What's your best argument against expanding the CFP to eight teams? (Poll!)

[YLGator]

But the "undefeated or 1 loss P5 champs out there" would get their opportunities, too. We're talking about an 8-team playoff, remember?

If Florida came into the CFP as a 2-loss SEC champ, then proceeded to beat a couple of undefeated P5 champs on the way to the NC game, you'd seriously feel like those other teams got jobbed and we didn't really deserve to be there? Even though we beat them fair and square on the field?

The playoff format you seem to be so interested in already exists in a league that is so compelling that most of its fans have resorted to creating fantasy leagues during the regular season just to keep them interested. Just watch football on Sunday if that's what you want.

As far as your latest scenario is concerned, my position is that a 2 loss SEC champ Florida team has no business playing for the title even if they would stand a good chance of winning. The fact that they sh*t the bed during the regular season while other teams got the job done would eliminate them in my book.

 

[G. Gordon Gator]

A 2 loss SEC Champ UF team should hoist the conference trophy, enjoy the Sugar Bowl and look for what additions or changes are needed to take the next step. In short, what Spurrier and Gator fans did for much of the ‘90s.

There’s no entitlement that says the SEC has to have a rep in the playoff. If it somehow cannibalizes itself or sees an implosion in the SECG that costs it a spot, so be it. That team you described would’ve been our 2015 team if we’d pulled the upset in Atl. So one minute we’re taking down FAU in double OT and being shut out at home by the noles, the next week we’re in the playoff with Treon Harris? Yikes.

Nobody said there was an entitlement for the SEC. Each P5 conference champ gets to go. The additional three at-large bids make it hard to argue that any deserving teams are getting shut out.

Your concern, though, is not about deserving teams being shut out. What you don't like is teams who you deem undeserving getting opportunities. You do not accept the proposition that if they win on the field, by definition that means they deserved the opportunity to play. I do. I regard the 2008 NY Giants as 1000% legitimate, no-asterisk NFL Champions. You do not.

So, Florida peaks in the latter half of the season.
Makes the 8-team CFP as a 2-loss SEC champ.
Wins in the quarters!
Wins in the semis!
Plays undefeated Clemson for the NC...and wins!
Gator Nation is celebrating wildly!
But you and @YLGator are sitting there like:

I categorically reject your anti-competitive worldview.

And now, it is time to watch basketball.

 

[soflagator]

Nobody said there was an entitlement for the SEC. Each P5 conference champ gets to go. The additional three at-large bids make it hard to argue that any deserving teams are getting shut out.

Your concern, though, is not about deserving teams being shut out. What you don't like is teams who you deem undeserving getting opportunities. You do not accept the proposition that if they win on the field, by definition that means they deserved the opportunity to play. I do. I regard the 2008 NY Giants as 1000% legitimate, no-asterisk NFL Champions. You do not.

So, Florida peaks in the latter half of the season.
Makes the 8-team CFP as a 2-loss SEC champ.
Wins in the quarters!
Wins in the semis!
Plays undefeated Clemson for the NC...and wins!
Gator Nation is celebrating wildly!
But you and @YLGator are sitting there like:

I categorically reject your anti-competitive worldview.

And now, it is time to watch basketball.

Incorrect. That Giants team has no asterisk and is completely legit because, like the basketball you’re about to watch, that’s how that sport crowns its champion. In college football, it’s different. And it works. In essence, are you not saying our NCs aren’t legit because there was only one other team in each of those cases that had a shot, while 6 more teams sat by without getting their shot at us? If it is inequitable now with 4, how bad was in ‘96, ‘06 and ‘08?

As to the entitlement of the SEC, you’re saying that the 2-loss SEC winner should automatically be in(our beastly 2015 team for example). That sounds like entitlement in that it implies there’s no way the SEC winner should be left out. If, however, it’s your contention that all P5 winners should be in, that’s different. Unfortunately that also means that in a year like 2011, if UCLA upsets Oregon in their championship game, then they—a 6-6 regular season team—are in the playoff. It’s one or the other.

