12-Team Playoff On the Way; 14-Team to Follow

BigRedBuster said:
The argument that a play off is "devaluing regular season games" from what they were before....or "devaluing other bowls" from what they were has always baffled me.

Teams have to win games to get into the play offs.  Meanwhile, in the mid 80s, Nebraska against ISU meant something because we needed to win it to win the conference.  Meanwhile, ISU against Missouri really meant nothing.  Those scenarios are still the same.  OSU against Nebraska means something because they have to win it to stay in the hunt.  Meanwhile, Purdue against Rutgers means nothing.

Meanwhile, currently, we have three "bowl games" that means something in the play offs.  Everyone else is just playing an extra game for fun.  

In the 80s, you might have had a few bowl games that meant something, the rest were just playing games for fun.

In 1997, Husker fans would have loved to play Michigan to shut them up and prove we were #1...and vice versa.  

Now.....those two teams would meet on the field and prove it (if they were in different conferences like before).

I don't see the problem that some people seem to harp on.
Click to expand...


People are acting like you'll be able to lose six games or something and still get in the playoff. In an average year, a P5 school is not going to be able to lose more than once or twice and be guaranteed a spot in, and a G5 school is not going to be able to lose at all. 

 
J-MAGIC said:
People are acting like you'll be able to lose six games or something and still get in the playoff. In an average year, a P5 school is not going to be able to lose more than once or twice and be guaranteed a spot in, and a G5 school is not going to be able to lose at all. 
Click to expand...
The absolute dumbest argument I've seen for the old bowl system was...."Fans arguing about who the real champ is, is what made college football great".   :facepalm:

 
J-MAGIC said:
People are acting like you'll be able to lose six games or something and still get in the playoff. In an average year, a P5 school is not going to be able to lose more than once or twice and be guaranteed a spot in, and a G5 school is not going to be able to lose at all. 
Click to expand...


I hear you and it's obviously not 6-loss teams, but looking at in season rankings the past couple years a 12 team playoff likely has at least two and as many as four 3-loss teams. The selection wouldn't be just the top-12 ranked teams, so maybe they can cut those out. But while it won't be as watered down as many people are claiming, it will be watered down. I think you can find 8 teams that deserve a shot - 12, I'm less convinced in an average year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Husker in WI said:
I hear you and it's obviously not 6-loss teams, but looking at in season rankings the past couple years a 12 team playoff likely has at least two and as many as four 3-loss teams. The selection wouldn't be just the top-12 ranked teams, so maybe they can cut those out. But while it won't be as watered down as many people are claiming, it will be watered down. I think you can find 8 teams that deserve a shot - 12, I'm less convinced in an average year.
Click to expand...


I don't think this is quite right.  In 2019 and 2017 there would have only been one three-loss team in the playoffs.  In 2020 there wouldn't have been any but there were fewer games.

But it's definitely possible.  That's way I prefer 8 instead of 12.  But I think it should be more than 4 so apparently I'll have to live with 12.

 
Mavric said:
I don't think this is quite right.  In 2019 and 2017 there would have only been one three-loss team in the playoffs.  In 2020 there wouldn't have been any but there were fewer games.

But it's definitely possible.  That's way I prefer 8 instead of 12.  But I think it should be more than 4 so apparently I'll have to live with 12.
Click to expand...
I didn't go back to 2017, that one did have quite a few good teams. 2019 3-loss Auburn was 12th along with 3-loss Wisconsin at 8th, but I didn't look really deeply at the criteria so maybe they would've been out. So probably not as big of an issue as I'm claiming either, but I agree - 8 teams > 12 teams > 4 teams. 

It's annoying that this would basically be the same 4 team playoff, you just tack on 8 'wild card' teams who beat up on each other and give the top 4 an easier road. Although it is an extra game for the top 4, so another chance to slip up I guess. I think they just know all the way to 16 is a tough sell, and somebody needs a bye if it's not 8 or 16. 

 
Husker in WI said:
I hear you and it's obviously not 6-loss teams, but looking at in season rankings the past couple years a 12 team playoff likely has at least two and as many as four 3-loss teams. The selection wouldn't be just the top-12 ranked teams, so maybe they can cut those out. But while it won't be as watered down as many people are claiming, it will be watered down. I think you can find 8 teams that deserve a shot - 12, I'm less convinced in an average year.
Click to expand...
One thing about a 12 team approach and the possibility of a 3 loss team in the playoff, is that it introduces something we all enjoy about March Madness.   It would introduce and invite the "Cinderella" to the dance.  Tulsa's ORU was one of the Cinderella teams during this past March Madness and came one last second shot away from reaching the Elite 8. ORU's drive generated a lot of interest not just in Oklahoma but throughout the national media as well.   Imagine a 3 loss team getting hot just in time for the playoffs.  It would drive some excitement to the mix and we wouldn't be stuck as always with the current football 'blue bloods'.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TGHusker said:
One thing about a 12 team approach and the possibility of a 3 loss team in the playoff, is that it introduces something we all enjoy about March Madness.   It would introduce and invite the "Cinderella" to the dance.  Tulsa's ORU was one of the Cinderella teams during this past March Madness and came one second shot away from reaching the Elite 8.  Imagine a 3 loss team getting hot just in time for the playoffs.  It would drive some excitement to the mix and we wouldn't be stuck as always with the current football 'blue bloods'.  
Click to expand...


