8 Team Playoff Will Happen

[Seth53]

8 teams is perfect. 5 conf champs plus 3 at large. All conf's play 9 conf games plus champ game.
It'll make the conf champ games mean something.
The +3 will take the sting out of an early loss. Also supports strength of schedule for picking them.
Seed them, home game first round for higher seed.
Power bowls can host 2nd round. Highest bidder gets champ game.

It's not about integrity as much as it is about $$$$$.
And the $$$$ to be made is astounding.
Oh, and it'll be great football to boot.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Giving each conference champ is getting rid of the politics. Every teams has a clear and unpolitical path to the playoffs, and no Playoff committee bullshit can keep them out. If you don't win your conference the you get lumped in with the rest of the teams and then you have to deal with the political bullshit at that point.

There maybe should be a "qualifier", i.e., when a B1G West team with a 7-5 record beats a B1G East team with a 9-3 record...because OTHER teams are on probation, for example...that "automatic" is off the table.

A conference should maybe have the "option" to send a higher-ranked team/team with better record.

What is REALLY needed is for all four B1G teams in the NY6 bowls to win. O$U losing in the championship game to 'Bama would be acceptable, of course.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Ah jeeze. I'm not saying conference championships account for nothing. I'm alluding to a *Straw man argument alert* other HN members are attempting with their posts. Let the conference champion, either through the record at the end of conference play or championship game, be a positive part of the metric...just not the end all or be all of the metric. That's politics and doesn't determine the best teams for the football playoff. Do you really think Washington's conference championship game win makes them automatically one of the 4 best teams in this playoff? I don't. For that matter, Oklahoma not a playoff contender because they didn't win their conference championship game?

I understand the committee who currently decides the playoff teams thinks a conference championship winner decided in a conference championship game is greatly necessary to make the playoffs. I don't say absolutely necessary because tOSU got in not being the winner of a conference championship game and playing one less game in the process.
More and better metrics that are used throughout the season might, IMO, ELIMINATE the need for conference championship games.

There should be some metric that all playoff teams play the same number of games.
Taking this to the extreme, having Iowa play a, for example, FCS school would account for 1/2 game played and might disqualify them from playoff competition. Think what the metric might be if Iowa lost to an FCS school. Or, at least, someone can haggle about this part of the metric.

Someone should examine the politics of the decision by the playoff committee to include tOSU. Quite possibly the committee wanted to avoid the backlash from the politics that demand at least (usually not more) one team from the B1G makes the playoffs? Why not more than one from one conference team in the playoffs ? Hum?

Quite possibly the committee examines the performances of the later stages of the season by a team like tOSU? Of course, the committee would also have to examine the quality of the competition teams like tOSU were facing in this stretch of games.

Just seeing what might stick...Sounding more and more like BCS formulas, huh?

Conferences will maintain some semblance of integrity..even the Big XII because fans will be able to attend traditional rivals games and the Big XII might actually get a team in the playoffs without having a conference championship game..

Not sure it was your intent , but you hit on something very important: eliminating the"need" for conference championship games. Either ALL P5 conferences, hell, even Group of Whatever conferences, should have one, or NONE of them should. Let's all admit it, we know the CCG scenario started out as more TV $$. Nothing wrong with that, per se. But when teams getting crushed in CCGs STILL got in, or teams NOT making their CCG STILL got in (admittedly, under the old BCS system), it cheapened BOTH the "championship" process AND the CCG scenario(s).

Not sure who it was (maybe Gerry DiNardo?), but someone once made the comment that, in the event of tie in division(s), DIVISION RECORD should take precedence above overall record. While it didn't matter in the case of O$S/PSU (head-to-head decided it), it points out that the metrics, themselves, might need tweaking.

The "value" of respective non-conference matchups might be part of that (although not every team can get a "Bama on their schedule without SERIOUS concessions), as well as ranking conference "crossover" schedules. For example, while I don't discount our 2015 season, we essentially played two weaker East teams last year. Had we NOT gone undefeated and/or been tied with another team, head-to-head is a fine first comparison, but beyond that?

Let's just say some serious reconsideration is warranted.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

8 teams is perfect. 5 conf champs plus 3 at large. All conf's play 9 conf games plus champ game.
It'll make the conf champ games mean something.
The +3 will take the sting out of an early loss. Also supports strength of schedule for picking them.
Seed them, home game first round for higher seed.
Power bowls can host 2nd round. Highest bidder gets champ game.

It's not about integrity as much as it is about $$$$$.
And the $$$$ to be made is astounding.
Oh, and it'll be great football to boot.

