I know a lot of people prefer (preferred?) the old bowl system with no playoff. Now that the season is over, has the playoff changed your opinion? Or if you wanted the playoffs, do you want to go back to the old system?
Should it be expanded to 8 teams? Or should other tweaks be made?
Personally, I loved pretty much every minute, but I think it should be expanded to 8 teams. Just not sure about the effects of the extra game on the athletes. But I would have loved to have seen TCU and Baylor get their shots.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I think the fact the #4 seed won as relatively easy as they did shows that the playoffs need to be expanded to all conference winners at the very least. TCU deserved a shot as well.
The Big 12 co-champions approve of this message.
Kidding, sort of.
I think both TCU & Baylor each had great arguments to be in a playoff, but there needs to be a rule to disallow "co-champions" stealing two playoff spots.
Definitely should expand to 8 teams. Should have been that in the first place. To not have all power 5 conferences represented ignores the rationale by the NCAA to create parity in the sport. If one conference is just tougher top-to-bottom one year, a truly great team may never get an opportunity.
If the Big 12 actually had 12 teams, and therefore a championship game, then one of them would've probably been in the playoffs this year. But yes 8 team playoff would be perfect.
Bowlsby is a moron, and I don't buy his babe-of-the-woods routine for a second. Schedule strength matters. Everyone who played 13 games played their last game against very good, maybe great, competition. Bowlsby's guys played a Pampers-soft OOC. Get a real conference, Blowsby!
Not to mention his attempts to game the system, by declaring "Co-Champs" even though the B12 conference rules have a clear tie breaker. The #1 rule (and rule that's been used for 100 years) would have definitively identified the most logical champ.
I have been in favor of a playoff for a long time. I think this year was a step in the right direction. The semifinal games were outstanding and I really enjoyed watching them. Last night's game was also a great one between two great teams. My only thoughts:
1. I hate the committee idea. I would prefer a BCS-style formula (I know, nothing is perfect) rather than simple opinion of some select few.
2. Expand to 8 teams, P5 conference champs and 3 at-large, and G5 can qualify based on wins or rank.
Gotta have an Independent/Notre Dame rule in there for them to qualify since they wouldn't be a champion. I would say P5 champs, highest G5 champ above 20, highest independent above 15. Still only 8 teams max though, so worst case, you only get 1 at large available.
Screw Notre Dame... Join a conference like the rest of the civilized football world.
Not gonna happen and that needs to be accepted.
Accepted?
The hell with that. I'm tired of Notre Dame and their exceptions. We're in a world right now where a playoff is a reality, where winning your conference is being placed with a super high emphasis. We are also living in a world where Notre Dame has an agreement in place with the ACC to steal our bowl games and our bowl revenue when warranted. Screw Notre Dame. If I had my way, they would be given an ultimatum... either join the ACC in full, or GTFO of the FBS. Tired of their loopholes. Every time they've been given a special pass, they've crapped all over it. Screw em, they haven't earned the right in the new era of college ball to be given this special treatment anymore.
TV power is what earns special treatment, not performance. Thats why Texas gets to bully the B12 and thats why Notre Dame gets to do whatever they want. Its all up to the NBC contract
I think they need to learn that the world is changing. I respect their iconic past, but I don't believe that it justifies giving them preferential treatment. If the eight team playoff idea happens (and its one of the most popular ideas), where the P5 teams get a bid and three at large teams get a bid, they would have to either join a conference or get over it.
(Either way, I don't think we will have to worry about this for a while if ever.)
If those are the options for them, either join a conference or get over it if we move to an 8-team playoff, you'll never see an 8-team playoff. They have a seat at the table and a rather commanding presence. You either work with them or you don't get what you want. The media understands the power of Notre Dame's presence and name so to think that a sport that makes the media so much money isn't going to be somewhat driven by those same forces is silly. And yes, I'm saying that the playoff is and still will be driven by the media presence of the teams involved and is less driven by the results on the field. Sometimes they will line up, other times they won't. Right now our sample size is 1 so it's impossible to prove, but the manner in which the playoff was covered and then the results of the voting lead to my opinion on that.
Notre Dame's highest number of viewers this year (a good year) was 13,251,000 for the Florida state game. That was their best viewership since 2012.
The Alabama-Ohio State game had a viewership of 23.5 million.
If we assume that the 4 'elite eight' games had half the viewership the 'bama-OhSt game (which is a very conservative assumption in my opinion), the 4 additional playoff games would each be in the same ballpark as the highest viewed ND game, and together probably wouldn't be too far behind ND's entire season viewership (I'm guessing there are plenty ND games significantly less watched than ND-FSU).
No way ND could somehow block an 8 team playoff. There's just too much money for too many other people involved.
If your main point is that the existence of a selection committee will ensure bias, I do agree with that. But as far as ND goes, I'm with Alum07.
Above 15?
No. Absolutely not. The "Notre Dame" exception doesn't need to be resurrected.
If a team isn't ranked in the top 10 at the end of the regular season, there's just no way it deserves to play for the championship. Notre Dame is consistently over-ranked anyway -- there is no reason to make it easier for them to parlay popularity into stealing a ticket to the big show from a more deserving team.
If they want the easier-in of being a conference champion, they should join a conference.
Also, should a conference champ be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs if it's not in the top 10? Consider when FSU beat VT for the ACC title in 2005.
