Should playoff teams be expanded?

[medinabuckeye1]

But #2, is the MSU beat an undefeated #4 Iowa in the Big Ten Championship Game, while OSU beat a 4 loss Northwestern team.  If OSU had played a better CCG opponent, there's a chance they could have leaped Oklahoma.

The other thing is that while MSU was #3, I think that was contrived to get an actual 1-4, 2-3 matchup.  I think everyone thought Alabama was easily the best team, but Clemson was undefeated and Alabama had a loss.  So it was tougher to justify putting Alabama #1 than putting MSU #3.  So they moved MSU past Oklahoma to get what they felt were true 1-4 and 2-3 matchups, although the actual seedings were flipped.

The issue of playing a 4-loss B1G-W Champion as opposed to playing an undefeated B1G-W Champion is pretty close to my point.  My point is that whether or not you make the playoffs often depends on things that are completely outside of the control of your team.  How highly your CG opponent is ranked is just one of those things that you don't get to control.  MSU got a highly ranked 12-0 Iowa team and that was a gift two ways.  First, it gave the Spartans a highly ranked opponent and second that highly ranked opponent wasn't nearly as good as their record so the Spartans effectively got credit for playing one of the best teams in the Country without actually having to play one of the best teams in the country.  I don't mean that to knock the 2015 Spartans (or even the 2015 Hawkeyes for that matter) it just is what it is.  Sometimes you get a highly ranked CG opponent (like UW in 2014 or Iowa in 2015) and sometimes you don't (like NU or Pitt this year).  
The only certainty is going 13-0 and even there you could theoretically be the fifth undefeated team behind four other undefeated P5 Champions but that is EXTREMELY unlikely as I don't think anything like it has happened since at least 1979*.  Consequently, playing a mediocre Pitt team in the ACCCG didn't hurt Clemson.  If you lose a game you get yourself into a situation where a record that would get you in most years or at least some years might not get you in THIS year.  
*1979 pre-bowl AP Poll:

• 11-0 BigTen Champion Ohio State
• 11-0 SEC Champion Alabama
• 10-0-1 P10 Champion USC (tied Stanford)
• 11-0 Independent Florida State
• 10-1 Big8 Champion Oklahoma (lost OOC to Texas)
• 10-1 SWC Co-Champion Arkansas (lost to Houston)
• 10-1 Nebraska (lost to Oklahoma)
• 10-1 SWC Co-Champion Houston (lost to Texas)
• 11-0 WAC Champion BYU
• 10-1 Independent Pittsburgh (lost to UNC)

Even if wacky 1979 there were only three undefeated major conference champions and one of those had a tie.  

[OrangeAfroMan]

Most of the helmets won't even take their calls.  

If they're not taking the call, and a 2-for-1 is on the board, they're idiots.  It's a safe trip to fertile recruiting grounds.  

[utee94]

If they're not taking the call, and a 2-for-1 is on the board, they're idiots.  It's a safe trip to fertile recruiting grounds.  

It's an unnecessary risk.  Won't get any credit for winning, and you're blasted for losing.  Scheduling another helmet or even a reasonable P5 is a much better bet.  And most of the helmets don't need a trip to Florida for recruiting, it's the next-tier teams that do.

[rolltidefan]

Wasn't there a team just within the past few years that essentially did this?
Tried to schedule hard OOC, but the OOC teams that normally would have been good all sucked that year, and ended up taking a reputational hit for playing weak teams?
(Note: it may not have been G5. It might have been someone like an Iowa or Wisconsin.)

2016 houston was kinda like that. they played and beat oklahoma and louisville (both ranked #3 at time of games). both finished ranked, ou top 5 i think. problem with houston was they lost some other games. had they gone undefeated they'd have been in, no doubt, maybe even with 1-loss (prob not).
and it didn't hurt bama, but in last 2 years our "hard" ooc opp (fsu and louisville) were supposed to be good, but tanked hard. i'm sure someone else had a similar situation that didn't get the benefit of the doubt like bama did/does.

[Cincydawg]

Blowing out teams consistently matters.  Close wins over bad teams matter.  Optics matter.

We talk about '95 Nebraska because they blew everyone out.  

It was a different time, but I've noted that the 1979 UGA edition went 0-4 in OOC play, which is almost impossible to conceive, and was one game from winning the SEC and going to the Sugar Bowl.  They were tied in that one game at the half.

Weird stuff happens sooner or later, usually later, which is why it is weird.

[Brutus Buckeye]

Well if this thread has cleared up anything, it's that a lot of people will be unhappy no matter what the post season structure looks like. 

[utee94]

Of course.  People are different.  They have different goals and objectives, different opinions.  Of course not everyone will be happy with the current system.  Or the next one.  Or the past one.

