The Case for NOT Expanding the CFB Playoff
-- A three or four loss scrub team that wins a conference championship has no business playing in the Playoffs to begin with.
-- Teams will schedule weak OOC competition as these games will no longer matter.
-- Once teams secure a bid in the conference championship, there is no motivation to continue to play their best ball. Why put forth the effort if you can just skate through the rest of your games and then show up to play in the conference championship game and get an automatic Playoff bid if you win?
-- Coaches may opt to bench their marquee players in games that don't matter to avoid injuries that will affect the games that do.
-- Marquee players may themselves prefer to be benched in games that don't matter so as not to hurt their draft stock.
An 8 team Playoff system that awards automatic bids to conference champions would water down the quality of regular season games, and it would reduce the exclusivity of playoff appearances and playoff wins. The Playoffs were meant for elite teams only. If you want to make the Playoffs, bring your A game every week or go home. True fans of CFB want to see teams competing at their best level, motivated to do whatever it takes to WIN EVERY GAME.
Comments
-
And even better, get rid of the playoff and it's BCS predecessor all together. Trying to have a Super Bowl for a highly regional sport with no SOS parity is beyond fucking stupid. 2010 Ducks could have beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl and had half a natty. Instead you wanted to win it on the field like some jackass.
-
I’m off the mindset to see a 6 team playoff, all 5 Power conference champions plus 1 at large(as long as it is the way it is now with 5 Power 5 conferences). That will give all 5 power conference champs a seat, plus an at large, more than likely from a Power 5 or someone from the group of 5 is as good as say UCF was a couple years ago, or if not....)
Like NFL, #1 and 2 has a bye. # 3 and 4 host #5 and an at large then play #1 and 2. There’s a helluva lot of tim from end of season until playoffs or championship as it is.
No more though. But everyone in a power 5 conference will know that if they win their conference they will have a seat...it won’t be “TSIO” right out of the gate like what happened to Oregon this year or Washington last year mentality.
Just win your conference if in a power 5 and you are “in.” And 1 at large.
I think it will be good for college football and fans to know if their conference wins their championship or if a group of 5 is undefeated and thinks they belong to prove it. -
Conference champ in each power 5 get an automatic bid. The 3-4 loss conference winner doesn't happen often. This also reinforces the value of a conference championship.
3 Wild card spots (1 of which must be a team outside of the Power 5)
You then seed the teams 1-8. Teams 1-4, play the first round at home. Then you find regional spots for round 2, with the championship being played at Jerry's World or someplace similar. -
Everyone gets a participation trophy??YellowSnow said:And even better, get rid of the playoff and it's BCS predecessor all together. Trying to have a Super Bowl for a highly regional sport with no SOS parity is beyond fucking stupid. 2010 Ducks could have beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl and had half a natty. Instead you wanted to win it on the field like some jackass.
I No comprende this post. -
Any playoff that is not an 8 team playoff is stupid and not a real playoff. Jesus doesn't Division 3 do a 16 team playoff and that seems to work fine? Bunch of retarded old men in control of college football. Put them out to pasture.
-
No one here has addressed the watered down games that would occur with an 6 or 8 team playoff with automatic spots reserved for conference champions. I don't see how this would make conference games better. For example, once Oregon fully secures the PAC North, we can just mail it in for the remaining 3 games or whatever, bench Herbert and not show up to play ball until December. Also, why would anyone be motivated to schedule quality OOC opponents?
-
This is insane. You have MORE motivation to schedule real OOC opponents because losing won't matter in regards to winning your conference. You do it to generate fan interest instead of playing fucking Portland State or North Dakota. And yes Oregon is cakewalking the North this year but that is a total anomaly. Conferences are usually competitive right to the end. This isn't hard. You play a round robin conference schedule and eliminate the stupid conference championship game that nobody cares about.oregonblitzkrieg said:No one here has addressed the watered down games that would occur with an 6 or 8 team playoff with automatic spots reserved for conference champions. I don't see how this would make conference games better. For example, once Oregon fully secures the PAC North, we can just mail it in for the remaining 3 games or whatever, bench Herbert and not show up to play ball until December. Also, why would anyone be motivated to schedule quality OOC opponents?
-
8 teams too much, 7 and 8 is obviously <<<<< <<<< #1,2.....by usually a lot....
16???? To find out who is numero uno??
GTFO with that shit -
I'd watch a number 8 Georgia take on a number 1 Bama. I'd watch a number 7 Oregon take on a number 2 LSU or Clemson. Why would anybody not want that? Otherwise let's just call it the Southern Football Championship rather than the National Football Championship. Does anyone not think both Bama and LSU are getting in this year?SECDAWG said:8 teams too much, 7 and 8 is obviously <<<<< 5,6......by usually a lot....
