I personally don't think a 16 team playoff field would make the regular season meaningless at all. Teams would still have to win games in order to make the playoffs. I don't think the FCS, Division II teams think that the regular season is meaningless.
Urban Meyer
- Thread starter soonerfastnloud
- Start date
I would like to see a move to 8 teams and see how it works before going straight to 16. Look at the Top 16 and there will be multiple loss teams. I'm not real crazy on the idea of dropping several games during the year and will getting in the playoff.
I think different BR. We're forced to warh meaninggless Bowl games now as it is. With a series of playoff games, the Bowl season would be better football for the fans & better entertainment as well.
Week 1 = 8 games
Week 2 = 4 games
Week 3 = 2 games
Week 4 = 1 game
A month of play off CFB would be frigging awesome.
My issue is this, the playoff should be against conference winners. They have dogged on the Big 12 all year. Now look at the Big 10. Why not match the conference CHAMPIONS and have maybe some wild card teams like the NFL.
8 teams.
5 P5 conference champs.
3 "at large".
1 "at large" guaranteed to highest ranked non P5 team with a minimum #16 ranking.
A 16 team playoff is too much. These are college kids with finals, family, holidays, etc.
5 P5 conference champs.
3 "at large".
1 "at large" guaranteed to highest ranked non P5 team with a minimum #16 ranking.
A 16 team playoff is too much. These are college kids with finals, family, holidays, etc.
WNAS, ya it would make for an exciting month of playoff games. But I'm kinda seeing myself side with Plaino on this one. Hate to see the regular season lose too much importance. Cuz a 16 team playoff would mean Auburn would make it with an 8-4 season. Sorry but I don't think a 4 loss team should EVER get a position to play for a national title. And I say that about the vast majority of 3 loss teams also.
The playoff isn't to much for the FCS kids or the Division II kids. I imagine that they have to take classes and finals as well. The bowls were initially started as exhibition games. Time to move away from the outdated bowl system and start a true playoff system at all levels of college football.
To playoff expansion advocates: Six semifinals in three years have average margin of victory of 25.3 points. Only one game closer than 17.
If a 4 loss team goes into a playoff against 16 teams and comes out on top, they are deserving. They just went through the bracket of the year's 'who's who' of CFB. I think we'd all be kidding ourselves if OU was ranked #16, entered the playoffs and then knocked off 4 teams in succession, each ranked higher. Would you think less of another OU National title? I think not. Take tOSU 31-NOTHING ass kicking last night. Why were they in the game? They weren't conference champs. They were there because panel of experts thought they were worthy. But the fact remains it was their brand, their HC's prior history and they beat OU in Sept to secure their ranking. But in reality, the ONLY thing that matters was the play on the field. They got their asses handed to them...badly. Offensively & Defensively.
Now let's look at Bama. Same thing. Their brand, their HC's previous history and they went through the SEC undefeated. Never an easy task even with a very weak SEC conference this year. But they did it. Does this make them #1 ? Yes, according to the same panel of experts that thought tOSU was worthy as well.
My point is to be the best, you have to beat the best. You have to prove it. The current 4 team bracket is better than years ago, but it still needs more work. As far as the players & family, blah, blah, blah.... You think the players don't want to play? You think the family doesn't want to see the sons succeed? Finals? Not buying this either. An expanded playoff system could be structured. And some day it will be. It's just a matter of time. The days of beating up a eight team conference, then playing one bowl game, and having a panel of people w/ agendas stating who the champ is are over. Soon, a 4 team playoff will be over as well.
There are blowouts in the basketball tournament, but nobody wants to shrink the size of that field. There are also a ton of blowouts in these meaningless bowl games that feature 6 win teams. Time to quit living in the past, and get rid of the bowl system.
Same uncreative O that had Ezekiel Elliot saying he was gone after last year's loss at home to MSU. Our crap D made Urban a little too sure of his O's potential.
What is so shocking is the lack of any wrinkles on Urban's part - when things got desperate he simply started to throwing deep to lesser known WRs on his squad. Venables gambled and continue to focus on the pass rush and left his DBs in man - they took interference penalties instead of getting beat on long balls. Worked like a charm, as Barrett got pummeled into submission.
