........ Playoff size

[ElTexan]

On top of all that has been said before, we must not lose sight of one thing that i believe everyone is losing sight of...
It seems that everyone is talking about "who should qualify for whatever playoff?" when the real question is "which team is the best in the country?"

So, while every few years the #3-ranked team has a legitimate claim to be the answer to the latter [substantive] question, there has never been in the history of ever friggin' ever a #5-ranked team with a legitimate claim to be the answer to that question.

*and let's just say that someone here scours the last 2 decades for an example of a #5 having a teensy tangential claim to that... after the Champ of a 4 team playoff beats two top teams to win the championship, it won't matter.

 

[potzer25]

2007?

6 or 8 is the max that makes sense.

 

[longhorn718]

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

Oops, incomplete thought on my part. My bad. The incentive to maintain a tougher SOS in an 8-team playoff is because there are generally more than 8 undefeated or 1-loss teams. Right now, in both the CFP and AP polls (which doesn't matter for the playoff but bringing up here for illustrative purposes), Duke and Nebraska are sitting with one loss but outside of the top 8. An undefeated season is a lot tougher to accomplish than a 1-loss season, and I think it's good insurance or good will or whatever you want to call it to have a strong SOS to back you up in the event of a loss.

If you lose more than 1, you probably aren't part of the conversation either way, so it's a consolation bowl for you. There are more deserving teams that get 1 loss versus the number of deserving with 2 losses, so I actually think the idea of a second loss being more devastating in either scenario doesn't float. It's equally devastating because you're out. However, let's play devil's advocate - would you want to be the 1-loss team that gets jumped by a 2-loss team because your SOS sucked? There will be those years where losses are more numerous all around, so that may happen down the road.

Speaking of jumping, this week a one-loss Oregon jumped an undefeated FSU in the CFP poll. An undefeated P5 team isn't getting bumped out of an 8-team playoff, so the issue here is seeding. Between the 8 teams comes the discussion of better losses and wins. Depending on how geography plays into seeding in an expanded format, it might be a huge ass deal.

Undefeated Marshall is probably never going to see the inside of top 10 let alone 8, and the same goes for Colorado State. It comes down to SOS. It's going to be even more fierce a competition at that level since it's only for one spot (or maybe more if wildcards can be anyone but still limited).

 

[ElTexan]

Oops, incomplete thought on my part. My bad. The incentive to maintain a tougher SOS in an 8-team playoff is because there are generally more than 8 undefeated or 1-loss teams. .

IMO:
For the several tier-1 teams who by default get put atop the 1-loss team pile, That's barely an incentive in an 8-team scheme COMPARED to risking a second loss...

In a 4-team scheme, the risks of getting that first loss vs. the risk of not having a good enough SOS to compete for fewer spots with the same bucket 1-loss teams you mention are much closer together.

 

[ElTexan]

*The Marshalls and Colorado States of the world don't factor into my argument.. my argument is for the blue bloods and tier 1 teams... which are the ones which would be giving us fans the "moar bettah games" we are concerned about.

 

[longhorn718]

*The Marshalls and Colorado States of the world don't factor into my argument.. my argument is for the blue bloods and tier 1 teams... which are the ones which would be giving us fans the "moar bettah games" we are concerned about.

It does affect the blue bloods and tier 1s because the Marshalls and Colorado States of the world would be more open to scheduling them. Also, that would be the caliber of G5 teams the P5 teams should be looking to schedule. Let's face it - we're never going to see an all-P5 OOC by all of the top P5 schools. The goal, then, should be to improve from FCS and non-bowl eligible or barely eligible OOC opponents.

 

[bamafan4evr12]

At the very least it needs to be 6. At most 8. I voted 8. I don't care if they go based on the top 8 teams in the country (I know everyone here is opposed to that idea) or the P5 conference champs.

Also it needs to be made mandatory that no FBS teams play FCS teams.

 

[yeodonie]

4. Go back to BCS formula but replace coaches poll with AP or SportsHoopla

 

[uncfan103]

At the very least it needs to be 6. At most 8. I voted 8. I don't care if they go based on the top 8 teams in the country (I know everyone here is opposed to that idea) or the P5 conference champs.

Also it needs to be made mandatory that no FBS teams play FCS teams.

That's how FBS schools fund their athletic department. The NCAA isn't going to mandate destroying programs like that

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Where's the option for 32???

 

[Inquisitor95]

 

[ElTexan]

Bump

 

[ElTexan]

So, we don't have to rehash arguments: bump

 

[ElTexan]

On top of all that has been said before, we must not lose sight of one thing that i believe everyone is losing sight of...
It seems that everyone is talking about "who should qualify for whatever playoff?" when the real question is "which team is the best in the country?"

So, while every few years the #3-ranked team has a legitimate claim to be the answer to the latter [substantive] question, there has never been in the history of ever friggin' ever a #5-ranked team with a legitimate claim to be the answer to that question.

*and let's just say that someone here scours the last 2 decades for an example of a #5 having a teensy tangential claim to that... after the Champ of a 4 team playoff beats two top teams to win the championship, it won't matter.

Bump

 

[ericd7633]

4

But with using the BCS formula, with the CFP Top 25(not the coaches poll), the old Harris Poll and the CPU's.

 

[Yo Tee]

6 with the same system the NFL works with. #1 and #2 get byes while #3 plays #6 and #4 plays #5.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I think 8 is ideal for the way our system currently exists. It isn't overly drastic in change and doesn't take much (if anything) away from anything else.

But I vote for 16 because... well I am a fan of college football. What more reason do you need?

 

[7Samurai13]

256, we want to make sure we don’t leave out FCS teams that could win it all.

 

[WizardHawk]

256, we want to make sure we don’t leave out FCS teams that could win it all.

 

[PhilSimms11]

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

If you went by 10 automatics and 6 at-larges:
(1)Clemson (12-1) vs (16)Troy (10-2)
(8)USC (11-2) vs (9)Penn St (10-2)*

(4)Alabama (11-1)* vs (13)Boise St (10-3)
(5)Ohio St (11-2) vs (12)UCF (12-0)

(2)Oklahoma (12-1) vs (15)Toledo (11-2)
(7)Auburn (10-3)* vs (10)Miami (10-2)*

(3)Georgia (12-1) vs (14)FAU (10-3)
(6)Wisconsin (12-1)* vs (11)Washington (10-2)*
(*)at-large

----------

Strictly the top-16
(1)Clemson (12-1) vs (16)TCU (10-3)
(8)USC (11-2) vs (9)Penn St (10-2)

(4)Alabama (11-1) vs (13)Stanford (9-4)
(5)Ohio St (11-2) vs (12)UCF (12-0)

(2)Oklahoma (12-1) vs (15)Michigan St (9-3)
(7)Auburn (10-3) vs (10)Miami (10-2)

(3)Georgia (12-1) vs (14)Notre Dame (9-3)
(6)Wisconsin (12-1) vs (11)Washington (10-2)
NOTE: I switched (16)Michigan St and (15)TCU because nobody wants to see OU-TCU for a 3rd time. OU won both games (38-20 and 41-17).

I'm not a fan of either of these ideas with all due respect, but I appreciate the desire for more than four. I contend that an 8-team playoff for the Power 5 and an 8-team playoff for the Group of 5 would be satisfactory.