How this season changed my mind on a 12 team playoff

[chattaboogie]

This season…….just like basically every other season (once you get to the end) simply proves……you DONT need 12 teams.

4 is definitely enough.

Literally not ONE single team outside of the current top 4 has any real argument to be in the playoff. If USC were to lose someone who has NO business whatsoever in the playoff will be in the playoff.

There is absolutely NO need for the 12 team playoff it’s literally absurd.

OSU just got rolled at home……should they get rewarded with a playoff spot? And Michigan was without their best player.

Tennessee just got absolutely throttled by SC.

Bama has 2 losses, one to Tennessee (who doesn’t belong) another to LSU who just got beat again……and Bama didn’t really beat anyone.

P-ST played 2 good teams……and lost both times.

Washington got beat by a 3-9 team and have another loss.

Clemson has no good wins and lost twice to 8-4 teams

LSU has 3 losses and 1 was to a 5-7 team

Tulane lost to UCF and Southern Miss a 6-6 mid team.

Literally ONLY the current top 4 belong.

Playoffs and tournaments are amazing. However for college football…….I think it will become a show. Not to mention when terrible teams find one win in the season during their championship and beat a good team……..BAM their in.

“When terrible teams find one win in the season during their championship and beat a good team”

If a team makes it to a P5 conference championship game and wins that game I think it’s safe to say they are not terrible and one spot of a twelve team playoff can be spared.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

I 100% disagree.
What you are claiming is that two teams that play during the regular season cannot be two of the four best teams.

GA and TN could never be two of the four best teams in any given year? absurd
Bama and TN could never be two of the four best teams in any give year? ludicrous
Etc...........

The only thing your line of reasoning accomplishes is to perpetuate the belief that the easiest schedule is the best schedule - and that is in no way good for the game.

The final rankings for the 1971 AP poll are a classic example to support your point. Undefeated Nebraska won the national championship. Oklahoma, which lost only to Nebraska 35-31, finished second, and Colorado, which lost only to Nebraska and Oklahoma on the road, finished third. In my opinion, those rankings were correct. Alabama, which lost to Nebraska 38-6 in the Orange Bowl, finished 4th (AP) but was 2nd in the Coaches Poll, which released its final rankings before bowls were played.

So, yes, hypothetically, two of the best 4 teams in the country not only can be in the same conference, but they could be in the same division. Unfortunately, the knuckleheads who make decisions in the playoff poll don't seem to be able to realize that simple fact. Moreover, they really don't seem to be capable of adhering consistently to their own selection guidelines.

 

[West Vol]

99.99. But it's not worth adding 52 teams to increase the chance by less than 1%.

Put it is certainly worth adding 8 teams to increase the chances by 88%.

That's why 12-16 keeps coming up as the perfect number. 8 wouldn't be horrible.

So you’re talking about necessarily adding 8 teams that aren’t in the top 4 when I can’t recall an instance where at the end of the season we really had a debate past the top 3.

 

[West Vol]

“When terrible teams find one win in the season during their championship and beat a good team”

If a team makes it to a P5 conference championship game and wins that game I think it’s safe to say they are not terrible and one spot of a twelve team playoff can be spared.

If Utah beats USC, they are terrible. Same for Illinois and probably whoever Clemson is about to face.

 

[Arrested Devolopment]

99.99. But it's not worth adding 52 teams to increase the chance by less than 1%.

Put it is certainly worth adding 8 teams to increase the chances by 88%.

That's why 12-16 keeps coming up as the perfect number. 8 wouldn't be horrible.

I agree with you, Don. I can't see how more college football is a bad thing except for the players' GPA.

 

[JoAllan]

“When terrible teams find one win in the season during their championship and beat a good team”

If a team makes it to a P5 conference championship game and wins that game I think it’s safe to say they are not terrible and one spot of a twelve team playoff can be spared.

that wasn’t really my entire point. I have made it in several “different” posts.

Right now Purdue isn’t even ranked. They have beaten no one and don’t have good metrics or resume at all. I don’t think Washington belongs….but that 10-2 Washington belongs WAY more than if Purdue were to win the Big.

most importantly a team like Purdue or LSU or UNC could win and bam get a bye forcing really good teams to play game 1………I don’t like the “mandatory” top 4. Should be the actual top 4.

 

[luthervol]

So you’re talking about necessarily adding 8 teams that aren’t in the top 4 when I can’t recall an instance where at the end of the season we really had a debate past the top 3.

This year is a great example, and will become an even better example if one of the current 4 loses this weekend.
Do a quick poll on here:
If UT played TCU at a neutral site, who would win?
UT
TCU

If UT played USC at a neutral site, who would win?
UT
USC

If UT played Michigan at a neutral site, who would win?
UT
Michigan

You can imagine what the results would be.
How do you think Bama fans would vote in a similar poll with Bama as the opponent?

Few people believe GA, Mich, USC, and TCU are the four best teams......which is in NO WAY the same as saying they do not deserve the top 4 seeds.

The teams who deserve the top 4 spots are rarely the four best teams.....and there is never agreement - just look at the national debate over who should be ranked higher Bama or TN.
Who would you put at 6?

 

[sami]

most importantly a team like Purdue or LSU or UNC could win and bam get a bye forcing really good teams to play game 1………I don’t like the “mandatory” top 4. Should be the actual top 4.

Totally agree. I'm not a fan of the expanded playoff, but two changes that would make it more palatable would be:

1. No mandatory top 4. Rewarding rinky dink conferences like the Big 10 this year and the ACC every year with high seeds for their champions is a joke. Seed them 1-12 just like the CFP is done now, and most of the time the teams that earned the byes will get them.

2. Play the games at campus sites until the final four. There are going to be a lot of blowouts in this anyway, but having them at campus sites will produce more life and ensure sellouts, but best of all will avoid unwatchable games in half empty bland neutral settings.

 

[luthervol]

I agree with you, Don. I can't see how more college football is a bad thing except for the players' GPA.

And you're really not adding that much football. I think it results in an additional 4 games.
Every one of those 5-12 teams would have gone to a bowl anyway, most a NY 6 bowl.
Four of those teams will lose the first round so their season will be longer.
The four games in the second round are the only games actually being added to the season.
After the second round will be the the semis and then final, which we have now anyway.

 

[West Vol]

This year is a great example, and will become an even better example if one of the current 4 loses this weekend.
Do a quick poll on here:
If UT played TCU at a neutral site, who would win?
UT
TCU

If UT played USC at a neutral site, who would win?
UT
USC

If UT played Michigan at a neutral site, who would win?
UT
Michigan

You can imagine what the results would be.
How do you think Bama fans would vote in a similar poll with Bama as the opponent?

Few people believe GA, Mich, USC, and TCU are the four best teams......which is in NO WAY the same as saying they do not deserve the top 4 seeds.

The teams who deserve the top 4 spots are rarely the four best teams.....and there is never agreement - just look at the national debate over who should be ranked higher Bama or TN.
Who would you put at 6?

You think there won’t be a debate about seeding and who gets left out of a 12 team playoff? That will never go away.

 

[luthervol]

You think there won’t be a debate about seeding and who gets left out of a 12 team playoff? That will never go away.

Of course there will be a debate, but it will be a debate of much less significance.
You will have 13 and 14 arguing that they should have been 11 or 12.
That's far less significant than people arguing that a 5 or 6 is better than the 2, 3, or 4.

 

[VOLS INC.]

99.99. But it's not worth adding 52 teams to increase the chance by less than 1%.

Put it is certainly worth adding 8 teams to increase the chances by 88%.

That's why 12-16 keeps coming up as the perfect number. 8 wouldn't be horrible.

You know how much it pisses me off I have to agree with you on something

This is a great point. One of the best arguments I’ve read thus far.

 

[UTvols#1]

Should only be 6 teams , twelve is to many

 

[vavolfan6]

If a chance at a NC is the only thing to play for, a great majority should just hang it up because there's probably 15 schools total that can ever win one and probably 5 or less in any given season. That's not how this works.

Sure, teams have to find other faux ways to add meaning to their season. Beat a rival, spoil another team's opportunity, make it to a random bowl game, etc.

And you made my point. Right now there are maybe 15 teams that have the resources and ability to win a national championship. A larger playoffs democratizes the system. It gives more teams an opportunity. Players don't feel forced to have to attend Bama, Georgia, Ohio State to play in the playoffs. They can go elsewhere and compete. Look at Basketball. Teams like Gonzaga, Villanova, Loyalo Chicago, Mt Saint Mary's, etc..they all can compete at the highest stage given the same opportunity.

 

[Vol8188]

Sure, teams have to find other faux ways to add meaning to their season. Beat a rival, spoil another team's opportunity, make it to a random bowl game, etc.

And you made my point. Right now there are maybe 15 teams that have the resources and ability to win a national championship. A larger playoffs democratizes the system. It gives more teams an opportunity. Players don't feel forced to have to attend Bama, Georgia, Ohio State to play in the playoffs. They can go elsewhere and compete. Look at Basketball. Teams like Gonzaga, Villanova, Loyalo Chicago, Mt Saint Mary's, etc..they all can compete at the highest stage given the same opportunity.

