Should the CFP really be expanded to 6 or 8 teams?

huskerj12

Head Coach
Gold Member
Oct 3, 2007
11,760
18,201
113
I don't really know what I want. Haha. The non-championship playoff games haven't really lived up to the hype other than just adding two more games to watch, but since they're not going anywhere I do love the idea of having 8 teams and playing the first round on campuses.

How to decide on those 8 teams is kind of tough though obviously. If all that matters is winning your conference championship game, then weekly rankings have no value anymore, and you run the risk of having a bizarre year like 2012 which would've sent 8-5 Wisconsin into the playoffs.

I think what would make the most sense is to forgo conference championship games and have the conference champion just be named by record/tiebreakers like in the old days. Of course that presents its own challenges because conferences have so many teams now and don't all play each other, so tiebreaker rules would need to be really clear.

I dunno, it's fun to think of ideas but I definitely don't think there will ever be a "right" way to do the playoffs in college football.

 
We are in an era of inclusiveness and I don't like it. There is no way there are more than 4 teams that deserve to be the national champion and most years I will argue there are only one or two. So if everyone wants a 8-4 or 9-3 SEC team to get included and then because of venue selection get a home field advantage and goes on to knock of a better team.by all means lets get more teams in. If it were up to me and it is not I would leave it to the two top teams and play the game. (as an example. Everyone knew last year by the second game that Clemson and Alabama were far superior to every other team. ND and OU were very undeserving teams. The 2014 Alabama semi final game with Ohio State was close and the 2017 game with Georgia and OU was close all the rest of the playoff games have been blow-outs)
A six team format, with the top non-P5 (AAC, C-USA, MWC, MAC and Sun Belt) program against the champion of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac 12 and SEC seems reasonable.

Your reasons are why I prefer the current 4 compared to having 3 at-large teams. fwiw
 
I don’t like the idea of one of the power 5 Conference champions being left out of the playoffs..

And there maybe 2 teams in the same division that both are as good as teams in the playoffs that gives you 2 at large berths and a UCF or Notre Dame would make the 8 team playoffs..
If you expand to five champions all being selected, why should a team that doesn't play for a conference championship qualify?
 

scarletred

Nebraska Legend
Jun 17, 2001
35,141
12,220
113
If you expand to five champions all being selected, why should a team that doesn't play for a conference championship qualify?
Answer would be a one loss Bama team.
Example: 2017 and 2013.

That is why 8 is better than 6..
 
Last edited:

RedCap

Nebraska Legend
Sep 29, 2001
71,648
14,766
113
I think most people assume that if the playoffs were expanded that the championship would have more parity, but I actually think the opposite would be true. Teams like Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State have such a massive recruiting advantage that adding additional layers to the playoffs would make the path to a championship even more difficult for teams like Nebraska. Think of it like this, would you rather play Alabama in a best-of-three for the title or a best-of-five?
How could those schools have more of a recruiting advantage than they already have? Don't follow your logic at all.
 

RedCap

Nebraska Legend
Sep 29, 2001
71,648
14,766
113
If you expand to five champions all being selected, why should a team that doesn't play for a conference championship qualify?
Because there are teams that may be worthy beyond the P5 - independents and non-P5 conferences.
 

redfanusa

First Team All-Big Ten
Feb 6, 2009
3,887
2,457
113
An eight team playoff would give the participants in the championship game a full six weeks of extra practice compared to a team that didn't make a bowl game. If you want parity in college football, then that's the last thing you want. That's 50% extra practice time to develop your players over the course of a season, which is HUGE considering the NCAA greatly reduced coaches' contact with the athletes a few years ago.

Now, if you tell me that the NCAA is going to allow non-bowl teams to have four weeks of "winter" practice, to keep things fair, then I'm fine with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: saluno22

SkerinDallas

Redshirt Freshman
Feb 14, 2010
634
652
93
An eight team playoff would give the participants in the championship game a full six weeks of extra practice compared to a team that didn't make a bowl game. If you want parity in college football, then that's the last thing you want. That's 50% extra practice time to develop your players over the course of a season, which is HUGE considering the NCAA greatly reduced coaches' contact with the athletes a few years ago.

Now, if you tell me that the NCAA is going to allow non-bowl teams to have four weeks of "winter" practice, to keep things fair, then I'm fine with it.
Not necessarily. The playoff would likely just start a week earlier. But, I am completely fine with going back to the BCS or pre-BCS method of determining an NC, so...
 
