I would like an 8 team playoff

[Wannabe MEP]

[bwgood77]

:pray:

We discussed this a couple of weeks ago, but I want 16, but 8 would be a good start. As the fan of a team like AZ, if you lose 2 games out of first 4, that is likely the end of your playoff chances. What is the incentive to keep watching?

I would love to get the champion of each major conference, and then 11 at large teams. Or even 12 teams with 4 byes. 5 vs 12 and so on. You could easily do this in December after finals Dec 27th, Jan 4th then 11th or something.

Bowl games or so meaningless. They should also just have lesser tourneys like college basketball. Next 8 best teams and then next 8 after that. Or 12 in each with same format as above. Then you get most of the good bowl teams with 8 wins or more or maybe 7 wins in very tough conferences.

[bleu]

I would like an 8 team as well, poooooosssssibly a 12. Either way, every conference champ should absolutely be in, and there should be a spot reserved for the top G5 team as well. So last year, that would have looked like this:

1. Clemsom
2. Alabama
3. Michigan State
4. Oklahoma
5. Stanford
6. Houston
7. Iowa
8. Ohio State

I'm not a fan of 16, but I would take that over what we have now with just four. It's just crazy that we have a four team playoff, that's hardly a playoff at all.

[Wannabe MEP]

We discussed this a couple of weeks ago

Oh, sorry, I looked, but didn't see a recent thread about this.

I want 16, but 8 would be a good start.

I used to be pretty adamant about 16, but I think 8 would be awesome enough, and they're just SO much more likely to do the small, incremental change. I would get really, really excited about 8. Political compromise

[Wannabe MEP]

I would like an 8 team as well, poooooosssssibly a 12. Either way, every conference champ should absolutely be in, and there should be a spot reserved for the top G5 team as well.

Exactly. Stupidly obvious.

So last year, that would have looked like this:

1. Clemsom
2. Alabama
3. Michigan State
4. Oklahoma
5. Stanford
6. Houston
7. Iowa
8. Ohio State

Woulda been awesome.

The year before as well: definitely NEEDED TCU and Baylor in there. Do you realize how close we were to no Ohio State, and they go on to win it?

It's just crazy that we have a four team playoff, that's hardly a playoff at all.

They're such p*****s. "Let's do a small change that doesn't actually fix things, and leaves us with the same essential problem we had before." Because...tradition? Money trail?

[bleu]

Los Soles, I noticed your location is Boise. You a Boise St. fan?

[Wannabe MEP]

Los Soles, I noticed your location is Boise. You a Boise St. fan?

Yeah, but I am not a purist (unlike most of Boise...it's ridiculous around here sometimes). I've moved around the West, so I grew up cheering for a few different Pac-12 schools. And then I attended UNC, so I hedge my bets all over the place .

Depending on the story for that year, I could go either way when it's Boise State vs Pac-12.

[Wannabe MEP]

But I am all about the mid-majors like Boise State getting a chance in the playoffs. I'm not saying they would've ever won, but they should have had the chance, a la Butler, Wichita State, etc. Boise State had two undefeated seasons in which they won BCS bowls: ridiculous that that's the end of the season, and their final ranking comes from voters.

a little recap:

• 2004 - Utah beat Big East champion (Pittsburgh) -- finished undefeated
• 2006 - BSU beat Big-12 champion (Oklahoma) -- finished undefeated
• 2008 - BSU beat Pac-12 runner-up, #12 (Oregon)
• 2008 - Utah beat one-loss #4 (Alabama) -- finished undefeated
• 2009 - BSU beat Pac-12 champion, eventual #7 (Oregon) and #3 (TCU) -- finished undefeated
• 2010 - BSU beat ACC champion, #6 (Va Tech)
• 2010 - TCU beat Big-10 champion, #4 (Wisconsin) -- finished undefeated
• 2011 - BSU beat SEC East champion (Georgia)
• 2013 - UCF beat Big-12 champion, #6 (Baylor)
• 2014 - BSU beat Pac-12 South champion, #11 (Arizona)
• 2015 - Houston beat ACC Atlantic runner-up, #9 (Florida State)
• 2016 - Houston beat #3 (Oklahoma)

With a 4-team playoff, as before with the BCS, I don't know that any of these teams even get a chance. And yet, some of them PROVED they could beat top-4 teams!!

