The Solution: '06-07 NCAA Football Playoffs
- Thread starter Jonk
- Start date
Fondybadger
CTG Partner
Jon I really like how you guaranteed that every teams fans will still get to go to a warm bowl game by having the losers advance to a bowl game as well on New Years day.
The first round games give us some action during the normal "dead" time for the season in December.
Conference champions are still rewarded and it only creates two more "bowl games" and there's only one more week that two teams go deeper in the season.
The first round games give us some action during the normal "dead" time for the season in December.
Conference champions are still rewarded and it only creates two more "bowl games" and there's only one more week that two teams go deeper in the season.
Jonk
Well-Known Member
Yeah, the first round being on Saturday 12/16 allows time for the schools' fans and alumni to book arrangements for their bowl game.
Also, since there are no games scheduled for Saturday 12/23, the student athletes at these 16 schools can participate in their final exams (which are typically in that 12/18-12/23 date range).
Between December 23 and January 1, the non-playoff teams will participate in the other bowl games, just as they always do. And we the fans can enjoy these games while debating what will happen in the Elite 8 on New Year's Day.
Also, since there are no games scheduled for Saturday 12/23, the student athletes at these 16 schools can participate in their final exams (which are typically in that 12/18-12/23 date range).
Between December 23 and January 1, the non-playoff teams will participate in the other bowl games, just as they always do. And we the fans can enjoy these games while debating what will happen in the Elite 8 on New Year's Day.
Seabass
Pretty much a regular
Here's my problem.
Ohio State CLEARLY is the best team in college football and deserves to be rememebred as the champion.
How is it fair that in order to do so, they have to beat Rutgers, LSU (probably a top 5 team), Louisville, and USC in succession? It doesn't matter at all that a team like Rutgers lost twice and really beat no one good other than 1 game, and has just as much chance to win the national championship as Ohio State?
Ohio State CLEARLY is the best team in college football and deserves to be rememebred as the champion.
How is it fair that in order to do so, they have to beat Rutgers, LSU (probably a top 5 team), Louisville, and USC in succession? It doesn't matter at all that a team like Rutgers lost twice and really beat no one good other than 1 game, and has just as much chance to win the national championship as Ohio State?
TroyStacks
18" Pythons
what a great idea
TroyStacks
18" Pythons
seabass thats the beauty of a playoff every team has to 4 in row its completely fair in all aspects. if ohio state is really number one then beating lsu is no problem and vice versa
Fondybadger
CTG Partner
It doesn't penalize teams for an early season tough loss either... would encourage more teams to play better non-conference schedules
TroyStacks
18" Pythons
so true fondy
Seabass
Pretty much a regular
I dunno guys...I just feel like games like WV/Louisville this year wouldn't be nearly as intense as they are.
Also, the second you go to a 16 team playoff system, the bowls as we know them are dead forever. Yes, I know you can still hold them...but they will lose all meaning.
Also, the second you go to a 16 team playoff system, the bowls as we know them are dead forever. Yes, I know you can still hold them...but they will lose all meaning.
Dystopia
Pretty much a regular
I think an 8-team playoff is a little more realistic. Obviously that would change everything about what you did, so that doesn't offer any solutions. But, I still feel we(people that want a playoff) have a better argument if we offer up an 8-team format. If it were only 8 teams every game would mean just as much as they do now. Here's why: people claim that now we have, more or less, a double-elminiation tournament (the regualr season) where if a team loses twice they have no chance at winning the title... Obviously that's not true for Lville, Boise, UM, etc. But, for argument's sake, let's even throw out a couple of those teams. Obviously at least 1 really good school gets screwed. In an 8-team playoff there's no way that happens. Advocates of the BCS argue that it creates controversy and that debate makes things better. True. But, with a only 8 teams getting in you will still be able to debate 8-9,10, etc. But, more importantly, the difference between a 3rd ranked team being left out and a 9th ranked team being left out is HUGE. No one's gonna dispute a team that wins 3 straight games vs top 10 opponents possibly being worse that say an Auburn this year. That argument just won't hold up.
Fondybadger
CTG Partner
With 8 teams 1 loss Wisconsin or a 2 loss LSU would be left out...
Fondybadger
CTG Partner
I'd personally rather see a WV/Ville or an Ohio State/Michigan game lose a small amount of meaning if that meant Florida/West Carolina and Wisconsin/Western Illinois games are never scheduled again. Would much rather see Florida/Iowa & Wisconsin/Louisville type non-conference games.
Seabass
Pretty much a regular
Fondybadger said:
I don't understand this argument at all. If you take away the BCS, you no longer need to worry about S.O.S as much and can schedule MORE creampuffs, not less.
Plus, if you have to play a 12 game season followed by a 3 game playoff, you would be an IDIOT not to schedule 2 or 3 creampuffs a year to help keep your team healthy...
TroyStacks
18" Pythons
it doesn;t matter anyways since that team would have to play in a playoff it would be more incentive to prepare for a big game by playing better competition
S
scourge
Guest
8 teams only
you could get away with allowing 10 teams and giving the #1 and #2 teams in the country a bye for the 1st Round like the NFL does for their playoff series.
16 is too much and it would never be approved. 8 teams would be feasible and would work out well. The Chanpionship game would rotate through the 4 major bowl sites as they have been and the palyoff games would be played according to a similiar stucture.
S
scourge
Guest
Seabass said:
You have to give the #1 and #2 teams in the ratings byes, its the only fair thing to do for football. Thats too many games/chance for injury/time to place on a team that has already played 12-13 games during the regular season.
But your right, there has to be an advantage for the top 2 teams in the country.
Fondybadger
CTG Partner
Seabass said:
I'm thrilled Wisconsin is a top 25 team this season. Should they have a chance for a national championship, no. Should they be in the BCS? Debatable. I can't be upset having my team play Arky on New Years day. I guess the argument I was trying to make is its hard to name the best 8 teams in the country and if you do that no non BCS conference would make it more than likely.
Fondybadger
CTG Partner
You could take the top 11 teams, give top 3 a bye and play 5 games and then 4 games the way big 10 does their bball tourney too.
Dystopia
Pretty much a regular
Seabass said:
I don't have any real problem with a 6-team playoff, but it involves more fluff and still some politicking because how critical an automatic win would be with the byes. An 8-team is straight and simple. Win 3 games and you're the champ, no questions asked.
Answer me this question: What is the most exciting time of the NCAA basketball tourney? I think the answer is 100% the elite 8. Those games that play you into the final four are so awesome. The crowning of the regional champs, cutting down the nets, all of it. If they could just recreate that with football... Just imagine the college football we're watching now--which is already the greatest sport in the world imo--become even better.
Nice thread by the way, love the graphic, thanks for making it :shake:
