8 or 16

Less is too few
More is too many

CowPieAndFries said:

---

I would like an 8 team playoff. Sixteen would be silly. It's not basketball. Each game take a toll and when was the last time a 16 team could remotely sniff beating any of the top teams 3times much less once.

---

Last year would have been entertaining.

#1 Bama vs. #8 UCF
#2 Clemson vs. #7 Michigan
#3 ND vs. #6 Ohio St
#4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia

I'd watch that.

I like the 6 with the top two getting a bye as well. No conference championship tie in.

Kozmozag said:

---

I like the 6 with the top two getting a bye as well. No conference championship tie in.

---

If you have the same argument long enough you can just re-purpose stuff. Here is an improved version of last years playoff. Would have loved to have watched a rematch of the UK game with a berth to play ND on the line instead of an NC State exhibition where the best players from State were working on their bench press for the NFL.

People are always going to complain about someone getting left out. Basketball is up to 68 teams and people still talk about who was left out. Expand to 8 and people will be upset about #9 being left out.

If you go to 6 or 8 for football make it the top 6 or 8 regardless of conferences. Last 2 years, for example, the Pac 12 Champ didn't even finish in the top 10. Why include them over some 1 loss conference runner-ups?

Sgt. Schultz said:

---

12 team playoff
All P5 champions make playoffs
Highest ranked G5 makes playoffs - at least they have a chance vs way it is now
6 highest ranked at large teams make playoffs
Seeds 1-4 get a 1st round bye
Seeds 1-4 host 2nd round vs winners of 1st round games

Teams not making playoffs and qualifying for bowl games
lower tier bowl games played during week prior to Christmas
upper tier bowl games played between Christmas and New Years during week

This would guarantee the best teams have a chance, the regular season still matters because you still want the 1st round bye if possible. Plus teams will pull out all the stops to make the playoffs, especially if you outside the top 4. As it stands now, if you are not Top 5, your games basically do not matter.


Playoff would have looked like this in 2018

1st Round (week after conf champ games)
---------------------------------------------------------
#12 Penn State @ #5 Georgia
#11 LSU @ #6 Ohio State
#10 Florida @ #7 Michigan
#9 Washington @ #8 UCF

2nd Round (week following 1st round)
--------------------------------------------------
#8 vs #9 winner @ #1 Alabama
#7 vs #10 winner @ # 2 Clemson
#6 vs #11 winner @ # 3 Notre Dame
#5 vs #12 winner @ #4 Oklahoma

Semi-finals (played at current hosting bowl game sites - like now)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
winner of #1 vs #8-9 winner....vs....winner of #4 vs #5-12 winner
winner of #2 vs #7-10 winner....vs....winner of #3 vs 36-11 winner

National Championship as is now


flame away

---

No, I actually think this will be the next expansion move. 8 games is more money than 4. The 12 team, 8 game format will end being very similar to the NFL and MLB playoffs, so fans are already comfortable with it.

It's a proven model that works as opposed to 6 teams or 8 teams. Proven models make money.

I was at Appalachian State when they won three consecutive national championships (and beat Michigan). I never imagined I could enjoy FCS football, but the playoffs were fun

AgBandsman said:

---

TexanJeff said:

---

NyAggie said:

---

Quote:

---

Amazes me that there are still people who think expanding the " playoff" will devalue the regular season.
It will actually do the exact opposite.
It will add more value, it will add more teams in the playoff discussion, it will add more meaningful games, It will add more excitement.

---

It will do all of that, but The more you expand the playoffs, each game becomes a little less important in a stand alone sense; meaning you can lose 1 game and you will still control your own destiny and in some cases you could lose 2 games and still make it, thus each individual game has "less value"

The End result of an expanded playoff is that more games have value but each game by itself has less value

---

It's just that simple.

---

There's more to it than that. Every year there's teams with a lower strength of schedule that go indefeated or one-loss. Those teams should have a chance to play in the playoffs. 2014 TCU, undefeated UCF to make a few.

It's BS to use the excuse that it devalues the regular season. Not all teams have the chance to win every regular season game and have a chance to take down Alabama in a playoff game.

