‘We don’t need to wait another six years’: College football leaders ready to discuss eight-team Play

[heitclone]

If conference champs are taken and as an example this year, had NW beaten Ohio State and received an auto-bid, people have been saying no way should they have gotten a bid. But on the other hand, would Ohio State have deserved the bid, losing to them? Hypothetically? Do we want a tournament or do we want to reward the best teams with a shot at the title?

Take a look at Georgia and Alabama...if Georgia had gotten in this year, in my mind would have been insane. They just lost to Alabama on a neutral site, so you'd want Alabama to have to beat them again on a neutral-er site in the Championship? Why? They lost on the field of play, which is where it matters, and couldn't beat Alabama. We know that. What we don't know is how other highly ranked teams would fare against them. I get there being something to the eye test, but you just saw with your own eyes them losing. So they're not the best team in the country. Sorry got off on a tangent, but that's the kind of thing I don't want to see. I agree with 4 teams, we don't always know if we have the best team. How good is UCF? How good were they last year when they pasted the only team that beat Bama? We'll never know. That's what we need is giving shots to those teams that we don't know about. But 2-3 loss teams that have lost to the top teams already....why would we wan those? They had their shot.

A tournament is the only way to keep the committee consistent, they've proven time and time again that your preseason ranking, the league the you play and the name on your jersey is what really matters (basically $$$$). Having auto bids limit the human element out of this and lets things play out on the field. There is a reason the NCAA tournament is the most exciting event in sports.

 

[aeroclone]

If conference champs are taken and as an example this year, had NW beaten Ohio State and received an auto-bid, people have been saying no way should they have gotten a bid. But on the other hand, would Ohio State have deserved the bid, losing to them? Hypothetically? Do we want a tournament or do we want to reward the best teams with a shot at the title?

Take a look at Georgia and Alabama...if Georgia had gotten in this year, in my mind would have been insane. They just lost to Alabama on a neutral site, so you'd want Alabama to have to beat them again on a neutral-er site in the Championship? Why? They lost on the field of play, which is where it matters, and couldn't beat Alabama. We know that. What we don't know is how other highly ranked teams would fare against them. I get there being something to the eye test, but you just saw with your own eyes them losing. So they're not the best team in the country. Sorry got off on a tangent, but that's the kind of thing I don't want to see. I agree with 4 teams, we don't always know if we have the best team. How good is UCF? How good were they last year when they pasted the only team that beat Bama? We'll never know. That's what we need is giving shots to those teams that we don't know about. But 2-3 loss teams that have lost to the top teams already....why would we wan those? They had their shot.

I would be cool with Northwestern getting the big in that case. The conference title games are really a defacto first round of the playoffs. At the end of the day, I want someone to earn the championship on the field, not decided by some biased committee in a closed door meeting.

 

[weR138]

A tournament is the only way to keep the committee consistent, they've proven time and time again that your preseason ranking, the league the you play and the name on your jersey is what really matters (basically $$$$). Having auto bids limit the human element out of this and lets things play out on the field. There is a reason the NCAA tournament is the most exciting event in sports.

The committee is a joke and we don't need it. We have four historic Bowls assigned to the five P5s which leaves three spots for at-larges.

The four teams left after NYD could be seeded by an AP ranking #1-4.

It's simple. What isn't simple is what would have to happen on the front end, scheduling reform. All conferences would have to agree on number of conference games and baseline level of competition, i.e. no more FCSers and no more SEC style mid-season tomato cans.

The only way playoffs work for football is in a 32 team NFL. You'll notice I don't state that it works for FCS. It does't. Their playoffs suck.

People need to get over the fact that in CFB there IS NO way to select ONE TRUE champion. SEC fans will forever claim UGA got unfairly left out of the playoff this year just like UNL fans will forever claim their '97 team would beat the '97 Michigan Wolverines. It will never end.

All that playoff advocates are doing is shrinking CFB. We're on the march to a 32 team NFL style college super league. ISU won't be in it. F*ck that.

 

[cymonw1980]

A really good article from The Athletic that was published today in regards to expansion.

I think it's closer than many of us may think. The big wigs in college football are talking more and more about it. I think we could see a change in the next year or 2 and going to an 8 team playoff.

Here is a snidbit from the article:


"The first four years of the College Football Playoff were considered a success. The four-team format has been more universally accepted than the old BCS system, and it has kept fans engaged throughout the country. But ahead of Year 5’s national semifinals featuring Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame and Oklahoma, there is a sense of growing discontent with certain aspects of the CFP system, including the selection committee’s deference to the SEC and what some consider unfair treatment of UCF.