Huge choke job by the Hokies gave 7-4 FSU the title. But I don't think anyone would consider that year's FSU a worthy contender for the overall title, right?
Who gives a crap? No, seriously, that's the beauty of the playoff, once it starts, records means jack, and may the best team win. My absolute ideal situation is if the Big 12 gets dissolved, those teams (along with ND) are dispersed throughout the remaining power conferences remaining in the SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and B1G to get 4 16 team conferences. Create 2 8 team divisions in each conference. Everyone plays everyone in their own division, and the teams with the best divisional records play for the conference title. The 4 conference title winners then get entries into the playoff, seeded by a computer formula similar to the BCS. Play out the playoffs just like we did this year.
Do that and all hand wringing on who is more deserving and who should be in and if x should be in over y.... its all immediately becomes a complete waste of time. It becomes a pure "win and advance". If you can't win, tough luck, better luck next year.
Winning your conference should mean something. In fact, it should mean everything. Florida State beat us on the field of play that year and earned their right to represent the ACC in the BCS. Any arguments to the contrary are just sour grapes by us.
It's not sour grapes -- FSU's final ranking that year was number 23. Sour Grapes would be arguing VT should find it's way into a hypothetical playoff that year. I'm suggesting that maybe that year's FSU is an example of how the playoff system would exclude demonstratively better teams from other conferences or Independents, and maybe it ought to be considered.
Granted, an 8 game playoff gives you a lot more latitude. But it's possible that a .500 (or maybe even worse, depending on the size of the conference) team could be a conference champion. Is that a team we want to see in a playoff?
The fact of the matter is that there needs to be exclusive qualifications to make it a fair process. Saying "well if you won your championship, but your record is doo-doo, then you don't get a spot with the rest of the champions." Just flat out say, "win your championship and you're in." Every game counts. If you hit your stride down the stretch and qualify for the playoffs with an 8-5 record, great job. Maybe you can be like the Giants that took down the Patriots the year they were undefeated. That stuff makes for a great story and proves the idea that every game matters.
But what if your conference it just soooo tough?
I wonder if the SEC has that play handy...
.NFC SOUTHWLTPCTHOMEROADDIVCONFPFPADIFFSTRK
z - Carolina781.4694-43-4-14-26-6339374-35Won 4
New Orleans790.4383-54-43-36-6401424-23Won 1
Atlanta6100.3753-53-55-16-6381417-36Lost 1
Tampa Bay2140.1250-82-60-61-11277410-133Lost 6
NFC WESTWLTPCTHOMEROADDIVCONFPFPADIFFSTRK
And I'm telling you that it is a stupid premise. FSU won the ACC, they're our rep. I'm completely done with the "who is more deserving" bullshit we have to listen to every single season in college football. We just had a National Champion earn it on the field when every single talking point leading into the playoffs was about how they probably weren't deserving of the honor of being in it. Win your games or GTFO. Florida State won their game that year and if the playoffs existed I would have absolutely no problem with them being the ACC's rep, just as how I have zero issue with Ohio State being in the playoff now. So, so, so very tired of the incessant need to include human bias as a significant factor in who gets a chance to play for a title.
Dude. A stupid premise?
Really? You are a joy to read most times, except for those many times you just have to insult people and needlessly take a dry unemotional debate into the realm of heated argument.
I'm not even bothering reading the rest of your post. It may be glittering with intelligence, wit and unassailable reasoning, but I wouldn't know because instead, go fuck yourself.
Yes, a stupid premise.
"do they deserve to be there" is probably the single most annoying argument we have in sports, and one that does nothing but constantly try to invalidate what every team out there is doing while artificially propping up others. It gets old. Really. Freaking. Old. And whats the worst is that the team that was getting those "they don't deserve it" arguments thrown their way the most of the ones that made it this year is the one team that just dominated its way to the National Title. Ohio State exposed that argument for what it was. Stupid.
College football would be MUCH better off if it did everything it could to eliminate that mindset going forward. If you ask me, its the one thing that is most holding the collegiate game back in terms of national popularity (which is crazy to say considering how overwhelmingly popular it is).
And I wasn't attacking you. Please note that. I was attacking that mindset, which I absolutely loathe. Maybe its because I was tired of listening for YEARS about how Virginia Tech was never deserving when we kept winning the games on the field. Yeah, that's probably it.
But, as much as you hate it, it is still the very basic question you have to answer when deciding on a playoff. It isn't an invalid question. Trying to invalidate what a team has accomplished is the only way to eliminate them from consideration, and if your arguments fail to invalidate their accomplishments, then they are worthy.
Even if you say "Power 5 champs are in" you still have 3 spots left over to fill, and this same argument will resurface, but about teams 6-8, instead of teams 3-4. Heck, the entire NCAA Basketball tournament is a huge question of "do they deserve it" and they include every conference champion. There is way more griping about that then there was in this football playoff.
I understand you don't like it, but it is a persistent and necessary element to choosing what teams make have a chance.
I don't give a crap who is more deserving as long as the games are won on the field. "Who is more deserving" is purely an argument made simply because college football has set itself up an environment where they intentionally place an overwhelmingly high emphasis on human bias in who gets a chance for glory. That in itself needs to stop.
Win your division to get to the conference championship game. Win your championship game to get to the playoffs. Win the playoffs to win the title.
