Against adding to playoff

[Boy of the Corn]

All the rage right now seems to be moving to a 8 team playoff. Frost is for it but I am against it. Here's why:

I want the season to matter. Yes you have to have a good season to get into playoff position but lose a couple games and as long as you play good at the end of the season, it will not negatively effect you.

p5 champions should not automatically get in. All the talk is about 5 p5 champions and 3 at large, but what about when your conference champion has an average/poor record? 

what about the last team left out: There will always be a last team left out that is arguably as good as the last team in.

4 or more post regular season games: add up your conference championship and your playoff games and to become a champion you have to play a heck of a lot of games. 

other bowl games mean even less:woohoo you get into the orange,fiesta, rose bowl, etc with a terrible record because all capable teams are in playoff.

less undefeated champions: Tom Osborne went for 2 against Miami because he believed to be a champion you had to beat your opponent. Adding to the playoff will increase the chances of teams having 2, 3, or more losses. 

Hype: Certain teams seem to get overranked because of their name (not their performance) i.e. notre dame

higher chance of playing teams multiple times same season. Imagine a year where Nebraska beats ohio state in the regular season only to lose in the conference championship but gets an at large bid and play again in the playoffs

Wrong champion: Coinciding with the first one. Is the champion the best team or the team that played the best at the end of the season? 

hard on fans: unless they are going to move games to college campuses, how many of you super fans can travel 3 or 4 weeks in a row to watch nebraska play? 

 

[JJ Husker]

I think 8 would be about perfect. Yes there will always be the 1 or 2 that got left out but I'm not convinced the current system assures the best 4 teams. Surely with 8 they would at least cover the best 4 or 5. I too am concerned about the regular season and conference championships meaning something but I don't think an 8 team playoff would harm that much. And I don't foresee 3 loss teams getting in but there could be some worthy 2 loss teams that should be in. Maybe the first round of 4 games should be hosted by the top 4 seeds to eliminate some travel to neutral sites. Just think, playoff games in Lincoln.... More top quality college football games is always better in my book.

 

[NUance]

I'm okay with four.  When it was only two team playing for the MNC I sometimes thought the 3rd place team was better and more deserving than either of the two that got into the game.   But with four I don't think the best team in the nation is likely to be left out.  /jmho

Also, I yearn for the days when we are in the top 5 or 6 and worry about being left out.  It's been a long while since we were within striking distance.  

 

[Cdog923]

All the rage right now seems to be moving to a 8 team playoff. Frost is for it but I am against it. Here's why:

I want the season to matter. Yes you have to have a good season to get into playoff position but lose a couple games and as long as you play good at the end of the season, it will not negatively effect you.

I don't understand how adding four more deserving teams to the playoff devalues the regular season? You still have to be in the top 10 to have a realistic shot at making an 8 team playoff. 

p5 champions should not automatically get in. All the talk is about 5 p5 champions and 3 at large, but what about when your conference champion has an average/poor record? 

Conference champions generally don't have an "average/poor record", due to the fact that they would have to either win a division plus a CCG,  but that is accounted for by adding 3 at-large teams. So, if an 8-4 Florida manages to beat 12-0 Alabama, there's room for both teams. 

what about the last team left out: There will always be a last team left out that is arguably as good as the last team in.

You answered your own question: there will always be an argument for the first team left out, whether it's #3, #5, #9 or #17. #5 has a much better argument than any of the others left out. 

4 or more post regular season games: add up your conference championship and your playoff games and to become a champion you have to play a heck of a lot of games. 

Each conference goes back to 8 games, and you add a second bye week. 

other bowl games mean even less:woohoo you get into the orange,fiesta, rose bowl, etc with a terrible record because all capable teams are in playoff.

Bowl games don't mean much of anything anyways. And, you would actually add value to 4 more bowls if you make the quarterfinals take place at bowl sites/games. 

less undefeated champions: Tom Osborne went for 2 against Miami because he believed to be a champion you had to beat your opponent. Adding to the playoff will increase the chances of teams having 2, 3, or more losses.

This has never made a difference in the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, College Basketball, College Baseball, or anything not named College Football. 

