Why? If you're starting from generally subjective rankings, then all you're left with is more discussion of why 9, 10, 11 teams got left out instead of why 5, 6, 7 teams got left out.



That's kind of my point. In the NFL, each conference champion plus wild card teams goes to the playoffs, based solely on win/loss record. In the NBA, the top 8 teams based solely on win/loss records go into the playoffs. In MLB, the Division winners and wild card teams get in based on win/loss record.

This is only an issue in college football because there are so many teams, and every college wants an opportunity to go to a "bowl" to make extra money.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Yes, it is subjective and you can always make a case for the team that got left out being better than the team that just barely got in. You can make a case for Ohio State this year.

But the case for #9 probably matters less than the case for #5, in that a team like Ohio State could possibly win the playoff. That team that is either 8 or 9? Well, I think they have less of a chance so public outcry would be less. So, yeah, the selection process is probably more about PR than fairness, which does suck.

I would reduce it to this: How big of a field do you need to best ensure inclusion of the teams with a realistic chance to hoist the trophy? I think eight would be enough and the seven and eight seeds would very, very seldom win it.

This year is kind of an oddball. Most years it isn't that hard to see a big difference between #2 and #5. You can usually look at #5 and below and know that they re not the best team in the country. This year I think you could make an argument for 6 or 7 even.

But I don't think I have ever seen a year where anyone thought the #9 team was actually the best team. And before someone cries UCF, please, before the bowl game every single one of their opponents would be a homecoming opponent for the Power 5 teams.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Are you sure you didn't meant to post this in pink...meanwhile, FCS, D2, D3, NAIA, Jr College all have playoffs.

Using your logic we should get rid of the NCAA tourney field of 64, because most of these team have no real shot to win 6 games in a row.

First, the NCAA tournament fields 68 teams, not 64.

Second, a tournament field has to be limited by a logical timeframe for completion, injury rates with additional games, and many other factors. You can play basketball pretty reasonably every two days. You can even play every day for a few consecutive days, as the conference tournaments do. You just can’t do that in football.

Apples and oranges.

No.

The NCAA field is 64 for financial reasons not competitive reasons. If you were sizing the NCAA bb tourney and had only competitive concerns, then 32 would be plenty -- especially if you got rid the automatic berths. But we have 64 because it is no great hardship to play six basketball games in three weeks, expanding from 32 to 64 only means you start a couple days earlier, more teams means more interest and viewers, and it is more money for everyone in the business.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

No, you keep looking to some ranking. Take the power 5 champions, any undefeated team. and the rest are at large pickup. That way any team that did all they could will get in. What I think you may not realize is there is a big difference in the top 3 or 4 teams in the power 5 and the rest of college football. Especially when given 3 or 4 weeks to prepare. I will again throw up last years MAC Champion undefeated Western Michigan (who beat 2 lower tear big 10 teams (northwestern and Illinois) . They went to the cotton bowl played a 9th ranked Wisconsin (who OSU beat 30 32 earlier in the season, the same OSU who got destroyed in the playoffs), Wisconsin was 11-3 that year and Wisconsin beat them 24 - 16 in a game that wasn't really even that close.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

No if you look at a few of my posts the one above this, UCF would be in. If you expand to 8 you can also implement a new set of rules. First reward winning, P5 champions are in, and any undefeated FBS team. Then the committee can fill in with at large choices. So how does this year look you would have had you 5 conf. champs UCF and probably Bama and... Now then there is the question of seeding, do the Champ's automatically get 1 - 5 seeding??? anyhow just details to be figured out.

A field of 16 would have a lot of boring football games in the first round. I can't think of a single season where a 16 or even a 12 could have been competitive with a 1 or 2. Now the advantage of more rounds, is you have less time to prep for the first round. I think a lot of people don't appreciate how much coaching and game planing can go into those first rounds with 4 weeks of prep. Anyhow. As I said any of the smaller schools want to show they belong, just go undefeated and they would be in. (It doesn't happen often)

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

I completely agree with everything you wrote.

Five conference champs, undefeated mid-majors, then “open slots” after that.

I wonder though, would an odd consequence be that mid-majors would stop scheduling P5 teams early in the season because those games threaten their hopes of going unbeaten? On one hand those games pay the bills, often coming with guarantees from $500,000 to $1 million, but they would also be the stumbling block.

If I were an A.D. at a school that never goes unbeaten and likely won’t (say, Ball State), I would take the money. That would be a tougher choice if I’m at Toledo, Marshall, Boise State or Central Florida.

That was something I was trying to point out. If you switch to 8 with objective measures, watch what teams do to meet those objective measures. You could in theory have a case where three or more non Power 5 schools go undefeated and lock out a team like Alabama this year with 8 teams in the playoff. An eight team playoff with champs getting in would be like the NCAA basketball tourney at 32 teams with most champs getting in. Some pretty deserving teams would get left out. At 16 teams, maybe the 1 vs 16 and the 2 vs 15 games would be a bit lopsided (maybe not...). But, I doubt there would be much true argument that the first team or so left out had a legitimate shot at the national title.

---

Ryan