Has anyone's mind changed on
- Thread starter jarens
- Start date
No LSU would have clobbered all comers. No need to add more victims to the obvious ending.
8 only if it is a format that includes the 5 P5 conf champs. If you can't win your conf, you don't deserve a spot, you haven't earned it. 3 Wildcards for the independents, G5, and people that feel sorry when Bama can't win their conf but still think they should be in the playoffs.
So pretty much the 3-4 top teams each year are in the playoffs with a huge gap after that. That seems to be a universal thought and the games are proving it out.
So the only reason to expand is get the opportunity for an 8 to maybe beat a 1 in an upset. Well, don't the lower teams have the opportunity to best those top teams during the regular season?
The spread between the top 4-5 teams and everyone below is huge. It's also a guarantee that to win it all you have to beat at least two teams in the top four besides everyone else on your schedule. Would changing the number of teams really end up with a different outcome? Leave it alone until we actually have some quality contenders in the 6-10 slots.
So the only reason to expand is get the opportunity for an 8 to maybe beat a 1 in an upset. Well, don't the lower teams have the opportunity to best those top teams during the regular season?
The spread between the top 4-5 teams and everyone below is huge. It's also a guarantee that to win it all you have to beat at least two teams in the top four besides everyone else on your schedule. Would changing the number of teams really end up with a different outcome? Leave it alone until we actually have some quality contenders in the 6-10 slots.
So pretty much the 3-4 top teams each year are in the playoffs with a huge gap after that. That seems to be a universal thought and the games are proving it out.
So the only reason to expand is to get the opportunity for an 8 to maybe beat a 1 in an upset. Well, don't the lower teams have the opportunity to beat those top teams during the regular season?
The spread between the top 4-5 teams and everyone below is huge. It's also a guarantee that to win it all you have to beat at least two teams in the top four besides everyone else on your schedule. Would changing the number of teams really end up with a different outcome? Leave it alone until we actually have some quality contenders in the 6-10 slots.
So the only reason to expand is to get the opportunity for an 8 to maybe beat a 1 in an upset. Well, don't the lower teams have the opportunity to beat those top teams during the regular season?
The spread between the top 4-5 teams and everyone below is huge. It's also a guarantee that to win it all you have to beat at least two teams in the top four besides everyone else on your schedule. Would changing the number of teams really end up with a different outcome? Leave it alone until we actually have some quality contenders in the 6-10 slots.
Last edited:
I think if you go to 8, then the ninth and tenth teams will ***** (even though they would be 21 point dogs or more to a top 3 seed). So then the talk will be to expand to 16. And in the end, in mid January we will finally get to see the top two teams play each other. It will be a long awaited showdown that could have taken place weeks earlier.
Teams like Bama went 11-1 and didn’t play in the SEC CCG and still made the playoffs a few years back..
You took a few of my points from an earlier thread.
Oklahoma beat Baylor twice this year, but would have potentially had to beat them a third time. What a joke.
I do not understand the 8 team mentality. Especially when 4 seems to be doing its job, and even then its hard finding a worthy four.
Unlikely?? Are you kidding?
His first issue would have literally been in play this year. In TWO different scenarios! Youve gotta be kidding me with this ignorance.
And theres a lot more issues in past years. These very issues and more would be in play every. Single. Season.
Hell, two years ago. Why even play the sec title game??
The talent is concentrated at the top because the playoff is limited to 4 teams. The top 6-8 programs have a tremendous advantage when approaching the top 250 recruits.
Expand to 8 teams, and suddenly about 20-25 programs can plausibly make the case that they have a legitimate shot at making the playoff. That will spread the talent out a little more. I also favor eliminating the CCG.
And yet even in a 4 team playoff teams that haven't won a CCG frequently make it to the playoffs.
I know...shouldnt even have a four team playoff.
Got an answer to my other post pointing out how wrong you are?
So you are saying that expanding the number of teams will automatically spread the recruiting out? Why? Wouldn't players still want to play for the top 3-4 teams I would. Unless you can get a substantial number of top recruits over a sustained period of time it won't make a difference. Everyone is looking to knock of the top teams no matter how they can. I submit that even if you did thin out the top recruits over the top ten teams, the top coaches would still win it all. They just have the ability to sustain and coach at a high level. Interesting thought though.
I like the 4 team playoff. #5 will complain, just like #9 would complain in a 8 team playoff. It would work better if there were 4 conferences of 16 teams, but the conferences don't want to do that.
imo, in any given year there are 3-5 teams that are separated from the rest. If a team is on the bubble, then they need to step up.
imo, in any given year there are 3-5 teams that are separated from the rest. If a team is on the bubble, then they need to step up.
I agree, I didn't even want a playoff in the first place. But I believe if you're going to have a playoff, eight teams make more sense than four when it comes to the way college football is structured. With the current setup, at least one of the P5 conferences is getting left out and I don't think that's going to be acceptable for certain conferences going forward, especially if the Pac12, etc. keep getting left out.