College football post-season has been 'broken' for decades. Would you rather go back to The BCS? Or pre-BCS? I think eventually they will expand to 6 or 8 teams in playoff because of $$$.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

College football post-season has been 'broken' for decades. Would you rather go back to The BCS? Or pre-BCS? I think eventually they will expand to 6 or 8 teams in playoff because of $$$.

---

Yes, the old bowl tie-ins were better. So what if there was an argument after the season? Kept up the interest. It's just a stupid money grab now.

The new system works just fine, but I wouldn't mind going back to the days where the focus was winning your conference. College football postseason (bowls) were never meant to determine a national champion. It was unique and was great, and then everyone became obsessed with naming a national champion.

If you want a tournament with a lot of teams, watch the D2 and D3 playoffs with the 10 other people who care about them.

Mr.Bond said:

---

Charlie Conway said:

---

you make it an 8 team playoff then people are gonna whine and ***** about the 8th spot, it doesn't solve much

---

Disagree. Teams sitting at 9 aren't near as much deserving as 5 and 6 for sure. 8 is a great number. No auto bids, just the 8 best teams, period

---

I feel like ~9 years out of 10 all the P5 champs will finish in the top 8 anyway. But if we're going to do that, I'd just as soon go back to the BCS type formula where it takes into account multiple polls and cold computer rankings. This whole thing where 13 people with massive conflicts of interest decide everything behind closed doors is kind of weak.

Cstrickland05 said:

---

The new system works just fine, but I wouldn't mind going back to the days where the focus was winning your conference. College football postseason (bowls) were never meant to determine a national champion. It was unique and was great, and then everyone became obsessed with naming a national champion.

If you want a tournament with a lot of teams, watch the D2 and D3 playoffs with the 10 other people who care about them.

---

Basketball and Chain said:

---

8 teams don't deserve a shot at the playoff. I have no interest in seeing Bama beat UCF by 30.

---

Yes and the rest of the meaningless bowls we get now are so much better. NCState had no business on the same floor as Houston in the NCAA basketball tournament but look at what happened. Houston was Alabama and NCSate was UCF.

BigOil said:

---

It took an eternity to get away from only polls, then only two teams via BCS.. 8 teams will happen within 10 years, maybe 5

---

When your solution to a problem is that it used to be worse and we will probably get around to fixing it in 10 years you are standing on shaky ground.

cecil77 said:

---

Cstrickland05 said:

---

The new system works just fine, but I wouldn't mind going back to the days where the focus was winning your conference. College football postseason (bowls) were never meant to determine a national champion. It was unique and was great, and then everyone became obsessed with naming a national champion.

If you want a tournament with a lot of teams, watch the D2 and D3 playoffs with the 10 other people who care about them.

---

---

Isn't the point of America winning? Or at least it used to be. That's why people are "obsessed" with naming a national champion. They're going to name one, one way or the other. Might as well have an equal opportunity in a playoff to help settle it.

There are only two ways you can make the system truly equitable, and that's to either expand the playoffs to at least 16 teams, or create balanced schedules. The second solution would require a radical change by forcing colleges to give much more control to a central authority and it may also demand conference realignment. The first option 16 team playoff is much less cumbersome to implement though it is not without challenges.

Or, we can leave the system as it stands and just accept that it might not always be perfect. That is part of the joy of college football in an ironic sense.

"Have to eliminate Independents"?

U.S. Department of Justice Anti Trust Division, holding on Line 1.

Senator Romney, holding on Line 2.

Vice President Pence, holding on Line 3

the more teams you add to a playoff scenario, the less important the regular season becomes. And that is what makes college football the best sport/league in America. Don't **** that up.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

the more teams you add to a playoff scenario, the less important the regular season becomes. And that is what makes college football the best sport/league in America. Don't **** that up.

---

incorrect, at least up to a point.

schmellba99 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

the more teams you add to a playoff scenario, the less important the regular season becomes. And that is what makes college football the best sport/league in America. Don't **** that up.

---

incorrect, at least up to a point.

---

Of course there's a tipping point. 6 with top 2 getting a BYE might be ok...but 8 is right on the edge...

Even if it were 8 teams this year just because folks can't figure out who #4 truly is, it makes no sense. It just penalizes Bama, Clemson & ND more by making it more difficult to win, and thus less rewarding to have done better than everyone else.

Regular season has to matter more than anything.

hypeiv said:

---

DWren said:

---

hypeiv said:

---

If there was an 8 team playoff, last night's SEC championship game would have been fighting over bracket position since win or lose both teams were likely going to be top 8.

