Started By
Message
Why 6 > 8
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:55 am
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:55 am
I know a lot of people are already wanting to move the playoff from 4 to 8. IMO that is really devaluing the regular season and watering down the level of play in the playoff. I think 6 is the magic number and if we look back the past few years, I think it backs up my thoughts.
2014
1. Bama 12-1
2. UO 12-1
3. FSU 13-0
4. tOSU 12-1
--
5. BU 11-1
6. TCU 11-1
--
7. Ms State 10-2
8. Mi State 10-2
It seems pretty clear to me there was a top 6 then everyone else. No 2 loss teams in the playoff yet it captures all 1 loss teams.
2013
1. FSU 13-0
2. Auburn 12-1
3. Bama 11-1
4. Mi State 12-1
--
5. Stanford 11-2
6. BU 11-1
--
7. tOSU 12-1
8. Mizzou 11-2
Here it lets in 2 loss Pac Champ Stanford, but keeps out a MIzzou team that just got killed in the champ game.
2012
1. Notre Dame 12-0
2. Bama 12-1
3. Florida 11-1
4. UO 11-1
--
5. KSU 11-1
6. Stanford 11-2
--
7. UGA 11-2
8. LSU 10-2
Again only lets in one 2 loss team and keeps out UGA and LSU who already had losses to the teams at the top of the rankings.
2011
1. LSU 13-0
2. Bama 11-1
3. Okie St 11-1
4. Stanford 11-1
--
5. UO 11-2
6. Ark 10-2
--
7. Boise St 11-1
8. KSU 10-2
Keeps out an undeserving BSU team and a not so good KSU team in a weak Big XII.
Looking back over the last 4 years which team ranked 7,8 really had a strong argument that they were the best team? The only ONE that might is tOSU in 2013, but they ended up losing to #13 Clemson in their bowl so probably not. Plus it rewards the top teams by giving them a bye like the NFL does.
2014
1. Bama 12-1
2. UO 12-1
3. FSU 13-0
4. tOSU 12-1
--
5. BU 11-1
6. TCU 11-1
--
7. Ms State 10-2
8. Mi State 10-2
It seems pretty clear to me there was a top 6 then everyone else. No 2 loss teams in the playoff yet it captures all 1 loss teams.
2013
1. FSU 13-0
2. Auburn 12-1
3. Bama 11-1
4. Mi State 12-1
--
5. Stanford 11-2
6. BU 11-1
--
7. tOSU 12-1
8. Mizzou 11-2
Here it lets in 2 loss Pac Champ Stanford, but keeps out a MIzzou team that just got killed in the champ game.
2012
1. Notre Dame 12-0
2. Bama 12-1
3. Florida 11-1
4. UO 11-1
--
5. KSU 11-1
6. Stanford 11-2
--
7. UGA 11-2
8. LSU 10-2
Again only lets in one 2 loss team and keeps out UGA and LSU who already had losses to the teams at the top of the rankings.
2011
1. LSU 13-0
2. Bama 11-1
3. Okie St 11-1
4. Stanford 11-1
--
5. UO 11-2
6. Ark 10-2
--
7. Boise St 11-1
8. KSU 10-2
Keeps out an undeserving BSU team and a not so good KSU team in a weak Big XII.
Looking back over the last 4 years which team ranked 7,8 really had a strong argument that they were the best team? The only ONE that might is tOSU in 2013, but they ended up losing to #13 Clemson in their bowl so probably not. Plus it rewards the top teams by giving them a bye like the NFL does.
18
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:55 am to Farmer1906
Up vote
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:56 am to Farmer1906
Why change.... 4 is great
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:56 am to Farmer1906
The margin of error becomes way to big with 8
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:57 am to Farmer1906
I like it. Gives the top two teams a bye.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:58 am to Farmer1906
huge disadvantages by giving teams a bye week.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:59 am to Farmer1906
With two only one team is left out on rare occassion.
With four, up to three are left out.
With eight, six to ten are left out.
Stop the insanity now.
With four, up to three are left out.
With eight, six to ten are left out.
Stop the insanity now.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:01 am to Farmer1906
You make a pretty convincing argument there, Farmer.
I'm sold
I'm sold
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:06 am to Farmer1906
Dammit. I sincerely hate agreeing with an Aggie.
I concur. 6 teams would be a good #.
quote:
Farmer1906
I concur. 6 teams would be a good #.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:16 am to Farmer1906
I've always thought 8 was an ideal number, take the 5 major conference winners and throw in the top 3 at-large teams.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:20 am to Farmer1906
Understand that it is possible for a 10-2 might get in that shouldn't but the positives outweigh the negatives considering there are 120+ teams.
