Rick Endorses The 8 Team Playoff Plan

[duke4heisman]

Who isn't in this year that should be in?

You think if Ohio State had the same resume but wasn't a big boy name bluebood program that we'd all have just assumed they were a lock and untouchable despite not even winning their division?

They've more than proven that they're a legit program under urban Meyer, including this season. Who in your mind is more deserving of a spot than Ohio state?

Penn State. Beat them head to head and won the conference, which includes OSU and Mich

Michigan beat Penn state by 40. Penn state also lost to Pittsburgh. Fluking a win against OSU and scraping by the 4th best team for the conference championship doesn't prove your point over two objectively better teams in Ohio state and Michigan.

A win is a win and a champion is a champion. Pitt also beat the ACC champion, I'm not necessarily saying Penn State deserves to be in but but they clearly deserve it more than OSU

 

[LuCane]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alf19unbtVs

 

[Hurracanes]

I don't have a problem with 4 team playoff. No one in 5th or 6th place at this point of the season should be contending for a title.

 

[88]

I don't have a problem with 4 team playoff. No one in 5th or 6th place at this point of the season should be contending for a title.

No one should have a problem with it. The countries full of playoff junkies who thinks everything should be decided in single elimination. Trading a few exciting games at the end of the season for an entire season of "playoffs" never made sense to me. Make upsets still mean something.

 

[TemplarCane]

Anyone else think Washington was selected because the PAC 12 did not place a team last season? UW is a top 10 team in my opinion, but are they 'better' than Penn State, Wisconsin, or Michigan? The PAC 12 is not very good overall, and the Huskies OOC scheduling was SEC-worthy.

I understand both sides of the 4 team vs 8 team argument but the format will expand to 8 teams when enough projected revenue can be generated into the right bank accounts.

Conferences did not want a championship game, but the BCS was formed to select a 1 vs 2 matchup
Conferences did not want to expand the season to 12 games - but it happened
Conferences did not want want a playoff - but it happened

All in due time...

 

[JgDaCane]

Power 5 champs (Make big12 play conf champ game & make ND join a conf)+Highest ranked non-power 5 conf champ (would have been western mich this year)+2 at large..

 

[JgDaCane]

You think if Ohio State had the same resume but wasn't a big boy name bluebood program that we'd all have just assumed they were a lock and untouchable despite not even winning their division?

They've more than proven that they're a legit program under urban Meyer, including this season. Who in your mind is more deserving of a spot than Ohio state?

Penn State. Beat them head to head and won the conference, which includes OSU and Mich

Michigan beat Penn state by 40. Penn state also lost to Pittsburgh. Fluking a win against OSU and scraping by the 4th best team for the conference championship doesn't prove your point over two objectively better teams in Ohio state and Michigan.

A win is a win and a champion is a champion. Pitt also beat the ACC champion, I'm not necessarily saying Penn State deserves to be in but but they clearly deserve it more than OSU

eye test rules all. Psu doesn't make anybodys wee wee stand up. USC will throttle them.

 

[NJshoreCane]

Then at large teams that get left out are gonna complain

8 teams with 2 simple rules.
Win you're conference, your in.
Don't win your conference, don't complain.

 

[TemplarCane]

Eight teams, as mentioned, should be the future playoff format. This does not diminish the regular season. The regular season is when a team wins their conference.

Teams already getting in playoffs without winning conference add 8 teams conference championship will even more irrelevant, u think ohio st care that they didn't win the big 10 as if right now?

The issue is not that Ohio State was selected for the Top 4. The issue is Penn State was not selected despite winning the Big 10 conference championship on the field, and despite beating Ohio State on the field. I am confident OSU could not care less.

Expansion to 8 teams, with 5 automatic berths for conference winners ensures winning the conference matters. Ohio State would be the 6th seed in the scenario. The 7th and 8th slots are up for discussion.

I think seeding should be used as a reward for winning a conference. Perhaps the Top 4 could host the first round. Seeding would have it's own subjectivity, but I think it could be accomplished if based on overall record, weighted for SOS difficulty.

 

[Canesfan1899]

Power 5 conference champions + 3 at-large bids would work for me.

I think this would be the best as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Consigliere]

If you are left out, you didn't do enough. You will have these same arguments in the 7-10 range.

You're the one who made the argument about 1 loss teams.