Maybe you can clarify and give your opinion. Because I’m a little torn as to whether a McElwain led ‘15 Gator team or a .500 ‘11 Bruin team would’ve been better for college football.

 

[RocketCityGator]

How does that benefit UF? Other than in years we suck we might get an at large bid.

Did not know "benefit to UF" was key to the discussion. But you already answered your own question in your "suck" kind of way. A decent team (UF) that didn't win the Conference Championship would be in the running for one of the at-large spots due to the strength of the SEC.

 

[gatorkev85]

I'm not in favor of expanding the playoffs. I have a better solution than that.

Hear me out because it's not that easy of a task but can be done. I think every year the playoff teams from the previous year should play each other the 1st week of the season. 1 plays 3, 2 plays 4 in week 1. You would do this by playing in a neutral site each year. I also believe the NY6 teams should play each other as well in the 1st week all at neutral sites. This can be done by ping pong balls to determine who plays who.

By doing this format half of the teams from the NY6 and Playoffs would start 0-1 and would have a tougher time making the playoffs that year. This would create more diversity in the playoffs and would instantly make the regular season more important.

 

[soflagator]

I'm not in favor of expanding the playoffs. I have a better solution than that.

Hear me out because it's not that easy of a task but can be done. I think every year the playoff teams from the previous year should play each other the 1st week of the season. 1 plays 3, 2 plays 4 in week 1. You would do this by playing in a neutral site each year. I also believe the NY6 teams should play each other as well in the 1st week all at neutral sites. This can be done by ping pong balls to determine who plays who.

By doing this format half of the teams from the NY6 and Playoffs would start 0-1 and would have a tougher time making the playoffs that year. This would create more diversity in the playoffs and would instantly make the regular season more important.

Finally someone comes along with a good idea.

I actually work shopped something very similar. But mine included removing the facemasks and adding ravenous wolves.

 

[Thought Criminal]

Agreed, I'd say all P5 champs, plus the top-ranked non-P5, plus the two remaining highest-ranked teams regardless of conference.

Apologies if somebody already touched on this, but if there was an expansion I wouldn't mind seeing six teams... the five P5 champions plus one at-large. The top two get a bye, so there is value in being one of the "better" conference champions and play off 3/6 and 4/5. The at-large team could be seeded anywhere among the six.

I think the only reasonable argument a team can make now is that they won their conference and were left out, which will happen every year in a four team playoff. The argument for a team missing the one at-large spot (after not winning its conference) is a lot flimsier than a one loss conference winner left out.

 

[SeabeeGator]

I'm not in favor of expanding the playoffs. I have a better solution than that.

Hear me out because it's not that easy of a task but can be done. I think every year the playoff teams from the previous year should play each other the 1st week of the season. 1 plays 3, 2 plays 4 in week 1. You would do this by playing in a neutral site each year. I also believe the NY6 teams should play each other as well in the 1st week all at neutral sites. This can be done by ping pong balls to determine who plays who.

By doing this format half of the teams from the NY6 and Playoffs would start 0-1 and would have a tougher time making the playoffs that year. This would create more diversity in the playoffs and would instantly make the regular season more important.

Don’t necessarily agree but I like that someone is thinking outside the box. Best way to kind an innovative solution.

 

[URGatorBait]

Does any team really need 4 OOC games?
Drop the dead weight if you really want the regular season to mean something.

 

[SeabeeGator]

Does any team really need 4 OOC games?
Drop the dead weight if you really want the regular season to mean something.

This site should do the same. I’ll forward your name to ox for formal processing.

 

[URGatorBait]

This site should do the same. I’ll forward your name to ox for formal processing.

I am in conference

 

[SeabeeGator]

I am in conference

You’re the 2019 Arkansas of posters.

 

[URGatorBait]

You’re the 2019 Arkansas of posters.

Well I guess that makes you Central Michigan

 

[SeabeeGator]

Well I guess that makes you Central Michigan

You’re confusing me with Law. 78 is the UCF of the board. Trying to figure out what jboss would be.

 

[JDW]

You mean resemble the teams or their fans?

