College football playoff argument

[Valuist]

I think most fans, myself included, are in favor of settling things on the field. But the next question is how many teams should be invited? Forget about a 64 team tourney like in basketball. Football teams can't come back in play in 2 days. Same thing for 32 teams.

I have to agree with football handicapper Phil Steele's theory. Almost every year there's controversy w/the BCS format, but realistically, there's rarely any cases where more than 4 teams can lay claim to have a shot at winning it all. And seeing how slowly sports evolves, I would expect to see the first playoff start with 4 teams. This year, things would unfold like this:

1. Ohio State 2. Michigan 3. USC (if they win out) and 4. Fla/Arky winner (assuming they don't lose before the SEC title game).

Ohio State would play the SEC winner and Michigan would face USC, then the two winners would face off. The three games would be part of the BCS. A grand total of ONE extra game would be played, which is supposedly what the university presidents are opposed to (we cant let the "student athletes" miss too much school). Funny how the university presidents aren't opposed to the baseball or basketball teams missing school due to the greater number of games.

In any event, once you start getting into teams like Notre Dame, LSU or West Virginia, I don't think any of those teams should be playing for the championship. A four team playoff would suffice.

[boomman]

Value: First of all, the current BCS system (as everyone knows, except the university presidents) (at least publicly) agree is antiquated and ridiculous...It is unfathomable that an organization who puts on the incredible March Madness tournament (although the selection process to that tournament isn't without it's flaws either) can't figure out a simple play-off system to determine a TRUE National Champion in football. They have gotten lucky a few times where only 2 teams were undefeated and they got to meet each other in a "so-called National Championship" game, but they aren't fooling anybody, as the current system is remarkably flawed...Although I agree that this season could probably be "hashed out" with a 4 team play-off system, I think the right number is 8..And don't kid yourselves: when it comes to making millions and millions of more dollars for each school involved, they could give a rats ass about the student athletes (who in most cases have tutors and don't attend class anyway) going to school. That's a fine and dandy excuse, and a good one if it was applicable, which it is not!!! Boom

[finfan]

John Feinstein on The Sports Reporters yesterday suggested a 6 team playoff with the top two teams getting a bye.

[cj]

I think 8 is the best number. The conference champs from the big conferences, and then 2 others invited from the smaller ones/independents.

ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10, and SEC. No runners up invited. If you don't win your conference, you don't get in.

The best thing about the plan is it makes the rankings pretty irrelevant, other than in possibly selecting the two other schools. This year it would be Notre Dame and Boise State.

[Valuist]

The problem with that is you're putting conferences like the Pac 10 and ACC on similar ground with the SEC and Big 10, who many feel are the two strongest conferences. If Michigan wouldn't be going, the tourney would be flawed. The ACC is so bad, nobody should be going.

You hear controversy about a # 3 or # 4 not getting a chance to play for the championship, but when did any # 7 or # 8 have a legit beef?

[cj]

The problem with that is you're putting conferences like the Pac 10 and ACC on similar ground with the SEC and Big 10, who many feel are the two strongest conferences. If Michigan wouldn't be going, the tourney would be flawed. The ACC is so bad, nobody should be going.

You hear controversy about a # 3 or # 4 not getting a chance to play for the championship, but when did any # 7 or # 8 have a legit beef?

I don't see that is a problem. Why do we care "how many feel"? Play it on the field. The first elimination is win your conference. If you aren't best in the conference, you certainly aren't best in the nation. I know this isn't the case in college basketball, but the game has changed for the worse. Noone cares about conference championships much anymore. The year Maryland won it all, it was regarded as a good thing the second they lost in the semifinal of the ACC tournament to NC State.

If you reward a team like Michigan for coming in second, you are detracting big time from a conference championship. Also, there have been plenty of teams that entered the bowl season ranked 7th or 8th that would have had a serious title shot. They may have lost one or even two early in the year, but were rolling come bowl season.

As far as the ACC and the PAC 10, it is all subjective. The best team in the SEC, Arkansas, was completely smacked around by USC. Is that conference really that strong? We all know this evens out over time, and the perceptions of which conference is stronger are flawed. Nothing, however, is more flawed than the fact that preseason ratings, based on pure speculation about teams and players, some of whom have never played a down, have a big impact on who is ranked where at the end.

In the end, there is nothing subjective about conference titles. There is a whole bunch subjective about telling me a second place team from one conference is better than a winner of another.

[Valuist]

It is subjective, but its also subjective when they decide what at-large teams make the basketball tournament.

As a fan, I'd like to see more teams and a bigger tournament but I know how the university presidents think and I think they wouldn't consider going beyond 4 teams. But I can't think of a team in recent years who went into the bowls ranked lower than 4th who had a justifiable claim to playing in the championship. If you look at the injustices of the system, it involved teams who were ranked in the top 4. Miami, the year they beat FSU, would be one. Auburn a couple years ago would be another. And the year Nebraska made the title game despite not winning the B12 was another. But outside Boise, ID, I don't think you'll find anybody clamoring for them to be in the title game. Or a Notre Dame team who was buried by Michigan.

BTW, right now, Arkansas is not the top ranked team in the SEC. Florida is. This year, I think the winner of the ACC wouldn't crack the top 4 in the SEC or top 3 in the Big 10.

[banacek]

The ACC is so bad, nobody should be going.


It could be argued that the World Series champion came from a division where no one should have been in the playoffs.

[cj]

BTW, right now, Arkansas is not the top ranked team in the SEC. Florida is. This year, I think the winner of the ACC wouldn't crack the top 4 in the SEC or top 3 in the Big 10.

You could very well be right, but we never really know, so it is still just an opinion.

As for Boise, why would Michigan deserve another shot over them? We KNOW that Michigan is not the best team. We at least don't know this with Boise State.

[Valuist]

You could very well be right, but we never really know, so it is still just an opinion.

As for Boise, why would Michigan deserve another shot over them? We KNOW that Michigan is not the best team. We at least don't know this with Boise State.

If you're Boise, the only way you can be taken seriously is if you play a very difficult non-conference schedule. Northern Illinois did it 3 years ago, beating Alabama, Maryland and Iowa State and they were only using the scheduling to try to get into a dink bowl, not the Nat'l Championship. Boise has one solid non-conference win: over Oregon State. The other games were against an average Wyoming team and Div 1-AA Sacramento State. Wins over D-1AA teams shouldn't even count in their records. As a alum of a mid-major school, I certainly pull for them. But I couldn't put Boise anywhere ahead of Michigan.

[ghostyapper]

I

In the end, there is nothing subjective about conference titles. There is a whole bunch subjective about telling me a second place team from one conference is better than a winner of another.

How about the mere fact that every team doesn't play every other team in their conference? That alone proves that the conference champion is not necessarily the best team in their own conference.

[ghostyapper]

You could very well be right, but we never really know, so it is still just an opinion.

As for Boise, why would Michigan deserve another shot over them? We KNOW that Michigan is not the best team. We at least don't know this with Boise State.

And why should boise state get a shot at OSU over wisconsin, a team from their own conference who didn't play them this year.

[cj]

So you want the system as is, rigged for the big money schools. You know darn well why the non conference schedule isn't tougher. None of those guys want to play a team like Boise. When they do agree to play them, it is only at home.

[cj]

How about the mere fact that every team doesn't play every other team in their conference? That alone proves that the conference champion is not necessarily the best team in their own conference.

I would say outside the Big 10/PAC 10, this isn't true. You may not play every team, but if you want to win the conference championship, you will meet them eventually. I believe it is their choice not to have a Championship game. It isn't up to the NCAA to tell them how to determine the champion.

As for Wisconsin, come on, they lost.

[JPinMaryland]

Great topic. I have three main issues:

1) CJ's idea is the best approach, thought of it myself. You should take the other two teams from the best of the rest based on rankings. MI would still get in as no. 3. NO?

2) The main concern I have is that there would be more injuries. You see more catastrophic injuries in big games. The injury to that RB in the OH St. game, the guy that would up playing for BUff who was that? PSU"s LB last year, there was a guy from FL St got busted up a few years ago...


YOu dont see as many of thse types when PSU plays TOledo types of games. But when both teams are good and ready to hit you will see more injuries. Kind of a shame.


3) You coudl do 16 teams w/ 4 rounds if you: a) get rid of these pussy teams at the beginning of the schedule and make the conferences finish up by the end of Nov.

You should stretach out a 4 round schedule by allowing for at least one two week break if not a couple of ten day breaks. Its the holidays you coud easily schedule some of these over a thur/fri, then a sat/sun.

