11 replies to this topic

[godtomsatan]

Looks like we'll be getting a four-team playoff by '14 or '15.

I still think you could do a 16-team format that doesn't effect the bowl system too harshly, keeps the meaning of the regular season firmly intact, and would give every conference a shot at the title. It also would rake in billions of dollars. Oh, and student-athletes.

[Infinity]

Yeah, I tend to agree with this move. Sort of the "best of both worlds" example, you have to have the season represent a large portion of the bowl games. Football, unlike basketball, is much more violent and aggressive and takes a massive tole on the body so playing a 16 team tournament even with single elimination would take too much time and would really beat down the student athlete's body.

4 team is simple, quick, does minimal damage to the athletes and it eliminates the issue where OKSt. doesn't get a national title shot last season and Bama gets a rematch.

[godtomsatan]

Addressing these both a bit out of order:

Infinity, on 12 June 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

4 team is simple, quick, does minimal damage to the athletes and it eliminates the issue where OKSt. doesn't get a national title shot last season and Bama gets a rematch.

Unless they pick Stanford. Or Oregon. With 4, the debate rages on....

With 8, the debate will still rage on for the conference champs. With 16, you cover everyone, you space out the games to prime time every 10 days or 2 weeks in December and January and allow two teams to play 3 more games than they already do.

I agree you have to start somewhere, but 4 doesn't solve anything. 8 gets a little better, 16 is the magic number.....

[muck]

Another thing, with a 16 team tourney, the NCAA could also rule that a team is capped at ______ number of regular season games ... and maybe even dictate (or try to dictate) that each league that wants its members to be eligible to compete for the national title must have a 'end of year' match to determine the conference champion.

...I don't know how many conferences there are now with all the re-arranging of the deck chairs that occurred the last couple of years...but, pretend for a minute there are 12 conferences...

Who gets into a 16 team tourney?

* First, rank all teams in Div-1 per a composite formula (sorta like the current BCS formula)
* Second, take the top eight ranked winners of each conferences 'end of year' play-in game ... these are seeded 1-8 in order of the slotting in the formula ...
* Third, eliminate from consideration any team with more than two non-wins (losses or ties), unless at least two of the non-wins were to teams who were allowed into the tourney as a result of the step above (i.e., if USC lost to Oregon in the regular season Pac-12 play, and then also lost to Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) and Ohio St. (Big 10 champ) in the non-conference play...but...USC ended up winning the Pac-12 end-of-season play-in game and both Oklahoma and Ohio St. were both seeded 1-8, then USC would still be available to be considered for the tourney if step #4 or #5 picked them up)
* Fourth, take the top six ranked teams, per the formula, not already picked, however, no conference can have more than two (three?) teams in the tourney.
* Fifth, the final two spots are at-large births picked by a panel of former coaches, NCAA executives and administrators sorta like the teams are picked for the hoops tourney.

...or something like that...

[buddahj]

I just heard on ESPN that the highest bidding city will get the championship game.

[nuke'em ttg]

Infinity, on 12 June 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Yeah, I tend to agree with this move. Sort of the "best of both worlds" example, you have to have the season represent a large portion of the bowl games. Football, unlike basketball, is much more violent and aggressive and takes a massive tole on the body so playing a 16 team tournament even with single elimination would take too much time and would really beat down the student athlete's body.

4 team is simple, quick, does minimal damage to the athletes and it eliminates the issue where OKSt. doesn't get a national title shot last season and Bama gets a rematch.

well that's what OKST gets when they wander inta Ames with just names

[SEC=UGA]

muck, on 21 June 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Another thing, with a 16 team tourney, the NCAA could also rule that a team is capped at ______ number of regular season games ... and maybe even dictate (or try to dictate) that each league that wants its members to be eligible to compete for the national title must have a 'end of year' match to determine the conference champion.

...I don't know how many conferences there are now with all the re-arranging of the deck chairs that occurred the last couple of years...but, pretend for a minute there are 12 conferences...

Who gets into a 16 team tourney?

* First, rank all teams in Div-1 per a composite formula (sorta like the current BCS formula)
* Second, take the top eight ranked winners of each conferences 'end of year' play-in game ... these are seeded 1-8 in order of the slotting in the formula ...
* Third, eliminate from consideration any team with more than two non-wins (losses or ties), unless at least two of the non-wins were to teams who were allowed into the tourney as a result of the step above (i.e., if USC lost to Oregon in the regular season Pac-12 play, and then also lost to Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) and Ohio St. (Big 10 champ) in the non-conference play...but...USC ended up winning the Pac-12 end-of-season play-in game and both Oklahoma and Ohio St. were both seeded 1-8, then USC would still be available to be considered for the tourney if step #4 or #5 picked them up)
* Fourth, take the top six ranked teams, per the formula, not already picked, however, no conference can have more than two (three?) teams in the tourney.
* Fifth, the final two spots are at-large births picked by a panel of former coaches, NCAA executives and administrators sorta like the teams are picked for the hoops tourney.

...or something like that...

Why not just use the methods Div. 1 AA uses?  The rules are already written and accepted by the NCAA.

[wirehairman]

SEC=UGA, on 16 July 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Why not just use the methods Div. 1 AA uses?  The rules are already written and accepted by the NCAA.

Makes to much sense.

[muck]

Because my way gives more things for "the world-wide leader" to talk about...and therefore sell advertising...and therefore pay big money for the rights to broadcast DI football games.

[delusions of grandeur]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a 6-team playoff, NFL-style, where the top 2 get a first round bye.

Then you only have 1 more round and 2 more games on top of where they're proposing now.... I guess you could go 8 teams if you wanted give automatic bids or something, but I think top 6 is a plenty good cutoff. If you couldn't make top 6, then you really don't have much of a legitimate claim at the title.

[SEC=UGA]

I want a system where UGA could actually be included...

[detlef]

So, I was talking with a cousin this weekend.  Dude is a big time college ball fan.  He brought up something that I hadn't heard or thought of.  Everyone talks about including the bowls, but what about basically taking it back to traditional bowl match-ups, then having a 4-team play-off from there.  Surely, by the time you got through all the big bowl games, you could find 4 teams to go forward.  Four that most could agree upon.

Primary rule:  You have to win your bowl game.  Which, of course, means that two of the "four best" teams may face off in one of those bowls, but at least both had a shot at the title, because both had the chance to play into the 4-team tourney.