Question: What a 16 team playoff would look like - Hypothetical

If a 16 team playoff were to be implemented then there would be no need for conferences, just have a 12 week season and rank the teams 1-16 and have at it.

GrayTide said:

If a 16 team playoff were to be implemented then there would be no need for conferences, just have a 12 week season and rank the teams 1-16 and have at it.

Click to expand...

There is plenty of need - need for greed. $$$$$$$$

100% against a 16 team playoff. But I'm all for expanding to 6 or 8 depending on the structure.


That said, there could be some interesting upsets in those games....

- UCF over OU (this could/would be a shoot out and whoever had the ball last wins)
- LSU over Ohio State - this just seems like and oddly bad match up for Ohio State
- Penn State over Notre Dame - I just don't buy that Notre Dame is all that good. Would have them on upset alert regardless of who they play

Anything over 4 is a total waste of time. Name me the last time 5 or above team had any real chance at beating not one but at least 2 of the top 4. 5 or above may luck up and beat a top 4 team but not 2 which they would have to do if they expand playoff. The drop off after the top 2 or 3 is pretty big. Right now can you say the number 5 6 or 7 team could on a neutral site beat Bama and Clemson to win NC? NO. so why waste time, games, and risk more injuries for more totally useless games. Fact is after 4 the other teams are just not up to the task, so why dilute the CFP with losers.

RT27 said:

Anything over 4 is a total waste of time. Name me the last time 5 or above team had any real chance at beating not one but at least 2 of the top 4. 5 or above may luck up and beat a top 4 team but not 2 which they would have to do if they expand playoff. The drop off after the top 2 or 3 is pretty big. Right now can you say the number 5 6 or 7 team could on a neutral site beat Bama and Clemson to win NC? NO. so why waste time, games, and risk more injuries for more totally useless games. Fact is after 4 the other teams are just not up to the task, so why dilute the CFP with losers.

Click to expand...

It was almost us last year...

RT27 said:

Anything over 4 is a total waste of time. Name me the last time 5 or above team had any real chance at beating not one but at least 2 of the top 4. 5 or above may luck up and beat a top 4 team but not 2 which they would have to do if they expand playoff. The drop off after the top 2 or 3 is pretty big. Right now can you say the number 5 6 or 7 team could on a neutral site beat Bama and Clemson to win NC? NO. so why waste time, games, and risk more injuries for more totally useless games. Fact is after 4 the other teams are just not up to the task, so why dilute the CFP with losers.

Click to expand...

Yea, I don't buy that at all. Ohio State was plenty good last year.

Akazo said:

It was almost us last year...

Click to expand...

4 is not 5 the difference was and is we were #4 for a reason and OSU was not. We had one bad game against good team OSU blown out by a loser, big difference.

RollTide_HTTR said:

Yea, I don't buy that at all. Ohio State was plenty good last year.

Click to expand...

We did not have a QB capable of winning in the CFP last year.

BamaHoosier said:

I want to state for the record that I am adamantly opposed to expanding the playoffs... with that said, I saw a post on Instagram that I found almost tantalizing. If there were a 16 team playoff, every single matchup as of this week would be nearly perfect. Other than Bama and Georgia, really every matchup would be fairly even.

Now this will change drastically within the next two weeks, but as of right now here’s where would stand:

1. Alabama vs 16. Iowa State
2. Clemson vs 15. Texas
3. Notre Dame vs 14. Penn State
4. Michigan vs 13. Florida
5. Georgia vs 12. Syracuse
6. Oklahoma vs 11. UCF
7. LSU vs 10. Ohio State
8. Wazzu vs 9. West Virginia

It’ll never happen, nor should it, but how much fun would a weekend be if it had this slate of games?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I agree that the playoffs should not be expanded.

