If you had 5 years in your office pool until the college football playoff expansion talk really started heating up please collect your prize now. The discussions have intensified this month with a handful of college leaders (most importantly conference commissioners) weighing in on expansion thus sending the media and college football fans abuzz. This topic now includes Notre Dame head coach Brian Kelly who says he is in favor of an 8-team playoff system.
Here are my hot takes on playoff expansion:
Harder to Win
We can admit that if there’s an expansion (especially to 8 teams) there will be some programs who will be happy just to make the playoffs. Coaches will activate healthy bonuses and fans will be excited to brag about making the tournament where “anything can happen.” Take any non-blue blood program and just making it is the key for them, kind of similar to how these programs would treat being placed in the Fiesta Bowl. Great to make it, winning the game really isn’t that important.
Expansion is likely bad news for Notre Dame if we’re concerned about winning. Too much of the talk over the past 5 years has surrounded Notre Dame being left out and not what expansion does to the Irish once they do get in the tournament. I read a few Notre Dame articles based on Kelly’s comments and every single one only discussed the implications of the Irish getting into the expanded playoff and how it’s a net positive since it will be easier to qualify.
This year is a crystal clear example of the challenge with an expanded field–would it be easier for Notre Dame to beat Ohio State, Clemson, and Alabama consecutively or just Clemson and Alabama? Sure, some seasons there might be a really easy 3 vs. 6 matchup or you’d pray Alabama gets knocked out early but more often than not it will be a very difficult first round game–which is partly why so many people don’t want to give teams 5 through 8 a chance!
Until Notre Dame proves it’s an elite program that would be favored against just about everyone then an expanded playoffs only makes it harder for the school to win a title.
I would also worry about the expanded playoffs moving the goal posts for what’s considered a truly successful season, especially at a place that is printing undefeated tee-shirts from the regular season for the second time in 6 seasons.
If this expanded system were in place in the past this would be Notre Dame’s 5th playoff appearance since 2005. That’s a good little run but an 8-team playoff really changes the dynamic where making that tournament in and of itself shouldn’t be that big of a deal. It’s really no different than the Irish making a major bowl game (also would be the 5th time since 2005) and what people should care about is winning those games, not just participating. Notre Dame has yet to win these games in recent history.
Conference Auto-Bids
The FCS playoffs feature auto-bids from conference winners but it’s only 11 teams from a 24-team field which also includes byes for the top seeds. If the FBS expands to an 8-team playoff they cannot give auto-bids to the Power 5 conference winners, unless they make other drastic changes to the format.
We know that expansion is going to be driven largely by the conferences feeling jilted over the last 5 seasons. Notre Dame has already “stolen” a bid this year. Additionally, the Big Ten champion hasn’t made it 3 years in a row. The Big 12 has only 3 bids so far while the Pac-12 only has 2 bids with Oregon’s win over Florida State in the inaugural tournament the lone playoff win for both conferences. Selfishly, those leagues want more bids but the Power 5 automatically gobbling up nearly two-thirds of the bids is not good for the game.
Playoff expansion is the perfect time to achieve two things: One, devalue conferences (possibly forever!) and actually embrace the Group of 5 programs and the rest of the Football Bowl Division.
Giving auto-bids to the Power 5 programs would leave only 3 slots for G5 programs so that’s even worse off for them than the current system. You could give an auto-bid to the top G5 program but to me that’s asking for a lot of trouble, too.
The strongest argument against expanding the playoffs is that the powers-that-be will absolutely get this feature wrong. For them, this will be the opportunity to increase the value of the Power 5 conferences, which will lead to more conference expansion as the strong G5 programs scratch and claw for a chance to climb the mountain. That in turn will further dilute the Power 5 conferences and devalue winning their leagues even more.
Home Field Advantage
The top seeds absolutely have to host games on their campuses all the way until the National Championship. To me, this is the easiest way to off-set an 8-team playoff bringing less value to the regular season. Introducing byes should be on the table, as well.