Simple, effective, fair. Eliminated all the human bias, and it allows titles to be won on the field of play, which is how every single other level of the game does it except for college football. More importantly, it eliminates the hand wringing of who is more deserving and allows for you to watch and enjoy without always thinking in the back of your mind someone got arbitrarily screwed (like TCU this year).
Ok. Let me ask you this. Who was the best team in college football this season? And did that team win the championship?
Does the best team always win the Super Bowl? Or does winning the Super Bowl magically make you a better team than the others? It's always fun to look at the Patriots-Giants Super Bowl. Were the Giants a better team than the Patriots?
Championship games are inherently meaningless for comparing teams. To justify the presence of a team in an elite group by claiming that they won the championship is silly. If the Carolina Panthers had won the Super Bowl, I would have been ecstatic. I would have built a statue of Cam Newton out of various objects in my house and kept it until my wife made me get rid of it. It would have been great.
The Panthers are obviously not the best team in the NFL. Even if they had won the Super Bowl. The fact that they had a chance to play for it was also silly. They did not, by the quality of play on the field, deserve to have a chance to win the Super Bowl. In eliminating the human bias by doing basically what you have suggested, the NFL was scorned and ridiculed and people are arguing that the whole system needs to be changed.
The NFL teams play around a third of all the other teams in the league each season. It is pretty obvious after the games what teams are better. But not all the better teams make the playoffs.
I don't see it as simple. Some one "deserving" always gets left out. No way to eliminate that. Effective, not really. It would require major logistic and economic changes to the conferences, who are just printing money the way it is. Fair, well that is an opinion. I believe that I outlined an argument that counters if it is actually fair.
I like the four teams. Having "bubble teams" is the best part of the NCAA basketball tourney. It adds so much drama and entertainment to the system. Watching TCU and Baylor climb all over each other trying to impress the committee was great drama and super entertaining, and then having both of them shut out, well that makes a great storyline for next year in the Big 12. In this system, a conference champion is always getting left out. So you better be really good.
So I suppose that we just have differences in what is entertaining to us. Which is totally normal and fine. It also makes for fun conversations.
Finishing with the best record gets you a pat on the back and an 'attaboy' but nothing more, as you still have to win the games when it counts most. Who was the best team in 2011? New York, because they earned the right to say that by winning when it mattered most. The best teams rise to the occasion. Ohio State rose to the occasion this year, and that makes them the best. They earned it on the field.
You cannot seriously say that the 07 giants were better than the patriots. Thats laughable
Yeah, you're right. So laughable to think that the Giants could have been the better team when they played. Remind me, what happened when those two teams played in the Super Bowl?
Your annoying sarcasm aside, the 07 Patriots will go down as one of the greatest teams in NFL history and if you don't understand that then there is nothing more to be said
The best teams rise up and play better when the season is on the line. New York did that, New England did not. New England was on average a good team over the year, and beat everyone in the regular season. But NFL teams are built and coached and trained to peak and show their best play at the end of the year, when the playoffs come around. That is the time that separates the good teams from the great teams. New York rose their level of play to that of a higher level than anyone else once the playoffs started, and for that, they are rightfully recognized as the champions of the NFL. They were the best team that year, and they proved it when it mattered.
Take the 2011-2012 NHL season as an example. The Vancouver Canucks and New York Rangers finished the regular season with 111 and 109 points, respectively, each tallying 51 wins on the season out of 82 games. The Los Angeles Kings, with a paltry 40 wins in 82 games entered the playoffs as the lowest seed in the Western Conference. So who was the best team that year? Vancouver? New York? Nope, Los Angeles. They rose their game when it mattered most. They kicked it into a gear that no other team could match. They won the first round over 1st seed Vancouver 4 games to 1, swept the second round over 2nd seed St. Louis in 4 games, the Western Conference Finals over 3rd seed Phoenix 4 games to 1, and beat the Eastern Conference Champion New Jersey Devils 4 games to 2. It didn't matter they barely got into the playoffs, when it mattered most, they showed they were the best team in the league. That's why the Champions are the best, they reach a level of play unmatched by their peers.
One of the greatest teams and, in the very next breath, the unequivocally greatest disappointment.
The first time the Patriots played the Giants that season, on Dec 29th 2007, the Patriots beat the Giants 38-35 at Giants Stadium.
In that case, TCU is the current champion. With 5 title defenses.
College Football Championship Belt
And no, the Giants were better in 1 game than the Patriots. It happened to be the last game of the NFL schedule, but that doesn't make it different than any other game. Any team can beat any other team, but it doesn't necessarily make them a better team. The transitive property in football is silly, and that is what you are arguing.
1 game cannot tell you which team is better. I don't know if 3 games can tell. 7 probably can. But you can't do that in football. I don't have a problem with the World Series or the NHL or the NBA champion because you have to prove multiple times that you are the better team. But one game isn't enough to make that claim. You were better on one day. Doesn't make you the better team.
All of this is simply to argue that winning a game ( i.e. conference championship) should be less important than the regular season record. The only reason we need conference championships is because the conferences are too big and we don't play enough games. A playoff should include the best teams, as proven throughout the entire season. Not in one game.
The funny thing is, I think Baylor's more pissed that the Big 12 didn't name them conference champs. Yeah, they're bummed that they didn't make the playoff, but they're not whining about the committee.
