I am a fan of 16 teams. The arguments against are really fraudulent. As a fan of an FCS team, I see how the playoffs can work and successfully do work. The regular season isn't cheapened, the few teams that actually play, can do the extra games safely, and it does not hurt anyone academically. In fact, a playoff, as seen at the FBS level, generates great fan support, national excitement, and most importantly to some, $$$$$$$$$! 16 teams is a winning scenario. No one would complain because all conferences would participate creating a level playing field.

I favor 16 also. The additional at-large spots increase the number of teams jockeying for them, and thereby increases the number of meaningful games at the end of the season.

(12-13-2014 10:38 AM)Buckminster Fuller Wrote:  I favor 16 also. The additional at-large spots increase the number of teams jockeying for them, and thereby increases the number of meaningful games at the end of the season.

Go through the schedule two weeks prior to and then through conference championship week (3 weeks total) and tell us what games have increased meaning. Do it first for an 8 team playoff and then do it again for a 16 team playoff.

I think you will be surprised by that type of analysis.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-13-2014 10:27 AM)army56mike Wrote:  I am a fan of 16 teams. The arguments against are really fraudulent. As a fan of an FCS team, I see how the playoffs can work and successfully do work. The regular season isn't cheapened, the few teams that actually play, can do the extra games safely, and it does not hurt anyone academically. In fact, a playoff, as seen at the FBS level, generates great fan support, national excitement, and most importantly to some, $$$$$$$$$! 16 teams is a winning scenario. No one would complain because all conferences would participate creating a level playing field.

Well stating this as though it were fact, doesn't change the reality of it being opinion, does it?

Let's look at one of the arguments against it being 16.

1) Devalues the conference championship games.

I'll begin with the individual games themselves and then look at them collectively at the end.

SEC Championship Game

In a 4, 8 or 16 team playoff Alabama is in if it wins and in if it's an 8 or 16 team playoff. Only scenario where they might not be in on Selection Sunday is 4, if they lose. Even then that is in doubt. But doubt generates buzz and excitement prior to the game.

Mizzou is in if it wins in either an 8 or 16 team playoff (assumes auto bid for all P5 champs). Mizzou losing only has meaning in a 16 team playoff if the best of the G5 champions gets an auto bid. And we all know that in a 16 team playoff model that is highly likely - so Boise State gets in over Mizzou regardless if the Tigers lose the SEC championship.

So, only in a 4 team playoff does the SEC championship game have true meaning and only if Alabama loses. Since a Mizzou win means both teams are in both an 8 or 16 team playoff.

ACC Championship Game

FSU is in if it wins 4, 8, or 16.

GT is in if it wins 8 or 16. GT is in even if it loses with a 16 team model.

Only scenarios that matter are FSU not being in if it's 4 and it loses. And GT not being in if it's 8 and it loses.

PAC Championship Game

Oregon is in if it wins 4, 8, or 16.

Arizona is in if it wins 8 or 16

Only scenario that has meaning is 4, since an Oregon loses it spot while an Arizona may or may not jump Baylor or TCU with a win.

BiG Championship Game

Ohio State wins big they are in with a 4 (barely), 8 or 16
Ohio State wins narrowly, they may or may not be in 4, but are in with 8 and 16.

Wisconsin wins they are in with 8 or 16 and Ohio State is out of 8

Wisconsin loses they are out.

Only scenarios that matters are 4 and 8.

Collectively(since the games may have meaning as a whole, not just by themselves)

In a 16-team model where all P5 champions plus the best of the G5 champions are assured of an auto-bid, 7 of the 8 participants of the 4 championship games are in whether they win or lose. Only Mizzou is in trouble if they lose.

Now, in an 8 team model, assuming Mizzou, GT, Wisconsin, and Arizona all win auto bids that leaves Baylor, TCU, Alabama, FSU and Oregon fighting for 4 spots.

