Playoff consensus reached

[SuperDuck]

to give up their "4 automatic wins" OOC schedule and play a 9 game schedule this is still a very flawed system...Also this talk of 16 teams is silly, think about it, how many key players would be injured playing 4 straight weeks of football against the highest competition...have to consider that as well, IMHO. AND don't forget academics. That's a lot of extra missed class time, you're talking 16 or 17 week seasons here.

Yet 1-AA makes it work. Weird, maybe their schools are easier and guys play two hand touch. Fact is only 2 teams would have to worry about any of these flawed money grubbing (not that I'm saying you get money or care about the money schools would lose doing a 16 team playoff) excuses.

Exactly. 1-AA (FCS) makes it work every year. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, they just expanded to a 20 team format.

16 teams is the only way to be fair to everyone (by including ALL FBS conference champions), as well as having the ability to include deserving top major independent schools and a few of the conference runner-up teams that may have played brutal schedules, had one or more significant players out during a loss, went unbeaten but lost their conference championship game, etc.

A couple things that could be done to appease the University President's as well as eliminate bad teams from getting in are as follows:

#1. Shorten the regular season back to 11 games and spread it out where there's a bye week and an FCS school on the schedule. Have a bye week/FCS school in the first or second half of the season. That way there's an opportunity for players to rest, injuries to heal, etc.

#2. Eliminate conference championship games and let the selection committee decide which one or if both should get in. This will raise some eyebrows, but please read on before you criticize.

The problem with conference championship games is that they're either a potentially great matchup, as USC vs Oregon would have been last year if the Trojans weren't on probation, or they're a potential disaster waiting to happen, as it would have been if UCLA had upset Oregon last year.

The latter reason is the biggest reason why conference champions should NOT be automatic qualifiers unless it's based on the games played during the regular season, not one "winner take all" game that might allow a major upset to happen and a mediocre team to back their way into the field.

Some University President's, AD's, Conference Commissioner's, etc may say that the conference championship games are cash cows and must remain. My argument would be the 2 loss champion scenario similar to that described by TK above. What if 2 loss Oregon, with losses only to LSU and USC, were to get upset in the conference championship? They'd now be a 3 loss team and the conference could be knocked out of the playoffs entirely!

That being said, I say 16 team playoff, reduce the regular season to 11 games, eliminate conference championship games, everyone play equally balanced schedules and let's rock the house with a REAL playoff!

Anyway, just thinking out loud again. Gotta get back to work.

[wheaton4prez]

The money matters because it reflects fan interest. A 16 team system would result in more uninteresting games. The motivation for crappy schedules would be higher since the bar for entry to the play-offs would be lower. Then, you would have poorly attended throw-away games in the first round. Many fans of the top 4 teams wouldn't go to the first round game when they are confident that their team has a shot at the final, meaning they have to pay to travel and attend 3 other games.

Play-offs diminishing the regular season was a greatly exaggerated argument by the BCS. But, their error was in claiming that even a smaller number of additional games would diminish the regular season. I think it has to be recognized that at some point, too many play off games does make the regular season meaningless. In my estimation 16 teams crosses that line.

Think about it. A 16 team system would mean that regular season match-ups between top 10 teams would be meaningless since the losing team would, in all probability still remain in the top 16.

[JIDuck97]

I am personally a fan of the 8 team playoff. Far less questions to ask. Sixteen teams seems like a lot of cruddy matchups (potentially) as someone mentioned above. I like the idea of the top four conference champions plus the next top four ranked teams. (Which could be picked by a selection committee.) This would enable the BSU's and Notre Dames to have a shot at getting into the playoff if they had earned it. Four to me seems like a better deal than what we have now (Just about anything is.)

[wheaton4prez]

I think 8 is the right number.

* It only adds 3 additional games on top of the existing BCS bowls.

* It's rare that anyone thinks a team outside of the top 8 deserved a shot at the NC.

* It keeps the importance of regular season games because losing one game, in 90% of circumstances, risks being knocked out of the top 8.

[JIDuck97]

I think 8 is the right number.

* It only adds 3 additional games on top of the existing BCS bowls.

* It's rare that anyone thinks a team outside of the top 8 deserved a shot at the NC.

* It keeps the importance of regular season games because losing one game, in 90% of circumstances, risks being knocked out of the top 8.

Also to note is that it only adds 3 additional games for 2 teams, and 2 additional games for another two teams, as well as another game for four other teams. The idea that it would be too many games is ludicrous as that tends to be thrown out there as though it was an all around thing. For 112 teams it adds no games unless they make it to a bowl game. For only 8 teams does it add one game, four teams does it add two games, and two teams does it add 3 games. Also, these colleges should be dying to make the kind of money that bowl games incorporating this style of playoffs and cities wanting to bid highest on the NC game would provide. The flaw right now in the system is the beliefs that are eschewed by those desiring no change at all. And just like in all other areas of life you will find a lot of people going "oh yeah... what about the kids? or oh yeah...what about this or that?" when it was never about what the "potential" concern was to begin with. It is simply about continuing the status quo and making the currently rich richer and even more successful.