Meanwhile we're stuck with game-passed-him-by Mikey. All we have to do is stop the run vs Aubie - holding my breath.
What is so shocking is the lack of any wrinkles on Urban's part - when things got desperate he simply started to throwing deep to lesser known WRs on his squad. Venables gambled and continue to focus on the pass rush and left his DBs in man - they took interference penalties instead of getting beat on long balls. Worked like a charm, as Barrett got pummeled into submission.
Meanwhile we're stuck with game-passed-him-by Mikey. All we have to do is stop the run vs Aubie - holding my breath.
V, it appears that the panel of experts had it wrong then. An expanded play off bracket would most likely proved this.
If you can run successfully on any defense, receivers will be open.
I'm not ready to say that the game has passed M. Stoops but I'm certainly not defending his lack of adjustments and his stubbornness to drop a scheme that continues to produce ineptitude and cluelessness from some very capable defensive players.
The 3-4 gotta go and Mike has to reemerge as the aggressive, zone blitzing DC that made the Sooners the most elite program in the early 2000s. Put your best guys on the field and trust that they'll beat the guy across from them.
We will simply have to agree to disagree man. I see where you are coming from. But allowing 4 loss teams to have a chance to make a playoff starts to get into the territory that Plaino is talking about how the regular season loses ALOT of it's meaning and importance. I know we both agree on expanding the playoff. I just don't think we will ever agree with each other on the numbers of teams.
And whether I would think less of an OU national title if they got in with 4 losses, I won't deny I would take the "homer route" and enjoy it. Why would I not enjoy OU winning a national title regardless of the circumstances. But I also think it would be pretty awful overall for college football. That's one reason I really just don't get into the NFL. You can drop a good number of games and still make the playoffs. There just isn't that feeling of importance from week to week you get with the college game.
So conference championships mean nothing if you lose a non conference game to a quality opponent and win your conference with one loss, or, in OU's case, two non conference losses while being undefeated in conference.
What if the best four teams consist of three from the same conference? It isn't questioned in a now 68 team basketball tourney if two teams are from the same conference.
Any given day a team can show up and beat another. Houston beats FSU last year, OU and Louisville this year, but gets hammered at SMU. Would SMU beat OU or Louisville?
This committee is full of crap. Two years ago, tea cup got boned by being ranked #3, winning 52-3, and being dropped to #6. Why? No outright conference championship and a head to head that didn't matter the week before. Now it is the "eye test." BULLSH!T
Yep, and there were major blowouts in the BCS and then major defensive performances against top offenses, a la FSU in 2000, OU in 2008, etc...
Everyone yacking about the importance of conf champion are ignoring these inconvenient facts:
Sat, Sept 10
Sat, Sept 24
Penn State had no more business being in the Playoffs than tOSU. That whole conference was over-hyped this year, and taking the conf champion is not going to change that reality.
Sat, Sept 10
Sat, Sept 24
Penn State had no more business being in the Playoffs than tOSU. That whole conference was over-hyped this year, and taking the conf champion is not going to change that reality.
It appears that the B12 must not be placing a value on regular season games starting next year. OU (or any team) can be undefeated in non-conference & conference play and lose to a team they previously beat in the 'new' B12 Conference game, thus losing the conference.
Part of the season... Pitt beat Clemson, lost to aOm, etc...
aOm got throttled by OU, lost to CMU on a play that shouldn't have counted. Had that been corrected, does an 11-1 aOm get more consideration than the 10-2 team that just demolished them? The one that is 9-0 in conference as opposed to 8-1?
No I do agree conference champions should account for something. But I don't think it's everything. OU fans have experienced this back in 2003 when OU got smashed by KSU in the Big XII championship game, yet still got to go play in the national title game.
Fact is, there will never be a system that makes everyone happy. Never. Expand it to 8 teams and people will still complain. Expand to 16 and people will still complain. I think there are 128 Div-1 teams right? Until they all get included into a playoff system then there will always be people ready to complain.
