The 8 team playoff would have been

[Sean Miller Fan]

When it goes to 8 teams (and it will), I think the 5 P5 champs plus 3 wild-cards get in.

Quarterfinals played at campus sites 2 weeks after the conference championships.

4 of the 5 conference champs get home field (to put more value on winning your conference)

1 Alabama
8 USC

4 Penn State
5 Ohio State

3 Washington
6 Michigan

2 Clemson
7 Oklahoma


I know Wisconsin finished 8th and USC 9th but since it was meaningless, the committee spent no time comparing resumes. If they did, USC easily gets in. They have 2 Top 10 wins. Wisky only has 1 Top 25 win (over #20).

Using this year as an example:
Friday, Dec 16
8:00 USC at Alabama

Sat, Dec 17
1:00 Oklahoma at Clemson
5:00 Ohio State at Penn State
9:00 Michigan at Washington

Final Four (all at 1 site)
Sat, Dec 31 and Sat, Jan 7

Eff the bowls, dont need to outsource any of the post-season. Keep all the money.

Rose would be Stanford vs Wisky
Orange would be FSU vs Florida
Sugar would be Auburn vs OKST
They'll survive.

BTW, in this format, with our 2 Top 5 wins, Pitt would have been in if we went 9-3.

 

[DC Panther]

While I am leaning toward extending the playoff to 8, under your scenario, the team that loses in the first round gets really no/none of the perks/benefits of traveling/attending a bowl game. I agree that the first rd. games would need to be played at the higher seed's stadium, but I tend to think that the first round losers should go back into the bowl system but obviously that snarls travel plans. Also, wouldn't playing first round games that weekend in Dec. be at the end of finals week for most schools? We know academics are a priority.

 

[Pittx9]

I would hope that would've been the 8. Wisconsin is not in the same stratosphere as USC.

 

[Pitt79]

... the team that loses in the first round gets really no/none of the perks/benefits of traveling/attending a bowl game...

LOL, WOW, overthinking.... they get a benefit of playing for the championship.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

LOL, WOW, overthinking.... they get a benefit of playing for the championship.

Yea, I mean if a program would prefer the "benefit" of a bowl game, they could always turn down the opportunity to play for a NC and go to the Sugar Bowl instead. I am being sarcastic of course.

As for preparing for the game and playing the game during Finals Week, lets get real. That should not be a factor. And if it is, push the games back to after Finals Week and tweak the schedule. The schedule I gave was hypothetical. They can make it work. 1-AA, D2, and D3 kids play during Finals Week and they are arguably more of a "student-athlete" than D1 kids and they get less tutoring and accommodations.

 

[TD_istheman]

When it goes to 8 teams (and it will), I think the 5 P5 champs plus 3 wild-cards get in.

Quarterfinals played at campus sites 2 weeks after the conference championships.

4 of the 5 conference champs get home field (to put more value on winning your conference)

1 Alabama
8 USC

4 Penn State
5 Ohio State

3 Washington
6 Michigan

2 Clemson
7 Oklahoma


I know Wisconsin finished 8th and USC 9th but since it was meaningless, the committee spent no time comparing resumes. If they did, USC easily gets in. They have 2 Top 10 wins. Wisky only has 1 Top 25 win (over #20).

Using this year as an example:
Friday, Dec 16
8:00 USC at Alabama

Sat, Dec 17
1:00 Oklahoma at Clemson
5:00 Ohio State at Penn State
9:00 Michigan at Washington

Final Four (all at 1 site)
Sat, Dec 31 and Sat, Jan 7

Eff the bowls, dont need to outsource any of the post-season. Keep all the money.

Rose would be Stanford vs Wisky
Orange would be FSU vs Florida
Sugar would be Auburn vs OKST
They'll survive.

BTW, in this format, with our 2 Top 5 wins, Pitt would have been in if we went 9-3.

I agree.