Meanwhile, I keep hearing people claim that TCU should have gotten in the playoff. And I keep telling them that regardless of conference size and number of games, Baylor still would be ahead of TCU.
And Baylor has a right to be pissed. They were the Big 12 champ and if they had been named as such they might have gotten in over OSU. Wouldn't that have changed things...
I dunno, that OOC schedule they had was pretty poor. Even if they were the champ, OSU won a championship game against a Top +- 10 school 59-0. And I think the committee didn't want to set a precedent where a team that played no one outside their conference would make it in over OSU playing two P5 opponents OOC.
They only played 1 P5 team OOC, and got smacked around by them =)
Sh!t, you're right I was thinking of Navy as the second one, not P5 but not mid major either what with their independence.
Navy's on the way to the American.
Overall their OOC was Navy, VT, and Cincy. I would certainly say a better slate than Baylor or even TCU really.
or you could say/feel the same thing about the way our basketball team was treated during Seth's tenure
There are sub .500 teams in the NFL playoffs occasionally. It does not seem to ruin their product.
The good things about incorporating the conference championship is:
1. Winning your division gets you to the win and advance stage of the season. This guarantees two teams per conference have a chance to win the national title after Thanksgiving. There will be a lot of teams close to winning their division at the end of the season which will create extra excitement.
2. Conference championship games will provide an opportunity for an adjustment for a late season injury.
I hate the 16 team conference ideas. To never play teams in your own conference is horrible. It's bad enough now with 14 teams and only seeing teams every 6 years or whatever it is. Especially in the ACC where there would probably be an old big east division and old acc division.
Yes, any conference champion of a P5 conference deserves a spot. Cinderella makes her way to the ball in March Madness every year, so why not a similar thing for football? You win your conference, you have a shot. The reason the Notre Dame exception should be allowed is because if you are basing it on conference champions, that has to be an offer. Otherwise, you eliminate the need for a conference championship and say "we are taking the top 8 teams." Then everyone will complain when 3 SEC teams get in.
No no no no ND does NOT need another "special" rule for post season play. He independents either get in as at large bids or they don't period. ND gets voted based on their success from 40 and 50 years ago.
Or how about, the independents have to be ranked in the top 8?
Although that wouldn't work if a conference champ got in ranked 9 or lower, so the ind's would have to be in the top 7.
So there doesn't need to be a special rule. If Notre Dame wants to get into the playoffs, they either need to join a conference or play their asses off and be in the top of the rankings anyway.
Power 5 champions, top seed from group of 5, and no more than 2 teams from any conference PERIOD.
Absolutely loved everything about it. But yes, I do agree with making a 8-team playoff. Let's thank President Steger for getting us this far! Remember, Steger was the head of the BCS oversight committee.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8084746/college-football-...
I think we need 8 conferences and the 8 conference champions get into the playoffs. No more independent team crap and no more our conference deserves multiple entries. Win your conference and get in.
In a really ideal world I would love something similar to the English Premier league, where bottom feeders get dropped to division II and top tier div II (or fcs or 1a or whatever the hell they are called now) teams get bumped up the next season. I know this would make scheduling and money impossible but as long as we are dreaming...
Sorry but I just don't understand this type of thinking. Maybe college football goes this direction regardless of the playoff but why would we force something like this just in the name of determining a national champion. There are far more important historical aspects of college football that would be lost by forcing this type of arrangement.
Maybe just a different way of thinking but there are different ways of determining a national champion and finding a balance between keeping college football's history and pageantry is every bit as important as the method to pick the champ. It isn't just about watching the games on TV.
I see what you're saying but I'll respectfully disagree that the historical aspects of college football are justification for sticking with the antiquated and inherently biased method of selecting champions. I think it does a great disservice to all the athletes who compete at the highest levels for the non-traditional-power schools to say to them that they don't even get a chance to prove it on the field. 50 years ago, the AP would have simply crowned Alabama as the national champions, and more recently the BCS would have pitted the Tide against F$U. Either approach would have excluded tOSU and UO "because pageantry and tradition", and college football as a whole would have been poorer for it.
The biggest practical problem here is scholarship limits. Great for when a team moves up, but what do you tell the 20 or so kids that have to get their scholarships cut if/when the team gets relegated down? "Sorry, if you can't pay for your own college now, you'll have to drop out despite what we might have thought was reasonable a couple years ago."
I know it would be nearly impossible, just something I would love to see. And it becomes feasible if college ball keeps moving towards more of a business then a college sport which seems to be feasible for football and men's basketball. It there becomes a "salary" as opposed to scholarships for players then it becomes more feasible.
Exactly that. And how would they decide who stays and who goes?
I am a proponent of this idea, with a twist.
Four major conferences. Four mid major conferences. Each major is matched up with a 'little brother' mid-major. All major and mid major conference teams are eligible for the playoffs and bowls.
Eight team playoff. Four conference winners determined however the conferences want to determine that sort of thing. Four at-large teams, could be conference runners up, division runners up, mid major champions, or what have you.
Two last place teams in each major are dropped down to the associated mid major at the end of each season. Two top teams in the associated mid major are promoted to the major conference at the end of each season.
All teams remain eligible for bowls. All teams and conferences are still playoff contenders (obviously much harder to get into playoff if you were relegated). All scholarships still valid, all goals of all sorts still achievable. Kids can still transfer, too.
Well, the question of any academic stress on expanding the playoffs has been answered anyway...