[GaryG]

I like Valu's 4 team format. I do not want a Boise getting in the way. Having watched a lot of SEC games this year, I don't think anyone knows who the best team is. They are too evenly matched. But the conference champ would have to do. I think USC will beat ND big and play OSU.

[ghostyapper]

So you want the system as is, rigged for the big money schools. You know darn well why the non conference schedule isn't tougher. None of those guys want to play a team like Boise. When they do agree to play them, it is only at home.

I'm not crazy about the current system but I certainly don't want to replace it with one that will be just as flawed and will do an even worse job of narrowing down who the best teams in the nation are.

Your system would be better for college basketball, making all the conference tournaments matter again.

I just don't think it would work with football.

[dylbert]

First, I am a homer -- SEC bias (and not an LSU fan!)

Second, as much as I hate The Ohio State University (obnoxious alums that I have done biz with over last 27 years!) They are genuine No. 1 team today.

IMHO... does anyone want to see second place Big Two/Ten/Eleven, Michigan, play OSU again? NOT!!! One loss, USC or Florida/Arkansas survivor would make excellent game. OSU/USC (BCS), Ark/ND (Sugar), Mich/LSU (Rose), Big 12/Fla (Orange), leftover/leftover (Fiesta) would generate massive ratings.

Neither OSU nor Michigan would be undefeated in SEC. Big 11 (actual number of member schools) has at least 8 Vanderbilts every year. If Big 11 added one school and had two divisions starting next year, in 2027, OSU and Michigan would play for 19th time in 20 years for championship!

Current system is flawed, YES... but it generates massive amount of $$$ for athletics, academics, and broadcasters. Don't look for change for long, long time...

[JPinMaryland]

There are plenty of people who are fine with another OSU/MI game. I listened to sports radio yesterday and most all of the people on the radio didnt have a problem with it. Dan Patrick or Keith Olberman were okay with it. Not that they matter, but those are two I recall.

Why would anyone have a problem with it? The game on sat. was great. I guess the argument was that the game should really count as an elmination game. IN a perfect world I guess it should but we are left with the BCS system so...

[Valuist]

Here's the quality of wins & losses for the 1 loss teams;

MICHIGAN- beat # 5 Notre Dame, # 8 Wisconsin # 25 Penn State. Lost at # 1 Ohio State by 3
USC- beat # 6 Arkansas by 36, # 19 Cal. Lost to unranked Oregon State. Still has to play Notre Dame
FLORIDA- beat # 10 LSU, # 20 Tennessee. Lost at # 12 Auburn. Still has to play Arkansas
NOTRE DAME- beat # 16 Georgia Tech, # 25 Penn State. Lost at home to # 2 Michigan by 26.
ARKANSAS- beat # 12 Auburn, # 20 Tennessee. Lost by 36 in week 1 to USC. Still has to play LSU & Florida
WISCONSIN- beat # 25 Penn State. Lost at # 2 Michigan
LOUISVILLE- beat # 7 West Virginia. Lost by 3 at # 12 Rutgers
WEST VIRGINIA- lost to # 9 Louisville
RUTGERS- beat #9 Louisville; lost to unranked Cincinnati

Realistically, only 3 teams deserve at shot: Michigan, USC and the SEC title game winner. Notre Dame hasn't done enough and got smoked by Michigan on their home turf. None of the Big East teams have done enough. Arkansas still has 2 quality opponents to play. If they hadn't lost by such a big margin in week 1, they might be able to make it to # 2 if they run the table. But they didn't, so it would appear USC controls its destiny. Also, the polls still play a big role, and since USC beat Arky head to head, and Michigan beat ND head to head, I don't think you'll see the pollsters putting Arkansas ahead of USC, assuming both run the table, and I don't think anyone would put Notre Dame ahead of Michigan, even if they beat USC.

[GaryG]

Arkansas has been a different team since the changed QBs in the 2nd or 3rd game of the season although Steve Superior's Cocks nearly came back to beat them. The high ND ranking is due to the media who would love to see them as a power again. Does anyone remember when USC and ND used to play at Soldier Field when it held about 120,000? They have been playing for 80 years, a truly great rivalry.

[ghostyapper]

Neither OSU nor Michigan would be undefeated in SEC.

