Why I Think A Six-Team Playoff Is Inevitable

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
When we have a 3 or 4 loss team in a playoff just because they won a conference championship game, we have failed.
For college football... I agree.
For NFL.... Not so much

I think the problem we have now is that there is rarely any real separation from #3 to #6, and folks get mad because the #3 or #4 seeds either vastly underperform or get in over arbitrary reasons. But as it is right now the #2 and #4 seeds have the biggest advantages in the current format. That is what they need to address going forward.
 

owenfieldreams

Big-12 All American
Sep 8, 2002
1,710
23
47
galveston tx. usa
delpapabud.com
My #1 wish is that the human element is completely eliminated. I lean towards an eight team playoff because it puts all power 5 winners in and I think conference viability is important to the game. The 3 at-large would be selected on the metrics similar to the old BCS. The qtr. finals would be played on the home field of the higher seed. The metrics could very well put 3 SEC teams in, or 2 SEC and one more Big 10 or ACC team, etc. Whether this year's semis were mismatches is not as much of an issue as making sure through a playoff system that the final 4 are the 4 best teams. Now, given the current gap between 1,2 & everyone else an expanded playoff went help but it's not always going to be this way. Runs like Alabama is having don't last forever, although until CS retires it would seem an end is not in sight.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,503
46,848
187
But if you base seeding on team rankings, you could almost ensure they would be the lowest seeded team.
Here's my problem - it means that the conference championship games are more important than every other game that the teams have to play all season. It means that a 5 loss team can win their side of a conference bracket, get hot in one game (or beat a better team that has many turnovers), and make the playoffs in spite of having failed many, many times over the course of the season.

The playoffs should be rewards for the teams that play the best football over the course of their entire season - not the teams that get lucky enough to win their CCG. In this era, we need to stop thinking of teams as winners of their conference - they are winners of their conference championship game. Those things are no longer always the same. The only reason we continue to play the games is $$$ - it has nothing to do with crowning a conference championship in this era.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
But if you base seeding on team rankings, you could almost ensure they would be the lowest seeded team.
That's where we get into arbitrary metrics that the committee uses. The only clear rankings are #1 and #2. #3 is usually a team that goes through a weak schedule that everyone knows is the worst team in the playoffs (UGA being the lone example). The #4 team is always a team that either is hot during the end of the season or is rejuvenated by a controversial invitation. What needs to happen is that the #1 seed needs more say of who they play.

Here is a good fix:

1) The committee gives us the Top 2 by midnight on championship saturday (doesn't give the actual seeding until the official reveal)

2) Give the #1 team the choice of Opponent or choice of semi final venue, and give the #2 team the remaining option.


3) To ensure anonymity Gives both teams a ballot (no they wont be voting on rankings) Have them submit it without it being revealed to the committee until the rankings are official

On that ballot here will be what they are voting on:

- If you are seeded as #1 What would be your choice between OPPONENT or VENUE
- rank preferred opponents out of all potential challengers

4) on Selection Saturday use a SOS algorithm to determine the #1 seed
5) select the 2 challengers according by committee vote
6) place the matchups according to how the #1 team voted on their decision of the choice of opponent or venue, but keep their choice secret until after the semis are concluded.

That way you can say the #1 team had a choice, and you cant definitively say what that choice was
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,503
46,848
187
My #1 wish is that the human element is completely eliminated. I lean towards an eight team playoff because it puts all power 5 winners in and I think conference viability is important to the game. The 3 at-large would be selected on the metrics similar to the old BCS. The qtr. finals would be played on the home field of the higher seed. The metrics could very well put 3 SEC teams in, or 2 SEC and one more Big 10 or ACC team, etc. Whether this year's semis were mismatches is not as much of an issue as making sure through a playoff system that the final 4 are the 4 best teams. Now, given the current gap between 1,2 & everyone else an expanded playoff went help but it's not always going to be this way. Runs like Alabama is having don't last forever, although until CS retires it would seem an end is not in sight.
As long as the formulae are open to review by an independent body (not necessarily the public), I agree. The reason that people did not trust the computers was the lack of transparency.
 

bamaga

Hall of Fame
Apr 29, 2002
13,379
8,238
282
JAWJA
That would be great if all conferences were created equal. But they are not. I just don’t see in a highly competitive conference where a game on a rainy , stormy September Saturday should eliminate you from the playoffs. NO AUTOMATIC QUALIFIERS! Unless you go to 8, which I am not in favor of. And my vote is the only one that counts to me!
 

