ADVERTISEMENT

NCAA Playoff Expansion

otismotis08

otismotis08

Head Coach
Jan 5, 2012
12,407
7,677
113
parts unknown
It seems the next logical progression would be to expand the playoff to 8 teams. Now that we're in the top 10 and inching closer, the NCAA needs to hurry up and expand. I know, it's not happening this year, but if we can hover around top 10 this year...who knows what the coming years will bring. Would be nice to flirt with the playoffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timnsun
Lose only one game before the Big Ten Championship game and you will be flirting with the playoff.

I don't like the idea of expanding the playoff any further because let's be honest, there are usually only a couple teams that are national title contendership. As we saw last year, Iowa would have made it in and they were not on the same level as the best teams. I suppose, with that being said, Stanford would have had a chance for the title.

With 8 teams you start getting into rematches and I personally don't think rematches should happen unless it's for the conference title. Could a scenario ever arise where two teams play each other for the third time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker and HuskerO
SWIowahawks said:
Lose only one game before the Big Ten Championship game and you will be flirting with the playoff.

I don't like the idea of expanding the playoff any further because let's be honest, there are usually only a couple teams that are national title contendership. As we saw last year, Iowa would have made it in and they were not on the same level as the best teams. I suppose, with that being said, Stanford would have had a chance for the title.

With 8 teams you start getting into rematches and I personally don't think rematches should happen unless it's for the conference title. Could a scenario ever arise where two teams play each other for the third time?
Click to expand...
we lose to Ohio State in regular season then beat them in the B1G championship game
 
I am on the edge on this.

I like the idea of more of a playoff, but from some of the past #8 schools I've seen, I would hate them winning a championship. I don't think it makes games insignificant, but it does put less of that pressure that makes college football fans so rabid.

You would see less preseason favorites falling apart after a couple early season bad games thou, imo.
 
I like 8. Give each major conference winner a spot and 3 "wildcard" spots. Play first rounds on home fields of the top 4 seeds.
 
I've always preferred eight teams, but I've been so happy with the first few years of this system I've no longer worried about it enough to campaign (not that anyone cares what I think anyhow).

Honestly though, once the Big 12 goes under and we have four major conferences, we essentially might see a third subdivision of the four power conferences at 16-20 teams apiece, then have a de Facto 8-team playoff with four championship games followed by a four team playoff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker
Make it 4 like it currently is, the conference champion from each of the Power 4 conferences..... PAC, B1G, ACC, & SEC.. simple as can be ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker and bigboxes
How many more weeks do we need to stretch this thing out?

The season is long enough the way it is 3 more games more injuries to possible key people that would have made a difference in a huge game where the team that didn't have key players out wins the game but wasn't the better team.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker, saluno22 and LonghornInOmaha
SWIowahawks said:
Lose only one game before the Big Ten Championship game and you will be flirting with the playoff.

I don't like the idea of expanding the playoff any further because let's be honest, there are usually only a couple teams that are national title contendership. As we saw last year, Iowa would have made it in and they were not on the same level as the best teams. I suppose, with that being said, Stanford would have had a chance for the title.

With 8 teams you start getting into rematches and I personally don't think rematches should happen unless it's for the conference title. Could a scenario ever arise where two teams play each other for the third time?
Click to expand...
Ohio State the defending champs got jobbed to let Okie in ( no conference championship game/OSU lost
theirs by 1 ); and Ala had a worse loss and OSU dominated them the year before. Takes 8 period; there are upsets every week - T O changed his mind too recommending 8; after being on the committee .
 
Is there a real downside to 8? I can't think of one...Shoot some HS teams play 16 games...All the lower levels of college play in a bigger playoff. Somehow those players manage to survive.

Look, for years they said they would not mess with the bowls...They did and it was great...then they said they would not do a BCS thingy...they did and we liked it...then they said no playoff...they did it and we love it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timnsun
JohnRossEwing said:
Is there a real downside to 8? I can't think of one...Shoot some HS teams play 16 games...All the lower levels of college play in a bigger playoff. Somehow those players manage to survive.

