Do we need to expand the Playoff?

[Raebo]

How come I get the feeling that half the committee wanted an 8 team playoff While the other half off the committee wanted a 16 team playoff so being nice they came up with a lame 12 team compromise.

 

[livefaith]

Would increasing the number of teams in the CFP solve a lot of the recent problems?

Or do they actually want a lot of anxiety.

.

In NO way and in NO circumstance will it solve the "we should be in before X". Instead of the #5,6,7&8 teams whining and ranting, it's just now going to be the #13-16 teams whining and the media hyping the controversy for clicks.

I'm happy for 12 teams. But, every time that # is increased it will me a noticeable reduction in the intensity and urgency of regular season games. It is an inverse relationship that I don't want. CFB has a great regular season which for the top 20 teams or so will be reduced in importance. I'm for 8 first, 12 second, or 6 third.

 

[volfan102455]

This doesn't solve anything. There will always be a team that thought they should have been included and within the selected teams, there will be controversy over ranking.

And if they went the route of taking the 10 conference champs and then 2 at large teams - the 12 will NOT be the best teams and blowouts will be common. The controversy would be over who are the other two teams.

If they don't go that route and select the best teams, there will still be conferences on the outside looking in.

 

[sami]

The mandatory 4 with a bye is dumb.

I have no problem whatsoever with the top 4 teams having a bye; however doing a “mandatory” 4, this is utterly ridiculous.

We will see at least a 2 loss team ranked around 8th getting into the top 4. All it takes is some weaker seasons in say the PAC and ACC then someone upsets someone else on championship Saturday.

We will see at least 2 11-1 or an 11-1 & 12-1 teams being ranked like 3rd and 4th (or so) being kicked to 5th and 6th and playing the first game………while some underachieving team who beat no one all season finally put it together to beat someone gets in the top 4.

It’s usually extremely clear who the top teams are. There is literally zero need to make sure the PAC, the B12 or someone else gets their champion in on a bye.

Where did I say anything about "mandatory" anything or weak conference champs getting higher ranking? The best four teams in the same way the committee has been doing it should get the byes, and that will rarely if ever include multiple loss teams.

If the byes go to the top four conference champs, I agree completely with you. It should be the best four teams, period, or the byes are bogus.

 

[sami]

I have always felt that it needs to be 8 teams - the 5 conference champs and 3 at large “wild card” bids. It’s strange that we are jumping from 4 to 12, but I think 12 is better than 4. Let the results get determined on the field and not in “what if” fan/media theories.

In an 8 team playoff, it is highly unlikely that the best 8 teams will be there if it includes conference champions. CFP has to decide what is the biggest prize - conference titles or the national title - and if it's the national title then the best 8 need to be in the playoff regardless of conference. Let the conference champs be just that, then pick the best 8 teams to play for the natty.

 

[wesley21]

Friend, the Volunteers are not going to be left out of the playoffs.

100%. 100%.

I think if Oregon wins out and are pac12 champs, they will put them ahead of us. They already act like we got beat just as bad as them to Georgia when we lost by 14 them by like 40 points

 

[Nationdom]

We need to do away with the playoff and go back to the BCS. More playoff games make all our big games we’ve had this year less important

 

[JoAllan]

Where did I say anything about "mandatory" anything or weak conference champs getting higher ranking? The best four teams in the same way the committee has been doing it should get the byes, and that will rarely if ever include multiple loss teams.

If the byes go to the top four conference champs, I agree completely with you. It should be the best four teams, period, or the byes are bogus.

Yea I wasn’t saying you said that.

Just stating where the bye’s will be going. Simply shouldn’t be anything “mandatory”…….like the SEC or B10 or something “has” to have 1.

Definitely should be the top 4 teams not the highest ranked 4 different conference champs.

However I am fine with the mandatory non group of 5 champ getting in.

I mean really if your power 5 and sitting at 12th………you probably don’t belong, and had several chances. I’d much rather see say a 1 loss Memphis or something like that sitting at 14th or so getting a shot. They took care of business WAY more than that 12th power 5 team and probably had way fewer chances to do something.

 

[wesley21]

In an 8 team playoff, it is highly unlikely that the best 8 teams will be there if it includes conference champions. CFP has to decide what is the biggest prize - conference titles or the national title - and if it's the national title then the best 8 need to be in the playoff regardless of conference. Let the conference champs be just that, then pick the best 8 teams to play for the natty.

Exactly the 2nd 3rd 4th in the sec would probably be an acc champ or pac 12 champ. It should go off strength of schedule

 

[08Vol]

Bama is also one play (see A&M) away from having three losses.

Bama is 6 points away from being undefeated and 7 points away from being 5-4.

 

[EZE]

16 is good or even 8, but I hate the 12 team format with ANY 4 getting a week off. Chunk in the next four and let's go.

12 is asinine IMO when seeding is an entirely subjective process. Why should 4 teams get a bye just because some committee “thinks” they are better than the remaining 8 teams?