I think the above exercise demonstrates that an expanded playoff to 16 will hurt interest in the conference championship games, whereas the current model of 4 does not and the anticipated expansion to 8 hurts less than 16 and has the added bonus of two (possibly even 3 dependent upon strength of SEC or how well ND or the best of the G5 champions do) of the conferences getting 2 bids in the playoffs, which helps in other areas.

The BiG gets a separate $25 million for their championship game from FOX. Not sure how much the others get or if theirs is covered as part of their overall TV contract. But I doubt very much the P5 are going to let those games be diminished in terms of importance and ticket sales and revenue in a 16-team model set-up.

But will the powers that be allow the Big 12 to have 2 get in without a championship game to potentially knock off one of them in the 8-team playoff model? I doubt it very much.

Will they allow them to have a championship game with only 10 teams when they all needed to expand to 12 to get theirs? Again, I doubt it.

So those who advocate for 8, imho, the situation with the B12 will need to be resolved prior to expansion to 8, if that ever does come about.

Cheers,
Neil

How about 5 conference champs plus one at large? The #5 seed plays the #6 seed for the right to be in the Football Four. That makes the championship games count a LOT, but the at large bid keeps suspense throught the process, even after the championship games. It also adds a game's worth of content without diluting the process.

It would also make seeding MUCH more relevant. The difference between being a #1 seed and playing the winner of the playin game v. being a #2 seed and playing a #3 seed that's fresh off a bye would be HUGE.

To minimize travel fatige, the #5 P5 team could host the playin game. That keeps their fan base from having to scramble for last minute reservations, and it keeps them from having to travel a bunch of weeks in a row (CCG, playin, potential FF bid, and possible NCG appearance, plus any away games that ended the season). That also awards them for winning their conference, while still putting them at a disadvantage relative to the stronger conference champions.

(12-14-2014 12:31 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  How about 5 conference champs plus one at large? The #5 seed plays the #6 seed for the right to be in the Football Four. That makes the championship games count a LOT, but the at large bid keeps suspense throught the process, even after the championship games. It also adds a game's worth of content without diluting the process.

It would also make seeding MUCH more relevant. The difference between being a #1 seed and playing the winner of the playin game v. being a #2 seed and playing a #3 seed that's fresh off a bye would be HUGE.

To minimize travel fatige, the #5 P5 team could host the playin game. That keeps their fan base from having to scramble for last minute reservations, and it keeps them from having to travel a bunch of weeks in a row (CCG, playin, potential FF bid, and possible NCG appearance, plus any away games that ended the season). That also awards them for winning their conference, while still putting them at a disadvantage relative to the stronger conference champions.

I think you started on one train of thought here and then ended on another.

If the playoff expanded to 6, then 3 would play 6 and 4 would play 5 for the right to go to the CFP. I personally don't like that myself. And I think it may be too out of the box thinking for power brokers.

I think 6 looks good only because of this year and trying to get OSU, Baylor and TCU into one spot.

Cheers,
Neil

You know a 12 team playoff could work also.

Round One: 8 teams in four games.

Round Two: Four games, the top 4 teams , who will have byes from round one versus the round one round winners.

Round Three: Semi finals

Round Four: Championship Game

Requirement Round One:1 team from each of the following:

ACC
American
Big 10
Big 12
Mountain West
PAC
SEC
Highest ranked team from CUSA, MAC or Sunbelt.

(12-13-2014 10:27 AM)army56mike Wrote:  I am a fan of 16 teams. The arguments against are really fraudulent. As a fan of an FCS team, I see how the playoffs can work and successfully do work. The regular season isn't cheapened, the few teams that actually play, can do the extra games safely, and it does not hurt anyone academically. In fact, a playoff, as seen at the FBS level, generates great fan support, national excitement, and most importantly to some, $$$$$$$$$! 16 teams is a winning scenario. No one would complain because all conferences would participate creating a level playing field.