(And please do not turn this into a political discussion as right now it is great topic and that would just be a way to destroy it.)

[duck55]

Math wise, the top 8 teams already play in BCS bowl games, so only 4 teams add one in the 2nd round and the 2 making the championship add another. For years other conferences had one more game than us due to their confference championship game.

Adding these games would benefit teams like the Ducks, giving other teams less time to prepare for our style of play.

[SuperDuck]

I think 8 is the right number.

* It only adds 3 additional games on top of the existing BCS bowls.

* It's rare that anyone thinks a team outside of the top 8 deserved a shot at the NC.

* It keeps the importance of regular season games because losing one game, in 90% of circumstances, risks being knocked out of the top 8.

I think that 8 is definitely better than 4, but having 16 resolves the issues of not excluding any conference champion and also leaves additional slots for other high ranking independent's and power conference runner-up teams.

It's unfair to exclude certain conference champions because they're perceived to be weaker. Why call them FBS schools in the first place if you're not going to give them a legitimate shot at the title and share the money with them? Unless they go to a 16 team field most of these teams will almost always be on the outside looking in.

On the other hand, the open slots in addition to the conference champions should also solve the problem of a one loss power conference team vs a mid-major champ getting left out. Put them all in, let it be proven on the field and share the money accordingly.

It's the only "fair" way to do it and power schools would still make up around 3/4 of the field.

[UOducksTK1]

It's about time! Now all we need to do is expand it to 16.

I think 8 would be enough. I don't think 4 is.

So if Oregon goes undefeated with a top 5 non-conference win, only to lose in the Pac-12 championship game.. They shouldn't be given a spot?

8 team tournament would most likely imply that since Conf champs will probably only be included. Horrible system imo.

So you thinks Stanford should have gotten in instead of a 2 loss UO team?

No, because Oregon beat them head to head, and Stanford did not even play in the Pac-12 championship game. So their resume got squashed.

However, I think Stanford at 11-1 with only one loss to a team like Oregon SHOULD be in a tournament that competes for a national title, Yes.

[frogsnouts]

Halfway to the goal, now we just need to get an 8 team playoff and I'll be satisfied. 16 is just too much, take the top 8 in the BCS poll and conclude the season 3 weeks later.

[JIDuck97]

Personally I like the idea of conference championships meaning something, but not everything. I say take the top four conference champions and then the next top four rated teams. That way if for example last year UCLA had beaten the Ducks in the Pac12 Championship game and the Ducks had actually beaten USC, Oregon would still have had a legit shot ratings wise of getting in (if they were treated like Bama was with their loss) but a team like UCLA wouldn't be able to get in after their stinker of a season as there would have (most likely) been four far more deserving conference champions. That way conference champions are weighed heavily but so are regular season ratings, and without the likelihood of anyone deserving being left out.


For example last year Wiscy was rated 10 going into the Rose bowl having lost two games but they won their conference. In that scenario so long as they had been in the top four conference champions they would have gotten in, but if it had been SEC, PAC, ACC, B12 ahead of them they wouldn't have gotten in.

[wheaton4prez]

(And please do not turn this into a political discussion as right now it is great topic and that would just be a way to destroy it.)

Hah! How is this topic in danger of going political?

I promise to not make it political as long as you promise not to derail it by talking about men wearing pantyhose.

[wheaton4prez]

I think that 8 is definitely better than 4, but having 16 resolves the issues of not excluding any conference champion and also leaves additional slots for other high ranking independent's and power conference runner-up teams.

Right. But, it does this at almost complete expense to the best games of the regular season.

To me, conference championships are a local intrigue. They shouldn't factor in to the equation for team rankings because it could be the case that the two top teams in the nation are in the same conference. I don't think it would be right to leave the #2 team in the nation out of the play-offs because they happen to be in the same conference as the #1.

It's unfair to exclude certain conference champions because they're perceived to be weaker. Why call them FBS schools in the first place if you're not going to give them a legitimate shot at the title and share the money with them? Unless they go to a 16 team field most of these teams will almost always be on the outside looking in.

Because beating a weaker conference doesn't necessarily mean you are a top caliber team. When non BCS programs have been top 8 caliber, I think they have generally been able to at least break the top 8.

Automatically allowing conference champions in risks bumping a better team out of the play-offs. Not through play on the field but through a rule.

On the other hand, the open slots in addition to the conference champions should also solve the problem of a one loss power conference team vs a mid-major champ getting left out. Put them all in, let it be proven on the field and share the money accordingly.

In that case it was decided on the field. The power conference team lost. They shouldn't get in over a team that didn't lose. Or, one that lost only to a superior team.

It's the only "fair" way to do it and power schools would still make up around 3/4 of the field.

If settling things on the field is the measure of what is fair, the only truly fair system would be to have no regular season and one giant bracket.

[JIDuck97]

I promise to not make it political as long as you promise not to derail it by talking about men wearing pantyhose.

Deal!

[duck55]

So many restrictions.... Now I had to go & change my post on this topic.

[JIDuck97]

Bah!