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

Just for sh*ts and giggles, here would be the seedings for an 8-team playoff this year under the criteria I proposed. Which again is all P5 champs, the highest-ranked Go5 champ, and the two remaining highest-ranked teams regardless of conference. Teams would then be seeded according to their ranking.

1. LSU (SEC Champ)
2. Ohio State (B10 Champ)
3. Clemson (ACC Champ)
4. Oklahoma (B12 Champ)
5. Georgia (At large)
6. Oregon (P12 Champ)
7. Baylor (At large)
8. Memphis (Go5 / AAC Champ)

Right away I'm realizing the Go5 deal needs to be tweaked. Memphis was the highest-ranked Go5 champ this year, but they were all the way down at #17 and there are too many more-deserving P5 teams above them.

I still like the idea of giving one Go5 representative a shot, but let's do it this way: One spot is reserved for the highest-ranked Go5 champ, but only if that team finishes in the top 10 overall. Or let's say top 12. Otherwise it just goes to the highest-ranked team, period.

So, sorry Memphis. Wisconsin gets your spot. And with that, the CFP this year would simply consist of the top 8 teams in the rankings. These would be the quarterfinal matchups:

LSU v. Wisconsin
Ohio State v. Baylor
Clemson v. Oregon
Oklahoma v. Georgia

Yeah...but I’m not watching that shiiat and I suspect I’m not the only one.

And isn’t adding additional conditions to the G-5 team making it (must now be ranked in final top 10) tantamount to more subjectivity, which is what you’re trying to reduce by increasing the number of teams included?

I’ve said it for years and I’ll say it again. The more teams you include in the playoff, the more bubble teams you create with a valid argument as to why they’ve been screwed by being left out. If the title is determined by #1 vs #2, you MIGHT have one team with a legit gripe. If it’s 4 teams you’ll typically have 2-3 teams with a reason to cry foul. Go to 8 teams and you’ll have 4 or more teams left out crying foul. The solution is to go back to #1 vs #2, 1 game for all the marbles.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

If you have a problem with who's in it, then your problem is with the ranking system, not the concept of the playoff.

Come on GGG, you could say the same thing if it was #1 vs #2...that the issue is the ranking, not the concept.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

So are you in favor of reducing the NCAA basketball tournament to a 16-team field instead of 64? After all, how often does one of those Cinderella Stories make it to the ball? What's the point of playing a bunch of extra games when we all can see with our eyes who's going to end up winning?

We’re not talking about NCAA basketball, we’re talking about NCAA FBS football and part of what makes FBS college football unique is how the champion is determined.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

Well you probably won't agree with this. If it were up to me, the 8 teams would be the 5 P5 conference champions and the 3 at large teams based on a defined formula (not a bunch of voters). Which means computers that can look at an aggregation of data, apply some agreed upon formula, pick the 3 at-large teams.

And the issue was not UGa, it was Bama. After Bama's loss to LSU, seemed like sports show was talking about how Bama would still slide into that 4th spot over a B12 or PAC10 champion. I hate that kind of BS.

Guess what? A bunch of people (aka voters) are going to determine which data the computers look at. Point being is there always has and always will be a human element to all of this. Ditto for the NFL, who “supposedly” determines their champion “on the field”. The humans give the crummy teams an easier schedule and the humans also determine the rules of who makes the playoffs.

Anybody who doesn’t see that and still clamors for CFB to “win it in the field like the pros do” isn’t paying attention as CFB already settles it in the field. No need to water it down any more.

 

[JDW]

The only question I have about all these arguments is are y’all arguing against more games or that you don’t like the current systems selection? With NDSU winning most playoffs in the FCS lately...it’s got to make an argument that the best teams are the haves and have nots...period. They have a full playoff and rarely is there a Cinderella story. But honestly there rarely is in the NCAA tournament either which is why it’s such a big deal...and if March madness is any indication why not? Why not enjoy more games? I for one would love there to be more teams in it but the lopsided games are a drawback...I see both sides but I want what’s best for football and that’s would be a clearly defined non human element qualifier...that’s my two cents anyway