I disagree with this. Maybe michigan wouldn't but I think OSU would be undefeated if they played in the SEC this year. SEC has a lot of good teams, no great teams. OSU is a great team and really have not been challenged this year. I know the michigan game seemed close but if not for 2 freaky fumbles by the center, it would have been a 3 score game.

SEC has average offenses and very good defenses. I don't think there is a defense in the nation that could consistently stop smith and those receivers.

[rastajenk]

Put me down as an anti-BCS, anti-playoff Luddite. I still prefer the old ways of conference tie-ins, and letting the chips fall where they may. Why? Because more than any other sport, football is a regional game, with different weathers and different philosophies. Basketball is the same everywhere, but football in the north is much different than football in the south.

Used to be, you'd recruit to win conference championships. If you defended your home turf well, and could win on the road, you'd contend for the conference title, and take the reward (a big bowl game) that goes with it. Bowl match-ups of differing styles were fun to watch, and hardly predictable. If you were to look back over the BCS era at what some of the pre-BCS tied-in games would have been, you'd have more interesting games to watch on New Year's than what the system has produced. A fifth- and seventh-ranked matching of schools and conferences with no history? Who cares? Gimme some of that old-school bowl magic, and play 'em all on New Year's Day; don't spread them out over a week or more. That's just stupid.

And when it's all over, you vote. Some years things are pretty clear-cut; other times, not, just like a lot of Eclipse Awards voting. Debating intangibles is fun, and good for the game.

When teams started recruiting, and scheduling, for national championships, things changed, and not for the better. How many p u ssy teams did the SEC schedule combined this month of November, when they should be playing meaningful games every week? It was a lot. Get that crap out of the way in September, and treat November like the playoffs. Win the conference; enjoy the spoils of victory. That's the way it should still be.

[Valuist]

There's problems with voting. Most coaches follow their team, and their conference. An ACC or SEC coach probably has very little idea of the pecking order in the Pac 10, or vica versa. Same problem with writers voting. Most cover a team, or a conference and may know a given conference well but little else.

I've always felt those that make the lines have the most at stake and are the most objective. What happens in CBB or CFB when a lower ranked or unranked team is favored over the higher ranked? That lower ranked team invariably wins and covers the spread. Las Vegas and the offshore world are far more knowledgable than those who vote and determine the polls.

[JustRalph]

Why would anyone have a problem with it? The game on sat. was great. I guess the argument was that the game should really count as an elmination game. IN a perfect world I guess it should but we are left with the BCS system so...

I have a problem with it. They get a second bite at the apple and it would be for all the marbles. Say they beat the bucks on the 2nd try. They get the national title? Bullshit. The two teams would have the same record etc. No way.

I think Ohio State will beat them worse if they play in a bowl. OSU turned the ball over 3-4 times that would have probably resulted in scores in the first game. Not to mention Tressels bowl record of changing things around and coming up with entirely new game plans for the bowl. He is a master at it. Loyd Carr would once again be outcoached by Tressel. Look what he did to Notre Dame last year. I just think Michigan playing the bucks means they get a free bite/free game on the season. And nobody else gets that.

[dylbert]

I disagree with this. Maybe michigan wouldn't but I think OSU would be undefeated if they played in the SEC this year. SEC has a lot of good teams, no great teams. OSU is a great team and really have not been challenged this year. I know the michigan game seemed close but if not for 2 freaky fumbles by the center, it would have been a 3 score game.

SEC has average offenses and very good defenses. I don't think there is a defense in the nation that could consistently stop smith and those receivers.

Speed kills. Absolute speed kills absolutely! SEC teams such as Florida, LSU, Arkansas... have speed on both sides of ball. That is one of OSU's keys -- they have speed in conference that lacks speed.

My earlier observation that OSU and Michigan would have at least one loss in SEC is based upon sooner or later that they would meet speedy opponent in hostile territory -- Baton Rouge, Little Rock/Fayetteville, Gainesville, Knoxville, Auburn -- and that yields greater opportunity for defeat(s). Is anyone fearful of playing in Bloomington, W. Lafayette, Champaign? NOT! Only Big House & Horseshoe intimidate in Big 2/10/11...

I see Big 2 leftovers have started accepting bowl invites today. At least, alums can make travel plans before December.

[JPinMaryland]

"Put me down as an anti-BCS, anti-playoff Luddite. I still prefer the old ways of conference tie-ins, and letting the chips fall where they may. Why? Because more than any other sport, football is a regional game, with different weathers and different philosophies. Basketball is the same everywhere, but football in the north is much different than football in the south."

