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

Sperg, that’s spot on. Adding more teams will dilute the regular season. I think going to 6 teams won’t be too bad, but 8 would be too much. Think about Bama last year going into the Iron Bowl. I think they were ranked 2nd. To your point, they already knew losing that game would drop them to 4th or at worse 5th, so they had to sweat out the selection Sunday. However, if you have 6 or 8 teams in the playoff, as was said, you rest your starters and tank the game (well, unless you care about a first round by, which is why I think 6 works, not 8).

Whatever happens, IMO, the priority should be to preserve the importance of the regular season. If you’re in the top 15, you’ve got a shot if you run the table. One loss may knock you out. If you add too many teams to the playoff, a midseason loss becomes meaningless, which makes tension before the game also meaningless.

That’s what I enjoy about college football, almost every week is a playoff. Keep winning to control your destiny, lose and hope other teams lose too.

That might work, but that’s too much money to give up if you’re the conferences. I’m okay with them, they do add championship week tension because one of the teams are normally in the top 8 and anything could happen. However, the games usually stink because the better teams rolls them, but that’s an issue with the disparity of talent across the conferences. Heck, I’d suggest having the best two teams from the conference get in, not division. Get rid of the divisions. I wouldn’t mind seeing two teams that have already played go at it again, as long as they’re the best two teams.

Maybe it should be fluid. Maybe the committee should make the college playoff go from 6 teams to only 2 teams, like prior to 2012.

Then they could keep a secret until selection day, and nobody would know if anybody is getting in except for the clear #1 maybe.

So any given year it could be 2 teams, 3 teams, 4 teams 5 teams or 6 teams, and nobody would know until the conference champioinships were finished.
And by no means have more than 6 teams in because then it would just be like basketball where the season doesn't matter.


And they should give more credence to the bowls, and not the stupid playoff, which is only different bowls anyway.

jc

I may be wrong but there might be a game on tonight at 10?

I think there are years where beyond the top 4 teams, you see a ton of mediocrity.

Every year we have to hear about some SEC team that buried their season by losing a few games earlier in the year, and how they're the best team in football, and blah blah blah. Maybe they are playing well at that point, but it's not about a stretch run to the end of the season. It's about the entire body of work.

I thought even last year, you had Alabama just making it in despite not beating any good teams, and just on the outside, you had an Ohio State team that got blasted in both of their losses, one of which was to a mediocre Iowa team (credit to them, they played an unbelievable game that day).

Georgia, Oklahoma and Clemson were the only teams that really deserved their spot, and funny enough, none of them walked away with the championship at the end of the day.


I think they need to be very careful with expanding, because you could water down what is the most fun season in all of pro or college sport.

One idea I have always thought to be cool would be to award berths to the top 6 conference winners. That way, you give a smaller school from a not so great conference a shot at it.

2nd and 3rd place teams in tougher conferences will whine about it, but I think it keeps the playing field wide open.

It won't ever happen, because it literally takes rankings out of the equation, and if you ask me, rankings are a huge cog in the monster that is college football. They're talking points for fans, media, etc. It drives the whole thing. You want to see a little number next to each school when watching a game on tv.

It also puts out of conference scheduling in question. Who do you schedule when those games don't matter?

It's a cool idea, but it will literally never happen.

So if you ask me, the best case scenario is what we have now. I like this, although I wish there was a way where OOC scheduling was somehow monitored, because Alabama proved last year, you can get by on your preseason ranking, because they sure as crap didn't earn it during the year.

Interesting idea to do that. Or the pick to participate might change league end of season format.

My points were paired. Two play-in games beyond the four to leverage best records (especially undefeated) into a shot to play for it all; and the second, to take two lower useless bowl games and build them into a game with stronger potential importance and dramatic attraction. have to be better than the 50-50 bowl with barely .500 records IMO. These may not pan out, the teams may not prove out, but a one-loss team over a better record seems wrong to me. Each has something to prove. Settle it and draw into the four.

I think the power conferences should change how they pick their top 2 teams. Don't just have an East/West North/South divisions. Each conference should have their best 2 teams in their conference championship game.

That way the Conference Championships literally become the first playoff game.

So in essence there will already be a 10 team playoff.

Last season we would have had

Big Ten - Ohio State vs Wisconsin
SEC - Georgia Vs Auburn
Big 12 - Oklahoma vs TCU
ACC - Clemson vs Miami
PAC 12 - Stanford vs USC

Then after those games are played the committee's job should be to rank the 5 winners 1 to 5

Two weeks later on the first Saturday of bowl games the # 4 and #5 teams would play. Last season that would have been USC vs Ohio State winner would play #1 Clemson on Jan 1st

#3 Georgia would play #2 Oklahoma.

Which would have resulted in a Georgia vs Ohio State/Clemson winner in the National Title game.

I know Bama was the best team last year and proved it by winning the national title. But, I find it a real sham for a team to win a National title without winning their Division and Conference.

or beating anyone during the year.

Alabama's best feat last year was Ohio State getting drilled at Iowa.

Your idea of of the 5 conference-10 team playoff is a cool idea, but it also removes a bunch of teams from consideration. I understand we all laugh at the Boise State and UCF's of the world, but what motivation do they have at the beginning of their season?

I mean, that's kind of the case now, as UCF won all their games and still got denied.

Power conferences are doing themselves a disservice by erecting divisions instead of taking the two best teams, with each team having a few protected rivalries

And the divisions w/in the conferences aren't balanced. One always seems to be much tougher than the other.