Here it Comes New Push for an 8 Team College Football Playoff

How about automatic bids for P5 conference champions as long as they are the highest ranked team in their conference AND they have 2 losses or less. Put qualifiers on the automatic bids - make them conditional bids.

In just 4 years of a 4-team playoff two #4s & a 3 have played for the title, thoroughly debunking all the naysayers who thought the BCS always got it right and there was no need to expand from 2 to 4. Why so many are opposed to having the championship settled on the field is a mystery to me. But if we toss all that aside, the schools and conferences being left out of this are not going to sit quietly by, so regardless of one’s view expansion is probably inevitable.

USCBAMA said:

In just 4 years of a 4-team playoff two #4s & a 3 have played for the title, thoroughly debunking all the naysayers who thought the BCS always got it right and there was no need to expand from 2 to 4. Why so many are opposed to having the championship settled on the field is a mystery to me. But if we toss all that aside, the schools and conferences being left out of this are not going to sit quietly by, so regardless of one’s view expansion is probably inevitable.

Click to expand...

The problem is a simple one - if you make the field too large, you make games in the regular season meaningless. Let's consider the SECCG. Both of those teams were going to be in the playoff. Neither would have sold out to win the SECCG. That game would have been meaningless. The highest rated football game in the last 7 years would have been made meaningless.

USCBAMA said:

In just 4 years of a 4-team playoff two #4s & a 3 have played for the title, thoroughly debunking all the naysayers who thought the BCS always got it right and there was no need to expand from 2 to 4. Why so many are opposed to having the championship settled on the field is a mystery to me. But if we toss all that aside, the schools and conferences being left out of this are not going to sit quietly by, so regardless of one’s view expansion is probably inevitable.

Click to expand...

The examples you give involving #3 and #4 making it to the championship were all games where a 1-loss team defeated another 1-loss team. That doesn't mean they should start inviting 2 and 3 loss teams to play a 1-loss team. The BCS wasn't perfect but it was better than possibly allowing 8 teams to play.

We do not need one. We can barely field four teams and people want more? This is all about conferences that don’t get in.

USCBAMA said:

In just 4 years of a 4-team playoff two #4s & a 3 have played for the title, thoroughly debunking all the naysayers who thought the BCS always got it right and there was no need to expand from 2 to 4. Why so many are opposed to having the championship settled on the field is a mystery to me. But if we toss all that aside, the schools and conferences being left out of this are not going to sit quietly by, so regardless of one’s view expansion is probably inevitable.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously gonna say that #7 and below have a legitimate shot? REALLY? I suppose a 16 team playoff would be even better? Hey, let's just all get a participation trophy and call it a day.
The teams in the group of 5 have little to no shot realistically. They gripe because they're undefeated but it doesn't take much to beat little sisters of the poor or the brotherhood of the three blind mice.
And as for the Big 12 - play some freakin' defense instead of pinball on grass. Then we can talk about y'all getting left out quite a bit.
An 8 team playoff is certainly coming, but what happens when #9 has a perceived legitimate gripe? How far out do we take this? Where does all of the non-sense end?

B1GTide said:

The problem is a simple one - if you make the field too large, you make games in the regular season meaningless. Let's consider the SECCG. Both of those teams were going to be in the playoff. Neither would have sold out to win the SECCG. That game would have been meaningless. The highest rated football game in the last 7 years would have been made meaningless.

Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.
One part of the problem was when college teams went from 11 regular season games to 12. Alabama added the Citadel (and similar teams) before the Auburn game. Drop that worthless match-up (the only suspense was whether any players were going to get injured or not), and you're back to 11 games plus conference championship games. I don't think many schools want to give up that 12th game, though, because it brings in revenue.

...and it's about 50% of the athletic budget for some of those schools that come to BDS to play. (And quite possibly the coolest stadium any of them will ever play in. Let the kids and their schools have that day.) A glorified practice, yes. But it has it's purposes.

Tidewater said:

Agreed 100%.
One part of the problem was when college teams went from 11 regular season games to 12. Alabama added the Citadel (and similar teams) before the Auburn game. Drop that worthless match-up (the only suspense was whether any players were going to get injured or not), and you're back to 11 games plus conference championship games. I don't think many schools want to give up that 12th game, though, because it brings in revenue.

Click to expand...

Let's make it what it is: The Alabama invitational. At the end of regular season, we the members of Tidefans will chose the seven teams that will join our beloved Crimson Tide to a playoff for the national championship. We will determine the brackets and game venues. Note to the AD's of schools wanting their name on our little dance card. You can PM me for directions on where to send items that demonstrate your school's worthiness to receive an invitation.

I am not in favor of more championship games. The more games the more likelihood that a key injury occurs that changes who the real champion is.

You can expand this to 6 and even 8 and it will not be enough for the “include everybody” crowd. Bottom line, these weaker conferences realize that in most years, their best team is probably 8 out 10 (or worse) of the top teams and they will MISS OUT ON THE MONEY!!! And right now, the SEC and the ACC are the most likely to benefit with the Big XII and Big 10 rotating every other year. The main ones advocating for this can’t control the monster they created.

