Time for a playoff expansion...

L

Levi

Well-known member
Whether you go to 6 teams or 8 teams this 4 team format is not working. I think Oklahoma, Ohio State and Georgia all deserve a chance. 6 team format could pair 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 and the winners would face the top 2 seeds who get byes. First round could be a week after the final playoff seedings and then the Final 4 would be at the same time as it is now.

Penn State probably should have got in a few years ago and Ohio State was shorted in 2015 (3 point loss to one loss MSU team and defending champs).
 
 
Levi said:
Whether you go to 6 teams or 8 teams this 4 team format is not working. I think Oklahoma, Ohio State and Georgia all deserve a chance. 6 team format could pair 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 and the winners would face the top 2 seeds who get byes. First round could be a week after the final playoff seedings and then the Final 4 would be at the same time as it is now.

Penn State probably should have got in a few years ago and Ohio State was shorted in 2015 (3 point loss to one loss MSU team and defending champs).
Click to expand...

Agree but it is not going to happen, the committee is not going to want give up its power on deciding who is in and who is out. Totally agree about the 15 OSU team, should have been in the play offs that year, Bosa, Thomas, Elliott just some of the NFL stars on that team.
 
Levi said:
Whether you go to 6 teams or 8 teams this 4 team format is not working. I think Oklahoma, Ohio State and Georgia all deserve a chance. 6 team format could pair 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 and the winners would face the top 2 seeds who get byes. First round could be a week after the final playoff seedings and then the Final 4 would be at the same time as it is now.

Penn State probably should have got in a few years ago and Ohio State was shorted in 2015 (3 point loss to one loss MSU team and defending champs).
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I think it needs to go to eight teams. ND and OU are not better than tOSU. I think UCF could beat ND and OU. Clemson and Bama are a different story, but UCF showed last year when they beat Auburn that they could play with the big boys. It's not fair that they don't get a chance because I think they could shock some teams. Go to eight teams, and they get a shot against Bama.
 
Stirred not Shaken said:
Agree but it is not going to happen, the committee is not going to want give up its power on deciding who is in and who is out. Totally agree about the 15 OSU team, should have been in the play offs that year, Bosa, Thomas, Elliott just some of the NFL stars on that team.
Click to expand...

I really feel that team could have beaten Alabama. Elloitt ran wild on them the year before and tore up Michigan's highly rated D in Ann Arbor. 2015 was much better than the 2016 team they put in.
 
falguin said:
I agree with you, but I think it needs to go to eight teams. ND and OU are not better than tOSU. I think UCF could beat ND and OU. Clemson and Bama are a different story, but UCF showed last year when they beat Auburn that they could play with the big boys. It's not fair that they don't get a chance because I think they could shock some teams. Go to eight teams, and they get a shot against Bama.
Click to expand...

I prefer 8 too. I feel like they don't want to expand and frankly I would be open to any version of expansion even if they did a 4 vs 5 play in game. Ohio State vs Oklahoma next week would be fun to watch.
 
A lot of people, including myself, are a big fan of the idea of an 8-team playoff that would include the 5 champions from the power conferences, the best champion from the smaller conferences, and the two best remaining teams (regardless of conference affiliation) as at-large selections. They can keep the committee for seeding and choosing the at-large teams (or come up with something better). I would have some concerns about "bracket creep" (I think 8 teams is enough, and 12 or 16 would just be too much), but I think it would be a reasonable balance between "fair" and "reasonable".

Yes, there would still be controversy with that format, with people arguing about seeding and who really deserves the two at-large spots, but I'd much rather have controversy about "who's really the second best at-large?" than controversy over picking which 1-loss conference champion to leave out. The only really big problem you'd run into under that format is if you had two undefeated teams from smaller conferences that had a comparable argument for their spot.
 
They really need to go to an eleven game schedule and expand the playoffs. Too many crappy bowls. Six and six teams should not go to a bowl. They just want the money. Go back to eleven games and expand the playoffs. The shorter season will protect the players and not keep them playing to almost February. The first round should be a home game. The second rounds would go to the bowls.
 
The only way you will have expansion is when Delaney ( BIG commish ) puts enough pressure on the committee to change. BIG after all leads all conferences when it comes to attendance and tv ratings it is time for him to flex some of that viewing muscle.
 
The SEC actually leads in attendance. By a lot.

2017 average attendance numbers:

1. SEC - 75,074
2. B10 - 66,227
3. B12 - 56,852
4. P12 - 49,601
5. ACC - 48,422
 
falguin said:
They really need to go to an eleven game schedule and expand the playoffs. Too many crappy bowls. Six and six teams should not go to a bowl. They just want the money. Go back to eleven games and expand the playoffs. The shorter season will protect the players and not keep them playing to almost February. The first round should be a home game. The second rounds would go to the bowls.
Click to expand...

Some 6-6 teams can beat a 12-1 team by 29 points.
 
Top 12. That's it. No auto-bids.