They wouldn't have been been 11-1. They would have been 10-2. Don't forget that they also lost to Baylor.
Yes, they did. I somehow don't count rapist u's wins anymore... Ha!
Yet the 2003 Sooners were touted as one of the best of all time, blah, blah, blah... They were one of three one loss teams from the major conferences. USC was 11-1 while OU and LSU were 12-1. It was a system that was very flawed.
2004 proved it as well. Auburn went undefeated, as did USC and OU... 10 years later they tried to fix it. Got rid of computers and polls for a 12 person circle jerk with very biased people involved. I trust one of them, Condoleezza Rice. That being said, I don't feel she should determine who is playoff worthy, yet she can be the pivot person I suppose...
OK, I'm a tad bit confused. You've stated that you think expanded playoffs would 'take away' from the regular season games, but you've also posted that not winning your conference doesn't mean much. Please elaborate.
Regarding a playoff system, there will never be a system in place that balances everything. Unlike the NFL, each conference has it's own system which producees it's own form of Champion etc. But I'm a firm believer that more is merrier. But the playoffs are controlled by monies that are made per conference w/ no equal payout like the NFL is structured.
Me not thinking a team has to win it's conference to be included, and me not liking the idea of allowing most 3 loss and all 4 loss teams a chance to play for a national title aren't even close to being the same thing. So not sure how you are confused.
Besides, I didn't say winning your conference "doesn't mean much". I agree it should account for something, but shouldn't be everything. At least with the current system.
Like this year, I agreed with Ohio State getting in over Penn State. Penn State beat Ohio State and won their conference, but I still think overall Ohio State had the stronger season. They got whipped by Clemson, but it's possibly Penn State wouldn't have faired any better.
I would prefer like what was mentioned before. 8 teams, the 5 power conference champs get an automatic invite, then 3 wild card spots.
Last edited:
Okay...so you have 3 one-loss power conference teams in 2003. And you have 3 undefeated teams in 2004. There was no playoff so no matter what, only 2 teams could play in the national title game. Easy to blame the computers, but in those scenarios what would be a system that is NOT flawed to determine which teams got to play in the title game?? Especially 2004....3 teams were unbeaten. It's impossible to pick 2 and not have controversy.
Which is the whole point. 4 teams out of 128 have a shot for a title, conference champs or not. And instead of a poll consisting of 60+ people, computers, etc. we get the 12 member circle jerk. What was the reasoning one year is not used the next, and so on, and so on, and so on...
The idea that the regular season is a playoff in and of itself works out very rarely. The 2 loss sucsucsuc champ wins a natty in the BCS because they are a stronger conference supposedly, while a one loss Big XII team gets ranked #7 for an 8 point loss to then #3 who only lost to Oklahoma... Twice... Kansas averaged almost 43 PPG and gave up an average of 16.3 PPG. LSU lost to Kentucky and Arkansas. They barely beat a sorry Tennessee team. Missouri was 12-2 after all was said and done. They beat the team that beat LSU in Baton Rouge by 31 points. Yet that got them ranked #4.
The "eye test" of the 12 circle jerk members decided that a faltering Ohio State was more deserving than their conference champion, who beat them, and will be thumped by USC tomorrow... They told us the B1G was just that, but are they? They need all 3 members playing tomorrow to win so they can be 5-5 in bowls. They could go 2-8.
It will never matter until all get a fair shot. It isn't that hard to understand. The idea that it makes for too many games or screws up corporate sponsorship doesn't fly. A 16 team playoff fixes that. Win your conference and you're in. That gives 10 spots for champions and 6 for so called "better" teams. Even an 8 team format is better than 4 spots for 5 major conferences, where 2 conference champions got left out this year...
So a 16 team playoff and you think it fixes any reason for people to complain?? C'mon man. People have been complaining for decades and you think a 16 team playoff cures all?
And that's fine if you don't agree with me. But I don't like the idea of 16 teams total. Hell that means if you are a blue blood and drop 3 games a year, then likely it doesn't mean anything cuz you are prolly in anyways.