 

[kryptonite]

Power 5 conference champions + 3 at-large bids would work for me.

I agree. Below is an old post I had.

4 teams [in reference to the current system]. 4 teams makes no sense. At best, one conference champion gets snubbed and that is at best. It should be 8 teams with 5/8 winning their conference championship. If 5/8 are tied to conference championships, you FULLY remove the human element from 63% of the playoff.

3/8 teams will need to be playoff eligible (12 games, 7 at most at home, required to play 8 conference games and 2 BCS/P5 non-conference games). The 3 best non-conference champions go to the playoffs (at most 2 per conference).

To Review:

- 8 team playoff
- 5 teams come from the conference championships (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12 and SEC)
- 3 At-Large Teams
- 2 Maximum Teams Per Conference
- Independents are not eligible

To be eligible to make the playoff tournament, as an at-large team, you will need to do the following:

- 12 Regular Season Games
- A team must play 5 games on the road (no neutral BS can count) and 1/5 must be out of conference
- A team must schedule 2 of their 4 OOC games against BCS/P5 conference schools
- A team may schedule the other 2 OOC games against anyone

Use the BCS Poll to determine the other 3 Best Teams (remember 5 teams come from conf. champs):

- SOS
- Record
- RPI

-----

If you switch it to 9 games in conference, you drop a non-P5 game.

Another rule to float is that you must make your conference championship to be considered for an At-Large bid.

2 questions (sorry if these have been asked, my eyes are glazing over trying to read the whole thread):

1. Would fsu and nd have counted as our non-con P5 opponents? Other than fsu, we only play one good non-coastal team per year so would we qualify?

2. Doesn't using the BCS poll to determine the final 3 teams just put us in the same spot as the BCS era? I agree that #9 feeling shafted is better than #5 , but aren't we still going to have the drama every year? Every year there's going to be a team ranked 9+ with a better resume than one of the conference champs.

 

[DMoney]

Again, 4 doesn't work because it omits conference champions AND adds too much of the human element.

So we're going to make conference championships more meaningful by adding three non-champions to the playoff?

And an 8-team playoff only increases the "human element." It's pretty easy to decide the top 4 teams. It's a lot harder when you're talking about the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ranked teams.

If you really cared about those things, the only option would be a six-team playoff with five Power 5 champions and the highest ranked Group of 5 champion. That would be better than an 8-team playoff, but still too much.

Does anybody actually think this year's playoffs are worse without Penn State? That's what we're upset about? There's nothing to fix. The system works. The past two years have been exciting as ****, and this one should be no different. Keep it the way it is.

 

[Consigliere]

2 questions (sorry if these have been asked, my eyes are glazing over trying to read the whole thread):

1. Would fsu and nd have counted as our non-con P5 opponents? Other than fsu, we only play one good non-coastal team per year so would we qualify?

2. Doesn't using the BCS poll to determine the final 3 teams just put us in the same spot as the BCS era? I agree that #9 feeling shafted is better than #5 , but aren't we still going to have the drama every year? Every year there's going to be a team ranked 9+ with a better resume than one of the conference champs.

Question 1: FSU is in conference, it doesn't count for the OOC opponent (P5). ND is independent, it doesn't count. So anyone we play in conference wouldn't count OOC.

Question 2: You're only using the BCS rankings (computer formula) to rank the 3 at-large teams. The conference champions AUTO qualify for the playoff. The only teams competing for at-large teams are at-large teams.

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

College football will never be as good with an 8 team playoff .

 

[kryptonite]

2 questions (sorry if these have been asked, my eyes are glazing over trying to read the whole thread):

1. Would fsu and nd have counted as our non-con P5 opponents? Other than fsu, we only play one good non-coastal team per year so would we qualify?

2. Doesn't using the BCS poll to determine the final 3 teams just put us in the same spot as the BCS era? I agree that #9 feeling shafted is better than #5 , but aren't we still going to have the drama every year? Every year there's going to be a team ranked 9+ with a better resume than one of the conference champs.

Question 1: FSU is in conference, it doesn't count for the OOC opponent (P5). ND is independent, it doesn't count. So anyone we play in conference wouldn't count OOC.

Question 2: You're only using the BCS rankings (computer formula) to rank the 3 at-large teams. The conference champions AUTO qualify for the playoff. The only teams competing for at-large teams are at-large teams.

So we would not qualify with our 2016 schedule, or did I misunderstand? Using BCS for the other 3 teams might actually be more contentious. Everybody gets that sometimes psu wins the conference even though osu and Michigan are better, that's fine. It's those other spots where it gets dicey. Now you've got teams at 9-2 saying hey, we beat #6 (conference champ) but we're being left out because the computers think some other 9-2 team is better.

As you've said, you can't please everybody. 8 teams seems like a lot of games to me, but I agree that it would do a better job of choosing a NC than the BCS or 4 team playoff would and I think the terms you've laid out cover as many bases as possible.

 

[Consigliere]

So we're going to make conference championships more meaningful by adding three non-champions to the playoff?

Not sure why the conference championships aren't more meaningful. If you automatically fill 5/8 teams with conference championships, you remove any human element from 63% of the field. As opposed with today, where all 4 teams are SELECTED by a group. Remember, they're SELECTED by a group rather than allowing the actual results dictate the selections.

The goal should be to remove as much bias as possible and focus on the ACTUAL RESULTS on the field.

And an 8-team playoff only increases the "human element." It's pretty easy to decide the top 4 teams. It's a lot harder when you're talking about the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ranked teams.

I don't think you understand what the "human element" is when you say the above. We shouldn't have people deciding anything. We shouldn't have them "DECIDE" the top 4 teams. We should have a set of standards and as minimal decisions as possible. Today they're deciding 100% of the field, that is 100% human element.

If you really cared about those things, the only option would be a six-team playoff with five Power 5 champions and the highest ranked Group of 5 champion. That would be better than an 8-team playoff, but still too much.

No. I don't want 6 and I don't want independents or non-P5. I want at-large teams to be forced to qualify for an at-large spot. I want to have 8 since it focuses on the conference champions and allows non-conference champions to qualify for an at-large spot. I want the actual results on the field to matter most and not a group of people.

Does anybody actually think this year's playoffs are worse without Penn State? That's what we're upset about? There's nothing to fix. The system works. The past two years have been exciting as ****, and this one should be no different. Keep it the way it is.

Don't use the word "upset". I couldn't give 2 chits about Penn State or Michigan or anyone that isn't Miami. There are major issues with the current system and they stem from the HUMAN ELEMENT part. We don't need a group selecting teams, we don't need the human element involved.

The system is really flawed and there have been countless examples of it. Just like this year having issues. You keep supporting a system that "decides" who is worthy instead of allowing the actual results dictate who is qualified for it.

 

[NJshoreCane]

I don't have a problem with 4 team playoff. No one in 5th or 6th place at this point of the season should be contending for a title.

A couple of years back a 5th place team (in the coaches poll) jumped everyone and won the National Championship.

 

[Consigliere]

So we would not qualify with our 2016 schedule, or did I misunderstand? Using BCS for the other 3 teams might actually be more contentious. Everybody gets that sometimes psu wins the conference even though osu and Michigan are better, that's fine. It's those other spots where it gets dicey. Now you've got teams at 9-2 saying hey, we beat #6 (conference champ) but we're being left out because the computers think some other 9-2 team is better.

As you've said, you can't please everybody. 8 teams seems like a lot of games to me, but I agree that it would do a better job of choosing a NC than the BCS or 4 team playoff would and I think the terms you've laid out cover as many bases as possible.

No we wouldn't qualify for an at-large bid.

I don't think you understand the BCS part for some reason.

To be an at-large team, you must first QUALIFY (see the prior post about scheduling).

Then, all the qualified teams are ranked using a computer formula that measures the following criteria:

- SOS
- Record
- RPI

There is no human group selecting.

---------------------

As for 8 teams seems like a lot of games. It is an additional 4 games in total (4-2-1) as opposed to (2-1).

 

[Tony Perps]

Richt is a coach-- it's in his best interest to have more teams in a playoff. His opinion is meaningless. Eight games is too much and kills the best regular season is sports.

Four is perfect. Go back through history-- four solves every problem. Imagine if we had this system in 2000 or 2004. There will always be someone whining whether it is 4 or 8 or 16.

What makes college football great is that a random upset in October has the significance of a playoff game. Get rid of that, and you just have pro football with worse players and a band.

Yep.