I would like an 8 team playoff

[Wannabe MEP]

I don't like your Oklahoma argument. By the way, Ohio State is awesome!!

Ohio State! Ohio State!

Alright, we're getting hung up on the Oklahoma thing. Let's forget about that one: I don't even like Oklahoma. Bad example. So let me try to speak your language here.

I think there should be an 8-team playoff. I think it's totally reasonable to leave a slot for a two-loss conference champion that played a brutal schedule...which is really really unlikely to happen with a 4-team playoff.

Suppose Ohio State loses twice this season, but beats Michigan (e.g., OSU loses @Wisco and then gets one more random loss somewhere in there). But Ohio State still wins the Big-10 East (Michigan also picks up another loss and OSU wins due to head-to-head), and then goes on to avenge the loss to Wisco in the conference championship game.

So Ohio State will have won a conference championship in a pretty tough conference, they'll have a solid strength of schedule, and they'll have taken some serious scalps along the way: Oklahoma, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nebraska/Michigan State.

Extremely likely they get blocked out of the 4-team playoff by, e.g., a one-loss Big-12 champion Baylor, who didn't play as tough a schedule. (Baylor?!? )

8-team playoff? Ohio State is in...as the 5-seed, and they get to take on 4-seed Baylor in round one to prove they belong.

[OsuCavsfan103]

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.

Well it definitely seemed to me you are saying OU still should have a shot at a playoff, which no they really shouldn't, not even an 8 team playoff unless a lot of shakeup happens. OU couldn't beat the two tough teams on their schedule, and they weren't even really close. If it were a hypothetical 8 seed playoff, the only reason they should be in at this point is if they win our very impressively and have better losses and wins than other teams around the same area. Comparing a 2 loss OU to 1 loss OSU in 2014 doesn't work. Especially since OU was supposed to be a serious contender this year and make the playoffs again. OSU in 2014 was starting a brand new QB, brand new RB etc, not the veteran presence like Mayfield, Perrine, and Mixon that OU has.

Anyhow, I do agree it should be 8 teams in the playoffs, but I think anyone can see they started out 4 as a trial, now that has been successful compared to the crap before, they will expand it... hopefully not past 8 though.

[Wannabe MEP]

I don’t think this is the best year to make an argument for an 8-team playoff (as opposed to the year an excellent TCU team got left out, and the eventual national champion Buckeyes almost got left out), but I still think this would make for a great 8-team playoff:

• Five conference champions
• Ohio State
• Depending on Group of 5 rule setup, Western Michigan, or at-large (Michigan?)
• One more at-large, e.g., Michigan, USC.

As things stand right now, even in the cleanest scenario, somebody pretty good/deserving is gonna get left out, such as the Big Ten champion.

If, say, Colorado beats Washington, then you’ve got a real conundrum between two-loss conference champions, with something like Colorado, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma in play for one spot. I say: 8-team playoff and take ‘em all.

[OsuCavsfan103]

I don’t think this is the best year to make an argument for an 8-team playoff (as opposed to the year an excellent TCU team got left out, and the eventual national champion Buckeyes almost got left out), but I still think this would make for a great 8-team playoff:

• Five conference champions
• Ohio State
• Depending on Group of 5 rule setup, Western Michigan, or at-large (Michigan?)
• One more at-large, e.g., Michigan, USC.

As things stand right now, even in the cleanest scenario, somebody pretty good/deserving is gonna get left out, such as the Big Ten champion.

If, say, Colorado beats Washington, then you’ve got a real conundrum between two-loss conference champions, with something like Colorado, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma in play for one spot. I say: 8-team playoff and take ‘em all.

I actually agree, 6 or 8 team playoff is needed. I like 6 personally but 8 is much better than 4. This is probably the best year for the 8 argument, someone is going to get screwed.. No matter what the limit is, there will always be complaining from those who deem unfair treatment, but it would be more justified leaving teams out.

I think all conference should get rid of divisions personally, but that' just my opinion. That's the kid of crap that lets a team who lost 2 games in-conference, to play for a conference title when a team who only lost one game in conference and beat them h2h, is not.

[Wannabe MEP]

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Washington
4. Clemson
5. Penn State
6. Michigan
7. Oklahoma
8. Western Michigan/USC

[OsuCavsfan103]

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Washington
4. Clemson
5. Penn State
6. Michigan
7. Oklahoma
8. Western Michigan/USC

No thanks for W. Mich. They play in the MAC. Had they had an impressive OOC win ok, but they played nobody worth a dang. Their tough OOC game included crappy NWstern and crappy Illinois.

But yes, 8 team playoff is needed. Wish we had it last year too, would have loved to see what my Buckeyes were capable of. Talk about underachieving team.... prob was OSU's best ever. sigh

[Wannabe MEP]

No thanks for W. Mich. They play in the MAC. Had they had an impressive OOC win ok, but they played nobody worth a dang. Their tough OOC game included crappy NWstern and crappy Illinois.

I just think there should be an auto rule for top Group of 5 team, but with a minimum ranking requirement, like top 16 or top 12. Not sure what that rule would/should be, or whether Western Michigan would fit it.

[bleu]

No thanks for W. Mich. They play in the MAC. Had they had an impressive OOC win ok, but they played nobody worth a dang. Their tough OOC game included crappy NWstern and crappy Illinois.

I just think there should be an auto rule for top Group of 5 team, but with a minimum ranking requirement, like top 16 or top 12. Not sure what that rule would/should be, or whether Western Michigan would fit it.