I've never said the 4 team is perfect. Never. In fact I knew from the getgo it was horrible. 5 power conferences, 4 playoff spots. Doesn't take a genius or complicated math it figure out it was a path to controversy.
But ya know what I don't like about conference champions automatically getting a spot?? I think back to a handful of years ago when OU played UConn in the Fiesta Bowl. UConn got an autobid to a BCS bowl since they won the Big East. The Big East was awful, and UConn had like 4 or 5 losses that year. Total waste of a BCS bowl spot that could have gone to a more deserving team. So yes, I think winning your conference accounts for something, but it shouldn't be everything.
And that's fine if you don't agree with me. But I don't like the idea of 16 teams total. Hell that means if you are a blue blood and drop 3 games a year, then likely it doesn't mean anything cuz you are prolly in anyways.
I've never said the 4 team is perfect. Never. In fact I knew from the getgo it was horrible. 5 power conferences, 4 playoff spots. Doesn't take a genius or complicated math it figure out it was a path to controversy.
But ya know what I don't like about conference champions automatically getting a spot?? I think back to a handful of years ago when OU played UConn in the Fiesta Bowl. UConn got an autobid to a BCS bowl since they won the Big East. The Big East was awful, and UConn had like 4 or 5 losses that year. Total waste of a BCS bowl spot that could have gone to a more deserving team. So yes, I think winning your conference accounts for something, but it shouldn't be everything.
There would be a lot less. People will complain regardless, but all one has to do is look at the FCS or D-2 or D-3... They all now have 24 teams in the playoffs... UMHB from Belton just won D-3 for the first time ever. Had they not gotten a playoff shot, Mount Union or UW Whitewater would have just been handed it... Instead, they got the opportunity and beat Mount Union to go to the finals...
Every football championship is sanctioned by the NCAA except one... Instead, the FBS can have multiple National Champions from multiple sources. Some years have 5 or 6 teams that are the national champion... Why is the FBS so special? Are you going to try and convince me they all deserve participation trophies?
I think the electoral COLLEGE should determine the winner before the bowl season and not have a national championship game. 
Which will come first, regional "Super Conferences" or expanded playoffs ?
I hope its the Super Conferences that could help streamline the shape of the latter, jmho
I hope its the Super Conferences that could help streamline the shape of the latter, jmho
Last edited:
I agree this isn't peewee league they don't all need trophies.
It's all about the money. I sometimes wonder if the NCAA is getting kick backs from the bowls and that is part of the reason that they keep the bowl system. In my opinion the bowl system needs to be disbanded. What is good for the lower divisions in NCAA football should be good for the largest division of college football.
This isn't the 1920s or 1930s. The other 4-5 systems that name a national champion are a joke and are completely irrelevant. They are so irrelevant, that the schools themselves don't even recognize them. So no...participation trophies are not handed out in football these days. So no idea what that is even suppose to mean.
I was refrencing the 70's and 80's... As well as the 2000's... Since 1960, there are...
154 FBS/D-IA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS in 56 seasons.
From the 2000 season to today, there are 28 different NCAA "recognized" FBS National Champions... In the FCS? There are 16, one for each season. Youngstown State is 11-3 and playing for the National Championship this weekend. They were unseeded, yet beat the #3 seed and the #2 seed to be there. They play the #4 seed, James Madison, who beat the #1 seed...
There will be only one National Champion recognized by the NCAA in EVERY sport, except for the highest level of football. That is a load of b.s.
There are only 9 seasons from 1960 thru 2015 that only one FBS team is recognized as "National Champion."
Name some of the multiple national champions from the 2000's, and let's see what programs actually recognize them. Like in 2011, I think 1 or 2 systems recognizes LSU and Okie State as national champions. Have you ever heard either program make mention of that at all?? Especially the Pokes. If those other systems carried ANY weight whatsoever then Poke fans would be yelling it endlessly. So it's not participation trophies. Programs realize those are irrelevant and treat them as such.
Like OU...I think OU has something like 20+ total national titles if you count the years they were selected by one of these irrelevant systems. OU only recognizes the 7 that actually matter.