I like the playoffs -really fun to watch - but we are heading further out to uncharted seas, IMO. I don't love the NFL using college as its minor league system, but here we are.
The FCS does it without any problem and they have a pretty good sized playoff. The FBS can do it easily with an 8 team playoff. It will happen soon, especially after record ratings the CFB playoff games got.
Yup. We heard for a very long time that the P5 commishes didn't think the playoff would be substantially better for revenue and popularity than the bowls. I think that has been proven wrong at this point, just ask the WatchESPN app.
They'll hem and haw about how they don't think 8 teams would add anything, then we'll have it by 2018.
Playing all games, with the exception of the championship game, at the home team's field minimizes the impact significantly. As it is you had two "bowl trips" for both OSU and Oregon where they spent multiple days at the site of the game whereas trips for normal away games are much shorter. The problem with playing these games at home field sites is sponsorship. It will be interesting to see if and how that gets addressed because that would have a significant limit on the amount of money generated by a playoff (it then becomes much more about just TV revenue).
IF they expand the playoff (not sure we should yet), I think ALL games (except the national championship) should be played on the higher seeded teams' home field. IMHO it's a shame that college students should have to pay to travel to three destinations in a 4 week period if they want to see three postseason games (Conference championship, playoff round 1 and round 2). That really bothers me.
My $0.02 otherwise:
Personally, I'm ok with the semifinal games being bowls as well. First round, sure, top seed homefield.
I rather enjoyed the new system.
I'm perfectly ok with the 4 team playoff. You could expand to 64 teams, & someone is still going to have an argument for being left out. We're looking at you Seth Greenberg.
Only complaint; if ESPN is going to play the NCG on a weeknight, they need to start the game earlier in the evening. My mom won't let me stay up that late on a school night.
I'm with you on the start time, especially since college games are getting drug out longer and longer, with the championship games taking even longer.
I saw someone mention getting with the NFL and clearing up a Saturday spot. But, here's an interesting scenario. If the Cowboys had gotten the first round bye, then they probably would have had to play the Divisional round on Saturday in order for the stadium to be ready for Monday night.
Ugh, I forgot about stadium scheduling logistics.
I am 110% in favor of moving the college championship game to Saturday night. I can't stay up that late on a Monday, and I'm on the East coast with the majority of our biggest population centers.
If college ever gets to the point where the championship game is on Saturday, it'll never go away.
Early morning at the track??
![]()
Agree on the starting earlier thing.
It would irresponsible for Mrs. Egbert D.D.S. to stay up for the whole game then operate on somebody's mouth in the morning. So, she calls it a night 1.5 hours into the game.
I understand there are fans on the west coast and that puts start time at 5:30 when we get kickoff at 8:30 EDT.
Doesn't keep me from wanting an earlier kickoff.
I understand the west coast wants to watch the game too but which is better?
1. Earlier start and the west coast viewers miss the 1st quarter or,
2. Late start time and the east coast viewers miss the end of the game.
I think that the game should be scheduled for maximum viewers for the second half of the game.
For the first half of that 3rd quarter, it looked like the game wouldn't end before 1am. Then Ohio State went on that really long drive, and finally brought some sanity back.
I really think if you went to an 8 team format, it would alleviate a lot of the "But team x unfairly got left out" talk like we have now with 4.
Sure someone will probably always find a way to complain no matter what, because thats just what people do. And this year was a very interesting case with 2 1 loss teams sitting at 5 and 6, and one of them going on to straight up annihilate a "mighty" SEC team in a New Years bowl.
But if you go 8 teams, I think you would be much more likely to hit a sweet spot each year for picking teams. This year for example, an 8 team format would have added TCU, Baylor, Miss. St. and Michigan St and Ole Miss would be the first time left out. I can't imagine any reasonable college football fan having an issue with those 4 teams participating and Ole Miss not getting in (let alone UofA, GT, Kansas St, who were the next 3)
By the 8th or 9th team, you are almost guaranteed to be talking about 2-3 loss teams by that point. The one instance I could see if a non P5 school that is undefeated or at 1 loss. But that could b e addressed simply by stating that any Group of 5 school ranked in the Top 10 is guaranteed a berth too.
Imagine if you had an extra round with the first round matchups as:
Bama - Michigan St.
Oregon - Miss. St.
FSU - TCU
Ohio St - Baylor
Yummy. I think the power players that decide this kind of stuff will realize this sooner rather than later as well, given the rivers of money that the playoff brought in.
The part I really like about the four team; it's quick. I was able to hold down my couch New Year's day, nurse my hangover, and have the NCG contenders resolved by the end of the evening. Adding more teams would drag out the process, and it would give us more 8:30 pm weekday start times that I can't watch to conclusion.
Wait until we get the 8:30pm New Year's Eve Semi-Final game.
They'll have to take a timeout halfway through the 4th quarter to do the countdown and champagne popping at the rate these games were going.
What time did the Alabama v Ohio State game end? I want to say it was 12:45ish? It was obscenely late.
I thought the rotation always had the playoffs happening on New Years Day, meaning the order of the New Years Six this year won't be the order they always happen in.
But I thought wrong. This is really, really stupid scheduling as far as ratings go. But what a fun way to ring in new years for fans of the two programs playing.
And I won't mind spending New Years Eve in Miami this year...
