The case for an 8 Team Playoff

[MNIrishman]

Pre BCS we’d be playing OU and a win would potentially get us a shared natty... I was a huge plus one guy. Play the bowls as they were pre BCS (when they mattered). Retain the regionality, the history and everything that made cfb special to begin with... and at the end of the Bowl season if it’s not decided, play one more... not hard, but people in charge saw dollar signs and fans saw “PLAYOFFS!!!” As if default playoffs are ever a good way to decide a real champion...

Only bitches like Michigan and Alabama claim titles that aren't consensus.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Committee members supposedly "recuse" themselves when discussion turns to teams they have been connected to, or for conference teams that they oversee, but that is ridiculous in and of itself, because they all have several connections spanning multiple conferences, so it leaves pretty significant and overlapping gaps in the discussion.

That, and the recusals don't eliminate the fact that all of the power players in that room have axes to grind with teams that they flat out don't like.

What solutions are there then besides imposing some kind of divisional system onto CFB?

 

[phork]

8 team playoff would have made the SEC title game moot. Both would make it And, well, since most other conferences have one division that sucks the championship games are pointless.

People keep saying 8 teams would have worked "this year". But what about next year? Do we change it every year to accomodate that years scenario? I say stick with 4 and kill conference divisions and have the best 2 teams (#1 and #2) in each conference play their championship game. Yes its harder for ND to get in, frankly ND has to be perfect to even warrant that spot.

Or fold it all and make 4 super conferences of 16 teams each. Then starat relegating the conference cellar dwellars to lower conferences. Bump up the UCFs etc. 9 game conference schedule, plus 1 game from each other conference.

 

[EddytoNow]

Eight teams. All Power 5 conference champions get in. Three at-large.

Balanced conferences are punished now for having competitive conference games resulting in two or three losses. Teams that schedule several patsies are rewarded now based on their inflated won-loss records. If you want quality inter-conference games, teams can't be punished for playing tough schedules. So the conference champions get in.

Highest ranked non-conference team or non-Power 5 team gets in as one of the at-large teams. This is Notre Dame's shot at making the play-offs. They should make the play-offs easily with 1 loss, and sometimes with two losses.

Final two remaining slots go to two highest ranked teams where strength of schedule plays a major part. Rankings could be based on some kind of point system with victories over Power 5 teams worth more points. Teams like Alabama would be forced to win the SEC outright or schedule fewer patsies so they would accumulate more points in the ranking system. I envision a system where a loss to say Georgia or USC would earn you more points than a win over Mercer College.

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

I've always thought it was the right format. Anytime a team that could win the title is not in the playoff, it proves the need for it. And as a basketball guy, the more the merrier! More games, more beer, more fun!

I think a lot of us are overlooking a very, very good point by Crusader here.

In all seriousness, I'm all for an 8 team playoff. Regardless of whether or not it will slightly water down the regular season and the week to week importance (even though I think this is debatable), I think the current playoff system is watered down by not letting a team who is just as deserving to be there at #4 (pOSU), as Oklahoma. A debate is easier settled on the field than it is in a room with 13 pundits talking about it, with their decision being final.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Eight teams. All Power 5 conference champions get in. Three at-large.

Balanced conferences are punished now for having competitive conference games resulting in two or three losses. Teams that schedule several patsies are rewarded now based on their inflated won-loss records. If you want quality inter-conference games, teams can't be punished for playing tough schedules. So the conference champions get in.

Highest ranked non-conference team or non-Power 5 team gets in as one of the at-large teams. This is Notre Dame's shot at making the play-offs. They should make the play-offs easily with 1 loss, and sometimes with two losses.

Final two remaining slots go to two highest ranked teams where strength of schedule plays a major part. Rankings could be based on some kind of point system with victories over Power 5 teams worth more points. Teams like Alabama would be forced to win the SEC outright or schedule fewer patsies so they would accumulate more points in the ranking system. I envision a system where a loss to say Georgia or USC would earn you more points than a win over Mercer College.

Is there an NCAA sport where some conference champs get an automatic bid and some don't?

 

[dad4aa]

I think eliminating CCG's, and having the first round the weekend after Thanksgiving makes the most sense. Winners move on to the semi's and beyond, losers go to traditional ny6 bowl games.

