🏈 Do you really want an 8 team playoff?

[JoshB]

We can barely find 4 most years. The 4 best. I'm not concerned about being politically correct and including g5 teams that play jr college schedules and cry that they aren't getting the respect that they deserve. This year, I'm not sure we have the correct top4, but we'll find out. Going to 8 teams will only dull the quality of the playoffs and go further in lessening the value of regular season, bowls ,and players sitting out post season games.

Given that the #4 team has won the title twice and the #1 team not once, might suggest there is more value in the top 8 than otherwise, we're admitting, or at least considering.

No, I don't think that's what is suggested at all. We've been living during the last decade or so in an era of three dynasties, but only one program is called such due to how separated it is from the rest. Besides Bama under Saban, Urban and Dabo have had the kind of success that without Saban would be routinely referred to as dynasties. So give Meyer and Saban a month to prepare against anyone regardless of what their ranking is, and they will usually win. Clemson under Dabo is in the same category.

No one remotely literate in college football would seriously make a case for the number 5, 6, 7 or 8th ranked teams at the end of the season to endure a play-off undefeated, unless it was any of these three aforementioned programs. Kirby has brought UGA into the same caliber of programs where they would be favored over almost anyone regardless of their rank.

In what alternate universe do people refer to teams that win ONE championship a "dynasty?" In no sport at any level has that ever been considered a "dynasty."

 

[We All Bleed Crimson]

We can barely find 4 most years. The 4 best. .

"Barely fine 4 most years. The 4 best". What year was that?

2014: Florida St had no business being there. Their season was full of close calls. The real game was Bama vs Ohio St. Oregon was crushed in the title game. Only 2 teams.
2015: Michigan st didn't belong, nor did Oklahoma. Clemson vs Bama was the game.
2016: Washington and Ohio st were both thumped in round 1, again the only game was Clemson vs Bama.
2017: the exception, there were 3 maybe 4 great teams in the playoffs.
THAT is what I mean.

 

[TerryP]

Now we get to the crippling issue with you, where's my money. To get these wonderful paydays it's the public that has to be subjected to the Pac 12 missing in action bowl every year that usually doesn't decide anything for the playoffs. The B1G didn't matter. The ACC got to play a 7 and 4 Pitt team. Let me sum it up this way: CCGs are tits on a bull. And it's embarrassing a lot of the time to allow these matchups to even decide their own conference. All of these champions could have just as easily been decided accurately and fairly after the 12th game. So what Conference is going belly up without the payday? The Pac 12 and Big 12 and B1G literally had to have their arms twisted to have their own CCG. And just a few years ago. Why weren't they worried about all this money they were missing out on by not having one?

You're attempting to rewrite history here by suggesting that the PAC and B1G had to have their arms twisted to institute a championship game. It's a little mind boggling to even suggest these conferences made the move for any other reason than the payday that's involved. It was the driving factor based off of what the SEC had been doing. The Big12 was in a different boat thinking they didn't need a championship game—until it was proven they did. Their decision goes right back to the point you scoffed at the other day—the 13th data point the committee uses.

History proves that champions aren't decided through the SEC regular season alone. It would have been this year. It wouldn't have last year. Last year we'd have been looking at a three way tie with UGA, AU, and UA for the SEC championship—very similar to the shared title in '89 with AU, UA, and UT.

It's also the ONLY reason the SEC doesn't have 2 teams in the playoffs. Ask the dawgs where they would rather be, in the Sugar Bowl or playoff? What would a rematch of the title game in the playoff draw in ratings? And suppose we got CBS to broadcast it at Bryant Denny Stadium? That's what an 8 team playoff promises.

It doesn't promise a thing. It's suggested that may have a bearing, but I can easily see teams and conferences complaining about having a home field advantage in the playoffs. Few are going to want to travel to Ohio State and play in the snow. Seriously, there's a reason why we see bowl games played in cities with temperate climates.

"If they did this, this might happen" isn't a good stance to take when "if they continue to do this, this will continue."

What does the basketball team do, the NBA, the NFL do around the Holidays? The 13th game only a week after the barner game requires a lot more attrition emotionally, physically, coming on the heels of a long grueling season. Could be why we are having trouble playing 4 quarters in the CCG. And the best thing about the 8 team playoff is we all have to play a credible team. The best teams will not have any problem with that. Especially if the higher seeds get home field advantage.

What the NBA and NFL do in their seasons have no bearing, what so ever, with what we're talking about here. Mentioning the basketball team has no bearing. They are just starting their seasons and they're still getting a break for their finals, families, holiday's etc.

Another suggestion stating an eight team playoff means you get a credible team isn't correct either. Is UCF a credible playoff team? You've answered that one yourself. Would Washington be a credible team? Michigan? The Wolverines are a no...they lost that chance in the regular season.

There's a reason there's "no appetite" for moving to either teams. It's not improving anything. Haven''t we seen enough of "unintended consequences" with all of these suggestions to expand and relax rules?

 

[TUSKtimes]

History proves that champions aren't decided through the SEC regular season alone. It would have been this year. It wouldn't have last year. Last year we'd have been looking at a three way tie with UGA, AU, and UA for the SEC championship—very similar to the shared title in '89 with AU, UA, and UT.

And what's wrong with being co-champions of a conference? Ohio State at 12-1 played Northwestern at 8-4. They both lost one conference game. Did the playoff committee care about Northwestern, win or lose? Certainly not. Ohio State could have been selected as a playoff team in the 8 game format and Northwestern gets to go to the Rose Bowl. Win, win.

In Last years scenario, without the SECCG, maybe the SEC gets 3 teams in an 8 game format. But frankly, regardless of what happened between the barn and Jawja, there was absolutely NOTHING Alabama could do about it, either way. Their fate was out of their own hands when we lost on the Plains and we would have been out of the playoff if not for the Buckeyes bad loss to Iowa. Some years it will be the way the cookie crumbles. Having 8 teams in certainly makes losing out a lot less likely, doesn't it?

It doesn't promise a thing. It's suggested that may have a bearing, but I can easily see teams and conferences complaining about having a home field advantage in the playoffs. Few are going to want to travel to Ohio State and play in the snow. Seriously, there's a reason why we see bowl games played in cities with temperate limates.
"If they did this, this might happen" isn't a good stance to take when "if they continue to do this, this will continue."

And it might rain torrents at Bryant Denny Stadium, the likes of which we got the weekend of the CCG. This is football, toughen up.

What the NBA and NFL do in their seasons have no bearing, what so ever, with what we're talking about here. Mentioning the basketball team has no bearing. They are just starting their seasons and they're still getting a break for their finals, families, holiday's etc.

Bama is back to practicing hard during Christmas Holidays. They get a brief time to spend with family. I doubt that's reasonable for everyone to do, due to travel distance. They can easily factor in those few days and get on with the playoffs. Lot's of things seem to give you pause. You work around life. Whatever these kids are asked to do, it's frankly no more than what has been asked of all the rest of us from time to time. Secular folks, athletes, even aliens, work around and through Holidays. My suggestion would be as soon as the early recruiting is over, the playoffs begin.

Another suggestion stating an eight team playoff means you get a credible team isn't correct either. Is UCF a credible playoff team? You've answered that one yourself. Would Washington be a credible team? Michigan? The Wolverines are a no...they lost that chance in the regular season.

We just had to sit through Northwestern, Utah, Pittsburgh, and Texas. Somehow having to watch the top 8 teams in the country play each other in a winner take all doesn't seem nearly as distasteful.

Give me another weekend on the regular season schedule where we got to watch the top 8 teams in the nation play one another? I didn't think so. If by a complete miracle it did happen, they would be the most watched games of the year.

There's a reason there's "no appetite" for moving to either teams. It's not improving anything. Haven''t we seen enough of "unintended consequences" with all of these suggestions to expand and relax rules?

We are heading to an expanded playoff and soon. When it happens it will be very intended. There's a reason coach Saban believes in the 8 team playoff and an elimination of the CCG.