CrimsonNagus

Hall of Fame
Jun 6, 2007
8,486
6,208
212
45
Montgomery, Alabama, United States
I lean towards an eight team playoff because it puts all power 5 winners in and I think conference viability is important to the game.
I will just never understand this line of thinking. Why does any college football fan believe that a 3 loss team deserves a berth in the playoffs? Why does a 3 loss PAC-12 champ deserve to get in by being the last man standing in a mediocre conference? The real answer is they don’t.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,561
10,622
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
6 is better than 8 but I hope it stays at 4

Edit - regardless of how many teams, conferences should have nothing to do with it other than allowing for winning (or losing) an additional game with the conference championship (if there is one)
 
Last edited:

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,042
907
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
Six team playoff may well happen but it will be just a temporary bump in the road to eight teams. We are headed to eight and that is almost a given. Six, ten years? I don't know but I am certain it is coming. Five P5 champs, highest G5 team and two at large. This year we could have had Washington, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Clemson, Alabama, UCF, Notre Dame and one at large, probably would have been Georgia.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
I can't speak to the inevitability of it, but the only way I can see automatic entrants is under an 8 team playoff, and even when it would be pretty pathetic to see some lousy teams make it into a playoff. It's been said, but the idea that you could lose 3 or 4 and just get hot at the end... that ruins the prestige that college football has over 100 years building up. And I would add, we can debate who deserved to be champion on a given year, but there have never been any 10-6 Giants on that list, or 20-15 Uconn teams.

If you go the automatic entry route, something like this becomes inevitable, where it stops becoming about greatness and it starts becoming about a combination of luck and playing your best ball at the right time of year. For instance, no matter what happens in the Alabama, Clemson game, we know a great football team with a worthy resume gets the trophy. That is not necessarily the case in other formats.

Having said all that, I think right now we're really facing two things, the 8 team with automatic entrants (allowing for at-large bids), or 6 team playoff with the byes and no automatic bids (under a 6 team with automatic bids in theory you could leave out the #2 team, making it worse than the BCS in so many ways). I mean this 6 team playoff leaves out Alabama last year! I don't see any way the SEC lets that one by them...
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,042
907
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
I will just never understand this line of thinking. Why does any college football fan believe that a 3 loss team deserves a berth in the playoffs? Why does a 3 loss PAC-12 champ deserve to get in by being the last man standing in a mediocre conference? The real answer is they don’t.
Oh it is easy to understand. The underdog syndrome (UCF this year), $$$ and political correctness -- the poor team that had some injuries and bad breaks and lost three games. It is just NOT fair.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Having said all that, I think right now we're really facing two things, the 8 team with automatic entrants (allowing for at-large bids), or 6 team playoff with the byes and no automatic bids (under a 6 team with automatic bids in theory you could leave out the #2 team, making it worse than the BCS in so many ways). I mean this 6 team playoff leaves out Alabama last year! I don't see any way the SEC lets that one by them...
How does the 6 team leave out Bama last year even with AQ?

#1 Clemson ACC
#2 Oklahoma Big XII


#3 UGA (SEC) vs #6 Alabama (at large)
#4 Ohio St (BIG 10) vs #5 USC (PAC 12)

Unless you say UCF who was ranked #10 going into the Peach, the only challenger for the #6 slot would be Wisconsin.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,663
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
All this expansion talk is about to drive me crazy because no expansion is needed. People are just jealous of Bama and Clemson but, instead of wishing their team would get better, they want to change the rules so mediocrity is rewarded.

Expanding will not solve anything, people will still be unhappy and people will still complain. Whether you go to 6, 8 or 16, people will still find something to whine about, it’s just what the world does these days.

Everyone complains about the lopsided nature of the semifinals yet, in the same breath, argue for expansion. That will only create more lopsided match ups causing more to complain.

The only true reason people want to expand right now is to some how find a way to keep Bama, and maybe Clemson, out. The rest of football needs to get better and actually challenge us. Not change the rules to keep good teams out while allowing mediocre teams in.



