What about a 6 team playoff?

(Now take a deep breath and try to focus on the topic fellas. I know you're capable adults.)

Most talking heads seem to be favoring an 8 team playoff. I think there's broad agreement that 4 teams just aren't enough, but I've heard others say that 8 teams would dilute the product because you would essentially have close to 20 teams making a claim for one of those eight spots. Two loss teams would be in play til selection day.
Fair points by all.

So why does it have to be 4 or 8? Why not 6? Give the 5 big conference winners automatic bids and leave one spot for the independents or any other of the big 5 conference teams that might have a legitimate claim. Give the top two seeds a bye, let 3 play 6 and 4 play 5 to determine who moves to the semifinals. Rather than having controversy every week for the final five weeks for the season (and beyond), the only controversy would be about that final 6th spot. That can be managed.

Would it work?

Vlad wrote:(Now take a deep breath and try to focus on the topic fellas. I know you're capable adults.)

Most talking heads seem to be favoring an 8 team playoff. I think there's broad agreement that 4 teams just aren't enough, but I've heard others say that 8 teams would dilute the product because you would essentially have close to 20 teams making a claim for one of those eight spots. Two loss teams would be in play til selection day.
Fair points by all.

So why does it have to be 4 or 8? Why not 6? Give the 5 big conference winners automatic bids and leave one spot for the independents or any other of the big 5 conference teams that might have a legitimate claim. Give the top two seeds a bye, let 3 play 6 and 4 play 5 to determine who moves to the semifinals. Rather than having controversy every week for the final five weeks for the season (and beyond), the only controversy would be about that final 6th spot. That can be managed.

Would it work?

My guess is there would be controversy over the 2 teams that get byes.

Why does it have to be an even number? Why does it have to be a number? Why can't it be A, B, C, D, E, F? The sky is only blue because the word blue and its meaning was imposed on you by a racist educational system. If only somebody had a gun to protect DWags in 1995.

NigelUno wrote:

Vlad wrote:(Now take a deep breath and try to focus on the topic fellas. I know you're capable adults.)

Most talking heads seem to be favoring an 8 team playoff. I think there's broad agreement that 4 teams just aren't enough, but I've heard others say that 8 teams would dilute the product because you would essentially have close to 20 teams making a claim for one of those eight spots. Two loss teams would be in play til selection day.
Fair points by all.

So why does it have to be 4 or 8? Why not 6? Give the 5 big conference winners automatic bids and leave one spot for the independents or any other of the big 5 conference teams that might have a legitimate claim. Give the top two seeds a bye, let 3 play 6 and 4 play 5 to determine who moves to the semifinals. Rather than having controversy every week for the final five weeks for the season (and beyond), the only controversy would be about that final 6th spot. That can be managed.

Would it work?

My guess is there would be controversy over the 2 teams that get byes.

Did you ban LWS?

NigelUno wrote:

Vlad wrote:(Now take a deep breath and try to focus on the topic fellas. I know you're capable adults.)

Most talking heads seem to be favoring an 8 team playoff. I think there's broad agreement that 4 teams just aren't enough, but I've heard others say that 8 teams would dilute the product because you would essentially have close to 20 teams making a claim for one of those eight spots. Two loss teams would be in play til selection day.
Fair points by all.

So why does it have to be 4 or 8? Why not 6? Give the 5 big conference winners automatic bids and leave one spot for the independents or any other of the big 5 conference teams that might have a legitimate claim. Give the top two seeds a bye, let 3 play 6 and 4 play 5 to determine who moves to the semifinals. Rather than having controversy every week for the final five weeks for the season (and beyond), the only controversy would be about that final 6th spot. That can be managed.

Would it work?

My guess is there would be controversy over the 2 teams that get byes.

Some maybe, but the next four teams would still be in the playoffs so the noise would be fairly minimal.

Turtleneck wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

My guess is there would be controversy over the 2 teams that get byes.

Did you ban LWS?

Why does Joe Theisman ignore them while on the bus tour?

Turtleneck wrote:Why does Joe Theisman ignore them while on the bus tour?

Cause Norte dame changed the pronounciation of his name from theeerezezman to make it rhyme with Heisman his senior year. Big campaign and he still didn't win.