I'd like to say p5 regular season champs should get in automatically, but the Pac-12 made a strong case against that this season. So I'm not sure there should be automatic bids with three at large's or just go with the top 8 by committee regardless of what happens with conference regular season champions.

Regular season champ model would also cause some major conference re-structuring, which might be hard to do.

That is not CCG week, that is the final week of the regular season. We are always in California that week and that is also rivalry week with the Iron Bowl, scUM-pOSU, etc. The first round should be the first weekend in December instead of the CCG.

 

[phork]

Eight teams. All Power 5 conference champions get in. Three at-large.

Balanced conferences are punished now for having competitive conference games resulting in two or three losses. Teams that schedule several patsies are rewarded now based on their inflated won-loss records. If you want quality inter-conference games, teams can't be punished for playing tough schedules. So the conference champions get in.

Highest ranked non-conference team or non-Power 5 team gets in as one of the at-large teams. This is Notre Dame's shot at making the play-offs. They should make the play-offs easily with 1 loss, and sometimes with two losses.

Final two remaining slots go to two highest ranked teams where strength of schedule plays a major part. Rankings could be based on some kind of point system with victories over Power 5 teams worth more points. Teams like Alabama would be forced to win the SEC outright or schedule fewer patsies so they would accumulate more points in the ranking system. I envision a system where a loss to say Georgia or USC would earn you more points than a win over Mercer College.

Pac12 Champ, this year, does not belong in the top8.

 

[BabyIrish]

That is not CCG week, that is the final week of the regular season. We are always in California that week and that is also rivalry week with the Iron Bowl, scUM-pOSU, etc. The first round should be the first weekend in December instead of the CCG.

That's the weekend I meant

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Auto-bids (for conf champs) would be the stupidest thing ever.

Pac12 this year?
What if Pitt or NW would have won?

Conference divisions are so out of whack in the ACC/Big 10 (more). I hate that idea...a team with 8 wins should NEVER be allowed to play in a college football playoff... this isn't basketball.

 

[GATTACA!]

Also, why do (some) people act like 8 teams is going to fix the issues of "teams being left out"?

Now we'll have to listen to #9, 10, 11, etc bitch about how they should be #8...

Hell, NCAA basketball has ~300 teams in their tournament and "bubble teams" still bitch about being left out.

You have way less of a case to complain if you're left out at #9 vs #5. At 5 you can be a 1 loss conference champ with an almost identical resume as the #3 and #4 teams.

At 9 you've lost multiple games, haven't won your conference and have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

You have way less of a case to complain if you're left out at #9 vs #5. At 5 you can be a 1 loss conference champ with an almost identical resume as the #3 and #4 teams.

At 9 you've lost multiple games, haven't won your conference and have no one to blame but yourself.

Wrong.
NW and Pitt would have been ranked worse than #8 (if they won). Both teams would have bumped someone out. There would be hell (in autobid situation).

 

[GATTACA!]

Auto-bids (for conf champs) would be the stupidest thing ever.

Pac12 this year?
What if Pitt or NW would have won?

Conference divisions are so out of whack in the ACC/Big 10 (more). I hate that idea...a team with 8 wins should NEVER be allowed to play in a college football playoff... this isn't basketball.

I agree with you on this one for sure though.

Conference champs should get automatic bids as long as they have 10 fbs wins. Otherwise pound salt.

 

[GATTACA!]

Wrong.
NW and Pitt would have been ranked worse than #8 (if they won). Both teams would have bumped someone out. There would be hell (in autobid situation).

I wasn't talking about auto bids.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

I wasn't talking about auto bids.

1) Auto-bids seem likely at this point, so they should be factored in (loosely, at the very least)

2) You think teams like LSU and UF wouldn't bitch their asses off about being left out this year (in your non-autobid situation)?

There is ALWAYS going to be "bubbles burst" whether that's #3, #5, #9... it doesn't matter. Schools DO complain in NCAA basketball... Think about that.

I agree, #9 should get over it. I also believe #5 (this year) should alos get over it. You can't just keep pushing the line back.

This why the NCAA went to 4 games in the first place. They did wan't to do 8. Now they're seeing all the "consequences" (and room for more profits) and are pushing it out more....

