The Rest of College Football

[SeanB]

I still say you take the the 4 highest rated conference champions and do a modified +1.

How do you see this working out from a travel/financial standpoint for fans?

There are always going to be the deep-pocketed fans (or the ones who don't mind going into further debt) that will make two trips in back to back weekends, or maybe two weekends spaced apart.

But what about the regular joes? Am I being naive in thinking that these fans won't travel to two games? The costs could be staggering for many, especially if all these games are at traditional bowl sites. Would some fans take a chance, wager on their favorite team winning a "semi" and shoot for the "Championship Game" with their funds? What happens if folks make air travel arrangements in that scenario and then their team loses? Of if they are trying to buy airline tickets within two weeks of trying to get to, say, Pasadena? Last minute airfares aren't exactly customer friendly!

I'm just curious. I am a proponent of some kind of playoff system, but I foresee some pretty empty stadiums due to the rising cost of travel, hotel, rental cars, etc. And what if these games are weeknight, prime time slots? Even more problems for working folks.

[Jamie H]

Anytime you use rankings instead of championships, you are basically voting for who goes into the playoffs. I can handle voting being used to fill in the last 2 spots of an 8-team playoff. Voting to determine all 4 spots of the tournament just plain sucks.

[iam416]

How do you see this working out from a travel/financial standpoint for fans?

The "semifinals" will feel like bowl games and the championship game will feel like a Super Bowl.

As far as ranking/ratings go, there's no way to do a playoff that doesn't have a subjective component. Period. Well -- strike that -- all conference champs get in (what to do with independents?). But that's ridiculous. I'd rather keep things as they are than see the Sun Belt champ play the SEC champ or anyone else.

I don't think there is ever much need to go beyond 4 in CFB. The conference championship requirement keeps the value of most of the regular season. This year, LSU, Okie State, Oregon and I think Wisky would have made it (not sure if TCU was higher rated or not).

An 8/16 tournament will mean at-large teams get in, and that would totally suck.

[Hannibal]

An 8/16 tournament will mean at-large teams get in, and that would totally suck.

16 is what you'll get eventually.

Any discussion about a playoff with less than 16 teams IMHO is invalid. If there is a playoff, 16 will happen. Nothing in the history of civilization has ever been more certain. It'll probably happen in less than 10 years. Lock of the century. And with 16 teams, you'll probably end up with a bunch of autobids to avoid the antitrist/Senate hearings bullshit. With that in mind, people need to decide whether that's better than the current system, not the clever 4-team or 8-team setup that they have come up with. I'm of the opinion that it wouldn't be.

[iam416]

I, too, prefer status quo to 16 team tourney.

[Jamie H]

Anything where winning a major conference title doesn't get you into the playoffs is just bullshit. Now you can argue who the major conferences are, but you shouldn't have to win a f'ing popularity contest to make the playoffs if you win the Big Ten, or SEC, or Pac 12 etc. etc.

[lineygoblue]

A 16 team tourney could have worked before everyone went to a 12-game season. In some years, that would have left the week of Thanksgiving open for a first round of playoffs, with the 8 winners moving on to four bowl sites to continue the playoffs. But, I can't see any way that it would work now.

[Optimus Prime]

Relax, get a playoff, work the details out as it unfolds. It's taken years, once the floodgates open, it's a given.

[WM Wolverine]

A plus one (4-team playoff) is far more likely given the current setup. I see it being really tough to pull off a 16-team playoff given that it would take 15 'bowl' games and 4 'rounds' of playoffs...

Talent's top 4 ranked conference champions is a really good one, only would work if the SEC, Pac 12 and B12 can guarantee they can keep their Rose/Sugar Bowls.

[lineygoblue]

16 teams only equals 8 games. And if you reverse seed at the top 8 home sites, that brings out 8 winners, who play at 4 bowl sites in round 2.

[Hannibal]

There are three major factors that are going to severely limit the ability of the major conferences to develop a playoff or a quasi-playoff that isn't stupid...

1. The "wahhh" factor! You will see this in a playoff with n teams. The team ranked n+1 is going to bitch that they are better than the team ranked n. This will puts pressure on the system to double the size. Any notion of a system with 6 or 12 teams that has first round byes for the top seeds is especially doomed for this reason.

2. The money paid out for the broadcasting rights for these games will instantly have the powers that be scheming for a way to make the playoff bigger and double the pot.

3. Congress and litigation. Congress may intervene to make sure that the money and opportunities are distributed "fairly", because Buffalo and Memphis deserve the same shot as the big guys.

[Jamie H]

You could do 8 teams only adding 2 games onto the current schedule, with everything else staying the same except that the title game wouldn't be pre-determined.

[WM Wolverine]

16 teams = 8 first round games, 4 second round games, 2 3rd round games and one NT game. 15 games...

[Jamie H]

Adding 2 games is a hell of a lot easier than adding 15.

[JRB]

Any discussion about a playoff with less than 16 teams IMHO is invalid. If there is a playoff, 16 will happen. Nothing in the history of civilization has ever been more certain. It'll probably happen in less than 10 years. Lock of the century. And with 16 teams, you'll probably end up with a bunch of autobids to avoid the antitrust/Senate hearings bullshit. With that in mind, people need to decide whether that's better than the current system, not the clever 4-team or 8-team setup that they have come up with. I'm of the opinion that it wouldn't be.

You and I often disagree, but not on this. It might take longer than ten years, simply because they'll go to the plus-one model first for a while, then to eight, and those will each get a few years before discontent and the opportunity for more revenue cause the field to expand. But it will certainly expand, for the reasons you mentioned. People need to resign themselves to that, or they need to come up with something that forestalls a full playoff. I'm pretty much resigned to a playoff system now. In this climate, with costs rising and with college football in need of positive publicity, the powers that be in the sport look determined to give the market what it wants.