2017 will prove the stink of 4 Team playoff

[CornCobPipes]

The way things are shaping up this year will really show the dissatisfaction of a 4 team playoff. Even with 8 team would be sticky this year.

Only fair system that would work would be a 16 team playoff but this means top two teams playing 17 game season with the large conference setups and conference championship games.

If they would rule only 3 OOC games therefore reducing regular season down to eleven games and rule out scheduling FCS opponents....this would reduce top two teams to 16 games. Not sure how the math and scheduling works out with this and the numbers because the FCS component allows flexibility with scheduling.

[hapapp]

The only problem with reducing the regular season is that the vast majority of teams will only play either 11 or 12 games in a season.

[Saint3333]

Eight is enough to crown a champion. Only once at th 1-AA level has someone outside the top right won it all.

Eight is perfect, five P5 champs, top G5, and two at larges.

[Yosef84]

I don't think a 16 team playoff is essential. In order to identify a true national champion, an 8 team playoff would be a huge step forward. That would be the conference champ from each P5 plus a guaranteed G5 representative and two at-large. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would get us there.

[WVAPPeer]

I think the only way things will change will be a couple of the Big boys - such as Big 10, etc., shut out - they will see all the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ they will lose - I think 8 would be fine but I don't see it happening anytime soon ---

[/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09]

The problem isn't the amount of teams. The problem is the committee that selects the teams. From the first week the playoff rankings are announced and how high teams rise and low they fall each week based off of a win or loss, it almost seems like they're trying their best to make it line up the way they would like it to be.

I think if you expand it to 8 teams you have the same arguments each year about who should get in those last two or three spots. Saint's suggestion I like because it puts emphasis on winning your conference, with a chance to still get an at large.

Committee needs to go. Set power rankings like we have in Virginia for high school.

[WVAPPeer]

They've had the "rankings" choose and that was always a mess - got to have a human committee involved ---

[Goapps15]

If two major conferences get shut out it will happen.

[/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09]

They've had the "rankings" choose and that was always a mess - got to have a human committee involved ---

VHSL power ratings (My fault for saying rankings) are nothing like the BCS rankings, which two of the three BCS components were HEAVILY based off of human elements in the form of USA Today Coaches, and Harris Polls. The committee is pure sports political.

Check out the link below to see what I mean. It's under Resources then 2017 Weekly Ratings, first page once you open it. Substitute the high school 6A for P5 opponent, 3A for G5 opponent, and 1A for FCS opponent. Keeping the bonus points the same. Could be my love for everything Virginia as to why I love this set up, and it might not apply well for college, but I think it could. Really plays in strength of schedule, and even though a team like Bama was 11-0 their opponents wins aren't the greatest. Could even include the conference title games as one of the numbers to add to the overall average. That way it means something.

http://www.vhsl.org/football/

[AppAlum1]

It looks to me like the FCS (old Div. 1-AA) provides some guidance here. It may take the BCS world longer, but sooner or later, the BCS will expand the playoffs. First, in 1-AA world, there were 4 teams (anyone remember Western's Nat'l Champ. game? That was back when there were 4 teams.) Then, there were 8; then 16; then 24; then 32 (I think).

Sooner or later, we will have 16 teams, and ultimately I think there will be a 24 team playoff. There's too much money involved for there not to be. And, I agree, just wait until one of the BIG 5 conferences gets stiffed (Woffed?) by the committee. That should do it.

[bigdaddyg]

Lots of folks use the FCS model as an example. Since it went to 16 (I know it’s been expanded since) what is the highest seed to win the championship? Above 10? I would think doubtful.

About 100 years ago I had the idea (in my mind) that the best way to do a playoff would be to use the big 4 bowl games as the quarters (1 v 8...2 v 7, etc). Rotate the seeded games each year. Of course way back then it was Rose, Orange, Sugar and I guess Fiesta. After bowl round play semi round games at home field of top two seeded teams remaining. Then championship game is played super bowl Saturday.

Other idea would be to use 6 teams with top 2 getting a bye. No matter what you do someone is left out and human voting is in play

[EastHallApp]

I was going to mention the 6-team option too, because it would all but minimize subjectivity. Five P5 champions get auto bids, plus one from G5.

I think eight is where we’re headed though. Wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually grew larger. Remember it’s not about fairness, or how many teams are deserving, how many games the athletes have to play, etc. It’s about what makes the most money.

[Saint3333]

Don’t think you can have more than 8 teams and keep the current bowl system, which is a money maker.

[App91]

I dont think so and here is why. They are getting basically a defacto 8 team playoff with the ACC, SEC, B1G and (somewhat) big 12 champ games. Winners of first 3 definitely, and if Oklahoma loses maybe a 2nd SEC or B1G team. Pac 12 is out. SO really its like the playoffs start now. Thats what they want.