Yeah I guess my point is you can expand it to 6 if you want. It feels unnecessary to me. You generally know who the top teams are in the country. There’s rarely more than 4. There’s rarely more than 2-3 to be honest. 4’s a good number. At 4 you catch the teams that had a loss early on like OSU in 14 who still were clearly a top team.
I’d keep it at 4.

4 team playoff > BCS formula bullshit

And it's not close.

I like 8. 5 auto for the P5, 3 at large, no more than 2 teams total per conference. If a G5 gets above the 12 spot (UCF would this year), they make it as fodder for the 1 seed.

Leave it as is

here is what you are going to get going forward with 4:

play a weak schedule and get in (Alabama) without a conference championahip

With 6-8 teams you get win your conference or play a tough OOC schedule and maybe get in with 2 losses.

Spock;1884023 wrote: play a weak schedule and get in (Alabama) without a conference championahip

I hope they leave Bama out just because of their shitty schedule

kizer permanente;1883940 wrote:No. Osu shouldn’t have gotten in. They didn’t deserve it. Neither did PSU with 2 losses. There were only 2 teams who did deserve it and they played for the title. So, no. Not more than 4. Less than.

The fact OSU won the first playoff when everybody thought Bama or Oregon were going to win proves that nobody knows who the best team is. I don't like when a power conference champ gets left out. You can't tell me that there weren't years the big 12 champ could have been competitive. The people who "know" who the best teams are, are often wrong. It's why they settle it on the field now instead of everyone playing in their bowl game and people knowing who the best team is.

FatHobbit;1884109 wrote:The fact OSU won the first playoff when everybody thought Bama or Oregon were going to win proves that nobody knows who the best team is. I don't like when a power conference champ gets left out. You can't tell me that there weren't years the big 12 champ could have been competitive. The people who "know" who the best teams are, are often wrong. It's why they settle it on the field now instead of everyone playing in their bowl game and people knowing who the best team is.

Alabama yes. Oregon no. And the point remains unchanged. OSU was one of the best teams that year and deserved to be in. So tell me who outside of those 4 in ‘14 should have been in bc they were going to beat OSU or Alabama? No one on the outside looking in were on their level. 4 is fine.

8 teams. 5 auto bids, top Group of 5 team, and 2 wild cards.

Quarterfinals are played 2 weeks after conference championship games to allow for a bye, then bowls and championship stay the same. Games are played at the top 4 seeds home stadiums. Quarterfinals start at Noon, 2pm, 5:30pm, and 9pm. Full day of ratings domination.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would keep it at 4.

FatHobbit;1884107 wrote:I hope they leave Bama out just because of their shitty schedule

I would look forward to a new "Phyllis from Mulga" rant.

Terry_Tate;1884118 wrote:8 teams. 5 auto bids, top Group of 5 team, and 2 wild cards.

Quarterfinals are played 2 weeks after conference championship games to allow for a bye, then bowls and championship stay the same. Games are played at the top 4 seeds home stadiums. Quarterfinals start at Noon, 2pm, 5:30pm, and 9pm. Full day of ratings domination.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I ask why though? Last year did we really need Alabama to go through the 8 seed Wisconsin and 4 seed Washington to get to Clemson? Or the Tigers to play Oklahoma and Ohio State to get to Alabama?

Many times throughout the BCS history 1-2 were easily the best, and the years that it was not, your deserving teams were within the top 4. The wonderful thing about the college football season is that it means so much because many of these things are settled throughout the season.

Say we go with the Top 8 format this year, then conferences would seek to eliminate title games because Auburn/UGA and Wisconsin/OSU would be much more detrimental, than having both sit at home as then all teams would make the playoffs. It'd water down the hell out of schedules, whereas this current system makes for some awesome non conference games.

And then if you go with conference champions then you couldn't do division champs anymore, you'd have to do two best teams in W-L or ranking if multiple teams are tied at 8-1, because we've seen instances where a #20 team wins a shitty division and takes on a top 5 team in a conference title like Florida last year. It'd be shitty as hell if they pull one crazy game out of their ass and make a playoff.

So so many complications with an 8 team system that no one talks about

Classyposter58;1884141 wrote:I ask why though? Last year did we really need Alabama to go through the 8 seed Wisconsin and 4 seed Washington to get to Clemson? Or the Tigers to play Oklahoma and Ohio State to get to Alabama?

Many times throughout the BCS history 1-2 were easily the best, and the years that it was not, your deserving teams were within the top 4. The wonderful thing about the college football season is that it means so much because many of these things are settled throughout the season.

Say we go with the Top 8 format this year, then conferences would seek to eliminate title games because Auburn/UGA and Wisconsin/OSU would be much more detrimental, than having both sit at home as then all teams would make the playoffs. It'd water down the hell out of schedules, whereas this current system makes for some awesome non conference games.

And then if you go with conference champions then you couldn't do division champs anymore, you'd have to do two best teams in W-L or ranking if multiple teams are tied at 8-1, because we've seen instances where a #20 team wins a shitty division and takes on a top 5 team in a conference title like Florida last year. It'd be shitty as hell if they pull one crazy game out of their ass and make a playoff.

So so many complications with an 8 team system that no one talks about

This whole post just assumes that 8 seeds will lose.

Classyposter58;1884141 wrote:I ask why though? Last year did we really need Alabama to go through the 8 seed Wisconsin and 4 seed Washington to get to Clemson? Or the Tigers to play Oklahoma and Ohio State to get to Alabama?

Many times throughout the BCS history 1-2 were easily the best, and the years that it was not, your deserving teams were within the top 4. The wonderful thing about the college football season is that it means so much because many of these things are settled throughout the season.

Say we go with the Top 8 format this year, then conferences would seek to eliminate title games because Auburn/UGA and Wisconsin/OSU would be much more detrimental, than having both sit at home as then all teams would make the playoffs. It'd water down the hell out of schedules, whereas this current system makes for some awesome non conference games.

And then if you go with conference champions then you couldn't do division champs anymore, you'd have to do two best teams in W-L or ranking if multiple teams are tied at 8-1, because we've seen instances where a #20 team wins a shitty division and takes on a top 5 team in a conference title like Florida last year. It'd be shitty as hell if they pull one crazy game out of their ass and make a playoff.

So so many complications with an 8 team system that no one talks about

It would really suck to have another Saturday featuring 4 games between the top teams in college football.

Teams would still schedule great games because they know if they win those but lose their conference they could get one of the two at Large spots. And if they're one of the top 4 teams then they'd get a home playoff game. Who wouldn't want to do that?

This Saturday has 3 possible elimination games, and I'm excited as can be for those matchups knowing Georgia-Auburn, Miami-Clemson, and possibly Ohio State-Wisconsin are "play in" games. In an 8 team format those matchups would possibly be for a playoff berth plus a home game, and the teams that lose could possibly be an "at-large" team. Teams that schedule shitty non-conference games would still be punished just like they are now. But if you win a power 5 conference most years you should have a playoff spot. There will be years when a conference sucks and their winner might be 15th but so what.

8 teams would be a great setup. Sign me up for more Saturdays like this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Terry_Tate;1884145 wrote:It would really suck to have another Saturday featuring 4 games between the top teams in college football.

Teams would still schedule great games because they know if they win those but lose their conference they could get one of the two at Large spots. And if they're one of the top 4 teams then they'd get a home playoff game. Who wouldn't want to do that?

This Saturday has 3 possible elimination games, and I'm excited as can be for those matchups knowing Georgia-Auburn, Miami-Clemson, and possibly Ohio State-Wisconsin are "play in" games. In an 8 team format those matchups would possibly be for a playoff berth plus a home game, and the teams that lose could possibly be an "at-large" team. Teams that schedule shitty non-conference games would still be punished just like they are now. But if you win a power 5 conference most years you should have a playoff spot. There will be years when a conference sucks and their winner might be 15th but so what.

