. Big time schools within 3-4 years you better be competing for titles. In this player empowerment environment could be even more challenging.

College football needs a reset and TV numbers are starting show that.

Yes the NFL gives a coach plenty of time to develop and build a winning team.

Signed,
Adam Gase

 

[Guardman]

As an alternative thought, reduce the number of schollies to 65-70 in total to redistribute the stock pile and place a limit on number of walk ons too.

Diluting the FF playoff by adding more teams just increases the "everybody gets a participation trophy" invite that is undeserved and rewards mediocrity.

Simultaneously, institute a G5 FF playoff system for them to determine the best G5 team and recognize the winner as a NC too.

Then maybe have a challenge 'super bowl' between the winners of the 2 playoff systems. The old AFL vs NFL super bowl scenario that forced those 2 leagues to merge into one NFL.

This would level the playing field and spur massive nation wide interest in that all the leagues and schools would have a chance to play their way into the NC game.

Just thinking outside the box.

I think the idea of reducing scholarships would work. But no one will buy it.

 

[Rollem Cards]

Another thing is TV money. And that starts with us.

I certainly don’t give a rat who wins this NC game and I would think there are several million more like me.

If two football’s biggest traditional blue bloods had the lowest viewer rating in history, the people losing money would be looking at how to fix that.

Money fixes, and ruins, all.

 

[nccardfan]

Another thing is TV money. And that starts with us.

I certainly don’t give a rat who wins this NC game and I would think there are several million more like me.

If two football’s biggest traditional blue bloods had the lowest viewer rating in history, the people losing money would be looking at how to fix that.

Money fixes, and ruins, all.

I think you’re wrong about your prediction about it being the lowest watched NC game. Now if it was Bama vs Cincinnati or Bama vs Texas A&M, I might agree...

 

[LeFors4Ever]

I think you’re wrong about your prediction about it being the lowest watched NC game. Now if it was Bama vs Cincinnati or Bama vs Texas A&M, I might agree...

Bama and Ohio State might get some eyeballs.

Most casual fans didn’t know much about OSU, heck some didn’t know they even started a season.

It’s all about stories. Justin Fields adds some intrigue and Bama is Bama.

 

[Rollem Cards]

I think you’re wrong about your prediction about it being the lowest watched NC game. Now if it was Bama vs Cincinnati or Bama vs Texas A&M, I might agree...

I wasn’t clear. I don’t think it will be.

But I think if it WERE to be, if all like me refused to watch, it would make an impact. But we won’t. It’s the only game in town.

And I think you’re wrong about a Bama/Cincy type game. For a half anyway. Everybody loves a David & Goliath story.