You are free to prefer a bigger playoff, but the arguments against sure are not fraudulent. College football to a lot of us has the best regular season out there by a mile. When Ohio State vs. Virginia Tech happened in week 2, I felt like it mattered and that loss very nearly took Ohio State out of it all. All season I was watching for upsets in other conferences right to the last week and I do that a lot even if my team is out of it.

If you change that and now the Big Ten champ is always in, then that Virginia Tech loss feels a lot less meaningful and I really don't need to care about any games besides in the Big Ten. What happened those last few weeks in the ACC, SEC, PAC-12, and Big 12 instead of meaning a ton to the Big Ten/Ohio State, wouldn't have meant much at all.

(12-14-2014 01:05 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 12:31 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  How about 5 conference champs plus one at large? The #5 seed plays the #6 seed for the right to be in the Football Four. That makes the championship games count a LOT, but the at large bid keeps suspense throught the process, even after the championship games. It also adds a game's worth of content without diluting the process.

It would also make seeding MUCH more relevant. The difference between being a #1 seed and playing the winner of the playin game v. being a #2 seed and playing a #3 seed that's fresh off a bye would be HUGE.

To minimize travel fatige, the #5 P5 team could host the playin game. That keeps their fan base from having to scramble for last minute reservations, and it keeps them from having to travel a bunch of weeks in a row (CCG, playin, potential FF bid, and possible NCG appearance, plus any away games that ended the season). That also awards them for winning their conference, while still putting them at a disadvantage relative to the stronger conference champions.

I think you started on one train of thought here and then ended on another.

If the playoff expanded to 6, then 3 would play 6 and 4 would play 5 for the right to go to the CFP. I personally don't like that myself. And I think it may be too out of the box thinking for power brokers.

I think 6 looks good only because of this year and trying to get OSU, Baylor and TCU into one spot.

Cheers,
Neil

Well, my problem is my math was wrong. 3 slots, plus a playin game is 5 teams, not 6.

6 would involve #1 and #2 getting first round byes, while #3-6 play each other for a spot. I don't think that it's too far out of the box because it's what the NFL already does, and they are quite successful.

In an ideal world, there would be 8 divisions of 8 schools. Each division would then send 1 team to an 8 team playoff, and 2 other teams to bowl games; one hosted by the division and one hosted by another division. The divisions would be organized based off of history and geography.

The problem is that caps the number of power teams at 64, and there are currently 66 including BYU and ND, so two schools wouldn't make the cut.

Leave at 4. Have Auto bids for ALA and # 2 from SEC and 2 at large.

(12-13-2014 12:49 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 10:38 AM)Buckminster Fuller Wrote:  I favor 16 also. The additional at-large spots increase the number of teams jockeying for them, and thereby increases the number of meaningful games at the end of the season.

Go through the schedule two weeks prior to and then through conference championship week (3 weeks total) and tell us what games have increased meaning. Do it first for an 8 team playoff and then do it again for a 16 team playoff.

I think you will be surprised by that type of analysis.

Cheers,
Neil

I guess it all depends on how you define meaningful and the criteria for inclusion in the playoff. For purposes of this discussion I would define a meaningful game as one that has some impact on at least one of the teams involved in the game making the playoff field.

Let's assume the playoff field is comprised of the P5 and G5 conference champions plus 6 at-large teams. In this scenario the five G5 championship games become meaningful. I think we can agree that under the current four team structure they were not this year and are unlikely to ever be. Thus, we have 5 additional relevant games. In the last two weeks of the season I think a reasonable conservative estimate is that there were two games each week in each of the G5 conferences that were relevant to determining which teams would be in the conference championship games/conference champions.* That is an additional 20 relevant games.

The current playoff is essentially a four team at-large bid playoff. In this suggested 16 team playoff scenario you have two additional at-large spots. I cannot see how having two additional at-large spots would reduce the number of games that were relevant to determining which teams would be involved in the playoff. As I recall there were a multitude of games the last two weeks of the season that factored in to the multiple permutations regarding participants in the 4 team at-large playoff. It seems logical that additional games would be relevant with two additional spots to fill. I could be wrong and am certainly willing to review evidence to the contrary.

