Started By
Message
re: Why 6 > 8
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:46 am to NeverToYield
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:46 am to NeverToYield
a 16 team playoff would bring in conference champions, so it would actually be about the top 10 or so teams and sacrificial conf champ lambs for the top 6 seeds. You keep saying it's impossible... but I still say inevitable,
and I'm talking like 60 years in the future of adding a berth every now and then.
and I'm talking like 60 years in the future of adding a berth every now and then.
2
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:49 am to Lordofwrath88
I don't even think football will be around in 60 years. If it is, it will not be anything like it is today.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 11:26 am to Farmer1906
quote:I sadly agree. It will be around, but it will be closer to flag football than what we have now.
I don't even think football will be around in 60 years. If it is, it will not be anything like it is today.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 11:28 am to Farmer1906
I agree with you.
3-6 and 4-5 with the higher seed hosting the game and 1 and 2 get a bye. Seems like a great format to me.
3-6 and 4-5 with the higher seed hosting the game and 1 and 2 get a bye. Seems like a great format to me.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 11:32 am to Farmer1906
quote:
I don't even think football will be around in 60 years. If it is, it will not be anything like it is today.
Most likely, you are correct.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 11:34 am to Farmer1906
6 is perfect because you still get a major reward for getting into that top 2.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 11:39 am to Farmer1906
Throw thr regular season out at the end and just have a 120 team playoff IMO
More football for everyone, u are unamerican if u don't like this
More football for everyone, u are unamerican if u don't like this
Posted on 12/10/14 at 11:52 am to Lordofwrath88
quote:
a 16 team playoff would bring in conference champions, so it would actually be about the top 10 or so teams and sacrificial conf champ lambs for the top 6 seeds. You keep saying it's impossible... but I still say inevitable,
and I'm talking like 60 years in the future of adding a berth every now and then.
I think this will happen within 25 years. The money is going to be too great
Posted on 12/10/14 at 12:31 pm to Farmer1906
Look at how many players get banged up and injured in a typical game. Giving the top two teams a bye could be an advantage that many would see as unfair. I agree.
4 is plenty.
4 is plenty.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 12:33 pm to Farmer1906
What's best is irrelevant. It will eventually be 16 and college football will turn into a shittier version of the NFL.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 12:46 pm to Farmer1906
I like 5 teams with 4+5 playing a play-in game.
The problem now is that you could have 5 clear-cut great teams that are conference champions, and one has to be kept out. We need at least 5. Let's take another look with just 5 teams:
2014
1. Bama 12-1
2. UO 12-1
3. FSU 13-0
4. tOSU 12-1 <--Play-in
5. BU 11-1 <--Play-in
--
6. TCU 11-1
7. Ms State 10-2
8. Mi State 10-2
2013
1. FSU 13-0
2. Auburn 12-1
3. Bama 11-1
4. Mi State 12-1 <--Play-in
5. Stanford 11-2 <--Play-in
--
6. BU 11-1
7. tOSU 12-1
8. Mizzou 11-2
2012
1. Notre Dame 12-0
2. Bama 12-1
3. Florida 11-1
4. UO 11-1 <--Play-in
5. KSU 11-1 <--Play-in
--
6. Stanford 11-2
7. UGA 11-2
8. LSU 10-2
2011
1. LSU 13-0
2. Bama 11-1
3. Okie St 11-1
4. Stanford 11-1 <--Play-in
5. UO 11-2 <--Play-in
--
6. Ark 10-2
7. Boise St 11-1
8. KSU 10-2
Obviously, you'd need to shuffle it around so that the play-in games would be a possible elimination game for a power 5 runner-up.
The problem now is that you could have 5 clear-cut great teams that are conference champions, and one has to be kept out. We need at least 5. Let's take another look with just 5 teams:
2014
1. Bama 12-1
2. UO 12-1
3. FSU 13-0
4. tOSU 12-1 <--Play-in
5. BU 11-1 <--Play-in
--
6. TCU 11-1
7. Ms State 10-2
8. Mi State 10-2
2013
1. FSU 13-0
2. Auburn 12-1
3. Bama 11-1
4. Mi State 12-1 <--Play-in
5. Stanford 11-2 <--Play-in
--
6. BU 11-1
7. tOSU 12-1
8. Mizzou 11-2
2012
1. Notre Dame 12-0
2. Bama 12-1
3. Florida 11-1
4. UO 11-1 <--Play-in
5. KSU 11-1 <--Play-in
--
6. Stanford 11-2
7. UGA 11-2
8. LSU 10-2
2011
1. LSU 13-0
2. Bama 11-1
3. Okie St 11-1
4. Stanford 11-1 <--Play-in
5. UO 11-2 <--Play-in
--
6. Ark 10-2
7. Boise St 11-1
8. KSU 10-2
Obviously, you'd need to shuffle it around so that the play-in games would be a possible elimination game for a power 5 runner-up.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 12:56 pm to thefloydian
quote:
It will eventually be 16 and college football will turn into a shittier version of the NFL.
Nah, never. The pageantry and tradition >>> the NFL. Even if we go to a 16-team playoff, that's using a field of 128+ teams. In the NFL, half the teams get in. In CFB, it's like only the top 10% still. It'll never get that bad.
Posted on 1/7/15 at 9:47 am to Farmer1906
I'm going to go ahead a bump this with the thought of, if the playoff was 6, right now TCU would have likely eliminated FSU and have a killer TCU/UO match up and tOSU would have eliminated BU and primed to upset BAMA again. The title game would have likely been tOSU vs the UO/TCU winner.
With what we have now, TCU could be the best team in football yet not gets its shot at it all.
BUT if you go 8 then you get an unworthy Miss State team in there who couldn't even handle GT.
With what we have now, TCU could be the best team in football yet not gets its shot at it all.
BUT if you go 8 then you get an unworthy Miss State team in there who couldn't even handle GT.
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News