4 teams is enough...

[Reality Man]

Why do you need 8 teams? Isn't the regular season enough. Let's just look at this year as an example.

Is Wisconsin a team that should be playing in the BCS final four? No. Easy one.
Oklahoma? No. Came from a weak conference and lost twice and at home easily against OSU.

USC? Lost 3 games. They may be a hot team but lost 3 times. I am shedding a tear.

PSU? Lost twice and won the conference but that's because they beat OSU once at home and that is why OSU didn't play for the title even though they only lost once in conference. They tied for the East division title. In fact, OSU actually had the overall better performance against both PSU and UM combined than PSU had against UM and OSU. OSU beat a supposedly better non conference foe in Oklahoma and Nebraska and beat Wisconsin and UM. Their resume is clearly better than PSU. The reward for PSU is the Rose Bowl against USC. Why do I feel sorry for PSU again?

UM lost two of their last 3 games because they didn't play well enough in the 4th qtr. Isn't that what a championship team should do?

What good does 8 teams do...so people complain about #9 or #10. Is # 8 team really going to win 3 games against better ranked teams in a row. Doubt it. Should I feel bad for #5 or #6. They had their chances. A don't feel sorry for any two loss team and both of these programs have two losses.

Sorry. Collect your parting gift (Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl) and be on your way.


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/w...n-eight-team-playoff-a-reality-233010267.html

 

[57varieties]

the idea of more teams is you dont have to debate whether a conference championship or head to head is more important

if 8 teams get in then you make p5 conference champs auto bids then just have 3 at larges where championships wont effect the decision

this year that would put psu okla and um in and there wouldnt even be much debate over that

then its just a matter of usc or fsu

 

[Reality Man]

So basically teams who have 2-3 losses get into the final 8 which makes the non conference and conference games less critical which is a lot like the NCAA basketball tournament. See UCLA vs. Kentucky or any number of games.

The great thing about the system right now is that it made the Iowa game actually important and punished UM for losing it and rightfully so. It made the UM vs. PSU game important. Clemson vs. NC State. Clemson vs. Louisville.

Every game means something whereas you are saying the non conference games aren't really that important because you can still win the conference. Do I want to see 2-3 loss teams in a 12 game schedule get into the playoffs? Why?

The committee got it right. Why does either UM or PSU deserve to make it. Because PSU beat OSU at home and the Big Ten has a misaligned conference division set up and gave PSU no Nebraska and a pretty easy schedule.

They beat Wisconsin on a neutral field and so did OSU and UM. They beat who on the road? They have a worse road schedule (w/l...Pitt) than even UM. I could make the case that PSU was given an unbelievably easy path to the championship.

Look. PSU was given MSU at the end of the year after MSU was beaten up, demoralized and Dantonio playing Frosh and hometown guys. Did MSU try and win that game? They were up at half time. PSU was fighting off Minny at home. Fighting off IU on the road. Beat Iowa pretty good.

My point is you go down after #4 and you get teams with plenty of warts. .






RM

 

[scfanblue]

I agree. 4 teams only. UM blew their 2 losses in the 4th quarter where a team like Bama plays better to seal the deal. That's part of the reason the Buckeyes won. There players know how to win and come back in such a high profile game. Our players were at home 2 years ago with a bowl of popcorn watching the Buckeyes win the national championship.

 

[DrCorona]

The only down side with the current system is it rewarded Washington for playing Portland St, Idaho & Rutgers in the non-conference schedule and penalized Oklahoma for playing Ohio State & Houston. That really shouldn't happen. If you reward teams for NOT playing big pre conference games then they could go away.

 

[detroitjohn]

Why do you need 8 teams? Isn't the regular season enough. Let's just look at this year as an example.

Is Wisconsin a team that should be playing in the BCS final four? No. Easy one.
Oklahoma? No. Came from a weak conference and lost twice and at home easily against OSU.

USC? Lost 3 games. They may be a hot team but lost 3 times. I am shedding a tear.

