DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Should the College Football Playoff expand to six teams?

Should the College Football Playoff expand to six teams? Barry Alvarez is convinced
by Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
MADISON, Wisc. -- Count Barry Alvarez among the converted.

The powerful Wisconsin athletic director told CBS Sports he would like to see the College Football Playoff expanded to six teams. That is doubly significant because Alvarez served as a member of the first CFP Selection Committee from 2014-16.

This makes him one of the highest-profile figures close to the decision-making process to advocate for expansion of the bracket. Alvarez, 71, has been in the room for three out of the four years the CFP has been in existence picking the teams for the four-team field. "I would now be open to six," Alvarez told CBS Sports. "Two byes [for the top two teams]. … Maybe give one spot to the … [Group of Five champion]."

Alvarez was referring to the assumption that a six-team bracket would necessitate giving first-round byes to the two highest- ranked teams. Any six-team bracket would almost certainly have to include an automatic spot for the best Group of Five champion. Last year, that was UCF.

Boasting a 12-0 record at the time of playoff selection, the Knights were placed No. 12 in the CFP Rankings. Western Michigan was 13-0 when the field was selected in 2016 and came in ranked 15th.

"There are probably six teams that can win," Alvarez said. "Some of those schools -- that have years like that -- should have a chance. They could fit it in." "I'm thinking more open-minded to six, personally," he added. "I never thought we'd want to."

Applying a six-team bracket to the 2017 season, the likely first-round matchups would have been:

No. 3 Georgia vs. No. 6 UCF
No. 4 Alabama vs. No. 5 Ohio State

No. 1 Clemson and No. 2 Oklahoma would have received byes.

CFP executive director Bill Hancock has consistently said that the four-team playoff works and there are no plans to expand the field. The fifth year of the CFP commences Dec. 29 with semifinals set for the Orange and Cotton Bowls. The CFP National Championship will be decided on Jan. 7, 2019, at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, California. "I haven't talked to Barry about this, so I shouldn't comment expect to say there is no talk among the presidents or the commissioners about expanding the playoff," Hancock said, "because they like the focus of the regular season that we get from the four-team event."

Alvarez said his mind began to change last year after his Badgers stood as the last undefeated Power Five team heading into the Big Ten Championship Game.

Wisconsin, then 12-0, slipped from fourth to sixth and out of the playoff after a six-point loss to Ohio State in the league title game. The Big Ten was therefore left out of the CFP for the first time as Ohio State didn't make the top four even as conference champion. "I knew one commissioner who wasn't very happy," Alvarez said in reference to the Big Ten's Jim Delany.

Ohio State and Wisconsin had six common opponents in the regular season last year – Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan and Nebraska. Ohio State went 5-1 against that group. Wisconsin was 6-0. "I can't speak for anyone else [on the committee]; I'm telling you one of the most important things is strength of schedule," Alvarez said. "That's one of the things they look at first. Washington got in [the 2016 playoff] with no strength of schedule. That's what pissed me off last year. We still played nine conference games. You can tell me Nebraska didn't have that good a record, [but] you go into Lincoln, Nebraska, at night and they pull out every stop there was. A good football team had to win that game."

Wisconsin won its most games in history last season (13-1) despite playing four ranked teams, all after the first week of November. That did not include a 38-17 win at Nebraska on Oct. 7. It finished with the 23rd-toughest schedule last season, according to NCAA statistics. Among the playoff teams, Georgia was No. 2, Alabama was No. 7, Clemson was No. 8 and Oklahoma was No. 44. Ohio State finished with the sixth-toughest schedule.

Alvarez added that the committee "screwed up" in 2014, the first year of the playoff. Baylor and TCU tied for the Big 12 title, each at 8-1, without a championship game to boost the resume of a potential victor.

TCU dropped from No. 3 to No. 6 in the CFP Rankings despite winning its final game by 52 points over Iowa State. Baylor went from No. 6 to No. 5 after beating No. 9 Kansas State. Meanwhile, Ohio State slipped into the playoff ahead of TCU on the strength of a Big Ten Championship Game blowout of Wisconsin. "That last week, [I asked], 'Guys why would we do this? Baylor and TCU sitting there like that," Alvarez said. "It's going to be hard to explain.'"