 

[jtownknowitall]

But with three wild cards you would have at least six schools whining that they weren't one of them and soon enough there would be clamoring for a sixteen team playoff. And on and on it would go.

 

[TD_istheman]

They might have slipped Western Michigan in there somehow , someway

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

But with three wild cards you would have at least six schools whining that they weren't one of them and soon enough there would be clamoring for a sixteen team playoff. And on and on it would go.

Even better. Expand it to 16 then, then 32, 64, let everyone in.

What 8 does is it gives an auto bid to the 5 champs. If you win a P5 championship, you should have a chance at a National Championship.

 

[PantherO]

As long as people are involved...it is stupid. If keep at 4, then swallow up the Big12 already and have the 4 conference champs. If 8, then P5 + (some predefined published formula) . The bias needs to be removed.

 

[Pitt79]

What 8 does is it gives an auto bid to the 5 champs. If you win a P5 championship, you should have a chance at a National Championship.

This is the main argument for 8, at least with 8, EVERY Power 5 team controls it's own destiny to make the playoff and that's what I care about most, teams qualifying based on winning a league championship by winning certain games ON THE FIELD. Entering the tournament BECAUSE OF winning a certain game, not on subjective criteria, like "body of work" and BS like that.

Myself, I'd also add a stipulation that the best of the non-P5 champions get an automatic bid too, because I think it's stupid that they call those leagues D1, then exclude them from participation. That would leave 3 wild cards, only two in my plan. And I know I have no sympathy for the blue bloods, so that's OK by me.

IMO wild cards are corporate welfare, for the subjectively decided best teams, that fail ON THE FIELD and you want to give them extra chances, sorta like bailing out failed banks and CEOs, so I'm fine if only 2-3 "best teams" get welfare to stay in, I'm not crying about the 3rd-4th-5th-6th best LOSER who is left out, why? Because it's sports to decide things by game results alone and not perceived best talent or "body of work", I personally will not be watching the playoff this year, or probably any year, until they either give automatic bids to the P5 Conference Champs, or Pitt makes it.

 

[jtownknowitall]

If they are all D1 why is there such a thing as the Power 5?

If you have eight spots there are at least 8 conferences in D1. There is no need for wild cards.

 

[Pitt79]

Next complaint is that "Maybe the best team won't win the championship?"

Simple answer: Who Cares?

Best team, does NOT necessarily = Champion, and SHOULD'NT

Villanova over Georgetown in '84, 18-0 Patriots, losing to 12-7 NYG in the Super Bowl! You see? Champion DOES NOT = Best team! And those are the most memorable outcomes, if 'Bama rolls 50-0 both games in this year's playoffs, it will be a FORGETABLE result, nobody but 'Bama fans will care or remember...

That's why you play the games, so that lesser teams have the chance to ruin the "best" team's season, if not, let's just have sports writers observe training camp and vote for best team in August, that way there will be less concussions too.

 

[Pitt79]

If they are all D1 why is there such a thing as the Power 5?

If you have eight spots there are at least 8 conferences in D1. There is no need for wild cards.

Good question, It makes no sense to me that the MAC and the Sun Belt are in the same Classification as the P5? If they are, they should have a pathway to the playoff too -EVEN IF they get killed in the 1st round. If not, they should have their own playoff.

 

[Hotshoe]

USC is playing well, but 6 of the teams they beat on their run aren't even going to a bowl game. The PAC 12 was awful this year, and that's coming from an ASU grad.

 

[mvk112]

While I am leaning toward extending the playoff to 8, under your scenario, the team that loses in the first round gets really no/none of the perks/benefits of traveling/attending a bowl game. I agree that the first rd. games would need to be played at the higher seed's stadium, but I tend to think that the first round losers should go back into the bowl system but obviously that snarls travel plans. Also, wouldn't playing first round games that weekend in Dec. be at the end of finals week for most schools? We know academics are a priority.

There could be two bowls designated for the first round losers. Maybe Fiesta and Cotton or Peach.