PSU? Lost twice and won the conference but that's because they beat OSU once at home and that is why OSU didn't play for the title even though they only lost once in conference. They tied for the East division title. In fact, OSU actually had the overall better performance against both PSU and UM combined than PSU had against UM and OSU. OSU beat a supposedly better non conference foe in Oklahoma and Nebraska and beat Wisconsin and UM. Their resume is clearly better than PSU. The reward for PSU is the Rose Bowl against USC. Why do I feel sorry for PSU again?

UM lost two of their last 3 games because they didn't play well enough in the 4th qtr. Isn't that what a championship team should do?

What good does 8 teams do...so people complain about #9 or #10. Is # 8 team really going to win 3 games against better ranked teams in a row. Doubt it. Should I feel bad for #5 or #6. They had their chances. A don't feel sorry for any two loss team and both of these programs have two losses.

Sorry. Collect your parting gift (Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl) and be on your way.


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/w...n-eight-team-playoff-a-reality-233010267.html

Make the conference championship really mean something and, guess what, the 20 year olds stop taking games off in November. If having 8 teams in ensures that, I'm all for it. No larger than that, ever, but make it a guarantee for the Power 5 champions. That's right, just, and guarantees that winning on the field means something, not perceptions by journalists and coaches.

 

[michnittlion]

I prefer 4 over 8 (or 6) .... but I do think 8 teams is inevitable.

One of these years, Notre Dame is going to go 11-1 and get themselves into the playoff picture. Then we're looking at a circumstance of (at least) 2 conferences being shut out of the playoffs.

A resurgent Notre Dame is the single event that will really galvanize the charge to increase the field.

 

[detroitjohn]

I prefer 4 over 8 (or 6) .... but I do think 8 teams is inevitable.

One of these years, Notre Dame is going to go 11-1 and get themselves into the playoff picture. Then we're looking at a circumstance of (at least) 2 conferences being shut out of the playoffs.

A resurgent Notre Dame is the single event that will really galvanize the charge to increase the field.

I'm so sick, so very sick of the special dispensation afforded to ND for the last 20 years of the playoffs/BCS. Get into a conference like the rest of us and earn your way to the bowl game. I know, their schedule is tough, but it is also handcrafted each year.

BTW, there's an APB out for you on BWI. I'm not sure why they have the pitchforks and tar and feathers in hand, but you're free to go and ask.

 

[michnittlion]

I'm so sick, so very sick of the special dispensation afforded to ND for the last 20 years of the playoffs/BCS. Get into a conference like the rest of us and earn your way to the bowl game. I know, their schedule is tough, but it is also handcrafted each year.

BTW, there's an APB out for you on BWI. I'm not sure why they have the pitchforks and tar and feathers in hand, but you're free to go and ask.

I dread the year where it happens --- but an 11-1 Notre Dame is going to be an absolute mess as regards the playoffs.

Just saw that thread on BWI. There are a few posters who like to call me out, the OP there is one of them. It's kind of funny: the person I attended the B1G title game with is a fellow BWI poster.

 

[olelion]

I agree with the OP. Four is plenty. It's rare that the 5th place team is in the conversation.

 

[PSUPride1]

I agree with the OP. Four is plenty. It's rare that the 5th place team is in the conversation.

I disagree. I think it should have been eight teams.
Injuries occur. Teams are young and grow up.
I think teams like Michigan, USC, and Penn State would be very dangerous.
Start the season earlier. I'd rather go to a game and deal with heat than freezing temps and terrible weather.
Drop a game or two off the schedule.
Hell you finish the regular season playing 12 games. Then you may have a conference championship and then possibly two more games. That number of games is getting unhealthy for the kids.

 

[Reality Man]

The only down side with the current system is it rewarded Washington for playing Portland St, Idaho & Rutgers in the non-conference schedule and penalized Oklahoma for playing Ohio State & Houston. That really shouldn't happen. If you reward teams for NOT playing big pre conference games then they could go away.

That's a legit point but again is playing PITT some major challenge? If PSU doesn't look to UM by 39 pts then they leap frog UW.