Most seem to expect the first round of a 8-team playoff being held on campuses and this is good. Even if they continue making the semi-finals part of bowl games (as is the case now) over time the bowls will be crippled. Imagine for 2018, Fresno State replacing UCF in the Fiesta Bowl, Kentucky replacing Georgia in the Sugar Bowl, Northwestern replacing Michigan in the Peach Bowl, and Penn State replacing Ohio State in the Rose Bowl. Players sitting out of those exhibitions will just get worse and winning those games even more meaningless.
However, Lord help us all if they try and shoe-in the bowl games into the first round of the 8-team playoff. I bet that will be discussed.
Speaking of devaluing the regular season, I think we’ll be okay with 8 teams in the playoffs. Some years will be worse than others, some years the race to fill the 8 slots will be amazing and then we get to see 7 even more amazing football games in the playoffs.
That’s coming from someone who thinks the romanticism of the college football regular season has been overrated, though. The playoffs will make the rare titanic regular season matchups less important (if you’re lucky to get them any given year) in exchange for the tier below the titanic matchups being more important and getting titanic and semi-titanic matchups in the playoffs. I will take that trade-off.
What happened to all the good games in 2018? https://t.co/CmqcGiGVkB pic.twitter.com/XsopDagJiK
— Brian Fremeau (@bcfremeau) December 12, 2018
In 2018, we had a fairly non-controversial top 4 and yet the regular season quietly sucked in terms of big, important games. We’re told we have the 4 teams in the playoff who proved they are the most deserving but the way things broke the regular season was about as forgettable as possible–and that’s with 3 major undefeated teams! Are we sure we can’t live with a 1-loss Clemson in a playoff because their undefeated regular season with tops wins against NC State, Texas A&M, and Syracuse is too sacred to mess with?
Too often we’re concerned more with “figuring out” the regular season that plays out before us and not whether that regular season was actually worthy of praise for being exciting and memorable. We know the playoffs will always give us big games yet we can’t always guarantee the regular season is entertaining and all its cracked up to be.
Who is Deserving?
I tend to look at college football more through the prism of entertainment more so than who we think is the best in the country based only on the regular season when sometimes the regular season can be super flawed and/or lacking in big games.
Again, look back at this past regular season. I am told Ohio State, Georgia, and UCF don’t deserve to get in or had their shot and failed. Maybe that’s true but I think there’s a lot of value for the sport to see these programs facing the top seeds in the playoffs.
Being forced to watch all of the top 8 teams playing each other after the regular season gave us so few ‘big’ games is a huge bonus–arguably a necessary bonus.
USC 1974, Notre Dame 1977, and Miami 1983 are a few examples from the 1970’s through the pre-BCS era of teams who were ranked outside the Top 4 at the end of the regular season and ended up winning National Championships (shared in USC’s, case but still) after bowl game chaos. Had the Irish won the 1991 Orange Bowl against Colorado they could’ve been another example of a #5 team winning a title, too.
The way 1977 Notre Dame is perceived back then versus how they would be today is interesting to me. That season, the Irish had 3 good wins (#8 Pitt, #13 USC, #19 Clemson), lost to a really bad Ole Miss team on the road, and the rest of the schedule was quite easy. As the #5 team they were lucky to get matched up with #1 Texas and lucky that the bowl games broke in such a way that a big win over the Longhorns convinced voters Notre Dame were National Champions.
Now, was that system the best way to do things? Absolutely not, I’ve always said the old bowl system was like having the illusion of a playoff system that abruptly stopped after the first round for voting. But, taking that ’77 Notre Dame team in today’s game–a team not unlike Ohio State this year–they’re automatically deemed unworthy of a title following the regular season. I’m not sure I like the way that diverges with the history of college football.
The game is absolutely littered with great teams having awful days and losing to average, even poor teams, and still winning National Championships.