[Wannabe MEP]

Teams that should -- but decent chance won’t -- be in the playoff:

• Oklahoma, if it runs the table the rest of the way (Big-12 champ; toughest schedule in the nation so far — their resume is at least as good as Ohio State’s was at this point in the season two years ago…)
• Winner of Louisville vs Houston, if no other losses
• Pac-12 champion, with 1, or even 2, losses (Sagarin has Pac-12 as #1 or #2 toughest conference)
• Undefeated Boise State

If all these things happen, which is very possible, that’s 4 teams. Plus SEC champ (Bama?), ACC champ (Clemson?), Big-10 champ (Ohio St/Mich?): pretty quickly we’re at 7 teams.

And 8 would be easy enough: take the best remaining one-loss team that didn’t win its conference (e.g., Mich/Ohio St. loser, Texas A&M, Stanford).

[Latrell]

But I am all about the mid-majors like Boise State getting a chance in the playoffs. I'm not saying they would've ever won, but they should have had the chance, a la Butler, Wichita State, etc. Boise State had two undefeated seasons in which they won BCS bowls: ridiculous that that's the end of the season, and their final ranking comes from voters.

a little recap:

• 2004 - Utah beat Big East champion (Pittsburgh) -- finished undefeated
• 2006 - BSU beat Big-12 champion (Oklahoma) -- finished undefeated
• 2008 - BSU beat Pac-12 runner-up, #12 (Oregon)
• 2008 - Utah beat one-loss #4 (Alabama) -- finished undefeated
• 2009 - BSU beat Pac-12 champion, eventual #7 (Oregon) and #3 (TCU) -- finished undefeated
• 2010 - BSU beat ACC champion, #6 (Va Tech)
• 2010 - TCU beat Big-10 champion, #4 (Wisconsin) -- finished undefeated
• 2011 - BSU beat SEC East champion (Georgia)
• 2013 - UCF beat Big-12 champion, #6 (Baylor)
• 2014 - BSU beat Pac-12 South champion, #11 (Arizona)
• 2015 - Houston beat ACC Atlantic runner-up, #9 (Florida State)
• 2016 - Houston beat #3 (Oklahoma)

With a 4-team playoff, as before with the BCS, I don't know that any of these teams even get a chance. And yet, some of them PROVED they could beat top-4 teams!!

That Boise/Oklahoma game from 2006 probably remains my favourite non-Bama game of all time.

[El Turco]

Teams that should -- but decent chance won’t -- be in the playoff:

• Oklahoma, if it runs the table the rest of the way (Big-12 champ; toughest schedule in the nation so far — their resume is at least as good as Ohio State’s was at this point in the season two years ago…)
• Winner of Louisville vs Houston, if no other losses
• Pac-12 champion, with 1, or even 2, losses (Sagarin has Pac-12 as #1 or #2 toughest conference)
• Undefeated Boise State

If all these things happen, which is very possible, that’s 4 teams. Plus SEC champ (Bama?), ACC champ (Clemson?), Big-10 champ (Ohio St/Mich?): pretty quickly we’re at 7 teams.

And 8 would be easy enough: take the best remaining one-loss team that didn’t win its conference (e.g., Mich/Ohio St. loser, Texas A&M, Stanford).

oklahoma already lost as many games this season as ohio state lost previous two years, they dont deserve sh*t

[bleu]

But I am all about the mid-majors like Boise State getting a chance in the playoffs. I'm not saying they would've ever won, but they should have had the chance, a la Butler, Wichita State, etc. Boise State had two undefeated seasons in which they won BCS bowls: ridiculous that that's the end of the season, and their final ranking comes from voters.

a little recap:

• 2004 - Utah beat Big East champion (Pittsburgh) -- finished undefeated
• 2006 - BSU beat Big-12 champion (Oklahoma) -- finished undefeated
• 2008 - BSU beat Pac-12 runner-up, #12 (Oregon)
• 2008 - Utah beat one-loss #4 (Alabama) -- finished undefeated
• 2009 - BSU beat Pac-12 champion, eventual #7 (Oregon) and #3 (TCU) -- finished undefeated
• 2010 - BSU beat ACC champion, #6 (Va Tech)
• 2010 - TCU beat Big-10 champion, #4 (Wisconsin) -- finished undefeated
• 2011 - BSU beat SEC East champion (Georgia)
• 2013 - UCF beat Big-12 champion, #6 (Baylor)
• 2014 - BSU beat Pac-12 South champion, #11 (Arizona)
• 2015 - Houston beat ACC Atlantic runner-up, #9 (Florida State)
• 2016 - Houston beat #3 (Oklahoma)

With a 4-team playoff, as before with the BCS, I don't know that any of these teams even get a chance. And yet, some of them PROVED they could beat top-4 teams!!