 

[Pitt79]

There could be two bowls designated for the first round losers. Maybe Fiesta and Cotton or Peach.

Why, they had their chance and LOST, why not let other teams go to the bowls? Isn't just getting in the playoff enough?

 

[mvk112]

Why, they had their chance and LOST, why not let other teams go to the bowls? Isn't just getting in the playoff enough?

I was just addressing his concerns about those teams not getting to be part of the bowl system. And losing an on-campus game in mid December isn't getting the travel/bowl experience.

Even with the losses, I think most would like to see (hypothetical) matchups of USC-Penn State and Oklahoma-Washington.

 

[Piranha]

TOO MANY TEAMS THIS YEAR - Bama is the only team that deserves the title.

 

[Pitt79]

TOO MANY TEAMS THIS YEAR - Bama is the only team that deserves the title.

That's not true, IMO anybody that wins their conference, then beats 2-3 teams in a playoff system is definitely deserving of the title any year. Because being the best team, doesn't have anything to do with being champion.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

TOO MANY TEAMS THIS YEAR - Bama is the only team that deserves the title.

They are PROBABLY the best team this year bit they have 0 wins vs teams with less than 3 losses. Pitt has 2. Just saying.

 

[Pitt79]

Let me ask you this, in 1984, when Villanova beat Georgetown to win the NCAA Basketball Tournament, did they "deserve" to be Champions?

 

[Piranha]

That's not true, IMO anybody that wins their conference, then beats 2-3 teams in a playoff system is definitely deserving of the title any year. Because being the best team, doesn't have anything to do with being champion.

They went undefeated in the SEC and destroyed USC in a nonconference game on a neutral field. They are clearly the best team without a doubt.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Let me ask you this, in 1984, when Villanova beat Georgetown to win the NCAA Basketball Tournament, did they "deserve" to be Champions?

Depends on how you define deserve. They won the 6 (or was it 5 back then) required games to be officially called champions. But, they were pretty clearly not the best team that season.

 

[GT74]

When it goes to 8 teams (and it will), I think the 5 P5 champs plus 3 wild-cards get in.

Quarterfinals played at campus sites 2 weeks after the conference championships.

4 of the 5 conference champs get home field (to put more value on winning your conference)

1 Alabama
8 USC

4 Penn State
5 Ohio State

3 Washington
6 Michigan

2 Clemson
7 Oklahoma


I know Wisconsin finished 8th and USC 9th but since it was meaningless, the committee spent no time comparing resumes. If they did, USC easily gets in. They have 2 Top 10 wins. Wisky only has 1 Top 25 win (over #20).

Using this year as an example:
Friday, Dec 16
8:00 USC at Alabama

Sat, Dec 17
1:00 Oklahoma at Clemson
5:00 Ohio State at Penn State
9:00 Michigan at Washington

Final Four (all at 1 site)
Sat, Dec 31 and Sat, Jan 7

Eff the bowls, dont need to outsource any of the post-season. Keep all the money.

Rose would be Stanford vs Wisky
Orange would be FSU vs Florida
Sugar would be Auburn vs OKST
They'll survive.

BTW, in this format, with our 2 Top 5 wins, Pitt would have been in if we went 9-3.

Interesting matchups. I like it! Said from the beginning that an 8 team playoff is better, and certainly more profitable to NCAA and conferences. Yeah, a couple extra games, but how much would teams care?

 

[Pitt79]

They went undefeated in the SEC and destroyed USC in a nonconference game on a neutral field. They are clearly the best team without a doubt.

Best team never had anything to do with being champion. You can be the best team and lose the championship game and you end up not being champion. As far back as I remember, champion was determined in most sports by winning an arbitrary set of games, or a title game, and IMO if you win the games designated to determine the championship and you entered the playoff or title game following the objective formula devised for entry, then you deserve to be champion. PERIOD.

 

[Pitt79]

Depends on how you define deserve. They won the 6 (or was it 5 back then) required games to be officially called champions. But, they were pretty clearly not the best team that season.

