The article argues that the FBS should have a playoff system like the FCS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/as...c15e8cad15

This type of media attention (plus $$$) will lead to FBS playoff expansion. It might take 5 or 10 years, but the writing is on the wall.

They will go to 8, then someday 16. It should stop there though, FCS playoffs were better at 16 teams IMO, we now get into debates about which 7-4 team deserves a slot. One reason some bowl games get boring is you are watching two 6-5 type teams that aren’t particularly great. Playoffs should only have the great teams invited. Teams with more than 3 losses don’t deserve to be there.

I thought they'd be at 8 by now. If Wisconsin goes undefeated and doesn't make it in, **** will get wacky.

(11-22-2017 10:51 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  This type of media attention (plus $$$) will lead to FBS playoff expansion. It might take 5 or 10 years, but the writing is on the wall.

They will go to 8, then someday 16. It should stop there though, FCS playoffs were better at 16 teams IMO, we now get into debates about which 7-4 team deserves a slot. One reason some bowl games get boring is you are watching two 6-5 type teams that aren’t particularly great. Playoffs should only have the great teams invited. Teams with more than 3 losses don’t deserve to be there.

They'll expand to 8 when a deserving P5 team gets left out. There's way too much money on the line for the conferences to sit by and watch a conference member get left out. And once it happens to one team, all the other P5s will see it could happen to them too. That's why I'm hoping there's a little bit more chaos this year and someone gets left out and is rightfully pissed.

In any given year there really aren't more than 5 or 6 teams that have any legit claim to being the best team in the country. Going to 8 would get those 5-6 in, and also leave room for a few more teams in years that are particularly deep. Number 9 might get pissed but honestly at that point you really don't have much of an argument anyway.

16 is a good number for a playoff. Hopefully they go that route. But wonder how that will effect the other G5 schools if/when it happens.

I still think 12 is the best number for FBS. You get all the P5 conference champs, some good at-larges and a G5 or two. Also, with 12, the top 4 get a bye as a reward without leaving out 5-8.

You can continue all the weed eater and camping supply bowls for everybody else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The mere fact that G5 schools have to be "legislated" into it illustrates the primary fault with any FBS playoff structure.

fwiw........8

I think 8 would be ideal. Auto bids for the P5 champs, one for the best G5 champ, and 2 at large. Anymore and you are just adding teams for the sake of having more games.

(11-23-2017 11:42 AM)White Hall Wrote:  I think 8 would be ideal. Auto bids for the P5 champs, one for the best G5 champ, and 2 at large. Anymore and you are just adding teams for the sake of having more games.

I think 16 is the number for the simple reason that it allows the P5 conferences to get 2 teams in if they have multiple 1 loss teams.

You can usually gauge how much interest/readership there is in an article by the number of comments. As of 3pm there are 8 comments. That was surprising. He probably would have gotten many more readers if he left JMU out of the headline, unfortunately. But thanks for the article!

Was there anything interesting on page 2? Someone posted page 1 on FB, but no page 2.

(11-23-2017 12:38 AM)hburg Wrote:  16 is a good number for a playoff. Hopefully they go that route. But wonder how that will effect the other G5 schools if/when it happens.

With 16 you:
-have teams in that have zero chance of winning the NC.
-can't maintain the integrity of the bowls.
-stretch the season into late Jan (assuming 12 game seasons, conference championships the 1st weekend of Dec, and a minimum of 1.5 to-2 weeks between conference championship games, round of 16, quarterfinals, semis, NC).
-Teams playing up to 17 games.

With 8, you have:
-5 P5 AQ and 3 at large.
-Include everyone that has a chance of winning an NC.
-Can maintain the integrity of the bowls.
-Can still have the semis and NC games scheduled as they are now.

-1st weeked Dec conference champ games (this year Sat, Dec 2).
-3rd weekend Dec Quarterfinals (This year could be around Fri, 12/15-Sat, 12/16).
-12/31- 1/1 NC semis (same as now).
-1/8 to 1/12 NC game (same as now).

Could still have the same set up with the 6 major bowls currently involved in the playoffs now as far as the semifinals (with 2 hosting semis each year, all 6 hosting once every 3 years). With an expansion to 8 could simply have the 4 bowls not hosting the semis each year hosting the 4 quarterfinal games.

