To those of you expecting a switch to an 8 team playoff any time soon . . . forget it!

[hogsanity]

. What cannot be debated is that according to the rules we have a NC that was actually played for.

We had that with the BCS as well. According to the rules the teams ranked 1 & 2 in the bcs played for the bcsnc.

The only thing that changed with the playoff is that 2 fewer teams were excluded. Instead of teams 3 & 4 being left out, now it is 5 & 6.

[Pork Twain]

No way it goes to 8.  I have argued in several threads.....you got to keep the regular season from being compromised.  4 got it right this year...it will next year as well.

As I have said in several threads, since that means something I guess, 4 did not even get it right this year but the Big-12 made it easy by not declaring a conference champ.  That will not be the case and the power-5 will not be ok with one of them being left out.  Possibly two if ND takes care of business.  That just will not be tolerated in the long run.

I love having a playoff and think this is the best it has ever been but I realize that this is not the long-term solution.  You cannot strong-arm the Big-12 into getting two more teams and having a championship game and then leave their champion out.  That will not float and none of the big-5 will buy off on that, because each of them knows that on any given year, their conf champion could be the one left out.

1- Big-12
2- B1G
3- ACC
4- SEC
5- Pac-12
6- ND (unfortunately the rankings love them so their impact on the top four must be considered.)

Does not fit nicely into a 4-team playoff.

[EastexHawg]

completely agree.

anymore that 4 teams, and top teams no longer have to play themselves into a bid.

TCU won their last eight games after a last second loss to #5 Baylor in early October.  They were co-champions of their conference.  In their last two regular season games they beat Texas 48-10 and Iowa State 55-3.

How much more could they have done to "play themselves into a bid"?

When your field doesn't include the champion of a power five conference whose only loss is by three points to a top five team, it's not big enough. 

Everyone keeps saying, "Ohio State winning proves the committee got it right!"  Really?  How so?

Based on the way the teams were seeded, "the committee" thought Ohio State would have lost to both Alabama and Oregon.  How does "the committee" know that TCU...who had one loss, just like Alabama, Oregon, and Ohio State...wouldn't have beaten every one of the four teams in the tournament?

Obviously, one of the four teams they picked was going to win the championship game.  To then claim that the fact that one of them indeed won it is "proof" that the committee chose the "right" teams is faulty logic at best, and downright silly at worst.

[Pork Twain]

Everyone keeps saying, "Ohio State winning proves the committee got it right!"  Really?  How so?

Simple answer is, "It doesn't."

The Big-12 saved the playoff this year by not having a champion.

[Hawgzinbowlz]

To definitively state, immediately following the first playoff, that expectations of an increase, anytime soon, from the current 4 team format should be forgotten is analogous to expecting a trophy after the first few miles of a 26 mile + 385 yard marathon.
Take a deep breath, smooth your hair and watch.
Not enough chairs at the table and too much money being left on the table. lol

" GO HOGS "

[WizardofhOgZ]

To definitively state, immediately following the first playoff, that expectations of an increase, anytime soon, from the current 4 team format should be forgotten is analogous to expecting a trophy after the first few miles of a 26 mile + 385 yard marathon.
Take a deep breath, smooth your hair and watch.
Not enough chairs at the table and too much money being left on the table. lol

" GO HOGS "

Not the best analogy, IMO.  By the same token, it would be just as ludicrous to announce at that same point in the race that before the race was finished, the leader at the halfway point (or, whatever arbitrary point) would be declared the winner and the rest of the race called off. 

I said it wouldn't be changed in the next 10 years, at the earliest.  That would also means it won't change "anytime soon", but that was not the primary point of my post - other than to dismiss those who ARE claiming that it WILL.  And my opinion - or yours - doesn't matter 1/10th as much as the folks who are in the room, actually making those decisions.  That's why I provided a link to an article that contained feedback from that group about the first year of the new system, including quotes regarding the mindset of that group, and why they made the decisions they did.  They are happy with the choices they made, the results they got, and there is no desire to change them.

Listen, EVERYBODY knew there was a lot of money that was being left on the table the last 10 or 15 years (during the BCS era) by not having a larger playoff.  Even BEFORE that time, this was widely understood - but these wheels turn slowly, and now that the concrete has just set on what everyone agrees was a wildly successful first year process, there is NO reason to think it will be jack-hammered and re-poured anytime soon.