I never said "did they deserve to be considered best team", I said "Champion" and best team has nothing to do with champion. Georgetown DESERVES to say they where the best team-although someone can argue that, and 'Nova DESERVES to say they where champions-and it can't be argued, it's a FACT. Best Team is subjective, opinion based. Champion should be objective, it should be arrived at by a pre determined formula...

Win these games or % of games to enter the playoffs
Win the number of games predetermined to win the playoff = CHAMPION

BEST TEAM on the other hand is just people arguing about who had a better body of work or more talent... subjective, somebody's opinion.

CHAMPION leaves no doubt, it was won by playing the games, like 'Nova did in 1984, I'd always prefer being Champion over being BEST TEAM, if I had to pick between the two. It's two different things and mutually exclusive, you could be both champion and best team, but champion can be someone other than the best team.

 

[Piranha]

Best team never had anything to do with being champion. You can be the best team and lose the championship game and you end up not being champion. As far back as I remember, champion was determined in most sports by winning an arbitrary set of games, or a title game, and IMO if you win the games designated to determine the championship and you entered the playoff or title game following the objective formula devised for entry, then you deserve to be champion. PERIOD.

Fine - then this would be the year to go old school. Play Bama vs the #2 team, and the rest of the bowls can do their thing. No need to water it down by going to 8 teams.

 

[Pitt79]

Fine - then this would be the year to go old school. Play Bama vs the #2 team, and the rest of the bowls can do their thing. No need to water it down by going to 8 teams.

If they're so good, why do you want corporate welfare, to make it easier for them? I'd rather see them have to fight through a gauntlet of inferior teams with the threat of being tripped up. It's almost like you want to rig it for the rich guy to make sure there's no chance he fails? Makes no sense, I ENJOY when some undeserving David Nobody rises up and slays Goliath.

 

[GT74]

Fine - then this would be the year to go old school. Play Bama vs the #2 team, and the rest of the bowls can do their thing. No need to water it down by going to 8 teams.

I don't think it is 'watering it down'. How much difference is there between #2 and #8 this year? Wisconsin lost to OSU in OT as an example. I think 8 is an improvement. Why shouldn't those extra teams be given a shot at a playoff? I can tell you this. If Pitt was #5 to #8 in any year, Pitt fans would be upset. Other than teams being forced to play more games, and I don't know if the players think that is a negative, it is a benefit for fans and financially for the conferences and programs.

 

[Piranha]

If they're so good, why do you want corporate welfare, to make it easier for them? I'd rather see them have to fight through a gauntlet of inferior teams with the threat of being tripped up. It's almost like you want to rig it for the rich guy to make sure there's no chance he fails? Makes no sense, I ENJOY when some undeserving David Nobody rises up and slays Goliath.

If you lose more than 1 game, and/or cannot win your own conference, then you have no say. That leaves Washington and Clemson. Washington lost to USC, who got destroyed by Bama. That leaves you with Clemson. That is your title game. The rest of the bowls can do their thing.

 

[GT74]

If you lose more than 1 game, and/or cannot win your own conference, then you have no say. That leaves Washington and Clemson. Washington lost to USC, who got destroyed by Bama. That leaves you with Clemson. That is your title game. The rest of the bowls can do their thing.

It is really tough going undefeated these days. If teams play a tough schedule, they are likely to lose a game or two, especially on the road, but still be really good. Bama is an exception. Also, some teams have tough injuries early, or lose a game or two on wtf situations, but still may be among the best teams at the end of the year. Same in hoops. Some teams start slow, or get some bad breaks, but could beat the best teams in the end. Just sayin. I see little downside in expanding to 8, IMO.

 

[topdecktiger]

TOO MANY TEAMS THIS YEAR - Bama is the only team that deserves the title.

By that logic, there isn't any point of playing the games in the first place. Just decide who you think is the best team at the beginning of the year, and hand them the trophy in August.