Absolutely agree. I would probably go with top 15. I'm not convinced that WMU this year would be able to make any noise in the playoff, but I absolutely believe that some teams in past years like Utah the year they dominated Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, or Boise State in a few different seasons could have not only made some noise but could have very possibly won the national championship given the chance.

[dice]

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?

yes, it actually does solve the problem. and creates a smaller one. much better to be arguing about the 4th best team than than arguing about the 2nd best team. so unlike the phony 4 vs 5 phony we have to have this year (just 'cause we MUST have something to argue about), we'd have a real argument with one loss ohio state (tougher schedule) vs one loss clemson (conference champ)

anybody who thinks there was an issue this year isn't thinking straight. the teams with the best records got the top 4 spots. a conference championship doesn't make up for losing 2 instead of 1. that's stinkin' thinkin'. now, if that 2 loss conference champion played a significantly tougher SCHEDULE as well, they would have a legit argument. and penn state did NOT have a significantly better overall strength of schedule than washington, while being much weaker than OSU's

8 team playoff. 5 conference champs are autos. done and dusted. every week of regular season would still be hugely important. and the 8 seed would very likely have to beat 3 TOP FIVE teams in consecutive weeks to take the title. if you expand to 16 you could have an 8-4 team getting in. is that worth giving an undefeated western michigan team a shot at the big boys? i think not. plus you'd have a college team or 2 ending up playing more games than the average nfl team

[Wannabe MEP]

I actually agree that the top four this year was relatively clear, and I'm pretty ok with these four. [And in fact, this would be a year when the clearest line is actually between one and two: scrap the bowls and declare Alabama the champion right now.]

But that doesn't change the fact that lots and lots and lots of years this is a really bad setup: I thought 2014 was really really bad. TCU should have had a chance, and Ohio State almost didn't get their (obviously appropriate) chance. And if you go back to previous years and evaluate what the 4 teams would have been, I think it's often a terrible line. But in my opinion, 8 is always solid. Not insignificantly: wherever you are in the country, you get a representative. And if they're really clearly not as good as those top 4: Fine. They'll lose, and life goes on for everyone. We get it decided on the field, always.

What's the problem with having 8 this year? Why not give Penn State and Oklahoma and Michigan a chance? Like, what's the horrible downside here?

8 team playoff. 5 conference champs are autos. done and dusted. every week of regular season would still be hugely important. and the 8 seed would very likely have to beat 3 TOP FIVE teams in consecutive weeks to take the title.

Yeah, exactly. That's what I've been advocating for.

[BullseyeBond]

I agree with having an 8 team playoff, as with what someone said before, 5 Power-5 conference champions, three at large teams, with one guaranteed spot going to the highest ranking Group of 5 conference champion (which would draw the # 8 or # 7 seed). The following bowls could be used on a rotational basis, just like they are used now. The # 1 and # 2 seeds would have a bye.

Rose Bowl
Fiesta Bowl
Orange Bowl
Sugar Bowl
Cotton Bowl
Peach Bowl
Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl
Holiday Bowl or the Alamo Bowl

[Wannabe MEP]

2017 version:

5 conference champions
UCF if they win next week
Alabama
One more at-large (one of the conference championship game losers? Penn State? Washington?)

[Bulltalk]

An 8 team playoff would be the natural end of the line. If you win a power 5 conference, you're in. That would make conference games more meaningful. Then you add 3 wildcard teams to the mix. If you think you got screwed, then you're either from a lesser conference and undefeated, or you're from a power 5 conference and you had a chance to win your conference outright and take the decision out of the committee's hands. In other words, people won't care that much if you think you got screwed.

[dice]

2017 version:

5 conference champions
UCF if they win next week
Alabama
One more at-large (one of the conference championship game losers? Penn State? Washington?)

1) 1 loss alabama being shut out this year will be hard to swallow
2) not sure UCF would deserve to be in 8 team playoff

[OsuCavsfan103]

Well well, once again the need for playoff expansion becomes evident as hell.

What reason is there to not? I heard people say "It takes away from conference title games." Well that was just proven nonsense. B10 just proved that is nonsense, Pac 12 proved that is nonsense, those games clearly didn't end up mattering when the committee can ignore everything else and just go by their eye test, not actually taking a resume into effect.

Takes away from regular season? Oh yeah, because when you let teams in that got spanked by their only good opponent, that makes for great football. Auburn destroyed Bama one week prior, and somehow they jump up to 4 without even playing a game. Plus they have set the narrative for not needing to do anything out of conference. Bama plays 1 less conference game already, plays Mercer in their OOC in NOV, lost their only game against a really good team badly, but hey they are Bama and get a pass bc of past success.

Take a look at the matchups if the 8 team playoff was in, it would incredible.

[studcrackers]

lol at an ohio st fan complaining about a team getting into the playoff because of past success

[hermes]

probably just as simple as 2 losses and you're out

[OsuCavsfan103]

lol at an ohio st fan complaining about a team getting into the playoff because of past success

That is correct. When exactly did Ohio State get into the playoffs based on past success?

[OsuCavsfan103]

probably just as simple as 2 losses and you're out

Depends on who you are, for example had Auburn won they'd have been a lock to be in with 2 losses.

Just remember, resume only applies to teams that aren't in the SEC.

And yes, my Buckeyes should not have lost to Iowa, that badly no less. We do not deserve the playoffs, but this year only 3 teams really deserve it, Bama was not one, in fact Bama should be behind OSU and USC.

[El Turco]

Assuming if you have playoffs you do away with conference title games, in that case ohio st still probably doesn't make it as ucf takes 3rd at large.

They are probably better than osu but alabamas resume is terrible this season, there's no doubt about that.