Look, for years they said they would not mess with the bowls...They did and it was great...then they said they would not do a BCS thingy...they did and we liked it...then they said no playoff...they did it and we love it.
Click to expand...


Ahhh I believe they play 9 High School games in Nebraska than there is the 16 team playoff, so if you play in the state Champion game they would play 13 not 16.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker
scarletred said:
Ahhh I believe they play 9 High School games in Nebraska than there is the 16 team playoff, so if you play in the state Champion game they would play 13 not 16.
Click to expand...
They do...But I am talking about many other states
For instance in Illinois they play 9 regular season games and if you make it to the final you are playing in your 14th game of the season.

15 in Texas...

No idea about other states. But the point is...it is pretty darn close.
 
JohnRossEwing said:
They do...But I am talking about many other states
For instance in Illinois they play 9 regular season games and if you make it to the final you are playing in your 14th game of the season.

15 in Texas...

No idea about other states. But the point is...it is pretty darn close.
Click to expand...

I know they play a ton of playoff games in Texas considering how huge the state is. But I don't know how many regular season they play..

I have a good friend of mine who now lives in Lewisville TX Suburb in Dallas I'll have to ask that question next time I talk to him.
 
dockentwo said:
Ohio State the defending champs got jobbed to let Okie in ( no conference championship game/OSU lost
theirs by 1 ); and Ala had a worse loss and OSU dominated them the year before. Takes 8 period; there are upsets every week - T O changed his mind too recommending 8; after being on the committee .
Click to expand...
I agree Ohio State was the best team in the Big Ten by far. Problem is they had one bad game against MSU. The winner of the MSU/Iowa game was getting in no matter what and I don't know that you could make the case to have two conference teams in. Unless I guess Iowa had a better resume. But you can't have two teams from the same division get in.

If Nebraska goes undefeated in the regular season but loses to OSU in a rematch, I think they would have a chance to get in with OSU. But it all depends on the other conferences.
 
scarletred said:
I know they play a ton of playoff games in Texas considering how huge the state is. But I don't know how many regular season they play..

I have a good friend of mine who now lives in Lewisville TX Suburb in Dallas I'll have to ask that question next time I talk to him.
Click to expand...

10 gular season games in Texas. If you playnin the state title game you will play in 16. I believe most have a bye week in there as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: scarletred
One down side in expanding from 4 to 8 is that it will or can devalue the regular season. When you select 8, the chances of getting a 2 loss team into the playoffs increases.

A 2 loss team has already shown to be beaten on 2 different ocassions. Why do they deserve a third chance? With one loss, an upset or a bad week can be the rationale for rewarding that team with a berth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker, scarletred and SWIowahawks
Tuco Salamanca said:
One down side in expanding from 4 to 8 is that it will or can devalue the regular season. When you select 8, the chances of getting a 2 loss team into the playoffs increases.

A 2 loss team has already shown to be beaten on 2 different ocassions. Why do they deserve a third chance? With one loss, an upset or a bad week can be the rationale for rewarding that team with a berth.
Click to expand...
I disagree that the top 8 devalues the regular season. You still have to play competitive football and look good or you're out.
 
chicolby said:
I disagree that the top 8 devalues the regular season. You still have to play competitive football and look good or you're out.
Click to expand...

That is a different argument. Looking good to remain in the top 8 doesn't mean a top 8 team with 2 losses should be playing for a chance at a title.

If Nebraska loses to Wisconsin in a close game, then loses to Ohio St in a close game, then beats Michigan in a conference title game, they may well be ranked in the top 8 at the end of the season. But they wouldn't be worthy of playing for a national title.


