Not that my opinion matters at all but I enjoy hearing other people's thoughts about what the playoff structure should be and why. I know that my opinion is probably not a popular one. Full disclosure: I never liked the playoff structure to begin with and didn't really like the BCS structure before that. I'm a traditionalist (or a dinosaur as some might say) who prefers the days when there was a Coaches Poll Champion, a UPI Champion and an AP Champion. Yes, there were years when there was not definitive declaration of who the single best team in the country was. I don't know why that was a problem. It was the source of many fun discussions and fueled interest in more teams near the top and prompted a discussion that stemmed from that. Many of those discussion still continue today, decades later. The bowl games were fewer and more meaningful also, with multiple bowl games having potential national championship implications. The only thing that I didn't like about fewer bowl games is that fewer teams got the extra 15 practices that come along with a bowl bid. That's a lot of development time to give to some teams and not others (who arguably need it more). The simple solution there is to give every team the option of practicing an additional 15 times, whether they make a bowl game or not . . . but I digress.
Now that we have a playoff, I'm sure there's no going back. I'm not a huge fan of expanding it, even though I'm a fan of a couple of G5 teams who eventually could benefit from the expansion. Everyone argues every year about the 3rd and 4th teams to get in, but the #4 team always seems to get blown out and the #3 team often does as well. These games are usually over midway through the 3rd quarter for all intents and purposes. There are really only 2 or 3 contenders for the best team in the country at the end of each season anyway, and this is not like basketball where a team can get hot shooting the 3's, get the other team in foul trouble and pull off a miracle. It's far, far less likely to happen at the end of the year in football. So why give so many teams a playoff spot who have absolutely ZERO chance of even competing against the top team in the country much less beating or being that team? Crappy, blowout playoff games only serve to further water down the bowl season. That said, if we must have a playoff (and it appears that we must), I do think there is an opportunity to improve the quality of the semifinal CFP Playoff games by expanding the field.
My thoughts: If the playoff is going to be expanded at all, I think the 12 game format that has been proposed is the best option, although that's an awful lot to ask that some kids play as many as 4 extra games. (That equates to SEVENTEEN games in a season if you go to the championship game seeded any lower than #4. That is so tough on the players, both physically and emotionally.) Still, if it must be expanded, then I would go with twelve. The only tweaks that I would suggest are: First, count Notre Dame as an ACC team. - the implementation is 2 years away at least with adequate time for them to adjust their schedule and this would force then to have to play the extra conference championship game just like everyone else.
Second, and this is the biggest change, reduce the number of bowl games dramatically. At last count, there are Forty-three bowl games planned for this coming season. There are currently 10 FBS conferences. Count independents as a conference, then give each conference 2 bowl affiliations; one for it's champion and a second for its runner-up (plus the highest and second highest ranking independents with UND in the ACC). That equates to 22 bowl games. Add the 4 Quarterfinal Playoff bowl game and the 2 semifinal games and that' adds up to 28 bowls. Add 6 more At-Large bowls for better teams who were not 1st or 2nd in their respective conferences, and now the final total is 34 bowl games, with 62 teams getting a bowl bid. The lower ranked team travels to the higher ranked team's affiliated bowl game which means that the #3 teams in some conferences will get a bid to play in their affiliated bowl if the #1 or #2 team in the conference travels to another conferences affiliate bowl. If you're not ranked among the top 62 teams in the country then you don't deserve a bowl game, IMHO. Give all other teams who did not get a bowl bid the option to hold 15 post season practices over a 4 week period following their conference championship game, with 1 full scrimmage allowed and 5 other days of full contact.
I think this reduces the number of bowl games enough so that it's not so watered down, it still gives the lower ranked team the extra developmental practices if they choose to take advantage, it ensures that a top 2 finish in one's conference actually means something after the conference championship game is played. It also allows for "tiers" of bowl games, setting some up to be more prestigious than others in a more definitive way beside just the New Year's 6 bowls and the CFP Semifinals.
If you had the patience to read this far down, sorry for the long post. I was bored.
I would love to hear what your different ideas may be and what you like about your own suggestions . . . what would you suggest and why?
Now that we have a playoff, I'm sure there's no going back. I'm not a huge fan of expanding it, even though I'm a fan of a couple of G5 teams who eventually could benefit from the expansion. Everyone argues every year about the 3rd and 4th teams to get in, but the #4 team always seems to get blown out and the #3 team often does as well. These games are usually over midway through the 3rd quarter for all intents and purposes. There are really only 2 or 3 contenders for the best team in the country at the end of each season anyway, and this is not like basketball where a team can get hot shooting the 3's, get the other team in foul trouble and pull off a miracle. It's far, far less likely to happen at the end of the year in football. So why give so many teams a playoff spot who have absolutely ZERO chance of even competing against the top team in the country much less beating or being that team? Crappy, blowout playoff games only serve to further water down the bowl season. That said, if we must have a playoff (and it appears that we must), I do think there is an opportunity to improve the quality of the semifinal CFP Playoff games by expanding the field.
My thoughts: If the playoff is going to be expanded at all, I think the 12 game format that has been proposed is the best option, although that's an awful lot to ask that some kids play as many as 4 extra games. (That equates to SEVENTEEN games in a season if you go to the championship game seeded any lower than #4. That is so tough on the players, both physically and emotionally.) Still, if it must be expanded, then I would go with twelve. The only tweaks that I would suggest are: First, count Notre Dame as an ACC team. - the implementation is 2 years away at least with adequate time for them to adjust their schedule and this would force then to have to play the extra conference championship game just like everyone else.
Second, and this is the biggest change, reduce the number of bowl games dramatically. At last count, there are Forty-three bowl games planned for this coming season. There are currently 10 FBS conferences. Count independents as a conference, then give each conference 2 bowl affiliations; one for it's champion and a second for its runner-up (plus the highest and second highest ranking independents with UND in the ACC). That equates to 22 bowl games. Add the 4 Quarterfinal Playoff bowl game and the 2 semifinal games and that' adds up to 28 bowls. Add 6 more At-Large bowls for better teams who were not 1st or 2nd in their respective conferences, and now the final total is 34 bowl games, with 62 teams getting a bowl bid. The lower ranked team travels to the higher ranked team's affiliated bowl game which means that the #3 teams in some conferences will get a bid to play in their affiliated bowl if the #1 or #2 team in the conference travels to another conferences affiliate bowl. If you're not ranked among the top 62 teams in the country then you don't deserve a bowl game, IMHO. Give all other teams who did not get a bowl bid the option to hold 15 post season practices over a 4 week period following their conference championship game, with 1 full scrimmage allowed and 5 other days of full contact.
I think this reduces the number of bowl games enough so that it's not so watered down, it still gives the lower ranked team the extra developmental practices if they choose to take advantage, it ensures that a top 2 finish in one's conference actually means something after the conference championship game is played. It also allows for "tiers" of bowl games, setting some up to be more prestigious than others in a more definitive way beside just the New Year's 6 bowls and the CFP Semifinals.
If you had the patience to read this far down, sorry for the long post. I was bored.
I would love to hear what your different ideas may be and what you like about your own suggestions . . . what would you suggest and why?
Last edited:
