8 or 12 team playoff?

[TW]

Interesting discussion. It's all so unpredictable. But, like Pack always says, "Follow the money."

 

[FlaPack]

Interesting discussion. It's all so unpredictable. But, like Pack always says, "Follow the money."

Yes good discussion....so many moving parts. While the money will ultimately factor in, I still think the university presidents carry so much weight that 8 is the number at the end of the day

 

[realitybytes]

Yes good discussion....so many moving parts. While the money will ultimately factor in, I still think the university presidents carry so much weight that 8 is the number at the end of the day

8 is better than 4. i'd rather see 10.

 

[GBP4EVER]

no not really, it depends how the committee ranks them. Will they get 1 at large probably but its not a lock

You don't think there will be at least 2 SEC teams good enough to be in play for a at large most years?

 

[FlaPack]

You don't think there will be at least 2 SEC teams good enough to be in play for a at large most years?

as I said ...Will they get 1 at large probably but its not a lock

 

[57packer]

I think anything more than 8, while it adds more schools to the mix (and MAYBE adds dollars) adds yet another week to the whole process. Not sure it would work logistically.

With anything more than 8 I suppose you could play first and second round games in December and then go to a "final four" for New Years with the championship a week later. Kinda how it works now in terms of the 4 team format. The problem with that is now some of the premier teams that have played in the first 2 rounds aren't likely available for the New Years Bowl games which might not be palatable.

If you use the New Years Day type Bowls to host first round games, then the whole thing won't finish until almost February. With the NFL Combine a few weeks after that, more players might not like the timing and sit out, which also becomes a problem in selling the games.

I think 8 makes the most sense. Sure, those teams from 9-12 or 9-16 would enjoy the opportunity, but the history of even the 4 team playoff indicates that in the end there are really only 3-4 teams capable of winning the whole thing. There is very little parity in college football especially near the top, and adding more games won't change the fact that only a handful of schools are really a threat to win it all.

 

[FlaPack]

I think anything more than 8, while it adds more schools to the mix (and MAYBE adds dollars) adds yet another week to the whole process. Not sure it would work logistically.

With anything more than 8 I suppose you could play first and second round games in December and then go to a "final four" for New Years with the championship a week later. Kinda how it works now in terms of the 4 team format. The problem with that is now some of the premier teams that have played in the first 2 rounds aren't likely available for the New Years Bowl games which might not be palatable.

If you use the New Years Day type Bowls to host first round games, then the whole thing won't finish until almost February. With the NFL Combine a few weeks after that, more players might not like the timing and sit out, which also becomes a problem in selling the games.

I think 8 makes the most sense. Sure, those teams from 9-12 or 9-16 would enjoy the opportunity, but the history of even the 4 team playoff indicates that in the end there are really only 3-4 teams capable of winning the whole thing. There is very little parity in college football especially near the top, and adding more games won't change the fact that only a handful of schools are really a threat to win it all.

This is an excellent point. While some say there are too many bowl games, the conferences love them, they are made for TV events and everyone makes money. You get past 8 teams and some early games are unwatchable bloodbaths. It’s just not good TV to be blunt. And again one more travel week

 

[GBP4EVER]

This is an excellent point. While some say there are too many bowl games, the conferences love them, they are made for TV events and everyone makes money. You get past 8 teams and some early games are unwatchable bloodbaths. It’s just not good TV to be blunt. And again one more travel week

I do agree with this and I think I would not be shocked if they start with 6 to see how adding 2 teams does before they add more. Easier to add teams then take them away start slow.

 

[FlaPack]

I do agree with this and I think I would not be shocked if they start with 6 to see how adding 2 teams does before they add more. Easier to add teams then take them away start slow.

6 makes no sense. For one when it’s gets too 8 they are not going backwards to 6 or 4. Second all it does is creates a bye week for the top 2 seeds so you still have the same travel issues with the extra week. One more thing, it’s does not really create any “at large” scenarios. All you get is the top 6 who the committee votes in. I don’t see one at large being logical if you expand

 

[GBP4EVER]

6 makes no sense. For one when it’s gets too 8 they are not going backwards to 6 or 4. Second all it does is creates a bye week for the top 2 seeds so you still have the same travel issues with the extra week. One more thing, it’s does not really create any “at large” scenarios. All you get is the top 6 who the committee votes in. I don’t see one at large being logical if you expand

Yeah you do have a point there.