[OrangeAfroMan]

I wonder if the voting breakdown has anything to do with being a fan of a helmet vs non-helmet.  
I understand my viewing lifetime has coincided with by far the best run Florida has ever had, but that being said, I do not want an environment in which Florida loses and I shrug my shoulders, knowing we're still in it for the NC.  If you're a fan of a helmet (or elite team in your lifetime), you know that feeling of dread and angst on the rare occasion your team loses.  If your team peaks at 7-5, you don't know this feeling.  It's what made the college football regular season mean something.  You knew that once you lost, you'd need some conspiracy theory stuff to happen bam-bam-bam for you to have any way back to the NC...and sometimes it happened!!  
But ever since OU got lambasted by KSU in the XIICG that one year and still made it into the BCSNCG, it's all felt wrong.  Or I don't know, Nebraska getting pantsed and still playing Miami for the NC, whichever happened first.  That was the beginning of this new college football regular season, in which no one loss is particularly damning.  Now, you team loses, you shrug.  Still in it, still able to achieve all our goals without angels parting the Red Sea.  
When/if the playoff expands, we'll enter a third phase of the regular season - the irrelevant games.  So many irrelevant games.  And maybe that isn't scary to you, but it is to me.  90,000 seat stadiums aren't getting packed now, and with more meaningless games, or games in which the outcome isn't high-stakes, even against legit competition, those stadiums will have more and more empty seats.  Fewer eyeballs on TVs.  
Every game needs to matter.  Every loss should be damning and feel like a stake through the heart.  Not because I say so, but because that's how college football became great.

[Brutus Buckeye]

I wonder if the voting breakdown has anything to do with being a fan of a helmet vs non-helmet.  
I understand my viewing lifetime has coincided with by far the best run Florida has ever had, but that being said, I do not want an environment in which Florida loses and I shrug my shoulders, knowing we're still in it for the NC.  If you're a fan of a helmet (or elite team in your lifetime), you know that feeling of dread and angst on the rare occasion your team loses.  If your team peaks at 7-5, you don't know this feeling.  It's what made the college football regular season mean something.  You knew that once you lost, you'd need some conspiracy theory stuff to happen bam-bam-bam for you to have any way back to the NC...and sometimes it happened!!  
But ever since OU got lambasted by KSU in the XIICG that one year and still made it into the BCSNCG, it's all felt wrong.  Or I don't know, Nebraska getting pantsed and still playing Miami for the NC, whichever happened first.  That was the beginning of this new college football regular season, in which no one loss is particularly damning.  Now, you team loses, you shrug.  Still in it, still able to achieve all our goals without angels parting the Red Sea.  
When/if the playoff expands, we'll enter a third phase of the regular season - the irrelevant games.  So many irrelevant games.  And maybe that isn't scary to you, but it is to me.  90,000 seat stadiums aren't getting packed now, and with more meaningless games, or games in which the outcome isn't high-stakes, even against legit competition, those stadiums will have more and more empty seats.  Fewer eyeballs on TVs.  
Every game needs to matter.  Every loss should be damning and feel like a stake through the heart.  Not because I say so, but because that's how college football became great.

So if I understand you correctly, you are advocating for a 68 team playoff that emulates what we have in College Basketball, including the 4 play in games which you'd like to have held in Dayton? 

[ELA]

I wonder if the voting breakdown has anything to do with being a fan of a helmet vs non-helmet.  

There has been more of this than I thought.
That's not my reasoning, and if the move to 8 was with the same guidelines we currently have, I would also hate that.
I'm simply not a national championship or bust guy.  I want as many games to matter as possible, but that doesn't necessarily mean re: the national championship.  That's why I either want to go back to 2, so that every single loss feels season destroying, as far as national title aspirations go, but with only 2, you can't be singularly focused on the national title as a fan, so the big bowls and conference championships matter too.
Or go to 8 and allow all 5 conference champions in, that way all of those conference races matter all the way to the end, and creates a ton of meaningful games, even if losses aren't as bad.
Instead we've settled at some awkward place in the middle, where a single loss doesn't feel as monumental, but we still end the season with these awkward conference championship games where one team is just a spoiler.
We ain't going back to 2, and if they simply expand and still take the "8 best" I'd hate that, but assuming it's 5-1-2, I'd prefer that over the current model, which has IMO created a scenario with the least possible number of meaningful games.  I'll sacrifice a little significance in losses to create more significant games.

[OrangeAfroMan]

So if I understand you correctly, you are advocating for a 68 team playoff that emulates what we have in College Basketball, including the 4 play in games which you'd like to have held in Dayton?

Sure...<br /><br /><br />le pont mirabeau analyse<br />

[Brutus Buckeye]

And you'd also like to hold the remainder of the games in Alaska because you think blizzard games are cool, and don't want the southern teams to enjoy any type of regional advantage?

Interesting.

[OrangeAfroMan]

Why do you think most traditional bowl games are held in the south?  It wasn't the SEC or ESPN or anyone else to blame for that - it was plain old common sense.  Should I apologize for it?


And let's not forget how your beloved Rose Bowl gets a pass for being in the PAC's back yard.  For some reason, just the SEC-tie in bowls have to wear that dirt.  Interesting.



WHY, OH WHY, ARE BOWLS IN THE SOUTH?!?
<br /><br /><br />a red red rose analysis line by line<br />

[Cincydawg]

People for some reason would rather be in Florida in January than Ohio or Minnesota.

The bowl games are ... well, a reason for some fans to take a vacation, most of them.  Almost none sell out beyond the NY6, and they can be empty seats as well at times.  Folks here talk about going to the Music City Bowl because it's in Nashville, not for great weather.  The old Peach Bowl found success because they paired up teams with good fan bases who liked being in the ATL for NYE.

It's sort of interesting that Dallas is NOT reliably warm in January, at all.  NO and Miami and Pasadena are.  As other bowls were started, they relied on weather as much as football for support.  I guess the Gator Bowl was "next".  Shreveport isn't a very great destination, nor is Memphis.