8-Team Play-off Format.

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Nov 27, 2007
2,671
1,251
1,743
35
Tulsa
#21
I'm saying in the 6 years since the current format began, 8 of the 12 Championship game slots have gone to either the #1 or #2 seed. So you could say under the current format, only 4 of 12 times (33%) has the #3 or #4 seeds been relevant (although admittedly they did win the National Title twice).

So if the #3/#4 only mattered 1/3rd of the time under the current format, odds are the #5-#8 seeds are going to be even less relevant. Meaning, regardless of the number of teams in the play-off, the odds of the National Champion coming from outside the Top-2 (or for sure Top-4) are remote. So I'm saying playing those games and including those teams probably is not a relevant process.

Would it make the #5-#8 seeds feel more included? Probably. Do they have any realistic chance of actually making it to the Championship Game? Highly doubtful.
So what you're saying is that you will be content with an undefeated OSU is left out of the CFP because its realistically doesn't have chance of actually making it to the Championship Game.
 
Feb 18, 2009
4,995
2,508
1,743
#22
Not exactly. They are playing ACC opponents. They are not eligible to be in the ACC Championship, so technically I would not say they are "in" the ACC Conference this year. They are only playing ACC opponents.
Eh......no.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/247spo...tball-Clemson-Notre-Dame-Miami-149674590/Amp/

“The decision features the inclusion of national elite Notre Dame as a member this fall, strengthening the conference as a whole while altering the journey to the ACC Championship Game.
The ACC joins the Pac-12 and Big Ten in announcing major schedule changes while moving to a heavy league-only plan.
Instead of splitting the league into Atlantic and Coastal divisions, a conference-only slate will determine title game participants based on the two highest winning percentages. Should the Irish manage to make it to the ACC Championship Game and win, it would be the first time in their 113-year history that they can claim a conference title.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndic...view-and-predictions-for-2020-season.amp.html
“Already a member of the league in other sports, Notre Dame received a unique invite to play ACC football in 2020. It's not a massive change considering the Irish play a handful of ACC teams each season. But for the first time in program history, Notre Dame is actually a member of a conference in football.”

https://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/odds/acc-championship/
ACC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME ODDS
Clemson 11/50
Notre Dame 6/1
North Carolina 8/1
Miami, Florida 10/1
Virginia Tech 18/1
Florida State 28/1
Pittsburgh 33/1
Louisville 40/1
Virginia 50/1
North Carolina State 80/1
Wake Forest 80/1
Boston College 100/1
Duke 100/1
Syracuse 100/1
Georgia Tech 500/1
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,067
541
1,743
#23
I think its rational to say that the #8 in an 8 team playoff wouldn't win it all, but on any given day the 8th best can definitely pull off an upset which then changes the champion.

This is also a true theory in college basketball but think of how much the Cinderella upsetting the blue blood changes the tournament landscape.

The best thing I see with expanding to 8 team is the number of different teams that get to be part of the discussion and there being more national champions resulting in "spreading the wealth". I think it would reduce the gap (within P5) of the haves and the have nots.
I disagree there will be more champions under an 8 team playoff.

As it stands now, OSU would probably have to beat some combo of Bama and Clemson, a tall order. Under an 8 team playoff, OSU would have to beat some combo of Ohio State, Bama and Clemson. That's after having to beat OU twice (most years). The more games the underdog has to win the less likely they ultimately prevail.

In the hypothetical that started this out, only two of the teams in the 8 team playoff have not already won a national title, and both would be significant under dogs to win that bracket.

Maybe these other teams would be able to capitalize on an appearance enough to compete, but Michigan State certainly didn't.
 
Sep 12, 2013
1,365
834
743
Broken Arrow, OK
#24
I disagree there will be more champions under an 8 team playoff.

As it stands now, OSU would probably have to beat some combo of Bama and Clemson, a tall order. Under an 8 team playoff, OSU would have to beat some combo of Ohio State, Bama and Clemson. That's after having to beat OU twice (most years). The more games the underdog has to win the less likely they ultimately prevail.

In the hypothetical that started this out, only two of the teams in the 8 team playoff have not already won a national title, and both would be significant under dogs to win that bracket.

Maybe these other teams would be able to capitalize on an appearance enough to compete, but Michigan State certainly didn't.
I don't think you're disagreeing with what I'm going to say below, just that it's a tall order for anyone to beat Alabama, Clemson, or Ohio State. Upsets happen and what better time than in the playoffs. More teams the greater the chance, though most likely just very, very little.