The 6 major bowl games would only involve 8 teams instead of 12, which means for the 39 current bowl games, there would be 74 teams going to bowls instead of 78. Which would likely solve the problem of 5-7 teams going to bowls..

In the past 3 years have had 9-11 days between the semis & NC game. This year only 7.
2014 season: 11 days between semis & NC game (semis 1/1, NC game 1/12)
2015 season: 11 days between semis & NC game (semis 12/31, NC game 1/11).
2016 season: 9 days between semis & NC game (semis 12/31, NC game 1/9).
2017 season: 7 days between semis & NC game (semis 1/1, NC game 1/8).

So this year 30 days between the conference championship games (12/2) and semis on 1/1, but only 7 days between the semis & NC game. Makes no sense.

(11-23-2017 07:38 AM)JMU_71 Wrote:  I still think 12 is the best number for FBS. You get all the P5 conference champs, some good at-larges and a G5 or two. Also, with 12, the top 4 get a bye as a reward without leaving out 5-8.

You can continue all the weed eater and camping supply bowls for everybody else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, you could do that to. Just use my above example, but:
-2nd weekend of Dec have #5 through #12 have to play 1 week after the conference championship games. Top 4 seeds get a bye.
-3rd weekend of Dec quarterfinals with 4 of the 6 major bowls as I stated above.
-Would go from 78 teams in 39 bowls (now) to 74 teams in 39 bowls (field of 8 above) to 70 teams in 39 bowls (field of 12). So no 5-7 teams in bowls and a lot of 6-6 get left out.

This year is the 4th season of a 4 team field. The current ESPN contract with a 4 team field was signed in 2012 for 12 seasons 2014-2025. Even if there is major controversy this year with whoever is the 1st team out, I don't think we'll see a new contract done & 8 teams before the 2020 season. At a minimum we'll see an 8 team field with the new contract in 2026. My guess is 8 teams sometime between 2020 & 2026..

(11-23-2017 12:22 PM)JMUETC Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 11:42 AM)White Hall Wrote:  I think 8 would be ideal. Auto bids for the P5 champs, one for the best G5 champ, and 2 at large. Anymore and you are just adding teams for the sake of having more games.

I think 16 is the number for the simple reason that it allows the P5 conferences to get 2 teams in if they have multiple 1 loss teams.

That would happen with 8. I don't think you'd see a 12-1 P5 team left out of a field of 8. Heck, right now there's only 3 undefeated, and 3 1 loss P5. 2 SEC, 2 ACC, 1 Big 12 and 1 Big 10. And still have rivalry week and the conference championship games.

(11-22-2017 10:51 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  FCS playoffs were better at 16 teams IMO

I disagree sir. I believe that it is significant for every team to have a path to play for the NCAA Championship, meaning that every conference (that meets the criteria and wants to) gets an automatic bid to the championship. You can’t do that with a 16 team field because the handbook that governs NCAA Championships states that you must have at least as many at-large bids as there are automatic bids (currently 10). I’d even like to see the Ivy get their heads out of their butts and send their football champion to the NCAA championship like the do in every other sport.

For FBS: I'm with 8 or 12 (top 4 byes). 4 is just dumb. 16 is too many and I'm guessing a 3 loss team would end up in there. I want every game to matter and you will lose that a little with 16 teams in the playoffs.

Without putting much thought behind it, I don't think there is another NCAA sport or any sport professional league that has a playoff system with less than 8 teams.

Get rid of conference championship games because they are worthless

(11-24-2017 09:01 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  Get rid of conference championship games because they are worthless

Get rid of bowls because they are worthless. Maybe 11 game seasons? That one will be a harder sell, especially with 14 team super conferences.

(11-24-2017 09:01 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  Get rid of conference championship games because they are worthless

That will never happen for one reason and one reason only.... MONEY. The conferences make money on those games and there's no way they are going to give up a pay check for a playoff game that doesn't give them as much or more money than a championship game.

Playoffs haven't happened purely due to money. If they can find a way to make more money in a playoff system instead of bowls, then they would do it.