• 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 .

Momentum Towards 12 Team Playoff





If 12 teams is the model, I'd like to see the 10 FBS conferences condense into 8 conferences. Not all conferences need to have the same number of teams, but this would allow for 8 outright champions, plus 4 at-large berths in the playoff.

Personally, I prefer a 6 or 8 team model, but I have always said that there needs to be a mixture of guaranteed spots for conference champions as well as at-large opportunities. It makes no sense to pass up a #5 Michigan (assume #2 OSU wins the B1G) in favor of like a #22 Tulsa or whomever happened to win the SunBelt that year.
 
Last edited:
DuckTownHusker said:
If 12 teams is the model, I'd like to see the 10 FBS conferences condense into 8 conferences. Not all conferences need to have the same number of teams, but this would allow for 8 outright champions, plus 4 at-large berths in the playoff.

Personally, I prefer a 6 or 8 team model, but I have always said that there needs to be a mixture of guaranteed spots for conference champions as well as at-large opportunities. It makes no sense to pass up a #5 Michigan (assume #2 OSU wins the B1G) in favor of like a #22 Tulsa or whomever happened to win the SunBelt that year.
Click to expand...
I agree with your last statement in regards to passing up a high ranked team for a low ranked conference champion. Just don’t understand why we need automatic qualifiers.
 
Mirror FCS playoffs ? 16 teams qualified. First Round-->Quarterfinals-->Semifinals-->NC

March December Madness ?

The only thing, major bowls .......
 
Last edited:




Sucky idea IMO. I like it the way it is, maybe have a 5th team and have a play in game with the 4th seed.
 
Last edited:
I’m sincerely curious, and not being dismissive of other points of view. For those who are against expanding the playoffs, what is your logic or reasoning. For me, with the limited number of good on good games we get each year, why would we not want to have the opportunity to watch more top 20 teams play each other, and especially under do or die circumstances? Is it just the purists in us, or tradition? What’s the rationale against expanded playoffs?
 
RedSaidTed said:
I’m sincerely curious, and not being dismissive of other points of view. For those who are against expanding the playoffs, what is your logic or reasoning. For me, with the limited number of good on good games we get each year, why would we not want to have the opportunity to watch more top 20 teams play each other, and especially under do or die circumstances? Is it just the purists in us, or tradition? What’s the rationale against expanded playoffs?
Click to expand...

I'm a playoff fan, but critics often point to crappy teams making the cut, which renders the season less-important. When a 0.650 team can make the playoffs, you're adding a lot of crap into the bucket.

We see this notably in the NBA, where more than HALF the league makes the playoffs.

That being said, though, I've done the numbers and for FBS to reach that level of lunacy, we'd need to have something like 70+ teams making the post-season cut. With something like 130 teams in FBS, a 12-team model is still only allowing the Top 9% access to a playoff.
 



I agree with "Hooked on Huskers", there's no reason not to mirror what the FCS is already doing. It lets 16 teams in, which imo stops any teams complaining they didn't get in. If you're number 17 clearly you didn't do what you needed to do.

Also, how much fun would the 8 v 9 and the 7 v 10 matchups be.

Finally, all the conferences would battle it out on the field and we would really know how they all match up!
 
RedSaidTed said:
I’m sincerely curious, and not being dismissive of other points of view. For those who are against expanding the playoffs, what is your logic or reasoning. For me, with the limited number of good on good games we get each year, why would we not want to have the opportunity to watch more top 20 teams play each other, and especially under do or die circumstances? Is it just the purists in us, or tradition? What’s the rationale against expanded playoffs?
Click to expand...
I like it when the regular season matters. When it's more than just a long prelude to a tournament that all the moderately successful teams get into. When you have to be consistently excellent over an entire season, rather than get hot at the right time. When losing focus at any point has real consequences, upsets matter, and lowly teams can do things of substance that affect the CFB landscape on any given Saturday.

Saban has won 6 titles at 'Bama, but on FOUR of those, they've had a loss during the season. Dropping a game barely affects their chances; they have a built-in mulligan. Teams with top talent now can be on something like cruise control until the end of the season.

Sports is both entertainment & competition, and I know my POV gives more weight to the entertainment aspect than just having it be a pure competition. But ignoring that starts to hollow out the soul of the sport, and I think people underestimate how important that is.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top