http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...am-playoff
Quote:The inaugural game of the College Football Playoff's four-team tournament is still more than 19 months away, but Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds says it's merely a step in the right direction.
"It's a baby step. It's a good step," Dodds said on Thursday at the Big 12's annual spring meetings. "I'm kind of an eight-team person."
Quote:"I think there'll be a lot of conversation about the fifth team and who didn't get in and an 11-1 team that didn't get in because somebody's 12-0 that maybe wasn't quite as good as 11-1. If you take eight, you're not going to have that. The ninth team is going to have a concern, but it's not like the fifth team."
Clearly this thing is going to get to 8 at some point. Just a matter of when not if.
PLAYOFF CREEP DELANY WARNED US
(I am 100% in favor of playoff creep, of course.)
I think Stewart Mandel is correct. He thinks it will change again after 2019 because all the playoff bowls will have had their full rotation of hosting. It is going to have to be Even Stephen amongst all the bowls before they can re-up. At that time, 8 will make sense.
An 8-team playoff shuts everyone up. Five spots go to the P5 conference champs and then there are three wildcards - with a way in for the best team from the non-P5, ND, and wildcards for the other P5 teams.
Nobody in the P5 would have an argument. Don't like being left out? Win your conference. Nobody from the G5 could complain. Don't like being left out? Finish with the highest G5 ranking. The three wildcards would shut everyone up.
The problem is that this would basically expose all bowl games as being totally useless and stupid, and nobody would go.
(05-30-2013 02:03 PM)justinslot Wrote: [ -> ]PLAYOFF CREEP DELANY WARNED US
(I am 100% in favor of playoff creep, of course.)
Me too. Just because it is the way it always has been doesn't mean it is the way it always should be. Sixteen teams is the way to crown a real champion, with or without existing bowls.
(05-30-2013 02:08 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]An 8-team playoff shuts everyone up. Five spots go to the P5 conference champs and then there are three wildcards - with a way in for the best team from the non-P5, ND, and wildcards for the other P5 teams.
I think the SEC already won the "argument" about the no-autobid playoff format last year, and that the SEC will insist on it for any expansion of the playoff. When it becomes an 8-team playoff, all 8 teams will be chosen by the selection committee, and there won't be autobids for anyone. Same as the 4-team playoff.
(I'm not saying that's a better or worse way to go, just saying that the politics of the system mean that this is what's going to happen.)
(05-30-2013 02:14 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2013 02:08 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]An 8-team playoff shuts everyone up. Five spots go to the P5 conference champs and then there are three wildcards - with a way in for the best team from the non-P5, ND, and wildcards for the other P5 teams.
I think the SEC already won the "argument" about the no-autobid playoff format last year, and that the SEC will insist on it for any expansion of the playoff. When it becomes an 8-team playoff, all 8 teams will be chosen by the selection committee, and there won't be autobids for anyone. Same as the 4-team playoff.
(I'm not saying that's a better or worse way to go, just saying that the politics of the system mean that this is what's going to happen.)
The autobid format is only a problem with four teams because there isn't enough room for all five P5 champs. With 8 slots, that issue goes away. You could potentially have four SEC schools in an 8-team format even with autobids - the SEC champ and then all three wildcards.
(05-30-2013 02:19 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2013 02:14 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2013 02:08 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]An 8-team playoff shuts everyone up. Five spots go to the P5 conference champs and then there are three wildcards - with a way in for the best team from the non-P5, ND, and wildcards for the other P5 teams.
I think the SEC already won the "argument" about the no-autobid playoff format last year, and that the SEC will insist on it for any expansion of the playoff. When it becomes an 8-team playoff, all 8 teams will be chosen by the selection committee, and there won't be autobids for anyone. Same as the 4-team playoff.
(I'm not saying that's a better or worse way to go, just saying that the politics of the system mean that this is what's going to happen.)
The autobid format is only a problem with four teams because there isn't enough room for all five P5 champs. With 8 slots, that issue goes away. You could potentially have four SEC schools in an 8-team format even with autobids - the SEC champ and then all three wildcards.
I agree that it's workable to do it that way, but I still think the SEC will insist on the committee choosing all eight teams. That is implicit in Dodds' comments as well -- "The ninth team is going to have a concern, but it's not like the fifth team."
I'm not sure which is the best way to go. I think there's an argument against giving a playoff spot to say, 8-5 Wisconsin (2012 Big Ten champ) even in an 8-team playoff.
Autobids are a much lesser concern in a 68-team basketball bracket, because in that bracket there are 34 at-large teams and it's not really an outrage that the 35th best at-large team is squeezed out by an autobid winner. But if an autobid team with a spotty resume (like 2012 Wisconsin) pushes the 4th best at-large team out, that's a different story.
