Malzahn wants 8-team playoff (Merged Threads)

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

3 hours ago, AUsince72 said:

I know this battleship is moving too fast to ever turn but since they've proven that the human bias will not allow a Boise St or UCF or whoever in why not just cut to the chase and create the Mega-Conferences or Div. 1A-Power or whatever you wanna call it.

Instead of 5, million team conferences where the schedule is pretty much the same every year except 3 games, maybe recreate the old Big 8 and SWC and redistribute the teams as regionally/historically appropriate? (Sorry, I know history & tradition are bad words to the younger generation...)

You now have 6 conferences with the "traditional" powers that have the real money and background to sustain as they've been for 30-50 years + room for two conferences to take on the "best of the rest".

You have 8 conference champs in the playoffs (thus allowing a couple Cinderellas in every year) and the rest can keep the historical Bowls alive....sort of an "NIT" if you will.

I know the "best team" people and the "best resume" people like to duke it out and I see the merit in both arguments.  However in the real world, where most of us live, work & breath, the results are what count.  You wanna go to the playoff?  Win your conference.  If that's the Rule, then nobody can complain about being left out due to human error or prejudice.

I know this won't fly with most f you but I'm bored and just thought I'd toss it out anyway.  Not like it would happen...

I'd like to be in Fayetville, Ark if that happened. The meltdown of being stuck with Texas, aTm, Tech et al. again would be awesome to watch.

[AUsince72 11,084]

9 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

I'd like to be in Fayetville, Ark if that happened. The meltdown of being stuck with Texas, aTm, Tech et al. again would be awesome to watch.

I imagine you're right, HA!

But.. I'll bet their recruiting base would improve.  Again, regionally it would just make more sense.

...but that's another subject.

[AUwent 3,747]

11 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

I'd like to be in Fayetville, Ark if that happened. The meltdown of being stuck with Texas, aTm, Tech et al. again would be awesome to watch.

Again, see the video I posted above.

[Randman5000 4,223]

I understand all points, but the bottom line is the system still has flaws. Ex: big ten champ, UCF, alabama ( not winning conf. And strength of schedule) I understand the argument against 6-8 teams. March madness tournament admits that they don't know who the best team is and they have the tournament to figure it out. It's great to have a Cinderella best a big dog, ala Ohio St over bama a few years ago but not quite the same. At the end of their tournament there is no dispute who the best team team is. In college football, there are still questions. Some years it works out but this year I say gives evidence that it still needs work. The committee set a horrible precedent last year by letting Ohio St in over Penn St. If that had happened to an SEC champ, the committee members would get death threats. The big 12 was punished for not having an out right champion and the big 10 was punished. Alabama was rewarded for not making it as SEC West Champ and it's unfair. Maybe change the criteria that you have to at least win your division or something. Whether they do that or not, alabama may have won but I do not believe that they should have been in the playoffs. I'm not even mentioning their horrible schedule. The committee said they wanted to rewarded teams for hard schedules, we got the bump over Wisconsin but yet alabama lost against their top ten matchup and made it in. Some things need to change and I think it Would be great for college football to have a real tourney!

That being said, I think we have a real shot of doing what alabama did this year, next year. It will be almost impossible to go 3-0 to close out against Uga, alabama and uga again. But I think we can beat alabama, they go to champ game and we still get into the playoffs with 1 loss to uga. I'm calling it now. But the best thing is expand to 6-8 teams. 

[WarTiger 3,896]

6 hours ago, Randman5000 said:

I understand all points, but the bottom line is the system still has flaws. Ex: big ten champ, UCF, alabama ( not winning conf. And strength of schedule) I understand the argument against 6-8 teams. March madness tournament admits that they don't know who the best team is and they have the tournament to figure it out. It's great to have a Cinderella best a big dog, ala Ohio St over bama a few years ago but not quite the same. At the end of their tournament there is no dispute who the best team team is. In college football, there are still questions. Some years it works out but this year I say gives evidence that it still needs work. The committee set a horrible precedent last year by letting Ohio St in over Penn St. If that had happened to an SEC champ, the committee members would get death threats. The big 12 was punished for not having an out right champion and the big 10 was punished. Alabama was rewarded for not making it as SEC West Champ and it's unfair. Maybe change the criteria that you have to at least win your division or something. Whether they do that or not, alabama may have won but I do not believe that they should have been in the playoffs. I'm not even mentioning their horrible schedule. The committee said they wanted to rewarded teams for hard schedules, we got the bump over Wisconsin but yet alabama lost against their top ten matchup and made it in. Some things need to change and I think it Would be great for college football to have a real tourney!