I favor a 32 team playoff with a glorious opening playoff Saturday from noon to 2am filled with 16 games at campus sites

I always wanted a 12 team playoff with early round games played in NFL stadiums in the higher seeded team's geo region. 

I'd be great with expanding the playoff. I don't think I'd want it any more than 10-12 though. 16 is pushing it but I'd allow it.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I favor a 32 team playoff with a glorious opening playoff Saturday from noon to 2am filled with 16 games at campus sites

That's called a "season". The playoffs are something different.

Horrible horrible horrible idea and you should be ashamed for thinking otherwise.

Here's the thing. The bye team DOES NOT have an advantage. All six teams are going to already have at least two weeks off. The team that the top two teams will play will be coming off of winning against the best of competition. In other words, the top team will be rusty as hell having at least 3 weeks off and the other team will not be at all. Sure, you'd rather have the bye to avoid the risk of injury and to put yourself there... But when the game happens the "bottom team" is at a distinct advantage.

That's actually a really good point Travis. I respect that point. 

I don't respect you at all but I respect your point.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:That's actually a really good point Travis. I respect that point. 

I don't respect you at all but I respect your point.

I understand and will continue to strive to earn your respect.

In 2-5 years we will see an 8 team playoff system.  D1 College football has to act like they are all concerned about the "student athlete" so they will ease into it just as it only took 6 seasons to go from 10 to 11 regular season games.  The regular season went to 12 games in '06 and in '09 the SEC was the first major conference to have 2 divisions and a championship.  

The maximum number of games has gone from 12 (regular games season plus a bowl game) to 15 for the teams that make the finals in 9 years.

Adding 4 more teams will extend the maximum games in a season to 16 for two teams.  The final game could be played on the dead week between the NFL conference championships and the Super Bowl.  It would get huge ratings and more importantly generate huge money.

Doesn't matter how much you expand there will always be a team that almost makes it.  The NCAA basketball tournament didn't go to 32 teams until 1975.  In '85 they went to 64 and now it's 68 yet some schools feel left out.

The other change that we might see with an 8 team playoff is the addition of an early signing period for football players.

Kinda with GRR. I doubt it can stay at 4 for long with how much of a cash cow it is going to be proven to be.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Kinda with GRR. I doubt it can stay at 4 for long with how much of a cash cow it is going to be proven to be.

Agree. And given the resistance to having a playoff system at all for all those years, I don't think we're going to suddenly jump from 4 teams to 16. In fact, I doubt if that will ever happen. So the realistic next step is 6 or 8 teams, and my guess is that we'll stay at that number for quite a while. There's just too much conern over exam conflicts, extending the schedule to nearly an NFL schedule, injuries, etc.

As long as the playoff eligibility rules are rewritten to exclude independent teams somewhere along the way.

They should just make two elite divisions....Put all the blue bloods, the new money teams and make each division 10 teams. The regular season starts you play one tune up game against a cup cake to start the season and then you play all of the teams in the super division after that. At the end of the year your ranking is based on wins and losses and a tie breaker is based on the difference between points scored and points allowed.

After that the two teams at the top of the super division play for the championship. The two bottom teams are relegated and the winner of the next tier division is brought up.

No more committees, no more polls, no more favoritism to traditional powers, just football.

No. Go to 8. 5 P5 winners and 3 at large. That way if a mid major goes undefeated they can sneak in.

steveschneider wrote:They should just make two elite divisions....Put all the blood bloods, the new money teams and make each division 10 teams. The regular season starts you play one tune up game against a cup cake to start the season and then you play all of the teams in the super division after that. At the end of the year your ranking is based on wins and losses and a tie breaker is based on the difference between points scored and points allowed.

After that the two teams at the top of the super division play for the championship. The two bottom teams are relegated and the winner of the next tier division is brought up.

No more committees, no more polls, no more favoritism to traditional powers, just football.

Interesting idea, but we ain't gettin' there from here. My suggestion was about the next realistic step, expanding from 4 teams to something bigger than 4.

