Saw a little of Mike and Mike this morning and this was what they were talking about. I really hope that isn't what they try and branch it out to. 8 maybe... 16 would be too much for me. One guy on there I don't know was trying to argue that 16 teams would not dilute the field... Well how in the hell couldn't it? There's such a huge difference between Say Clemson, Bama and Oky State who was 16th last yr... To do it would be for more games/money that's it. There would not be a chance in hell in our lifetime of any of the teams outside the top 12 of winning the whole thing maybe even 10 or so.. I don't want to see it turned into the NCAA tourney for basketball.. Let's see how 4 teams goes for a few more years before we do something as drastic as that. 8 seems to be a doable middle ground to me. And maybe better then 4. I figured since there's 5 power conferences with one (or more just depending) conferences always being left out of the final 4 that 8 would pretty much guarantee every one gets a piece of that pie. But of course there's conference realignment talk going on all over again so who knows how it'll all be a couple yrs down the road...
16 team playoff?
- Thread starter Hawkfnntn
- Start date
Expanding the field expands Iowa's chances of getting in. Anyone for that should be all in on 16
I thought of that too but for the greater good of college football I'm really not down for that... But your right it would surely do that. I'd be curious what coaches and ADs really think. ADs would want the more games/money I'm sure. But coaches I'm not so sure it's that cut and dry.
Making the playoffs when there's only 4 teams just makes it so much more of an accomplishment it's more to be proud of. It'll turn into a coaching barometer where if your school doesn't make it X amount of times during a period of time your on the chopping block. Kinda like how making the NCAA tourney is for bball. It's almost hard to not make that anymore.
So say it's a field of 16 and Iowa goes 3 or 4 years without making it. I think that pressure would be intense and just changes the whole dynamic of the expectations of programs. Because even now I'd say schools and coaches have (or should be) adjusting how they do their schedules so they can position themselves for a run at the final 4. I don't think the larger schools would want the extra games to possibly get 'upset' in and get their kids beat up in. Football is different than basketball in that more isn't necessarily better... But that's just me.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
The challenge will always be the bowl games. Though some would argue that cutting the number of bowl games back to 14 plus a NC game wouldn't be a bad idea and it would give each game meaning. (8-4-2 + NC) Your Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar, Cotton, Citrus would get top billing as they do now.
There are way too many bowls. Teams going at 6-6 or even 5-7 are all the evidence you need. How bout the top 16 make the playoffs and the next 16 (likely Power 5 teams for the most part) play their "NIT" bowls.
22 Bowl games plus an NC game. god forbid we reward excellence instead of giving out trophies to teams with losing or .500 records.
There are way too many bowls. Teams going at 6-6 or even 5-7 are all the evidence you need. How bout the top 16 make the playoffs and the next 16 (likely Power 5 teams for the most part) play their "NIT" bowls.
22 Bowl games plus an NC game. god forbid we reward excellence instead of giving out trophies to teams with losing or .500 records.
I guess my thing is I love how Iowa has had the stability in coaching they've had. We don't have to look any further away then Nebraska for me to make this point. They too used to have coaching stability. But once they let Solich go after a 9-3 season they've been down by their expectations way more often then up. And have made a handful of coaching changes since and were what 5-7 last yr... Now their expected to do significantly better this year but who really knows how they'll do in year 2 under Riley.
That said Iowa doesn't have to worry about this till after KF retires because he's written his own ticket to stay as long as he'd like. But I don't think that'll be more then 5 or 6 yrsish tops. But whenever that day comes whomever Iowa hires I really hope they do so with it being a 10 plus year marriage as opposed to the short term hand holding everyone else seems to do now. I think it's part of what makes Iowa Iowa. It's an advantage and something to be proud of.
That said Iowa doesn't have to worry about this till after KF retires because he's written his own ticket to stay as long as he'd like. But I don't think that'll be more then 5 or 6 yrsish tops. But whenever that day comes whomever Iowa hires I really hope they do so with it being a 10 plus year marriage as opposed to the short term hand holding everyone else seems to do now. I think it's part of what makes Iowa Iowa. It's an advantage and something to be proud of.
eveningnewsteam
Well-Known Member
I prefer they just go to a full playoff like every other division
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
8. Nothing more. The regular conference season would still have some meaning and the playoffs wouldn't be watered down.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I think it has to be expanded. It is pretty much just a blue blood tournament, and that will be made more and more clear as they years go on.