It’s a game of young kids, with injuries, hostile environments, and chaos able to reign at any given moment. This is what makes college football special much more than adherence to the notion that the regular season is always a perfectly constructed road map for the entire country. Having the regular season be super important is crucial–and will remain so with an expanded playoff–but having one game be a death sentence, well, that’s far less important in my opinion.
Once you let that one-game destroyer or worlds mentality go in favor of possible entertaining playoff matchups and a wider spread of anarchy I think it’s really freeing. You still get chaos, it’s just a different chaos. Ohio State’s loss to Purdue may not have been as costly in a 8-team playoff but Washington State’s loss in the Apple Cup, or Florida’s loss to Kentucky, or LSU’s loss to Texas A&M, or Penn State’s loss to Michigan State, or West Virginia’s loss to Oklahoma State sure as heck would’ve been devastating for those programs.
To me, that’s the great debate and both sides of the argument make sense to me although I think I’m in favor of more big games coming from an expanded field to 8 teams even if ultimately that means it’s more difficult for the Fighting Irish to win a National Title. As a fan of college football I say bring on the competition and 7 playoff games.
The Best 8-Team System:
Round 1:
#8 UCF at #5 Georgia
#7 Michigan at #6 Ohio State
Round 2:
#5 Georgia at #4 Oklahoma
#6 Ohio State at #3 Notre Dame
Round 3:
#4 Oklahoma at #1 Alabama
#3 Notre Dame at #2 Clemson
Granted, this would suck for Ohio State who crushed Michigan in the regular season finale and then would have to play them again in the first round of the playoffs. Still, this is my preferred format with double byes for the top 2 seeds to retain more importance on the regular season. I may be convinced to allow conference auto-bids IF all of these games are played on campus and the committee continues their current ratings system. For 2018, that would mean Washington gets in over UCF or Michigan (dependent on a G5 auto-bid).
Last year the layout could’ve been #8 USC at #5 Ohio State and #7 Auburn at #6 Wisconsin with winners facing #3 Georgia and #4 Alabama. Clemson (#1) and Oklahoma (#2) pick up double-byes. All Power 5 champs would’ve made it and if you’re giving the G5 a spot undefeated UCF would’ve replaced 2-loss Auburn, a team the Knights beat in their bowl game anyway.
With this system, finishing 1st or 2nd after the regular season has a major advantage over the other playoff participants. It would force the lowest seeds to win 4 games while the top seeds would only have to win 2 games for a title. In the event that someone like 2018 Georgia were to win out in this scenario and beat Alabama in a re-match for the title sure that’s awful for the Tide after going 14-0. I’d think this long run of upsets would be pretty unlikely most years (and re-matches would happen sparingly) but if the Dawgs pulled it off I think you have to tip your hat and say it’s deserved.
Double byes ? Are you in the eggnog already ?
Agreed. If it ended up an ND-UGA final, it would be UGA’s 17th game of the year, to ND’s 14th. This would only make the “ND needs to join a conference” yelling louder (and possibly more valid).
17 seems really excessive for “student athletes”, especially those having to actually do the first part of that.
That should make the “don’t lose 2 games” yelling louder more than anything. Pending who would win that title game.
This makes the problem you’re highlighting EVEN WORSE. Why would teams EVER play an OOC more than 100 mi from campus? Why would anyone ever challenge themselves? Here are the major problems I see with your format:
1. G5 teams cannot be allowed in with their current structure. You cannot allow a SOS in the doldrums of CFB to be deemed worthy of acceptance. I dont care how fun and silly it is to scream “UCF IS A CHAMPION” because it’s bunk. Their toughest game on the schedule was to a P5 basement team.
2. If all you have to do is win your conference and be undefeated, there is 0 incentive to play tough OOC games. Bama and Clemson prove all you have to do is put up video game numbers against inferior competition all year and you can get ranked 1 and 2, respectively. Then you get the benefit of watching your eventual next opponent risk injury and wear themselves down TWICE because you get….