What's the most realistic next change?

steveschneider wrote:They should just make two elite divisions....Put all the blood bloods, the new money teams and make each division 10 teams. The regular season starts you play one tune up game against a cup cake to start the season and then you play all of the teams in the super division after that. At the end of the year your ranking is based on wins and losses and a tie breaker is based on the difference between points scored and points allowed.

After that the two teams at the top of the super division play for the championship. The two bottom teams are relegated and the winner of the next tier division is brought up.

No more committees, no more polls, no more favoritism to traditional powers, just football.

It doesn't have to be that complicated. and by complicated I mean different from what it is now.

Get rid of the big 12 and consolidate it so there are only 4 conferences. 2 divisions of 8, winners of those divisions play a conference championship game that is effectively the quarterfinal of an 8 team playoff. Then they have the playoff just like they have it now with the winners. Who plays who can be drawn randomly.

Positives:
1) no polls
2) every team controls their own destiny from the start of the season
3) join a conference or die Notre Dame. Frankly... fuck you.
4) no arguing about stupid bullshit. If you wanted in you should have won your games.

Downside
1) non conference would be pretty much meaningless. We are trending that way anyway though what with 9 game conference schedules and all of that.
2) rich people would not make as much money as they do off of the current system. Which means this will never happen.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

steveschneider wrote:They should just make two elite divisions....Put all the blood bloods, the new money teams and make each division 10 teams. The regular season starts you play one tune up game against a cup cake to start the season and then you play all of the teams in the super division after that. At the end of the year your ranking is based on wins and losses and a tie breaker is based on the difference between points scored and points allowed.

After that the two teams at the top of the super division play for the championship. The two bottom teams are relegated and the winner of the next tier division is brought up.

No more committees, no more polls, no more favoritism to traditional powers, just football.

It doesn't have to be that complicated. and by complicated I mean different from what it is now.

Get rid of the big 12 and consolidate it so there are only 4 conferences. 2 divisions of 8, winners of those divisions play a conference championship game that is effectively the quarterfinal of an 8 team playoff. Then they have the playoff just like they have it now with the winners. Who plays who can be drawn randomly.

Positives:
1) no polls
2) every team controls their own destiny from the start of the season
3) join a conference or die Notre Dame. Frankly... fuck you.
4) no arguing about stupid bullshit. If you wanted in you should have won your games.

Downside
1) non conference would be pretty much meaningless. We are trending that way anyway though what with 9 game conference schedules and all of that.
2) rich people would not make as much money as they do off of the current system. Which means this will never happen.

The system has sucked for decades, i see very minor improvements. Until they strip writers/committees/computers of the power to select teams and move towards a system where actual head to head matchups determine the outcome then its an awful system.

Vlad is right, my system is a big leap but its the only way to fix the sport of all of its problems.

My one call out for your proposal is what about the non conference games? The 4 non conference games have become a complete joke. I guess for my proposed system I'd have to increase my conference by a few teams so it could still be a 12 game season. 1 tune up game, and then 11 games against teams in your own super division.

steveschneider wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

It doesn't have to be that complicated. and by complicated I mean different from what it is now.

Get rid of the big 12 and consolidate it so there are only 4 conferences. 2 divisions of 8, winners of those divisions play a conference championship game that is effectively the quarterfinal of an 8 team playoff. Then they have the playoff just like they have it now with the winners. Who plays who can be drawn randomly.

Positives:
1) no polls
2) every team controls their own destiny from the start of the season
3) join a conference or die Notre Dame. Frankly... fuck you.
4) no arguing about stupid bullshit. If you wanted in you should have won your games.

Downside
1) non conference would be pretty much meaningless. We are trending that way anyway though what with 9 game conference schedules and all of that.
2) rich people would not make as much money as they do off of the current system. Which means this will never happen.

The system has sucked for decades, i see very minor improvements. Until they strip writers/committees/computers of the power to select teams and move towards a system where actual head to head matchups determine the outcome then its an awful system.

Vlad is right, my system is a big leap but its the only way to fix the sport of all of its problems.

I mean, what I just said would do exactly that.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

The system has sucked for decades, i see very minor improvements. Until they strip writers/committees/computers of the power to select teams and move towards a system where actual head to head matchups determine the outcome then its an awful system.