16???? To find out who is numero uno??
GTFO with that shit</p> -
If losing doesn't matter, then winning doesn't either. Fan interest? Who the hell wants to watch a game where neither team cares if it wins or loses?whuggy said:
This is insane. You have MORE motivation to schedule real OOC opponents because losing won't matter. You do it to generate fan interest instead of playing fucking Portland State or North Dakota. And yes Oregon is cakewalking the North this year but that is a total anomaly. Conferences are usually competitive right to the end. This isn't hard. You play a round robin conference schedule and eliminate the stupid conference championship game that nobody cares about.oregonblitzkrieg said:No one here has addressed the watered down games that would occur with an 6 or 8 team playoff with automatic spots reserved for conference champions. I don't see how this would make conference games better. For example, once Oregon fully secures the PAC North, we can just mail it in for the remaining 3 games or whatever, bench Herbert and not show up to play ball until December. Also, why would anyone be motivated to schedule quality OOC opponents?
-
You can't be serious. So you won't go the game when Ohio State plays at Autzen? Cmon man think a bit. And the game result totally matters because you have 3 at large teams. You don't think a Duck win over OSU helps the resume to be an at large? I would schedule HARDER rather than easier.oregonblitzkrieg said:
If losing doesn't matter, then winning doesn't either. Fan interest? Who the hell wants to watch a game where neither team cares if it wins or loses?whuggy said:
This is insane. You have MORE motivation to schedule real OOC opponents because losing won't matter. You do it to generate fan interest instead of playing fucking Portland State or North Dakota. And yes Oregon is cakewalking the North this year but that is a total anomaly. Conferences are usually competitive right to the end. This isn't hard. You play a round robin conference schedule and eliminate the stupid conference championship game that nobody cares about.oregonblitzkrieg said:No one here has addressed the watered down games that would occur with an 6 or 8 team playoff with automatic spots reserved for conference champions. I don't see how this would make conference games better. For example, once Oregon fully secures the PAC North, we can just mail it in for the remaining 3 games or whatever, bench Herbert and not show up to play ball until December. Also, why would anyone be motivated to schedule quality OOC opponents?
-
The path of least resistance is to schedule weak OOC opponents, pound your way through the conference early then mail it in and bench your starters for the rest of the remaining games. Show up, win your conference championship, and waltz into the Playoff.whuggy said:
You can't be serious. So you won't go the game when Ohio State plays at Autzen? Cmon man think a bit. And the game result totally matters because you have 3 at large teams. You don't think a Duck win over OSU helps the resume to be an at large? I would schedule HARDER rather than easier.oregonblitzkrieg said:
If losing doesn't matter, then winning doesn't either. Fan interest? Who the hell wants to watch a game where neither team cares if it wins or loses?whuggy said:
This is insane. You have MORE motivation to schedule real OOC opponents because losing won't matter. You do it to generate fan interest instead of playing fucking Portland State or North Dakota. And yes Oregon is cakewalking the North this year but that is a total anomaly. Conferences are usually competitive right to the end. This isn't hard. You play a round robin conference schedule and eliminate the stupid conference championship game that nobody cares about.oregonblitzkrieg said:No one here has addressed the watered down games that would occur with an 6 or 8 team playoff with automatic spots reserved for conference champions. I don't see how this would make conference games better. For example, once Oregon fully secures the PAC North, we can just mail it in for the remaining 3 games or whatever, bench Herbert and not show up to play ball until December. Also, why would anyone be motivated to schedule quality OOC opponents?
-
You keep winning, because if you happen to lose the conference championship game, you can still nab a wild card spot. Another reason to schedule a tough OOC. Gives you a chance for a higher seed. You go undefeated with a shit OOC and a shit conference, you might have to play on the road in round one. It’s not that hard OBKoregonblitzkrieg said:No one here has addressed the watered down games that would occur with an 6 or 8 team playoff with automatic spots reserved for conference champions. I don't see how this would make conference games better. For example, once Oregon fully secures the PAC North, we can just mail it in for the remaining 3 games or whatever, bench Herbert and not show up to play ball until December. Also, why would anyone be motivated to schedule quality OOC opponents?
-
At least one Duck gets it.greenblood said:
You keep winning, because if you happen to lose the conference championship game, you can still nab a wild card spot. Another reason to schedule a tough OOC. Gives you a chance for a higher seed. You go undefeated with a shit OOC and a shit conference, you might have to play on the road in round one. It’s not that hard OBKoregonblitzkrieg said:No one here has addressed the watered down games that would occur with an 6 or 8 team playoff with automatic spots reserved for conference champions. I don't see how this would make conference games better. For example, once Oregon fully secures the PAC North, we can just mail it in for the remaining 3 games or whatever, bench Herbert and not show up to play ball until December. Also, why would anyone be motivated to schedule quality OOC opponents?
