Yup.
Printable View
I mean, sure, but I won't care nearly as much (just like I don't care as much about bubble teams in the NCAAs). The goal isn't to eliminate the kvetching, the goal is just to make sure all the teams that should have a real shot/have earned a shot are included (generally this means including a couple teams that don't really have a shot, just as we see in the NCAA tournament and most professional playoffs). Team #5 has a much better case for kvetching than team #13.
The bigger the field, the more lopsided games we'll see...I guess I could see eight as being a reasonable maximum...
I mean, most of the CFP games were already about as lopsided as it gets. I truly don't think it could be much worse. I do think that in the long run it will lead to less lopsided games, as the idea that you have to go to Alabama or whatever to play in the playoffs starts to dissipate with more teams cycling in and out.
Edit: In terms of parity, I actually think 4 teams lead to more stratification among the top programs than the 2 team BCS did, and is probably the worst case scenario for encouraging competitive balance (although that is total hindsight, not something I would have expected at the time).
The 12 team playoff is practically a 17 or more team playoff. The championship of each power 5 conference is the first round with the championship of other leagues each year being required wins to get at large bids.
I don't like the bye for the top 4 teams. 16 teams is no different than in basketball when the Number 1 seed plays a 16 seed. And yeah, once every 30 years a 1 might be upset, and we'll love it.
Personally I think 8 teams provides everyone that has a shot at winning 3 straight against top teams an opptunity and doesn’t add the unfairness of byes or extend for a 4th playoff game.
Ideally (if $ not a factor), eliminate the worthless conference championship games. The uneven strength of conference divisions often results in one of the top 2 teams in a conference not playing and creates potential for an upset that creates more problems determining who gets the coveted playoff spots. IMHO the conference championship games are the worst development in recent years.
I am trying to think through how this expanded playoff might impact the growing trend of players skipping bowl games, etc. because they are entering the draft. Part of me thinks that if a player is in a bowl game that can help their team move towards a championship vs. a random bowl game that is not as meaningful they might be more interested in playing. The flip side is that every additional game they play is another chance to get hurt and not cash in. Also, is there more value in going to do training targeted towards the combine vs. giving scouts more actual game tape to watch?
If a team seeded 5 through 12, i.e. a team that doesn't get a bye, advances to the championship game, then they would play four playoff games.
Cut back to an 11-game season and/or eliminate conference title games. If the health and well-being of the players matters more than the bottom line.
Ha! Ha! I crack myself up. Yes, I'll be here all week.
I'll suggest (opposite of Jim) expanding to 32 teams and do like the NHL and play every other day ! No byes, survival of the fittest.
I would even vote for a 10 team conference. 9 game home-and-home basketball… 18 games… and 9 of 12 football games in-conference. But NO MORE THAN 10. Maybe the Big 10 and eventually the PAC 10 had it right all along…