4 not enough?

Its a slippery slope. That team just outside the top whatever you make it, is going to be pissed they didnt get in

I would take 8 but there should be some way to cut it to 4 if there arent 8 worthy teams that season.

While there will never be a perfect system. I do believe if they are going to increase from the current system to do more than 4 teams. My personal opinion is that it should be 12 teams. Top 8 conference champs(no automatics, but maybe based on the BCS or something) and 4 At-large bids. Top 4 conference champs get a bye, and play all games at the higher seeded teams home field till the championship game. Winning your conference and being highly ranked still means something, but it still allows great teams that may of had one bad game a chance to prove on the field they are the best.

It will never be "enough"

Some people think 68 teams in the basketball tourney isn't "enough"

quote:

---

I feel like I've seen alot of articles/posts/writings talking about the inherent problems with the selection process for a four team play off.

My thought (for what it's worth) is to just go straight to a 8 team playoff (maybe less). Take the Champs of 6 AQ conferences plus two "wild Cards"

I personally would vote for taking away the Big East's AQ status. Idk who I'd give it to though.

What do you guys think? (of the idea over all, and who you think should get the Big East's AQ status if you would take it away)

I know it probably wouldn't get implemented anywhere in the near future, but I can dream can't I?

---

I'm not a fan of the playoff system; however, your idea isn't that bad if a playoff system is inevitable.

quote:

---

My thought (for what it's worth) is to just go straight to a 8 team playoff (maybe less). Take the Champs of 6 AQ conferences plus two "wild Cards"

I personally would vote for taking away the Big East's AQ status. Idk who I'd give it to though.

What do you guys think? (of the idea over all, and who you think should get the Big East's AQ status if you would take it away)

---

I use to be totally against an 8 team playoff but have now come full circle on the idea. I agree that it's probably the only way to come up with a good compromise between the conference champion only crowd vs the simply take the top teams regardless of conference crowd.

I like your idea except that I wouldn't give the Big East's bid to another conference. I'd give bids to the 5 highest rated conference champions and then 3 at large bids to the highest rated teams that didn't win their conference. Those teams would have been Alabama, Stanford, and Boise State this past season so that argues against deserving non-AQ conference teams being left out in such a format. I would further stipulate that these conference winners have to at least be ranked in the Top 12 to qualify. That would have eliminated Clemson and West Virginia which weren't even ranked in the Top 18 in the final poll and quite frankly didn't deserve a bid over Alabama, Stanford, and Boise State.

I think a 5 highest rated conference champions/3 at large bids with a Top 12 requirement for conference champions. I'd even throw in a Top 8 requirement for highest ranked teams that didn't win their conference to qualify for the at large bids. The top 8 requirement would have eliminated Virginia Tech after its very ugly loss to Clemson in the title game. I know that would have meant an ACC team wasn't in the playoff but that would actually be a good thing from the standpoint that such a playoff wasn't just a good ole boy agreement among the SEC, B1G, Big 12, Pac 12, and ACC to always gaurantee a team from each conference in the playoff. This would further appease the small non-AQ conferences to agree to this.

Get rid of AQ status and you are close. Just take the 6 highest rated conference champions (no matter the conference) and the two highest rated teams after that (the two wildcards, which theoretically could be either conference championship or not, most years they probably won't be conference champions is my guess). Easy, fair, awesome.