Expand the playoffs like EVERY OTHER major sports league, collegiate or pro.

---

They should schedule more difficult teams during the season to get a decent strength of schedule

I sort of agree with what you are saying but when you are in a non P5 conference and P5 teams won't make a return trip and would rather schedule less challenging non-conference games it is probably challenging to have a solid slate of non-conference match-ups. If you just use the 24 team method then they get their shot which they will mostly lose.

The current system incentives P5 schools to schedule as softly as possible.

1. Avoid scheduling too many conference games as it hinders getting conference teams getting enough wins to travel to Birmingham or Orlando or San Antonio to celebrate mediocrity in a bowl game.

2. Avoid scheduling too many conference games or scheduling decent P5 or good G5 teams OOC because we have a playoff system that counts losses of P5 schools in order to determine playoffs.


I wish we didn't have a system set up to reward the tourism councils of various bowl destination cities, but instead have meaningful games for each team week after week like every other level of football can do. But here we are.... Looking forward to matching up with Lamar, and seeing Alabama vs NM State. And eliminating all Group of 5 teams from National Championship talk already for next 25 years or until system changes.

Four is arbitrary. Eight is more arbitrary. You're welcome.

16 is the correct number just need to eliminate the CCG.

agnerd said:

---

Nobody outside the top 4 deserves a chance. I'd argue that some years there's clearly a best team and the playoffs aren't needed at all. I'd rather have a MAXIMUM of 4 teams than guaranteed 4 teams.

---

Disagree completely. 8 teams, minimum. 4 teams is not a "playoff" by any real definition.

I would argue that if a BDF team makes the 4 team playoff then 4 was too many.

It's kind of a joke anyway as we know the only way a BDF team has/will ever get into the 4 team playoff is if their name is ou or tu.

Keep it at 4.

Emilio Fantastico said:

---

I would argue that if a BDF team makes the 4 team playoff then 4 was too many.

It's kind of a joke anyway as we know the only way a BDF team has/will ever get into the 4 team playoff is if their name is ou or tu.

Keep it at 4.

---

If the BDF champ has fewer losses than any of the other 4 conference champions, they will be in.

First factor for playoff committee is to count losses of P5 schools.

In 1978 Division I-FCS (then Division I-AA) started off as a four-team playoff and expanded as the years went by and they now have this format: each conference champion in Division I-FCS (except the Ivy League, SWAC, and MEAC whom abstains) has an automatic bid to the Division I-FCS playoff and its remaining at-large bids go to the highest-ranked remaining teams in the rankings via the Division I-FCS playoff committee.

As the years go by we may eventually incorporate more of Division I-FCS elements at Division I-FBS (as we already did with overtime and eventually will with playoff expansion). Playoff expansion will make the bowl system (almost) obsolete and we will eventually see a playoff system a la Division I-FCS except it will be at 16 teams (conference champions with an automatic bid with five at-larges given to the highest ranked available teams in the Division I-FBS CFP rankings with the first round of playoff games to be played like bowls tie-ins (for old times sake) but like the second and third round playoff games they are all played at the home field of the highest-ranked team (which will generate more revenue for the hosting university):

First round (highest ranked team is home team)

Big Ten champion vs Pac-12 champion
Big XII champion vs SEC champion
Mountain West champion vs at-large
MAC champion vs at-large
AAC champion vs at-large
ACC champion vs at-large
CUSA champion vs at-large
Sun Belt champion vs at-large

Second and third round games at the home site of the highest ranked team in the final Division I-FBS CFP rankings; the Division I-FBS CFP national championship game will be pre-determined at a neutral site at one of the current NY6 bowl venues (for old times sake, each venue can change each year).

What do you think of this format?

schmellba99 said:

---

agnerd said:

---

Nobody outside the top 4 deserves a chance. I'd argue that some years there's clearly a best team and the playoffs aren't needed at all. I'd rather have a MAXIMUM of 4 teams than guaranteed 4 teams.

---

Disagree completely. 8 teams, minimum. 4 teams is not a "playoff" by any real definition.

---

The English language says it is a playoff.