Even if, in most years, only two teams (Alabama & Clemson) are likely to win the national title, we shouldn't give other teams a chance? If an ISU or a Cal or a Minnesota, hell even if Nebraska, wins their conference, I say they get a shot at Alabama and Clemson. That's what college football is all about.
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,067
541
1,743
#25
I don't think you're disagreeing with what I'm going to say below, just that it's a tall order for anyone to beat Alabama, Clemson, or Ohio State. Upsets happen and what better time than in the playoffs. More teams the greater the chance, though most likely just very, very little.

Even if, in most years, only two teams (Alabama & Clemson) are likely to win the national title, we shouldn't give other teams a chance? If an ISU or a Cal or a Minnesota, hell even if Nebraska, wins their conference, I say they get a shot at Alabama and Clemson. That's what college football is all about.
Other teams have a chance. Usually those teams are other blue bloods like OU because it's tough to get to the end of the season with 0 or 1 loss if you don't have all the institutional weight being a blue blood brings.

Would it be terrible luck for ISU, Cal and Minnesota to all put it together in the same year and see 1 of them get left out? Yes. I'm not sure we should make decisions based on something that's so unlikely though.
 
Sep 12, 2013
1,365
834
743
Broken Arrow, OK
#26
Other teams have a chance. Usually those teams are other blue bloods like OU because it's tough to get to the end of the season with 0 or 1 loss if you don't have all the institutional weight being a blue blood brings.

Would it be terrible luck for ISU, Cal and Minnesota to all put it together in the same year and see 1 of them get left out? Yes. I'm not sure we should make decisions based on something that's so unlikely though.
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but if I'm right we should probably just forfeit the OU game because they have the institutional weight of being a blue blood and history says we'll lose. By your logic Kansas should just cancel football all together.
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,067
541
1,743
#27
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but if I'm right we should probably just forfeit the OU game because they have the institutional weight of being a blue blood and history says we'll lose. By your logic Kansas should just cancel football all together.
I'm saying expand it as much as you want, it's still going to be 90% Bluebloods or Blueblood adjacent teams. We should play because Football is entertaining, but you wouldn't go broke betting on the blueblood teams without any other knowledge either.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,171
17,017
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#28
I can look at this as both an OSU fan and a college football fan. In both instances I would want an expansion to 8.

As an OSU fan, having 8 teams is the best way to avoid the obvious bias against our helmet logo and conference affiliation....this would allow us to lose a game but still get in if we won the conference... extremely important in a league where you always have to play the #2 team twice.

As a college football fan, what's not to like about 4 extra top 10 bowl matchups during the holidays? Nothing.
 

ScooberJake

Territorial Marshal
Jul 13, 2004
5,630
1,192
1,743
Denver, CO
#29
The best thing I see with expanding to 8 team is the number of different teams that get to be part of the discussion and there being more national champions resulting in "spreading the wealth". I think it would reduce the gap (within P5) of the haves and the have nots.
Exactly. What I see in college football lately is reducing parity. Out of the 24 CFP slots so far, they have gone to 10 teams. This year, the current top 5 ranked teams have all already been there already, and most bowl projections at this point include only teams who have been there, with a few predicting one new team (OSU). Does anybody see this number expanding significantly over the next 5-10 years? I expect for the next 5 years, you would add one or maybe two new teams to the list. But it will basically be some combination of tOSU/Clemson/Bama/Georgia/ ND/OU/Oregon/LSU for 90-95% of the slots.

Under the current system the rich have gotten richer. Even OU and Texas can't really keep up anymore. Things have to change. Moving to an 8-team playoff is one change that will help give other teams some national exposure and potentially, yes, an upset or two, maybe even a championship.
 

ScooberJake

Territorial Marshal
Jul 13, 2004
5,630
1,192
1,743
Denver, CO
#30
As it stands now, OSU would probably have to beat some combo of Bama and Clemson, a tall order. Under an 8 team playoff, OSU would have to beat some combo of Ohio State, Bama and Clemson. That's after having to beat OU twice (most years). The more games the underdog has to win the less likely they ultimately prevail.
And what chance would you give an underdog team like OSU if they don't get a chance to play those teams at all?

As it stands now, OSU may not get a chance at all, even if we go undefeated! This is absurd.
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,067
541
1,743
#31
And what chance would you give an underdog team like OSU if they don't get a chance to play those teams at all?

As it stands now, OSU may not get a chance at all, even if we go undefeated! This is absurd.
This is nonsense from talking heads. Not worth listening to or engaging with. They've taken undefeated teams they shouldn't have before, FSU, over better 1 loss teams. They're not going to reach past an undefeated team to select a team with a loss, and it seems like in most of these scenarios a team with a loss that isn't conference champ.
 

