It should only be eight teams with no bye’s. All expanded playoffs do is show who is a good tournament team. The regular season should be the main decider of the teams. I’ve always said 12 is stupid. And playoff games with teams at home in college football are stupid at the highest level. Make the first playoff games the throwaway bowls that nobody watches ( Tire Bowl, Liberty Bowl, Poinsettia Bowl, Holiday Bowl, etc.) That way you make more money from sponsors but home games and byes are stupid
So do we still only need 4 teams in the playoff?
- Thread starter TheWerewolfFromTwilight
- Start date
You make way more money overall playing on campus rather than at the bowls. Because you don't have to split the money with the Rose/Orange/Peach/Tire/Holiday/Whatever bowl committee.
I mean do you think that the only reason that AllState sponsors the Sugar Bowl is because it's in New Orleans, and that they would have no interest in sponsoring a game at Ohio State? Or that Capital One wouldn't happily sponsor a game played at Georgia?
Oregon was the only team that went undefeated and then they got destroyed by a two-loss team. Who cares that Notre Dame had one loss to NIU?
Nope, it actually needs expanded to at least 16 teams. The problem this year is the ASININE set up that placed ASU and Boise State automatically into the quarter finals. The four "best" teams ended up being ranked 5-6-7-8 and they should have been 1-2-3-4. Fire that entire committee because they just showed their incompetence this year.
Fluke. Rust coming off bye playing a team that was back in mid season form. Mediocrity rules.
Yes. Oregon got the shaft by beating PSU in the BIG tournament. PSU had an easy waltz into the semi final when Oregon had to play Ohio State. It sucks when winning conference championships makes it harder to win the national. The same can be said for Georgia too.
I do. I like the fact that not necessarily the best team could have won the national championship in college football. I like the fact that perhaps a team that gets lucky/gets some breaks can be national champion, and a better team that has some bad luck would get denied the chance to be crowned national champ. It made college football unique.
Maybe I say that as a bitter Pitt fan. If a playoff existed in the late 70s/early 80s, Pitt probably wins at least more natty, right?
16. Why would anyone want Pitt to have *less* access?
The more you allow in, the less exclusive the club becomes, and the more the wealth of talent is spread around.
On top of that, it creates more meaningful football games. I don't need to watch the 3rd string QB from North Carolina face an Arkansas team with an interim head coach who is missing its three leading receivers and handing off to a 325-pound defensive lineman cause they think it's funny. More playoff games, less meaningless bowl games.
Let’s be serious. A 16-team playoff is going to lead to the following:
SEC and B10 - 11 teams
ACC and Big 12 - 3 teams
ND
1 at large
The regular season will be even more watered down because there’s no incentive for the bigger schools to schedule anyone of significance in the non conference and some teams sitting out players for rest and recovery reasons if they are locked into the playoffs.
Ok then, who did deserve to be there? These teams emerged from the handful of teams that most would agree were the most deserving to make the 12 team field. Who would you prefer to see playing for it?
Your position here makes no sense.
You could say the same about mighty Clemson losing to a half assed Pitt team in 2016, couldn’t you?
So you think OSU wasn’t motivated in the Michigan game?????? Is this some kind of joke, or could you be that clueless?
Again, the things I read on this board…..just astounding.
You are trying to compare a 2016 Pitt team who beat a very good Ped St team to a Northern Illinois team that beat nobody else even close to a Top 10 team. GTFOH
With that said, ND deserved to be in the playoffs.
We'll see. Pitt has a little bit of life if the salary cap model goes into effect.
And you, please keep on posting. Calling out stupidity on this board is my business, and business is always good. Thank you for providing a disproportionate amount of material in that regard.
I know 95% of people probably disagree with me, but I'd rather the tournament be made up of conference champions -- champions can get to play for the overall national championship. That would have meant a 9 team playoff this year because I don't think you can count the 2 team PAC 12, they would have had to affiliate with the Mountain West or something like that. Sure CUSA and Sun Belt champs will get blown out, but at least I'll pay some attention to those conferences during the regular season. But also remember, this will make the conference championship games de facto playoff games, essentially they would be round 1. So it's in effect an 18 team tourney.
If PSU or Texas or SMU wanted to make it, they would have had to pull out all stops during the conference championship game. ND out of luck until they decide to join a conference. This would make regular season stakes higher ... OSU cannot afford the 2nd loss it suffered, etc. Given the high stakes of conference games in such a system, better conference rivalries will develop. It also could encourage more balance between the conferences as opposed to the poaching that has been going on for decades. There is absolutely no need for 18-team conferences where you don't play a particular conference member for a couple years. Conferences should probably be 12 teams, max. They don't need teams on both coasts. Any incentive to stop these megaconferences is a plus in my book.
Last edited:
Rivalry games are less important than playoff games. That's why OSU played like shit against Michigan and then totally destroyed Oregon. It meant more to Michigan this year because it's what they had. And I live in Ohio, so it isn't like I don't understand the importance of that game.
This is no different then when people say that Kamala or Hillary should have been president because they won the popular vote, which totally ignores that strategy would have changed for the winning candidates if popular vote was important.
Come on HailtoPitt, I thought you were just upset because of how sledgehammer to head Badby2 responded to your post. But you’re actually still sticking to your assertion that OSU didn’t care or wasn’t trying in that game.
If you live in Ohio and really think that, you must be in a cocoon 99% of the time.
I didn't say they didn't care. Just that this year it meant more to Michigan because OSU didn't need the win.
It is also inaccurate to say that OSU played bad against Michigan ... rather, the OSU offense played bad. OSU defense was quite good that game. Defense showed up to play, offense did not.
Right, but at the end of the day it's less meaningful this year. Let's look at it this way. If the Steelers play the Browns or Ravens in the last game, and the Steelers have the division locked up, the game will be more important to the Brown or Ravens and the Steelers would likely rest players. It would be that the game doesn't matter, it would just be that there are priorities. The priority is that getting into the playoffs is more important than a rivalry game. If OSU beats ND, are Michigan fans really going to say "yeah but we won"? Maybe some, but it will be stupid.
with the playoff system, you dont need conference championship games anymore.
They are meaningless for the SEC and Big 10. Heck, Oregon got punished for winning.
Similar threads