Rose Bowl is always going to be New Year's Day at 5 PM.
I'm pretty sure both semifinals are going to be played on the same day. (That way one team can't complain about less recovery time.) And I'm pretty sure they're going to stay back-to-back.
Which means, the only time we get New Years Day semis is when the Rose Bowl is a semi.
That being said, the early semi on New Year's Eve should be starting by 4:30, so that the second game can start between 8 and 8:30, so it can finish by midnight.
I know who thinks it was worth it - the CFP is sleeping well tonight:
Expand to 6 teams, top 2 get first round Byes. All 5 P5 champs + an at large that could be from any conference (including G5)
Hard to say that teams ranked 7 and 8 should get a shot at the National Championship. This year it was Mississippi State, and Michigan State. Neither had victories over teams that finished the regular season ranked above the #19 spot and both lost their bowl games. Both also had two losses whereas the top 6 all only had 1.
In most years, teams ranked 5+ either don't have good resumes or have lost at least 2 games. Hard to say that they are worthy of competing for a national championship. 1 slip up should be okay, two is not.
Michigan state beat Baylor in the cotton bowl and their only losses were to the two teams playing last night
Anyone can lose to a top 5 team, especially in the manner that MSU lost both of those games. Multiple score blowouts. You can't possibly look at the rest of the schedule they had and say that they were deserving of a playoff spot.
Sure in hindsight, vision is 20-20. But based on the regular season, which is why teams are picked, Michigan State had a bad resume.
The playoffs really are about finding the most deserving teams rather than the best. At that point, it's just which of the deserving teams is the hottest at the end of the year.
And to further mention, MSU basically proved that they couldnt beat either Ohio State or Oregon during the regular season, so why should they even get a shot at a playoff birth in which they'd llikely be playing either of those two teams again?
I would support 8 with conference tie ins, but we would need to look at other logistics.
Houston Nutt actually made a good point on the DC sports radio. If the season is made longer then there should be an up in the number of scholarships. Maybe take it from 105 to 120. More bodies means you can rotate more, means less wear, and less risk for injury.
I also think you maybe use dig down deep, the CFP Committee with ESPN needs to sit down with the NFL and clear one primetime Saturday slot in January for the game. College football is built around Saturdays, and we are rapidly approaching the point where there is enough money and draw to sit as equals with the NFL to move just 1 game.
I am not in favor of increasing scholarship numbers. Increasing scholarship numbers would consolidate the top talent at the top programs even more. The previous reduction in scholarships allowed for the development of the VT & Oregons of college football.
Another solution which would allow for more player rotation would be giving 5 years of playing time to each player (+/- one medical redshirt).
I would like to see a six team play off with the top 2 seeds receive a bye. The first four games are the Orange, Rose, Sugar, and Fiesta -- the last game is the National Title Game. If that can't be done then the other alternative I'd like to see is the first two games be played at the higher seed's campus -- then the final three games played at neutral or bowl locations.
1 - Bye
2- Bye
3 v 6
4 v 5
Absolutely.
The playoff was great, and I love that the two teams in the championship would not have been there under the old system, but (not considering the toll of yet another game on these kids) it needs to be 8 teams with all 5 P5 conference champions and 3 at-large teams. As much as Ohio State proved they deserved to be there, the inclusion was completely arbitrary (TCU and Baylor were just as worthy) and that kind of dampens the excitement. A conference champion system would work in everyone's favor as down the stretch nearly every conference game would have playoff implications. Fun for fans and ESPN would make a killing hyping up all that football.
And to quell the Notre Dame support/lunacy, they should be given the ultimatum to join a conference or take the NCAA death penalty. The "independent" route is an embarrassment and grossly unfair to the rest of league.
I absolutely did not want to see Oregon win it all before we do. This was a great start to the playoff system.
The fact that OSU and Oregon faced off definitely speaks to the benefit of the playoff as Bama and FSU would have played in the old BCS model. With that said, I hate the idea of the committee picking the teams. Use something that removes as much bias as possible, not a model that, at least on the surface, is completely subjective.
My issue outside of the selection method is the timing of the games. The national championship game last night almost felt like an afterthought with close to a 2 week gap from the New Years games. I'm not in favor of extending it to 8 teams because that would absolutely reduce the value of the regular season, which did not happen with it being limited to 4 teams. If anything, only having 4 teams seemed to drive much more conversation since you had very good teams that were going to be left on the outside looking in.
They need to address when the semi-finals are played. I'd much rather see them played around Christmas, have the non-playoff major bowls around New Years and then play the championship game the following week. The layoff with this year's format was just way too long and really took away from the build up to the game even though ESPN tried pushing it as much as possible. The reality is that after New Years day much of the football focus shifts to the networks for the NFL playoff games. With all the bowl games there are much more opportunities to discuss the playoffs leading up to New Years day.
Although it seems very popular, I am pretty much opposed to expanding the playoff numbers and especially giving conference champs an auto-bid. We had 6-7 very good teams this year, but how often do we seriously have more than 4 teams that should be in the conversation for best team in the country?
I know its been said a thousand times in this thread alone but I would like to see an 8 team playoff. This year's champ was the 4th seed of 4 teams! We don't even know what TCU or Baylor would have been able to do. I would say the 5 P5 champs (figure it out Big 12) and three at-large bids. Maybe one of those can go to the highest ranked non P5.
