National writer says four, not eight teams, is the perfect playoff and uses The Game as rationale.

Submitted by wolverine1987 on

Ryan McGee at ESPN counters the current talk of 8 teams being the perfect playoff amount with some good points about keeping it at 4. I recognize there are legitimate good points on both sides of this argument, but believe 4 is the right number for many reasons, chief among them being how it makes the year end games actual do or die, win or you're out games, which ratchets up the pressure and the pain of loss considerably, thus keeping the regular season, each game, critical, unlike the NFL. Brian has written often of his six team playoff idea, which I could support, but not 8, and I agree with his reasoning then that (paraphrased) "there has never been a year on the modern era where there were 8 teams worthy of being a champion."

"Look no further than The Game. Whenever Michigan and Ohio State share a field, there will be excitement and anger and people who have dressed their babies up like Woody and Bo. But think about the situation Saturday morning, with all that was on the line. Anyone who says there wasn't an extra level of electricity to that game didn't watch it."

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18152730/why-four-teams…

 

MGoBoard
Football

UMAmaizinBlue

November 28th, 2016 at 10:31 AM ^

How many teams are in, as long as the idea is "the best X teams make it in". I'm not sure if UM is one of the best 4 teams in the country. I get the argument for the end of year games mattering, but imagine UM and OSU played in September.


Would UM be in the top 4? Maybe, maybe not, but when the games are played matters even though I argue that it shouldn't (and if you make the argument that it does matter, then our wins against teams like PSU are lessened because they caught fire later and played like garbage early on).

Joined: 09/23/2009

MGoPoints: 36345

theytookourjobs

November 28th, 2016 at 10:31 AM ^

Too many good and worthy teams get screwed out of this.  Certainly better than the godforsaken BCS system, but would love to see 8 teams and would just about gaurantee it happens within the next 5 years

Joined: 11/24/2008

MGoPoints: 10442

bluepow

November 28th, 2016 at 12:35 PM ^

The only way I can support 8 teams is if quarterfinal games are played on campus.  Six is probably perfect with two byes and two home-advantaged quarterfinal games.  But, in general, the writer is dead-on; college football is special because every game is a championship game.

Joined: 11/11/2009

MGoPoints: 3931

Tater

November 28th, 2016 at 10:31 AM ^

I want six teams: all Power Five champions and one other champion.  Making it champions only is the best way to make the conference championships actually mean something.  Otherwise, why even bother having conference championships?

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

Moonlight Graham

November 28th, 2016 at 10:43 AM ^

five conference championship game winners (er, whoever wins Bedlam in the BXII) and Ohio State. Wouldn't help us at all this year. Might help in a future scenario though. 

Too many games. You could tell in the Championship Game last year, Clemson was totally gassed and couldn't keep up with Alabama's depth. Same thing with the year before with Oregon against OSU and their third-string QB ... The handful of teams that compile top-5 recruiting classes year after year and have NFL-caliber athletes backed up by future NFL-caliber athletes are the only ones who are going to survive the conference championship game-semifinal-final gauntlet. All you'd be doing with six teams is give the Ohio States and Alabamas of the world a bye. 

Fortunately, I think over the next several season Michigan is going to be one of those well-stocked, deep team. Next year we'll be young and thin but soon we'll be older and fat ... with depth!!! Expect the trophy to basically rotate among the blue bloods like it pretty much always has.  

Joined: 09/12/2011

MGoPoints: 7559

Tuebor

November 28th, 2016 at 10:32 AM ^

I think most years 4 is the perfect number.  However some years 2 is the perfect number and 8 is the perfect number.  This year remains to be seen what the perfect number will be.  Ask again after the conference championship games.

Joined: 03/14/2011

MGoPoints: 17467

ijohnb

November 28th, 2016 at 10:35 AM ^

is the counter-point to that.  Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama and Auburn have to play one extra playoff game than everybody else in order to win the national championship.  The Game and The Iron Bowl are arguably more intense than the national championship game.  I agree that there was an additional five levels of excitement for the game, but that does not mean it should be an elimination game.  If anything, both teams showed on Saturday exactly why they should be in the Playoff.  I really don't understand why Michigan would not stay at #3 in all polls after that game on Saturday.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

1 percent

November 28th, 2016 at 10:39 AM ^

Then that means the #6 vs. #8 game at the end of the year really doesn't matter.