Top 4 (R1 Bye)
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Notre Dame
4. Oklahoma

Round 1 - higher seed hosts
5. Georgia
12. Penn State

6. Ohio State
11. Washington

7. Michigan
10. LSU

8. UCF
9. Florida


Round 2
Cotton Bowl
1. Alabama
10. LSU

Rose Bowl
3. Notre Dame
6. Ohio State

Sugar Bowl
2. Clemson
9. Florida

Fiesta Bowl
4. Oklahoma
5. Georgia


Semi-Final
Peach Bowl
1. Alabama
6. Ohio State

Orange Bowl
5. Georgia
9 Florida

Championship
1. Alabama vs 5. Georgia
 
ronnie mund said:
The SEC actually leads in attendance. By a lot.

2017 average attendance numbers:

1. SEC - 75,074
2. B10 - 66,227
3. B12 - 56,852
4. P12 - 49,601
5. ACC - 48,422
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction however the BIG has 7 teams in the top 25 in attendance including the top 3. Rutgers and Maryland must really pull down the numbers. https://247sports.com/LongFormArtic...dance-leaders-from-the-2017-season-120350718/

Can't find numbers for conferences when it comes to tv ratings other than this : http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/

No surprise that OSU is in the top 5 or no.1 team when it comes to viewership. The OSU - TTUN game had the highest college football rating ever for FOX.
 
Last edited:
Unless the extra round comes at the expense of Conference Championship, then win your tournament or have comparable record or be left out. No "Georgia" in any scenario. Next man up. There's enough doubt in the who-plays-who that a team from a "lesser" schedule deserves a chance. For the non-affiliated, their schedule needs to be in the top 20 or no consideration.
 
JcksnPlrBrs2002 said:
A lot of people, including myself, are a big fan of the idea of an 8-team playoff that would include the 5 champions from the power conferences, the best champion from the smaller conferences, and the two best remaining teams (regardless of conference affiliation) as at-large selections. They can keep the committee for seeding and choosing the at-large teams (or come up with something better). I would have some concerns about "bracket creep" (I think 8 teams is enough, and 12 or 16 would just be too much), but I think it would be a reasonable balance between "fair" and "reasonable".

Yes, there would still be controversy with that format, with people arguing about seeding and who really deserves the two at-large spots, but I'd much rather have controversy about "who's really the second best at-large?" than controversy over picking which 1-loss conference champion to leave out. The only really big problem you'd run into under that format is if you had two undefeated teams from smaller conferences that had a comparable argument for their spot.
Click to expand...

The above works for me. Given the lack of imagination among the mandarins who rule college football and the entrenched interests who fight any change tooth & nail jumping to a 12 or 16 team playoff would be to much to ask.

The only thing I would add to your 8 game playoff JcksnPlrBrs2002 is that in the first round the top 4 teams get to host the playoff game.
 
cabezadecaballo said:
I like Crusaders' format on some levels, but with the likelihood for injury in football, it's too many games.
Click to expand...

Restrict the regular season to 12 games so the most games played by a team would be 16 which is less then the most games played by the NFL and about the same as the most games played in High School & lower division college football.
 
Sig Hansen said:
Six teams would is a much more logical first step. Holding out hope we'll see it by 2030
Click to expand...

Sadly, this is the pace at which these nincompoops will move at.

And I think you're being to aggressive in going right to 6 teams. They will probably expand the playoff to 5 teams with 4 & 5 having a play in and then going with the 4 team playoff. Mustn't do anything to quickly or you risk giving the old geezers running college football heart palpitations!
 
cabezadecaballo said:
Lots of regional resistance to phasing out the local cash cows of the holiday bowl traditions.
Click to expand...

Yes there is and the sooner college football stops operating as a tourist attraction for the Sun Belt the sooner we can get to a rational playoff system and consign the Bowl Games to the ash heap of history.
 
lotr10 said:
The only thing I would add to your 8 game playoff JcksnPlrBrs2002 is that in the first round the top 4 teams get to host the playoff game.
Click to expand...

The SEC would never let that happen. They can't even come north of Kentucky to play a non league game let alone play off game. They might catch a cold.
 
Stirred not Shaken said:
The SEC would never let that happen. They can't even come north of Kentucky to play a non league game let alone play off game. They might catch a cold.
Click to expand...

It would sure as hell motivate programs to finish in the top 4 and you would still have a big fight over the rankings which does generate drama & public awareness of the product.

And let's face it, given the pro SEC bias you wouldn't have to many of those teams traveling north of the Mason-Dixon line come playoff time.
 
Expanding makes sense for the NCAA but pay the players first. Every snap is a risk for kids trying to make it to the next level.
 
This whole thing is a sham, next season OSU will be playing PSU and TTUN back to back games meanwhile Bammy will be playing the powerful Catamounts of Western Carolina before the Auburn game, the system is a complete joke but ESPN paid a lot of money to pick and chose who they want in the play offs.
 
Indiandad said:
Expanding makes sense for the NCAA but pay the players first. Every snap is a risk for kids trying to make it to the next level.
Click to expand...

I would favor a stipend paid to the players similar to what is paid students enrolled in graduate studies programs in Science & Engineering.

In fact the University can pay the stipend to the players during the summer as they focus on the upcoming season. This would be like the internships STEM students often get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top