The CFP management committee (the commissioners) cannot begin addressing a larger field until 2023, sources told CBS Sports.
That's three years before the current contract expires.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've said it before, 4 teams is great, 6 would might be perfect, 8 is way too many and 16 is insanely stupid. I'd be heavily on board with this expansion to six.

I suppose you could debate how would the six teams could be picked. I'm good with continuing to use the computers. I don't want to see a guaranteed spot for each conference, that's too much like the MLB All Star Game. Put the best 6 in, give the two first round bye's and see what happens. If a Group5 gets in, cool. If not, get better next year.

I think this would have been fair and exciting. Let's face it, ESPN has a huge influence on who gets in. They own the SEC Network and their bias for SEC teams is well known. I think they also trash the Big 10 because Fox owns the Big 10 Network.

Adding two teams to the playoffs would help alleviate some of the built-in bias and it would also give an opportunity to teams like UCF.

Good games. But we also need a line in the dirt at some point IMO. I like a four and four approach, the current voted four and next top four to be play-in spots to get up to six if they are willing. These would "matter" more than some of the drivel bowls. There is enough time between end of season and the running of the four. If you are not part of the Great Eight, get a bowl or stay home. The play-in lets you make sure an undefeated gets in.
Somebody can shoot holes in it, but a committee can play favorites and be handed some other worthies to slot for the lower bracket in effect. JMHO

Would it really matter? Talk shows would whine endlessly about the #7 and #8 teams that got screwed and demand that we expand to an 8 or 16 team playoff.

I like the idea of going to 6 teams, but disagree with ignoring conference titles. I would go with the Power 5 conference champions plus 1 invitee. The invitee could be chosen by a combination of coaches poll, media poll, and computer rankings (a la BCS). That would allow for a UCF, a Boise St, a Notre Dame, any other conference champ, or even a runner-up in one of the Power 5 conferences to be added to the tournament. The seedings could be decided likewise, by combination of polls and computer rankings. Top 2 teams get a bye in the first round.

How do we get the right teams into the conference title games? And who's the say the Pac12 deserves a team in the CFP? And the best +1 invitee, wouldn't it come from the highest ranked Power5 non-conference title game team?

I'd be okay with using the conference champions if we start using overall record to ensure getting the right teams into the conference title games.

To autobid conference champions into the "Sexy6", which is waaaaaaay better than the "Great8" , anyway, to do that means we're using the title game champion as the autobid, which means they'd have to standardize the schedules AND throw out the conference W-L standings. IMO, here's why:

- To maximize the chances of getting the best team from each division for the conference title game, they should stop using the conference W-L results. It should be conference plus out-of-conference W-L results, like the NFL does (and every other pro league). If you don't correct that, you can have the 8-1(10-4) division winner, which is ranked in the late teens represent a division. They need to get the team with the best overall record, which is more than likely the highest ranked team in the division. I know this goes against the "tradition" of college football, but so is having a team ranked in the teens in the CFP. Do you want the best overall teams from the conference in the conference title game or the teams with the best conference W-L record? It's not always both at the same time.
If you don't correct it, you leave a loophole where a team that went 8-1(13-1) doesn't go to the conference title game because the team that went 8-1(10-4) and beat them heads up goes. Which team is most deserving? That's why they need to use overall record.

- Assuming you use overall record, you have to then standardize the schedules. Doesn't matter how you do it, but it has to be the same for all the teams in the conference. For example with the B10, pick one D2, one from the MAC, one from the PAC12 and one from the SEC. You can't have OSU hosting Texas Christian Academy for the Blind while Indiana is traveling to Toledo the same week. Autobidding based on conference W-L makes weekly rankings and OOC games meaningless, right? To preserve rankings and OOC games, and their importance, overall records should be the deciding factor and getting EVERYONE in each conference playing "the same" schedule is important.



That happens now with March Madness and they take 68. The complaining will never stop no matter the number. My point, are there really 8, 12 or 16 deserving teams in college football that have earned the right to play for the overall title? Auburn was #7 in the CFP rankings last year and they had three loses. Do we really think a 3-loss team should be playing for the CFP title?

The difference between 6 and 8 is solely that 2 teams do not get a bye. Not sure how that makes it way too many.

j/c:

I am not a fan of conferences receiving automatic bids. I think that both the Big 12 and Pac 12 are going to be really awful this year. I think you take the best 6 or 8 teams.

Always a dig on the SEC.



6 would be great. Makes sense to me...I agree we don't need 16 teams. Go with your top 2, then your next 4 to get down to 4...so if you are #7 in the final vote, sorry.

Three reasons:

1. The 7 & 8 teams are normally trash.
2. With 6 teams in and if the higher seeded teams win, each team will play a maximum of two games. Sure, it's possible to play in three games, but that's not a guarantee. With 8 teams, to win the title you HAVE to play in three games. These are "kids" after all. That's why I'm still very happy with 4 teams, it's only two extra games for the title.
3. Having that bye week would keep the top teams fighting. For example, assuming the CFP teams are picked by the computer and not simply by conference autobids, if #1 and #2 are playing in a conference title game, it's not just bragging rights on the line, because they'd both probably be getting in.

I want 8.... power five each get a conference champion in then yu have there at llarge... no byes...

I'd prefer 8 as well ... that would be MAX ... i don't want the regular season to be diminished at all

In addition, I'd want the higher seed to get a home game in the first round; that would give the top 4 seeds the huge advantage, which they earned.

I could see that as well.

Sounds good but I don't think you could do that. That would pretty much render the Bowls to nothing. The NCAA isn't going to do that. I am sure the players don't want that either. I think the boys in Columbus would rather play a game in Jan. in Pasadena or New Orleans

If they keep the bowl system with 6 teams, I really hope they reclaim week 2 January bowl games, like the Radio City Bowl or Bitcoin bowl.

IMO there have not been a lot of years where we can retroactively look back at the season and think there were actually 4 serious competitors for the Championship. I think they have a bigger problem with their selection of the top 4. And I'm not here to make the Playoffs a participation trophy for the P5. Keep it at 4 or start paying the players.

How would it not be diminished? As stated above from last year, Auburn was #7 and had three loses. If you can lose one for sure, probably two and maybe even three, wouldn't that diminish the regular season?

As it is now, one loss is probably okay, but it's not a guarantee. Moving to 8 teams opens up a 2nd loss and possibly more.

I brought this up before, but no one responded.

I really, really am opposed to granting automatic bids to each of the Power 5 conferences. That only leaves one spot for another team. It might be a powerhouse team from one of those conferences or a deserving team like UCF.

I think they should just take the best 6 teams.

I agree.

Take the best teams, period.

I agree. Assuming we're only talking about a 6-team playoff, USC was #8 in the final rankings last year with two loses. Should they get an autobid over 6th ranked 1-loss Wisconsin? Meaning, this...

ACC - Clemson
Big12 - Oklahoma
SEC - Georgia
Big10 - OSU
Pac12 - USC (ranked 8th)
6th spot (highest ranked non-autobid) - Alabama

If we were to use the rankings, not conference autobids, it would be this...

#1 - Clemson
#2 - Oklahoma
#3 - Georgia
#4 - Alabama
#5 - OSU
#6 - Wisconsin

So I guess it comes down to who you'd rather see in the CFB, Wisconsin or USC. Who earned it more?

I'd rather get the best 6 teams in the playoff then the conference title game winners (as I mentioned above, the current system is flawed IMO on how the division winners get selected).

Great job of using last year's top teams as an example of what I was trying to get at. Thanks.

This makes sense. I personally don't like 6 - giving the top 2 seeds an extra week to rest and practice gives them a huge advantage. They're already the top two teams... I think 4 or 8 is the way to go.

I was thinking about this. Teams get quite a bit of time off before the bowl games. I could actually see people debating if having a bye is an advantage to a healthy team. Some might argue that the winning teams who played the week before the Final Four teams might have an advantage because they wouldn't be as rusty. It could lead to some good debates.

I vote for 6 teams w/no automatic births to the Big 5 conferences.

j/c

If they expand it to six teams, there will be teams on the fringe who feel it should be expanded to eight teams. If the expand it to eight teams there will be teams on the fringe that will want it expanded to 10 teams. And so on, and so on, and so on.

I think the entire thing is like a bridge to nowhere.

5 Champions (BIG 10, Big 12, Pac 12, SEC, ACC) ...

3 Wild Cards (No more than 2 from any conference) ...

8 should be the number with 1 playing 8 2 playing 7 and so forth ... JMHO

no participation trophies for being a bad football conference. Sorry Big 12 and PAC 12, you're going to need to win some games.

Agreed. It's not exactly breaking news that many people know the Big 12 and Pac 12 are going to suck this year.

I am emphatically opposed to automatic bids to each of the Big 5 conferences.

I don't really trust the committee to pick the best teams, but it sure beats automatic bids for sucky teams.

It's not just that the best team from the Pac12 is "sucky" as you put it, but the way the conference title game participants are decided, a team ranked in the late teens could beat that best "sucky" team to represent the conference if they moved to an autobid.

Again, IMO, either stay with the ranking+computer model or change everything to an NFL-like model. You can't really mix. It has to be one or the other. I'd prefer keeping as is.

Part of my response about four slots to play into this is the other side of things. A perfect season gets disallowed because of committee decisions to override that achievement. They have done all they could, won everything available and should get some shot. That may be an unrealistic "Hoosiers" kind of thing, but if you can't play uphill and win in, then it is already stacked against most teams. Notify them tonight that they cannot qualify for a chance even if perfect. Not allowed. Perfect teams could have a home in that expansion. I realize realistically that they may get trounced. Playing and losing is better by a far cry than a snappy explanation about why they aren't allowed to play for anything. bad for the game. The gods know that a number of horribly lame bowl games are saturating things. Make the play ins a Reserved Bowl or two. At least it counts for something for awhile.

That's why I want 8... five champions honors the conference And give some everyone in conference a chance.... then three at large for the non power five or another team in conference that is still didn't win the championship...


If it's six the I agree that you can't do power vie champs....

Think there needs to be a bit of flexibility

You take top 6 or 8. But, if you're a 3 loss team you don't get in. The selection committee needs to be able to look down the list and go "These teams have a valid reason to be included in the conversation and we want to see what they want to do"

Also

If your conference already has 2 teams in. You don't get in.

College Football is weird and has years where there are several undefeateds and then there's years where everyone is losing to somebody.

THe rules need to be flexible to give the best possible playoff.

I agree with that. Sometimes you have a conference with 2-3 teams with 1-2 losses who could kick the crud out of any team on any given weekend.

8 teams is better...

I like 4 teams. I understand people wanting more, because there is nothing wrong with more football.

I just think the madness, the fact that 3 or 4 teams every year feel left out, make cases for their team to be in, etc.. is good for the sport.

College football has the best regular season. I think if you start adding more teams, you go from 4 to 6, and before you know it, you have 8, and teams are possibly resting players late in the year because they know if they're ranked really high, one loss won't drop them 5, 6, 7 spots.

Even if they don't, games could be meaningless, when really that last year should be the best and most exciting week.

I'm not saying what they have now is perfect. I just think the the fact that we have a playoff, yet it's still exclusive is good for the game.

I understand why some of you want more teams in. This is just my two cents on it.

I respect your opinion, Sperg. I am also not saying you are wrong. It's all opinion.

Let me ask you--and others--this: Would you be opposed to adding 2 teams to playoffs and eliminating the conference championship games?

I want 16 teams. All conference winners, meeting whatever criteria as far as number of teams, and the rest at large. Home games for the higher seed until the final 4.

Why don't you like the conference championship games? Can't imagine those going away as much money that is in them... plus they almost act as a playoff game

I didn't say I didn't like them, jay.

I was responding to the thought of the season being too long if we added two more teams to the playoffs.

This is just my opinion, but I would rather see an expanded playoff than see the conference championship games. I think it kinda sucks if you are clearly the best team in your league over the course of the season and then lose just one game to an inferior team in a "Championship" game.

I do realize my preference won't happen because the NCAA probably makes a financial killing off of the Conference Championship games.

Sorry - maybe misread what you wrote... I agree that it could be bad if your undefeated going into the championship And lose... but same could be said for the playoffs....

I think there's enough time to keep the championships and still expand the playoffs.. all the other divisions can do it... still could use bowls and add a week in December for round one...

Honestly I would consider it. A lot of these conference championship games are meh. What was the last great conference championship game? I was at the OSU/MSU game in 2013. That may have been one of the few memorable games.

In that case, you have a season that ends on a shortened regular season by a week, you have a more true conference champion as it wasn't decided by a game but rather the grind of the whole season.

In that case, I would like to see the 6 best conference champions in a tournament.

And also, I would 100 percent be against any second place team getting in, because a conference championship in this setting should mean a little more.