Hype: Certain teams seem to get overranked because of their name (not their performance) i.e. notre dame

8 teams means that anyone that the general public thinks is overrated has an opportunity to either prove them wrong, or prove them right. And, the prestige that comes with making a playoff would benefit up and coming programs (imagine what it would have done for TCU a few years ago, or UCF last year).

higher chance of playing teams multiple times same season. Imagine a year where Nebraska beats ohio state in the regular season only to lose in the conference championship but gets an at large bid and play again in the playoffs

Again, this isn't an issue in virtually any other sport. Besides, the likelihood of that is slim, and as there are contingencies to account for this in the NCAA Tournament, one could assume similar contingencies could be made to stave off a third meeting between teams until as late as possible. 

Wrong champion: Coinciding with the first one. Is the champion the best team or the team that played the best at the end of the season? 

College football isn't the same as college basketball; late season momentum doesn't matter as much, particularly in the case of a football playoff. Generally, the best teams are going to be present at the end of the year. The obvious argument is UCF/Auburn from last year. One could imagine the tone and tenor of that game if it were a CFP quarterfinal as opposed to a Peach Bowl. 

hard on fans: unless they are going to move games to college campuses, how many of you super fans can travel 3 or 4 weeks in a row to watch nebraska play? 

"Oh woe is me; I have to watch more football" is something I don't think I've ever said. Fans will travel, ESPECIALLY Nebraska fans. I would like to see quarterfinal games be played on the higher seed's campus, though. 

 

[ScottyIce]

Listen... the odds of Nebraska making the playoffs goes up if it goes to 8.

Now, you have to ask yourself that question. Would you rather it mean more when Nebraska makes it someday, or would you rather have Nebraska make it sooner due to the 8? 

Also, how upset would you be if Nebraska came in a legitimate 5th place and missed by a hair?

 

[Toe]

I was in favor of keeping it at 4 teams until I saw how awful the selections were this past season. Yet another SEC circlejerk? Big Ten goes 7-1 in bowls, but wasn't worthy of having a representative in the playoff? UCF has a perfect season but isn't even close to getting in? Like why do they even pretend that G5 teams are in the same division when they've essentially declared that it's impossible for them to be national champions, whether they're the best team or not?

 

[Husker John]

The 8 team play off suggested by SF is fair and makes sense (  and if we should ever place 5th in the voting, you'll see how fair and sensible it is  )

 

[Big Red 40]

I agree with pretty much all of the OP's points. I personally don't like 4 teams, and i think 8 would cheapen it even more. No matter how many teams you add there can always be an argument to add more because it left someone out who "deserved" to be in . 

I like the regular season pressure of not being able to lose any games, and i like #1 facing #2 for the Championship. 

 

[teachercd]

Lets face it...if they make it 8...we will all watch.  If they make it 16...we will all watch...if they make it 32...we will all watch.

 

[The Murphinator]

I actually am in favor of a 6 team playoff. As we have seen from the first few years it seems like a team or two get robbed from getting in. You could have the top two teams have a bye and have 3 vs. 6 and 4 vs 5 in a wild card type scenario. I think this would be interesting.

 

[ScottyIce]

I actually am in favor of a 6 team playoff. As we have seen from the first few years it seems like a team or two get robbed from getting in. You could have the top two teams have a bye and have 3 vs. 6 and 4 vs 5 in a wild card type scenario. I think this would be interesting.

Yup.

i want 6 as well.

P5 and an at large choice.

Then same format you mentioned.

I really want the P5 champs to all get in. Would give some clarity about which conferences are the best any given year.

 

[Danimal]

I am for 8 teams:

Yes you have bubble teams no matter what but there's a significant difference between #5 questionably not getting in and #9.  We've had a couple of very controversial 4-seeds win it all, what if they hadn't gotten in? 

This way G5 teams would get their shot. 

You don't have to have a system with P5 champ auto-bids, if you do you can always institute minimum standards to eliminate outliers that don't really belong. 

 

[JJ Husker]

I am for 8 teams:

Yes you have bubble teams no matter what but there's a significant difference between #5 questionably not getting in and #9.  We've had a couple of very controversial 4-seeds win it all, what if they hadn't gotten in? 

This way G5 teams would get their shot. 