THen how do you explain the playoffs in Div II and Div III? They seem to produce a winner and they play by a common set of rules..

[Valuist]

Speed kills. Absolute speed kills absolutely! SEC teams such as Florida, LSU, Arkansas... have speed on both sides of ball. That is one of OSU's keys -- they have speed in conference that lacks speed.

My earlier observation that OSU and Michigan would have at least one loss in SEC is based upon sooner or later that they would meet speedy opponent in hostile territory -- Baton Rouge, Little Rock/Fayetteville, Gainesville, Knoxville, Auburn -- and that yields greater opportunity for defeat(s). Is anyone fearful of playing in Bloomington, W. Lafayette, Champaign? NOT! Only Big House & Horseshoe intimidate in Big 2/10/11...

I see Big 2 leftovers have started accepting bowl invites today. At least, alums can make travel plans before December.

I'd add Madison as a tough place to play. OK, so its the Big 3 and little 8 this year but usually the conference is better at the bottom than it was this season.

[rastajenk]

THen how do you explain the playoffs in Div II and Div III? They seem to produce a winner and they play by a common set of rules..

Yeah, but who cares? There are a handful of teams that stress excellence at that level, but for the most part there are teams that don't. It's so different from bigtime football that there's really no comparison. State high school playoffs are bigger events than Div II-III.

[betchatoo]

I like a 14 team system with the top 2 teams receiving a first round bye. The 6 afore mentioned conference champions would get automatic invites. Any undefeated Division 1A team would be included. The others decided on rankings.

The problem I see with CJ's elimination of conference runner-ups is that you give one time independent losers (i.e. Notre Dame) an automatic advantage over a team like Michigan. Also, it is possible that a team at the end of the year is the best team in football, even if it previously lost one tough game.

If these games were to start in early December (the week following conference championships), the season would end the same time it does now.

[JPinMaryland]

I dont like the idea of byes in football. If you look at the NFL playoffs, the teams with the bye win an inordinate amount of time. They were winning at something like an 82% clip until very recently, now its down to like 78%.

Sure the team with the bye should be stronger and they are at home, but how much should that skew the win rate? Well the home field advantage is thought to be 53-47% and the stronger team aspect might account for a 10% bump, but that still leaves a lot of the advantage owing to the team that rested. Perhaps a 65-35% advantage. Thats way too great.

Maybe the outcomes in college would be different but what they start doing it this way and suddenly the bye team wins like 90% of the time? That really throws off the competitive aspect.

Its an elimination format you would think all the teams in there should play the same number of games. Why would 14 teams with 2 byes be any better than 16 teams?

[JPinMaryland]

I have a problem with it. They get a second bite at the apple and it would be for all the marbles. Say they beat the bucks on the 2nd try. They get the national title? Bullshit. The two teams would have the same record etc. No way.

Hey I have news for you! If any team beats an undefeated OSU in the BCS bowl they will have the same record as OSU.

Where does this leave your argument?

[rastajenk]

But any other team would have the head-to-head win over the Bucks. Michigan would have a 1-1 record against them. You don't see a difference?

[JPinMaryland]

Its only important if you see it as important. From an objective stand pt. I dont think it should make a difference.

You can easily stand the argument on its head. So MI is 1-1 vs. OSU. But some other team beats OSU, and they lost to ND or Louisville or Ark. or whomever, why is that better than losing to no. OSU? It's not better in an objective sense that I can see, but if you come up with your own built in criterion, like head to head record, I guess it matters. I just dont see head to head record as some sort of objective way to look at it.

I guess some of us feel that they should not have to beat the same team twice, but its been pointed out that this happens in other sports. It happens in the NFL often enough. ANd it happens in college basketball where MD has to beat Duke a second time or whatever. So it happens in these sports.

If you want to match the no. 1 and no. 2 schools then do that and dont add more criterion to that.

[JustRalph]

But any other team would have the head-to-head win over the Bucks. Michigan would have a 1-1 record against them. You don't see a difference?

same point I was going to make.