It would be fun and I'm sure I would be cheering for the underdog, but I've always felt the championship should be for the best season, not the best team. Which not everyone agrees with. But I don't like early season bad losses being swept away when the team turns it on down the stretch. Playoffs absolutely make it easier to crown the best team at the end of the year, and I won't miss deserving teams not even having a shot.

But I wouldn't particularly enjoy a 3-loss champion, because it's hard to argue they had the best season even if they got hot at the end. I do think I'm in the minority there though, and most people want the best team - expanded playoffs are a much better way to get that.

 
Husker in WI said:
I hear you and it's obviously not 6-loss teams, but looking at in season rankings the past couple years a 12 team playoff likely has at least two and as many as four 3-loss teams. The selection wouldn't be just the top-12 ranked teams, so maybe they can cut those out. But while it won't be as watered down as many people are claiming, it will be watered down. I think you can find 8 teams that deserve a shot - 12, I'm less convinced in an average year.
Click to expand...


I just mean that losing regular season games isn't going to be consequence-free like some people seem to be suggesting. If you're a P5 team and you lose zero times or one time you're a lock to be in the playoff most years. If you lose twice you're probably safe but maybe not guaranteed. If you lose three times you're at the whims of a ranking. A G5 team can't lose at all and make it.

Teams are going to try very hard to make themselves as safely in the playoff as possible. Plus with the 12-team there's the incentive for the byes. This isn't like a 68-team basketball tournament or NBA playoffs where you can sleepwalk through a 30+-game regular season, get a decent mid-tier seed and then turn it on for the postseason in substantially the same situation as if you had tried hard in the regular season. Under the CFB playoff if you don't have it turned on in the regular season you're probably not going to make the playoff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
J-MAGIC said:
I just mean that losing regular season games isn't going to be consequence-free like some people seem to be suggesting. If you're a P5 team and you lose zero times or one time you're a lock to be in the playoff most years. If you lose twice you're probably safe but maybe not guaranteed. If you lose three times you're at the whims of a ranking. A G5 team can't lose at all and make it.

Teams are going to try very hard to make themselves as safely in the playoff as possible. Plus with the 12-team there's the incentive for the byes. This isn't like a 68-team basketball tournament or NBA playoffs where you can sleepwalk through a 30+-game regular season, get a decent mid-tier seed and then turn it on for the postseason in substantially the same situation as if you had tried hard in the regular season. Under the CFB playoff if you don't have it turned on in the regular season you're probably not going to make the playoff.
Click to expand...




I think, hopefully, teams will have different approaches similar to how they do now.

One approach is to play it safe and go unbeaten, but just like a 'safe' prevent defense that can easily backfire. Another approach is to schedule marquee OOC games which if you win give you a HUGE boost, and if you lose close give you a data point that you belong on the field with great teams. What we like to call a "quality loss". As far as I can understand, and I know there's a lot of complicated factors and motivations to try and figure out here, the best approach is the latter.

Hedging your bet on only one avenue in, ie being undefeated with a cupcake schedule, is a worse option than hedging your bet on multiple avenues in. If you play a really tough OOC schedule, it doesn't effect your conference aspirations (win the conference and you're in), but it does effect your at-large aspirations in a positive way if you win or are competitive (if you lose the conference but still do particularly well with a very difficult schedule, you'll more than likely be rewarded in the polls).

 
I don't see it being anything but 12. You need the 6 conference champion spots to get the lower tier P5 and non P5 to sign on to it - Pac,  Big 12 and non P5 want better access than they currently have - but with only 8 the SEC can't get 3 teams in as there aren't enough at large spots so they won't like that.  12 is the compromise to get everyone on board.  My only gripe is I wish the first two rounds would be played on campus instead of just the first round.  The first time an SEC team has to come up and play in the Midwest in December is going to be hilarious.

 
If/when it goes to 12, I think we will see fewer and fewer power on power out of conference games.  There really will be little to no incentive for most.  It's no longer about impressing but rather taking care of business for most.  I hate it honestly.  I would much rather see 6 or 8... until Nebraska finishes 10th.

 
Hilltop said:
If/when it goes to 12, I think we will see fewer and fewer power on power out of conference games.  There really will be little to no incentive for most.  It's no longer about impressing but rather taking care of business for most.  I hate it honestly.  I would much rather see 6 or 8... until Nebraska finishes 10th.
Click to expand...




If you play a top 15 non-conference game, but you win your conference, you're in, even if you lost that non-conference game. If you don't win your conference, but you have an extra top 15 win out of conference, you'll have a better chance at being in over another at large pick who only played Kent State, Rice and Ball State in the non-conference.

 
Back
Top