And coach Saban put it best:
“It’s not a perfect system the way it is now. I think if we eliminated the (conference) championship games and put eight teams in, it would make it even better." Amen, brother.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

We can barely find 4 most years. The 4 best. .

"Barely fine 4 most years. The 4 best". What year was that?

2014: Florida St had no business being there. Their season was full of close calls. The real game was Bama vs Ohio St. Oregon was crushed in the title game. Only 2 teams.
2015: Michigan st didn't belong, nor did Oklahoma. Clemson vs Bama was the game.
2016: Washington and Ohio st were both thumped in round 1, again the only game was Clemson vs Bama.
2017: the exception, there were 3 maybe 4 great teams in the playoffs.
THAT is what I mean.

Great teams vs best 4 teams.......hard to define what are great or best or deserving because....the conferences all play by different rules....
By your logic...there shouldnt be but 2 teams...1 vs 2.....
But #1 hasnt won it all yet ( hopefully will this year..i know we agree on that)...
I dont know if there was a hard time finding 4.... or wouldnt be 8...2018....UGA , Washington, ucf, ohio state/wash state/mich/etc..how bow 2017...AU lost to @LSU and in CCG...but also beat both #1 teams..... some years would dilute the playoffs...( but give us another weekend of games rather than crap bowl games that few will watch)...some years strengthen playoffs... and give us another weekend of meaningful football....
And yes..i know regular season has to mean something... dont see where thats even an issue...of course it means same as does for 4 team...
The problem on this board is obvious...Bama hasnt been left off yet.... when they are..and when the fans like other fans feel they were screwed over... watch fans on this board turn.... and fast

 

[rick4bama]

As I grew up it was the one getting the most first place votes. That sometime ticks fans off!! Bama fans twice! Then it was the top two BCS teams. That's when for about 12 years? Now we have the top 4 teams, and some are still not happy, because teams are being left out. So let go to, 8 teams, till it leave more teams out. When will this stop. Let go and do a playoff like the D-2 does.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

As I grew up it was the one getting the most first place votes. That sometime ticks fans off!! Bama fans twice! Then it was the top two BCS teams. That's when for about 12 years? Now we have the top 4 teams, and some are still not happy, because teams are being left out. So let go to, 8 teams, till it leave more teams out. When will this stop. Let go and do a playoff like the D-2 does.

But Rick....
Didnt going from pure voting to BCS...improve things...
Didn’t having Conference CGs improve things ( only big 12 got it right though)
....sure added a good CF weekend.....
Didnt going from BCS to 4 team playoff improve things....
So.............
When will it stop....dont know...And i am happy with 4...but think 8s better...
I think adding that one more weekend of CF...or even eliminating the Conference CGs.....( which ain’t gonna happen..thats the conference slush funds)
Just my opinion....people taking "opinions" personal..... its just my opinion...
But..it will go to 8....maybe 6 and then 8...not a matter of IF...a matter of WHEN....

 

[rick4bama]

@50+yeartidefan All I can say is this MONEY!!!! I was once against paying college players. But now these kids need to be paid.

 

[shipley00]

You beat me to it Musso. To avoid the inevitable argument over 4 vs 5, I'll put it this way. Over the last 10 years, name one 7 or 8th place team that would have a legitimate chance of beating two top 4 teams back to back? You can't. You can try, but you'd have to realllllly stretch to not be laughed off the stage. Even then. No.

 

[TUSKtimes]

You beat me to it Musso. To avoid the inevitable argument over 4 vs 5, I'll put it this way. Over the last 10 years, name one 7 or 8th place team that would have a legitimate chance of beating two top 4 teams back to back? You can't. You can try, but you'd have to realllllly stretch to not be laughed off the stage. Even then. No.

Auburn

 

[Elderfalsedemigod]

No, I myself do not want an 8 team CFP

 

[50+yeartidefan]

You beat me to it Musso. To avoid the inevitable argument over 4 vs 5, I'll put it this way. Over the last 10 years, name one 7 or 8th place team that would have a legitimate chance of beating two top 4 teams back to back? You can't. You can try, but you'd have to realllllly stretch to not be laughed off the stage. Even then. No.