Vlad is right, my system is a big leap but its the only way to fix the sport of all of its problems.

I mean, what I just said would do exactly that.

I hit reply too soon, and added more to my post. I have my critique of your idea, but I do think overall your idea would be taking things in the right direction.

steveschneider wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I mean, what I just said would do exactly that.

I hit reply too soon, and added more to my post. I have my critique of your idea, but I do think overall your idea would be taking things in the right direction.

Yeah, the nonconference games would be pretty much just a preseason. It's a downside for sure, and you'd probably limit it to 1 or 2 per team.

I'm willing to take that as a tradeoff to fix the system though.

Living in MI it's easy to say dissolve the Big 12. Not so easy in OK or Texas. Big 12 will survive and Texas decline in football will probably lead to them agreeing to a different conference structure and revenue sharing formula.

The college football system is making too much money to be fixed. The Big 12 will add at least 2 more members and the last major independent ND will grudgingly join the ACC for football.

As soon as they work out venues for the first round the CFP will expand to 8 teams.

steveschneider wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

It doesn't have to be that complicated. and by complicated I mean different from what it is now.

Get rid of the big 12 and consolidate it so there are only 4 conferences. 2 divisions of 8, winners of those divisions play a conference championship game that is effectively the quarterfinal of an 8 team playoff. Then they have the playoff just like they have it now with the winners. Who plays who can be drawn randomly.

Positives:
1) no polls
2) every team controls their own destiny from the start of the season
3) join a conference or die Notre Dame. Frankly... fuck you.
4) no arguing about stupid bullshit. If you wanted in you should have won your games.

Downside
1) non conference would be pretty much meaningless. We are trending that way anyway though what with 9 game conference schedules and all of that.
2) rich people would not make as much money as they do off of the current system. Which means this will never happen.

The system has sucked for decades, i see very minor improvements. Until they strip writers/committees/computers of the power to select teams and move towards a system where actual head to head matchups determine the outcome then its an awful system.

Vlad is right, my system is a big leap but its the only way to fix the sport of all of its problems.

My one call out for your proposal is what about the non conference games? The 4 non conference games have become a complete joke.  I guess for my proposed system I'd have to increase my conference by a few teams so it could still be a 12 game season. 1 tune up game, and then 11 games against teams in your own super division.

I don't have anything else to add, just wanted to highlight some words above.

GRR Spartan wrote:Living in MI it's easy to say dissolve the Big 12.  Not so easy in OK or Texas.  Big 12 will survive and Texas decline in football will probably lead to them agreeing to a different conference structure and revenue sharing formula.

The college football system is making too much money to be fixed.  The Big 12  will add at least 2 more members and the last major independent ND will grudgingly join the ACC for football.

As soon as they work out venues for the first round the CFP will expand to 8 teams.

It's not like those school stop existing. They just play in a different conference.

That said, they could also just consolidate the acc into other conferences. Wouldn't be as good of a geographic fit as the big 12 would be, but whatever. We have 5 conferences and 4 spots. Unless they are okay with some group of people arbitrarily picking who gets left out, one of em has to go.

And I don't see 8 teams with 3 wild cards as much of an improvement. I've always felt that if you can't win your own conference in football then you shouldn't get a seat at the table. But I feel that a playoff in college football is more about "determining the best team," not "let's have playoffs and they are fun and we'll have a winner." If that makes any sense.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Living in MI it's easy to say dissolve the Big 12.  Not so easy in OK or Texas.  Big 12 will survive and Texas decline in football will probably lead to them agreeing to a different conference structure and revenue sharing formula.

The college football system is making too much money to be fixed.  The Big 12  will add at least 2 more members and the last major independent ND will grudgingly join the ACC for football.

As soon as they work out venues for the first round the CFP will expand to 8 teams.

It's not like those school stop existing. They just play in a different conference.

That said, they could also just consolidate the acc into other conferences. Wouldn't be as good of a geographic fit as the big 12 would be, but whatever. We have 5 conferences and 4 spots. Unless they are okay with some group of people arbitrarily picking who gets left out, one of em has to go.