As for the P5 championship games. I think it is arguable that the SEC championship was irrelevant this year in the sense that Alabama probably still makes the 4 team playoff even if they lose, because, well SEC. I think the general consensus was that Missouri does not get in even if they win. So the game is really not meaningful. However, in a 16 team playoff with the conference champion auto bid, the game is now meaningful, because Missouri will make the playoff if they win. Thus, plus one for relevance. The same could be said for the ACC championship game and Ga. Tech. Although, I will concede that game was already relevant in the 4 team playoff because FSU most likely is left out of the playoff if they lose.

In addition, games for ACC Coastal Divisions teams this year would have been more meaningful to playoff participation because winning the division and participating in the championship game puts teams one win from inclusion in the playoff. This year, by the last two weeks of the season it was clear the Coastal Division champion was not going to the four team playoff. The same could be said for the SEC East.

Plus, you have 15 playoff games in a 16 team playoff as opposed to 3 in a four team playoff. So anyway, that's my position. Feel free to disagree.

* - I freely admit that I have not examined the schedules in the G5 conferences to parse out every game that had an impact on the championship game participants, so if someone wants to do that and prove my estimate wrong, I will gladly admit my error.

How many conferences are guaranteed spots in the FCS playoffs? Not all. Why would the MAC, CUSA, Sunbelt be guaranteed a spot.

In an 8 team playoff, I see the P5 getting automatic bids and 3 at large.
In a 16 team playoff, I see the P5 + AAC and MWC getting automatic bids and 9 at large.

The G5 group bid is only there because their are Access bowls that aren't in the playoff. The P5 aren't going to let the G5 have a guaranteed playoff birth even with 8 teams.

(12-19-2014 11:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  How many conferences are guaranteed spots in the FCS playoffs? Not all. Why would the MAC, CUSA, Sunbelt be guaranteed a spot.

In an 8 team playoff, I see the P5 getting automatic bids and 3 at large.
In a 16 team playoff, I see the P5 + AAC and MWC getting automatic bids and 9 at large.

The G5 group bid is only there because their are Access bowls that aren't in the playoff. The P5 aren't going to let the G5 have a guaranteed playoff birth even with 8 teams.

Agree, no auto-bid for a GT champ if 8. But if 16, I'm not sure there would be two auto bids beyond the P5. I think the best of the G5 champions would get one and if there was another worthy G5 team they would have to get in as an at-large selection.

Cheers,
Neil

Keep it at 4...

(12-19-2014 11:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  How many conferences are guaranteed spots in the FCS playoffs? Not all. Why would the MAC, CUSA, Sunbelt be guaranteed a spot.

In an 8 team playoff, I see the P5 getting automatic bids and 3 at large.
In a 16 team playoff, I see the P5 + AAC and MWC getting automatic bids and 9 at large.

The G5 group bid is only there because their are Access bowls that aren't in the playoff. The P5 aren't going to let the G5 have a guaranteed playoff birth even with 8 teams.

My playoff system was hypothetical for purposes of my discussion.

To answer your question, 11 of the 13 FCS conference champions receive automatic bids. The Ivy League voluntarily does not participate in the FCS playoffs and some of the SWAC teams play regular season games (Grambling for one) after the FCS playoffs start, so their champion is not determined in time for an auto bid. So, every FCS conference that wants an auto-bid gets one.

I think that the right number is 6-8 with all P5 conferences getting auto bids and an at large that is open to the best remaining team(s), P5, indy, or g5.

The selection committee would handle seeding and the at large.

8

For ACC survival sake, the ACC BADLY needs all conference champs to get auto bid into playoffs.

If this doesn't happen, over time (say 10 years), you will likely see the ACC in the playoffs being a rare occurrence compared to other Power 5 conferences (say maybe 50% or less).