Auburn

AU Not just a legit shot....but actually did it....
@shipley00 ....well....AU would have been in at 9-3....probably 7-8 seed...(and yes it matters where they beat them....but ...still did....)
And Michigan lost at osu...but Neutral field? And they would have been 7-8 seed...top D....
Washington state....lost to Washington in snowstorm.... in doors...fast carpet....
Not saying any would... just saying....a legit shot?

 

[OldPlayer]

No.

If you want to get into the playoff, win more games. The argument in the media is the four best teams. Actually, it's the four best teams that are most deserving. Two teams with the same record can be very different. By expanding to eight teams, we're essentially giving "everybody" a trophy. If your team didn't get in because of their schedule, play a better schedule. You may have to drop some future teams or change your conference, but don't blame the four-team playoff for your lack of schedule strength. If your team didn't get in because it lost a game, don't lose a game. Stop blaming the exclusion on the system. There are four teams every year that perform well enough to get in.

I could get into the many reasons for why an 8-team playoff won't work (these are amateurs, not the NFL; most schools require academic performance by student-athletes which includes exams in early December; an 8-team playoff adds additional financial burdens on the fan; if you thought the bowl system sucked now, wait til you see it with an expanded playoff; an 8-team playoff WILL NOT get your high draft picks to play in a second-tier bowl).

 

[50+yeartidefan]

No.
A....I could get into the many reasons for why an 8-team playoff won't work (these are amateurs, not the NFL; most schools require academic performance by student-athletes which includes exams in early December; an 8-team playoff adds additional financial burdens on the fan; if you thought the bowl system sucked now, wait til you see it with an expanded playoff; an 8-team playoff WILL NOT get your high draft picks to play in a second-tier bowl).

A...so why is there lower division playoffs well into Dec.....sorry argument dont go...
B...financial burden on fan...agree with that...kickoff game...conference cg....2 playoff games.... o wait..already have those...so one more is a reason?... but it is a hellva a burden....
C...bowl system....its a joke...really....and @OldPlayer ....high draft picks are already dropping out...not all...and would have nuthin'to do with a playoff expansion...they will play or not....nobody cares anyway cept fans of that team

And regardless....of what we think...feel..or want...
The playoffs will expand...its not IF...but when...as I said earlier

My final word....its been a fun and interesting expression of opinions...i respect all who differ...no problem.... and when bama is on cusp and is left off... opinions here will change,...

 

[musso]

We can barely find 4 most years. The 4 best. I'm not concerned about being politically correct and including g5 teams that play jr college schedules and cry that they aren't getting the respect that they deserve. This year, I'm not sure we have the correct top4, but we'll find out. Going to 8 teams will only dull the quality of the playoffs and go further in lessening the value of regular season, bowls ,and players sitting out post season games.

Given that the #4 team has won the title twice and the #1 team not once, might suggest there is more value in the top 8 than otherwise, we're admitting, or at least considering.

No, I don't think that's what is suggested at all. We've been living during the last decade or so in an era of three dynasties, but only one program is called such due to how separated it is from the rest. Besides Bama under Saban, Urban and Dabo have had the kind of success that without Saban would be routinely referred to as dynasties. So give Meyer and Saban a month to prepare against anyone regardless of what their ranking is, and they will usually win. Clemson under Dabo is in the same category.

No one remotely literate in college football would seriously make a case for the number 5, 6, 7 or 8th ranked teams at the end of the season to endure a play-off undefeated, unless it was any of these three aforementioned programs. Kirby has brought UGA into the same caliber of programs where they would be favored over almost anyone regardless of their rank.

In what alternate universe do people refer to teams that win ONE championship a "dynasty?" In no sport at any level has that ever been considered a "dynasty."

Sustained levels of extraordinary success. A minimum benchmark is usually 10-win seasons, but usually multiple conference championships and a natty or two are also required before "dynasty" is used. Bowden's stretch of 2 natty's and consecutive top-5 (or top-4?) finishes at FSU comes to mind. People have always referred to that as a dynasty. My point is the number of wins that Urban and Dabo have accumulated at their two respective schools would have garnered more media attention and praise if not for Saban's historic run. How many coaches have won more than one natty??? Not many, yet the term dynasty is used on more occasions than that.