This is the most frustrating thing about the BCS/4 team bowl system to me. I absolutely believe that one, or possibly more of those teams you listed could have won national championships if they were given the same opportunity as a P5 team. The ones that come to mind the most are probably 2008 Utah and 2006/2009 Boise State. I mean, who knows. But I really believe that at least one of them could have won a championship in an 8+ team playoff.

[Wannabe MEP]

oklahoma already lost as many games this season as ohio state lost previous two years, they dont deserve sh*t

I absolutely agree that they don't deserve "sh*t" at this point in time, and I agree that they have little to no chance to qualify to a 4-team playoff. The argument was purely hypothetical: IF they run the table from here on out, where do they belong? (Which has absolutely nothing with what Ohio State did in 2015.)

This is the comparison:

• In 2014 Ohio State was 3-1 after 4 games...with a paper-soft schedule and an ugly loss at home to an unranked Virginia Tech that went on to lose more than they won the rest of the season.
• Oklahoma is 2-2 after playing the toughest schedule in the country through 4 games.

I think through four games, Oklahoma looks no worse than Ohio State did through four games in 2014. Obviously, Oklahoma hasn't gone on to do what Ohio State did after those first four games. The point is moot if they don't win out...which probably isn't going to happen anyway.

But the crux of the argument is: how do you weigh record vs schedule strength? How do you rank the following:

• 0 losses with a really soft schedule?
• 1 loss with a mediocre schedule?
• 2 losses with a brutal schedule?

In my opinion, there's no good answer to that question. Which is one very important reason why I think the playoff should be expanded.

[OsuCavsfan103]

oklahoma already lost as many games this season as ohio state lost previous two years, they dont deserve sh*t

I absolutely agree that they don't deserve "sh*t" at this point in time, and I agree that they have little to no chance to qualify to a 4-team playoff. The argument was purely hypothetical: IF they run the table from here on out, where do they belong? (Which has absolutely nothing with what Ohio State did in 2015.)

This is the comparison:

• In 2014 Ohio State was 3-1 after 4 games...with a paper-soft schedule and an ugly loss at home to an unranked Virginia Tech that went on to lose more than they won the rest of the season.
• Oklahoma is 2-2 after playing the toughest schedule in the country through 4 games.

I think through four games, Oklahoma looks no worse than Ohio State did through four games in 2014. Obviously, Oklahoma hasn't gone on to do what Ohio State did after those first four games. The point is moot if they don't win out...which probably isn't going to happen anyway.

But the crux of the argument is: how do you weigh record vs schedule strength? How do you rank the following:

• 0 losses with a really soft schedule?
• 1 loss with a mediocre schedule?
• 2 losses with a brutal schedule?

In my opinion, there's no good answer to that question. Which is one very important reason why I think the playoff should be expanded.

OU didn't just lose twice, they were beaten soundly, especially to OSU where they were for the most part, dominated. Had OSU lost twice in 2014, they wouldnt have even been near the CFB. Hypothetically if OSU lost again in 2014 but still made the B10 title game and won like they did, OSU still would have never been even close to in, they barely made it in with 1 loss.

OU is done, should be and will be nowhere near playoffs unless a major CFB collapse like 2007 happens. No argument could be made, tough schedule or not, if you can't beat either of the two teams who very likely are in the hunt for the playoffs, you do not deserve to be in the playoffs either... especially w/o a conference championship game. OU is done and nothing like OSU of 2014.

As far as your crux, it varies. OU tried to have a good schedule, did, but lost. Why penalize a team that only lost once with a pretty decent schedule when that team tried to have a competitive schedule? Case and point, last year OU was a playoff team, this year OSU plays them, beats them easily, and yet people are saying OSU plays nobody.... How is that OSU's fault that OU isn't as good? Same argument for Vatech the last few years, when scheduled they were ranked every single season, now they've fallen off before OSU played them, do we deserve to be punished? Schedule strength at times picks up and at times dropped off, if a reasonable attempt to schedule competitively is made, then that definitely should and will trump a 2 loss team with a brutal schedule.