ScooberJake

Territorial Marshal
Jul 13, 2004
5,630
1,192
1,743
Denver, CO
#32
This is nonsense from talking heads. Not worth listening to or engaging with. They've taken undefeated teams they shouldn't have before, FSU, over better 1 loss teams. They're not going to reach past an undefeated team to select a team with a loss, and it seems like in most of these scenarios a team with a loss that isn't conference champ.
Perhaps. But with fewer games this year there is a greater chance of 5 undefeated P5 teams. Then somebody is out of luck. An 8-team playoff solves that problem.
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,067
541
1,743
#33
Perhaps. But with fewer games this year there is a greater chance of 5 undefeated P5 teams. Then somebody is out of luck. An 8-team playoff solves that problem.
Hey let's go to 8, just don't pretend that first round won't be nigh on unwatchable by and large, especially if the focus is on letting a 3 loss Pac 12 champ in.

MPbX6OD.jpg
 

OSU79

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 22, 2009
12,575
11,167
1,743
Back home in God's (Green) Country
#34
Going to 8 teams doesn't increase the underdogs chance in any one game, but it at least provides the opportunity for an underdog to play for/win a NC.

I remember when in basketball the Big 8 went to awarding its auto-qualifying slot to the postseason tournament champ. This was sometime between '75 and '85 when the NCAA field was only 32 teams and it was really tough to get a 2nd Big 8 team in (and never a 3rd). The Big 8 tournament was a HUGE success, with typically 4-5 teams that had a chance to win their way into the NCAAs (now that 5-7 teams from multiple conferences get in I don't really care about the conference tournaments).

Taking the football playoffs to 8 teams would generate huge excitement for those outside the 5-6 that typically get in. It would also water down the advantages of those blue bloods, slowly but surely, which is why it hasn't already happened.
 

Poke4Christ

Federal Marshal
Aug 2, 2005
11,093
1,417
1,743
37
Edmond, OK
#36
Ok, so lets say you take the Top-8 teams today from the AP Poll and seeded them as ranked. (Well, almost. I kicked out #8 Texas A&M in order to include presumed PAC-12 Champ Oregon). That includes the 5 Major conference winners, Cincinnati as the best of the Group of Five teams, Independent Notre Dame plus SEC runner-up Georgia. Seems fair enough... First round games would be:

* Clemson vs Oregon
* Alabama, vs Cincinnati
* Ohio St vs Oklahoma St
* Notre Dame vs Georgia.

How many upsets do you see in those games? I probably don't see any. Maybe Georgia. So what would really be the point of adding 4 more teams/games other than to say the next four were "included"?

I really don't have a problem with a 4-team playoff format.
Because by not having it you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course they are better if you never give anyone else a chance. Expanding the playoff needs to happen because EVERYONE should have a chance to win a title if they perform in the regular season. The fact that a team can win all their games and still have no chance is utter BS. Yes, we have not seen many upsets in the playoffs. I PROMISE you if you expand it that will change.
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,671
1,251
1,743
35
Tulsa
#37
I cannot understand any argument against expanding to 8 teams. I love the straw-man argument, "If we expand to 8 everyone will push for 16 next and then 32"... If that is your argument, you have no argument.

Why the heck would anyone want less football and more teams having a chance of making something magic happen?
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,671
1,251
1,743
35
Tulsa
#38
Because by not having it you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course they are better if you never give anyone else a chance. Expanding the playoff needs to happen because EVERYONE should have a chance to win a title if they perform in the regular season. The fact that a team can win all their games and still have no chance is utter BS. Yes, we have not seen many upsets in the playoffs. I PROMISE you if you expand it that will change.
Besides that they do happen often. According to Pokevette its 33% of the time. 1 in 3 odds of knocking out what are supposedly the top 2 teams in the country is huge (2 games away from being 50/50 with some of those games being 1 score games). Heck just 2 years ago we had 3 vs 4 in the NCG.

Fun fact of the 6 years the 1 seed has only won the NCG game one time while the 4 seed has one it twice.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,171
17,017
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#39
One other argument as an OSU fan for expanding to 8 teams. I wonder if teams like ou and ut use negative recruiting with the current system. Think about it....telling a highly rated recruit; "even if you go to OSU and help them win the conference you won't be guaranteed a shot at the title. If you come to norman and help us win the conference, you're guaranteed to get that shot which will help show you off to pro scouts".

Just making it to the CFP once will boost recruiting, even if you lose that first game. We need an equal chance of getting in to build on any conference success we might achieve. I have no doubt that OSU would've smoked lsu in 2011....but even if we lost, how much better would recruiting have been.
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,067
541
1,743
#40
Expand it, just don't expect good games or much to actually change.

The rules most people want P5 Champs, Top G5 team and 2 at larges isn't going to have that much effect on the type of teams that make the playoffs. Once you get past the novelty of the G5 tribute, it's going to be a lot of the same teams still. Looking back, it would have benefitted Ohio State the most, as they would have gotten in after the Purdue shellacking and once with 2 losses. OU would have gotten in an additional time as well.