8 teams would be a great setup. Sign me up for more Saturdays like this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree about the entertainment value, but as I said theres no way these conferences will ever let this happen. But you're crazy if you think teams will play big non conference games yearly, the way the leagues are you're guaranteed enough big games to get you in, why play one more? Plus the expansion means we are now playing 16 game seasons, they're gonna want as many cupcakes as possible

Footballs a physical enough sport. Do we need to add extra weeks to it? It’s not going to benefit the game.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/college-football-playoff-8-teams-bill-hancock-clemson-alabama-011217

Article by Mandel echoes my comments to a tee. The powers that be want no part of 8 teams, they want four teams in traditional bowls with weekly standings shows that drum up conversation points and excitement all week leading up to games

The only expansion that I think should be pushed is a playoff for the non power 5 teams, that'd be awesome

Classyposter58;1884141 wrote:then conferences would seek to eliminate title games because Auburn/UGA and Wisconsin/OSU would be much more detrimental, than having both sit at home as then all teams would make the playoffs. It'd water down the hell out of schedules, whereas this current system makes for some awesome non conference games.

Nope, easy fix, no conference championship game, no automatic birth.

Classyposter58;1884150 wrote:The only expansion that I think should be pushed is a playoff for the non power 5 teams, that'd be awesome

I have always thought this. Much better than the Whogivesashit Bowl on Dec 19th between 2nd MWC and 3rd AAC.

kizer permanente;1884149 wrote:Footballs a physical enough sport. Do we need to add extra weeks to it? It’s not going to benefit the game.

Bobby Carpenter brought this up on a podcast I listened to yesterday. At what point do you need to start compensating some of the athletes for all this expansion? An 8-team playoff brings the season total up to what, 15-16 games? A lot of risk, not much reward.

friendfromlowry;1884231 wrote:Bobby Carpenter brought this up on a podcast I listened to yesterday. At what point do you need to start compensating some of the athletes for all this expansion? An 8-team playoff brings the season total up to what, 15-16 games? A lot of risk, not much reward.

2-4 games on every top teams schedule are cupcakes. You think the SEC needs to play their starters when they play DIII schools on week 11? Do you think that OSU can play against Yougstown state with their 3rd string and survive?

argument doesnt hold water.

Spock;1884247 wrote:2-4 games on every top teams schedule are cupcakes. You think the SEC needs to play their starters when they play DIII schools on week 11? Do you think that OSU can play against Yougstown state with their 3rd string and survive?

argument doesnt hold water.

OSU hasn't played Youngstown State since 2008 so I'm not sure what the hell your point is. And if Alabama doesn't get into the playoffs because of their schedule being too weak I'd wonder how many teams will keep scheduling the cupcakes.

Who are the three teams this year you would have felt confident playing against with the reserves? Keep in mind that if you happen to lose that may be all it takes to keep you out of the playoffs. They also still practice and train throughout the week. Ahmmon Richards, a great wide receiver for Miami hurt his knee in practice the other day and is out for the rest of the season.

friendfromlowry;1884293 wrote:OSU hasn't played Youngstown State since 2008 so I'm not sure what the hell your point is. And if Alabama doesn't get into the playoffs because of their schedule being too weak I'd wonder how many teams will keep scheduling the cupcakes.

Who are the three teams this year you would have felt confident playing against with the reserves? Keep in mind that if you happen to lose that may be all it takes to keep you out of the playoffs. They also still practice and train throughout the week. Ahmmon Richards, a great wide receiver for Miami hurt his knee in practice the other day and is out for the rest of the season.

Ok now listen and read carefully...... The Youngstown state quote was an example to represent every cupcake game that the top 15-20 teams play every year. Someone said football is tough and 15-16 games is a lot. My post referred to the fact that your top players can.literally sit for 2-3 games a year or only play 2 quarters. OSU just beat Michigan with a backup QB. Obviously they didn't need JT during games like Illinois.