IMO,
Bama would destroy or comfortably beat ISU though ISU is better than many realize
Clemson would destroy or comfortably beat Texas
Mich would destroy or comfortably beat UF comfortably (this would be a terrible matchup for UF because of one dimensional O, UF might not cross the 50 other than a fluke Franks pass or 2)
UGA would destroy or comfortably beat Syracuse
OU would destroy UCF (UCF's D is worse than OU's and the O is not nearly as good, UCF is a fraud OU is not)

BamaInBham said:

I agree that the playoffs should not be expanded.

IMO,
Bama would destroy or comfortably beat ISU though ISU is better than many realize
Clemson would destroy or comfortably beat Texas
Mich would destroy or comfortably beat UF comfortably (this would be a terrible matchup for UF because of one dimensional O, UF might not cross the 50 other than a fluke Franks pass or 2)
UGA would destroy or comfortably beat Syracuse
OU would destroy UCF (UCF's D is worse than OU's and the O is not nearly as good, UCF is a fraud OU is not)

Click to expand...

This is my problem with playoff expansion. Heck, even at 4 teams, since the 2014 year when Ohio State beat us, we have not had a competitive opponent in our first game. And in 2014, while we were slugging it out with Ohio State, Oregon was demolishing Florida State. So every single playoff so far has failed to produce 2 competitive games.

Having Iowa State and Syracuse in there just proves that having 16 teams is too much. I doubt that anyone living outside the states of Iowa and New York would think those teams are title worthy. Also, Alabama already proved we are much better than LSU so why should LSU have another chance? Michigan already proved they are far better than Penn State so why should Penn State have another chance?

RT27 said:

Anything over 4 is a total waste of time. Name me the last time 5 or above team had any real chance at beating not one but at least 2 of the top 4. .

Click to expand...

2007

Totally agree that the last three of those games could be fun and entertaining, but I don't see why we can't handle that with the bowl system -- that's what they are for. Whichever team won those three games would be slaughtered in the next round, e.g. LSU isn't going to handle Clemson any better on a neutral field than they did us in Baton Rouge. And it might be fun to listen to CML talk about Alabama for a week, but we'd run his bunch out of the stadium. I don't see any of the other games listed being within 10 points, unless it's Notre Dame, which we all know is overrated.
My own opinion is that it is hard to get up to five quality teams that would be competitive most years. There were 5 last year, I'd say. This year, just for fun, what do you think the opening line will be (if it comes to it) of Alabama / Clemson vs. Notre Dame?

Mostly, I'm not in favor of adding the extra games to the collegiate schedule for the players' sake. 15 is probably too many.

I would rather watch a tournament of M&M crushing than watch Georgia play Syracuse.

Are they going to start paying players? Until then there doesn't need to be any expansion. I'm not even for it if they were paying players. I want season games to mean something. Why even have 16 teams? Past the top 5 the rest are awful. Totally against playoff expansion.

When anybody says there is there's a big drop off of competition after the Top 4 teams I can't help think of 2010 Alabama squad. The final BCS rankings had us at 16. The top 4 teams were Auburn, Oregon, TCU, and Stanford. Auburn got really lucky to beat us in the Iron Bowl that year. Would of, could of, etc. Not going there. However, the way Alabama was playing at the end of the year was a prelude to the next years championship form. I think 2010 Alabama could have beaten any of those 4 teams.

HOWEVER, I am not in favor of expanding. Why should a team with 3 losses have a shot at a championship? We may have gotten hot at the end of the season, but we didn't play well the entire season. I hate the NFL's system. Some team gets hot at the end of the season and can win the whole thing a la Giants beating the Pats. They played some horrible ball earlier that year. Makes a mockery of the regular season to me.

Not sure if the New Years bowls would ever agree to move out of their spots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would be very difficult to make a case for any team beyond the final 6 in the CFB poll. My problem with 6 is that #'s 3-6 have to play an additional game while #1 and #2 get two weeks of R&R.

GrayTide said:

It would be very difficult to make a case for any team beyond the final 6 in the CFB poll. My problem with 6 is that #'s 3-6 have to play an additional game while #1 and #2 get two weeks of R&R.

Click to expand...

That is what makes it better - games mean more if the top 2 seeds get a bye. You make scheduling and winning more important than ever.