My larger point is that there aren't more than 2 or 3 great teams at the end of the regular season. So a final four is more than generous.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

We can barely find 4 most years. The 4 best. I'm not concerned about being politically correct and including g5 teams that play jr college schedules and cry that they aren't getting the respect that they deserve. This year, I'm not sure we have the correct top4, but we'll find out. Going to 8 teams will only dull the quality of the playoffs and go further in lessening the value of regular season, bowls ,and players sitting out post season games.

Given that the #4 team has won the title twice and the #1 team not once, might suggest there is more value in the top 8 than otherwise, we're admitting, or at least considering.

No, I don't think that's what is suggested at all. We've been living during the last decade or so in an era of three dynasties, but only one program is called such due to how separated it is from the rest. Besides Bama under Saban, Urban and Dabo have had the kind of success that without Saban would be routinely referred to as dynasties. So give Meyer and Saban a month to prepare against anyone regardless of what their ranking is, and they will usually win. Clemson under Dabo is in the same category.

No one remotely literate in college football would seriously make a case for the number 5, 6, 7 or 8th ranked teams at the end of the season to endure a play-off undefeated, unless it was any of these three aforementioned programs. Kirby has brought UGA into the same caliber of programs where they would be favored over almost anyone regardless of their rank.

In what alternate universe do people refer to teams that win ONE championship a "dynasty?" In no sport at any level has that ever been considered a "dynasty."

Sustained levels of extraordinary success. A minimum benchmark is usually 10-win seasons, but usually multiple conference championships and a natty or two are also required before "dynasty" is used. Bowden's stretch of 2 natty's and consecutive top-5 (or top-4?) finishes at FSU comes to mind. People have always referred to that as a dynasty. My point is the number of wins that Urban and Dabo have accumulated at their two respective schools would have garnered more media attention and praise if not for Saban's historic run. How many coaches have won more than one natty??? Not many, yet the term dynasty is used on more occasions than that.

My larger point is that there aren't more than 2 or 3 great teams at the end of the regular season. So a final four is more than generous.

Dynasty dont equal great run....
new york yankees.....dynasty...endured from 20s thru 60s ( maybe longer)
Boston Celtics...dynasty .....was the gold standard in pro bball...
Ucla under wooden...
Connecticut women’s bball....
They are hard to come by...they have endurance....there is greatness..
You have to measure by those standards......
With free agency in pro sports.....they will be hard to come by...new england pats may have one going.....
History judges them....for their greatness

 

[TerryP]

And what's wrong with being co-champions of a conference? Ohio State at 12-1 played Northwestern at 8-4. They both lost one conference game. Did the playoff committee care about Northwestern, win or lose? Certainly not. Ohio State could have been selected as a playoff team in the 8 game format and Northwestern gets to go to the Rose Bowl. Win, win.

From a personal point of view, I don't like them. From a competitive point of view, ask Baylor and TCU fans about how they feel about shared championships. From a historical view, how often have people complained about shared championships?

There's three examples of why people don't like them.

As to your point, setting aside we're really getting into hypotheticals again, you're tearing up the current process even more—what's to guarantee NW heads to the Rose if we're expand playoffs which results in more locations. The Rose Bowl will be involved to a great extent.

This is falling closely to "reward everyone, excuse a lot." In this example, the loss to Purdue has to matter. Ohio State doesn't belong because of that loss.

Again, no reason to go to eight. Unless you're a commissioner whose teams can't get in to a four team format.

In Last years scenario, without the SECCG, maybe the SEC gets 3 teams in an 8 game format. But frankly, regardless of what happened between the barn and Jawja, there was absolutely NOTHING Alabama could do about it, either way. Their fate was out of their own hands when we lost on the Plains and we would have been out of the playoff if not for the Buckeyes bad loss to Iowa. Some years it will be the way the cookie crumbles. Having 8 teams in certainly makes losing out a lot less likely, doesn't it?

