16 is the right number
- Thread starter Cidsports
- Start date
At the present time, logic would say 16 teams is the right number. But the college football and sports media worlds are changing so fast right now, it's hard to say what the right number might be in the future. I think the growing hunger of streamers (like Apple) for more content will become a much bigger factor in the future.
After the bowls last year, this was the final Top 5:
GA, ALA, MICH, CIN, OHIO ST.
The remainder from #6 through # 16"
Baylor, Okie St., Mich St., N. Dame, OU, Ole Miss, Utah, Pitt, Wake Forest, Kentucky, Clemson.
I would like to see a 16 team playoff, but I don't think it would change the 4-5 best teams.
Sure, upsets can happen, but look how easy GA beat MICH, and Bama beat Cincy.
Ohio State may have beaten Cincy, but doubt they would beat either GA or ALA.
A matchup of #1 GA vs. # 16 Clemson last year won by GA 10-3. That was a great year for GA and a down year for Clemson. Bama would beat Kentucky like a drum, Michigan would beat Wake Forest, Cincy and Pitt would be a good game, but Cincy would likely win.
It looks like its someone in the Top 5 would win every year. But, there would be some really good games along the way, and as someone who loves to watch good college football I would be all for it.
For the last 25 years, I always felt one of the teams in the Top 5 would win the national title, regardless of the playoff format.
The biggest change has been the number of potential top draft potential players sitting out the bowl game. That has changed the power structure when 5-6 studs on a team sit out the bowl or playoff game.
I'd almost like to see the NIL agreement make those kids play if they did not have a legitimate injury. Then the issue of a top player who wanted to sit out gets injured in the bowl/playoff game gets dicey. Yet, if the player is projected to be a 1,2,3 round draft pick, the money may not be much of a factor.
The NIL could be set up where a player has to finish the total season to receive all his monies, or it's prorated out if the player sits and has not a legitimate injury excuse.
Do a handful of teams pay a kid a LOT of money to try to win it all? I don't think they pay them to sit out the most important games the team will play. I'm not opposed to whatever they do, if anything. I just like good football.
I also reserve the right to change my mind. LOL
I agree BUT it would still be awesome.
Think of March Madness, those top 16 teams are hardly ever the ones that make the sweet 16.
That would be incorrect
| SEED | FINAL FOUR | CHAMP GAME | NATIONAL CHAMP |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 59 | 36 | 23 |
| 2 | 30 | 12 | 5 |
| 3 | 17 | 12 | 4 |
| 4 | 13 | 3 | 1 |
| 5 | 7 | 3 | 0 |
| 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
I said sweet 16...hardly ever, if ever, have the top 16 seeds all made the sweet 16.
And if you even look at one quadrant of March Madness, so 16 teams, it almost never holds pure chalk.
36 years worth of data, so 144 final 4 teams and 120 of them are top 4 seeds. I know you said sweet 16 but the point is that 83% of the teams in the final 4 are top 4. When you start at 64 there will be more upsets because injuries, more chances to lose etc. When you start with 16 the number of upsets will be less, even in March Madness with 64 teams, one of the top 4 seeds (1 seed) wins the national title 65% of the time and 80% of the time it is a team in the top 8 (a 1 or 2 seed)
Last edited:
Oh I totally agree...but it is not really even about the "upset" it is about the close game.
Like...The jays (who are lame as ****) playing KU to the wire last year...
Or lame as 9 seed UNC getting a HUGE lead vs Baylor and then almost crapping it away.
If CFB goes to 16 teams...it will be a blast.
So the #1 seeds are twice as likely to make the Final Four as the #2 seeds.
The #2 seeds are as likely to make the Final Four
as the # 3 and # 4 seeds combined.
exactly, so the need for 16 teams to determine a national champion in football is overkill. I agree with @Trumplestiltskin in that 8 is pushing it. 1 of the top 4 seeds will win it 95% of the time in a 8 or 16 team tournament, what is the point of expanding it more than 8.
8 works well. You can’t have more than that nor do you need it. This isn’t hoops, it’s football
8 teams means the champ and to win 3 games… you shouldn’t have more than that
Most HS's are way more than 8 and it is awesome.
Here is the thing, if you don't like 16, don't watch the first round games.
After that, it will be at 8, and you can start watching.
Here is the thing, if you don't like 16, don't watch the first round games.
After that, it will be at 8, and you can start watching.
I don't gamble on football, but I do love to watch good games.
When I look at last year's #1 v. #16, #2 v. # 15 etc, there are very few games that I wouldn't watch.
It would beat the hell out of a Thursay night ESPN game with
East Carolina v. Temple.
The only reason the first two games were close last year was there was no reason take chances, risk injury, make bug plays, just manage the game, win and come out injury free. Both Bama and Georgia could have named the score but didn't as that was not the goal. So there is your close, but boring game.
I agree...so if the game is boring, don't watch.
But...imagine getting a first round game...UGA#1 vs 16 seed UCLA...and going into the 4th it is a tie game.
ERECTION TIME.
And if it is a blowout, like most 1 vs 16, who cares, you figured it would be.
I've seen the Huskers win all 5 national titles.
I've yet to see anything in those games that were worthy of an erection.
Must be why I don't bet any football games.
(Could be the missing ingredient).
None of this stuff makes sense. I don't know why anyone thinks they're going to end up at some logical number. It's all a complete cluster...
Actually I think a larger number is for more media revenue paid to schools/conferences.