(05-30-2013 02:08 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]An 8-team playoff shuts everyone up. Five spots go to the P5 conference champs and then there are three wildcards - with a way in for the best team from the non-P5, ND, and wildcards for the other P5 teams.
Nobody in the P5 would have an argument. Don't like being left out? Win your conference. Nobody from the G5 could complain. Don't like being left out? Finish with the highest G5 ranking. The three wildcards would shut everyone up.
The problem is that this would basically expose all bowl games as being totally useless and stupid, and nobody would go.
You're assuming that the bowls would go away. I'd argue that an 8-team playoff could make the bowls even more relevant. Keep the Rose Bowl as Big Ten vs. Pac-12, send the SEC champ to the Sugar, ACC champ to the Orange and Big 12 champ to Cotton (or Fiesta or whoever wants to pay the most), fill in the 3 wild card spots and there's your 8-team playoff that keeps the bowl system intact while also spreading the opponents around enough to have a bracket that makes sense. (The main roadblock would be if the SEC and Big 12 insist on keeping their bowl, which would cause the matchups in the Orange and Cotton to be way more lopsided and likely untenable for a playoff.) If the political/legal pressure is too great to limit this to the power conferences, throw in one spot to the best Gang of Five champ and leave the other 2 spots as pure wild cards.
(05-30-2013 02:34 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2013 02:19 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2013 02:14 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2013 02:08 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]An 8-team playoff shuts everyone up. Five spots go to the P5 conference champs and then there are three wildcards - with a way in for the best team from the non-P5, ND, and wildcards for the other P5 teams.
I think the SEC already won the "argument" about the no-autobid playoff format last year, and that the SEC will insist on it for any expansion of the playoff. When it becomes an 8-team playoff, all 8 teams will be chosen by the selection committee, and there won't be autobids for anyone. Same as the 4-team playoff.
(I'm not saying that's a better or worse way to go, just saying that the politics of the system mean that this is what's going to happen.)
The autobid format is only a problem with four teams because there isn't enough room for all five P5 champs. With 8 slots, that issue goes away. You could potentially have four SEC schools in an 8-team format even with autobids - the SEC champ and then all three wildcards.
I agree that it's workable to do it that way, but I still think the SEC will insist on the committee choosing all eight teams. That is implicit in Dodds' comments as well -- "The ninth team is going to have a concern, but it's not like the fifth team."
I'm not sure which is the best way to go. I think there's an argument against giving a playoff spot to say, 8-5 Wisconsin (2012 Big Ten champ) even in an 8-team playoff.
Autobids are a much lesser concern in a 68-team basketball bracket, because in that bracket there are 34 at-large teams and it's not really an outrage that the 35th best at-large team is squeezed out by an autobid winner. But if an autobid team with a spotty resume (like 2012 Wisconsin) pushes the 4th best at-large team out, that's a different story.
I think the SEC had the "moral authority" to insist upon a pure top 4 playoff without any conference champ provisions (and to be clear, I agreed with them on that point). Even if there a conference champ requirement or some type of "top 3 conference champs plus 1 wild card" formula, you'd ultimately need to have some type of ranking or committee to figure that out, anyway... in which case everyone is better off just picking a clean top 4 regardless of conference championships.
When you get to 8, I think it tips the balance back to those that want conference champ requirements. It's large enough to include all 5 power conferences, which is obviously critical to anything with respect to the postseason. The 3 wild card spots plus the 5 power conference champs also provide enough depth to the playoff where you're not shutting someone that "deserves" to play for the national championship out (whereas trying to put similar constraints on a 4-team playoff could have easily locked someone "deserving" out of the national title race). Winning a power conference is a very tangible and clear reason to be included in an 8-team playoff.
(05-30-2013 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2013 02:08 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]An 8-team playoff shuts everyone up. Five spots go to the P5 conference champs and then there are three wildcards - with a way in for the best team from the non-P5, ND, and wildcards for the other P5 teams.
Nobody in the P5 would have an argument. Don't like being left out? Win your conference. Nobody from the G5 could complain. Don't like being left out? Finish with the highest G5 ranking. The three wildcards would shut everyone up.
The problem is that this would basically expose all bowl games as being totally useless and stupid, and nobody would go.