  • Like
Reactions: huskerj12
Earlier this spring, Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez said the selection committee is no longer "following criteria" during the process and the Big Ten has felt the brunt of it.

"I was never satisfied with (the BCS) and thought four (teams) really helped college football,” Alvarez said. “I thought that would be it. But when our league is left out of the Playoff three years in a row, I’m not happy about that. I don’t think we have followed the criteria set by the commissioners in naming those four teams. There’s a way you could go to eight teams very easily, starting a week early with a bye with the top 4 seeds. Any team would have a chance to win. I think it will expand, I just don’t know when.”
 

Jhollenbeck41

Senior
Gold Member
Nov 29, 2018
2,927
3,785
113
8 teams- 1000%, Power 5 Conference Champions, 3 at-large bids from Group of 5. If you're not in a conference, snooze ya lose in my opinion, get it fixed if you want a chance. 3 at large being the UCF concept. 8 teams, no room to complain, and no one will take the person serious if they do complain. Group of 5 teams: if you're not in the top 3 best Group of 5 teams in the nation, then you don't belong. Simple as that.
 

pawildcat

Newbie
Sep 15, 2006
98
81
18
I don't really know what I want. Haha. The non-championship playoff games haven't really lived up to the hype other than just adding two more games to watch, but since they're not going anywhere I do love the idea of having 8 teams and playing the first round on campuses.

How to decide on those 8 teams is kind of tough though obviously. If all that matters is winning your conference championship game, then weekly rankings have no value anymore, and you run the risk of having a bizarre year like 2012 which would've sent 8-5 Wisconsin into the playoffs.

I think what would make the most sense is to forgo conference championship games and have the conference champion just be named by record/tiebreakers like in the old days. Of course that presents its own challenges because conferences have so many teams now and don't all play each other, so tiebreaker rules would need to be really clear.

I dunno, it's fun to think of ideas but I definitely don't think there will ever be a "right" way to do the playoffs in college football.

In an eight-team playoff with three at-large teams, rankings would definitely matter. The problem right now is that rankings are ALL that matter. There is no incentive for any team to play strong OOC schedules because sometimes you're screwed by a single loss.
 

Tuco Salamanca

Offensive Coordinator
Aug 18, 2016
9,391
12,226
113
Albuquerque
In an eight-team playoff with three at-large teams, rankings would definitely matter. The problem right now is that rankings are ALL that matter. There is no incentive for any team to play strong OOC schedules because sometimes you're screwed by a single loss.
So playing a tougher schedule and having multiple losses would somehow prove a team is the best?

In a 14 game season every loss should matter. Each loss should carry significant weight, potentially eliminating a team from consideration as THE BEST team in the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dean Pope

pawildcat

Newbie
Sep 15, 2006
98
81
18
So playing a tougher schedule and having multiple losses would somehow prove a team is the best?

In a 14 game season every loss should matter. Each loss should carry significant weight, potentially eliminating a team from consideration as THE BEST team in the country.
(1) Doubtful a team with multiple losses (meaning more than two) is going to make an eight-team playoff in an average year. (2) So what you're saying is playing patsies in the OOC schedule is the way to go? Whatever.
 

Tuco Salamanca

Offensive Coordinator
Aug 18, 2016
9,391
12,226
113
Albuquerque
(1) Doubtful a team with multiple losses (meaning more than two) is going to make an eight-team playoff in an average year. (2) So what you're saying is playing patsies in the OOC schedule is the way to go? Whatever.
Not doubtful at all to have a multiple loss team (defined as more than 1) in an 8 team playoff if you guarantee all P5 conference champs a spot. The only year it wouldn’t have happened was the first year of the CFP. Not one of the teams that have played in the 4 team playoff has had more than 1 loss.

I still can’t think of a year since 2014 where there was any doubt that the team who won the CFP was the best team in the country. What the expansion talk is about is nothing more than giving more teams a shot. Basically lowering the bar for no other reason than 1 of the P5 conferences champs gets left out.
 

Win5002

Newbie
Jan 3, 2006
32
12
8
College Football Playoff is pretty good at 4.

Elite, only 9 programs, since 2014. Far better than BCS era.
Why not just go with 5 P5 winners and #6.

#7 and #8 gives it a NFL flavor.
I actually prefer at least a 16 team playoff and a 24 team like FCS currently has would even be better. Then we could completely scrap meaningless, post-season exhibition bowl games! The CCG's border on meaningless too because we still can find people not making the game in a league and still make the playoffs and some day we will see someone that loses the game also make it. A lot of that could be alleviated by eliminating divisions and having a single set of standings for each conference. An expanded playoffs could even be ran through conference semi-finals and CCG's if we had 4 power leagues, then they would have meaning.

