not to their level.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Do we really need a four team playoff?
- Thread starter WestTexasHusker
- Start date
Its funny how it always boils down to the same thing when playoff formats are discussed. Seems like fans want to keep changing the format because they are tired of Clemson and Alabama. Adding 4 more teams or even 12 more isn't going to change that and going back to the old Bowl format wouldn't change one of those two from being the MNC. It would just put us back into the same scenario we had in the past where Alabama and Clemson would have played a non-champion from another conference because the best teams are tied up in other bowl game contracts.
Fans just need to get over it and accept that the system is designed to find the best teams and its working perfectly. The more teams you add to the mix the more opportunity you get for Alabama and Clemson to be paired against teams that are even worse than 3 and 4.
Fans just need to get over it and accept that the system is designed to find the best teams and its working perfectly. The more teams you add to the mix the more opportunity you get for Alabama and Clemson to be paired against teams that are even worse than 3 and 4.
I'm totally on board with that. But heck, I'm just hoping that team you speak of can take on the Big 10 West at some point in the future.
Yep. Completely agree. I've been using the terms subjectivity versus objectivity in recent posts. I think you calling it boring is way better. Maybe it isn't such a bad idea and we just happen to have 2 dominant teams and a third(Georgia) unlucky to be in with Alabama in the CCG. Maybe there is just no real balance and the top 2 are just that much better?
When looking forward to Nebraska's continued growth and hopeful return to greatness, the measuring stick is just so far away from the top 2. Can't fault the Playoffs for trying I suppose, but man, it really just does suck right about now in my opinion.
Do we really need a four team playoff?
That is the $64000 question.
What everyone wants, whether it's been verbalized or not, is to find the best two... I mean the BEST TEAM in the country. Many years, the regular season will clearly show that only two teams are head and shoulders above the rest. Like for many years in the '90s when it was NU & FSU.
But many years there may be 3 teams that have a legitimate claim. Or 5 teams. Or maybe there are 3 teams that are championship caliber, but they each have one loss. And there's one undefeated team, but they really haven't played anyone (e.g. UCF).
So I don't think there's any way with a set playoff, that you can guarantee every year it will provide the "best" method of determining the national champion. Going to 8 teams might be "better" in terms of giving every legitimate team a shot, but most years it would just add "fluff" games to the mix. Name one year since 1936 (the start of the AP poll) -- or any year for that matter -- when there were 8 teams with a legitimate claim to #1.
(crickets...)
It's more likely that you have one, or two, or 3, teams with a legitimate claim to #1, and then you have a handful of teams that are in the mix to be the last team in (like OU vs OhSU this year). But doubling the size of the playoff field certainly doesn't guarantee compelling (or worthy) matchups. What it does do is give an opportunity to teams like an undefeated UCF a shot.
The more I think about it, the more I like what we were all calling for after the '97 season: match up the best two teams after the bowl season for the NC game. You could keep the traditional bowl conference tie-ins, and keep the bowl season interesting. Effectively, if you entered your bowl game in the top 8, you might have a shot if the cards fell right.
The only problem that might present is if you have a clear #1 after the bowls. Then you'd just be giving another team a shot to knock them off.
Also you'd still have an excruciatingly long break between the regular season and the bowls.
That is the $64000 question.
What everyone wants, whether it's been verbalized or not, is to find the best two... I mean the BEST TEAM in the country. Many years, the regular season will clearly show that only two teams are head and shoulders above the rest. Like for many years in the '90s when it was NU & FSU.
But many years there may be 3 teams that have a legitimate claim. Or 5 teams. Or maybe there are 3 teams that are championship caliber, but they each have one loss. And there's one undefeated team, but they really haven't played anyone (e.g. UCF).
So I don't think there's any way with a set playoff, that you can guarantee every year it will provide the "best" method of determining the national champion. Going to 8 teams might be "better" in terms of giving every legitimate team a shot, but most years it would just add "fluff" games to the mix. Name one year since 1936 (the start of the AP poll) -- or any year for that matter -- when there were 8 teams with a legitimate claim to #1.
(crickets...)
It's more likely that you have one, or two, or 3, teams with a legitimate claim to #1, and then you have a handful of teams that are in the mix to be the last team in (like OU vs OhSU this year). But doubling the size of the playoff field certainly doesn't guarantee compelling (or worthy) matchups. What it does do is give an opportunity to teams like an undefeated UCF a shot.
The more I think about it, the more I like what we were all calling for after the '97 season: match up the best two teams after the bowl season for the NC game. You could keep the traditional bowl conference tie-ins, and keep the bowl season interesting. Effectively, if you entered your bowl game in the top 8, you might have a shot if the cards fell right.