That being said, I think we have a real shot of doing what alabama did this year, next year. It will be almost impossible to go 3-0 to close out against Uga, alabama and uga again. But I think we can beat alabama, they go to champ game and we still get into the playoffs with 1 loss to uga. I'm calling it now. But the best thing is expand to 6-8 teams.   That's your opinion.  Not everybody share that opinion.  I know I don't.   The last thing we need to do, IMO, is add more teams.   It won't matter how much its expanded,  someoone will always be angry they were "left out".   Adding more teams isn't the answer.  The answer is setting strict criteria that the committee must adhere to in order to get the deserving teams in the playoffs.    I do believe that if you aren't at the very least in your conference championship game you should be disqualified from the playoffs.   Quite frankly, I'm not a fan of the playoff that much and didn't care for the BCS either, but if we are going to use something like a playoff we need to have selection criteria that is followed. 

You think Ohio State is a cinderella type program?  really?   As much as I loathe Ohio State that isn't even remotely close.   A cinderella would be a team just like Central Florida that ran the table or like the run Valparaiso had in basketball back in 1998.   Ohio State beating uat isn't even remotely close to a Cinderella beating a big dog.

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,287]

50 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

You think Ohio State is a cinderella type program?  really?   As much as I loathe Ohio State that isn't even remotely close.   A cinderella would be a team just like Central Florida that ran the table or like the run Valparaiso had in basketball back in 1998.   Ohio State beating uat isn't even remotely close to a Cinderella beating a big dog.

EXACTLY.  If I remember correctly, Ohio State has like 4 loses since Urban has been back. Cinderella my ass.

[aujohnson 296]

I vote for a 10 team playoff where the bottom four play into a group of 8. So 6 teams get a bye with four playing for the 7-8 slots. 

The only way a team that doesn’t win their conference can get in is through the four team “wild card match up”

So this year you’d have potentially Auburn, Wisconsin, Ohio state, and Alabama playing each other to get in. 

The top 6 would be a mix of the rest of the top 10 or so. 

That way you aren’t totally out if you just happened to be in the tough division of your conference. 

 

Of course nobody is asking me so...

[AUwent 3,747]

There comes a point, of course, where the importance of regular season games becomes greatly diminished—mainly conference championships. A six team playoff would be the best compromise, to me.

1998–the first year of the BCS era—for instance, could’ve used a six team playoff. Aside from Tennessee and FSU, you had two very deserving Big 12 teams (KSU and A&M), as well as 1-loss conference champs UCLA and tOSU. I’ve tried to figure out what best would’ve been a four team playoff that year and it feels nearly impossible, the teams are so interchangeable after Tennessee.

On the other hand, a lot of years would’ve been best suited for a three team playoff (with #1 off). 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 come to mind.

[keesler 5,922]

Honestly, with the annual injuries that pile up on our team (because we have the toughest SEC schedule) I can't see how we'd be expected to endure an additional SEC opponent in the regular season + the SECCG + 3 playoff games in a row.

Why should we be an advocate for making it harder for Auburn to win a NC?  As proven this very season (with 4 losses), it's already hard enough.

Football fans wanted to cut the BCS out and make a playoff system which made it tougher....Now some want to make it even tougher by adding an SEC game in the regular season + conf champ + 3 playoff games.

[I_M4_AU 7,752]

4 minutes ago, keesler said:

Honestly, with the annual injuries that pile up on our team (because we have the toughest SEC schedule) I can't see how we'd be expected to endure an additional SEC opponent in the regular season + the SECCG + 3 playoff games in a row.

Why should we be an advocate for making it harder for Auburn to win a NC?  As proven this very season (with 4 losses), it's already hard enough.

Football fans wanted to cut the BCS out and make a playoff system which made it tougher....Now some want to make it even tougher by adding an SEC game in the regular season + conf champ + 3 playoff games.

This, and in the above scenario a playoff team would potentially play 16 games.  We are totally beat up by the end of the season and most teams are, adding additional games would enhance the University’s bottom line, but add additional stress on the student athlete.  You may as well pay the players financed by the University and the NFL if you make the playoffs.  This of course will never happen, but as we have seen in the last couple of years, what is the incentive for a player with NFL potential to play in these games?  I know they are playoff games, but how much does winning add to the bottom line of the athlete?

Years ago I would have never thought a student athlete would sit out a bowl.  Now I can see it creep into a playoff game if we go to 8 games.  JMO.

[Randman5000 4,223]

9 hours ago, WarTiger said:

You think Ohio State is a cinderella type program?  really?   As much as I loathe Ohio State that isn't even remotely close.   A cinderella would be a team just like Central Florida that ran the table or like the run Valparaiso had in basketball back in 1998.   Ohio State beating uat isn't even remotely close to a Cinderella beating a big dog.

No. You missed the part where I said, not quite the same. I am referring to the fact that no one expected them to best alabama with that backup QB and they were too young everyone said. I would love to have a real Cinderella.