The only positive of a 6 game playoff is we could completely remove the human element of choosing what P5 teams at least get in. It would only be conference champs and then have a play-in game of the 2 highest G5 teams for the 6th spot, no picking a P5 team that didn't win their conference. ND if you want to participate you better join someone or let the ACC figure them in their standings for their conference champion somehow. Independence has a cost.

Eight teams is definitely better from a number standpoint but everyone plays their way in this way and we take the picking and choosing out of it.

Probably better is 16 teams where the top 3 from each power league automatically are in and the highest rated G5, once again it makes sense to have a G5 championship game. There would be no reason for CCG's in this case with 5 P5 leagues.
 

Top_Gun_

Junior
Feb 22, 2019
1,995
2,241
113
Not doubtful at all to have a multiple loss team (defined as more than 1) in an 8 team playoff if you guarantee all P5 conference champs a spot. The only year it wouldn’t have happened was the first year of the CFP. Not one of the teams that have played in the 4 team playoff has had more than 1 loss.

I still can’t think of a year since 2014 where there was any doubt that the team who won the CFP was the best team in the country. What the expansion talk is about is nothing more than giving more teams a shot. Basically lowering the bar for no other reason than 1 of the P5 conferences champs gets left out.
I'm in favor of expansion to an FCS-style tournament, but this is a very good point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole

husker2612

Graduate Assistant
Nov 29, 2010
5,988
5,114
113
Im sure nobody agrees but I have said for awhile the ONLY way to find a true NC is to first find a true Conf champion. The only way to find a true conf champion is to play every team in your conf. Every p5 goes to 14 teams. No more out of conf games, they are pointless and meaningless. Conf like the SEC just use them to pad their w totals anyways. Make them take those 4 worthless games and prove it. So 14 teams 13 conf games. No more conf championship. Best conf record at year end goes to the playoff. So 5 conf champions and 3 at large, voted on by all the coaches. For those teams who don't make the playoff use the bowl games for your out of conf games. So Neb vs Okla types.
 
Jun 20, 2001
2,776
5,223
113
I think it should go to 8 but that won't reduce controversy one bit over who gets in.

March madness takes, what, 68 now? They've already reserved hours next selection Sunday to bemoan who got "snubbed".
 
Last edited:
I don't really know what I want. Haha. The non-championship playoff games haven't really lived up to the hype other than just adding two more games to watch, but since they're not going anywhere I do love the idea of having 8 teams and playing the first round on campuses.

How to decide on those 8 teams is kind of tough though obviously. If all that matters is winning your conference championship game, then weekly rankings have no value anymore, and you run the risk of having a bizarre year like 2012 which would've sent 8-5 Wisconsin into the playoffs.

I think what would make the most sense is to forgo conference championship games and have the conference champion just be named by record/tiebreakers like in the old days. Of course that presents its own challenges because conferences have so many teams now and don't all play each other, so tiebreaker rules would need to be really clear.

I dunno, it's fun to think of ideas but I definitely don't think there will ever be a "right" way to do the playoffs in college football.

With 14 teams in the Big Ten, you need a conference title game, which in many ways is a first round game to the playoff system, though there are only 4 teams currently.

I doubt we see expansion ever to 16 or 20 teams, like FCS.

A Big Ten title should be played.
 

Tuco Salamanca

Offensive Coordinator
Aug 18, 2016
9,391
12,226
113
Albuquerque
With 14 teams in the Big Ten, you need a conference title game, which in many ways is a first round game to the playoff system, though there are only 4 teams currently.

I doubt we see expansion ever to 16 or 20 teams, like FCS.

A Big Ten title should be played.
Of course it should be played. There is a need to crown a conference champion. Most rational people believe that each conference should crown a champion. Where I disagree is on the premise that just because you win a conference title that you are automatically one of the 8 best teams in the country. As I said a couple of days ago, very few people argue that the team that won the national title, since 2014, wasn’t the best team in the country that season, adding 4 teams or 20 teams does absolutely nothing to ensure the best team wins the title. In fact, I would argue, that it would increase the chances that the best team doesn’t win the title.

How many times has the #1 overall seed won a title in any sport outside of UConn women’s basketball? Adding more teams isn’t the answer to “proving” who the best team is. The only thing adding more teams does is give more teams a chance to play for a title.

