Obviously not a new controversy, but 4 just isn’t enough when every year there’s similar excellent 1 loss teams and committees make such arbitrary decisions. I know the existing playoff format has several years remaining on the deal but the conference commissioners need to push for this. Yes, there will be arguments that it could then expand to 16, 32, with no end, but with 8, you have just 1 more week and then every Power 5 champ could be assured a berth along with the 3 best wildcards, regardless of conference.

Yes, there would still be some controversy for the last couple spots but 8 would likely assure at least every 1 loss team gets in. The NCAA or some conference’s counter about concern over academics being affected doesn’t hold weight considering the 16 team tournaments in other NCAA levels. Other opponents may cite an expanded playoff greatly diminishes the bowl game formula and its accompanying illusion of success for many schools but most of the bowls are already struggling in attendance and ratings. Expanding to 8 is just the logical and fair next step...not to mention even more revenue.

I agree and the controversy about teams 9+ not getting in would be mostly BS in my opinion because if you don't win your conference, you suffer the consequences. Unfortunately whoever ushered in the BCS era of college football screwed the whole thing up. It was better prior to that when we argued over the potential split poles at the end of the traditional bowl season. It really was a hostile takeover of college football. I believe the former commissioner of the SEC, Mike Slive was the catalyst in getting it changed. I'm convinced that conference colluded with the money men (ESPN) to freeze out the Big 10/Pac 10. The entire system is set up to protect that conference. It's a big circle jerk.

No there shouldn't. Wankers would still wank on about left out teams. That's how ESPN makes their money. Not from the actual games but from belly-aching about them.

Four teams is just fine (and you could argue two would still be fine). There are not 8 good teams. Setting up a gauntlet of games just increases the chances the best team doesn't win and some scrub team that gets hot or lucky does. Sure it would be nice to see WSU get in the playoffs and I hope it happens but let's not pretend going to 8 teams would mean no deserving team gets left out. Assuming UGA loses to Bama in the SEC Championship game, they have no business being in the playoffs. Ohio State? Ha! Oklahoma? Are you kidding me? A little defense. Just a little. Please. WVU took themselves out of serious consideration. The Florida team that thinks they won last year? Um, no. I think Michigan, assuming it wins out, gets the honorable "most deserving" slot but they already lost to Notre Dame. If the lose to Ohio State, put a fork in them.
Ultimately the argument always comes down to differences between 4-8 and not really differences between 5 and 1. There are three teams (this year) that clearly deserve to go and then an open slot to even things out.

I believe each conference champ should be in the playoffs - SEC, ACC, Pac 12, Big 10, Big 12, etc. If this Wikipedia info is accurate, there are 11 conferences so 11 teams - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_conferences. Probably could do the seedings by rankings with the top seed getting a 1st rd bye.

See, we're already up to an 11 team play-off.

West TX Hawk wrote:Obviously not a new controversy, but 4 just isn’t enough when every year there’s similar excellent 1 loss teams and committees make such arbitrary decisions. I know the existing playoff format has several years remaining on the deal but the conference commissioners need to push for this. Yes, there will be arguments that it could then expand to 16, 32, with no end, but with 8, you have just 1 more week and then every Power 5 champ could be assured a berth along with the 3 best wildcards, regardless of conference.

Yes, there would still be some controversy for the last couple spots but 8 would likely assure at least every 1 loss team gets in. The NCAA or some conference’s counter about concern over academics being affected doesn’t hold weight considering the 16 team tournaments in other NCAA levels. Other opponents may cite an expanded playoff greatly diminishes the bowl game formula and its accompanying illusion of success for many schools but most of the bowls are already struggling in attendance and ratings. Expanding to 8 is just the logical and fair next step...not to mention even more revenue.

I'm all for diminishing the bowl games. If it isn't one of the classic venues (Rose, Sun, Cotton, Sugar, and Orange, plus the introduction of Fiesta as a major game), it doesn't need to be played, anyway.

HawkGA wrote:See, we're already up to an 11 team play-off.

If you make it just 8, every Power 5 champ gets in as they should and every 1 loss team likely would. No one can definitively declare that say Michigan is better than Georgia, OU or WSU unless they've actually played one another. And yet the committee makes these arbitrary decisions annually. Comparing schedules, common opponents, etc gets just ridiculous after awhile. Just take every power 5 champ and the next best 3.

And the quarterfinals could be home games for the top 4, making it a tough road for 5-8 but still giving them a chance. Or you could keep it neutral fields and include all the other top bowls as sites.

It is rare that we're likely ending the regular season with 3 undefeated teams this year. Usually there's only 1 or 2 and a slew of 1 loss teams. By expanding it to 8 it becomes a more level playing field.

I agree.

West TX Hawk wrote:

HawkGA wrote:See, we're already up to an 11 team play-off.

