Started By
Message
re: Future Playoffs 16 Teams
Posted on 11/14/13 at 7:58 pm to finestfirst79
Posted on 11/14/13 at 7:58 pm to finestfirst79
32 team playoff is where you'll find the best team and the most exciting match ups...
1
Posted on 11/14/13 at 7:58 pm to Mizzeaux
quote:
VCU and Butler have made it to the Final Four within the past few years. The whole marketing scheme of the tournament is that anything can happen.
And how many have won it all?
Posted on 11/14/13 at 8:03 pm to Mizzeaux
quote:
VCU and Butler have made it to the Final Four within the past few years.
Butler was not really a cinderella the same way Gonzaga was not. How many 13 - 16 seeds ever made the final four since they went to 64 teams in 1985? The first round blowouts could get better ratings and fill venues if the games were not snoozers. When they sell an opening round book for 300 and you can pick up tickets on the street for 20 bucks you have crapped up your live demand.
The opening round only works because they can rotate games for the 1 or 2 that might be viewable. Problem is when you are sitting there live stuck in one of the 80% that blow and not TV to tune in other games you just don't want to spend the money.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 8:05 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
32 team playoff is where you'll find the best team and the most exciting match ups...
Sheesh. Let's just make it a 128 game single-elimination tournament and throw out the regular season altogether. Sound good?
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 8:09 pm to IAmReality
Everybody gets a trophy! Every team gets a playoff spot!
7-5? #47 seed!
7-5? #47 seed!
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 8:14 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Anything more than 4 and it just sucks. College basketball has totally devalued the regular season and attendance / viewers are off and falling. Devalue the regular season and you crap it all up.
Having an eight team playoff wouldn't devalue the regular season at all. In such a scenario, no mid-major would be able to have more than one loss and no BCS school more than two (obviously excluding conference title game upsets) with the majority of participants have 0-1 losses.
Finishing in the top 8 and/or winning your conference is not easy.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 8:16 pm to Roger Klarvin
Is the reflection in the aggie helmet in your sig pic penis shaped?
Posted on 11/14/13 at 8:35 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
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!
I'll give you '04, but I disagree with '11 and I'll add '12 to the list. Last year, it was beyond painfully clear that Notre Dame wasn't the team that belonged in contention. Probably should have been Oregon. NC games shouldn't be that brutally uncompetitive because a team got really lucky that most of their tough teams on the schedule were on down years. #1 USC turned out to be a 7-6 team. #8 Michigan turned out to be 8-5. Oklahoma was their only truly tough game.
I would argue that, although it rustled jimmies, 2011 was probably the season when the BCS worked out the best. SEC vs. SEC be damned, the two best teams got to play each other for the title. You could argue that Oklahoma State deserved consideration because OSU and Alabama each had one loss. You could say since Alabama's loss was to LSU, they already got their chance and we had seen the outcome. But then again, OSU lost to freaking unranked Iowa State. You can't suffer a loss that harsh and not have it come back to bite you in the arse when you're having one of these conversations.
My opinion is that the Big 12 screwed Okie Lite out of the NC by not having a Big 12 Championship game. If OSU had that extra win over a ranked opponent, then they would be 12-1 to Bama's 11-1 and it would almost certainly have given them that bump they needed since Alabama didn't get to play in their conference game.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 8:35 pm to BamaDude06
quote:
And how many have won it all?
In 28 years
0 of 112 number 16's have made a Final Four = 0.00%
0 of 112 number 15's have made a Final Four = 0.00%
0 of 112 number 14's have made a Final Four = 0.00%
0 of 112 number 13's have made a Final Four = 0.00%
0 of 112 number 12's have made a Final Four = 0.00%
3 of 112 number 11's have made a Final Four = 2.68%
0 of 112 number 10's have made a Final Four = 0.00%
2 of 112 number 09's have made a Final Four = 1.79%
That is ...
5 of 896 number 9-16 have made a Final Four = 0.56%
Therefore you could eliminate half the field and only lose about 1/2% of teams that make it. 1/2 a percent is just not worth it for what you pay for the first round games. Imagine the value of those same tickets if you did just 32 teams or 16 teams with a double elimination format like you have in baseball.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 8:37 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
Sheesh. Let's just make it a 128 game single-elimination tournament and throw out the regular season altogether. Sound good?
No. That's too many.
64 team's in a football playoff would be the absolute max.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 8:40 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Therefore you could eliminate half the field and only lose about 1/2% of teams that make it. 1/2 a percent is just not worth it for what you pay for the first round games. Imagine the value of those same tickets if you did just 32 teams or 16 teams with a double elimination format like you have in baseball.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 9:01 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
No. That's too many.
64 team's in a football playoff would be the absolute max.
No offense, but you're nuts! First off, who the hell is #32? And more importantly, who cares? Second, a 32-team playoff takes 5 rounds. That's going to produce a horrid number of injuries. Football != Basketball.
This post was edited on 11/14/13 at 9:14 pm
Posted on 11/14/13 at 9:12 pm to VagueMessage
Your point is taken and I can't really disagree with any of it, but...
With a 4-team playoff Oregon would have been in there, probably #3. And if Alabama after '11 stayed #2 it wouldn't piss off nearly so many people as Okie State and Stanford/Oregon would have been #3 and #4.
My mistake for trying to defend the current system, but 4 teams solves every argument over the last 15 years. The only kinda sorta argument I can see is Oregon vs. Stanford at #4 last year. #4 will frequently be a point of contention. But then so would #9 in an 8-game playoff or #17 in a 16-game playoff. We don't need an 8-team playoff, sez me.
quote:
I'll give you '04, but I disagree with '11 and I'll add '12 to the list. Last year, it was beyond painfully clear that Notre Dame wasn't the team that belonged in contention. Probably should have been Oregon.
With a 4-team playoff Oregon would have been in there, probably #3. And if Alabama after '11 stayed #2 it wouldn't piss off nearly so many people as Okie State and Stanford/Oregon would have been #3 and #4.
My mistake for trying to defend the current system, but 4 teams solves every argument over the last 15 years. The only kinda sorta argument I can see is Oregon vs. Stanford at #4 last year. #4 will frequently be a point of contention. But then so would #9 in an 8-game playoff or #17 in a 16-game playoff. We don't need an 8-team playoff, sez me.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 9:25 pm to finestfirst79
Remember also that a 4 team playoff only adds one extra game per team.
So 12 regular season games, CC game, + 2 playoff games for 4/5 major conferences. 15 games max. Any more is really pushing it for college football.
So 12 regular season games, CC game, + 2 playoff games for 4/5 major conferences. 15 games max. Any more is really pushing it for college football.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 9:27 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
Sheesh. Let's just make it a 128 game single-elimination tournament and throw out the regular season altogether. Sound good?
Not enough teams. We need to add five more programs to D1 football. I'm going to go ahead and suggest Sarah Lawrence and Kentucky as candidates.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 9:32 pm to randomways
quote:
Not enough teams. We need to add five more programs to D1 football. I'm going to go ahead and suggest Sarah Lawrence and Kentucky as candidates.
There are currently 125 FBS teams. Easy solution: Alabama gets 4 slots. Everybody happy.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 9:35 pm to finestfirst79
Heh.
I see 123 on the NCAA lists, though. Are you counting transitioning teams?
I see 123 on the NCAA lists, though. Are you counting transitioning teams?
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News