NCAA Playoff Expansion
- Thread starter otismotis08
- Start date
Use this year as an example. If we use the polls as our guide, right now Louisville and Washington may be left out of the playoffs. I think those teams are very worthy and capable of winning a playoff. I don't believe the regular season is washed out by allowing those teams a spot.
My daughter is doing some ride alongs with EMT's in north Omaha, and has been for a few weeks now. She sent me a text last night after having just gone out on yet another call with a weirdo on the other end. She said "Thanks for not being a meth head or a carney". I told her that was a pretty low bar she set, not a very hard one to hurdle, but thanks.
Which brings me to people who want to lower the bar by allowing in 8 teams so we have a better shot of making it....How about we just improve our program enough to where we don't have to worry about the NCAA lowering the bar in order for us to make the playoff? What more do people want? The B1G west is arguably the worst division in D1 football since we joined, which in theory gives us a pretty easy path to the conference championship game, win that one and you're probably in, assuming we don't choke against teams like Purdue, in which case we don't deserve a berth at all.
Pining to double the amount of eligible teams is admitting we're not good enough to make it without lowering the bar. I think we should strive to be better, not strive to dumbing down the playoff.
Which brings me to people who want to lower the bar by allowing in 8 teams so we have a better shot of making it....How about we just improve our program enough to where we don't have to worry about the NCAA lowering the bar in order for us to make the playoff? What more do people want? The B1G west is arguably the worst division in D1 football since we joined, which in theory gives us a pretty easy path to the conference championship game, win that one and you're probably in, assuming we don't choke against teams like Purdue, in which case we don't deserve a berth at all.
Pining to double the amount of eligible teams is admitting we're not good enough to make it without lowering the bar. I think we should strive to be better, not strive to dumbing down the playoff.
Need to go to the model of all of the other divisions.
16 teams
High seed plays at home until the champ game.
Can still have the bowls for all the other teams
TV would be astronomical which is what really matters today
You would FINALLY get to see southern SEC/ACC teams have to play away from home and in some weather
16 teams
High seed plays at home until the champ game.
Can still have the bowls for all the other teams
TV would be astronomical which is what really matters today
You would FINALLY get to see southern SEC/ACC teams have to play away from home and in some weather
Use the polls at the end of the season, not in early October. Louisville has already played two of their toughest divisional opponents, they have games against NC St and Houston left that will test them. If they win out with just the one loss, at that point you determine if they maybe left out.
Washington is 5th. Ohio St and Michigan, 2 teams ranked ahead of them play each other. So again, unless Washington loses a game, they will be in a position to be in the 4.
More hyperbole. Jeesh. No one said teams 6-8 sucked.
Since when does the amount of down side affect why you change something?
How about what is the tangible upside in going from 4 to 8? The only upside is 4 more teams that didn't meet the criteria to play in a 4 team event now have a chance.
I'm with tuco on this one...why do you care what the polls say right now and why would you use that for an ingredient to figure out if we need 4 or 8 teams? We're only half way done. Wait until the entire season has been played and it will all sort itself out like it always does.
Good call on the hyperbole.
All I'm saying is there have been enough cases where #5 had a genuine beef, legitimately so, who get left out. Maybe it's not about what's fair, but I just don't see how 4 more teams (not 12, just 4) is such a bad thing.
Just as I might use hyperbole in my posts I do see some sky is falling type posts in others who say 4 more will be bad for college football.
Some years that's true, some years it's not. Nothing that happens will be perfect. Differing opinions, all who think theirs is right.
To add to the debate, it also depends on how seeding is decided, where games are played, and who keeps ticket revenue if a game is played at a campus site.
Would we?
Maybe I'm just too cynical, but something I'm thinking the seeding would be rigged in such a way to get more games at warmer locations.
If you go to 8 teams there will always be someone claiming that their team, at number 9, should have been included. And if you go to 10 teams, the fans of #11 will be screaming.
I like 4. That keeps the playoff between teams that have shown a season long pattern of dominance
I like 4. That keeps the playoff between teams that have shown a season long pattern of dominance
And I can't argue too hard against that... but I do think it is easier to make a case for #5 as opposed to #9... much larger gap from 9 to 1 than 5 to 1...
It would be great to be a perennial top 4 program, but until we get there, I think an 8-team playoff scenario would increase our chances of returning to national relevance.