You may not like that conclusion, but it's the only reasonable one an objective person would make at this time, after looking at the facts, and putting aside what they (and/or their buddies) may WANT to happen.

[Pork Twain]

To definitively state, immediately following the first playoff, that expectations of an increase, anytime soon, from the current 4 team format should be forgotten is analogous to expecting a trophy after the first few miles of a 26 mile + 385 yard marathon.
Take a deep breath, smooth your hair and watch.
Not enough chairs at the table and too much money being left on the table. lol

" GO HOGS "

Who is saying this?

[passinghog]

8 teams is too many. 4 is the perfect number because you still have to be a great team to make it. With 8, there will be some 2 loss teams included. Not to mention the number of games. That's basically a 16 game season.

[Pork Twain]

8 teams is too many. 4 is the perfect number because you still have to be a great team to make it. With 8, there will be some 2 loss teams included. Not to mention the number of games. That's basically a 16 game season.

Weak

[PorkSoda]

TCU and Baylor can blame their conference, not the committee.

[Hogfaniam]

I want 12. 

I'll never get my wish.

[EastexHawg]

TCU and Baylor can blame their conference, not the committee.

The fact is that neither you, me, nor the committee know if TCU would have beaten any of the teams in the playoff...or maybe even won the national championship.  I know it's the popular thing to say "TCU's conference cost them".  Lucky for Ohio State their loss to a bad Virginia Tech team didn't cost them...nor did Bama's loss to an Ole Miss team that TCU obliterated cost them.

[DeltaBoy]

I told you guys for years before it was announced that we were eventually going to come to a four team playoff format exactly like the NCAA eventually adopted.  And, I've outlined the reasons why the common fan doesn't realize how difficult it would be (on a variety of issues) to expand beyond that (to 8 or 16 teams). 

From June 2007: http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=138749.msg2158852#msg2158852

And from May 2012: http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=482566.msg7273690#msg7273690

Still, I hear chatter on a daily basis about how the NCAA is "going to HAVE to" expand in a  year or two.

Wrong.

You may WANT for that (expansion) to happen, and you may feel that you have a good argument, etc.  But the people that matter - the folks who actually make these decisions - agree with my position.  That discussion took place - and was decided - in 2012, when the committee debated various options and adopted the plan we have today.  And that means no expansion beyond 4 teams for at least the next decade.

Coming out of the recently concluded first year of the new operation, it sounds like there is no new momentum for any change.  Read the words of Playoff Executive Director Bill Hancock for yourselves: 

"There's a lot of reasons our group isn't talking about expanding this," Hancock said, "a lot of reasons they put in four for 12 years. The conference championship games are important to those conferences. That's one of the things that was an issue with eight when we looked at it.

"We know there is a tipping point beyond which the size of a postseason bracket will begin to erode the regular season," he said. "The fact is, nobody knows where that tipping point is. We know it's not four."

And, as for having earlier rounds of a larger playoff on home fields, there is this:

"Hancock said the discussions about having the semifinals on campus 'stayed alive for a long time' because of guaranteed crowds and one fewer week of fan travel. After meeting with the athletic directors, though, the playoff officials were convinced they'd be better off having the semifinals in bowl games."

He has a LOT more to say about it - read it here (scroll down just a little):

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/96793/bill-hancock-archie-manning-talk-playoff

Leadership and mindsets change over time Let a OSU,OU, TEXAS etc get left out in the cold like TCU Did and change will come.

[Hawgzinbowlz]

Not the best analogy, IMO.  By the same token, it would be just as ludicrous to announce at that same point in the race that before the race was finished, the leader at the halfway point (or, whatever arbitrary point) would be declared the winner and the rest of the race called off. = You are correct. It is both entertaining and ludicrous to state, at the beginning of this new playoff system that it is so set in concrete that we should "forget it', when it comes to watching the system evolve and see if there are any changes which occur.

I said it wouldn't be changed in the next 10 years, at the earliest...= Your speculation won't be confirmed for a while. With this being a completely new system, your opinion that it won't change for the next ten years may be correct although I can see several scenarios where it would evolve. If any P5 conference were to fail in having a playoff participant, for several consecutive years, the conference wide fallout (with recruiting, upset commissioners/administrations and fan bases) would generate pressure for change.
I give as much credibility to playoff spokesmen as coach speak. 

