Potential playoff scenario

• mattinctown

  I've seen this before on Yahoo Sports, and it always seemed to make some sense, thought I would post it and see what people think:
  
  http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AqwXVoL0xx240KB9XZY4uyocvrYF?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
• j_crazy

  

  there would have to be some clauses written in because 8-4 sun belt champions do not deserve a shot at the title. But as is, I would love it much more than the colossal goat fuck we have now.
• sleeper

  

  Amen.
• ironman02

  Interesting point in the article. Apparently the BCS thinks they shouldn't have a playoff because it would be impossible to choose among the teams that are 10-2, 9-3, etc. They claim it would be unfair to leave one of those teams out over another.
  
  Wouldn't that be better than leaving an UNDEFEATED team out of the championship picture? Yeah, you may have teams that are 10-2 that feel that they deserved to be in the playoff and were left out, but it's also their fault for losing games. A team that is undefeated, on the other hand, certainly deserves a shot to prove themselves. Leaving someone who hasn't lost a game (in this year's case, TCU, Cincy, and Boise) out of the title picture is inexcusable.
  
  Overall, I like the idea. I would probably prefer an 8 team playoff with the 6 BCS conference champs getting automatic bids, with two at-large bids that give preference to undefeated mid-majors. The problem with that may be if three mid-majors go undefeated, but how often would that happen? Because of that minute chance, and the fact that any undefeated team should get to prove itself (even in the small conferences like the Sun Belt), a 16 team playoff may be the best way to go.
• j_crazy

  

  ironman02 wrote: Interesting point in the article. Apparently the BCS thinks they shouldn't have a playoff because it would be impossible to choose among the teams that are 10-2, 9-3, etc. They claim it would be unfair to leave one of those teams out over another.
  
  Wouldn't that be better than leaving an UNDEFEATED team out of the championship picture? Yeah, you may have teams that are 10-2 that feel that they deserved to be in the playoff and were left out, but it's also their fault for losing games. A team that is undefeated, on the other hand, certainly deserves a shot to prove themselves. Leaving someone who hasn't lost a game (in this year's case, TCU, Cincy, and Boise) out of the title picture is inexcusable.
  
  Overall, I like the idea. I would probably prefer an 8 team playoff with the 6 BCS conference champs getting automatic bids, with two at-large bids that give preference to undefeated mid-majors. The problem with that may be if three mid-majors go undefeated, but how often would that happen? Because of that minute chance, and the fact that any undefeated team should get to prove itself (even in the small conferences like the Sun Belt), a 16 team playoff may be the best way to go.

  
  for reasons that baffle me, any National championship scenario would have a provision for ND. either undefeated or BCS top 10. This is why an 8 team playoff sucks. I'd take a 12 team playoff and give the top 4 byes.
• Leonardo

  

  
• Leonardo

  

  Using the final rankings:
  
  (16) West Virginia at (1) Alabama
  (9) Georgia Tech at (8) Ohio State
  (12) LSU at (5) Florida
  (13) Penn State at (4) TCU
  
  (11) Virginia Tech at (6) Boise State
  (14) BYU at (3) Cincinnati
  (10) Iowa at (7) Oregon
  (15) Miami (FL) at (2) Texas
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  16 is too much, 8 is fine with me using the BCS bowls.
• jordo212000

  

  Yeah 16 is too much. Most years less than 4 or 5 schools actually have an argument to play in the Championship game. Thus if you have 16, I think you are really starting to de-value the regular season
• BCSbunk

  Leonardo wrote:

  Set up just like the NCAA BB tourney. All conference champions get in. They earned it. IF the "big boys" don't like it then drop out of your conference.
  
  A 16 team scenario where all conference champions make it and then 5 at large bids. It would create far better matchups that the many of the crapola bowls we get "treated" too.
  
  Yes just like in the NCAA bb tourney there will be mismatches, but teams that succeed in their conference get the reward.
  
  It sets up some GREAT games for the 2nd round and on.
• oldtriple

  The idea put forth in the article is exactly what I have advocated since the first year they started this whole BSC nightmare. In fact this morning after looking at the final rankings, I drew up my own sixteen team tournament based on 11 conference champions and 5 at large bids. I have precisely the same 16 teams as the brackets above with most of the first round games being identical. I truly believe all of the points he adresses in the article including home field advantages , season lengths, etc. are good solid ideas.
  
  I think all teams including the champions of the Sunbelt, Conference USA and the Mid American Conference all deserve an opportunity to win a national championship. What if Central Michigan ended the season 12-0, have they not earned their shot? realistically they are a long shot, but they they still deserve their chance. The same can be said of TCU or Boise. They finished 12-0 and are from non-BSC conferences but what is to say that one of them is not the best team in country. They certainly should get the opportunity to prove they are.
• Al Bundy

  I would rather see every conference get a bid then see a 4th or 5th place from a conference get in. The regular season would still be very important because the #1 seed would have a much more favorable bracket then a lower seed.
• osudarby08

  

  That left side is stacked.
• HitsRus

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: 16 is too much, 8 is fine with me using the BCS bowls.

  
  agree 100%. 16 is way too much.
  Frankly, 6 is more than enough....if you haven't taken care of business enough in your 1st 11-12 games to be rated in the top 6, do you really have a claim for the NC?.
  
  Format for 6 team playoff...
  
  2 top ranked teams get 1st round byes.
  early December game...#3 vs. #6 and #4 vs. #5
  
  Semi finals New Years Day at BCS Bowl site
  #1 vs. winner of #4/#5
  
  #2 vs. winner of #3/#6
  
  winners to face off in NC game 1 -2 weeks later.
  
  all is workable within the current bowl system with plenty of time for fans to purchase tickets and make travel arrangements. Only 4 teams' student athletes have to deal with the extra games.
  
  
  this year would look like this...
  
  this weekend
  #3 Cincinnati vs #6 Boise State
  #4 TCU vs. #5 Florida
  
  New Years day ...winner of Cinci/Boise plays #2 Texas
  ........................winner of TCU/Florida plays #1 Alabama
• HitsRus

  

  ccrunner609 wrote: The playoff if ever implemented will have to have every conference get in automatically just like basketball.