And byes suck
And byes suck
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:24 am to Farmer1906
4>6
Posted on 12/10/14 at 11:28 am to Farmer1906
I agree with you.
3-6 and 4-5 with the higher seed hosting the game and 1 and 2 get a bye. Seems like a great format to me.
3-6 and 4-5 with the higher seed hosting the game and 1 and 2 get a bye. Seems like a great format to me.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 11:34 am to Farmer1906
6 is perfect because you still get a major reward for getting into that top 2.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 11:39 am to Farmer1906
Throw thr regular season out at the end and just have a 120 team playoff IMO
More football for everyone, u are unamerican if u don't like this
More football for everyone, u are unamerican if u don't like this
Posted on 12/10/14 at 12:31 pm to Farmer1906
Look at how many players get banged up and injured in a typical game. Giving the top two teams a bye could be an advantage that many would see as unfair. I agree.
4 is plenty.
4 is plenty.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 12:33 pm to Farmer1906
What's best is irrelevant. It will eventually be 16 and college football will turn into a shittier version of the NFL.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 12:46 pm to Farmer1906
I like 5 teams with 4+5 playing a play-in game.
The problem now is that you could have 5 clear-cut great teams that are conference champions, and one has to be kept out. We need at least 5. Let's take another look with just 5 teams:
2014
1. Bama 12-1
2. UO 12-1
3. FSU 13-0
4. tOSU 12-1 <--Play-in
5. BU 11-1 <--Play-in
--
6. TCU 11-1
7. Ms State 10-2
8. Mi State 10-2
2013
1. FSU 13-0
2. Auburn 12-1
3. Bama 11-1
4. Mi State 12-1 <--Play-in
5. Stanford 11-2 <--Play-in
--
6. BU 11-1
7. tOSU 12-1
8. Mizzou 11-2
2012
1. Notre Dame 12-0
2. Bama 12-1
3. Florida 11-1
4. UO 11-1 <--Play-in
5. KSU 11-1 <--Play-in
--
6. Stanford 11-2
7. UGA 11-2
8. LSU 10-2
2011
1. LSU 13-0
2. Bama 11-1
3. Okie St 11-1
4. Stanford 11-1 <--Play-in
5. UO 11-2 <--Play-in
--
6. Ark 10-2
7. Boise St 11-1
8. KSU 10-2
Obviously, you'd need to shuffle it around so that the play-in games would be a possible elimination game for a power 5 runner-up.
The problem now is that you could have 5 clear-cut great teams that are conference champions, and one has to be kept out. We need at least 5. Let's take another look with just 5 teams:
2014
1. Bama 12-1
2. UO 12-1
3. FSU 13-0
4. tOSU 12-1 <--Play-in
5. BU 11-1 <--Play-in
--
6. TCU 11-1
7. Ms State 10-2
8. Mi State 10-2
2013
1. FSU 13-0
2. Auburn 12-1
3. Bama 11-1
4. Mi State 12-1 <--Play-in
5. Stanford 11-2 <--Play-in
--
6. BU 11-1
7. tOSU 12-1
8. Mizzou 11-2
2012
1. Notre Dame 12-0
2. Bama 12-1
3. Florida 11-1
4. UO 11-1 <--Play-in
5. KSU 11-1 <--Play-in
--
6. Stanford 11-2
7. UGA 11-2
8. LSU 10-2
2011
1. LSU 13-0
2. Bama 11-1
3. Okie St 11-1
4. Stanford 11-1 <--Play-in
5. UO 11-2 <--Play-in
--
6. Ark 10-2
7. Boise St 11-1
8. KSU 10-2
Obviously, you'd need to shuffle it around so that the play-in games would be a possible elimination game for a power 5 runner-up.
Posted on 1/7/15 at 9:47 am to Farmer1906
I'm going to go ahead a bump this with the thought of, if the playoff was 6, right now TCU would have likely eliminated FSU and have a killer TCU/UO match up and tOSU would have eliminated BU and primed to upset BAMA again. The title game would have likely been tOSU vs the UO/TCU winner.
With what we have now, TCU could be the best team in football yet not gets its shot at it all.
BUT if you go 8 then you get an unworthy Miss State team in there who couldn't even handle GT.
With what we have now, TCU could be the best team in football yet not gets its shot at it all.
BUT if you go 8 then you get an unworthy Miss State team in there who couldn't even handle GT.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News