Of course, as much as I’m against it, expansion is inevitable. I don’t think this 6 team idea will ever happen though. I think they’ll go straight to 8 teams, 5 conf. Champs (which will be dumb), 1 group of 5 and 2 at large. That way they get to keep their committee because college sports loves having committees. Plus, this will make it easier for Bama to get in so, whatever.
TBF, I think the primary thought behind the wishes for expansion is that, somehow, anyhow, it will change the result and finals won't end up with Bama, and probably Clemson, at the top of the heap. Of course, there's some truth in that, in that more games increase the odds of a slipup along the way...
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
TBF, I think the primary thought behind the wishes for expansion is that, somehow, anyhow, it will change the result and finals won't end up with Bama, and probably Clemson, at the top of the heap. Of course, there's some truth in that, in that more games increase the odds of a slipup along the way...
I don't know if its that, or more how random the committee has chosen the #4 seed over #5 and #6.

2014: chosen because of a 13th data point
2015: chosen because they lost on a neutral field instead of at home
2016: more issue with #3 seed than the #4 seed, but it was because of less overall loses than PSU
2017: Less loses than Ohio St
2018: chosen to avoid a direct rematch and they had a less embarrassing loss than Ohio St.

I think Notre Dame being an independent facing ACC and Pac 12 teams is driving the conversation as well because they could avoid the big dogs of those conferences and be undefeated. Are they going to start punishing them for not playing a 13th game is a legit concern for everyone.
 

teamplayer

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2001
7,574
2,334
282
cullman, al, usa
I will just never understand this line of thinking. Why does any college football fan believe that a 3 loss team deserves a berth in the playoffs? Why does a 3 loss PAC-12 champ deserve to get in by being the last man standing in a mediocre conference? The real answer is they don’t.
I can't speak for others, but I can give you my opinion on the matter. If we go to eight teams, yes, I believe we should have the five major conference winners get automatic bids. Why? They won their conferences on the field. People didn't just look at how many great athletes they had on their team and proclaim them to be great like so many tried to do with UGA this season. Winning a conference championship on the field still means something to a lot of folks, including me. So, where you wonder why people think conference champions should be included, I wonder why people like to proclaim how good a team is on paper based on the eye test or number of athletes. It is simply a difference in opinion, but I will always take on field results over eye tests or number of four and five star athletes or who Vegas thinks might win.
If we used this year's final playoff rankings as an example, we could have
1. Bama v. 8. Washington; 2. Clemson v. 7. Central Florida; 3. Notre Dame v. 6. Ohio St.; 4. Oklahoma v. 5. Georgia. The only team that would be ticked is the playoff number 7 Michigan who would say that they are just as good as two loss UGA. As others have said, though, there will always be someone who is left out who complains whether you have 2, 4, 8, or 16 teams.
I will watch whether they return to a straight poll champion, BCS style 1-2 matchup, the current playoff, or the expanded playoff. I do, however, think they should have conference champions if they expand to eight teams.
As I said, I can't speak for others, but I hope this explains my point. Have a great sunny Sunday. Well, it is sunny here in North Alabama anyway.
 

BamaMoon

Hall of Fame
Apr 1, 2004
20,949
15,957
282
Boone, NC
Perhaps someone said it, but I don't like any system that ONLY rewards conference champions and doesn't leave room for really good teams that didn't win their conference. If the goal is to award power 5 conferences a guaranteed spot then it must go to eight teams to leave some room for non-qualifiers to have 3 at large spots.

It would be silly to have a 1 or 2 loss SEC or team from any other conference that might be highly ranked to not get into the playoff because they didn't win their conference when a 2 or 3 loss team from another conference gets in with an auto-birth.
 

teamplayer

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2001
7,574
2,334
282
cullman, al, usa
How does the 6 team leave out Bama last year even with AQ?

#1 Clemson ACC
#2 Oklahoma Big XII


#3 UGA (SEC) vs #6 Alabama (at large)
#4 Ohio St (BIG 10) vs #5 USC (PAC 12)

Unless you say UCF who was ranked #10 going into the Peach, the only challenger for the #6 slot would be Wisconsin.
The 6 team playoff that was proposed earlier in the thread only included the power five champions and the group of five champion. Thus, Bama would not have been included. Now, if they did a six team playoff based on a BCS or playoff committee style ranking, that would be different.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.