I don't doubt that will happen. Imagine having to travel for 4 straight neutral site games (CCG, quarters, semis, nat'l title). I know we're well beyond the point of elite football being for affordable for the average Joe, but that just seems ridiculous.
But again, I don't doubt it will happen. It's the best way for the NCAA/CFP/whoever to make the most money first before distributing. Have it on campus sites, and now you have to either negotiate "hosting fees" or provide a flat fee for all hosts. As much as a lot of us would love to see southern schools play in cold weather, would be a giant mess. I think we'd all love to have an objective metric to determine seeds/hosts, but the bureaucratic machine isn't going to let a penny get past them. Or at least not be able to give a benefit to moneyed interests. Could you imagine ESPN campaigning to get SEC teams higher seeds? I can, we've been seeing a form of it for a decade.
For those of you who say going to 8 won't hurt the regular season at all tell me how you explain away the fact this year there is a good chance the loser of Michigan-OSU is left out of a 4 team playoff but gets in at 8. Those big games at the end of the year mean so much not only because they serve as elimination games for conference championships but also for the playoffs. I would argue there are at least 4 regular season games most years that basically serve as playoff games now but are spread out over 3-4 weeks. In fact with only 4 spots and 5 P5 champions OSU-OU this year was potentially a determining factor as far as who gets in at the end of the year between conferences. Go to 8 teams and you lose that so where is the gain?
And a good opinion. If it goes to 8 teams, there will be a year where 5-8 dominate the first playoff games.
IMO there are always upsets and talking heads who also anoint teams ( reasons for 8 vs 4 ). Ala is being given a pass with one loss now, an SEC lean to it - the SEC got smacked through the bowls; the year OSU won the title ( there had been talk of only letting 4 SEC teams in ). You can put a rule in like no two loss teams ( fair enough ) , but imo, more teams will be cheated out of opportunity and damaged if you don't go to 8. Its a joke anyway, look how the college basketball playoffs expanded. Started at what 16 or 24 teams and worked its way over 60 - seems wildly popular and profitable / how many talking heads, are winning their pools every year ?... GBR
for me I want the four best teams and don't care about conferenceMake it 4 like it currently is, the conference champion from each of the Power 4 conferences..... PAC, B1G, ACC, & SEC.. simple as can be
There is no FCS in basketball, all 300ish schools fall under division 1. So when comparing "tournaments" you would have to add in the 24 teams that currently make the FCS playoffs when counting up the number of teams for football and basketball.
As far as cheated out of an opportunity, not sure I am buying that. In a normal year, every team is given 12 regular season games to show what they can do. Some are awarded a 13th game if they had success in the previous 12. If a Power 5 team goes 13-0 they will be in the 4 team playoff. If they don't go 13-0 then they run the risk of being left out like other 11-1 or 12-1 teams.
All teams have an opportunity. However, not all teams will have an opportunity to lose a game and still get selected, but that is different from being cheated out of the opportunity.
What happens when a 2 loss Big Ten team is taken over a 2 loss ACC team for the 8th spot? With 5 power conferences and only 4 or 8 spots, someone is always going to be left out. There will still be the same argument of "cheated" but between 2 loss teams instead of 1 loss teams, and a league getting a 3rd team over another league's division champ.
Good discussion.
Good points. My attitude is that if you are going to expand beyond 4 then you might as well go all the way and have a true playoff. That would involve the conference champs of all D-1 schools, and maybe then a couple of wild card spots for independents and a really good conference runner up. That is a lot of teams and games.
Absent a true playoff I favor keeping it at 4. One of the great things about D-1 college football is that the regular season IS the playoff and every game carries tremendous significance. Lose to Appalachian State and you are toast. No recovery at the end. The 4 team criterion means that only the absolute cream of the crop, proven through season long dominance, gets invited. I like that
Damn it I want a participation ribbon.
I think I still favor expansion to 8 teams. The reason for me is simple... it's a lot more common to have a team at #5 who is more deserving than a team at #9... and also more likely to pull the upset.
I get the argument that someone will always be left out, but I just don't think #9 can complain too much, certainly not as much as #5... the likelihood of #9 winning it all is about .0003 percent, in my opinion, whereas #5 has at least a snowball's chance of winning it all. I don't think I would want it to expand beyond 8 teams tho. I would say expansion to 8 or no expansion at all.