 

For example; next week's #7 Oklahoma vs #11 Oklahoma St game would be really important nationally ... now? Only important in Oklahoma, no one else cares.

 

Joined: 09/09/2010

MGoPoints: 11273

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

November 28th, 2016 at 10:35 AM ^

At first I read the headline with the numbers flipped and thought, awww, feewingsball, evwybody deserves to dweam if they tried hard.  Then I checked myself and realized the guy is spot on.  As much as it sucked to lose that game, even worse would be to water it down and take away what makes college football great.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 41586

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

November 28th, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^

All the time, in sports like basketball, baseball, lacrosse, or hockey, people watch their teams lose and then say, "that's OK, just get it done when it counts."  Or, "these games don't matter, just perform in the real tourney."

The moment that ever happens in college football, the entire essence of the sport will be lost.  And if the playoff were eight teams, Michigan would still be a lock, and that's exactly what everyone would be saying right now.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 41586

rice4114

November 28th, 2016 at 3:10 PM ^

Alabama gets a mulligan every year. They still have theirs yet to lose. With an 8 team playoff i think Alabama would have 3 mulligans. Imagine a solid Florida beating them in the regular season, in the conference championship, then being undfeated and having to beat them as a 3 loss team in the playoff?

Before you laugh there is an LSU fan that would like to remind you of something.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 08/26/2010

MGoPoints: 47599

poseidon7902

November 28th, 2016 at 10:42 AM ^

I agree with a caveat.  It needs to be clearly defined that the 4 teams are not defined by a conference championship game but by the eye test, SOS, and common opponents.  This would of course crush the idea of a conference championship game outside of bragging rights, but would mean the top 4 teams by virtue of their performance would get into the playoff.  This would also level the playing field a little for recruiting.  In many situations, recruited players feel that they need to go to a Bama, UM, OSU or other big name school to have a legitimate shot at playing in the playoffs.  Yes, any team can make it to the playoff, but looking at the field of teams so far in the last 3 years, it's a consistent 8 to 10 teams who really are always talked about.  If you feel your contribution can help elsewhere because your teams ability to play good is what gets you into the playoff, then you may not feel cornered into going to a school you may not have wanted to go to by your own choice.  It's marginal, but it would have a smal impact on recruiting.  

Joined: 11/09/2013

MGoPoints: 5462

canzior

November 28th, 2016 at 10:58 AM ^

because who wants to watch Alabama vs whoever #8 is? Or OSU vs #6?  i think 5 and/or 6 might be good, but 7 and 8 are almost certainly not deserving.  The Game this year wouldn't have been nearly as interesting if both teams were making the playoffs regardless of the outcome. 

I do agree, best 4 teams get in. Not conference champs necessarily because wacky things happen.  

Joined: 05/28/2010

MGoPoints: 9223

Maison Bleue

November 28th, 2016 at 12:00 PM ^

That's cool, so by your logic right now Michigan is in the playoff correct?

If OSU would have been in losing to #3 UM at home and #7 PSU on the road, while beating #6 Wiscy on the road, #8 OU on the road and #23 Nebraska at home. Then surely UM would be in losing to #2 OSU on the road and #25 Iowa on the road, while beating #6 UW at home, #7 PSU at home and #9 Colorado at home.

OSU: 10-2 with three ranked opponent wins and two ranked opponent losses

UM: 10-2 with three ranked opponent wins and two ranked opponent losses

Joined: 11/30/2012

MGoPoints: 23356

Farnn

November 28th, 2016 at 10:48 AM ^

Maybe it's just me, but the strongest argument against increasing the playoffs is increased demands on players for no compensation. They already saw an increase in regular season games from 11 to 12 a decade ago. Then they added a 13th in the form of conference championships. Then they increased the post season by a game for the playoffs. Now you want to up the total number of games to 16 for the top 2? Everyone is getting greedy and the damn is about to burst.