If Ohio State's loss would have been to a team playing the same caliber of football as Auburn, and that result ended up with Bama being left out, so be it.

Having 8 teams in certainly makes losing out a lot less likely, doesn't it --

Expanding it, makes the possibility of failure less likely. Oh gawd.

And it might rain torrents at Bryant Denny Stadium, the likes of which we got the weekend of the CCG. This is football, toughen up.

Oh, come on now. You're missing the point here completely. The additional monies you're suggesting that come from expanding the playoffs come from the corporate side of game sponsorship. Those attending, from that sector, and those sponsoring the games don't want dreary Michigan weather on a Saturday night.

Getting back to the rest of that, Tt.

 

[TUSKtimes]

As to your point, setting aside we're really getting into hypotheticals again, you're tearing up the current process even more—what's to guarantee NW heads to the Rose if we're expand playoffs which results in more locations. The Rose Bowl will be involved to a great extent.

This is falling closely to "reward everyone, excuse a lot." In this example, the loss to Purdue has to matter. Ohio State doesn't belong because of that loss.

If by "rewarding" you mean let the lesser teams go off into bowl oblivion, yes, just go. These bowls are irrelevant, beyond sending fans and players on a nice vacation and getting some extra practice in. I simply put a greater value on an 8 team playoff than five power 5 CCGs, against very average teams, who aren't going anywhere, win or lose, a lot of the time.

If Ohio State's loss would have been to a team playing the same caliber of football as Auburn, and that result ended up with Bama being left out, so be it.

Having 8 teams in certainly makes losing out a lot less likely, doesn't it --

Expanding it, makes the possibility of failure less likely. Oh gawd.

12 games in a regular season. There are peaks and valleys to everyone's season. Why would you fail to mention the kind of football that Ohio State played in their last 2 games? Against their hated rival and Michigan comes into the horseshoe with the #1 defense in the nation and they get eviscerated to the tune of 62 points. That's woodshed justice right there. They should not be in the 4 team playoff because of body of work. But to suggest they wouldn't be dangerous for anyone to play in an 8 team playoff, I'm not buying that.

Oh, come on now. You're missing the point here completely. The additional monies you're suggesting that come from expanding the playoffs come from the corporate side of game sponsorship. Those attending, from that sector, and those sponsoring the games don't want dreary Michigan weather on a Saturday night.

Getting back to the rest of that, Tt.

Michigan won't be there. But it could snow at the horseshoe and I have no idea what you are talking about after that. Corporate America would craw on their bellies to get a piece of the expanded playoff, wherever. They are quick enough to lap up the leftovers in Yankee Stadium, with something they call the Pinstripe Bowl.

 

[94 Grad]

I hate the idea of an 8 team playoff... too much of a chance of rematches... I don't really favor rematches. Even when UA/LSU Reloaded happened, I wasn't for it... happy it happened, but would not have voted for it.

Now with the playoff, you already have some chance, all-be-it small that there is a rematch. I can live with that because like the UA/LSU rematch it takes some incredible circumstances to happen. With an 8 team playoff you're almost guarantee rematches... and multiple ones at that.

Just say NO!!!!

 

[bama alum]

I hate the idea of an 8 team playoff... too much of a chance of rematches... I don't really favor rematches. Even when UA/LSU Reloaded happened, I wasn't for it... happy it happened, but would not have voted for it.

Now with the playoff, you already have some chance, all-be-it small that there is a rematch. I can live with that because like the UA/LSU rematch it takes some incredible circumstances to happen. With an 8 team playoff you're almost guarantee rematches... and multiple ones at that.

Just say NO!!!!

There were a few talking heads who suggested that if Georgia made the playoff with a loss, that they should actually move up to the #3 spot to avoid a rematch, that and they are a better team than is Notre Lame. I agree with them on both points. If we had an eight-team playoff this year, UCF (likely) would have to play without their star QB in Tuscaloosa. Not seeing too much of a game there, with or without Milton.

An eight-team playoff is also going to wreck some kind of havoc with semester exams...unless the full playoff picture gets backed up a week, and then we have NSD two - three weeks after the NC game.