Now, a number of influential voices in college football are calling for a serious look at expansion.

There is a groundswell of support to expedite expansion before the end of the CFP’s initial 12-year contract with ESPN in 2026, with many telling The Athletic they support an eight-team format.

“It’s an appropriate thing to begin thinking about,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told The Athletic this week.

There have been a number of informal conversations involving college football’s most important power brokers in recent weeks and months. The growing concern is that a system designed to nationalize the sport of college football — including a championship game that is played at different venues and will be held in the Bay Area for the first time this season — is being undermined and regionalized with teams from the Southeast regularly playing each other.

“Everyone has the same feeling; expansion is inevitable,” said Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez, who served on the CFP’s selection committee from 2014-2016. “When you can do it, and I think we need to serve more people. I think four was the right way to get started. In my opinion, we need to take a look of adding more teams into the Playoff, giving more opportunities. ..."

Being it is a pay site, I don't want to post the whole article. It's worth taking a read, though.

https://theathletic.com/708538/2018/12/12/college-football-playoff-expansion-eight-team-support/

I hope we go to 8...

That being said, don’t agree with some of the suggestions being discussed.

I would not get rid of Championship games.. current conference scheduling loopholes make it possible for a good (not great) Iowa team to go undefeated in big 10 with #19 Wisconsin as their best win in 2015. My point is, without the championship game, there are years where teams in the b10, ACC, pac12, and even the sec play very weak schedules. Championship games are needed.

Secondly, I would not auto qualify a g5 or p5 conf champion. If nw somehow beat osu, they should not be in an 8 team playoff.. neither should Pitt if they knocked off clemson. There should be limits... like you have to be in the top 12. Or only automatically in if 2 losses or less.

Lastly, get rid of committee, bring back BCS a style ranking for seeding and at large bids.

 

[AuH2O]

This x10000000

The BCS formula worked, the BCS formula trying to only select 2 teams to play for the championship did not.

Get human involvement out of it ASAP

Yes, unfortunately a lot of the noise about the BCS came about because there were 2 teams, like when undefeated Auburn in 2004 didn't get to play for the title. Yet, if you remember the complaints by idiot talking heads was always about "computers" doing a bad job, as if a committee of dumb old men could squeeze three teams into one national championship game. Instead we get this committee that has really vague guidelines, has a loud, influential voice (Alvarez, Beamer), and completely changes what they value year to year. When TCU got left out with a road loss at Baylor on a blown call they made it clear the nature of the loss would have little impact. A couple years ago when Michigan was still in the hunt and lost in OT to Ohio St., they made it clear that how a team loses is definitely a criteria.

One thing that's hard is that when you are currently in a 4 team format, 8 seems like clearly enough, but the last couple teams left out are always going to feel slighted. I remember in the mid-2000s Phil Steele wrote about how a 4 team playoff should be used, and that 4 is all that was needed. He went through pretty much every season and showed that of course the #5 or #6 team might have a claim that they should be the #3 or #4 team, but in no case could they legitimately say if it was a selection of the top 2 teams that teams #5 or #6 should be selected. If you frame it as "are you one of the top two teams in the country?" there are never more than 4 teams that have a really good argument. I like 8, but I'm fine with 4 as well.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

I still think you can take the 6 highest ranked conference champions and be fine. Heck, even taking the top 8 conference champions would be interesting not for the matchups but for the chaos that would ensue from a realignment standpoint as SEC / Big10 teams start eyeing a jump to a smaller conference that might give them a better shot at the playoffs.

 

[jbindm]

Why not totally realign college football so that all 130 FBS teams are organized into balanced and generally similarly competitive "conferences or divisions" of 13 teams (10 confernces/divisions)? All teams in the conference/division play each other. Winner of each conference/division gets auto bid to playoff. Top 6 conference winners by some BCS-type formula get first round byes and the others play a first round.

Yes, that does away with some rivalries, but tradition has been moot for years.

I also like the way the NFL re-brackets their playoffs after each round. Seems as though college football could do the same.

I'd like to see the NFL re-seed their playoffs so that the division winners aren't all guaranteed a home game. The reward for winning your division should be a guaranteed playoff spot, and that's it. Either the Chargers or Chiefs are going to get boned and have to hit the road in the first round just because they play in the same division so one of them will have to be a wild card. They're both better than whoever comes out of the AFC North or South.