The only concern I would have is how would an 8 team playoff work with the already established bowls? Right now they only have the two semi-final games before the championship but with 8 teams they would have 6 games before the championship. What bowls would those 6 games be? Or does anyone not even care about the bowls anymore?
My biggest concern with an 8 team playoff is the war of attrition.
4 games is 1 extra game plus the championship. 8 games would be 2 extra games and a championship.
You could argue that it is one and two extra games since all the teams in the playoffs would have been in a bowl game regardless.
Yes. This and the fact that the two teams who play for the championship will be playing in their 16th game.
The thing I really liked about the way it was, is the offseason.
All winter and spring we would have good natured arguments over the implications of this or that and who shoulda woulda coulda.
the playoff puts and end to that except for the Baylor, TCU thing which was their conference shooting themselves in the foot.
Now it'll simply be, OSU should have taken a knee or not.
Not worthy of 7 months of argumentation.
I'd rather see a playoff where every team in the country can control their own destiny (like March Madness). If you win your conference (or division), there's a possibility you can be the national champion.
18 teams
AAC Champs
ACC Atlantic Champs
ACC Coastal Champs
Big 12 Champs
B10 East Champs
B10 West Champs
CUSA East Champs
CUSA West Champs
MAC East Champs
MAC West Champs
MTW West Champs
MTW Mountain Champs
P12 North Champs
P12 South Champs
SEC East Champs
SEC West Champs
SBC Champs
Highest ranked Independent
Championship Saturday Schedule
ACC Atlantic Champs vs ACC Coastal Champs
B10 East Champs vs B10 West Champs
CUSA East Champs vs CUSA West Champs
MAC East Champs vs MAC West Champs
MTW West Champs vs MTW Mountain Champs
P12 North Champs vs P12 South Champs
SEC East Champs vs SEC West Champs
- P5 champs take 5 spots in final 8
Championship Saturday + 1 week
AAC Champs
CUSA Champs
MAC Champs
MTW Champs
SBC Champs
Highest ranked Independent
- Seeded 1-6 and play each other 1 v 6; 2 v 5; 3 v 4
- Leaves 3 teams to take remaining three spots in final 8
Christmas Saturday
1 v 8
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5
New Years Day
1 v 4
2 v 3
New Years Day + 1 week
1 v 2
You put some thought into this formula. Not bad. I think this gets some money into the pockets of the smaller conferences and perhaps more distributed among the entire list of conferences.
So, my question is: Where did all the money go from this 4 game playoff (TV money and money from the semi-final bowl games and the NC)? How was it allocated and to whom?
I am seriously wanting to be sure that smaller conferences are still supported. The system we had is changing but it shouldn't have the money tip to the P5 conferences just because they can bully there way to make it happen (which started to happen this past year at an accelerated rate). We all know that football (and to a degree basketball does as well) funds other Olympic sports for many smaller colleges which creates opportunities for many more college athletes. Society is better off with more kids getting a college education, developing in that environment (mentally for the most part), and becoming contributing members of society. The alternative where if more of the available TV and fan money for college football is tipped into just the P5 conferences is not a healthy model in my mind.
8 teams would be a perfect number. 16 would be too much. 4 teams imo is not enought but a good step in the right direction
I agree. The committee idea is a bad one. Either do the 4 conf champs with the best record and figure out a tie breaker, or expand to 6, 5 conf champs and 1 at large highest in a BCS type formula, top 2 seeds get a 1st round bye the play in games at the home of the higher ranked team.
This playoff system has been shot down for a long time by the traditional powerhouse schools. More revenue for them (a full month of hype) and less chance of being upset by an upstart school.
I'm glad the new system is popular, and so happy we didn't have Alabama beat F$U in another cookie-cutter NCG that only engages their fan bases.
I thought it was interesting that both schools that made the NCG this year were offensive "system" schools. Everyone is familiar with Oregon's system, and French has done some good breakdowns of OSU's running attack earlier this year.
Personally I think Bud Foster is the best DC for scheming against a system, considering his success against GT (who gave other teams fits this year) and OSU. Some would say that Bud Foster runs a unique system himself that is designed to stop spread teams.
Lastly, does anyone think the college football playoffs rewards "system" teams more, or was this year an anomaly?
I think Foster's scheme is designed to stop the run. Still, by making teams one-dimensional, he has had success against spread teams.
Here's something I wanted to throw out there--
Since 2004 has any team played more different national champions than Va Tech in the same year, especially out of conference?
USC (2004), LSU (2007), Alabama (2012 and 2011 reigning Nat'l Champion), OSU (2014) and it could be said we play one of the hardest outside of conference schedules that can be made.
And if we add a couple of more years--
Throw in 2 more nat'l champs- 1999 FSU, 2001- Miami, and arguably 2004 Auburn, then add that we have another reigning champion OSU in 2015
OSU and Oregon both played 15 games this year. An expanded playoff would make the championship game the 16th game. The longer playoff could possible lead to needing to shorten the regular season to 11 games, or eliminate conference championship games.
Imo, if we want to see an 8 team playoff, then conference championship games will have to be eliminated. Who's going to miss seeing 6-6 teams get blown out in a half empty stadium? (GT FSU 2012)
The 8 team playoff with a conference championship will mean up to 4 post season games for fans to travel to. 3 is already too many.