As for not trying to schedule anyone tough and going undefeated, no mercy here. You cannot control conference slate, you cannot control if OOC teams remain good, but if you are filling your OOC with St Marys Tech and the like, you are not trying to do what you can. If you are taking on USC or Auburn, once powerhouse teams who are currently down, it's clear and attempt at a competive schedule was made and that should be factored in.

[El Turco]

oklahoma already lost as many games this season as ohio state lost previous two years, they dont deserve sh*t

I absolutely agree that they don't deserve "sh*t" at this point in time, and I agree that they have little to no chance to qualify to a 4-team playoff. The argument was purely hypothetical: IF they run the table from here on out, where do they belong? (Which has absolutely nothing with what Ohio State did in 2015.)

This is the comparison:

• In 2014 Ohio State was 3-1 after 4 games...with a paper-soft schedule and an ugly loss at home to an unranked Virginia Tech that went on to lose more than they won the rest of the season.
• Oklahoma is 2-2 after playing the toughest schedule in the country through 4 games.

I think through four games, Oklahoma looks no worse than Ohio State did through four games in 2014. Obviously, Oklahoma hasn't gone on to do what Ohio State did after those first four games. The point is moot if they don't win out...which probably isn't going to happen anyway.

But the crux of the argument is: how do you weigh record vs schedule strength? How do you rank the following:

• 0 losses with a really soft schedule?
• 1 loss with a mediocre schedule?
• 2 losses with a brutal schedule?

In my opinion, there's no good answer to that question. Which is one very important reason why I think the playoff should be expanded.

ohio state was missing its starting quarterback against virginia tech, one of the reasons they were voted in because most thought osu would win that game with miller.

and while give credit to oklahoma for not scheduling cupcakes like rest of the big 12 but you gotta beat good teams to be considered for playoffs. forget winning, they looked completely overmatched against houston and ohio state, i rather see a team that is going to be competitive against those teams in playoffs.

[Wannabe MEP]

OU didn't just lose twice, they were beaten soundly, especially to OSU where they were for the most part, dominated. Had OSU lost twice in 2014, they wouldnt have even been near the CFB. Hypothetically if OSU lost again in 2014 but still made the B10 title game and won like they did, OSU still would have never been even close to in, they barely made it in with 1 loss.

OU is done, should be and will be nowhere near playoffs unless a major CFB collapse like 2007 happens. No argument could be made, tough schedule or not, if you can't beat either of the two teams who very likely are in the hunt for the playoffs, you do not deserve to be in the playoffs either... especially w/o a conference championship game. OU is done and nothing like OSU of 2014.

As far as your crux, it varies. OU tried to have a good schedule, did, but lost. Why penalize a team that only lost once with a pretty decent schedule when that team tried to have a competitive schedule? Case and point, last year OU was a playoff team, this year OSU plays them, beats them easily, and yet people are saying OSU plays nobody.... How is that OSU's fault that OU isn't as good? Same argument for Vatech the last few years, when scheduled they were ranked every single season, now they've fallen off before OSU played them, do we deserve to be punished? Schedule strength at times picks up and at times dropped off, if a reasonable attempt to schedule competitively is made, then that definitely should and will trump a 2 loss team with a brutal schedule.

As for not trying to schedule anyone tough and going undefeated, no mercy here. You cannot control conference slate, you cannot control if OOC teams remain good, but if you are filling your OOC with St Marys Tech and the like, you are not trying to do what you can. If you are taking on USC or Auburn, once powerhouse teams who are currently down, it's clear and attempt at a competive schedule was made and that should be factored in.

You seem to fail to grasp the fundamental argument, which is that there should be an 8-team playoff. I'm not arguing that Oklahoma should make a 4-team playoff if they win out. I'm arguing that there should be an 8-team playoff.

Again, 2014 OSU is a great test-point: as you mention, they almost didn't make the playoff that they went on to win. On the one hand, I guess they won, so aren't we happy now that the committee apparently got things right?