The only problem that might present is if you have a clear #1 after the bowls. Then you'd just be giving another team a shot to knock them off.
Also you'd still have an excruciatingly long break between the regular season and the bowls.
Last edited:
I agree with everything you said. I'll add something else. Your idea to team up the best two teams after the bowl season is really what they did. They just did it before the bowl season to prevent adding more games. Especially since the bowl season prior to that wasn't really doing anything to help distinguish those two deserving teams. But that wasn't good enough for the fans. Even putting those two teams together so they went to 4. And now they are complaining about that.
Expansion only adds to the argument. In the past few years, the “other” teams only had a chance as a spoiler because Bama, Clemson, Auburn were just so much better than all other teams. That will not be true forever—there are a lot of young coaches out there who will be the next championship genius.
I agree but the argument I make is kind of strange. I liked the old bowl system better, including just arguing about who is the national champion. But playoffs were inevitable because not everyone is as wise and discerning as I and some others.
And the playoffs aren't going away.But one effect of having playoffs is that they become more important than the bowls. So it's important they be a representative as possible, and include as many teams as possible. If there were 8 teams this year, Alabama and Clemson would still have ended up in the final, but there would have been more games between teams where the outcome was in doubt. That would have made the whole thing more interesting.
A little history to exemplify the one-time importance of bowl games...
In 1970, NU finished #3 behind #1 Texas and #2 Ohio State in the UPI (coaches poll) which at the time did not conduct another poll after the bowl games. In 1974, UPI began releasing its final poll after the bowl games.
The AP poll, however, did release a final poll after all bowl games were played. #1 Texas lost to #6 Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl and #2 Ohio State lost to #12 Stanford in the Rose Bowl. NU finished #1 after beating #5 LSU, which dropped to #7 after the loss. Three of the 4 major bowls at the time (Cotton, Orange, Rose, and Sugar) had a hand in determining who was National Champion. Both Notre Dame and Stanford were giant killers that year and would not have made a 4 team playoff and Stanford would not have made an 8 team playoff.
I don't know how many times this has happened in college football history. I suspect not very often but I don't like the idea that it may never happen again.
In 1970, NU finished #3 behind #1 Texas and #2 Ohio State in the UPI (coaches poll) which at the time did not conduct another poll after the bowl games. In 1974, UPI began releasing its final poll after the bowl games.
The AP poll, however, did release a final poll after all bowl games were played. #1 Texas lost to #6 Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl and #2 Ohio State lost to #12 Stanford in the Rose Bowl. NU finished #1 after beating #5 LSU, which dropped to #7 after the loss. Three of the 4 major bowls at the time (Cotton, Orange, Rose, and Sugar) had a hand in determining who was National Champion. Both Notre Dame and Stanford were giant killers that year and would not have made a 4 team playoff and Stanford would not have made an 8 team playoff.
I don't know how many times this has happened in college football history. I suspect not very often but I don't like the idea that it may never happen again.
Last edited:
That's a pretty important distinction though. If you do a "plus one" after the bowls, you would have been able to preserve the traditional bowl tie-ins. Additionally, you would have more teams with a chance to play in the championship game should the chips fall correctly. That's a whole different set of circumstances than removing the 2 "best" teams from the pool and filling in the bowls with the remainder.
Regardless of how college football decides to run its post-season, the bigger issue is the lack of parity. 'Bama is going to beat Clemson (going away IMO) and that will make it 6 of the last 10 national championships for the Tide. Georgia, Ohio St. and Clemson have a puncher's chance and everyone else is basically playing for regional pride.
Unlike the NFL, which uses the draft to create parity, college football has very few avenues to level the playing field. It's a problem. The entire business of college football is built around TV ratings, and 'Bama's dominance is not good for business. People are tuning out early or not watching at all. Viewership of the CFP was down 30% over last year.
Unlike the NFL, which uses the draft to create parity, college football has very few avenues to level the playing field. It's a problem. The entire business of college football is built around TV ratings, and 'Bama's dominance is not good for business. People are tuning out early or not watching at all. Viewership of the CFP was down 30% over last year.
Well said.
I'll give you that.....because you are talking about not removing them from the pool. But let me ask you something. Would anything change? All it is doing is delaying the playoff by one more game. If we haven't figured out who the top two are after the non-conference season, conference and conference championship games will doing it after the bowl games do anything more to gain consensus? How long before fans would want to expand it to 4 teams and then 8 again.
