Started By
Message
Future Playoffs 16 Teams
Posted on 11/14/13 at 6:57 pm
Posted on 11/14/13 at 6:57 pm
The 1st week of Dec. the 5 major conferences:
sec, acc, pac 12, big ten, big 12 (wakeup big 12)
play their championship and advance 5 winners. They have the next week off.
The 2nd week of Dec. 6 at-large teams play and those 3 winners advance.
Now there are 8 teams and the bowls can be used to play these games.
If the season ended today:
Alabama - Missouri
Fla. St. - Va. Tech/Ga. Tech
Stanford - Arizona St.
Ohio St. - Michigan St.
Baylor - Okla. St./Texas/Oklahoma
The 2nd wk. 6 at-large teams possibles
Texas A&M, Auburn, S.Carolina
Clemson
Oregon
N. Illinois, Fresno St.
Louisville, Cent.Fla.
Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota
sec, acc, pac 12, big ten, big 12 (wakeup big 12)
play their championship and advance 5 winners. They have the next week off.
The 2nd week of Dec. 6 at-large teams play and those 3 winners advance.
Now there are 8 teams and the bowls can be used to play these games.
If the season ended today:
Alabama - Missouri
Fla. St. - Va. Tech/Ga. Tech
Stanford - Arizona St.
Ohio St. - Michigan St.
Baylor - Okla. St./Texas/Oklahoma
The 2nd wk. 6 at-large teams possibles
Texas A&M, Auburn, S.Carolina
Clemson
Oregon
N. Illinois, Fresno St.
Louisville, Cent.Fla.
Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota
10
Posted on 11/14/13 at 7:01 pm to LSU Jock 1970
No.
Seed after Conference championships and play.
Seed after Conference championships and play.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 7:14 pm to LSU Jock 1970
reason this would not work is what if bama and mizzou both went undefeated. bama wins the SEC. Would mizzou not be more deserving than a 2 loss wisconsin?
Posted on 11/14/13 at 7:18 pm to LSU Jock 1970
It will be a long long time unit we get an actual playoff.
Why will it be such a long time?
Because everyone fell hand over foot for the 4 team 'playoff' that allows all the power and money to remain in the hands of the BCS people.
Why will it be such a long time?
Because everyone fell hand over foot for the 4 team 'playoff' that allows all the power and money to remain in the hands of the BCS people.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 7:41 pm to LSU Jock 1970
Look 4 is more than enough. Most of the BCS' controversy has regarded whether or not #3 had a better argument for a spot in the national championship than #2. Occasionally, it's been about whether or not #1 deserved to be there; however, teams ranked 4 and lower haven't been the issue and 9/10 times won't even deserve consideration.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 7:54 pm to LSU Jock 1970
Bleah. There's just no need for 16 teams (or 8 IMO), and even if there were your schedule is screwed up.
Look... since the '98-'99 season there have only been, in my opinion, two cases where it could reasonably be argued that the two most deserving teams didn't play for the title:
'04 Auburn clearly got screwed.
'11 Okie State and Stanford had a case against Alabama. Oregon not so much with 2 losses, but then they did win their conference over Stanford.
Point is, if the BCS rankings were used in a 4-team playoff we'd get Auburn after '04 and Okie State and Stanford after '11. We'd have what to me are pretty clearly the top 4 teams in the country, the only exception maybe being Oregon vs. Stanford at #4 in the '12 game.
I just don't see a legitimate reason to make the regular season less meaningful. I know they're not going by BCS standings, but I'd be really surprised if the 4 are much different than 1-4 in BCS. #5 may get screwed and set off a lot of people, but the same would be true with 8 or 16 teams. Want to be in those 4? Win!
Look... since the '98-'99 season there have only been, in my opinion, two cases where it could reasonably be argued that the two most deserving teams didn't play for the title:
'04 Auburn clearly got screwed.
'11 Okie State and Stanford had a case against Alabama. Oregon not so much with 2 losses, but then they did win their conference over Stanford.
Point is, if the BCS rankings were used in a 4-team playoff we'd get Auburn after '04 and Okie State and Stanford after '11. We'd have what to me are pretty clearly the top 4 teams in the country, the only exception maybe being Oregon vs. Stanford at #4 in the '12 game.
I just don't see a legitimate reason to make the regular season less meaningful. I know they're not going by BCS standings, but I'd be really surprised if the 4 are much different than 1-4 in BCS. #5 may get screwed and set off a lot of people, but the same would be true with 8 or 16 teams. Want to be in those 4? Win!
Posted on 11/14/13 at 8:06 pm to LSU Jock 1970
Oh god no. No, f no. Hell no.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 8:09 pm to LSU Jock 1970
Yeah let's turn college football into college basketball.
A long meaningless regular season that's nothing but a seeding contest for the 1 high variance single elimination tournament at the end.
A long meaningless regular season that's nothing but a seeding contest for the 1 high variance single elimination tournament at the end.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 8:10 pm to LSU Jock 1970
16 teams is too much. Why go through an extra round of games just to elimate teams that have literally no chance if winning it all? If after an entire regular season you aren't in the top 10, you are NOT a national title caliber team.
8 would be optimal IMO.
8 would be optimal IMO.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 10:33 pm to LSU Jock 1970
You have to strike a balance on the regular season also. Right now it means too much. You can't lose a game which means everyone schedules cupcakes outside of the conference which is boring. Teams grow during the season and really the best team at the end very often has a loss. I think 8 is the sweet spot, but 4 is better than 16.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News