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 12788

ijohnb

November 28th, 2016 at 10:56 AM ^

is a good point.  If I am being completely honest, I kind of miss college football pre-BCS a little bit, and I never thought I would say that.  Saturday was seriously the most stressed out I have ever been in my life, seriously.  I don't remember feeling that stressed out before.  I felt physically not well.  There was nothing fun about it for a fan.  I love college football but I have noticed that the Playoff, while increasing competitive coherence, has really made it less enjoyable for fans.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

jmblue

November 28th, 2016 at 11:29 AM ^

Did you not feel stressed before, say, the 1997 or 2003 Games?

In the pre-BCS/Playoff era, the Big Ten title and (for us) Rose Bowl bid would have been on the line Saturday, as well as a shot at the national title (we would have been in position with a Bama loss).

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102954

ijohnb

November 28th, 2016 at 1:05 PM ^

felt stress, but it was a different kind of stress.  The CFP has created two groups, the "haves" and the "have nots."  In any given season, you are one or the other, and it is defined by whether or not your are in the group of four.  In 1997, sure, I was absolutely desperate to win, but the Playoff had not created this "exclusionary" kind of feel where you were either IN or you did not matter at all.  If we would have been a 10-1 Michigan team and went and played Florida State in the Sugar Bowl in 97, it would have stung but it would not have felt like this.  Hell, 2006 did not even feel like this because the Rose Bowl was still "something" aside from the BCS hysteria.

The Game feels like it almost has too much on the line right now.  We are likely going to the Orange Bowl to play Florida State or Louisville.  In and of itselt, that is kind of awesome, but it feels overwhelmingly depressing and I'm not sure it should.

So to answer your question, yes, I was stressed in 97, in 2003, in 2006, but I enjoyed the game.  I realized about half way through the 4th quarter on Saturday that my emotions regarding the game and its outcome had passed through and went right beyond any healthy stage of fandom.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Glennsta

November 28th, 2016 at 2:06 PM ^

I know i'm old but in my freshman year 1974, we lost to OSU, went 10-1 and didn't go to a bowl.  No bowls for runners-up.  That's why the 10-Year War was so fierce.

We lost 2 games in 3 years from 1972-74 and never got to any bowls.  OSU/UM was for everything.

Joined: 01/28/2011

MGoPoints: 4889

Glennsta

November 28th, 2016 at 1:57 PM ^

CFB is already at the point where conference championships are played on neutral sites.  As it is, the 4-team playoff requires 2 more rounds of neutral site games.

How much $ can you expect fans to shell out to attend these games?  I might pay for a weekend in Indy (plus tickets) for the Big Ten Championship  Then I get to save up to go to either Arizona or Atlanta a month later?  

Then a week after that, I get to arrange to pay to go to Tampa?  And those are assuming that i can afford tickets.  I better hope that I don't need to time off from work for all this travel and ticket expense.

At some point, it becoms like the Super Bowl, where the actual fans of the individual competing teams are in a minority of people at the stadium..

Joined: 01/28/2011

MGoPoints: 4889

Lee Everett

November 28th, 2016 at 10:48 AM ^

If four points had gone the other way we'd be universally regarded as the #2 team.  

I'd feel confident against Clemson and Washington.

We already beat Wisconsin.

As far as I'm concerned, we DID (he was fucking short) beat Ohio State despite three turnovers.

I don't care how many teams there are and what seed we are, we deserve a shot.  As it stands, weaker teams are going to get that shot.

Four points.  Two away games.  A Wilton Speight injury and an awful officiating crew.  We should be in.  This is the worst feeling.

Joined: 07/07/2016

MGoPoints: 1596

MGoManBall

November 28th, 2016 at 10:57 AM ^

But in the NFL, a team that won the division/conference and won a head to head matchup not getting in the playoff over the team that lost to them would be criminal. 

I already feel bad for Penn State... because like Michigan, they're going to get fucked. 

Joined: 10/27/2012

MGoPoints: 13029

MGoManBall

November 28th, 2016 at 11:34 AM ^

Delusional cultish fanbase aside and looking at the situation purely objectively.... yes.

Say Michigan does everything similarly except loses to Colorado & Iowa and beats OSU. Then goes to the B1G Championship and wins. And OSU doesn't lose to Penn State but has 1 loss to Michigan. Then OSU gets in the playoff and Michigan gets left out. 

That's the situation we're looking at here. 

Joined: 10/27/2012

MGoPoints: 13029