“I’m kind of an eight-team person.”

Count Texas AD DeLoss Dodds as another person who doesn’t think a four-team playoff is big enough.  Why? Well…

… He argued that an eight-team playoff would lessen the controversy over teams not included in a four-team field.

“I think there’ll be a lot of conversation about the fifth team and who didn’t get in and an 11-1 team that didn’t get in because somebody’s 12-0 that maybe wasn’t quite as good as 11-1,” he said. “If you take eight, you’re not going to have that. The ninth team is going to have a concern, but it’s not like the fifth team.”

I wonder if Mack Brown will agree with that the first time Texas is sitting at Number 9.

There is no way the four-team format is going to make it through the entire term of the new contract.

About these ads

48 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

48 responses to ““I’m kind of an eight-team person.”

  1. The other Doug

    It sounds like he is worried that Texas won’t be one of the 4 very often.

  2. Go Dawgs!

    There’s controversy about teams being left out of the field of 64 in the basketball tournament for crying out loud, and every single team in Division 1 has an automatic way to get in if they just win their conference tournaments… they STILL whine and complain about it for four straight days until the thing tips off. In 2004, there was a groundswell of voices across the league and across the country for Auburn getting left on the outside looking in at that OU-USC national championship game. You know who was still whining about it a year later? Just Auburn fans. And that’s the way it’ll go for this fifth team. Dodds wants eight teams because he thinks he can more easily politic his team in there and therefore make money and save his coaches. That’s all. Over the entire course of college football, they’ve been able to pick champs either without a game at all or with just two teams going head to head. The sport hasn’t faded into obscurity. I think they can put together a good enough four team field. Besides, think of all the years over the course of the BCS’ history where the regular season produced either one or two teams with irrefutable arguments for the title and no more than two? I’ve thought several times over the course of all this that the four team playoff could have screwed things up in those years. Eight teams? Fuhgeddabbatit.

    • mdcgtp

      So let me get this straight. because the fans OF ONLY a team that is hurt by the then current process (like say Auburn 2004 or team X in 2016) are only the ones who “care” a “year later”, we should not seek an alternative system. Further, because there will BY DEFINITION ALWAYS be a team that finished one spot below qualifying, we should NOT seek to improve the system.

      That is fantastic logic

      Dodds point is a simple one. By definition a team that finishes 5 had a better season than one that finishes 9. That said, when you have more teams, the probability of EXCLUDING a team that could in fact win it all goes down.

      Look at the following link.

      http://mcubed.net/ncaab/seeds.shtml

      If you look at the record of 3 seeds vs. 2 and one seed, you in fact see that 1 v 2 matchups (which you would have in an 8 team tourney). Its about 55/45 in favor of the 1 seed. When you stretch it to 2 v 3 historically, it is 60-40 in favor of the two seed. Now look at the difference of 2 v 6 compared to 3 v 6. I am not saying its statistically significant NOR that the sample size is different nor that basketball is the same as football. I recognize that a 3 seed in this sample includes teams ranked 9-12 in theory. (perhaps the BETTER research is the historical results in the FCS)

      The bottom line is while you are PROBABLY 100% correct that a clown like Deloss Dodds (who single-handedly catalyzed all the stupid realignment in college football because he wanted more money from having a network dedicated to his own school) arguing for 8 teams is because of texas. that said, his POINT about the 9th team being less controversial about missing the tourney than the 5th is almost certainly correct because the 9th team’s probability of winning is much lower than the 5th team

      • Playoffs grow. They always do. CFB will be no different.

        • stoopnagle

          And we all remember how easy it was to come up with a top ten with the Mumme Poll.

          8 is really too many.

      • Go Dawgs!

        I get his point, mdcgtp, I’m not an idiot. I’m telling you that his argument that growing the field to 8 teams will cut down on controversy is foolish. It won’t. It will add to the chorus of voices calling for 16 teams. I’m saying if you didn’t have a season that gets you into the field of four, maybe you shouldn’t get into the playoffs. Maybe you should have had a better season. Because if you lost a game and you’re trying to compare your resume with another one loss team, you didn’t do all you could to get in. Better luck next time. I don’t want college football to become baseball where a team can finish second in its division and win the World Series because it got hot late.

        • Cojones

          Disagree on adding voices for 16 teams. All voices can be heard right now and 8 teams won’t bring out voices that could otherwise be expressed. The Top Eight teams from polls represents a better playoff standard than four teams being chosen by “unbiased” selectors. “Choosing Four” is not a playoff.There will be more assenting voices for eight than there ever will be for 16 because the agreeable base grows.

          • Macallanlover

            Dead on Cojones, the aegument will be left to the desperate voices with no case. This controversy is because they did a half-ass job…literally. Reasonable dissent has to be dealt with, beyond six or eight, there is no rational case with the current number of teams.

        • GaskillDawg

          It already is. Alabama finished second in its division in 2011 and got the BCS throphy.

      • stoopnagle

        No wait a minute. What if team #9 is ESS EEE CEE?

      • Hackerdog

        The faulty logic is that which insists that expanding a playoff will end the controversy and complaining about which teams weren’t included. Unless you want to include ALL the teams, which I think some do.