I wouldn't have wasted my time watching that. Who cares who wins the SEC, just make the playoffs amiright.

---

You wouldn't of watch a game between two of the best teams in the country to decide the SEC championship? Just because both would of advanced to the playoff.

Sounds to me like you don't like football much

---

Doesn't matter what I do... This debate is about what the college football should do and they will do what makes them the most money. If an 8 or 16 playoff would make more money they would do it.

I think vieweship numbers back up my claims... How many people watch the last game of the NFL season of teams who already clinched the play offs... You know those worthless games where they don't even let their starters play in the second half. I wouldnt be surprised in an 8 team playoff the SEC championship game could end up like that... Both teams taking it easy to rest up for the games that matter.

---

If you tie a conference championship to the tournament, this doesn't happen in any real world scenario.

Reason you include conference champions:

Suppose the top 10 teams in the country just happened to be in the same conference. How many losses would the winner have? IOW, if Bama had to play Michigan, Ohio St, ND, Clemson, Georgia, Washington, Oklahoma, UCF, and someone else - at least 4 on the road - how many losses would they have? I'd guess at least 2, and so would everyone else. That conference would end up looking a lot like the Pac-12 does this year, even though the top 10 teams were all in that conference.

All the regular season can show definitively is relative strength within a single conference, and if we're lucky vague sense of conference vs. conference strength.

The 5 P5, 1 G5, 2 at-large makes most sense to me.

#1 Alabama vs. #9 Washington
#2 Clemson vs. #8 UCF
#3 ND vs. #6 Ohio St.
#4 UGA vs. #5 Oklahoma

Sorry Michigan. Guess those games against ND and Ohio St both mattered. You get Ohio St, UGA, Oklahoma settled on the field.

Even in the chaos scenario, where Alabama, OU, OSU, Clemson, Washington lose:

#1 ND vs. UR Pitt
#2 UGA vs. #20 NW
#3 Alabama vs. #15 Utah
#5 UCF vs. #10 Texas

Where we would probably have had #1 ND, #2 UGA, #3 Alabama, #4 Clemson otherwise. So, worst case scenario, we get 3 weak quarterfinal games, with the same strong semis. So sad for Clemson, OU, OSU - maybe don't choke in important games against inferior opponents.

Conferences are broken and should be dissolved/reformed. Current CFP is broken. Power 5 and Group of 5 both should be reevaluated and be broken into multiple new A-tiers/ #-tiers with pre-determined bumps/drops every decade based on overall program success/failure. CFP has always needed to be a full tourney.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

the more teams you add to a playoff scenario, the less important the regular season becomes. And that is what makes college football the best sport/league in America. Don't **** that up.

---

incorrect, at least up to a point.

---

Of course there's a tipping point. 6 with top 2 getting a BYE might be ok...but 8 is right on the edge...

Even if it were 8 teams this year just because folks can't figure out who #4 truly is, it makes no sense. It just penalizes Bama, Clemson & ND more by making it more difficult to win, and thus less rewarding to have done better than everyone else.

Regular season has to matter more than anything.

---

Disagree, 8 is a great number. It keeps the big conferences in play, and gives the bubble teams a chance.

What makes no sense is calling a 4 game format a "tournament" and then having everybody debate on who should be #4 when evidently more than 1 team qualifies for that spot.

5 conference champions - keeps the regular season as important as ever and put additional weight on conference championship games so you don't have teams taking off. Plus includes all conferences so nobody gets left out of the picture

3 other spots go to non P5 champions and or teams like UGA that didn't win championship, but are clearly one of the better teams in the country.

I fail to see why anybody would argue against a format that would really allow for a tournament format without diluting the regular season like basketball and baseball do. Unless they are brainwashed by the old way of arbitrarily selecting a champion and the need for the debate after the fact, in which case i can understand it to some degree.

Either way, the old bowl system needs to go. Or the "playoff" needs to go and we go back to randomly selecting a champion and letting everybody argue about it. The two will never work if you try to force them together.

Quote:

---

I fail to see why anybody would argue against a format that would really allow for a tournament format without diluting the regular season l

---

Probably because you're just assuming 8 wouldn't water it down. But that's just like, your opinion...man.

I think making the path harder for the elite teams by adding an extra game in a postseason format (which allows a better chance of injury or anything else happening) absolutely hurts the regular season.