3. DOUBLE BYES??? No way. Even if you did everything you suggest I’d never support this idea. I get if you want to do a 7- or 9-team playoff and give the top seed a 1st round bye, but two rounds off is just way too big an advantage and we’ve already seen how teams would manipulate that system
We need to get out of this silly BCS mindset that “undefeated teams only” matter. That’s part of the reason OSU got left out this year. Are they not one of the best teams in the country this year? Heck yes and there is a GREAT argument for them to be included in the playoff. But they had an off night and a trap game destroyed their season. UGA, same deal (although they did have a play-in game that would have saved them). We need to do a few things to change the current landscape…demand SOS requirements, ensure top matchups are played by EVERY team EVERY year. End the FCS games altogether. Then, we will start to see 1-, 2-, and possibly 3-loss champions but we will not see that as a problem. The issue here is that for so long, the BCS mindset has soiled us as fans.
1. I’m fine with not allowing G5 teams to get an auto-bid but if that happens the Power 5 should just split off into a new higher division. UCF is a great example of a program who is really good by every available metric but if we’re just going to “yeah but their weak schedule!” them to death then what’s the point? I might rather see one G5 team get in so that those programs can raise their profile slowly over the years. That sounds better to me than forcing those programs to join the Power 5 conferences and further bloating the Power 5.
2. Are you sure Alabama and Clemson prove anything of the sort? Are you contending that they aren’t as good as their record says and they’re undefeated because of weak scheduling?
3. Double byes protect the regular season and give meaning to finishing 1st and 2nd in the nation. Yes, it’s a big advantage but I’d contend most years the top two teams have clearly earned that right and to me it’s better than going to a straight 8-team playoff where the top two seeds have to win an extra game with virtually no benefit. To me, that puts way too much emphasis on the lower seeds and devalues the regular season too far.
Ever since the BCS died, we’ve seen an increase in better OOC games. Granted, 2018 didn’t work out too well. But, the playoff definitely helped that cause so I don’t think SoS requirements (what the heck is that and how are you enforcing that?) needs to be a primary factor in a re-worked playoff.
I kind of like the SoS requirements idea. Would need to get some heads together to figure out what that would look like… but that doesn’t mean its not worth looking at. At a very minimum “no FCS opponents” would be great.
No FCS teams is fine and probably justified.
Basing placement on SoS is a bad idea, IMO. There can be teams who crush their opponents (like UCF) but don’t have a strong schedule. I don’t want to automatically cross them off.
I don’t want to cross them off, I want to influence them to play better games.
130+ teams with many who won’t play ball though. Not everyone can play a difficult schedule.
Doesn’t have to be an NCAA requirement, just a CFP selection criteria. Then let teams schedule as they wish.
2, I’m not saying anything about the quality nor justification for Clem or Bama, I’m only showcasing that they are exhibiting what I expect we’d see in your plan. Since there would be 0 reason for tough OOC games, MORE teams would do what they already are doing. This leads to the problem in your #3, which is that it degrades the regular season.
On that topic, and this isn’t just a you thing I’ve heard it from Brian Driskell and a few others about this “protecting the regular season.” When I hear that comment, I hear less about actually protecting it and more “we dont want to have 1-, 2-loss teams in the playoff.” Which is the crux of MY biggest issue with CFB and the mindset. There shouldnt be this awful stigma for losing a few games here and there. If you’re playing seriously tough games like Bama vs USC or Texas vs Florida or ND vs Michigan and you do that 7-8 times a year instead of only twice you’re naturally going to get more losses. And that’s not a bad thing IMO. We’re stuck, as a fanbase in this archaic mindset because for the last 30 years or so we’ve seen so many P5 vs FCS games and P5 powers vs. crummy P5 cellar dwellars. So in THAT system, yes, 1- 2- losses is bad. In any system I would support, we would demand more tOSU vs Okie Light and Oregon vs Texas A&M type games. In something like that, I have no issue with a 3-loss national champion.