And I don't see 8 teams with 3 wild cards as much of an improvement. I've always felt that if you can't win your own conference in football then you shouldn't get a seat at the table. But I feel that a playoff in college football is more about "determining the best team," not "let's have playoffs and they are fun and we'll have a winner." If that makes any sense.

I'm with you on that. I think if we give automatic bids to the 5 P5 winners, and then leave one spot up for grabs among the independs, the P5 runner-ups and the mid-majors, that should do it. Hopefully that pushes the independs to join a conference, which then leaves that final spot for the mid-majors.

GRR Spartan wrote:Living in MI it's easy to say dissolve the Big 12. Not so easy in OK or Texas. Big 12 will survive and Texas decline in football will probably lead to them agreeing to a different conference structure and revenue sharing formula.

The college football system is making too much money to be fixed. The Big 12 will add at least 2 more members and the last major independent ND will grudgingly join the ACC for football.

As soon as they work out venues for the first round the CFP will expand to 8 teams.

I have a fairer system, dissolve all of the conferences for football. Make a tier 1, tier 2 and then tier 3 league.

I like a system where conference champions are automatic qualifiers regardless of rankings.
BUT, how is it really fair to give some conferences an automatic bid but not others if they all play in the same division? If we recognize the "Power 5" as some kind of higher division for playoff rules then it seems you might as well make it official and throw everyone else out into a lower division.

1. 16 team playoff that features conference champions and several at-large slots.
2. 12 team playoff that features conference champions and two at-large slots.
3. Subdivide DI football. Teams currently in the following conferences go from I-A to I-AA, while current I-AA teams go to I-AAA*: MAC, AAC, CUSA, Mountain West, Sunbelt. I-A teams could still schedule the new I-AA teams, but the new I-AA teams would have their own post-season. This reduces I-A to five conferences and 64 teams. You can then have a 6 or 8 team playoff without much controversy. All conference champions would be represented, and you have 1-3 at-large slots.

*I know it is no longer I-A and I-AA, but I refuse to call it FBS and FCS.

Vlad wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

It's not like those school stop existing. They just play in a different conference.

That said, they could also just consolidate the acc into other conferences. Wouldn't be as good of a geographic fit as the big 12 would be, but whatever. We have 5 conferences and 4 spots. Unless they are okay with some group of people arbitrarily picking who gets left out, one of em has to go.

And I don't see 8 teams with 3 wild cards as much of an improvement. I've always felt that if you can't win your own conference in football then you shouldn't get a seat at the table. But I feel that a playoff in college football is more about "determining the best team," not "let's have playoffs and they are fun and we'll have a winner." If that makes any sense.

I'm with you on that. I think if we give automatic bids to the 5 P5 winners, and then leave one spot up for grabs among the independs, the P5 runner-ups and the mid-majors, that should do it. Hopefully that pushes the independs to join a conference, which then leaves that final spot for the mid-majors.

Yeah, but like I said that you didn't address a 6 team playoff, or any other system that involves byes is a really really bad idea.

Unless they start the week after conference championship games. Which isn't going to happen. Technically speaking, I guess, this is still amateur athletics. Or they like to pretend it is at least.

I am sure the non P5 would be up in arms about it, but if you are a Western Michigan fan wouldn't it actually be more exciting to go to a playoff game against Temple than the Motor City Bowl against some 6-6 team?

Guys. I have an opinion on this stuff.

16 team may come about since D2 has had a 16 team system work but they play an 11 game schedule and no conference championships.

Do any of you who want a 16 team playoff think any of the Power Five conferences want to give up the 12 game of the season eliminating one home game and its revenue? Does anyone think the Big Ten, ACC, PAC 12 and SEC want to give up the revenue and exposure they get from their conference championship games? I only address the Power Five because they are the driving force.

Expanding to 8 teams has far fewer obstacles. The biggest worries are venues for the first round and selling seats. Are fans going to attend 3 rounds. Still think they will solve these. Everyone keeps their 12 game regular season, the conference championships stay and the final two go to 16 game season.

InTenSity wrote:Guys. I have an opinion on this stuff.

POTY. Just awesome. You've convinced me and I agree with everything you said. Hell, my reply is longer that your insight. That just shows how wordy I am and how articulate you are. Kudos my friend, kudos.