We play 12 games then take a month off before exhibitions for a reason. The season is the season. a 3 game playoff for a winner basically makes it a race to 8, and probably not too concerned with what rank you are. Just get to 8, then everyone can take a month off and re-roll the dice.

I've been for and against 8 team playoff model at various times. It's definitely not some obvious fix. And creating the most likely scenario of an 8 team playoff having the Conf champ from 5 P5 + highest non P5 + 2 non champs is dumb too. If you go to 8, then it's the best 8, period.

Rankings by conference

SEC - 8
Big 10 - 4
Big 12 - 4
ACC - 2
Pac-12 -3
Group of 5 - 3
Independent - 1

Ranked teams played (only final ranking)
Bama - 4 - best win 5
Clemson 2 - best win 19
ND - 3 best win 7
ou - 3 best win 15, lost to 15
tosu - 3 best wint 7, blown out by 6-6 team
uga - 5, best win 10, lost to 1, 15 badly

Clemson easily had the worst schedule, but won them all. ND played the same amount of fbs as everyone who had a ccg since they don't play an fcs game and played a reasonable amount of ranked and beat cleamsons best win by way more. Bama won out. Ou didn't lose to a bad team or twice.

I'm alll for expanding it to 8, but the committee got it right for its current state.

The number is not necessarily the problem, though I would like to see 8. The problem is there are easily 4 teams in the SEC alone that would beat OU and Notre Dame.

KW Driver said:

---

The number is not necessarily the problem, though I would like to see 8. The problem is there are easily 4 teams in the SEC alone that would beat OU and Notre Dame.

---

Could beat, maybe. "Would" beat...not so sure.

If you want regular season to mean more the tourney needs to include conference champions, makes winning the conference mean more.

10 conf champions + 6 at large for the losers.

But we need to get past the faulty notion it's for the best team. The best team doesn't always win, so it's not for the best team. The only thing it's for is for the championship. A tournament of conference champions fills that perfectly.

A tournament in a 128 team league is just stupid, IF you're trying to find a (quote) best (unquote)

If you just want to watch more football and generate scads more revenue, just admit that.

This whole notion of "best" is pointless in what should be entertainment for college students and alums. And don't even compare to pros - the are (by definition) about profit and nothing more.

WtHrOoOlPl said:

---

Conferences are broken and should be dissolved/reformed. Current CFP is broken. Power 5 and Group of 5 both should be reevaluated and be broken into multiple new A-tiers/ #-tiers with pre-determined bumps/drops every decade based on overall program success/failure. CFP has always needed to be a full tourney.

---

Conferences are unbalanced but they are not the problem. SBNATION did a projection of 6/8/24 team playoffs. In the 24 team version we would get a rematch against UK for a berth to play Notre Dame. That is the best way to put it. What would you give to watch us get a rematch of an OT thriller with a chance at ND as a path to a title vs us playing half-way across the country vs an unranked opponent in a florida bowl money grab. I will never understand the push back against an expanded playoff.

wbt5845 said:

---

This system is perfect. Every team that has a right to play for the NC is getting a chance. All the arguing for #4/#5 would just shift to arguing about #8/#9 if you epanded to 8.

---

And what determines whether someone has the "right" to play? It was supposed to be that the best 4 teams had earned that "right," but this is not it. OU deserves to be in the conversation at a 5 or 6, but not over a Georgia.

Yes, people will argue about 8/9, just as there is argument about the the last teams seeded in the NCAA tourney. But at 8 teams, there is MUCH more confidence that it will consist of the best 4 teams in the country (even if they may be seeded poorly --- team X gets seeded at a 6 instead of a 3, etc.)

But there is good argument for Georgia and Ohio State to be at 4 (neither of which were). So f-it. Just let it play out on the field and let them have the opportunity.

6 teams. NO auto-bids, just who the committee deems as the best 6 teams. Top 2 get byes. #4 v #5 and #3 v #6. Winner of those matchups play 1 and 2, respectively.

personally I don't care if the top fifty make the play-offs or only two
just as long as the top two are in and have a chance to meet and decide it on the field - that's the point
four seems to have achieved that - we certainly don't need a GA v the bammers rematch, we have already seen that on (no need to produce a laughing stock like the big 12)
unless you feel like one of the top two was left out, what's the beef?

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Quote:

---

I fail to see why anybody would argue against a format that would really allow for a tournament format without diluting the regular season l

---

Probably because you're just assuming 8 wouldn't water it down. But that's just like, your opinion...man.