You're assuming that the bowls would go away. I'd argue that an 8-team playoff could make the bowls even more relevant. Keep the Rose Bowl as Big Ten vs. Pac-12, send the SEC champ to the Sugar, ACC champ to the Orange and Big 12 champ to Cotton (or Fiesta or whoever wants to pay the most), fill in the 3 wild card spots and there's your 8-team playoff that keeps the bowl system intact while also spreading the opponents around enough to have a bracket that makes sense. (The main roadblock would be if the SEC and Big 12 insist on keeping their bowl, which would cause the matchups in the Orange and Cotton to be way more lopsided and likely untenable for a playoff.) If the political/legal pressure is too great to limit this to the power conferences, throw in one spot to the best Gang of Five champ and leave the other 2 spots as pure wild cards.
Aren't you implying a playoff AFTER the bowls and not concurrent with the bowls? If they did that, then yes, the bowls would matter more. At least the major ones. But if they just pick the eight best teams for a playoff and then send everyone else to bowl games, then those bowl games are poorly attended and get poor TV ratings.
(05-30-2013 02:14 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2013 02:08 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]An 8-team playoff shuts everyone up. Five spots go to the P5 conference champs and then there are three wildcards - with a way in for the best team from the non-P5, ND, and wildcards for the other P5 teams.
I think the SEC already won the "argument" about the no-autobid playoff format last year, and that the SEC will insist on it for any expansion of the playoff. When it becomes an 8-team playoff, all 8 teams will be chosen by the selection committee, and there won't be autobids for anyone. Same as the 4-team playoff.
(I'm not saying that's a better or worse way to go, just saying that the politics of the system mean that this is what's going to happen.)
Agreed. (And, of course, I like that).
(05-30-2013 02:08 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]An 8-team playoff shuts everyone up. Five spots go to the P5 conference champs and then there are three wildcards - with a way in for the best team from the non-P5, ND, and wildcards for the other P5 teams.
Nobody in the P5 would have an argument. Don't like being left out? Win your conference. Nobody from the G5 could complain. Don't like being left out? Finish with the highest G5 ranking. The three wildcards would shut everyone up.
The problem is that this would basically expose all bowl games as being totally useless and stupid, and nobody would go.
"The problem is that this would basically expose all bowl games as being totally useless and stupid, and nobody would go."
Exactly. The bowls are just programming for ESPN during the holiday season.
I always thought 8 was the perfect number. That way, any team can make the 8 team playoff. Teams that aren't ranked at the beginning of the season really have no chance to get into the top 4 by the end of the year. With 8, teams from non-power conferences can get into the top 8 and have a chance to play for the national title if they go undefeated. Right now, if you aren't ranked in the top 25 to begin the year, you won't have a legitimate shot at the national title.
The no autobids work as long as there is a strong SOS schedule component that rewards a team for:
-Playing in and winning a conference title game
-Playing a strong conference slate
-Playing a strong OOC slate.
The current system disincentives teams from playing multiple good OOC and rewards cupcake scheduling. SOS for the playoff and all auto bids make it worth if for teams to take a chance and schedule quality OOC
(05-30-2013 03:14 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]Aren't you implying a playoff AFTER the bowls and not concurrent with the bowls? If they did that, then yes, the bowls would matter more. At least the major ones. But if they just pick the eight best teams for a playoff and then send everyone else to bowl games, then those bowl games are poorly attended and get poor TV ratings.
Yes, that's what I'm implying. I find it extremely likely that the powers that be would use bowls for playoff games even in an 8-team playoff. Whether people here agree with it or not, the power conferences are very much invested in ensuring that the bowls stay intact. Just look at the $40 million that each of the Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC and Big 12 are receiving for the their contract bowl-tie-ins for *non*-playoff games. Now take a step back and think about how much they'd be *directly* (heavy emphasis on *directly* here as that's the name of the game for the power players) getting paid if each of those games were playoffs... and that's not even touching what their shares of the subsequent rounds would be. The money is not only too good to pass up (IMHO), but the bowl system still allows the 5 power conferences to pocket a ton of money directly upfront (which is why they'd still be used).
I think with an 8-team playoff people would still watch the other bowls. If anything, the more prestigious non-BCS type bowls might be impacted some. The lower-tier bowls have no pretense of determining anything other than bragging rights, and never have.
If there was an autobid for the P5, I think the other leagues would force B12 to expand and have a play in game.
It would be unfair for them to be a smaller league with one less game than the rest.
The day we go to an 8 team playoff, is the day I probably stop caring about half the games in the first 2/3 the regular season I now care a lot about. Big Ten champ will always be in an 8 team playoff, so who wins a game between the SEC and PAC-12 to start the year won't matter much to me as even the looser is still very much in the race if they do well. I guess I'd still follow the conferences races, but I think the national race would become the same for me as it is basketball (the #1 and #2 teams are playing in the regular season, so what? It doesn't matter unless it effects who becomes conference champ).