 

[yc_ballcat]

Minor correction: Nova over Georgetown was 1985, which was the first year of 64 teams. Nova's PG (Gary McClain) revealed several years later in SI that he was high on cocaine during that game + the semi-final vs Memphis State.

 

[yc_ballcat]

TOO MANY TEAMS THIS YEAR - Bama is the only team that deserves the title.

People assumed as much in 2014, too. Granted, Ohio State is not as good this year. Washington might be over-matched but they do have talent on both sides of the ball and Chris Peterson is an innovative offensive coach who has beaten teams with more talent than his in the past.

 

[Pitt79]

Minor correction: Nova over Georgetown was 1985, which was the first year of 64 teams. Nova's PG (Gary McClain) revealed several years later in SI that he was high on cocaine during that game + the semi-final vs Memphis State.

Why does him being on cocaine matter? Still the CHAMPIONS. '84, '85, my point is the same, there was also the 11 loss NC State team that was NCAA CHAMPION, UCONN several years ago that ran the table of the BET and the NCAAT, these are DESERVING CHAMPIONS because they won the games that defined champion.

 

[Pitt79]

By that logic, there isn't any point of playing the games in the first place. Just decide who you think is the best team at the beginning of the year, and hand them the trophy in August.

Exactly, I just don't get some people's obsession with having the best team always be the champion? The FUN of playing the games is the fact that the best team might not be the champion and you see some great performances by someone you don't expect it from, also a bigger tourney gives more people hope that they can get there, why would you want only the rich to get richer and forever stay richer?

If Pitt had gone 10-3 and won the ACC title game, damn right I'd love the chance to lose to 'Bama 91-42 ( I assume we'd score some ) I'm glad other sports don't have these attitudes, I ACTUALLY LIKE that an 8 seed or a wild card team that isn't that great, can make a run and knock off the big dog, I think that's the biggest moments in sports and LIKE seeing the big dog on his knees crying as the clock runs out. When the best team wins the title as expected, those are the least memorable outcomes of all, unless it's your team (like the '70s Steelers).

 

[oldpantherfan]

The way you guys are setting this up is no different than the CFP and is based on popularity. If ever played a sport and competed in a playoff then you know that from youth to pros no 3rd place teams ranks higher than champions or runner ups except in the corrupt, money based NCAA. If this was true than there would be no need for conference championship games, which the NCAA put emphasis on . Why to make more money !!!! It doesn't matter if you win if the committee likes someone better, or looks better to advertisers, or sells more tickets.
Here is how a REAL 8 team playoff should look :
1. ALABAMA
2. WESTERN MICHIGAN
3.CLEMSON
4. WASHINGTON
5.PENN STATAE
6.OKLAHOMA
7.TEMPLE
8. WESTERN KENTUCKY

 

[Pitt79]

The way you guys are setting this up is no different than the CFP and is based on popularity. If ever played a sport and competed in a playoff then you know that from youth to pros no 3rd place teams ranks higher than champions or runner ups except in the corrupt, money based NCAA. If this was true than there would be no need for conference championship games, which the NCAA put emphasis on . Why to make more money !!!! It doesn't matter if you win if the committee likes someone better, or looks better to advertisers, or sells more tickets.
Here is how a REAL 8 team playoff should look :
1. ALABAMA
2. WESTERN MICHIGAN
3.CLEMSON
4. WASHINGTON
5.PENN STATAE
6.OKLAHOMA
7.TEMPLE
8. WESTERN KENTUCKY

I'd be all for it. No tears for the LOSING rich guys. Or make it 12 teams with a bye round and add 4 LOSERS. tOSU, Michigan, whoever, Wisconsin and USC.

 

[Piranha]

By that logic, there isn't any point of playing the games in the first place. Just decide who you think is the best team at the beginning of the year, and hand them the trophy in August.

A single championship of Bama vs Clemson would have worked fine this year. I am fine with a Final 4, but u do not need anymore. If you lose more than 1 game, then u have no say. You had your chance already and blew it.