Good post, but I think some more "tweaking" is needed. You still have potential "in-conference-tiebreaker" scenarios that might cause issues. Still, I think an 8-team would be great.

 

[ssckelley]

There maybe should be a "qualifier", i.e., when a B1G West team with a 7-5 record beats a B1G East team with a 9-3 record...because OTHER teams are on probation, for example...that "automatic" is off the table.

A conference should maybe have the "option" to send a higher-ranked team/team with better record.

What is REALLY needed is for all four B1G teams in the NY6 bowls to win. O$U losing in the championship game to 'Bama would be acceptable, of course.

I remember a few years ago UCLA had to request an exemption in order to be eligible for a bowl game since they reached the Pac12 championship game with a 6-6 record. But had they won the game I'd have no problem seeing a 7-6 team reach the playoffs.

 

[Seth53]

I remember a few years ago UCLA had to request an exemption in order to be eligible for a bowl game since they reached the Pac12 championship game with a 6-6 record. But had they won the game I'd have no problem seeing a 7-6 team reach the playoffs.

Agree.

Really no different than a sub-par BB team reaching the NCAA tourney by winning their conf tourney.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I remember a few years ago UCLA had to request an exemption in order to be eligible for a bowl game since they reached the Pac12 championship game with a 6-6 record. But had they won the game I'd have no problem seeing a 7-6 team reach the playoffs.

IF CCG is the leading criterion, sure. But an undefeated team that loses to them? $EC would get a second team, MAYBE B1G in the right year, but most years and most conferences? Probably not. OTOH, fair is fair, I guess.

The bigger concern will be what special "exemption" ND is granted.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Agree.

Really no different than a sub-par BB team reaching the NCAA tourney by winning their conf tourney.

Point taken. But as I mentioned to ssckelley, some conferences are more "equal" than others. If a 6-6 Floria beats a 10-2 L$U or 'Bama, bet serious cash the losing $EC school gets an at-large. Other conferences? Not so much.

 

[bitmap]

IF CCG is the leading criterion, sure. But an undefeated team that loses to them? $EC would get a second team, MAYBE B1G in the right year, but most years and most conferences? Probably not. OTOH, fair is fair, I guess.

The bigger concern will be what special "exemption" ND is granted.

16 team playoff is a natural. There are 10 FBS conferences plus the independents. I think you have to be in a conference that either has a CCG or that plays a round robin season schedule and wins outright. ND would have to join a conference to be eligible. If the independents form the 11th FBS conference then that would work too. You end up with either 5 or 6 at large teams which gives the elite golden prognosticators something to do with their idle time while everyone else earns their ticket to the playoffs. All FBS teams play 10 games. Division champions in divided conferences get an 11th game. Smaller conference champions get a bye. First round of 8 playoff games makes 12 games for divided conference champs, 11 games for smaller conference champs. Use rankings to determine the home fields and single elimination seeding. The rest of it works like it does now - the bowls, the final 4 NYD bowls and the NCG. Loosing has consequences, winning is rewarded.

 

[proudhawkfan21]

They came from a system where they just picked 2 teams to play for the NC. Now they pick 4, which gives greater assurance that you'll get the best 2 team in the NC. I think that is where they'll stay.

Not so much about who gets to play "be in", more about just getting the best 2 into the final game. I think they've got that covered....still there may be a year here and there where something really odd happens, like this year with Michigan.

They came from a system where they just picked 2 teams to play for the NC. Now they pick 4, which gives greater assurance that you'll get the best 2 team in the NC. I think that is where they'll stay.

Not so much about who gets to play "be in", more about just getting the best 2 into the final game. I think they've got that covered....still there may be a year here and there where something really odd happens, like this year with Michigan.

I agree here. Give the two best a shot to get in. It should only take 4 teams to assure that usually, better than picking from 2. I'd love to see 8, but same as they do now. No guarantee for conf champion, but heavily weighted for power 5.

 

[bphawkeye]

They came from a system where they just picked 2 teams to play for the NC. Now they pick 4, which gives greater assurance that you'll get the best 2 team in the NC. I think that is where they'll stay.

Not so much about who gets to play "be in", more about just getting the best 2 into the final game. I think they've got that covered....still there may be a year here and there where something really odd happens, like this year with Michigan.

so the 3rd place team in the B1G gets a shot - and the 1st place team of the B1G gets to watch? Seems like a great system to me - - - - not - -- PUKE all over the keyboard!!!!
Either the paid off committee fucked up or the system sucks!!! I'm thinking both - but - I'll give the cummmitte a break.

