Started By
Message
re: If we moved to an FCS-style playoff
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:22 pm to skrayper
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:22 pm to skrayper
16 team playoff, all FBS champions are in plus 6 at-large teams. 10 regular season games starting on Labor Day and ending on Thanksgiving Weekend with 3 bye weeks.
Playoffs schedule :
Round of 16 : 12/9 (on campus)
Round of 8 : 12/16 (on campus)
Final Four : 1/1 (bowl games)
Championship : 1/8 (site specific)
Playoffs schedule :
Round of 16 : 12/9 (on campus)
Round of 8 : 12/16 (on campus)
Final Four : 1/1 (bowl games)
Championship : 1/8 (site specific)
This post was edited on 12/5/17 at 1:24 pm
0
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:24 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
FCS teams all play 11 games (that qualify for playoffs). I would not mind cutting our season's back to 11 games at all.
You wouldn't mind, but you and everyone else know there's no way schools are going to decide to play one less game and lose all that revenue. You guys are saying that 128 teams are going to cut a game off their schedule, so 24 teams can be in this playoff. Seriously?
In addition, they have no conference championships. They all finished their seasons...except for those in the playoffs...on November 18.
The idea that this would ever happen is so ludicrous, it's baffling why this subject even comes up. People just don't have a clue.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:25 pm to skrayper
quote:
Unless you made certain they played each other in the first round, that wouldn't work. Both teams could lose in their first games. Would that conference simply not have a champion that year?
You know we're not exactly that far removed from conference co-champions...used to happen all the time. I could care less about that, much better playoffs/more meaningful games is simply better for the sport.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:27 pm to skrayper
quote:
Remove all non-conference games, and move to a 9 game conference schedule.
Are you just talking out of your arse just for the sake of talking?
You actually think that 128 schools are going to cut THREE games off their schedules so 24 teams can be in your playoff?
Serious question: What planet are you from?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:28 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
I could care less about that, much better playoffs/more meaningful games is simply better for the sport.
Having fricking Northwestern playing in a playoff this year is most definitely not better for college football.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:28 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
You wouldn't mind, but you and everyone else know there's no way schools are going to decide to play one less game and lose all that revenue. You guys are saying that 128 teams are going to cut a game off their schedule, so 24 teams can be in this playoff. Seriously?
In addition, they have no conference championships. They all finished their seasons...except for those in the playoffs...on November 18.
The idea that this would ever happen is so ludicrous, it's baffling why this subject even comes up. People just don't have a clue.
This is the problem with CFB, money is running the sport entirely now. It's not about getting better matchups, it's not about meaningful games, it's about how much money can be lined into the pockets of schools, tax free I believe as well, correct? Line up Mercer in November, why? Cause cheap opponent and extra home game revenue! When the 12th game was added back in 2006, most schools, especially in the SEC, just added another cupcake to the schedule.
With that being said, a big playoff done right still means a lot of extra money lining the pockets of those schools, and you could still even have other bowl games on top of that if you wanted.
This post was edited on 12/5/17 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:29 pm to skrayper
You can have a 16 team playoff already by adding 3 additional games to CCG weekend.
Do away with all G5 CCGs
Then...
P5 champ games (10)
G5 at large game (2)
2 at large games (4)
Re-seed winners for 4 on campus games at highest seeded P5 champs stadium
Winners advance to current format
Do away with all G5 CCGs
Then...
P5 champ games (10)
G5 at large game (2)
2 at large games (4)
Re-seed winners for 4 on campus games at highest seeded P5 champs stadium
Winners advance to current format
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:35 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
This is the problem with CFB, money is running the sport entirely now. It's not about getting better matchups, it's not about meaningful games, it's about how much money can be lined into the pockets of schools, tax free I believe as well, correct? Line up Mercer in November, why? Cause cheap opponent and extra home game revenue!
Seriously, I'm not sure how much you understand about college football.
Better matchups? Than the two we now have?
Again, let me say this a little more clearly:
There is no "meaningful" playoff scenario that involves a playoff game with fricking Northwestern.
As far as money and revenue, again, by mentioning Mercer in November, you just prove you're not very knowledgeable. Do you really think that's a more profitable game for Alabama than a game with an FBS opponent? You also overlook the much needed revenue those teams get.
You want to have quality baseball, softball, golf, and gymnastics...three of which Alabama has won national championships in recent years? Try doing it without all that money you hate.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:38 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Seriously, I'm not sure how much you understand about college football.
