Previous two posts, good stuff, and points.

 

I am all for expanding the playoffs. College is a different beast from the NFL I think in terms of resting players. Resting players is a tricky thing at that level. You sit 2-3 of your contributors and you risk losing at the college level.

 

A team may have very well gotten into their conference title game, but a loss could drastically affect them in the playoffs. And as pointed out, the amount of time between the start of the playoffs and the last game is already pretty lengthy. Tack on another week or two and you could potentially be without a game for 6 weeks. The margin of error sitting your starter to (most back ups) is pretty big and a loss could have a pretty good impact.

 

With the amount of teams at the collegiate level I just think that 4 is to little to get into the tournament. I have said this in a previous post, but I think that on just about any given day anyone in the top 10, and for the most part the top 16 could beat one another.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Because it is relevant and because the last thread went sour, what do you guys think about how this 8 team format would currently look? 

 

 

Rose Bowl (Big Ten champ vs Pac 12 champ)

Ohio St. vs Oregon

 

Fiesta Bowl (Pac 12 champ vs At-large #1)

TCU vs Alabama

 

Sugar Bowl (SEC champ vs At large #2)

Mississippi St. vs Baylor

 

Orange Bowl

Florida St. vs Arizona St.(ACC champ vs At large #3)

This is what it should be and wouldnt have much controversy

 

Win your conf. and your in,then the last 3 going to at large gets 3 deserving teams in

 

Right now its a mess having some people choose who they think the top 4 teams are

 

If the NFL was that way, Ravens, Steelers, Giants and Pats would have less Super Bowl wins

---

<B><FONT color=cyan>Jags this is your year</FONT></B>

Very good post and very respectable opinions. I do think that 6 or 8 teams would be better than 4, though. I'll respond to a few of your concerns with my opinions.

 

Regarding resting starters...

The difference in college football is that you already have 1 month or more of rest, so everyone goes into the post-season completely rested. In the NFL, teams rest their starters because they get 1 week off at most. The majority of NFL teams don't get any rest before the posteason starts. Also, I think that college coaches would be more inclined to give their 18-22 year old kids another game of experience and another game of film to fix errors. If you play for a powerhouse like Oregon, your starters only really get tested a couple times a year. That experience and film-study is invaluable.

 

Regarding seeding...

Seeding is actually a significant advantage or disadvantage in the NFL. I do admit that the 8 team format I suggested doesn't reward seeding enough, but the trade off was keeping the Bowls happy and keeping some history in place. The Rose Bowl is historic and for decades put the top Big Ten team against the top Pac 12 team. The format I presented keeps that history and even intensifies it by giving it more implications. I agree with giving top seeds a slight advantage, though, and to do that you could scrap the history of bowls and give home field advantage to the top 4 seeds. Home field advantage is huge in college football (more enthusiastic fanbases, larger stadiums, climate, etc.). Teams will most certainly put 100% effort into getting a 1-4 seed vs a 5-8 seed.

 

With a 6 team format, there are many ways to give advantages to higher seeds. Seeds 1 and 2 get byes (huge advantage), seeds 3 and 4 get homes games. While you may not have any interest in the teams seeding, the impact of seeding advantages does make the game worthwhile.

 

Regarding keeping it at 4...

First, in 2009 there were 5 teams that were undefeated. In other years, there are more than 4 teams with legitimate cases for best team in the country. Look at 2008. Try deciding which 4 teams make the playoff that year without second guessing yourself. With 4 teams, you run the risk of leaving out National Championship caliber teams with National Championship caliber resumes.

 

I think those are fair points about resting starters.  But my concern wasnt the fact that they'd be resting starters as much as their games being irrelevant.  Heck you see teams rest their starters now when they get up by big enough scores.  It's just the fact that a number of teams like Oregon or FSU or whomever else who could afford to lose would have the incentive to rest their starters, or not try as hard, or not gameplan, etc, etc... all the other negatives that come with playing in games that dont matter.

 

And I realize why seeding is important.  Especially if you created an 8 team playoff where the first round became home games instead of neutral site games.  But as a fan, I dont care about it.  I dont think any fan does unless your team is one of those in the playoffs.  I'm an NFL fan really only as long as the Jags are still alive.  And when the Jags stink, my interest in the NFL wanes.  Sure I'll watch the playoffs because I enjoy football and its compelling but I dont care about the regular season but it doesnt matter.  Looking at the standings I feel pretty confident that the Patriots are going to win the AFC East.  Lets say its the last weekend of the year and if they win the game they get homefield and if they lose they miss out on any opening round bye.  Do I care if they win or lose?  No.  Will I go out of my way to watch that game?  No.  And I dont think I'm alone.  I know I'll see them in a week or two in the playoffs so who cares?  On the flipside lets look at Oregon.  When they are playing the Civil War that last weekend of the year, if that game is close in the 2nd half I am absolutely watching that game and it will be compelling television because an Oregon loss probably drops them out of the playoffs... even though they could still win the Pac12.  But if that game only became important because of seeding I wouldnt care at all.

 

Ultimately I want to see the best teams have to win their games down the stretch to make the playoff.  And then I want to see only the best of the best in the playoff.  And I think college football has that.  I guess I just dont understand the need to guarantee conference champs into the playoff.  What if a lousy team wins one of the power conferences?  Look at Mizzou.  They arent very good.  They do have a lot of talented players, but their QB has been wildly inconsistent and as a result they arent that great.  But on any given day, if their QB Mauk plays well and a couple bounces go their way, they've got enough talent to pull an upset.  But why in the world should they be in the playoff?  What about a couple years ago when Wisconsin won the Big10 at 7-5? They shouldnt be in a playoff either.

 

Now if you had some caveat with an 8 team playoff that only conference champs who are ranked in the top 10 get guarantees then I might be a little more willing.  But even then I still think there'd be too many games that would lose relevancy.  

As far as the 2008 season, the only downside in my mind to only 4 teams is undefeated midmajors like Boise or Utah.  I dont think you'll ever have the perfect system.  And honestly I'd rather lean towards too few than too many.  The whole goal is to find the best team.  It doesnt need to be like the NFL where some 9-7 #6 seed backs in and then gets hot at the right time and wins the whole thing.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

This is what it should be and wouldnt have much controversy

 

Win your conf. and your in,then the last 3 going to at large gets 3 deserving teams in

 

Right now its a mess having some people choose who they think the top 4 teams are

 

If the NFL was that way, Ravens, Steelers, Giants and Pats would have less Super Bowl wins

 

No Big 12? That ain't gonna work.

 

No controversy? You just kind of glossed over "3 deserving teams in". Who decides they are deserving?

 

If it's a mess having some people choose who they think the top 4 teams are how is it not going to be a mess to decide those three deserving teams?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

No Big 12? That ain't gonna work.

 

No controversy? You just kind of glossed over "3 deserving teams in". Who decides they are deserving?

 

If it's a mess having some people choose who they think the top 4 teams are how is it not going to be a mess to decide those three deserving teams?

 

The no Big 12 thing was a typo. Big 12 champ gets the Fiesta Bowl (see: TCU in the post). The Pac-12 champ gets the Rose Bowl.

---

Don't understand why Marshall and Florida State aren't ranked closer together.. they're both 11-0 and play the same weak schedule.

---

I ain't no monkey... I'm an ape.

Don't understand why Marshall and Florida State aren't ranked closer together.. they're both 11-0 and play the same weak schedule.

 

Damn, five in a row has really done a number on you.

---

I'm not being a jerk when I say this...but if FSU gets bumped to #4, would anyone be shocked?

---