Those types of schedules aren’t realistic with so many FBS teams and 14 (for now) team conferences.
Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, and Oklahoma are probably the only teams who can afford to “skip” OOC games because they know they have a high percentage of winning their conference. Even with that these 4 generally schedule pretty well! You said they are already exhibiting this skipping out and I disagree.
There’s one huge reason for tough OOC games, not everyone can win their conference!
My thought was more along the lines of- Saban is going to be pissed when he’s inactive for 3+ weeks and has to face an Oklahoma team that just played a week before and is carrying in more momentum and recent game action/fitness.
So I don’t think anyone would be happy with double byes. Either you risk getting worn down/injured if you’re the low seed or you are sitting inactive and waiting for an opponent and possibly being more rusty if you’re the top seed. Either way, not probably practical in the real world, but it was fun to read about and consider.
I feel like not a single college football coach would want to win 3 games instead of 2 for fear of being rusty. That doesn’t seem realistic in the least bit.
Naturally two games is preferable to three but that wasn’t the point. A double bye system where one team is inactive for what, 5-6 weeks from the end of the season until the other teams get around to playing each other isn’t realistic either.
Week 14 – November 24
Conference Title Week – December 1
Round 1 – December 8
Round 2 – December 15
Round 3 – December 22
Championship – January 7
Very similar layout to the FCS playoffs, except the top 2 seeds get an extra week off at the FBS level.
Shift rounds 1-3 one week later. As much as we want to ignore it, no way you can ask an away team to potentially travel across the country during finals week.
Maine just traveled all the way to Eastern Washington for a Dec. 15 playoff game.
Teams that have kids who are more student-athletes than their FBS counterparts have been doing this for years.
Eggnog is delicious.
I like things the way they are. There’s no way an 8 team format won’t give automatic slots to major conference champs, many of whom will be relatively mediocre.
There will always be teams that whine about being left out no matter what the format. OSU, Georgia and UCF this year, for instance, but all three had specific things they could have done to get in (not get blown out by Purdue, not losing two games, playing a credibly tough schedule, respectively) but didn’t. Too bad.
ND having to win out most years to get in is fine with me. We’ve done that twice recently, and it’s not impossible for us to make it in with a loss, just tougher, depending on the year.
This points out something that I think needs to be clarified. There’s a cavernous difference between major conference champions who people think aren’t worthy of participating in a national championship playoff and calling many of them mediocre.
#1 Alabama 13-0
#1 Alabama 13-0
#1 Clemson 13-0
#1 Alabama 12-1
#1 Clemson 12-1
#2 Clemson 13-0
#2 Alabama 12-1
#2 Clemson 12-1
#2 Oklahoma 12-1
#2 Oregon 12-1
#3 Florida State 13-0
#3 Georgia 12-1
#3 Michigan State 12-1
#4 Ohio State 12-1
#4 Washington 12-1
#4 Oklahoma 12-1
#4 Oklahoma 11-1
#5 Baylor 11-1
#5 Ohio State 11-2
#5 Penn State 11-2
#6 Ohio State 12-1
#6 Stanford 11-2
#7 Oklahoma 10-2
#9 Washington 10-3
Records: 284-25 (.919)
There’s five years worth of major conference champions and I don’t see much mediocrity at all.
Man, when you lay it out like that, it really makes Alabama look impressive. Don’t know if anyone’s noticed how good they are.
I dont think the problem is the conference champions, themselves. I think the worry is that the risk it puts in place for 8-3 Pitt to have a game of their life or Clemson losing Trevor Lawrence in the 1Q of the ACC champ game and losing because if it. You then get 9-3 garbage in a rd 1 game. Just because it hasnt happened YET doesnt mean it wouldnt in the future
Should we worry about something we know is going to be very, very rare just because it could happen in the future? I don’t know if that’s something we really need to worry about at all.