Keep it at 4


#Dec29

Substitute playoffs for some bowls and drop one (or two) regular season games.
Top team (or teams) get byes; lower ranked teams have to play more games to win it all.
Worse case scenario, lower seed might play potentially one more game - that should be the price you pay for losing during the regular season.
It’s not impossible, but only rarely would it change the champion drastically.
But face it: we at Bama love the winning.
Those who are not Bama fans do not, are getting bored with Bama winning year after year and will eventually demand the expansion. Bama (and SEC) may be the top dog, but we are outnumbered. Sooner or later, sheer numbers will overwhelm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KrAzY3 said:

Remember the previous debate was 3 should have been in over 2. This method just moves it to 7 should have been in over 6. I haven't seen a playoff selection process yet that didn't have this sort of a debate.

Click to expand...

The Big Dance used to be 64. Then it became 68. Why 68? Why not 72, or 96? Why not 128? (Probably because they are following the "how to boil a frog" model.)

As long as they can find an excuse (read: make more money), the expansion talk will continue. Even after the final iteration is decided upon. Which will also be superseded. Eventually.

It's inevitable we get it - the only question is whether it's during my lifetime or during the long dirt nap, and I assume I won't care there.

But a reminder that we live in everyone's mind:

It was our 1964 title that got the AP to wait until after the bowl games for a vote - people mad at Alabama.
It was our 1965 title that made them say never mind - people mad at Alabama.
It was our 1973 title that made the UPI decide to wait until after the bowl games for a vote - people mad at Alabama.
It was our 2011 title that helped push administrators toying with the idea into a four-team playoff - people mad at Alabama.
It was our 2017 title that helped push other conferences into thinking we need to expand the playoff - people mad at Alabama.


So expand it all you want - just be prepared to be even madder when Alabama becomes the first #8 seed to win it all.

Players will, in all likelihood, in the near future will be paid to play college football. Money, money, money!!! Filthy Lucre is what is really driving this expansion talk!! It was inevitable!!

Snowflake Award. You tried really hard in the PAC 12. Even though you lost four games, you get to be in the play off. It is just fair.

And yep, it is about money and exposure. 15 games in a season is already too many. Adding one or two or three so some conferences can share in money and publicity is a bad idea and will be poorly executed. Regular season maters much less. Teams will be given an incentive to rest starters in championship games. FCS teams will have a harder time getting payday games. Lots of things might make college football better. Expanding the playoffs is not on the list.

uaintn said:

Regular season maters much less. Teams will be given an incentive to rest starters in championship games.

Click to expand...

We're already seeing serious harm done to the bowl games, and ironically part of the justification for the (expanded) playoff is the waning interesting in bowl games. If they expand the playoff, there will be more damage done, to the bowl games, to the regular season, etc...

The complainers are teams who have been left out due their programs not being as good as the top four. The main complaint seems to be about fairness and not about the 4 best teams, what does it matter where the teams come from if we are picking the 4 best.

I think the complainers should worry about getting their teams better instead of changing the rules so maybe they can get in next year. Whether it's 4, 6, 8, ... or 64. It will never be enough, somebody will be crying because they got left out.

selmaborntidefan said:

It's inevitable we get it - the only question is whether it's during my lifetime or during the long dirt nap, and I assume I won't care there.

But a reminder that we live in everyone's mind:

It was our 1964 title that got the AP to wait until after the bowl games for a vote - people mad at Alabama.
It was our 1965 title that made them say never mind - people mad at Alabama.
It was our 1973 title that made the UPI decide to wait until after the bowl games for a vote - people mad at Alabama.
It was our 2011 title that helped push administrators toying with the idea into a four-team playoff - people mad at Alabama.
It was our 2017 title that helped push other conferences into thinking we need to expand the playoff - people mad at Alabama.


So expand it all you want - just be prepared to be even madder when Alabama becomes the first #8 seed to win it all.

Click to expand...

I hope that happens the first year they expand.

Valley View said:

The complainers are teams who have been left out due their programs not being as good as the top four. The main complaint seems to be about fairness and not about the 4 best teams, what does it matter where the teams come from if we are picking the 4 best.

I think the complainers should worry about getting their teams better instead of changing the rules so maybe they can get in next year. Whether it's 4, 6, 8, ... or 64. It will never be enough, somebody will be crying because they got left out.

Click to expand...

There are probably only 5 or 6 programs who are truly capable of winning a national title right now. Besides us, there is Clemson, Georgia, Ohio St, and Oklahoma. Other than Georgia, these teams have made multiple trips to the playoffs. I think everyone is getting tired of seeing the same teams get into the playoff year after year, with relatively minimal turnover.

Maybe I'm biased as an Alabama fan given that we've made every playoff, but the thought of arguing over whether 3 loss Washington or 2 loss Michigan should get in is just painful to think about. It's so funny to me that no one in the media has said "man, thank goodness we have a 4 team playoff this year, otherwise, imagine the kicking and screaming that would have occurred when ND got left out." That's what the playoff was designed to do, give two team who have a very legitimate gripe about not getting into the national championship a chance. I just don't see anything good coming from playoff expansion.