By allowing a two loss team, it most certainly devalues the regular season and the importance of winning every game compared to now. If you expand to 32, there is still a relative importance to the regular season, it would be to only lose 4 games. Hell being eligible for a bowl game puts a relative importance or value on the regular season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker
Tuco Salamanca said:
That is a different argument. Looking good to remain in the top 8 doesn't mean a top 8 team with 2 losses should be playing for a chance at a title.

If Nebraska loses to Wisconsin in a close game, then loses to Ohio St in a close game, then beats Michigan in a conference title game, they may well be ranked in the top 8 at the end of the season. But they wouldn't be worthy of playing for a national title.


By allowing a two loss team, it most certainly devalues the regular season and the importance of winning every game compared to now. If you expand to 32, there is still a relative importance to the regular season, it would be to only lose 4 games. Hell being eligible for a bowl game puts a relative importance or value on the regular season.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see that point. I also think that we would still love all the games that get played and we would get excited knowing that you can have a bad game or two and still have a chance.
 
I am not sure going to 8 devalues the rest of the season, but for sure it devalues winning your conference championship. If all of a sudden basically the top 2 teams of each conference get in, then who cares about the CCG?

I really won't be happy with our conference until it expands to 20 teams. You play the 9 teams in your division every year, with the winner playing the winner of the other division. The current scheduling in the B1G is a joke with some teams getting a massively difficult schedule, while others have a cakewalk. It adds yet another timing variable to being able to compete for championships, and that hurts the conference as a whole in my opinion.
 
JohnRossEwing said:
Yeah, I can see that point. I also think that we would still love all the games that get played and we would get excited knowing that you can have a bad game or two and still have a chance.
Click to expand...

I guess. To me it's the "still have a chance" that I question. I feel the same way about teams that don't win a division playing for a national title. If you aren't the best team in your division, then you aren't the best team in your league so you, by definition, can't be the best team in the country.

Is the goal to determine who the best team is for a whole season or to find the team playing the best at the end of the season?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker
Tuco Salamanca said:
I guess. To me it's the "still have a chance" that I question. I feel the same way about teams that don't win a division playing for a national title. If you aren't the best team in your division, then you aren't the best team in your league so you, by definition, can't be the best team in the country.

Is the goal to determine who the best team is for a whole season or to find the team playing the best at the end of the season?
Click to expand...
the problem with this tho is any one loss team would also fall in that category. I totally get the thinking that says if you don't play in the conference championship game you don't deserve a shot at the playoffs, but what happens if someone catches lightning in a bottle at the right time? If you give the bid to the conference winner, does it go to 4 loss Texas in 1996 because they beat a flu-depleted Nebraska that year? Or do you give it to a 5 loss Wisconsin team in 2011? If it just goes to conference/division champions, teams like Ohio state last year are left out. No way that should happen.
 
litespeedhuskerfan said:
Two loss teams shouldn't be anywhere near the playoffs. If you expand the playoff to 8 teams, a couple two loss teams are going to get in and Alabama would have a standing invite, forever. Pass.
Click to expand...
Who sets the arbitrary number of losses?


Tuco Salamanca said:
That is a different argument. Looking good to remain in the top 8 doesn't mean a top 8 team with 2 losses should be playing for a chance at a title.

If Nebraska loses to Wisconsin in a close game, then loses to Ohio St in a close game, then beats Michigan in a conference title game, they may well be ranked in the top 8 at the end of the season. But they wouldn't be worthy of playing for a national title.


By allowing a two loss team, it most certainly devalues the regular season and the importance of winning every game compared to now. If you expand to 32, there is still a relative importance to the regular season, it would be to only lose 4 games. Hell being eligible for a bowl game puts a relative importance or value on the regular season.
Click to expand...
Who sets this arbitrary number of two losses and you're out? This is so old school thinking and that's why the committee was created to select the top teams.

If a team loses to Alabama (everyone does) and say another top team, they get punished simply by playing those teams while another team gets in because of 1 loss, but no games against top competition. The best teams should be in, period. There shouldn't be some litmus test of "two losses and you're out", in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timnsun
chicolby if you expand to 8 teams, several 2 loss teams will get in, this is not debatable. May not bother you, but allow me to expand...

If people are disgusted with ESPN's love affair with the SEC now, wait until you let 2 loss teams in. SEC will have 3 teams in every couple of years. If you are saying the best teams should get in, period, then you have to remove the number of teams that can qualify regardless of conference affiliation. Can't say "put the best teams in, period", then limit conferences to 2 teams each. So you think about how many times the SEC would get at least 2, and many years 3 teams in going forward. It would happen. It would become the SEC invitational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker
litespeedhuskerfan said:
chicolby if you expand to 8 teams, several 2 loss teams will get in, this is not debatable. May not bother you, but allow me to expand...

If people are disgusted with ESPN's love affair with the SEC now, wait until you let 2 loss teams in. SEC will have 3 teams in every couple of years. If you are saying the best teams should get in, period, then you have to remove the number of teams that can qualify regardless of conference affiliation. Can't say "put the best teams in, period", then limit conferences to 2 teams each. So you think about how many times the SEC would get at least 2, and many years 3 teams in going forward. It would happen. It would become the SEC invitational.
Click to expand...
You're starting to sound a bit socialist on me here. If the SEC has the best teams, should they be punished for being in the same conference?

I do reward each conference winner with a spot but leave three wildcard teams that may include teams outside the Power 5 or may be all from one conference. That is called competition. If other conferences are angry, they should improve their play.
 
litespeedhuskerfan said:
chicolby if you expand to 8 teams, several 2 loss teams will get in, this is not debatable. May not bother you, but allow me to expand...

If people are disgusted with ESPN's love affair with the SEC now, wait until you let 2 loss teams in. SEC will have 3 teams in every couple of years. If you are saying the best teams should get in, period, then you have to remove the number of teams that can qualify regardless of conference affiliation. Can't say "put the best teams in, period", then limit conferences to 2 teams each. So you think about how many times the SEC would get at least 2, and many years 3 teams in going forward. It would happen. It would become the SEC invitational.
Click to expand...
It's not just an SEC thing... look at this year... B1G could easily get 2 in, and conceivably 3 in. Ohio State beats Nebraska regular season, Michigan beats Ohio State, and Nebraska beats Michigan in conference championship. Nebraska is in, Michigan is in... are they gonna leave tOSU out in the cold?

I understand the SEC bias, but we can't live in fear of another conference. The B1G has taken tremendous strides to get better, and I think our conference will continue to get better and push the SEC. Pundits won't be able to ignore the B1G.

Just my opinion.
 
chicolby said:
You're starting to sound a bit socialist on me here.
Click to expand...


You want to expand the playoffs to include double the current number of teams that qualify, to include several two loss teams so they can get yet another chance to still possibly win a ribbon, and I'm the socialist for saying no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker
chicolby said:
You're starting to sound a bit socialist on me here. If the SEC has the best teams, should they be punished for being in the same conference?

I do reward each conference winner with a spot but leave three wildcard teams that may include teams outside the Power 5 or may be all from one conference. That is called competition. If other conferences are angry, they should improve their play.
Click to expand...

chicolby said:
Who sets the arbitrary number of losses?



Who sets this arbitrary number of two losses and you're out? This is so old school thinking and that's why the committee was created to select the top teams.

If a team loses to Alabama (everyone does) and say another top team, they get punished simply by playing those teams while another team gets in because of 1 loss, but no games against top competition. The best teams should be in, period. There shouldn't be some litmus test of "two losses and you're out", in my opinion.
Click to expand...

You are moving the target. If I say a 16 team playoff has to happen then you will have teams with 3 or 4 losses looking to get into the tournament. Some 3 loss team is going to have 3 quality losses. That doesn't mean they should get an opportunity to win a national title.
 