But by that argument, we shouldn’t expand the playoff either, because you could end up with a “garbage” 8-seed taking out the #1 seed.
But if the “garbage 8-seed” proved themselves worthy of inclusion, its not nearly as bad as a garbage team getting in just on a technicality. At least the 8-seed was vetted.
Impressive data
The other thing that seems to follow from your analysis that would be great for entertainment purposes is that an 8 team playoff could actually make teams MORE LIKELY to schedule big games (because 1 loss doesn’t knock you out). In that case, teams wouldn’t be so worried about one loss and could be more free to schedule a tough early season non-conference game or two. If that’s true, that is, if an 8-team playoff would actually allow or entice schools to schedule tougher than I’d be all for an 8 team playoff.
I would think so, too. Although there will probably be the opportunity for a school like Oklahoma who always wins their conference to back off tough OOC games.
Disagree completely. Bama is proof that this wouldn’t happen. All you have to do is win your conference and play garbage OOC. You do that, and you can be ranked #1. There’s 0 incentive for challenging yourself at all.
What proof with Alabama?
Maybe you missed the part where they keep winning national championships and recruit better than everybody?
Like mentioned above, this comment isnt about the QUALITY of Bama, it’s about their boring games they play to get there.
Bama has some of the hardest schedules over the last 10 years.
I do kind of agree with your mentality, but Bama is a special case. They play in a conference, generally speaking, against usually 5-6 of the top 25-30 teams in the land, so if they go undefeated in that league it makes them worthy of being considered one of the top teams in the league. But that’s where the logic stops for me as far as making a challenging schedule.
One other thing is the committee could set standards for the “wild card’ teams. As in they would place heavy and specific significance on how many FBS, P5 and Top-25 teams a squad defeats in order to largely slot how they choose the non-P5 champs in the hypothetical 8-team playoff. This language would also help Notre Dame probably, since that is their path in as well.
First of all, great point in the article that an 8-team playoff would be waaay tougher for the teams than a 4 team. Kinda common sense in hindsight but still worth pointing out.
Second, as also sort of alluded to, I don’t think an 8-team playoff would really be beneficial for ND (with a huge ***). 8 teams is surely going to mean all 5 P5 champs to appease the commissioners. Then you probably have to factor in some sort of automatic bid for the best G5 team. That leaves 2 spots. 1 spot you can bet your bottom dollar is going to be the push for a non-SEC champ that everyone just loves – the SEC#2 comes close to getting in the top 4 most years, or sometimes does….Let alone the top 8, they would be a shoe-in to make an expanded format.
So that leaves 1 slot Notre Dame is eligible to get in with. And, like this year, they would have to be above the UM/tOSU level (which was easy and fortunate since they beat one), but that’s a tough hill to climb, and leaves almost no margin of error.
The big asterisk mentioned though is……(don’t kill me, just talking theoretically)….Join a conference. Get in the ACC, have a clear path to make the playoffs. Don’t join a conference and you probably have to go 12-0 to get in even for an 8 team playoff as I mentioned above. An 11-1 ND probably isn’t getting many looks. Expanding from 4 to 8 probably doesn’t help an independent.
Your last paragraph is a major complaint I have with a lot of ND fans. This notion of clinging to independence just for independence sake. I’m not a “join a conference” guy, but if the environment changes that forces us to join one, I don’t think it’s going to destroy the university like the NDNers would have you believe. Sure, currently, there is 0 reason to do it but in the 8-team playoff where we have auto bids…ok, now THERE is a reason. The independence isnt the end goal, it’s the best route for us in the current environment
Yeah, I agree. In some situations independence probably isn’t conducive to the best chance of winning national championships. But obviously there are many other factors and variables that makes retaining independence the more viable path.
