In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 463
Online now 499 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Hell, we are on the opposite end of the sprectrum then. I want a 16 team playoff. I look at March Madness, and then apply it to football, and I love the idea. Was the #8 seeded Viilanova the best team in 1985? How about George Mason being one of the best a couple years ago? Or Butler?
Your scenerio, as a comparison to March Madness, only allows the #1 seeds to play in the tourney. An 8 team playoff allows the #1 and #2 seeds in. An 16 team playoff allows the #1-#4 seeds in...
That would be great but football is a more physically taxing sport than basketball. I don't believe it's ethical to subject these kids to that type of schedule.
Hell, even NFL players are railing against the plan to expand the season to 18 games.
This post was edited by buttesnake 22 months ago
I am selfish, entertain me.
I thought the NFL players were complaining because they wanted to increase from 16 to 18, without increasing their pay. I could be wrong on that.
I'm not sure about the pay thing. You're probably right.
To play off of that also, all 3 of the FCS, Division 2, and Division 3 play some type of 5 round playoff which is >16 teams involved.
That still doesn't make it right. These kids are students first.
March Madness lasts for a month, the College World Series lasts for 26 days...hell, even the NIT goes on for like 3 weeks. I'm not sure why Division I football is the only sport where "these kids are students first" and its unacceptable to keep them out of class for more than a week.
Fine, yes they deserve it. But what I'm trying to say is that a 2 or 3 loss team doesn't deserve the chance.
This is Michigan, fergodsakes.
question and answer for anyone interested
Will Notre Dame have to join a league? Who's the big loser in the new playoff system? Your playoff questions get answered.
Why not? I mean, if a team could lose twice and still be in the hunt for a national title, maybe we would see teams actually schedule OOC games vs good programs instead of just loading up on cupcakes from the MAC or FCS or whatever. And besides, isn't half the fun of playoffs watching lesser teams try to rise to the occasion and take on the big dogs, and watching the big dogs prove their worth on the field? No one would have called the Giants one of the NFL's best teams after the regular season, but here we are now and they're the defending Super Bowl champs (much to my chagrin, I'm a Patriots fan ).
I would rather the regular season maintains its current importance.
If the NCAA truly wanted a 16 team playoff they could make necessary changes to get it so teams aren't playing any more games than they are now.
Excellent point....but under that scenario, I think it would be easy to determine which team had the combination of the worse loss, and lesser quality of wins (strength of schedule)
Interesting thought....I would be for a 16 team playoff, but you would need to shorten the regular season, and eliminate at least 2, if not 3 out of conference games. But reducing games reduces millions in revenue....I think an 8 team playoff is probably the best balance, and the biggest a playoff should be, and I feel it would have more support if the regular season is reduced by 1 game.
That's exactly what the BCS does now.
Exactly, so keep the BCS and just include 4 teams. Name one year in BCS history in which there has been any debate that the number 5 team was the best team.
I'm not arguing that the number 5 team was the best team. I am saying they have a case for being the number 2 team. Take last year for example. Which team would you include in the playoff, Stanford or Oregon? Oregon won the Pac 12, beat Stanford but Stanford only had 1 loss going into the bowl season and Oregon had 2. Then you throw in the fact that Boise State only had 1 loss as well.
Agreed....Then if we have an 8 team playoff, there will be issues if the #9 team is more deserving
Well, I see your point. But last year is a bad example. Neither Oregon nor Stanford had any case as one of the top 2. Also, you get that debate no matter how many teams are included. If it's an 8 team then the 9 team got snubbed. And Boise State had no case as a top 5 team whatsoever.
Yea I can see why Oregon might be more deserving then Stanford, and Stanford would have probably lost to LSU also....maybe play-in game for the #4 seed under certain scenarios?
Or have a six team playoff with the #1 and #2 seeds getting a first round bye? (I've got a bracket for that model which is an awesome concept, but dont think the picture is uploading).
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Awink2 22 months ago
Stanford sure does. They only lost 1 game last year. Why don't they? Because they play in the pac 12 and Bama plays in the SEC?
The difference I am seeing is that the #9 team has zero case for being just as good as the #2 team. Stanford could of easily been in the championship game if people felt the Pac 12 was stronger than the SEC. The #9 team last year had no chance of being in that championship game.
I'm saying that in terms of team talent Bama and LSU were miles ahead of everybody else.
Then we don't need a playoff at all. We can just decide who the best teams are talent wise and let them play in a title game at the end of the year.
And what if some years there are 3 teams who are about the same level? And don't go say that the same could be true with 7 or 8 teams, because it never will be.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports