forums

Rick Endorses The 8 Team Playoff Plan

Advertisement
The 4 team one makes a little sense if they just took conference champions..but when one conference can run in a bunch of their own teams, it kind of loses its luster.

8 teams work the best. You could toss in a Houston, Boise State, etc. for good measure.
 
Advertisement
406Cane said:
Power 5 conference champions + 3 at-large bids would work for me.
Click to expand...

I agree. Below is an old post I had.

4 teams [in reference to the current system]. 4 teams makes no sense. At best, one conference champion gets snubbed and that is at best. It should be 8 teams with 5/8 winning their conference championship. If 5/8 are tied to conference championships, you FULLY remove the human element from 63% of the playoff.

3/8 teams will need to be playoff eligible (12 games, 7 at most at home, required to play 8 conference games and 2 BCS/P5 non-conference games). The 3 best non-conference champions go to the playoffs (at most 2 per conference).

To Review:

- 8 team playoff
- 5 teams come from the conference championships (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12 and SEC)
- 3 At-Large Teams
- 2 Maximum Teams Per Conference
- Independents are not eligible

To be eligible to make the playoff tournament, as an at-large team, you will need to do the following:

- 12 Regular Season Games
- A team must play 5 games on the road (no neutral BS can count) and 1/5 must be out of conference
- A team must schedule 2 of their 4 OOC games against BCS/P5 conference schools
- A team may schedule the other 2 OOC games against anyone

Use the BCS Poll to determine the other 3 Best Teams (remember 5 teams come from conf. champs):

- SOS
- Record
- RPI

-----

If you switch it to 9 games in conference, you drop a non-P5 game.

Another rule to float is that you must make your conference championship to be considered for an At-Large bid.
 
Lokest said:
Then at large teams that get left out are gonna complain
Click to expand...

Someone complaining is not an argument against the idea. Someone will always complain. The issue is whether the current system is the best way to get a certain result.
 
Richt is a coach-- it's in his best interest to have more teams in a playoff. His opinion is meaningless. Eight games is too much and kills the best regular season is sports.

Four is perfect. Go back through history-- four solves every problem. Imagine if we had this system in 2000 or 2004. There will always be someone whining whether it is 4 or 8 or 16.

What makes college football great is that a random upset in October has the significance of a playoff game. Get rid of that, and you just have pro football with worse players and a band.
 
Advertisement
Lokest said:
Then at large teams that get left out are gonna complain
Click to expand...

Much more comfortable telling teams 9 and 10 to eff off. Or to play a better non-conf schedule. You're not really ******** anyone at that point (or sacrificing good football) by having that as your clear cutoff line. Anyone arguing for expansion beyond 8 teams will have an extremely flimsy case that could be easily dismissed by citing dilution of the overall product AND potential dilution of profits.
 
DMoney said:
Richt is a coach-- it's in his best interest to have more teams in a playoff. His opinion is meaningless. Eight games is too much and kills the best regular season is sports.

Four is perfect. Go back through history-- four solves every problem. Imagine if we had this system in 2000 or 2004. There will always be someone whining whether it is 4 or 8 or 16.

What makes college football great is that a random upset in October has the significance of a playoff game. Get rid of that, and you just have pro football with worse players and a band.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how 4 doesn't completely devalue the conference championship games AND reward playing garbage non-conf schedules (see Washington's). THIS system is what is devaluing the regular season. Adding "debate" and "controversy" doesn't somehow make the regular season more meaningful.
 
DMoney said:
Richt is a coach-- it's in his best interest to have more teams in a playoff. His opinion is meaningless. Eight games is too much and kills the best regular season is sports.

Four is perfect. Go back through history-- four solves every problem. Imagine if we had this system in 2000 or 2004. There will always be someone whining whether it is 4 or 8 or 16.

What makes college football great is that a random upset in October has the significance of a playoff game. Get rid of that, and you just have pro football with worse players and a band.
Click to expand...

This post doesn't address the following issues:

1. Conference Champions being omitted,

2. Human element that currently exists and should be minimized,

3. A cohesive agreed upon set of standards to fairly evaluate all the teams as equal as possible (see my post above of about scheduling), and

4. The mess in the big 10

----------------------------

This year 4 isn't perfect. Also, just because 4 teams would have helped things in 2000-2004 (over 10 years ago) is not an argument in favor of the current issues today.

How about last year?

Clemson, Alabama, Michigan State and Oklahoma

Oklahoma lost to Texas

Ohio State's only loss was to Michigan State

How is OSU > Oklahoma?
 
Tad Footeball said:
DMoney said:
Richt is a coach-- it's in his best interest to have more teams in a playoff. His opinion is meaningless. Eight games is too much and kills the best regular season is sports.

Four is perfect. Go back through history-- four solves every problem. Imagine if we had this system in 2000 or 2004. There will always be someone whining whether it is 4 or 8 or 16.

What makes college football great is that a random upset in October has the significance of a playoff game. Get rid of that, and you just have pro football with worse players and a band.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how 4 doesn't completely devalue the conference championship games AND reward playing garbage non-conf schedules (see Washington's). THIS system is what is devaluing the regular season. Adding "debate" and "controversy" doesn't somehow make the regular season more meaningful.
Click to expand...

It does. It also adds more human element and makes the actual results on the field matter less.
 
Advertisement
4 is the right number.

They call it a playoff for semantics. It's really just a "Plus 1" that everyone was calling for during the BCS era. The biggest argument was about being 2 or being 3. So, they've eliminated that by using this "4-team playoff".

Nobody ever argued a team that finished the year ranked 5th should get a shot at the title. And there's no reason to change things, now.

Leave it at 4.

If college football wants to change things, they need to cap the bowl games at 32. Make it like basketball use to be ... 64 teams get invited to bowl games, and the others stay home. Maybe allow 70 teams, which would be 35 bowl games. They also need to have 7 wins be the criteria bowl qualification. That's the area that needs some attention, IMO.
 
Advertisement
Btw, just purely as Canes fans that rightfully so should maintain a certain level of a national based persecution complex, you NEED to hope for this system to go to a place where there at least is a component where an objective criteria will get you in. If not, we WILL eventually get screwed.....if we return to national relevance. How anyone that was alive in the year 2000 can't see this is beyond me. That said, I'm still for the 8 team system even outside of my personal bias and ptsd.
 
Again, 4 doesn't work because it omits conference champions AND adds too much of the human element.
 
Lokest said:
Who isn't in this year that should be in?
Click to expand...

You think if Ohio State had the same resume but wasn't a big boy name bluebood program that we'd all have just assumed they were a lock and untouchable despite not even winning their division?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top