Listen, EVERYBODY knew there was a lot of money that was being left on the table the last 10 or 15 years (during the BCS era) by not having a larger playoff.  Even BEFORE that time, this was widely understood - but these wheels turn slowly, and now that the concrete has just set on what everyone agrees was a wildly successful first year process, there is NO reason to think it will be jack-hammered and re-poured anytime soon. = The money will be gravy. See above for the primary reason a change may occur. If the SEC or any other of the P5 were excluded for several consecutive years, pressure for a change would increase and could very easily be instituted.

You may not like that conclusion, but it's the only reasonable one an objective person would make at this time, after looking at the facts, and putting aside what they (and/or their buddies) may WANT to happen. = Your conclusion is a valid opinion that I neither like or dislike (it's simply an opinion). What anyone 'wants' to happen only matters if the 'anyone' are agreement participants. The number 4 could very easily change with the agreement of the participating parties. If enough influence is exerted, the possibility for a playoff contract change, prior to the contracts fulfillment, exists. With the potential volatility of this playoff system an evolution and change in this arrangement could very easily occur...regardless of our preferences.

" GO HOGS "

[bennyl08]

its never going to be perfect, but to me a 4 team playoff is closer than an 8 team playoff.

it depends on which side you want to err on.

in a 4 team, a deserving team may be left out.

in an 8 team, an undeserving may be let in.

I prefer the more exclusive route.

there are also academic concerns, record books, and other things that play into not wanting to extend the season any more than it has to be.

I am more on the inclusive side. What is the purpose of a playoff if not to have the best teams play each other to determine who truly is the best. How can you do that if you don't have the best teams in the playoff? based on the situation this year, the only 4 they could choose were the ones who got in. There's no way you can rightfully justify leaving out an undefeated FSU over TCU. However, at the same time, you can't point and say that TCU was just as deserving as any of the other teams. Nomatter the number, there will be bubble controversy. With an  seed playoff, you can be assured that the teams truly deserving actually make it while any controversy is with teams who don't have an unalienable claim to be in in the first place.

Secondly, you have money. Before, there were 5 BCS bowl games (4 regular and the natty). Now, there are only 3 big time bowl games. That is 2 major money, big sponsor bowl games lost. On top of that, you have 6 major conferences. By definition of a 4 seed playoff, you are diminishing two (even if you don't want to count the other conference, you are losing at least 1 entire conference's passion for the playoffs).

8 seed makes more sense competitively and monetarily.

[discombobulationist]

To be fair, this is the same Bill Hancock that for years tried to convince us all that we didn't even need a playoff because the BCS was SOOOOO great. He's a stooge. I also don't get the argument that more football is a bad thing. People complain about the number of bowls, or there's too many teams in the basketball tourney. If you don't want to watch, nobody's forcing you.

[texhog]

I think when they do go to 6 or 8 teams they will have to keep those games at one of the traditional bowl sites as opposed to on campus.  Otherwise you would have 2 or 4 teams who lose the first playoff game who never get to play in a bowl game.  I think that would be a big deal to the bowls to lose 2-4 of the best teams to an on-campus playoff.

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

You "told" us so....congrats. A decade is not much considering it took many to get a playoff to happen at all.

At my age they're starting to stack up like cord-wood...

[Hogfaniam]

I think when they do go to 6 or 8 teams they will have to keep those games at one of the traditional bowl sites as opposed to on campus.  Otherwise you would have 2 or 4 teams who lose the first playoff game who never get to play in a bowl game.  I think that would be a big deal to the bowls to lose 2-4 of the best teams to an on-campus playoff.

Nah.   Just play the first round right after the conference champ games.  Winners move on to New Years Day semi's.  Losers go to a NY 6 bowl somewhere.

[EastexHawg]

If you're chosen for the playoff field of 8, why do you need to play in another bowl game if you lose?  The first round games would be bowl games.

Would you rather play Ohio State with a chance to advance to the national championship game...or play 8-4 Georgia Tech in the Chick Fil-A Bowl?

[hogsanity]

The fact is that neither you, me, nor the committee know if TCU would have beaten any of the teams in the playoff...or maybe even won the national championship.  I know it's the popular thing to say "TCU's conference cost them".  Lucky for Ohio State their loss to a bad Virginia Tech team didn't cost them...nor did Bama's loss to an Ole Miss team that TCU obliterated cost them.