I understand it entirely, and if you think money isn't running it, then how do you expect these ridiculous coaching salaries keep increasing at a rapid rate?
quote:
Better matchups? Than the two we now have?
Better matchups than Mercer in November, yes. Drop an OOC game, going to 12 games has proven no more than to add an extra meaningless game for most P5 teams. Replace it with a competitive/interesting playoff game instead. I'd rather watch Alabama play a 13 seed of Boise State in a playoff than Mercer at any time. They are dumb, completely meaningless damaging to the sport games. Period.
This post was edited on 12/5/17 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:38 pm to 3rddownonthe8
This year it would have looked this...USING WEEK 13 RANKINGS
ACC - MIAMI - CLEMSON
B10 - WISKY - OSU
B12 - OU - TCU
PAC - STANFORD - USC
SEC - AU - UGA
G5 - FRESNO @ UCF
AL#1 - ND @ BAMA
AL#2 - UW @ PSU
QTRS -
UCF @ CLEMSON
PSU @ OU
USC @ UGA
BAMA @ OSU (ONLY CHAMPIONS CAN HOST)
ACC - MIAMI - CLEMSON
B10 - WISKY - OSU
B12 - OU - TCU
PAC - STANFORD - USC
SEC - AU - UGA
G5 - FRESNO @ UCF
AL#1 - ND @ BAMA
AL#2 - UW @ PSU
QTRS -
UCF @ CLEMSON
PSU @ OU
USC @ UGA
BAMA @ OSU (ONLY CHAMPIONS CAN HOST)
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:41 pm to skrayper
This isn't good enough. 32 teams or gtfo.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:43 pm to skrayper
That would be nice. You could use major bowl venues for tournament sites
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:45 pm to BamaGradinTn
We could use the 12th week as a conference championship
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:45 pm to skrayper
the 4 teams wouldn't change. It would still be uga vs ou and bama vs clemsonPosted on 12/5/17 at 1:52 pm to skrayper
Nothing like seeing a 4 loss NC State Or Miss State team with a shot at the title.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 2:01 pm to 3rddownonthe8
Concerning money, the big money for bowl games come from TV (ESPN).
Playoff game money should be paid to the conferences, not to the teams. More eyeballs on games means more money for the conferences. Higher revenue to conferences is good business for all the teams.
There shouldn't be too much loss of revenue for teams not in playoffs. If they are losing, likely not having big crowds anyway. For example, how much money would Vandy lose by playing two fewer games? Not trying to be mean to the Commodores, just making a point.
They can still use bowl game sites, using stadiums in the teams regions for neutral playoff sites? Then, the bowls would still get the gate money.
Playoff game money should be paid to the conferences, not to the teams. More eyeballs on games means more money for the conferences. Higher revenue to conferences is good business for all the teams.
There shouldn't be too much loss of revenue for teams not in playoffs. If they are losing, likely not having big crowds anyway. For example, how much money would Vandy lose by playing two fewer games? Not trying to be mean to the Commodores, just making a point.
They can still use bowl game sites, using stadiums in the teams regions for neutral playoff sites? Then, the bowls would still get the gate money.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 2:07 pm to skrayper
I think it should be top 16 with top 4 seeds getting a bye.
This would include teams like ucf who went undefeated and gives them a shot to prove themselves, and include 2 loss teams that are really good but played tough schedules.
24 includes too many teams with 3+ losses that don't deserve a shot. As a msu fan I'll admit at 8-4 we have no business in a playoff.
This would include teams like ucf who went undefeated and gives them a shot to prove themselves, and include 2 loss teams that are really good but played tough schedules.
24 includes too many teams with 3+ losses that don't deserve a shot. As a msu fan I'll admit at 8-4 we have no business in a playoff.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 2:08 pm to HailToTheChiz
Too much money that they don't want moved around. I'm for it, but they're all about them bunjamuns
Posted on 12/5/17 at 2:10 pm to NCDawg52
quote:
Would ruin college football. Regular season would be meaningless.
Except... how do you get teams 1-24? At the end of the regular season... right?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 2:15 pm to skrayper
The only thing I see being accomplished here is to give teams that absolutely don't deserve a shot a vehicle to win it all. Which is fine, I suppose. But that's really the only thing to be gained here.
And guess what? People will still argue over who did and didn't get in.
And guess what? People will still argue over who did and didn't get in.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News