I get the argument that someone will always be left out, but I just don't think #9 can complain too much, certainly not as much as #5... the likelihood of #9 winning it all is about .0003 percent, in my opinion, whereas #5 has at least a snowball's chance of winning it all. I don't think I would want it to expand beyond 8 teams tho. I would say expansion to 8 or no expansion at all.
If a name brand team can lose two games every year and still make the playoff, are you really going to try and convince yourself that the Alabama-Auburn, or Ohio State-Michigan game has the same meaning during the regular season? Or even Nebraska-Iowa? (assuming we get back to badass status) Part of what makes CFB so exciting is the "sudden death" games they play in the regular season, remove that, and it doesn't matter who wins those rivalry games late. Way to much passion for games that mean so much would be stripped away. Who doesn't want to hold their victory over their rival for 12 months until they get another crack at them? You just eliminated all the smack talk between fan bases because the losing tem could still make a playoff, and the winner might have to sit at home, thereby negating what should have the passionate feel of victory over your rival.
If Iowa is already out of the playoff, but manages an upset of Nebraska late, but we're ranked high enough to get to an 8 team playoff anyway, you just screwed Iowa fans out of their thrill of victory IMO, Is what I'm trying to say. Of course the same could work in reverse...YEAH RIGHT!! Like Iowa is going to get anywhere near a playoff anytime soon, my bad!!!
If Iowa is already out of the playoff, but manages an upset of Nebraska late, but we're ranked high enough to get to an 8 team playoff anyway, you just screwed Iowa fans out of their thrill of victory IMO, Is what I'm trying to say. Of course the same could work in reverse...YEAH RIGHT!! Like Iowa is going to get anywhere near a playoff anytime soon, my bad!!!
I guess to time the question is, "Who is deserving?," not "Who doesn't belong?" By that I mean a 1 loss #5 ranked team is just as deserving as the 1 loss #4 ranked team at least 50% of the time.
We can talk about any number of 2 loss teams getting in as being undeserving, and I would agree. But to me that would be a necessary evil if it gives a chance to a deserving 1 loss team.
Again, if it stays 4 teams I'm fine with that. But if they expanded to 8 I would support that too.
But the #5 team isn't as deserving as the #4 team, because they are #5.
The ingredients used to determine the final poll take place over months and months of on the field play, this isn't figure skating or Olympic diving where it's subjective scoring. We have data to draw on from about 13 games, and if the #5 team is good enough to get in, then they'd be #4, not #5. You can use your argument for the #8 & 9 team, the # 16 & 17 team, etc. It would never end.
In an 8 team tournament, a number 5 seed would have to theoretically beat
#4 quarters
#1 semis
#2 finals
exactly the same as the 8 seed but in different order
#1 quarters
#4 semis
#2 finals
Just food for thought.
#4 quarters
#1 semis
#2 finals
exactly the same as the 8 seed but in different order
#1 quarters
#4 semis
#2 finals
Just food for thought.
No one seems to have a problem with teams getting into basketball tournament with winning percentages below 60%. Those teams have already shown they can be beaten 10-15 times and aren't even one of the top two or three teams in their respective conference. So, why is there a problem with a 2 loss football team (which would give it a winning percentage of at least 80% in most cases) getting in if it turns out to be one of the top 8 teams in the country, according to whatever parameters are used?
Basketball has more conferences, yes, but that doesn't account for the fact that we are still including the 5th, 6th and even 7th place team in some conferences. Why is that o.k (and wildly popular), but somehow adding 4 teams and one more round in football will ruin the meaning of the season? Conference championships still mean something. Seeding position would still make those games very important. I don't hear anyone bemoan that the basketball regular season doesn't mean anything, or that North Carolina vs Duke isn't just as important. Didn't seem to render the season (or Dallas vs. Detroit Bears vs. Packers) meaningless when the NFL expanded the playoffs.
Don't really care much whether its four or eight, but I don't buy the argument that it would render the regular season or any particular game any less meaningful.
Basketball has more conferences, yes, but that doesn't account for the fact that we are still including the 5th, 6th and even 7th place team in some conferences. Why is that o.k (and wildly popular), but somehow adding 4 teams and one more round in football will ruin the meaning of the season? Conference championships still mean something. Seeding position would still make those games very important. I don't hear anyone bemoan that the basketball regular season doesn't mean anything, or that North Carolina vs Duke isn't just as important. Didn't seem to render the season (or Dallas vs. Detroit Bears vs. Packers) meaningless when the NFL expanded the playoffs.