A larger playoff doesn’t give more teams an opportunity for a NC. That cap isn’t created by a playoff or a lack of one. It’s created by investment, in state talent, and tradition.

 

[tncolt55]

I kind of think 12 is too much, why not give 1 & 2 a bye and let the rest of the top 10 play the first week. Does 11 and 12 really deserve to be in it? If you do top 12 you will have 3 loss teams in the mix most likely every year.

 

[hog88]

Should only be 6 teams , twelve is to many

Top 2 get a 1st round bye?

 

[luthervol]

I kind of think 12 is too much, why not give 1 & 2 a bye and let the rest of the top 10 play the first week. Does 11 and 12 really deserve to be in it? If you do top 12 you will have 3 loss teams in the mix most likely every year.

Because that would put 6 teams in the second round.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

I posted this in the NCAA Forum, but why wouldn’t you want this?

 

[hog88]

I posted this in the NCAA Forum, but why wouldn’t you want this?

I'd be good with it. I do think an expansion further dilutes the importance of each regular season game but it is where we are.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

I'd be good with it. I do think an expansion further dilutes the importance of each regular season game but it is where we are.

I think it does and it doesn’t . I think the sting of Ohio State’s loss to Michigan is lessened bc both will be in. I think where it matters is that you don’t get a bye, you may have to go on the road in the first round, which makes the journey to the Final 4 that much more difficult. The problem I’m having w/ the Bowl system being involved is that let’s say Ohio State wins versus Tulane, they travel to play TCU in a neutral site game. Do TCU fans get 75% of the tickets in Tampa or wherever, or is it an equal amount distributed and then first come first serve? I think that’s massively unfair, because a huge fan base like Ohio State’s would overwhelm a neutral site quarterfinal, which is 1 reason why I want an additional round w/ home sites.

 

[hog88]

I think it does and it doesn’t . I think the sting of Ohio State’s loss to Michigan is lessened bc both will be in. I think where it matters is that you don’t get a bye, you may have to go on the road in the first round, which makes the journey to the Final 4 that much more difficult. The problem I’m having w/ the Bowl system being involved is that let’s say Ohio State wins versus Tulane, they travel to play TCU in a neutral site game. Do TCU fans get 75% of the tickets in Tampa or wherever, or is it an equal amount distributed and then first come first serve? I think that’s massively unfair, because a huge fan base like Ohio State’s would overwhelm a neutral site quarterfinal, which is 1 reason why I want an additional round w/ home sites.

I absolutely believe an expansion to 12 teams will need the first 2 rounds played on campus. It's asinine to ask fans to travel 2-3 weeks in a row to neutral sites.

 

[VOLS INC.]

I posted this in the NCAA Forum, but why wouldn’t you want this?

I think once it’s launched people will buy in quickly. That’s a sexy slate of games right there.

 

[LTVol]

Make it a conference champioms only tournament. Then its truly decided on the field. If you arent good enough to win your conference, how the hell can you be the best in the nation for that season?


Anything else and its still just a bunch of nerds deciding who gets a chance to get hot and win an end of the season tournament.

So you think GA didnt deserve to play for the natty last year?

 

[volfan102455]

An alternative would be to just do away with the conference championships games and let the top 12 decisioning decide who is in. They do however need to better state the criteria so that it penalizes those that lose late the same as those that lose early. A loss is a loss. A win in a win. When you start making decisions based on improvement of a team that is where it becomes subjective. Some teams play the tougher teams early, some late.

We used to play UGA and SC earlier - if we had played them earlier, lost and went on a 6 or 7 game win streak - we would be considered a better team regardless of the scores of those games. (e.g. Bama advantage to being ranked over teams they lost to).

I'm assuming this would also be several weeks of games during the time of the year when most are dealing with holidays. Past the first round, for a team that makes it to the championship that is 4 weeks of travel to someplace else. I too think they need to play at the higher seeded schools until they get to at least the final 4, maybe even the final 2.

But I get they are trying to save some of the money that will be lost to the cities where the bowl games are hosted. But in reality, the fans are not going to have the same travel patterns where they may go to a bowl site and spend several days, maybe even the entire week knowing if their team wins, they will be traveling to somewhere else the next weekend. Additionally, the good matchups that occur with the bowls will be no more. So while this seems to extend the football season, I think it actually will make it shorter as all interested in the NY6, etc. will end. Those games will be in early December and over by the time New Year rolls around.