I think making the path harder for the elite teams by adding an extra game in a postseason format (which allows a better chance of injury or anything else happening) absolutely hurts the regular season.

We play 12 games then take a month off before exhibitions for a reason. The season is the season. a 3 game playoff for a winner basically makes it a race to 8, and probably not too concerned with what rank you are. Just get to 8, then everyone can take a month off and re-roll the dice.

I've been for and against 8 team playoff model at various times. It's definitely not some obvious fix. And creating the most likely scenario of an 8 team playoff having the Conf champ from 5 P5 + highest non P5 + 2 non champs is dumb too. If you go to 8, then it's the best 8, period.

---

The best 8 is subjective, and if the point is to get a true champion from the national scope, which is what every other tournament does, then you go through the conferences. If a conference champ isn't worthy, they won't last. If a team might be better, they can complain, or win their conference championship. That's where the additional 2 at large come in - so that you have, even if it's small, a chance to make the tourney if you don't win the championship.

And teams like Notre Dame should be disqualified from contention because they aren't in a conference and don't have the extra game. They don't like it, they can join the ACC like they are in every other sport.

If number of games is a concern (it isn't, but we'll play along), then reduce the season by a game. Everybody moans about the late season cupcake games (except for the teams and programs that get the check, but that's a different story) as it is, so eliminate those and either add another bye week in or change the scheduling of the season.

If a playoff of the top 8 teams out of 130 (that's a whopping 6% of all teams in the FBS category) waters it down, then the entire system is in need of a Molitov cocktail and starting over, because it's not watering it down. Amazing how it works in every other major sport, but somehow football is different. Why is it different? Because it's always been? That's the only answer you can logically have, because outside of that - it's no different sports wise than anything else.

And yes, it is an obvious fix to the "playoff" we have currently. Or go back to traditional bowl tie ins and let the media and coaches poll determine national champions while everybody continues to argue like they do now. No system will ever be perfect, but there are significant improvements that can be done to what we have now near overnight. Problem is the NCAA, even if they voted unanimously to change the system, will string it out over years because that is what they do with nearly everything.

cecil77 said:

---

A tournament in a 128 team league is just stupid, IF you're trying to find a (quote) best (unquote)

If you just want to watch more football and generate scads more revenue, just admit that.

This whole notion of "best" is pointless in what should be entertainment for college students and alums. And don't even compare to pros - the are (by definition) about profit and nothing more.

---

Outrageous!!!! It's almost like it's never been done before!!!! Oh wait virtually every sport has one including college football.

https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/football/fcs/2018

I solved your problem and you just have to literally copy and paste.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

the more teams you add to a playoff scenario, the less important the regular season becomes. And that is what makes college football the best sport/league in America. Don't **** that up.

---

incorrect, at least up to a point.

---

Of course there's a tipping point. 6 with top 2 getting a BYE might be ok...but 8 is right on the edge...

Even if it were 8 teams this year just because folks can't figure out who #4 truly is, it makes no sense. It just penalizes Bama, Clemson & ND more by making it more difficult to win, and thus less rewarding to have done better than everyone else.

Regular season has to matter more than anything.

---

The edge of what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Find one FCS fan that says a 24 team playoff dilutes their regular season.
Find me one example of a sport with a 16+ team playoff that says we should scrap this whole thing and let a committee decide on the four best
Find me one human being that would rather watch us play a meaningless game against unranked NCState all the way across the country when in a perfect world we could play UK in a 24 seed tournament for a berth to play Notre Dame (SBNation did a 24 team projection based on rankings). I urge you to take a look at that amazing 24 team bracket and then compare that to the current garbage bowl season we get now.

We don't want your life!

rootube said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

A tournament in a 128 team league is just stupid, IF you're trying to find a (quote) best (unquote)

If you just want to watch more football and generate scads more revenue, just admit that.

This whole notion of "best" is pointless in what should be entertainment for college students and alums. And don't even compare to pros - the are (by definition) about profit and nothing more.

---

Outrageous!!!! It's almost like it's never been done before!!!! Oh wait virtually every sport has one including college football.

https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/football/fcs/2018

I solved your problem and you just have to literally copy and paste.

---

Then you and the other couple hundred people that care about that, by all means, go watch it.

Difference is, they don't cry when they lose a game and don't make the tourney. And they're not trying for some "best", but straightforward tournament winner. Huge difference. "Best" is a stupid and impossible goal. Winner of a tournament is doable, but in a 128 team league either a) opions (polls) will matter of b) "deserving" teams won't make the tourney.

If y'all were serious in this Quixotic quest, there's one (and only one) logical and meaningful method.

1) Take the league down to 96 teams
2) 8 conferences of 12 teams each
3) Play a round robin 11 game schedule (NO OOC ALLOWED!)
4) Play off the 8 conference champs (REGARDLESS IF ONE CONFERENCE IS "BETTER" THAN ANOTHER)

It would work.

It would suck.

rootube said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

the more teams you add to a playoff scenario, the less important the regular season becomes. And that is what makes college football the best sport/league in America. Don't **** that up.

---

incorrect, at least up to a point.

---

Of course there's a tipping point. 6 with top 2 getting a BYE might be ok...but 8 is right on the edge...

Even if it were 8 teams this year just because folks can't figure out who #4 truly is, it makes no sense. It just penalizes Bama, Clemson & ND more by making it more difficult to win, and thus less rewarding to have done better than everyone else.

Regular season has to matter more than anything.

---

The edge of what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Find one FCS fan that says a 24 team playoff dilutes their regular season.
Find me one example of a sport with a 16+ team playoff that says we should scrap this whole thing and let a committee decide on the four best
Find me one human being that would rather watch us play a meaningless game against unranked NCState all the way across the country when in a perfect world we could play UK in a 24 seed tournament for a berth to play Notre Dame (SBNation did a 24 team projection based on rankings). I urge you to take a look at that amazing 24 team bracket and then compare that to the current garbage bowl season we get now.

---

The idea is to get the best team(s) the best chance to win a national title.

I trust a 4 person committee to find the 4 best teams every year over watching some ridiculous 24 game playoff play itself out. College football is about rewarding the national champion for the year, not rewarding the champion of a tournament. As I've said on the thread I've been for 6/8 team playoffs here and there before, but I currently rest on no change needed right now.

It's completely unfair to Bama/Clemson that some 4 loss team might get hot and you might lose a star player in the 3rd round of some tournament after 12(or 13) games have already been played to help sift out the contenders from the pretenders.

Every year in CFB there is an absolutely clear line of those that are the best, those that could be, and then everyone else. It's no differen this year, and maybe even more defined at 6 teams.

When you look at how often the ball bounces the wrong way (like us vs Clemson) and you realize this happens to all teams all season long, the idea of putting the top 4 in there is, to some degree, luck. Missed field goals. Mid season injuries. You name it. That's why playoffs exist. It's not about who can win a tournament. It's about collecting a large enough sample size of teams that set themselves apart and letting them duke it out. I would say at least 7 teams proved that this year.

cecil77 said:

---

rootube said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

A tournament in a 128 team league is just stupid, IF you're trying to find a (quote) best (unquote)

If you just want to watch more football and generate scads more revenue, just admit that.

This whole notion of "best" is pointless in what should be entertainment for college students and alums. And don't even compare to pros - the are (by definition) about profit and nothing more.

---

Outrageous!!!! It's almost like it's never been done before!!!! Oh wait virtually every sport has one including college football.

https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/football/fcs/2018

I solved your problem and you just have to literally copy and paste.

---

Then you and the other couple hundred people that care about that, by all means, go watch it.

Difference is, they don't cry when they lose a game and don't make the tourney. And they're not trying for some "best", but straightforward tournament winner. Huge difference. "Best" is a stupid and impossible goal. Winner of a tournament is doable, but in a 128 team league either a) opions (polls) will matter of b) "deserving" teams won't make the tourney.

If y'all were serious in this Quixotic quest, there's one (and only one) logical and meaningful method.

1) Take the league down to 96 teams
2) 8 conferences of 12 teams each
3) Play a round robin 11 game schedule (NO OOC ALLOWED!)
4) Play off the 8 conference champs (REGARDLESS IF ONE CONFERENCE IS "BETTER" THAN ANOTHER)

It would work.

It would suck.

---

The format works for everyone with the exception of D1 college football. Which system do you think is broken? FCS has 124 teams and it WORKS! Just because most people don't watch FCS football does not means their system is not better. Forget Georgia and OSU for a minute. Under a 24 team system we would play at least one more meaningful game against a ranked team. I keep harping on this but according the the SBNATION projection we would play UK for a berth to play Notre Dame. Can you seriously say you would rather watch us play unranked NCState in a completely meaningless bowl game. If we were being honest, what we would have to give up is games like Northwestern State, ULM and UAB which we beat by a combined 148-37. I'm willing to make that sacrifice.