If 1994 was a 4 team playoff, Nebraska would have had to play Colorado again in the semi and then beat the winner of Penn St and Miami a week later. If it was an 8 team playoff,
Nebraska would have had to beat K state again, the winner of Colorado vs Florida, AND the survivor of Penn St, Miami, Alabama and Florida St. Maybe they make it thru that, maybe they don’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GILL T

huskerfan1414

Graduate Assistant
Oct 25, 2014
5,590
6,377
113
I have posted here before of why I dont beliee the idea of playoff expansion will solve a thing, nor do I believe automatic conference champs will. I dont feel like hashing it all out again, but people are not rhinking clearly if they believe expanding the playoff will fix anything.

Keep in mind that there is no perfect system. No chance.

Having said that, they should keep it at four and set some parameters that they actually stick with.

Or, they should go back to the pre bcs format and force the big ten to play in their bowls of selection if they want a shot at a NC and make ND join a conference. This would be the best but wont happen. Since it wont, keep four with new parameters.

Going to sixteen and a ten game schedule makes more sense than 8, but less sense when considering scheduling.

It just isnt possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: saluno22

huskerfan1414

Graduate Assistant
Oct 25, 2014
5,590
6,377
113
Of course it should be played. There is a need to crown a conference champion. Most rational people believe that each conference should crown a champion. Where I disagree is on the premise that just because you win a conference title that you are automatically one of the 8 best teams in the country. As I said a couple of days ago, very few people argue that the team that won the national title, since 2014, wasn’t the best team in the country that season, adding 4 teams or 20 teams does absolutely nothing to ensure the best team wins the title. In fact, I would argue, that it would increase the chances that the best team doesn’t win the title.

How many times has the #1 overall seed won a title in any sport outside of UConn women’s basketball? Adding more teams isn’t the answer to “proving” who the best team is. The only thing adding more teams does is give more teams a chance to play for a title.

If 1994 was a 4 team playoff, Nebraska would have had to play Colorado again in the semi and then beat the winner of Penn St and Miami a week later. If it was an 8 team playoff,
Nebraska would have had to beat K state again, the winner of Colorado vs Florida, AND the survivor of Penn St, Miami, Alabama and Florida St. Maybe they make it thru that, maybe they don’t.
Yes! As I said last year, why should Alabama have to worry about beating Georgia again? They already did. An eight team playoff would have made that game completely meaningless for both teams and fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GILL T
Barry Alvarez appears to suggest that the College Football Playoff Committee needs to follow the current guidelines and that is where the problem lies.

Last year, other than Clemson, the ACC was a joke, strength wise.

This year, the Big Ten looks geared to beat up on one another, which certainly has happened over the past 40 years before.

Nebraska should improve in Year 2 under Scott Frost. Depth will be tested, like most in the Big Ten West.

Clemson is projected to win with either #1 or #2 QB in the ACC, again.

We shall see how it all plays out.
 

scarletred

Nebraska Legend
Jun 17, 2001
35,141
12,220
113
Barry Alvarez appears to suggest that the College Football Playoff Committee needs to follow the current guidelines and that is where the problem lies.

Last year, other than Clemson, the ACC was a joke, strength wise.

This year, the Big Ten looks geared to beat up on one another, which certainly has happened over the past 40 years before.
40 years? You Make is sound like the Big 10 was a juggernaut conference every year of those 40 years..
 

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,992
2,847
113
Im sure nobody agrees but I have said for awhile the ONLY way to find a true NC is to first find a true Conf champion. The only way to find a true conf champion is to play every team in your conf. Every p5 goes to 14 teams. No more out of conf games, they are pointless and meaningless. Conf like the SEC just use them to pad their w totals anyways. Make them take those 4 worthless games and prove it. So 14 teams 13 conf games. No more conf championship. Best conf record at year end goes to the playoff. So 5 conf champions and 3 at large, voted on by all the coaches. For those teams who don't make the playoff use the bowl games for your out of conf games. So Neb vs Okla types.
I could get on board with this, but even if we had a system where every conference team plays all of the other teams in their conference you still have the chance of 3 or 4 way ties to determine who plays in the CCG, and the tie breakers could be kind of arbitrary. Pie in the sky thinking, but if you could form 5-12 team conferences and have only conference games throughout the course of the season, plus a CCG who would produce 5 automatic bids and then give 3 at-large bids by coaches vote it would be as fair of a system as there possibly could be.
 

scarletred

Nebraska Legend
Jun 17, 2001
35,141
12,220
113
Very few teams go undefeated in 2019.

Ohio State and Michigan will likely be included.
The Big 10 has had only 5 teams go unbeaten in 50 years.