If the head to head match up doesn't matter.........why did we see the biggest football ratings in history last weekend? :lol:

[rastajenk]

And if head to head doesn't matter.....why discuss a playoff to begin with? Sounds like you're more in my corner than you think you are: Strength of schedule, quality wins, and other intangibles are as important as some made-for-TV, corporate-saturated artificial playoff structure. ;)

[JPinMaryland]

Look isnt this going to be a problem anytime there is only one undefeated team going into the final game? If you want a nat'l champ. game than that goes with the territory.

The Steelers didnt have the best overall record last year. The Cardinals did not. Probably some NCAA basketball team did not either. So there you go it happens all the time. Its going to happen so long as you have one champ. game.

If you want to treat last weeks OSU/MI game as a playoff game then yes I see the pt. But then we should make all of these games in the final weeks as elimination games. And we should announce that before the season starts.

[JPinMaryland]

And if head to head doesn't matter.....why discuss a playoff to begin with?

I dont understand your pt. I just cited a number of sports where the head to head record does not control the champ. game. NFL football, NCAA basketball, pro basketball, hockey, etc.

They all have playoffs and head to head doesnt matter. Well it does matter to some extent, its just not the controlling factor of who goes.

So what is your pt. You cant have playoffs unless head to head controls?

[rastajenk]

Beats me. You lost me somewhere.

[betchatoo]

I dont like the idea of byes in football. If you look at the NFL playoffs, the teams with the bye win an inordinate amount of time. They were winning at something like an 82% clip until very recently, now its down to like 78%.

Sure the team with the bye should be stronger and they are at home, but how much should that skew the win rate? Well the home field advantage is thought to be 53-47% and the stronger team aspect might account for a 10% bump, but that still leaves a lot of the advantage owing to the team that rested. Perhaps a 65-35% advantage. Thats way too great.

Maybe the outcomes in college would be different but what they start doing it this way and suddenly the bye team wins like 90% of the time? That really throws off the competitive aspect.

Its an elimination format you would think all the teams in there should play the same number of games. Why would 14 teams with 2 byes be any better than 16 teams?

The reason I suggested a bye is that being the best during the regular season ought to count for something. I think there should be some advantages if you played a tough schedule and managed to go undefeated. The teams below you have more to prove. Besides, we have seen a large teams win the super bowl. And in the college playoffs all games could be played on a neutral sight so no team had a home field advantage.

[JPinMaryland]

And in the college playoffs all games could be played on a neutral sight so no team had a home field advantage.

That would be very difficult to do. These bowl games that are played over the holidays are sold weeks in advance. Many or most of these tickets go to people associated with the schools involved in that game who plan their New Years in Miami or wherever.

Now what if you dont know who is going to be in the playoffs until the end of the season? People from say OSU would have to wait to say end of Nov. to buy tickets for the first or second week of Dec. For a game played somewhere not their home field.

It doesnt happen like that in too many sports does it? Not in football until you get to the superbowl. This would be like making superbowl plans for a first round playoff game..

As it is now, the BCS teams are known what 3 or 4 weeks in advance? And that is for people who are paying for one game. Now you are asking people to pay and travel to maybe 3 games and they will have lot less advance notice. This is a problem in marketing.

Then what happens for the second round or third round? Fans would have one week or maybe two to buy tickets for a their team that's traveling to Los Angeles...

This is way different then the way tickets are marketed/sold now.

[betchatoo]

They do it now for the basketball championships. And just like the NCAA tournament, the schedule would be set, that is the winner in this game would go to the next specified game.

[JustRalph]

I don't know why these wingnuts don't go with a playoff. They could make much more money...........

[Valuist]

I dont like the idea of byes in football. If you look at the NFL playoffs, the teams with the bye win an inordinate amount of time. They were winning at something like an 82% clip until very recently, now its down to like 78%.

Sure the team with the bye should be stronger and they are at home, but how much should that skew the win rate? Well the home field advantage is thought to be 53-47% and the stronger team aspect might account for a 10% bump, but that still leaves a lot of the advantage owing to the team that rested. Perhaps a 65-35% advantage. Thats way too great.

Maybe the outcomes in college would be different but what they start doing it this way and suddenly the bye team wins like 90% of the time? That really throws off the competitive aspect.

Its an elimination format you would think all the teams in there should play the same number of games. Why would 14 teams with 2 byes be any better than 16 teams?

Home teams in the NFL are doing better than that this year: 58% straight up:

http://www.wagerline.com/Handicapping/League-Trends.aspx?page=/pick-data/trends/nfl/season.html