Tuco Salamanca said:
You are moving the target. If I say a 16 team playoff has to happen then you will have teams with 3 or 4 losses looking to get into the tournament. Some 3 loss team is going to have 3 quality losses. That doesn't mean they should get an opportunity to win a national title.
Click to expand...
How am I moving the target. I've always thought eight was the right number. Reward each conference winner (that makes the regular season AND conference championship game VERY important). Then you reward the next three most deserving teams. I have never suggested 16 teams as that would water down the regular season too far.

It's a very typical argument to not focus on the actual proposal of 8 teams and instead talk about "well, if you allow 8, then you're going to allow 16" - that's exactly what the gun lobbyists say when people try to ban military grade weapons... "well, next thing you know, they're going to get rid of your hunting guns".
 
chicolby said:
How am I moving the target. I've always thought eight was the right number. Reward each conference winner (that makes the regular season AND conference championship game VERY important). Then you reward the next three most deserving teams. I have never suggested 16 teams as that would water down the regular season too far.

It's a very typical argument to not focus on the actual proposal of 8 teams and instead talk about "well, if you allow 8, then you're going to allow 16" - that's exactly what the gun lobbyists say when people try to ban military grade weapons... "well, next thing you know, they're going to get rid of your hunting guns".
Click to expand...


Don't try and compare college football to politics and economic theories. That's pointless.

Back to the previous post where I said the regular season becomes devalued. And you countered with you didn't think it did devalue the regular season because you still had to be competitive. Now you say it's just a matter of how far you want to water down (devalue) the regular season, 16 is too much but 8 is ok.

Again I will ask, show me the 6th, 7th or 8th placed teams over the past 10 years that would have won 3 straight games against top 5 competition.

Lastly conference tie ins in a tournament with 8 or fewer teams doesn't guarantee the top 8 teams will be playing. Why have tie ins if your goal is to determine the best team of the year? You have a poll that ranks the teams 1-25, just take the top 8 and be done. Catching lightning in a bottle is the battle cry for a team with an underachieving or poor regular season. An 8 seed that wins a college basketball conference tournament isn't the best team in the league, they are the 8th best team in the league, playing good basketball at the end of the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker
As long as conferences exist (hopefully for a long time), I do believe in rewarding conference champions. In some cases (say this year), the Big 12 may not have a team in the top 8, but I believe their champion should be invited to the tournament.

search

Let them play!
 
What an exhausting thread... there are 2 camps here.

Those who say 4 and those who say 8. If you say 4, then #5 could legitimately be left out, even though #5 could be just as good. #8 may not be, but you can't have a 5 team playoff. So you expand to 8 and if #6-8 suck as bad as people are saying, they will never advance. But it allows #5 to still play for all the marbles, and deservedly so.

I honestly don't see a ton of downside, even if 3 SEC teams are in. Going back the last 5 years, there would be 2 years where 3 SEC teams are in, 2 years when only 1 SEC team is in, and 1 year where 2 SEC teams are in.

Conversely, the last 3 years, the B1G would have 2 teams in each year. Before that we didn't have Meyer at tOSU, and Dantonio didn't have MSU humming yet... but moving forward, our conference is so much stronger now. We will almost always have 2 teams in and occasionally 3...

8 team playoff will not ruin the game, imho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T

OT: Playoff Format

Replies
23
Views
1K
Husker Board
scarletred
scarletred
Alum-Ni

Volleyball NCAA Tournament Match Notes: Nebraska vs. Penn State

Replies
1
Views
805
Insider's Board
Heavi06
H
Alum-Ni

Volleyball NCAA Tournament Match Notes

Replies
0
Views
374
Insider's Board
Alum-Ni
Alum-Ni
stan raymond

Current playoff bracket using AP poll

Replies
3
Views
515
Insider's Board
stan raymond
stan raymond
stan raymond

Volleyball NCAA VB FINAL: #1 Nebraska def. #5 Dayton, advances to Elite Eight vs. #2 Wisconsin

Replies
123
Views
8K
Insider's Board
stan raymond
stan raymond
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back