Don't really care much whether its four or eight, but I don't buy the argument that it would render the regular season or any particular game any less meaningful.
By definition if you can lose multiple games and still play for a championship the regular season is less meaningful than if you couldn't lose a game and still play for a title.
comparing a 12 game regular football season to a 30 game regular basketball season is pointless. It is apples to peanut brittle comparison.
When a team can finish 12th in a 14 team conference, win more games in a conference tournament than they did in the league regular season, and be the league representative in the championship tournament, that is the very definition of a meaningless regular season.
Additionally the popularity of the event doesn't prove the championship field is represented by the best or most deserving teams. It just means people watch it.
Professional wrestling is popular and the winner is predetermined. There are dudes in YouTube that get paid millions to have people watch them eat.
Professional wrestling is popular and the winner is predetermined. There are dudes in YouTube that get paid millions to have people watch them eat.
Even if the playoff field expanded to 8 teams, there would still be people crying that it's not enough and teams are getting left out.
NCAA men's basketball was once a small tournament. Then it expanded to 32 teams. More money + teams being left out expanded it to 40. Then 48.
Then some more play ins and pretty soon it was at 64. Teams still being left out. So it was expended to 65.
Still teams being left out.
Now it's at 68. And the FIRST show every year after the selection process includes.......... a pile of crying about the teams that got "snubbed". In a field of 68.
If there are reasons to expand the college football field from 4, OK.
But there is a negative one million% chance that people will quit crying that teams are being left out regardless of the size of the field.
NCAA men's basketball was once a small tournament. Then it expanded to 32 teams. More money + teams being left out expanded it to 40. Then 48.
Then some more play ins and pretty soon it was at 64. Teams still being left out. So it was expended to 65.
Still teams being left out.
Now it's at 68. And the FIRST show every year after the selection process includes.......... a pile of crying about the teams that got "snubbed". In a field of 68.
If there are reasons to expand the college football field from 4, OK.
But there is a negative one million% chance that people will quit crying that teams are being left out regardless of the size of the field.
So #5 and 1 loss team is less deserving than #4 and 1 loss team because the polls say so? You really believe the polls aren't subjective?
I think you missed my point... I get that you can play the game over and over that there will always be someone left out... but why did we go to four teams? BCS pitted 1 versus 2 every year. That's what we wanted all along. Why go to four then? Because you could legitimately make a case for #3 from time to time. Now in a 4 team playoff you can have 2 teams that are undefeated and 3 teams with 1 loss... which of those 3 is left out? You know what? We never should have gone to 4 teams.
But no one is saying that. 4 teams is fairer than just 2, unless you're the #5 team. and what I tried to emphasize in my previous post is that #5 could legitimately run the table, but I don't believe #9 could make that argument. So you cap it at 8 and let in 1 or 2 two loss teams. Don't play the game that #9 is left out...
Subjective is irrelevant that's the system. 3 believed they were just as or more deserving than 2, 5 believes they were just as or more deserving than 4. After they expanded once, like happened from 2 to 4 teams, and used opportunity as the reason, it's tough to get the toothpaste back in the tube. Now 5 feels cheated and so will 9 if it goes to 8. Hell the number of teams believed to be optimal is subjective. That point has been proven over the 2 pages in this thread.
Again great discussion
Again great discussion
It is limited by the number of games you can reasonably expect to be played within a college football season, as well as injury concerns in football vs. say basketball. If it is expanded to 8, I think the noted limiting factors will come into play to prevent further expansion. GBR
I agree with you, that is a limiting factor.
Another limiting factor I think hasn't been brought up yet is home game revenue. I was discussing Big Ten conference scheduling with a friend who is a Texas fan and was asking why so many Big Ten teams aren't playing any non-conference road games. I said that NU didn't because they need to make sure they have 7 home games each year for budget purposes, and this year with the new 9-game conference schedule, they only had 4 conference home games and needed all 3 non-conference games to be home games to reach 7. While he thought that was outrageous to not play any road non-conference games, he understood it.
I wonder how many other major football schools are in the same boat and would fight playoff expansion because it could eliminate a regular season game (potentially a home game every other year). This is an advantage major football schools have over others, and I doubt they'd be willing to relinquish that advantage.
Similar threads