-
Let's keep college different from the NFL. 8 not 6.SECDAWG said:I’m off the mindset to see a 6 team playoff, all 5 Power conference champions plus 1 at large(as long as it is the way it is now with 5 Power 5 conferences). That will give all 5 power conference champs a seat, plus an at large, more than likely from a Power 5 or someone from the group of 5 is as good as say UCF was a couple years ago, or if not....)
Like NFL, #1 and 2 has a bye. # 3 and 4 host #5 and an at large then play #1 and 2. There’s a helluva lot of tim from end of season until playoffs or championship as it is.
No more though. But everyone in a power 5 conference will know that if they win their conference they will have a seat...it won’t be “TSIO” right out of the gate like what happened to Oregon this year or Washington last year mentality.
Just win your conference if in a power 5 and you are “in.” And 1 at large.
I think it will be good for college football and fans to know if their conference wins their championship or if a group of 5 is undefeated and thinks they belong to prove it. -
We have a 4team playoff and people saying that Saban should keep Tua on the bench against LSU because that will make them the best one loss team if they lose
Maybe you playoff honks should check out the NFL and let college football return to its greatness
Fuck the playoffs -
If I were Alabama, why would I schedule a tough OOC opponent if I have the guns to pummel the conference into submission early? Then I can simply bench Tagovailoa and the other stars, rest them up for the conference championship, win that and secure a playoff spot. And no one else in the country would be interested in watching the rest of our games because we'll be playing our 2nd and 3rd stringers in games where it doesn't matter if we win or not.
-
Let's talk about the 99% of teams who aren't Alabama. They would have no trouble getting in every year with a 2 team playoff. Or maybe just declare them the champ at the beginning of the year and save ourselves a bunch of time. And as a Duck fan any plan that expands the playoff system would be good for you because Oregon is not and will probably never be in the "elite" group that gets extra consideration for a spot in a 4 team playoff. Same with Washington.oregonblitzkrieg said:If I were Alabama, why would I schedule a tough OOC opponent if I have the guns to pummel the conference into submission early? Then I can simply bench Tagovailoa and the other stars, rest them up for the conference championship, win that and secure a playoff spot. And no one else in the country would be interested in watching the rest of our games because we'll be playing our 2nd and 3rd stringers in games where it doesn't matter if we win or not.
-
Where were you in 2014 and 2016? Getting into the playoffs should be DIFFICULT. Not easy.whuggy said:
Let's talk about the 99% of teams who aren't Alabama. They would have no trouble getting in every year with a 2 team playoff. Or maybe just declare them the champ at the beginning of the year and save ourselves a bunch of time. And as a Duck fan any plan that expands the playoff system would be good for you because Oregon is not and will probably never be in the "elite" group that gets extra consideration for a spot in a 4 team playoff. Same with Washington.oregonblitzkrieg said:If I were Alabama, why would I schedule a tough OOC opponent if I have the guns to pummel the conference into submission early? Then I can simply bench Tagovailoa and the other stars, rest them up for the conference championship, win that and secure a playoff spot. And no one else in the country would be interested in watching the rest of our games because we'll be playing our 2nd and 3rd stringers in games where it doesn't matter if we win or not.
-
Again, you are assuming you win the conference championship. What happens if you shit the bed? That strength of schedule could save your ass. With conference championships getting you into the playoffs it actually entices teams to schedule tough OOC games. Those loses don’t hurt you if you win your conference.oregonblitzkrieg said:If I were Alabama, why would I schedule a tough OOC opponent if I have the guns to pummel the conference into submission early? Then I can simply bench Tagovailoa and the other stars, rest them up for the conference championship, win that and secure a playoff spot. And no one else in the country would be interested in watching the rest of our games because we'll be playing our 2nd and 3rd stringers in games where it doesn't matter if we win or not.
-
He doesn't get it. And I doubt ever will. I give up.greenblood said:
Again, you are assuming you win the conference championship. What happens if you shit the bed? That strength of schedule could save your ass. With conference championships getting you into the playoffs it actually entices teams to schedule tough OOC games. Those loses don’t hurt you if you win your conference.oregonblitzkrieg said:If I were Alabama, why would I schedule a tough OOC opponent if I have the guns to pummel the conference into submission early? Then I can simply bench Tagovailoa and the other stars, rest them up for the conference championship, win that and secure a playoff spot. And no one else in the country would be interested in watching the rest of our games because we'll be playing our 2nd and 3rd stringers in games where it doesn't matter if we win or not.