 

[ssckelley]

IF CCG is the leading criterion, sure. But an undefeated team that loses to them? $EC would get a second team, MAYBE B1G in the right year, but most years and most conferences? Probably not. OTOH, fair is fair, I guess.

The bigger concern will be what special "exemption" ND is granted.

Nopefully none, they need to get their butts in a conference or all they can hope for is an at large.

 

[deanvogs]

Bump. 8 team playoff can't get here soon enough. All conference champs should get in, period. Otherwise it is just going to be the "committee" telling us that teams that don't even make their conference championship games are "really" the best teams. Ohio St. last year and now Bama. What a joke.

 

[deanvogs]

8 team playoff. The only reason is because a 4 team playoff with 5 major conference never made any sense for one second.

 

[Xerxes]

I think it should be 5 teams. Each conference champion goes, no committee decisions needed for that anymore. The only thing they would need to do is seed the champions 1-5. The 4 and 5 seeds play Dec 20ish. Kinda like a bowl kickoff game. Winner joins the top 3 seeds in the semifinals on NYE/NYD.

 

[deanvogs]

I think it should be 5 teams. Each conference champion goes, no committee decisions needed for that anymore. The only thing they would need to do is seed the champions 1-5. The 4 and 5 seeds play Dec 20ish. Kinda like a bowl kickoff game. Winner joins the top 3 seeds in the semifinals on NYE/NYD.

That would work.

Anything that got all conference champs in works for me. Then for all I care, let the conference decide who represents them. If the SEC wants to send Bama instead of Georgia, that is up to the SEC, and the SEC alone, no committee. If the B1G wants to send Ohio St. instead of Penn St last year, that is up to the B1G.

Teams then actually earn it on the field, instead of being picked in a popularity contest.

 

[teachercoach]

[
Last year, 4 teams was fine (although I still believe Stanford prolly should have been in), as it was pretty clear AL and Clemson were the best 2.

This year? 8 would have been great. You still get the drama that everyone loves so much with who gets 6,7,8 spot. committee can chew on that brain teaser and be all "torn"[/QUOTE]


There is essentially an 8 team playoff right now - Auburn, Wis, and maybe Miami win yesterday - they would be in. It fits the calendar right now. Ratings are good for Conf Championship games, ratings for the playoff show earlier today were the highest ever. Current setup makes every Saturday count and usually 2 best teams are in the finals.

 

[Win5002]

An 8 team playoff is going to happen, especially after the selection mess presented this year where the winner of the BIG is passed up for a team it beat a few weeks earlier. The P5 champs will get in automatically, with 3 at large bids. I would guess they will work the first round through the existing bowl structure in some manner to appease the bowl contingents, then have the remaining 4 teams playoff at neutral sites, possibly even in northern locations in domes, ala the NCAA BB tournament.

The FCS teams make it work now, so will the FBS teams. It is inevitable. And it's fairer than the current arrangement.

Some have mentioned a 16 team playoff. I don't think that won't happen as it is too many teams and too many extra games, dragging the season out too long. That would also present the possibility of eliminating a regular season game, which won't happen as it means too much money for the schools that don't make the playoffs.

The FCS makes a 24 team playoff work.

If we get to 4 power leagues we will have a 16 team playoff its just done by conference semi-final games to see who advances to the 4 in the CFP. But even if we never get to 4 leagues, I even like the idea Mike Leach has floated to have expanded playoffs. First of all you dump the CCG's and you can even leave the last week of the season as a floating game to start your first round. If teams don't make the playoffs they are still matched up a game to play.

There are absolutely ways to make it work. I wouldn't even mind if we ended up staying with a P5 letting a set number of teams from each league make it. I wouldn't mind 1 out of every 3 teams. If the P5 grew to 72 that is 24 teams. I would even be for a computer seeding them based on their position they placed in their conference standings and rotate on an equal basis which year each league is ranked the #1 seed and let a computer seed the whole tourney for home field until the semi-finals.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

5+3, use the existing bowls. Nice side benefit...is the 6-6 teams will no longer go bowling. (what a travesty)

 

[P0rtal2]

8 teams makes way too much sense. Why would you want to reward the P5 conference champions, the highest ranked G5 conference champion, and two at-large teams? No, it's better to be super wishy-washy about your inclusion criteria, say that conference championships should matter, then ignore them, and put two teams from the same conference in (despite one of them being 3rd in their conference and not particularly impressive).

Oh, and disrespect the ONLY FBS team with a 13-0 record because they happen to be a G5 team. Definitely don't want to give them a shot.