 

[GowerND11]

I'm with many others that say go back pre-BCS and even use a plus 1 with that system.

I also agree with Lax that if we do this, we do this right, and get rid of this stupid committee (at the very least, get rid of their weekly rankings).

Getting rid of CCGs, I think, would have stopped conference realignment a few years ago. I also believe we should still get rid of them, even with the larger conferences. Have a conference relegation system or something.

 

[IrishLion]

I don't think there should be auto-bids or anything like that.


1.) I think you go to an 8-team playoff.

2.) Use the BCS formula, but alter it.
- 25% weight to AP Poll.
- 25% weight to playoff committee rankings.
- 25% weight to the collective computer rankings that were used in the old BCS.
- 25% weight to an efficiency-based system (S&P or FEI; or an average of both)

3.) No auto-bids. The top 8 make it, period.


You could discuss further points to refine and level the system, but I honestly think the BCS system would be the most fair, as long as there are no auto-bids for conference champs. It takes the undefinable, shifting, abstract nature of the human committee out of play, and instead relies on concrete systems and data.

You just need to update the BCS formula to be modernized, and to eliminate the bias of the coaches poll.

 

[NDohio]

I don't think there should be auto-bids or anything like that.


1.) I think you go to an 8-team playoff.

2.) Use the BCS formula, but alter it.
- 25% weight to AP Poll.
- 25% weight to playoff committee rankings.
- 25% weight to the collective computer rankings that were used in the old BCS.
- 25% weight to an efficiency-based system (S&P or FEI; or an average of both)

3.) No auto-bids. The top 8 make it, period.


You could discuss further points to refine and level the system, but I honestly think the BCS system would be the most fair, as long as there are no auto-bids for conference champs. It takes the undefinable, shifting, abstract nature of the human committee out of play, and instead relies on concrete systems and data.

You just need to update the BCS formula to be modernized, and to eliminate the bias of the coaches poll.

Most years the top 8 are going to include each conference champ. No reason to auto-bid that. If a conference champ can't get into an 8 team tourney then that conference really doesn't deserve to have a representative.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Posters need to be more specific when they mention "conf champs". Need to define regular season or championship game.

Pitt should never, ever be allowed to play in a playoff, while Clemson should be top 8 (even if they did lose). ACC doesn't deserve two teams.

Let the regular season speak for the conf champions...Drop the ridiculous 13th game.

 

[NDIrish88]

What if they did a 6 team playoff the top 2 teams get a bye.

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

You could discuss further points to refine and level the system, but I honestly think the BCS system would be the most fair, as long as there are no auto-bids for conference champs. It takes the undefinable, shifting, abstract nature of the human committee out of play, and instead relies on concrete systems and data.

You just need to update the BCS formula to be modernized, and to eliminate the bias of the coaches poll.

All for this. The subjectivity of the committee is what pisses me off about it. The fact that there were ever grumblings about scUM jumping us if they won our or Herbie saying that UGA should go to #3 over us with 2 losses to avoid a rematch...anything that can be determined by an "eye test" is complete BS to me.

Let the data do the talking. Period. Stats. Metrics. BCS-style top 8 sounds good to me, I'm with Lion here.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't think there should be auto-bids or anything like that.

1.) I think you go to an 8-team playoff.

2.) Use the BCS formula, but alter it.
- 25% weight to AP Poll.
- 25% weight to playoff committee rankings.
- 25% weight to the collective computer rankings that were used in the old BCS.
- 25% weight to an efficiency-based system (S&P or FEI; or an average of both)

3.) No auto-bids. The top 8 make it, period.

You could discuss further points to refine and level the system, but I honestly think the BCS system would be the most fair, as long as there are no auto-bids for conference champs. It takes the undefinable, shifting, abstract nature of the human committee out of play, and instead relies on concrete systems and data.

You just need to update the BCS formula to be modernized, and to eliminate the bias of the coaches poll.

Except #8 doesn't deserve a shot at #1. They've had 12 games to prove it and they failed. Never, in the history of college football, has #8 had a legitimate claim at being the best team in the country at the end of the regular season.

Yes, a #16 upset a #1 in the NCAA tournament. That's not a feature, it's a bug. An entire season of dominance shouldn't be discarded due to some fluke shit.