I think the non conference schedule can help a team (Clemson) I don't think UW should be jumped by a team that got blown out by 39 pts, was fortunate to win at home and has two losses. Also, UW got beat by a very good team.

Bottom line is 4 teams is enough and everybody can cry a river from #5 on down. I can probably be convinced that getting rid of the non conference season and then use that time frame later for a playoff with 8 teams is a viable suggestion.


RM

 

[Reality Man]

Make the conference championship really mean something and, guess what, the 20 year olds stop taking games off in November. If having 8 teams in ensures that, I'm all for it. No larger than that, ever, but make it a guarantee for the Power 5 champions. That's right, just, and guarantees that winning on the field means something, not perceptions by journalists and coaches.

Winning did mean something and both UM and PSU lost 1 additional game. I can be persuaded by the 8 game playoff by getting rid of the non conference slate.

Also, what is wrong with an 11 win ND team if they beat USC, MSU, UM and others. I would accept that over a Big Ten or Big 12 or Pac 12 conference champion depending on the circumstances. If ND beat UM and UM won the Big Ten then I could see an 11-1 ND getting in before UM even as a champion.

It's not easy going 11-1 as an independent if you are playing the type of schedule that ND plays usually. ND played at Texas, at USC, home against MSU (usually decent) plus some other decent teams. I'll have to look at their schedule but they want to go that route then by all means.



RM

 

[Reality Man]

This is a decent schedule for ND is 2017. Road games at Stanford, BC, MSU. I would consider 11-1 Their opponents are clearly motivated to win for their own interests like USC, MSU, Georgia, Stanford, Miami. Definitely tougher than the PSU schedule this past year.


RM

 

[detroitjohn]

This is a decent schedule for ND is 2017. Road games at Stanford, BC, MSU. I would consider 11-1 Their opponents are clearly motivated to win for their own interests like USC, MSU, Georgia, Stanford, Miami. Definitely tougher than the PSU schedule this past year.


RM

I agree, typically ND plays a tough schedule. The difference is they can schedule their tough schedule as they choose. If you're in a conference, you're at the mercy of the conference's scheduling (hello MSU on the road, two years in a row). I'm just trying to maximize the importance of winning a conference. tUOS is a better team than PSU, but they didn't win their conference title. What's going to be remembered in the long run, a conference title or a run in the playoffs? I hate that, let our conference champion be our representative.

 

[JP2Blue]

6 teams is perfect.
Top 2 get a bye.

 

[57varieties]

So basically teams who have 2-3 losses get into the final 8 which makes the non conference and conference games less critical which is a lot like the NCAA basketball tournament. See UCLA vs. Kentucky or any number of games.

The great thing about the system right now is that it made the Iowa game actually important and punished UM for losing it and rightfully so. It made the UM vs. PSU game important. Clemson vs. NC State. Clemson vs. Louisville.

Every game means something whereas you are saying the non conference games aren't really that important because you can still win the conference. Do I want to see 2-3 loss teams in a 12 game schedule get into the playoffs? Why?

The committee got it right. Why does either UM or PSU deserve to make it. Because PSU beat OSU at home and the Big Ten has a misaligned conference division set up and gave PSU no Nebraska and a pretty easy schedule.

They beat Wisconsin on a neutral field and so did OSU and UM. They beat who on the road? They have a worse road schedule (w/l...Pitt) than even UM. I could make the case that PSU was given an unbelievably easy path to the championship.

Look. PSU was given MSU at the end of the year after MSU was beaten up, demoralized and Dantonio playing Frosh and hometown guys. Did MSU try and win that game? They were up at half time. PSU was fighting off Minny at home. Fighting off IU on the road. Beat Iowa pretty good.

My point is you go down after #4 and you get teams with plenty of warts. .

i never said those teams should be in the way it is isaid theyd be in if it WAS 8 teams

as far as a multiple loss team winning a nc? why should FBS FOOTBALL be different from ANY other sport at ANY other level

the regular season still means something you still have to earn a spot and a seed