PDA

View Full Version : What a playoff can look like


lonny23
12-02-2008, 11:34 PM
I'm on board with jtk's diagnosis for the BCS to be more open. I gripe about games in the BCS here and there, but I don't think it's going to be the current circus if you have 16 teams in a playoff.

1. I don't think there will be a lot of positioning to try to get teams into or out of certain matchups in the various rounds.
2. If we're taking 16 and using the BCS standings, I don't think there will be too many gripes about who was #17. They always talk about teams that get left out of March Madness, but nobody starts a national campaign for a team they don't think will win it all.
3. My rules are simple. If you finish in the Top 25 of the BCS standings and win your conference, you're in. If you don't finish in the Top 25 of the BCS standings, you're out and that also means Notre Dame better be high enough to get a legit at-large. I'm not playing any of this, you'll get in if you're 9-3 mess like they have right now. My way has 9 conference champs in the bracket and that means there are 7 at-large teams. I'm using the highest ranked teams as conference champions for reference purposes. I could've used Va Tech, but they'd still be #16 and I could assume Florida would move up, but this is just hypothetical.

1 Alabama vs. 16 Boston College
8 Penn State vs. 9 Boise State

5 USC vs. 12 Ball State
4 Florida vs. 13 Cincinnati

3 Texas vs. 14 Oklahoma State
6 Utah vs. 11 TCU

7 Texas Tech vs. 10 Ohio State
2 Oklahoma vs. 15 Georgia Tech

The BCS upstarts get their day in the sun to win big games and you get some good rematches and matchups. If form holds, you're looking at this for Round 2:

1 Alabama vs. 8 Penn State
4 Florida vs. 5 USC

3 Texas vs. 6 Utah
2 Oklahoma vs. 7 Texas Tech

7 of those 8 teams have been ranked at least as high as 2nd this year at some point. That cuts down on all this mess about people hating the Big 10, USC not getting a fair shake, Utah still gets a shot, and we don't have this Big 12 mess!:D

The reason why I say nobody has a huge beef over seedings is because all they really do is determine if your first game is easier or not. By time you get to Round 2, you better be playing well. Results on the field notwithstanding, what would be the big gripe from Lubbock about being 7th and playing OU in Round 2 or moving up to play Texas or Florida? You're going to play somebody good and it doesn't matter what your seed is.

Now OU might have a gripe about UT's 2nd Round opponent :D and it could be worked to use some kind of RPI for the tourney to not overvalue the non-BCS 12-0 teams, but this would be a decent start to something better.

jtk1519
12-02-2008, 11:45 PM
I'm on board with jtk's diagnosis for the BCS to be more open.

The voice in my head just told me to swallow the antifreeze in the garage.

Firebird
12-02-2008, 11:51 PM
I think we need a 128 team playoff. Invite a few up from FCS to get the needed numbers.

lonny23
12-03-2008, 12:14 AM
The voice in my head just told me to swallow the antifreeze in the garage.
You should listen to the voice in your head!:D

jtk1519
12-03-2008, 12:15 AM
You should listen to the voice in your head!:D

You'd be dead.

lonny23
12-03-2008, 12:21 AM
I think we need a 128 team playoff. Invite a few up from FCS to get the needed numbers.
I won't go any higher than 32 because there is too much of a gap in college football between the top and bottom.

I know Leach has said 64, but that would only be feasible if you play home games to start off and it will probably be very boring to have a playoff system where a 1st Round game would be something like Central Michigan at Texas Tech. That leads to 2nd Round games like Georgia, Ole Miss, or LSU at Texas Tech!;) It wouldn't be until Round 3 against the likes of Ohio State that interest would pick up and it might be a Round 4 vs. OU that actually is worth watching.

lonny23
12-03-2008, 12:21 AM
You'd be dead.
Don't forget, I'm a moving target. You know when I post. You don't know where I post from!:D

becomingwater
12-03-2008, 09:38 AM
Wow, the Playoffs would be very exciting!

I can see it now...January Madness 2009

CW#1inmyheart4eva
12-03-2008, 10:45 AM
I won't go any higher than 32 because there is too much of a gap in college football between the top and bottom.

I know Leach has said 64, but that would only be feasible if you play home games to start off and it will probably be very boring to have a playoff system where a 1st Round game would be something like Central Michigan at Texas Tech. That leads to 2nd Round games like Georgia, Ole Miss, or LSU at Texas Tech!;) It wouldn't be until Round 3 against the likes of Ohio State that interest would pick up and it might be a Round 4 vs. OU that actually is worth watching.

64 teams would be an extra 6 games to the schedule if you do go all the way. that is too much for a colege team too handle.

BleedinBloksDaily
12-03-2008, 12:46 PM
I think we need a 128 team playoff. Invite a few up from FCS to get the needed numbers.
now that would be exciting