2002 tOSU
1997 Michigan
1994 Penn St
1973 Michigan/tOSU
1968 tOSU
 

husker2612

Graduate Assistant
Nov 29, 2010
5,988
5,114
113
I could get on board with this, but even if we had a system where every conference team plays all of the other teams in their conference you still have the chance of 3 or 4 way ties to determine who plays in the CCG, and the tie breakers could be kind of arbitrary. Pie in the sky thinking, but if you could form 5-12 team conferences and have only conference games throughout the course of the season, plus a CCG who would produce 5 automatic bids and then give 3 at-large bids by coaches vote it would be as fair of a system as there possibly could be.
I like the idea of 11 conf games vs 13. Who would you kick out or add?


 

huskerfan1414

Graduate Assistant
Oct 25, 2014
5,590
6,377
113
Since I dont like the idea of every conference champ getting in no matter what, but agree that conferences should matter, they should require that in order to make the playoff you have to win your conference.
5 power conferences.
Weakest conference champ left out.
No 3 or more loss teams would have a chance to make it, thus protecting the integrity of the regular season.
No teams who dont win their conference can make it, thus protecting conference integrity and fairness. This naturally creates your de facto extra playoff round everyone wants. The conference titles ARE the other playoff round.

Add in a caveat for the independents that in order to be considered for the playoff they mist go undefeated. Lose once, thats your playoff loss. Your fault for not being in a conference.

The watered down 6-8-12-16 stuff wont make anything better. Keep four or go back to the old way.
 

Dean Pope

Offensive Coordinator
Oct 11, 2001
8,792
1,732
113
I think it should go to 8 but that won't reduce controversy one bit over who gets in.

March madness takes, what, 68 now? They've already reserved hours next selection Sunday to bemoan who got "snubbed".
Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous really. There used to be a conversation about what two teams earned it with the two team playoff. Now it's the four best. If we expand to eight teams, there will be hours of debate about which 10-2 team should have been considered eighth best and got "screwed" out of the right to be a 20 point underdog to Alabama.

And to add to the absurdity, they keep adding bowl games, nobody is in the stands, all of them but one or two are on the same network, and if there is a star player on one of the teams, chances are that guy may skip the game with an "injury".
 
  • Like
Reactions: huskerfan1414

huskerfan1414

Graduate Assistant
Oct 25, 2014
5,590
6,377
113
Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous really. There used to be a conversation about what two teams earned it. Now it's the four best. If we expand to eight teams, there will be hours of debate about which 10-2 team should have been considered eighth best and got "screwed" out of the right to be a 20 point underdog to Alabama.
X10000 will fix NOTHING but allow more unworthy teams a shot and make regular season less awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dean Pope

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,992
2,847
113
I like the idea of 11 conf games vs 13. Who would you kick out or add?
That's a tough question. I think it would have to to a revolving situation but just looking at it from the last 20 years you could probably drop teams that have been afterthoughts or one and done teams in the P5 conferences. The easy ones would be Oregon St, Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, NC st, Wake Forest, UNC, Kansas, Minnesota,and Vandy, and teams that have been banned from postseason play like Ole Miss. Boise St, Fresno St, Notre Dame and UCF get added into the mix. Maybe teams that don't have a winning season for 5 years get dropped and replaced with a lower division team who has a couple of 9+ win seasons in a row.
 

husker2612

Graduate Assistant
Nov 29, 2010
5,988
5,114
113
Im sure nobody agrees but I have said for awhile the ONLY way to find a true NC is to first find a true Conf champion. The only way to find a true conf champion is to play every team in your conf. Every p5 goes to 14 teams. No more out of conf games, they are pointless and meaningless. Conf like the SEC just use them to pad their w totals anyways. Make them take those 4 worthless games and prove it. So 14 teams 13 conf games. No more conf championship. Best conf record at year end goes to the playoff. So 5 conf champions and 3 at large, voted on by all the coaches. For those teams who don't make the playoff use the bowl games for your out of conf games. So Neb vs Okla types.
If you used this system for last year. It would have looked something like:

#1 Clemson vs #8 Washington
#2 Alabama vs #7 Michigan
#3 Ohio St vs #6 Georgia
#4 ND vs #5 Oklahoma
That way UCF could still bitch about it not being fair. :) Or have them Join the BIG12. (they wouldn't have even been close in 17 or 18) Or form a 6th Power Conference and take 6 conf winners and 2 at large. Although the 6th conf would by far be the weakest of the other 5.
 

Latest posts