  
  ...and that is why a playoff is unworkable in football. it's all about the money....but it is too unworkable. A 16 team bracket means 4 extra games for some teams. You will have to eliminate conference championship tourneys and or shorten the regular season.
• Sykotyk

  

  All year, we've been told that Florida was the best team in the country. All year, the pollsters, computers, etc were wrong. What makes you think that this week they're right?
  
  Out of 120 teams, 16 teams making the playoffs would be 12.5% qualifying. At lower levels, we've seen underdogs win it all. I remember in 1999 that YSU won with victories on the road against Villanova and Montana before winning against McNeese State in Chattanooga in the title game.
  
  The arrogance of 'knowing' who the best teams are is absurd. We don't know. Every year we're surprised by teams winning who we thought shouldn't win. Every year there's upsets. Every year there's top ranked teams losing to nobodies that, statistically, shouldn't happen if we really knew what we were doing.
  
  Sykotyk
• tcby99

  I think you end up with the same 2 teams...Alabama and Texas.
• bulldog8

  For those of you complaining about 16 teams and wanting fewer, read the article!!!! The whole basis of his argument relies upon the additional revenue and income generated from a larger playoff. The problem we are dealing with now is that the officials don't want to change to a playoff because they fear there will not be enough income generated. Dan Wetzel, the author of this article, stresses the importance of a 16 team playoff with home games for the first 3 rounds in order to generate enough income to go beyond what the current system generates. This will convince the school presidents that a system with more money is possible and this is the most important step in moving toward a playoff. Once the presidents are on board, this process will become much more realistic.
  
  Hitrus....regarding your concern for shortening the season, read the article closely. Wetzel provides a plan for how schedules will be adjusted to accomodate for the 16 team playoff. It would actually work out perfectly having a couple rounds being played before Christmas, taking a break for students to complete finals, and then returning to play after Christmas.
  
  I don't think fans should get so picky with how many teams should make the playoff. This author has provided a legitimate plan that accounts for the financial, scheduling, and fairness associated with a playoff system. What people don't understand is that this process all relies on money. There is no better way to attack this problem than to fight fire with fire. If they are concerned about money, a plan needs to be proposed that will generate enough revenue to change the minds of the powers to be. This plan provides that opportunity and i'm interested to see the response to this as it will be published in a book in the upcoming year. Hopefully it raises a lot of eyebrows and fans begin to take it seriously.
• bulldog8

  ^^^Couldn't agree more!
• Mulva

  

  It's an excellent plan. 16 is perfect. Conference champs should be let in, as they are in just about all other sports.
  
  If you are a national championship caliber team you should have no problem beating Central Michigan or Troy. All it would do is increase revenues.
  
  Each team has a chance to either win it's conference, or get 1 of 5 at large bids. It isn't like there are 16 spots available for each team. I don't see how that would devalue the regular season. If you lose more than 2-3 games you aren't getting in, and if you lose that many games you screw yourself in terms of seeding. If you went to neutral fields it might make a game like the SEC championship a little less meaningful, but if home field advantage for the 1st 2-3 rounds was on the line that's pretty huge.
  
  If it would make the season too long then cut the regular season back to 11 games and drop the 1-AA opponents off of the schedule.
• HitsRus

  

  It's an excellent plan...if it's all about money and you have no qualms about giving a #16 team a shot....A.K.A extorting money out of students and alumni on the ruse that they have a shot to win.
  
  How about some credibility and limiting it to teams that actually deserve to play for the NC after proving it in the regular season.
  
  8 is enough....tops. 6 is even better. You don't have to change much in the bowl schedules and hence the money is the same or slightly more, it doesn't burden student athletes, and most importantly....it's credible.
• NOL fan

  HitsRus wrote: 8 is enough....tops. 6 is even better. You don't have to change much in the bowl schedules and hence the money is the same or slightly more, it doesn't burden student athletes, and most importantly....it's credible.

  this guy's 16 team playoff idea includes throwing the 1st and 2nd round losers back into the bowl pool.
  
  in that setup it's possible that only 4 teams would be removed from the current bowl system
• End of Line

  

  If this actually happened, the left side of the bracket would just beat the hell out of each other.
• enigmaax

  ccrunner609 wrote: I will never understand why people would think that the current system would generate more $ then a playoff. Just obsurd.
  
  Playoff=$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  You think seven games with eight different teams is going to generate more than seven games with 14 different teams? Or 15 games with 16 teams is worth more than 15 games with 30 teams? You are counting on a lot of repeat business there for a couple of things that aren't all that unique.
  
  Do you think the Fedex 1st Round Game is worth the same $17 million that the Fedex Orange Bowl is?
• enigmaax

  Mulva wrote: If you lose more than 2-3 games you aren't getting in, and if you lose that many games you screw yourself in terms of seeding.

  You aren't getting in unless you are.....Troy?
  
  If you let all conference champions in, you still aren't getting the best teams and isn't that the point? There's a reason teams like that make 6-7 figures for traveling to the big boys places during the regular season (and in most cases to be completely blown out).
  
  Financially, I'm not a believer that Troy fans are going to be all excited and make it a week long event to go to Columbus, Ohio in January for a game that they are expecting to lose by 40 points.
  
  The bowls make some effort to match up similar teams and that, along with location, is a major driving force behind the "fan money". The better that interest, the better the ad and sponsor dollars, etc.