You don't have to have a system with P5 champ auto-bids, if you do you can always institute minimum standards to eliminate outliers that don't really belong. 

Yes, I don't necessarily like the idea of autobids. There needs to be some hurdle in place for when a whole conference is terrible. I would say most years there are one or two conferences that may have 2 worthy teams and some with none. And certainly there usually will not be 2 or 3 non-P5 teams worthy.

I could go along with a six team playoff except I don't really like that it would require a couple byes and basically some play in games. I think all teams in the playoffs should have to play an equal number of games. 8 accomplishes that whereas 6 does not. The way things have gone lately the bye teams would be Bama and an SEC at large while everyone else takes another week of hits for the opportunity to play ESPN's favored sons.

 

[Mavric]

All the rage right now seems to be moving to a 8 team playoff. Frost is for it but I am against it. Here's why:

I want the season to matter. Yes you have to have a good season to get into playoff position but lose a couple games and as long as you play good at the end of the season, it will not negatively effect you.

The season would still matter.  Even at eight teams, you can only lose one game to really still be a "lock" to get in.  No one is going to take a week off just because they can afford to lose a game and still get into the playoff.  There are still conference championships to play for.  There is still playoff seeding to play for.  This is a red herring argument.  Always has been.  Now, if the talk turns to a 16 team playoff, then I can see more of an argument that it is devaluing the regular season.  But not at eight.

p5 champions should not automatically get in. All the talk is about 5 p5 champions and 3 at large, but what about when your conference champion has an average/poor record? 

I've long said there should be a cap on the automatic berth.  IMO, you would have to be in the Top 10 (maybe 12) to get the automatic berth.  You don't automatically get in just because you win the Pac-12 at 9-4.

what about the last team left out: There will always be a last team left out that is arguably as good as the last team in.

I'd MUCH rather have the #9 team - who didn't win their conference and has at least two losses - get left out than the supposed #5 team get left out because their schedule/performance was arbitrarily judged to ever-so-slightly-worse than the #4 team.  Instead of arguing about it, settle it on the field.

4 or more post regular season games: add up your conference championship and your playoff games and to become a champion you have to play a heck of a lot of games. 

The season keeps getting longer.  In every sport.  That's just how it works.  It used to be 12 games (if you made a bowl).  Then 13.  Then 14.  Now 15.  This could be 16 - if conferences don't get rid of their CCGs.  But that's only for 2-4 schools each year.  Pretty sure they would all trade that for a chance at the National Championship.  Especially teams 5-8.

other bowl games mean even less:woohoo you get into the orange,fiesta, rose bowl, etc with a terrible record because all capable teams are in playoff.

Nope.  They would mean just the same as they do now.  Which is basically nothing.  Players are already skipping them to avoid getting hurt.  The don't mean anything now.

less undefeated champions: Tom Osborne went for 2 against Miami because he believed to be a champion you had to beat your opponent. Adding to the playoff will increase the chances of teams having 2, 3, or more losses. 

I don't think many care about this.  We've only had one in the last seven years anyway.  As Sam noted today, Alabama hasn't had an undefeated season since 2009.  They've won five national championships in that time.

Hype: Certain teams seem to get overranked because of their name (not their performance) i.e. notre dame

Cuts both ways.  Alabama always gets the benefit of the doubt because they're Alabama.  So one team might get into a four team playoff over another team because of name recognition.  In an eight team playoff, there's a much better chance of it getting settled on the field.  In your example, Notre Dame would likely have lost before the championship game so a more deserving team could have been there.

higher chance of playing teams multiple times same season. Imagine a year where Nebraska beats ohio state in the regular season only to lose in the conference championship but gets an at large bid and play again in the playoffs

I'll agree with this.  But it's a long ways down my list of concerns.

Wrong champion: Coinciding with the first one. Is the champion the best team or the team that played the best at the end of the season? 

This is how it is now and how it is in basically every sport.  Has nothing to do with how many teams are making the playoffs.

hard on fans: unless they are going to move games to college campuses, how many of you super fans can travel 3 or 4 weeks in a row to watch nebraska play? 

I've long said an eight-team playoff should have the higher seed hosting the quarterfinals.  The reward for the better season - and a reason that all regular season games matter.