What cost TCU was having a 20+ point lead in the 4th quarter against Baylor, and the puking it up. Scoring 58 pts and LOSING cost them, and it should cost a team.

But this goes back to my main point in all of this, there is no SET way to get into the playoff. No magic # of wins, no auto bid for winning a certain conference. A group of people have to pick you.

[EastexHawg]

What cost TCU was having a 20+ point lead in the 4th quarter against Baylor, and the puking it up. Scoring 58 pts and LOSING cost them, and it should cost a team.

So TCU disqualified themselves by losing in the last second to the Baylor team that entered the postseason ranked #5...but Alabama and Oregon losing was different and okay?

It's quite an odd system when some power five teams have to be undefeated to have a chance to get in but other teams' losses are explained away or excused.

Again, any playoff field in which a one-loss champion from a P5 conference is excluded while other one-loss teams are included is at the very least questionable.  Include all the P5 conference champs along with three at-large teams, set the field at eight, and be done with it.  But...that makes too much sense.

[hogsanity]

So TCU disqualified themselves by losing in the last second to the Baylor team that entered the postseason ranked #5...but Alabama and Oregon losing was different and okay?

It's quite an odd system when some power five teams have to be undefeated to have a chance to get in but other teams' losses are explained away or excused.

Again, any playoff field in which a one-loss champion from a P5 conference is excluded while other one-loss teams are included is at the very least questionable.  Include all the P5 conference champs along with three at-large teams, set the field at eight, and be done with it.  But...that makes too much sense.

That is exactly my point, there is no set criteria, OSU loses at home to a pathetic VT team, and all gets forgiven. Oregon loses at home to a decent but not great AZ team, no big deal. TCU loses once, albeit in grand fashion, and for 9 weeks it looks to be no big deal, until of course it is a big deal.

Put 8 teams in, I really do not care, just make it clear HOW a team qualifies to be in the 8. If it is the 5 power conf champs, and 3 wild cards, that is fine. If they ever go to four 16 team super conferences, with two divisions in each conf, and the division winners are the 8, fine. At least teams will be playing their way in under a defined set of rules, not being chosen by a committee.

While the nfl is not exactly the same, and people did not like that Carolina got into the playoffs with a losing record, everyone knew before the season started exactly how to get into the playoffs.

[Pork Twain]

That is exactly my point, there is no set criteria, OSU loses at home to a pathetic VT team, and all gets forgiven. Oregon loses at home to a decent but not great AZ team, no big deal. TCU loses once, albeit in grand fashion, and for 9 weeks it looks to be no big deal, until of course it is a big deal.

Put 8 teams in, I really do not care, just make it clear HOW a team qualifies to be in the 8. If it is the 5 power conf champs, and 3 wild cards, that is fine. If they ever go to four 16 team super conferences, with two divisions in each conf, and the division winners are the 8, fine. At least teams will be playing their way in under a defined set of rules, not being chosen by a committee.

While the nfl is not exactly the same, and people did not like that Carolina got into the playoffs with a losing record, everyone knew before the season started exactly how to get into the playoffs.

8 teams completely nulifies all this.  Each conference controls its own destiny.  Their Conf champ gets in based on winning their conf championship game.  If they bomb at that point, it is on them.

[Hogfaniam]

If you're chosen for the playoff field of 8, why do you need to play in another bowl game if you lose?  The first round games would be bowl games.

Would you rather play Ohio State with a chance to advance to the national championship game...or play 8-4 Georgia Tech in the Chick Fil-A Bowl?

Yeah.  Missouri, Georgia Tech, Arizona, Wisconsin, Fresno St., Louisiana Tech, and Bowling Green should have all stayed home after losing their conference championship game.  What's the point?

[EastexHawg]

Yeah.  Missouri, Georgia Tech, Arizona, Wisconsin, Fresno St., Louisiana Tech, and Bowling Green should have all stayed home after losing their conference championship game.  What's the point?

Reading your first post, I thought you were saying the losers of first round playoff games advance to bowl games.

That's why I said:

If you're chosen for the playoff field of 8, why do you need to play in another bowl game if you lose?  The first round games would be bowl games.

[Hogfaniam]

Reading your first post, I thought you were saying the losers of first round playoff games advance to bowl games.

That's why I said:

Sarcasm.

Losers in the first round should go to bowl games for the same reason losers in conference champ games go.  It's fun for the kids and advertising for their universities.