I've seen that tossed around after some of the early blowouts. But...
#5 is meeting #6 for the championship.
#5 is meeting #6 for the championship.
So do we still only need 4 teams in the playoff?
- Thread starter TheWerewolfFromTwilight
- Start date
Regardless of how these games went, the logical answer, at least back when there were 5 power conferences, was that 8 was the optimum number. 4 didn’t make sense when there were 5 major conferences.
I don’t have any big oroblem with 12 now although I still think 8 is the best number and 4 isn’t enough.
I don’t have any big oroblem with 12 now although I still think 8 is the best number and 4 isn’t enough.
I don't think either ND or OSU had the type of season that should give them the opportunity to play for the national championship, but as we all know, this is America and money rules everything. Bigger playoffs with more teams being in the bracket means more money.
Just taking Notre Dame for instance...
In the age of incessant transferring and teams maybe taking a little longer to gel, do we really want one game in September to tank their whole season?
Interesting discussion. I think OSU gets in if it was a 4 team field because the committee would have looked at it differently.
1. Oregon
2. UGa
3. Texas
4. Ohio State
#4 would have been a great debate. PSU would have lost the "we cant be penalized for playing in the B10CG" argument because it wouldnt be a thing.
ND 11-1
PSU 11-2
OSU 10-2
OSU won at PSU, who had the same record so that eliminates them. OSU also beat IU, whereas PSU's best win was vs Illinois. The thought would be PSU has their chance to make it vs Oregon.
I can see ND over OSU possibly but their loss is really bad, much worse than Michigan beating OSU. And they dont have great wins. A&M, Army, Louisville. I go OSU.
Even when the two teams playing for the championship wouldn't have been in under a 4-team playoff?
The argument I've mostly seen is that the first few rounds are just a waste of time because the top teams will be there in the end anyway. Well, it's 5 and 6 in the end.
No way Ohio State was getting in with two losses and their last game being a loss. It would have been Notre Dame (can't have PSU vs Oregon two times in a row).
I want it to be as big as possible if no one is going to take the bowl games seriously. 16, or even 24, would be fine with me - they can get rid of conference championships.
Non-CFP bowl games have become such a joke, so the less of them the better.
It may have been ND but I think so much weight gets applied to what probably was the 3rd best win in the country this season at PSU. Also, had it been PSU, they wouldn't have done B10CG and SECCG rematches twice in a row. It would have been #1 Oregon vs #3 Texas but seeded Texas 4th and #2 UGa vs #4 PSU and seeded them 3rd. They would have been able to explain that.
Can’t say I agree with this. Wasn’t Oregon the only undefeated team? That being the case, how was a 1-loss ND team not deserving of an opportunity?
And OSU pretty much duplicated the profile of an Alabama or UGA that every other year everyone said belonged in the BCS…..a 2-loss team but deserving because they look like one of if not the best team in the country.
1 year is not a good sample size, but also take into account that some teams knew they were getting in before the last game of their season and so they might not pay as hard as they would have because of the expanded playoff. For example, OSU losing to Michigan.
In some cases that argument about a team not playing hard because ‘they’re already in’ may be valid, but OSU/Michigan isn’t remotely a good example of that.
Living in OSU country, there wasn’t an OSU fan I knew that didn’t want Ryan Day fired for pulling the ole John Cooper lose to Michigan X years in a row now.
100% yes. Losing a buy game to NIU should be an automatic disqualification. F Notre Dame.
I would be fine with 8 teams, and I would be fine up to 16 teams. In fact, I would prefer either over the way 12 is setup.
Two was ridiculous, and 4 not big enough.
Two was ridiculous, and 4 not big enough.
i think 8 would have been sufficient to be honest. weird that you go from 4 to 12 and skip 8. I think 8 is perfect, reduces alot of those lopsided first rd games..
The early blowouts show me that 8 is the number. Rank them one thru eight. No automatics for conference champs. Let the rest bitch and moan.
16 with no preferential treatment for conference winners or conference championship games would have yielded:
1 Oregon
16 Iowa State
2 Texas
15 Arizona State
3 Penn State
14 South Carolina
4 Notre Dame
13 Ole Miss
5 Georgia
12 Miami
6 Ohio State
11 Alabma
7 Tennessee
10 Boise State
8 SMU
9 Indiana
Do that, and reseed after every round (i.e. highest seed plays lowest) so the regular season still means something.
Excellent points. ND skates on thin ice due to its being an independent, so one loss is all the committee might tolerate. Fortunately (for them) the loss came in week 2. Also, (although now it includes their playoff wins) ND has a record of 7-0 vs ranked teams (or should I say, teams that were ranked when they played them)
OSU does remind me a bit of the route AL took to win at least one of their NC's
That would be great entertainment. Guys can start shutting it down and preparing for the draft because they're 2-1 three weeks into the season
The fact #5 and #6 are in the Championship is a bit of a red herring.
If you played this exact same bracket again in 30 days, you'd get get a least one different team in the final, possibly two. That's just how tournaments work. A 12 team CFP doesn't necessarily determine who was the best team that season, it just determines who won the tournament - i.e the best team doesn't always win in a single elim tourney.
Yea. Should be 16. Maybe even 24 like FCS. I hate when people complain about early blowouts. Who cares? Are you going to watch CSI instead of a 42-14 OSU vs Louisville game? Do people complain about 1 seeds blowing out 16 seeds in basketball?
More football = good
But I think that's the point. The argument for 4 was mostly that a few teams are so much better than everyone else that any more than that is a waste of time.
SEC commissioner crying about how it's unfair that they only got 3 teams in. i cant hate that conference anymore than i do..
Losing at home to a MAC team--especially one that is the 7th place MAC team--should mean you are not worthy of the national title. Heck, Toledo finished better in the MAC than NIU by virtue of having same record but winning head to head.
And I say that as a Pitt fan who has lost to many MAC teams. 2021 Pitt didn't deserve to be in the playoffs because we lost to WMU.
The 12-team playoff is fine, 16 would be good as well. I still think a separation between the P4 and G5 would be best as both would have their own playoffs. The early rounds would've been much better as well if (1) there wasn't the huge layoff between the end of season and 2nd round of playoffs and (2) if the teams with a bye got to play a home game. These are two areas that need to be improved as early as next year. I still don't like the concept of conference championship games anymore either.
I actually thought the non-CFP bowl games were terrific this year. From a pure entertainment standpoint, those games were much better than the CFPs other than Texas-ASU. Plus it's good filler TV during a slow time of year. It's one of those simple things if you don't like them, don't watch them.
IMO one more season of 12 teams. If there are blowouts like this year TV viewership could fall and being that THE BIG MONEY rules it may go back to 8 teams. But, again THE BIG MONEY will call the shots.
Similar threads