It’s going to 8 at some point, it’ll have auto bids, and college football will be the worse for it. And as you alluded to, it just makes it even more likely that Alabama and Clemson or whoever the next big 2 are end up winning it all every year. Which is ironic, since burnout on Alabama and Clemson is a big reason this push exists in the first place.
Good piece worth reading.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/12/23/18153393/playoff-expansion-8-teams-conference-champs
I’m incredibly uncomfortable with college kids playing 17 games. That’s more than 75% of nfl players. Unless of course this leads to paying players which I doubt
Double bye will never, ever happen. There could be a 6-team playoff with a single bye for top 2 seeds, but double bye is a complete non-starter. When would they play the games?
If they expand the playoff, here’s how it’s going to happen:
(1) conference championship games will not go away;
(2) winners of the conference championship games get auto-bids;
(3) first round of games are home games for seeds 1-4.
Those 3 things are near-locks, and the rest is nibbling around the edges. From the ND perspective, what we need to worry about are two-fold:
(i) ensuring that the three remaining spots are all at-large spots (i.e., no auto-bid for highest ranked G5); and
(ii) forcing conferences to play their two highest-ranked teams in conference championship games.
The second part is going to be the biggest lift of a case to make, because the SEC and Pac-12 will pitch a fit about trying to keep their divisions, but ND needs to go into any negotiations treating that as a must.
FCS plays a 24-team tournament with first round byes for 8 teams. What is so hard about my double byes idea?
See above, it’s simple. I have no clue how scheduling seems to be this huge non-starter. Although, I would point out that people said the same things 10-15 years ago too. Playoffs will never happen how could they fit them in there’s no way they’d do it during exams!?!!
The FCS regular season ends the week before Thanksgiving and they typically play 11 games (there are exceptions a few times a decade depending on how the calendar shakes out, but it’s usually 11). FBS would not change its schedule to allow for double-byes. They aren’t even going to get rid of conference championship games to accommodate a bigger playoff!
Scheduling isn’t an issue at all. Games played is another issue to tackle, but literally scheduling this is super easy.
I follow the FCS playoffs because Montana and/or Montana State are typically in the mix. Expanding to 24 teams was a mistake IMHO — but not because of the byes. It simply watered down the tournament and unnecessarily lengthened it.
I like finding creative ways to keep the regular season meaningful. In a lot of years, however, selecting #1 and #2 will simply be a beauty contest. #2, #3 and #4 might all be 1-loss teams. Does the SEC team get #2 and a bye because of a “better” loss? Settle it on the field and not in the committee room.
I’d like to see more research but I feel like #1 and #2 each season are usually not that controversial compared to #3, #4, or #5.
This year you’d have Alabama and Clemson with byes. Why should they get one over ND? We have no objective reason why Alabama and Clemson deserve the advantage of one less game between them and a title.
In 2017/8’s version all 4 playoff teams had one loss. Why would Clemson (1) and Oklahoma (2) deserve a bye over Alabama (4) and Georgia (3)? The 1-4 ranking was just a beauty contest.
In 2016/7 we had a clear #1 with Alabama. The next 3 were all 1-loss teams. Splitting hairs to pick a #2 that deserves a bye wouldn’t be fair.
In 2015/6 we had a clear #1 with Clemson. The next 3 were all 1-loss teams. Same scenario.
In 2014/5 we had a clear #1 with FSU. The next 3 were all 1-loss teams. Same scenario.
I don’t recall all of the reasons why the teams 2 through 4 were placed where they are, but I’d prefer a tournament without byes.
With 5 conference champs and 3 at-large teams, controversy would shift to who gets picked as the 3rd at-large team. Presumably that team would be the 7 or 8 seed in the tournament with the most difficult path to the title. The team that earned the 1 seed would presumably have the easiest path.
If teams felt that an easier schedule was important (to remain undefeated and thus get a bye), I think the non-conference scheduling would ultimately suffer.
Objectively, I would say Bama and Clemson had better regular seasons than Notre Dame and would deserve the byes.
