Their opinions are the last thing anyone will consider

But the Alabama and Clemson players, who will be playing their 15th game of the season for the second straight year, are not in favor of adding a 16th game, which is what would be required if the playoff expands to 8 teams.

Heaven forbid that the athletes actually are taken into consideration in making a decision like this, but anyway…

<LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.si.com/college-football/2017 … ma-clemson”>http://www.si.com/college-football/2017/01/07/college-football-playoff-eight-teams-alabama-clemson</LINK_TEXT>

I think this is a really good point. And you are right, the people that are lining their pockets with these games don’t give a rat’s ars about the kids.

Just get rid of the conference championship games

absolutely.
this year proves that they dont really mean anything as far as playoffs go…

Probably a good trade off. That is a change of position for me. It does raise some issues. Is there truly a “SEC” if you have limited interdivision play and no title game? That is a question, not an argument. I don’t know the answer.

Money wise? The SEC (and the others) make big bucks on their title games. Would adding one more round make up for that? How would the extra money from the extra round be distributed? For example, if you have no conference championship game, but, you still only out one team in the 8 team playoffs (which is what would have happened to the SEC this year), you lose out on one source of revenue, but get no extra? That is a problem.

If I’m in the NCAA playoffs every year like Bama, I don’t think their players, coaches, or fans would want a change of any kind.

I think you could greatly reduce the probability of a 16th game by going to 12 teams. Give the end of the season’s top 4 ranked teams a bye. Stop the conference championship games and replace them with an 8 team play-in between the 5th and 12th ranked teams. The 5th - 8th ranked teams would get their pick of the bowls they will be playing in.

Re-seed the winners, with the lowest of the seeds playing the #1 ranked team and so on as your final 4 play-off games. This way, the top 4 ranked teams at the end of the regular season cannot play 16 games in winning the championship. In most years there would probably be 2 top 4 ranked teams playing in the championship game. That would mean no team would play 16 games. It would be a very rare occasion for all 4 of the top ranked teams to get beat, leaving 2 teams with 16 games.

Any conference that did not have a team ranked in the top 12, would still play their conference championship game.

I would be in favor of them going to a 6 team playoff and give the top 2 seeds byes.

There are not 12 teams with a real shot of winning it all. There are not 6 teams with a real shot of winning it all. There might be 4 some years. Enough. This ain’t basketball. Conference championships still matter. Keep the SECG.

This. Two-team playoff would have been plenty this year. Bama and Clemson, and a big gap to everyone else.

How about young adults??

Oh geez. Give me a frickin break. Go back to the orifice in which you crawled out of.

I’ve never been a fan of the playoffs. The one the players voiced is just one of several good reasons not to have one. However, money reigns & fans think the only way to find a “true” champion is to have it decided by a tournament.

I wouldn’t get rid of conference championship games. I’d reduce the season to 11 regular season games. Then a conf championship game, then bowls. If some “playoff” is absolutely necessary, then after the bowls I’d have a committee pick two teams to play for the championship. No game would be played beyond Jan 1 (except on years NY falls on Sunday) except that one championship game.

What’s your point? How does this play into the discussion?

Chazir was just making a very petty comment. Some people just like to make any kind of noise. You see these types on the Buffalo River blaring their jam box going down the river instead of enjoying the outdoors as it is. NOISEMAKERS.

I know. You’re right. My question was rhetorical.

Swine, when did you join us? We’ve debated this several times over the years, with you always siding on an expanded playoff field.

I knew you’d come to your senses sooner or later . . .

:smiley:

I don’t know whose posts you’ve been reading, Wiz, but I have not been on the side of expanding the playoff field. Eight at most, and that would require schedule tweaking – getting rid of the conference championship games, or shortening the regular season. I have certainly never been in favor of the common “next step” – eight teams with the five Power 5 winners automatically, and three at-large teams. And when I read somebody in favor of a 16 or 32-team tournament I just shake my head. This ain’t basketball.

Generally four teams is the proper number. This year the proper number was two.

i would have liked to see PENN STATE play clemson
or as USC bama rematch

im not sure i knew there were only two worthy teams until after the playoff