-
IF only we had some precedent for a division I playoff that works
-
Holy shit, gysm, if the playoffs expanded, Alabama would schedule OOC against, like, Citadel or something! That would ruin college football!
-
But but but...it interferes with school schedules and midterms! Also, what about the smaller schools? It’s always been about the money. Until people stop watching Bowl games, we will always have them.MikeDamone said:IF only we had some precedent for a division I playoff that works
-
Heres a good play off for you guys. We'll take college football back
-
Playoffs are for fantasy football dorks.MikeDamone said:IF only we had some precedent for a division I playoff that works
-
RaceBannon said:
Heres a good play off for you guys. We'll take college football back
YellowSnow said:
Playoffs are for fantasy football dorks.MikeDamone said:IF only we had some precedent for a division I playoff that works
I guess it comes down to whether a person cares about who is the best in the land or not.
I’m as traditional as they come but if finding out whose the best in the land, there has to be some sort of playoff. Just about Every American major sport has some sort of playoff. While the current NCAAF CFP system is still subjective, it is better than the BCS where they at least tried to pit subjectively #1 and 2...and it’s a helluva lot better than prior BCS as some here are suggesting to go back to where there are teams that “share” national championships and teams “claiming” they won the national championship when they wasn’t a part of the game.
Prove it on the Gridiron or never let “national champion” come across your brain cells to be transferred to your pie hole or finger tips, even if it’s awarded to your team. Not past, present or future if your desire is to win the conference and be relegated to the Rose bowl or Sugar and play whoever with a chance to be named 1 and possibly receive a participation trophy.
-
So the NFL it is for youSECDAWG said:RaceBannon said:Heres a good play off for you guys. We'll take college football back
YellowSnow said:
Playoffs are for fantasy football dorks.MikeDamone said:IF only we had some precedent for a division I playoff that works
I guess it comes down to whether a person cares about who is the best in the land or not.
I’m as traditional as they come but if finding out whose the best in the land, there has to be some sort of playoff. Just about Every American major sport has some sort of playoff. While the current NCAAF CFP system is still subjective, it is better than the BCS where they at least tried to pit subjectively #1 and 2...and it’s a helluva lot better than prior BCS as some here are suggesting to go back to where there are teams that “share” national championships and teams “claiming” they won the national championship when they wasn’t a part of the game.
Prove it on the Gridiron or never let “national champion” come across your brain cells to be transferred to your pie hole or finger tips, even if it’s awarded to your team. Not past, present or future if your desire is to win the conference and be relegated to the Rose bowl or Sugar and play whoever with a chance to be named 1 and possibly receive a participation trophy.
Leave college football alone. Its been fucked up enough already -
Nope, rather see whose best in the land CF, as many fans.RaceBannon said:
So the NFL it is for youSECDAWG said:RaceBannon said:Heres a good play off for you guys. We'll take college football back
YellowSnow said:
Playoffs are for fantasy football dorks.MikeDamone said:IF only we had some precedent for a division I playoff that works
I guess it comes down to whether a person cares about who is the best in the land or not.
I’m as traditional as they come but if finding out whose the best in the land, there has to be some sort of playoff. Just about Every American major sport has some sort of playoff. While the current NCAAF CFP system is still subjective, it is better than the BCS where they at least tried to pit subjectively #1 and 2...and it’s a helluva lot better than prior BCS as some here are suggesting to go back to where there are teams that “share” national championships and teams “claiming” they won the national championship when they wasn’t a part of the game.
Prove it on the Gridiron or never let “national champion” come across your brain cells to be transferred to your pie hole or finger tips, even if it’s awarded to your team. Not past, present or future if your desire is to win the conference and be relegated to the Rose bowl or Sugar and play whoever with a chance to be named 1 and possibly receive a participation trophy.
Leave college football alone. Its been fucked up enough already
Perhaps this because PAC has had no one win in the CFP, much less the national championship since this “playoff” began?? I’d bet if a PAC team was high, especially Washington in this case, they’d prolly be a different attitude and I’d hear(see) more “national”, yes “NATIONAL” champion vs this regional old subjective biased stick with Rose vs BIG 10 horseshit.... Perhaps... -
Well we better get all 128 teams in the tournament then to be sure we KNOW who is best in the land
Washington has won 3 natties you MSU fucking loser bulldog. You aren't even in the SEC bitch
College football is college football. The NFL has the play off you are looking for
You wish your third rate program could play in the Rose Bowl
Take a drink and get banned