Remove the JMU games from the season and add a preseason game. This would allow coaches to play new players in the preseason who may not take the same number of snaps over the regular season so it may reduce the stress on the starting players.
I personally would rather see my team play more and other teams play less. And I like watching bowl games during the holiday season.
Expand to 8 teams! Do not release the "brackets" until after the season.
Use the traditional polls for all the hype during the season. I think it is silly to argue on a weekly basis who gets in, that's all fine and good for the media and fans, but does no good for the teams or the players. Make it about winning your conference to get in and save the "we deserve a shot" to the next three highest ranked teams.
This nonsense about making the "regular" season meaningless is a silly argument as well. Sometimes good teams get outcoached, outplayed, outscored...See OSU this year! To that end I think it is disrespectful to VT's players and coaches to minimize the win at OSU (I'm referring to constant references to that loss by the media all year).
I'm getting off the soap box before I really tell y'all how I feel!
I would say that this year was huge success but I would like to see 8 teams. Drop 1 OOC game from the regular season if you have to if 16 games is too many.
Start the playoffs earlier after the conference championship, mixed in with the other bowl games. 1st round the friday and saturday before Christmas.(18th to the 24th). Semi finals on the 31st or 1st like current system then the championship the friday or saturday after the first full week after the 1st.
Play the 1st round games (and the CCG) at the higher seed's home field to limit travel. Redo the ticket distribution to allow more student tickets at a cheaper price.
I absolutely loved the College Football Playoffs because it showed that the myth of SEC as the greatest conference in College Football may all have been based upon media bias. How many of those seven straight National Championship teams would have survived in the new format. According to the old BCS formula, #1 was Alabama and #2 was FSU. Oregon and OSU would have been left out in the cold due to media bias.
I also absolutely support expansion to either 6 or 8 teams, with no at large bids. Conference champs all the way. Why? Because of continued media bias towards the SEC. Think I'm kidding? Here is the "Way-early Preseason Power Poll" by Dennis Dodd at CBS sports:
Ole Miss at #7, LSU at #9 and Mississippi State at #13. ND beat LSU but is not in the top 25, GT beat Miss State by 15 points yet they come in at #23. GT is 10 positions lower than the team they humiliated in the bowl game. Media bias is not dead.
Have 6 teams. Top 2 teams get a bye. All Power 5 winners plus one WC. This way every conference is represented, and at least one team that had a great season and didn't "win" their conference for whatever reason (Baylor) gets in. It's still exclusive and keeps every game meaningful, but every conference is guaranteed a spot, the door is still open for a great team that didn't win their conference or perhaps even a non-P5 team, and finishing in the top 2 and being one of the absolute, very best that would have made the CG under the BCS still earns you something significant.
Should be TCU. Baylor would have gotten the champ nod, by virtue of head-to-head.
4-team playoff is better than BCS, but anything that includes a committee is unfair. The ONLY way to be fair is to take top 64 teams (four 16-team conferences, two divisions in each conference) and have each conference play conference championship game, then conference champs play 4-team playoff like this year, then the championship game). Simple, fair, at least for the 64 teams. Whether it is 2 or 4 or 8, if there's a committee than there will ALWAYS be controversy. This year, OSU should not have jumped TCU/Baylor (even though they proved themselves, they should not have even been in top 4 to begin with.
Jay Bilas, is that you?
All kidding aside, I agree with your 4 major conferences point.
The playoff was great. But this year there was at least 5 teams deserving. A 6 to 8 team playoff is needed for strange years like this one where there were so many dominate teams. Most years 4 spots is enough, but other years 6 will be needed. There is no need for more than 8. I have never at the end of the season said...wow that team at number 9 could be the best team. The playoffs should remain an exclusive thing...and any more than 8 would ruin that.
The 2 game playoff was fine by me and is no better or worse at revealing the "best" team than a 4 or 8 or 16 team playoff.
No playoff reveals the "best" team unless you can say with extreme confidence that if you played the game(s) 10 times the outcome would be exactly the same. For the same reason the law of transitive properties doesn't work in sports, there are way too many variables on and off the field to say that any individual game or series of games can reveal the "best" team.
I loved the playoff, but I think 8 teams would be too many. If you're going to expand, only go to six teams. That way, there's room for the champs of the Power 5 conferences (perhaps with a requirement that they have to be top 10 to automatically qualify) plus the best team from outside those conferences (again with a top 10 requirement). Give the 1 and 2 seeds a first round bye. I also like the idea of at least the quarterfinals, and perhaps the semis being a home game for the higher seeds.
I think that a bye gives the 1 & 2 seeds too much of an advantage over seeds 3-6 in so small of a Tournament. Football takes a huge toll on players bodies and an extra games worth rest and healing, as well as being able to get in some preliminary film study and practice would be a huge advantage going into the semi finals. It's not as big of an issue in a larger tournament with over a more compact time frame like we see at lower levels of college football. There a 1st round bye is more comparable to a bye week mid season with less time intervening between contests. Add in how SEC & PAC12 bias would likely affect who is seeded 1 & 2 most years and I'm very against any tournament setup for football where there are only 3 or 4 rounds with byes.
This should be a record bowl income for the ACC. Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, and NCG, plus the other bowls. So ND gets a slice, it is still going to be a HUGE pie.
Does the ACC get any monies from the NCG? We didn't have a team in that particular game so why would we get any money from it? I'm seriously asking...