I guess I just don’t agree that ranking teams is just vacuous beauty contests or splitting hairs. We’re doing pretty well right now ranking 4 teams and I don’t think we need to shy away from making the rankings important.
Keep it simple: 5 Conference Champions + 3 at-large teams (perhaps the next 3 in the final rankings)
– The P5 are happy because every conference gets a chance.
– The G5 are happy because they get a chance at the at-large, but we aren’t stuck with a 2 loss G5 champ because of a guarantee.
– ND doesn’t have to join a conference.
– The SEC is happy because they could theoretically get 2 or 3 teams in.
– Teams still schedule difficult non-conference match-ups because of the at-large bid if they don’t win their conference.
I like the creativity of the double byes to preserve meaning in the regular season, but I think it the end it’ll just help preserve Alabama and Clemson’s dominance if they automatically get to the semi-final round. I want to see the Cinderella #8 beat #1 even if they can’t win 3 in a row and take the title.
Your last point is why I think most ND fans don’t like the double byes.
From my viewpoint, after listening to several years of talk on here and elsewhere, the biggest issues from most people were preserving the meaning of the regular season and fear/disgust of a 10-2 (or 9-3!) #7 seed running the table and winning it all.
The double bye helps prevent those two issues. I kind of like the Cinderella aspect too and would be okay with that.
If one or two teams are that good that they are deserving of a double bye, why expand the field at all?From a fair competition standpoint it seems way out there. Two teams get to rest up and heal while the others pound away at each other? You pointed out yourself that it gives the lower seed less chance of pulling off an upset. You could almost guarantee that teams that play in the first two rounds would be down a couple starters by round three. Can you point to any other tournament in any sport that gives teams a double bye? If you can, I doubt it has close to the attrition factor that football has.
There doesn’t seem to be a consensus on the best way to expand the field. I don’t think there’s been a year thus far, in the 4 team field, where the best team hasn’t come out on top. Until you reach that consensus, I see no reason to expand the field. Expanding just to expand is not a just reason. People are going to bitch about any set up. As long as we’re crowning a deserving champion, let them bitch.
Because we like to see competition, big games, and be entertained right?
This is where I’m coming from to. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
If they go to 8, they’ll want to go to 12 then 16. Once the genie is out of the bottle they”ll be no going back. Want more “entertainment and competition” ? Make some rules to toughen up the regular season. Make the rewards for knocking off top tier teams more significant.
I dont like double byes because it’s far too favorable to a top team who may or may not truly deserve it. If ND beats Clemson this week, doesn’t that kind of prove that Clem was a bit overranked this year just because they spanked inferior competition? So you’re going to trust ESPN to set the narrative about who really deserves the top two spots while ND, a team who is truly better but didn’t cruise all year because they challenged themselves, now has to play an additional 2 games and risk injury and put extra wear and tear on their bodies before the game. No, that’s massively unfair.
“If ND beats Clemson this week, doesn’t that kind of prove that Clem was a bit overranked this year just because they spanked inferior competition?”
No, it doesn’t.
And how come you’re not talking about Notre Dame beating up on inferior competiton? We’re right near them in most strength of schedule ratings.
I would keep a slot for the top G5 team with the stipulation that they have to be in the top 16 of the final poll. I want an underdog in there.
That’s probably a fair way to do it. They wouldn’t likely be in the top 16 with a L on their schedule, unless it was to a P5 team.
Let a committee or formula or whatever rank the top 25/35/40/whatever number of teams. The top 8 in this ranking get in, but the home field advantage goes to the 4 teams that have beaten the most top 25/35/40/whatever teams this season. So an 11-2 team could be hosting a 12-0 team if things break correctly.
This adds value to the regular season, in that it should hopefully entice some teams to schedule an additional difficult OOC opponent. Plus, if 8 teams get in, you’re less afraid to schedule that extra OOC challenging game, since a non-conference loss doesn’t necessarily knock you out.