H*ll no. I'm not happy at all. There are lots of scenarios in which that exact Ohio State team with that exact resume doesn't make the playoff, wins a random other bowl, and that's the end of it. That's a horrible situation. And we don't know that that's not exactly what happened with TCU: if you swap TCU and Ohio State in 2014 -- which was incredibly close to happening, and is incredibly easy to envision without changing anything about the quality of either team -- isn't it possible that TCU goes on to win the playoff, while Ohio State goes and romps in the Peach Bowl?

I'm not commenting whether they got it right or wrong in selecting Ohio State over TCU for a 4-team playoff. I'm saying they got it wrong in selecting a 4-team playoff in the first place. I think choosing between Ohio State and TCU was an impossible, ridiculous task, and it should have never come to that at all. Ohio State, TCU, and Baylor should have ALL made it into an 8-team playoff.

[El Turco]

But I am all about the mid-majors like Boise State getting a chance in the playoffs. I'm not saying they would've ever won, but they should have had the chance, a la Butler, Wichita State, etc. Boise State had two undefeated seasons in which they won BCS bowls: ridiculous that that's the end of the season, and their final ranking comes from voters.

a little recap:

• 2004 - Utah beat Big East champion (Pittsburgh) -- finished undefeated
• 2006 - BSU beat Big-12 champion (Oklahoma) -- finished undefeated
• 2008 - BSU beat Pac-12 runner-up, #12 (Oregon)
• 2008 - Utah beat one-loss #4 (Alabama) -- finished undefeated
• 2009 - BSU beat Pac-12 champion, eventual #7 (Oregon) and #3 (TCU) -- finished undefeated
• 2010 - BSU beat ACC champion, #6 (Va Tech)
• 2010 - TCU beat Big-10 champion, #4 (Wisconsin) -- finished undefeated
• 2011 - BSU beat SEC East champion (Georgia)
• 2013 - UCF beat Big-12 champion, #6 (Baylor)
• 2014 - BSU beat Pac-12 South champion, #11 (Arizona)
• 2015 - Houston beat ACC Atlantic runner-up, #9 (Florida State)
• 2016 - Houston beat #3 (Oklahoma)

With a 4-team playoff, as before with the BCS, I don't know that any of these teams even get a chance. And yet, some of them PROVED they could beat top-4 teams!!

This is the most frustrating thing about the BCS/4 team bowl system to me. I absolutely believe that one, or possibly more of those teams you listed could have won national championships if they were given the same opportunity as a P5 team. The ones that come to mind the most are probably 2008 Utah and 2006/2009 Boise State. I mean, who knows. But I really believe that at least one of them could have won a championship in an 8+ team playoff.

utah and boise might won title, but there is also very good chance they would have lost multiple times and wouldnt even come close to the national title game had they went through bcs conference schedule. i mean look at how poorly utah has performed since joining a bcs conference, relative to how much they were winning in mountain west. it might be unfair that boises of the world didnt get a chance for the national title but it is also unfair that they played much softer schedule.

[Wannabe MEP]

utah and boise might won title, but there is also very good chance they would have lost multiple times and wouldnt even come close to the national title game had they went through bcs conference schedule.

and

oklahoma already lost as many games this season as ohio state lost previous two years, they dont deserve sh*t

Arda, you've now argued -- quite vehemently, I might add -- both sides of the strength of schedule vs record argument. You're dismissive of undefeated teams (i.e., teams that lost less games than Ohio State) that didn't play as tough a schedule as Ohio State, and you're also dismissive of teams that lost one more game than Ohio State, even if they played a much much tougher schedule than Ohio State.

So pretty much all I hear you saying is, "I'm an Ohio State homer."

[El Turco]

I never argued against good strength of schedule, it just doesn't mean much when you dont beat any of the teams you schedule. Common sense really.

[Otis Driftwood]

I wouldn't be surprised when the next set of TV deals roll around if an 8 team playoff doesn't happen. I really don't see a 16 team as it becomes unmanageable with the bowls. But it would be very easy to incorporate a few of the next tier bowls (Peach, Outback, etc.) and make an 8 team playoff work... depending on when you play the games and if CFB can get some "concessions" with the NFL to avoid any conflicts.

Add to that the fact that super-conferences are inevitable (bye bye Big XII)... I do believe we will see an 8 team playoff before I croak.