        • Macallanlover

          And point noted, you have maintained that all along. While no one disputes there will always be a group that will want to expand indefinitely, the difference is credible inclusion. There are more than four “power conferences” so expansion is mandated to include those representatives (5-6), and there are reasonable cases for the occasional mid-major, independent, or a Top 5 team that didn’t win their conference. Eight allows for all that and disarms the whiners who were 9th, ot worst. Everyone will have their shot with 8 teams, four doesn’t address the reason for goin from 2 to 4 teams.

    • Monday Night Frotteur

      There was *much less* controversy about omitting Virginia Tech from the 2011 NCAA tournament than there was about picking Alabama over Oklahoma State in 2011. Much firmer ground for the former than the latter too.

  3. The more teams getting in means the more teams believing they’re getting screwed. So when it was 2 teams, only upwards of 2 other teams felt hosed from time to time. Now it will be 3-4 teams. At an 8-teamer it’ll be 5-6 teams bitching. If not more.

    • Mayor of Dawgtown

      +1.

    • mdcgtp

      it is NOT about how they “feel” per se. It is about being able to make a legitimate claim that at a certain point the odds of winning the playoff fall below a threshold that suggests they can “win it all”. Yes, there is always going to be a “we made the tourney” feeling about a team that is “one and done”, but I think if UGA made said 4 or 8 team tourney a year ago and LOST to say Stanford or Oregon or Notre Dame, we would feel DRAMATICALLY different than we did.

    • exactly, although you’re conservative on those estimates for 4team and 8team playoffs.

  4. Hell, why stop there? Why not 24 like the poors in FCS do it?

    Now that we have entered the playoff arena, the purpose behind the end of the season is morphing from trying to find a better way to identify the national champion than just the polls (the bowl coalition and BCS) to a pure money-making outfit with little to tie the regular season to the grand finale except the commonality of the teams participating. When your sport is unique because it has the best regular season in sports, it is a sad day when the regular season becomes just the entrance requirement to the contrived spectacle.

    For those that said, “they’ll stop at x because…,” what do you think of the unanimously inevitable expansion to 8 before the ink is even dry on the four-team agreement? I bet we’ll be at 16 before 2025 unless the power conferences secede from the NCAA to form their own organization.

    • c

      If it could be taken seriously, I’d take that bet.

      • Cojones

        Sometimes (rarely, thank goodness, the full name doesn’t get expressed. Not my doing, but if you see a “c” in the future, it more than likely is mine.

  5. DawgPhan

    Nothing like destroying the thing that made you successful so you can take less money. Awesome business model.

  6. Joe Schmoe

    Break away the top 64 teams. Form 4, 16-team conferences. First round of playoff is the conference championship games. Winners meet in a 4-team playoff. Teams can only schedule other teams in the other 3 conferences. No polls, no selection committee, no media bias, no bitching about scheduling, no cupcakes.

  7. Cpark

    8 teams would allow for more of an nfl type regular season and take away the magic of college football. For example, No one wants to see a SECCG bound #3 Alabama rest its starters against Auburn in the iron bowl or a #1 LSU not run a trick play against against a #12 South Carolina in the final minutes of a close SECCG because they are saving it for the playoffs and all they really have to do is ensure they dont drop past #8 to have a shot at the National title. Look no further than the Indianapolis Colts during their chance at a perfect season in 2009, they rested their players during the season for the playoffs and said “to hell with the fans or making history”. Or les miles comments regarding the schedules with the only national championship in mind. After a quick observation of the current college football landscape, it’s pretty obvious that the powers that be in the front offices and the coaches who have huge bonuses tied to a NC are not above slighting fans or tradition

    If 4 isn’t the magic number, expand and cap the playoff to 6. Starting 2 weeks after the Conference Championships, Give #1 & #2 a first round bye since they would’ve earned it at that point and let #3 play #6 and #4 play #5. There is not going to be a year where more than 5 teams have a legitimate argument for a national title and having a 6th team would allow for a Fluke or “Cinderella story” that people seem to clamor for in college football. Improtant regular season, important conference titles, meaningful bowl games earlier in December, a fair way of deciding the undisputed champ, a better product.

    • Cojones

      When they have games won, coaches “rest” their players and not until. It has nothing to do with tournaments and has been done for years The boogerbears that you people conjure up make me blush and that’s damned hard to do.

      • Hackerdog

        So, you’re saying that the Colts DIDN’T rest starters in 2009, with a perfect season on the line, only to lose a meaningless game to the Jets, because they had already locked up the #1 seed in the playoffs? I wonder why I thought they did? Wait a minute, I knew I wasn’t crazy. They did tank the game to rest people for the playoffs.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/sports/football/28jets.html?_r=0

      • Macallanlover

        Never saw UGA, FU, or Bama rest a player in their final game the week before the SECCG. No better evidence that comparing pros is a bad example. All the evidence supports the ballsy one.

    • cube

      Your first example is bogus. Nobody is guaranteed of making an 8 team format with 2 games left.