 

[wizards8507]

Let the regular season speak for the conf champions...Drop the ridiculous 13th game.

This. The old Big 12 was the way to do it.

Especially when you have absurdly imbalanced divisions.

Clemson vs. Pitt? lol
Ohio State vs. Northwestern? lol

 

[Circa]

What if they did a 6 team playoff the top 2 teams get a bye.

8 is the right #.
5 power 5 conferences with 3 at-large bids. Giving any team a bye Is unfair due to injuries, money allotment and just flat out No fun... I could go on. With 8 you can have the Cinderella stories and that makes for great times.
Saying the regular season would get watered down with 8, Is a terrible way to look at It. People said similar things when we went to 4 and every year there are arguments that can be made about 2 or 3 teams very deserving of at least a shot at the postseason.

 

[wizards8507]

8 is the right #.
5 power 5 conferences with 3 at-large bids. Giving any team a bye Is unfair due to injuries, money allotment and just flat out No fun... I could go on. With 8 you can have the Cinderella stories and that makes for great times.
Saying the regular season would get watered down with 8, Is a terrible way to look at It. People said similar things when we went to 4 and every year there are arguments that can be made about 2 or 3 teams very deserving of at least a shot at the postseason.

"Power 5" is meaningless. It's not anything. There's no rule that says the ACC is necessarily any stronger than the MAC or Sun Belt. It's just a made up thing the sports media uses to talk about those conferences.

 

[Circa]

"Power 5" is meaningless. It's not anything. There's no rule that says the ACC is necessarily any stronger than the MAC or Sun Belt. It's just a made up thing the sports media uses to talk about those conferences.

I understand that. But It Is, what It Is.

 

[IrishLion]

Except #8 doesn't deserve a shot at #1. They've had 12 games to prove it and they failed. Never, in the history of college football, has #8 had a legitimate claim at being the best team in the country at the end of the regular season.

Yes, a #16 upset a #1 in the NCAA tournament. That's not a feature, it's a bug. An entire season of dominance shouldn't be discarded due to some fluke shit.

I agree with you in a practical sense, but college football isn't practical. Not all of the big dogs are willing to test themselves with their OOC games consistently, so you never have a true barometer from conference-to-conference.

The only way to settle it is in the postseason, and the four-team playoff gets it right and gives more opportunities for cross-conference comparison among the elite teams. The old bowl system kind of did that, but it left more margin for error because the matchups occasionally got wonky.

I'm not advocating for expansion, but 8-teams wouldn't be much worse than what we've got, IMO, as long as the participants are selected in a concrete, data-driven way.

You say #8 has its chances during the first 12 games, but I disagree... until there are rules put in place that standardize OOC games, the conferences and their best teams can't be accurately judged against one another.

 

[IrishLion]

The only perfect system for crowning a champion is a full round-robin schedule, preferably with multiple matchups between each team... aka, the Premiere League model.

But football is too big and unwieldy for that, so the next best thing is to guarantee matchups between the top teams... that's what the postseason is for, and why it's so crucial for the top 4 (or 8) to be ranked based on legitimate data, and not by a fallible committee full of biased members with ulterior motives.

 

[wizards8507]

The only perfect system for crowning a champion is a full round-robin schedule, preferably with multiple matchups between each team... aka, the Premiere League model.

That would be so dope.

1. Whittle the FBS down to 88 teams, arranged into 8 conferences of 11 teams each.

2. Each team plays a 10-game round-robin schedule against every other team in the conference, plus two out-of-conference games (ND would play Navy every year and rotate USC and Stanford).

3. Conference champion is determined by the result of the round robin tournament and feed an 8-team playoff. 8-team playoff becomes a matchup of champion-versus-champion at traditional bowl sites, i.e. Big 10 vs. Pac 12 in the Rose Bowl.

4. Each conference has an affiliated "minor league" sub-conference with a one or two team relegation and promotion system. Allow smaller programs to earn their way into the power conferences.

The New Big 10 would look something like Notre Dame, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Penn State, and Iowa.

No, that will never happen. But it would be sooooooo good.

 

[Irishnuke]

If they go with every conference champion getting a spot, it means Notre Dame will only be competing for one of three at-large spots instead of one of four in the current format.