........ Playoff size

[ElTexan]

Given your druthers, what size would you make the CFB playoffs?

 

[uncfan103]

Last year I would've said 8, but I don't see anything wrong with what we've got. I'll see how the committee decides things after championship games. I would've liked everyone to have a shot at a title at the start but this will work for now

 

[TheRedPlectrum]

8.

5 Power-5 Champions.

3 At-Large, with stipulations allowing 1 Group Of Five conference champion to be included.

 

[occupant]

5 "champs" from the P5 or an indy.
2 highest ranked non-champs from the P5 or an indy.
1 non-P5.

 

[Wazmankg]

8 minimum.

 

[Desean12345]

8 is the perfect amount.

Nothing more though.

 

[WABLTY]

Another for 8. I think that's ideal.

 

[bksballer89]

6

5 Power 5 division winner and 1 at large bid

 

[ElTexan]

6

5 Power 5 division winner and 1 at large bid

then vote

 

[tech_iceman]

6 for sure

8 could probably work

16 is too fucking many

 

[WhiteMamba]

6

Set up just like NFL conference bracket.
Re-seeding and the like.

 

[WhiteMamba]

6 for sure

8 could probably work

16 is too fucking many

110% this

 

[bksballer89]

Yeah if you go to 16 it is very possible you have some 3 or 4 L teams in there.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Yeah if you go to 16 it is very possible you have some 3 or 4 L teams in there.

Blazes bout to put up 130!!

ripcity!!!!

 

[bksballer89]

Blazes bout to put up 130!!

ripcity!!!!

That's it? After having 84 at halftime? I'm disappointed

 

[WhiteMamba]

That's it? After having 84 at halftime? I'm disappointed

Air Sasquatch!!

Chris Kaman is my favorite Blazer

 

[ElTexan]

I think, even at 8, you'll never see a blue blood or even tier 1 team schedule a tough opponent ever again. I'm including:

Blue Blood: TX, OU, Bama, USC, ND, Mich, tOSU
Tier 1: Oregon, UCLA, Stanford, UF, UGA, FSU, LSU, Wisky, NU*, etc.
...or any team that had recent hype in the media...

Most of the above teams would know that with one loss, they'd pretty much be a shoe-in for 8-team playoff... why try to bolster SOS by scheduling a hard team.

*Is NU a blue-blood?

 

[longhorn718]

Yes Nebraska is a blue blood.

As for the one-loss argument, at only 4 teams, it's even more important to go undefeated. I think it's riskier to have one loss now specifically because there will be too many with the same record going for the same spot. There is less incentive to schedule the tougher OOC because the P5 conference schedules are tough enough.

However, by expanding to 8, there is some breathing room and more forgiveness for a loss, especially if it's to a good (or at least solid) P5 opponent. Less risk, more benefit, moar good football.

 

[ElTexan]

Yes Nebraska is a blue blood.

As for the one-loss argument, at only 4 teams, it's even more important to go undefeated. I think it's riskier to have one loss now specifically because there will be too many with the same record going for the same spot. There is less incentive to schedule the tougher OOC because the P5 conference schedules are tough enough.

However, by expanding to 8, there is some breathing room and more forgiveness for a loss, especially if it's to a good (or at least solid) P5 opponent. Less risk, more benefit, moar good football.

I see that angle too, but I don't think it goes in the direction you're thinking, not at all.
My thoughts:

I'm a coach of a Tier 1 school looking at a 4 team playoff: I know there will probably be a few teams with 1 loss. I need to bolster my SOS. Other side of the coin: I run a small risk of that hard OOC game being my loss and there be many undefeated teams that year.

I'm the same coach of the same Tier 1 looking at an 8 team playoff: I know if I'm one of the many one-loss teams, I get placed toward the top of that list. I don't need to worry about scheduling hard OOC.

The risk in a 4-Team Playoff of losing the hard OOC game and there being lots of undefeateds to push you out of the Playoff is very small.

Plus, you never listed an incentive for scheduling harder OOC in an 8-Team playoff... you just said there might be more breathing room than in a 4team scheme... I listed a disincentive for a Tier 1 team: having a second loss and losing that default spot at the top of the 1-loss teams.

For a tier 1 team, The first loss in a 4 team playoff scheme is much less devastating than the 2nd loss in an 8 team playoff scheme. I don't even think it's close

 

[Tomhusker]

I think 16 is good. 8 is too few as most years any top 10 team can beat any other one. Go with 16, thats only 4 rounds.