16 teams with 5 conferences (2 divisions per conference) is really the only way you can expand the current playoffs. Each division winner of each conference plays in the first round. 6 at large teams are selected and paired up and play in that same championship weekend. Then seed the 8 winning teams.
I think a 8 team playoff is nearly impossible. I don't see how it is fair taking teams into the playoffs that didn't have to play a "championship game" or an extra game. Even if winning your conference isn't an "auto bid" it isn't fair that some teams would play an extra game and others wouldn't. It also wouldn't be fair that teams that lose their conference title game get into the playoffs (which would totally happen with a 8 team playoff).
16 teams with 5 conferences (2 divisions per conference) is really the only way you can expand the current playoffs. Each division winner of each conference plays in the first round. 6 at large teams are selected and paired up and play in that same championship weekend. Then seed the 8 winning teams.
I think a 8 team playoff is nearly impossible. I don't see how it is fair taking teams into the playoffs that didn't have to play a "championship game" or an extra game. Even if winning your conference isn't an "auto bid" it isn't fair that some teams would play an extra game and others wouldn't. It also wouldn't be fair that teams that lose their conference title game get into the playoffs (which would totally happen with a 8 team playoff).
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Disagree. Basically all you are doing to get to 16 team playoff is saying each conference division winner is in the playoffs (which it basically would be anyway with an auto bid for conference champs).
eveningnewsteam
Well-Known Member
I think the regular season would have more meaning with more playoff spots. Teams trying to play their way in down the stretch, teams already in fighting for a better seed, home field, etc.............
I don't see them expanding to 16, possibly 8, or even six with a couple play-in games, that way all Power 5 conferences are represented. A 16 team field favors the blue bloods that can go 3 deep in the line-up. I think it was fairly obvious that Mich. St and Iowa beat the hell out of each other. I am not suggesting that is why both teams got clobbered, but it couldn't have helped.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Yep, and lets face it, with large conferences, winning your division is like what winning the conference was 10 years ago. I mean 5 years ago you play 8 conference games with no playoff to win the conference. Now you have to play 9 games plus a playoff game to win the conference??
More teams in is more exciting, plus every program would have a shot at the playoffs with a good year.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
8 teams just won't work. You are letting in 3 teams who wouldn't have had to play a 13th game into the "playoffs", or worse yet, you let in a team that just LOST a conference championship game into. Then who deserves it more, the team that didn't even win the division or the team that just lost a conference championship game.
Much too mess when you actually think out the scenarios.
No, I see all Power 5 champions in, plus the next 3 in. It is only a matter of time before two undefeated SEC teams meet in their conference championship and the committee still puts a one loss SEC team in the final 4. Or under the present situation, does a one, or two loss Big 10 Champion get shut-out? Open it to eight, 5 conference champions...no matter their record, and three more.
Last edited:
nationalchamps
Well-Known Member
I think we eventually see 4 16-team conferences and winner of each division plays for their conference title and each title winner plays in the final 4.
Funny because every sport I am aware of has expanded the numbers that make the playoffs and yet interest kept increasing. NFL, NBA, MLB.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I don't know how you could do this. Last year for instance here is who would have made the playoffs (outside the 4 who did + Stanford as they would have been automatic Pac 12 bid)
Iowa - Lost in B1G title game
OSU - Did win division and didn't play in 13th championship game
ND - Didn't play a 13th game
I don't see how you let those 3 in and call it "fair". Everyone else had to play an extra game to get into the playoffs (conference championship game) Since there is an auto bid for the conference winner, it is a De Facto playoff game in itself. Win and you are in, no matter your ranking. So it isn't fair at all to let 3 other teams in after the 5 that won their conference had to play an extra game to earn their way in.
I think it would be more fair if you have the 10 teams playing for their conference championships for the 5 at large bids. That same Saturday you have 6 teams have a play in game as well. Or basically have a 16 team playoff.
So first round would have been basically conference championship games:
Bama vs Florida
Clemson vs UNC
Iowa vs MSU
Stanford vs USC
Oklahoma vs TCU (ranked higher than Okie St)
OSU (highest rated non division winner vs Michigan (lowest rated non division winner
ND vs Northwestern
FSU vs Ole Miss
After you get the 8 winners you then re seed.
1hawkeye1
Well-Known Member
Ostrich. 8 ok, Anything more is too much.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
8 is stupid. If you take the 5 conference champs, plus give 3 at large teams, you are making the conference championship a "play in game". You are basically giving the 3 at large teams a bye.
