Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So even teams that lose in a playoff will play another game? Good luck getting anyone to travel, or care, about that. Also, who would they play? Would we just have a new selection show every Sunday? Again, what happens to the other 90+ teams outside the top 16?
I'm not saying a 16 team playoff is impossible. It's obviously possible. It would just be sloppy, have poor attendence, hurt the regular season, kill the bowls, and be uninteresting for the majority of teams and fans. My opinion, of course.
They would play each other.
Look: a team that loses a playoff game plays another team that loses a playoff. If it's a 16 team playoff, the 4 BCS bowl games would be associated with it (obviously) and 4 other New Years Day bowl games. The 2nd and 3rd rounds would determine who play each other in the BCS bowls and the final two (obviously) would play the National Title.
The tournament would start the week after the final regular season game, so it would give plenty of time to see where the teams go. Also, I doubt many people will complain about more football, and all the other bowl games for the other 40 or 50 something schools would still be there for those who don't make the playoffs.
And not to sound snappy or rude, but opinion isn't fact. There's only one way to truly see if a tournament works or not and that's to actually see it in action.
And why not? We've already had 12 years of BCS, and look what that's got us....
Look: a team that loses a playoff game plays another team that loses a playoff. If it's a 16 team playoff, the 4 BCS bowl games would be associated with it (obviously) and 4 other New Years Day bowl games. The 2nd and 3rd rounds would determine who play each other in the BCS bowls and the final two (obviously) would play the National Title.
The tournament would start the week after the final regular season game, so it would give plenty of time to see where the teams go. Also, I doubt many people will complain about more football, and all the other bowl games for the other 40 or 50 something schools would still be there for those who don't make the playoffs.
And not to sound snappy or rude, but opinion isn't fact. There's only one way to truly see if a tournament works or not and that's to actually see it in action.
And why not? We've already had 12 years of BCS, and look what that's got us....
I understand what you're saying, I just don't like the idea of a 16 team playoff for the reasons stated earlier. In my opinion, because that's all we have when discussing a hypothetical solution, I would prefer a +1 coupled with mandatory conference champion games.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't like the idea of a 16 team playoff for the reasons stated earlier. In my opinion, because that's all we have when discussing a hypothetical solution, I would prefer a +1 coupled with mandatory conference champion games.
All I see from a +1 is just a continuation of an unfair system.
At least with a playoff, it's not singled out to teams a handful of people want to see in the championship game.
At least the BCS takes strength of schedule into their unbiased account.
Uh, so do the computers. Which is why the rankings that factor in Sagarin SOS and ELO-CHESS have Boise State rated so highly - their SOS is much higher than Oregon, TCU, and Ohio State thus far into the season.
Of course that number will drop as the season continues. But for now... Boise State has a better SOS than all of the teams in the top 5 (I believe). And throughout the season it will likely be close to Nebraska, TCU, and Ohio State (so long as Va Tech and Oregon State and Nevada keep winning).
I understand what you're saying, I just don't like the idea of a 16 team playoff for the reasons stated earlier. In my opinion, because that's all we have when discussing a hypothetical solution, I would prefer a +1 coupled with mandatory conference champion games.
I can agree with the +1, but not all conference championships are equal (nor are all conferences).
I think you really get into some conflicting scenarios when, for instance, an unranked Big 12 north team beats a ranked Big 12 south team in the championship game (this almost happened a few years ago)? How does that play out? You send the unranked team to the Fiesta Bowl and the ranked team becomes an At Large bid?
What about conferences like the WAC, MWC, and Big East... that only have 8-9 members? Seems odd to have a conf championship game there, especially when you likely only have 1 dominant team.
I can agree with the +1, but not all conference championships are equal (nor are all conferences).
Think of it as the first round of the postseason and everyone will now need to play 13 games to make it to the BCS. The WAC will never equal the SEC but that doesn't mean they should be excused from playing a championship.
I think you really get into some conflicting scenarios when, for instance, an unranked Big 12 north team beats a ranked Big 12 south team in the championship game (this almost happened a few years ago)? How does that play out? You send the unranked team to the Fiesta Bowl and the ranked team becomes an At Large bid?
Well, that's how it works now but I don't think they should get an at-large bid going forward unless they earn it.
The idea of a conference championship is to further seperate the contenders from the pretenders (I really hate that phrase but didn't know how else to word it). For example, this year we could have an undefeated MSU and OSU, which could lead to some ambiguity. A conference championship would eliminate that possibility.
With the Big X and Pac 10 adding championship games in the future, it's only fair for everyone to play one.
What about conferences like the WAC, MWC, and Big East... that only have 8-9 members? Seems odd to have a conf championship game there, especially when you likely only have 1 dominant team.
It could possibly cause some issues but I have a feeling that the days of 8-9 team member conferences are quickly coming to an end.
Also, it's not like it would hurt Boise State or TCU's SOS case if they had to beat Nevada or Utah twice
Uh, so do the computers. Which is why the rankings that factor in Sagarin SOS and ELO-CHESS have Boise State rated so highly - their SOS is much higher than Oregon, TCU, and Ohio State thus far into the season.
Of course that number will drop as the season continues. But for now... Boise State has a better SOS than all of the teams in the top 5 (I believe). And throughout the season it will likely be close to Nebraska, TCU, and Ohio State (so long as Va Tech and Oregon State and Nevada keep winning).
key words........paragraph 1--------thus far
key words ......paragraph 2--------But for now...as long as.....keep winning
Besides, if in fact this is for "all things 2010 FBS," there should be no mention of a playoff system. In the 2010 season of the FBS, there is not a playoff system.
We're discussing alternatives to the system that will decide the 2010 champion. BFD?
And what do your comments contribute to the FBS discussion? Got anything to add or just feel like stirring the pot?
Classy or not, if the big red shoes fit...
Last edited by truckingbronco; 10-13-2010 at 03:00 PM..
Yeah, if you're an AQ school...... Tell that to all the MAC, WAC, Mt. West, and C-USA schools.
That statement will ALWAYS be B.S. to me.
If you look at some of these schools they often play 3 BCS schools a year. For instance, Akron played Syracuse, Indiana and Kentucky this year. Lost all 3.
My point is when mid-majors do play BCS teams they almost always lose. So why would anyone think they deserve a high ranking or a shot at a playoff?
I'm not anti-mid major. I went to a MAC school. I'm just living in reality. The mid-majors cannot compete. They have proven it over and over.
Uh, so do the computers. Which is why the rankings that factor in Sagarin SOS and ELO-CHESS have Boise State rated so highly - their SOS is much higher than Oregon, TCU, and Ohio State thus far into the season.
Of course that number will drop as the season continues. But for now... Boise State has a better SOS than all of the teams in the top 5 (I believe). And throughout the season it will likely be close to Nebraska, TCU, and Ohio State (so long as Va Tech and Oregon State and Nevada keep winning).
Boise States strength of schedule is no where near Ohio State's. Or Nebraska. TCU plays a tougher scehdule too.
Anyone that says Boise plays a comparable schedule to Ohio State is crazy.
Ohio State would beat VaTech or Boise by 21. They would beat Oregon State by 14. Nebraska wouldn't exactly have trouble with those teams either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