If you make it just 8, every Power 5 champ gets in as they should and every 1 loss team likely would. No one can definitively declare that say Michigan is better than Georgia, OU or WSU unless they've actually played one another. And yet the committee makes these arbitrary decisions annually. Comparing schedules, common opponents, etc gets just ridiculous after awhile. Just take every power 5 champ and the next best 3.

And the quarterfinals could be home games for the top 4, making it a tough road for 5-8 but still giving them a chance. Or you could keep it neutral fields and include all the other top bowls as sites.

It is rare that we're likely ending the regular season with 3 undefeated teams this year. Usually there's only 1 or 2 and a slew of 1 loss teams. By expanding it to 8 it becomes a more level playing field.

Again, you're making the mistake of trying to compare 4-8 when that really doesn't matter. Expand it to 8 and people will be trying to compare 8-12. We see it now with the NCAA Tournament in basketball as there is always a list of "who got snubbed". But it reality it doesn't matter, just like not including the 5-8 teams in the college football playoff doesn't actually matter. We shouldn't be expanding the playoff just to let more teams in. This isn't Little League where everybody gets a trophy.

HawkGA wrote:

West TX Hawk wrote:

HawkGA wrote:See, we're already up to an 11 team play-off.

If you make it just 8, every Power 5 champ gets in as they should and every 1 loss team likely would. No one can definitively declare that say Michigan is better than Georgia, OU or WSU unless they've actually played one another. And yet the committee makes these arbitrary decisions annually. Comparing schedules, common opponents, etc gets just ridiculous after awhile. Just take every power 5 champ and the next best 3.

And the quarterfinals could be home games for the top 4, making it a tough road for 5-8 but still giving them a chance. Or you could keep it neutral fields and include all the other top bowls as sites.

It is rare that we're likely ending the regular season with 3 undefeated teams this year. Usually there's only 1 or 2 and a slew of 1 loss teams. By expanding it to 8 it becomes a more level playing field.

Again, you're making the mistake of trying to compare 4-8 when that really doesn't matter. Expand it to 8 and people will be trying to compare 8-12. We see it now with the NCAA Tournament in basketball as there is always a list of "who got snubbed". But it reality it doesn't matter, just like not including the 5-8 teams in the college football playoff doesn't actually matter. We shouldn't be expanding the playoff just to let more teams in. This isn't Little League where everybody gets a trophy.

Your premise assumes that 4 seeds don't really matter -"mistake of comparing 4-8" and yet how ironic 50% of the CFP champs have been #4 seeds (OSU '14, Alabama last year) and the #1 seed has yet to win the CFP Phttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleg ... ampionship

And why do we even have playoffs in the NFL, with 12 teams no less? By your rationale, we should go back to the 1940s and have just 2 teams in an NFL title game-no divisions, just take the 2 best record teams and everyone else's chances are over in late Sept. If we both agree that the purpose of a postseason in any sport, pro or collegiate, is to fairly determine its annual champion, wouldn't it make sense to have a system that compensates for both human and computer error in evaluation of such teams? (And that generates increased revenue?)

There's 129 fbs schools, with the current 4 team playoff having the lowest percentage of qualifying teams (3%) than any level of the NCAA (FCS 24/125 = 19%; D2 28/167= 17%; D3 32/250= 13%) and by comparison, far lower percentage than any major pro sport (MLB 33%, NFL 38%, NBA 53%). Now we certainly don't need a 32 team tourney but expanding to 8 makes it 6%--that's not at all unreasonable in determining a champ and certainly not awarding "little league trophies."

And let me ask you this, for this year, how confident are you that Notre Dame beats GA, OU, WSU, OSU, UCF on either a neutral field or even at home? Would independent ND be undefeated in any of the big conferences? By expanding to 8 and including all Power 5 winners, the human bias factor and computer error is eliminated for all but 3 teams.

I say we get radical and completely redesign major college football. Limit Division 1A (first step is to get rid of the FBS name) to 120 teams, separated into ten 12-team conferences. Every conference must play 9 conference games. Have a sixteen team playoff with the ten conference champions plus six wild cards. Allow non-playoff teams with winning records to participate in exhibition bowl games.

Should be 4 - 16 team super conferences each divided into 2 - 8 team divisions. Each division winner plays for their conference crown. Conference winners are seeded, and the 4 teams play for a real national championship.

This isnt basketball. These guys need 5-7 days between games plus there is the extra travel for fans.

Really, 4 is the only number that makes sense from a travel and timing perspective. Wouldn't mind 6 with 2 byes to the high seeds. But 4 is fine. Anything more and its stretching the timeline to a degree it loses its impact.

I agree, it's either that or just go back to the trad bowl games.

West TX Hawk wrote:
And let me ask you this, for this year, how confident are you that Notre Dame beats UM, GA, OU, WSU, OSU, UCF on either a neutral field or even at home? Would independent ND be undefeated in any of the big conferences? By expanding to 8 and including all Power 5 winners, the human bias factor and computer error is eliminated for all but 3 teams.

Well, Notre Dame already beat Michigan, so that's been figured out. I think they'd beat OSU, WSU, UCF, probably OU. Probably beat GA too. But even if they wouldn't, there are perks to going undefeated and having a good schedule (as opposed to UCF). It's just the way it is.

The fact the #4 seed has won the championship half the time just goes to show that when you set up playoffs like this, you don't necessarily get the best team to be the championship. You get the team that happened to win on a particular day. How many years do you think the "best team" wins the NCAA college basketball tournament? That's done more for entertainment value than it is to actually arrive at a "best team gets the championship". And that's okay. It certainly is entertaining. But we shouldn't pretend it's something it isn't.

Uncle Si wrote:This isnt basketball. These guys need 5-7 days between games plus there is the extra travel for fans.

Really, 4 is the only number that makes sense from a travel and timing perspective. Wouldn't mind 6 with 2 byes to the high seeds. But 4 is fine. Anything more and its stretching the timeline to a degree it loses its impact.

I like 8 myself with no byes..You want to stop the crying so..

HawkGA wrote:

West TX Hawk wrote:
And let me ask you this, for this year, how confident are you that Notre Dame beats UM, GA, OU, WSU, OSU, UCF on either a neutral field or even at home? Would independent ND be undefeated in any of the big conferences? By expanding to 8 and including all Power 5 winners, the human bias factor and computer error is eliminated for all but 3 teams.

Well, Notre Dame already beat Michigan, so that's been figured out. I think they'd beat OSU, WSU, UCF, probably OU. Probably beat GA too. But even if they wouldn't, there are perks to going undefeated and having a good schedule (as opposed to UCF). It's just the way it is.

The fact the #4 seed has won the championship half the time just goes to show that when you set up playoffs like this, you don't necessarily get the best team to be the championship. You get the team that happened to win on a particular day. How many years do you think the "best team" wins the NCAA college basketball tournament? That's done more for entertainment value than it is to actually arrive at a "best team gets the championship". And that's okay. It certainly is entertaining. But we shouldn't pretend it's something it isn't.

You know, UCF and Notre Dame have a common foe. Pittsburgh. Notre Dame beat them 19-14. UCF beat them 45-14.

But by all means, just assume Notre Dame would beat UCF because they have ancient history.

Uncle Si wrote:This isnt basketball. These guys need 5-7 days between games plus there is the extra travel for fans.

Really, 4 is the only number that makes sense from a travel and timing perspective. Wouldn't mind 6 with 2 byes to the high seeds. But 4 is fine. Anything more and its stretching the timeline to a degree it loses its impact.

Are you kidding, they already play an 11/12 game schedule, Plus conference championship game.


So in what I outlined, by the time the conference championship game is played in late November, early December you'd have 4 teams left to play 1 game (semi finals) and then 2 teams to play 1 championship game.

The playoff should be expanded to eight teams if for no other reason than to keep more of the country engaged in their team for the whole season. If you are a school not named Clemson or Alabama, you are pretty much deflated with one loss, and totally uninvested with two.

All P5 conference winners, two stellar at large, and the highest ranked G5 team should get in every year. Once the playoff starts, every team has a puncher's chance.

The great thing about college football is every week is a playoff game. Anything more than 4 is taking away from that.

You usually don't even need a playoff. The top 2 teams are pretty obvious almost every year.

West TX Hawk wrote:Obviously not a new controversy, but 4 just isn’t enough when every year there’s similar excellent 1 loss teams and committees make such arbitrary decisions. I know the existing playoff format has several years remaining on the deal but the conference commissioners need to push for this. Yes, there will be arguments that it could then expand to 16, 32, with no end, but with 8, you have just 1 more week and then every Power 5 champ could be assured a berth along with the 3 best wildcards, regardless of conference.

Yes, there would still be some controversy for the last couple spots but 8 would likely assure at least every 1 loss team gets in. The NCAA or some conference’s counter about concern over academics being affected doesn’t hold weight considering the 16 team tournaments in other NCAA levels. Other opponents may cite an expanded playoff greatly diminishes the bowl game formula and its accompanying illusion of success for many schools but most of the bowls are already struggling in attendance and ratings. Expanding to 8 is just the logical and fair next step...not to mention even more revenue.

I say, take the WINNER of each DIV1 conference (11 teams) and one At Large bid (non-conference) and that's your playoff. Period. Make it 100% objective.

Uncle Si wrote:This isnt basketball. These guys need 5-7 days between games plus there is the extra travel for fans.

Really, 4 is the only number that makes sense from a travel and timing perspective. Wouldn't mind 6 with 2 byes to the high seeds. But 4 is fine. Anything more and its stretching the timeline to a degree it loses its impact.

This is what I wish they would have gone to. Give the #1 and #2 a bye, let the remaining 4 teams fight to get to the semis.