      As far as the second example goes, I guess it’s remotely possible that a team wouldn’t care that much about winning their final game if they were #1 or #2…but highly, highly unlikely. Not only would it mean that they felt completely comfortable that a loss wouldn’t drop them below #8 but also that they wouldn’t care about having to play a higher ranked team to start the playoff and possibly have to play farther from home.

  8. Monday Night Frotteur

    We’ll be at 16 in 5 years, which would be great. Both the difficulty of selecting between teams 4 and 5 Dodds notes, and the massive pile of money being left on the table will force the issue.

  9. Connor

    Death, taxes, and the expansion of playoffs. If you’re in for a penny on these, you’re in for a pound.

  10. PTC DAWG

    I have been for 8 for a while.

    • Well, I guess you’ll get to enjoy that while it lasts.

      • Cojones

        And 8 teams will last much longer than any other number despite the pessimists.

        • Hackerdog

          I guess we’ll just have to rely on your, apparently infallible, crystal ball.

          By the way, can you let me know what next Friday’s lottery numbers will be? I’m sure you don’t need to keep winning it every week. Spread the wealth, man.

          • Cojones

            I’ve blogged on the reasoning for 8 teams for some time now. If you want to read the few that stated the case more fully, help yourself. Otherwise, the reasoning for any number will qualify for your statement.

            Which lottery? I have several correct numbers for you.

  11. Slaw Dawg

    Personally, I remain against playoffs at any number, period. I still don’t understand what we’re trying to fix. Has pre-playoff Division I (or whatever it is) CFB suffered from a popularity problem vis a vis sports that have playoffs? Is it more boring, than, say, NCAA basketball or the MLB? Do I enjoy the games less than those of the NFL? To the contrary, on all scores. So why would anyone want to make CFB more like sports that are not as interesting, compelling or popular? I really don’t get it.

    Well, there are plenty of mountain trails to be hiked on autumn Saturdays, and the wife and I have been wanting to travel more, so I’m sure I’ll find some worthy alternatives when necessary a few years hence.

    And, Cojones, you’re a good Dawg, but if it’s not at 16 teams by 2026, then tell me where to meet you and I’ll buy you as many drinks of your choice as you like.

    • Cojones

      By that time, you could only buy drinks to my spirit. Try any bar. It would be “OK” if you drifted a little of the good smoke my way (I’ll be nearby).

      Slaw Dawg, you and I (along with a few others) have the same slant toward our Dawgs. Any differences are on levels not germain to our team and differences are always welcomed. If we put stuff out there as criticism of issues that can impact our team I feel a great majority on here welcome all information that helps us understand those issues.

      Direct criticism of my anonymous character on here aren’t taken much to heart. Yours and other differences are out openly and not taken as being in a personality attack mode. They address the issues and I respect them fully.

      Here’s hoping you are in a bar with a bunch of “Woof! Woof!” old Dawgs and lift one to all the old Dawgs who went before.

  12. cube

    We’ve been at 2 teams for 15 years and have 1 more to go, so it’s not like they quickly increased the size. It will have taken 16 years to add 2 more teams.

    I do have some concern about it eventually growing larger than 8 but I’m not overly concerned about it happening quickly.

    And my opinion is that it should be somewhere in the range of 4-8 teams, so we’re about to be in that sweet spot. Looking forward to it.

    • It took 16 years to go from 2 to 4. We haven’t even gotten to 4 yet and they already want 8. Once the cherry has been popped on the playoff, there is no going back… and they just want more and more.

  13. Always Someone Else's Fault

    My son plays in a 4 team Little League. They had a playoff tournament which featured a best 2 out of 3 finals, which ended 1-1-1 (the tie was the night before an EOG, and the parents rioted when the coaches wanted extra innings). So: one-game playoff.

    My daughter played in a 2 team 8U softball league. 8 games later, my daughter’s team as 8-0. Next step: 2 out of 3 playoff series.

    It’s become an infatuation at all levels of sport. It’s insane. It’s ridiculous.

  14. mp

    What makes 8-team proponents think this will wind up being the top 8 teams? Isn’t the most likely scenario for it to result in 5 major conference champs plus 3 at large (maybe selected by committee that at worst has rules that incentivize it to choose ND and maybe even a mid-major, but at best has other incentives to do so)? Maybe they’ll put limitations on champions such that champs have to be ranked so-and-so high, but odds of top-8 teams are slim to none.

    • cube

      I guess the better question is what makes you think an 8 team format will require conference champions? The 2 team format that they’ve had for 15 years (about to be 16) has never had a conference champion requirement and the 4 team format that they’re about to go to doesn’t have one either.

  15. TomReagan

    For whatever it’s worth, I saw Jeff Monken, head coach at Georgia Southern, speak a few weeks ago and he talked about how the field would be at 16 in a matter of years like it was as certain as the rising of the sun… which it is. Not only that, he spoke about an NCAA sanctioned style of tournament like 1-AA has where conference champs are automatic. Lord help us if this thing gets taken over by the NCAA and Troy gets an automatically while we sit it out. Ugh.

    If I woke up tomorrow and you told me we were back in the pre-Bowl Coalition days then I’d be a very happy man.