T1B

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Or you could scrap the BCS entirely and go with an 8-team playoff, giving automatic bids to the 6 BCS champions. Of course, that puts you right back to where you were under the old BCS system, with the non-BCS schools threatening a lawsuit on antitrust grounds. And maybe this time ND joins them. And maybe the lawsuit is successful. Not a good scenario.

If you scrap the auto bids and just go with the top 8, there would be almost no grounds for an antitrust suit. You can just point to last season where Utah finished in the top 8 of the BCS. Under that scenario, Utah would've played for a national title last season. Under the current system, however, a non-BCS school has almost no chance of finishing in the top 2. If antitrust actions aren't effective now -- under a system that pretty much completley excludes them from the BCS title game -- they wouldn't be anymore effective under the aforemetioned scenario.

Mike, I could probably live with your idea of the six highest ranked conference champs, plus two wild cards.

What I can't live with is a three or four loss ACC champ getting in over a much better one loss Texas team, or an undefeated Utah.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Even better, Van, NHL used to have 16 of 24 teams make the playoffs.

Actually, 16 of 21 at its worst. NBA wasn't a whole lot better -- 16 of 23 at its worst.

Considering the number of NBA/NHL fans in this forum, I'm surprised at the level of opposition to a 16-team playoff field, when there are 120 teams in BTPCF.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:Even better, Van, NHL used to have 16 of 24 teams make the playoffs.

Actually, 16 of 21 at its worst. NBA wasn't a whole lot better -- 16 of 23 at its worst.

Considering the number of NBA/NHL fans in this forum, I'm surprised at the level of opposition to a 16-team playoff field, when there are 120 teams in BTPCF.

Eh. You're kind of comparing apples and oranges. In NBA, NHL and MLB, they play 7-game series, which (at least in theory) is more likely to produce the superior team in each round. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to the NBA or NHL scaling back to 12 teams, although I would assume the reason they don't is to avoid the top seeds having 2-3 week layoffs between the end of the regular season and their first playoff games.

A better comparison to make would be college basketball. Sure, everybody gets all geeked for a few weeks in late March and fills out their brackets, only to lose to the chick in HR who had an uncle who went to George Mason in the '80s. But outside of CBB diehards, nobody gives two shits about the regular season. If two highly-ranked teams play early in the season, it doesn't matter who wins, 'cause they'll both end up with a 1 or 2 seed in the tourney. The conference tourneys are an even bigger joke. Theoretically, a team win ZERO wins in the regular season still has a shot, however remote, at a national championship. And the more (undeserving) teams you add to the mix, the less likely it becomes that the cream will rise to the top. Don't you find it the slightest bit disconcerting that all four #1 seeds have made the Final Four just once, and that was just the season before last? Oh, but it's all about "the Madness!"

The same thing would happen in CFB with a 16-team playoff. All of a sudden you're giving 3- and 4-loss teams (and very likely even worse if you retain the BCS auto-bids) a legit shot at an MNC. How meaningful is that early-season OSU/USC game in that scenario? At least with an 8-team playoff, that game could still be the difference between one team getting in and another team staying home.

Considering most regulars in here not only think CFB is the greatest sport on earth, but would probably commit some unspeakable acts to see their team win an MNC, I'm surprised at the level of support for a 16-team playoff. I think most of us would agree that one of the things that makes CFB great is the importance of the regular season. If that's the case, why are we so desperate to make it just like every other sport? Do you really want to see the CFB equivalent of the Arizona Cardinals playing for it all?

King Crimson wrote:i see Rutgers has assfucked themselves traveling to Maryland. kickoff is prolly at 3 AM. Fear the Turtle.

Van wrote:Besides, my idea is no more far-fetched and unlikely to gain approval from the conferences than a 16 team playoff is, considering the conferences are shooting that down too.

If a 16-team playoff has been proposed in any venue other than an internet message board or a sports radio talk show, that's news to me.

The stated reason for opposition to a playoff, at least among university presidents, is academics. It's a crock and we all know it, but it's on the table, so it has to be addressed. That's why Schmick's suggestion to start a playoff immediately after the regular season is a non-starter, unless you're willing to shorten the regular season by a few weeks. The real reason the BCS schools oppose a playoff is because the status quo preserves their power. Further, the coaches are onboard because the current bowl system rewards mediocrity. Go 6-6 in a BCS conference, and you're guaranteed a bowl bid.

Imho, if we're talking strictly real world, the first foray into a playoff will be Plus One. At the same time, however, I believe a playoff would prove to be a greater cash cow than even the current BCS system, and for that reason once we had a playoff the universities would be eager to expand it to maximize profits. That means a 16-team format.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Considering the number of NBA/NHL fans in this forum, I'm surprised at the level of opposition to a 16-team playoff field, when there are 120 teams in BTPCF.

Eh. You're kind of comparing apples and oranges. In NBA, NHL and MLB, they play 7-game series, which (at least in theory) is more likely to produce the superior team in each round. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to the NBA or NHL scaling back to 12 teams, although I would assume the reason they don't is to avoid the top seeds having 2-3 week layoffs between the end of the regular season and their first playoff games.

A better comparison to make would be college basketball. Sure, everybody gets all geeked for a few weeks in late March and fills out their brackets, only to lose to the chick in HR who had an uncle who went to George Mason in the '80s. But outside of CBB diehards, nobody gives two shits about the regular season.
If two highly-ranked teams play early in the season, it doesn't matter who wins, 'cause they'll both end up with a 1 or 2 seed in the tourney. The conference tourneys are an even bigger joke. Theoretically, a team win ZERO wins in the regular season still has a shot, however remote, at a national championship. And the more (undeserving) teams you add to the mix, the less likely it becomes that the cream will rise to the top. Don't you find it the slightest bit disconcerting that all four #1 seeds have made the Final Four just once, and that was just the season before last? Oh, but it's all about "the Madness!"

The same thing would happen in CFB with a 16-team playoff. All of a sudden you're giving 3- and 4-loss teams (and very likely even worse if you retain the BCS auto-bids) a legit shot at an MNC. How meaningful is that early-season OSU/USC game in that scenario? At least with an 8-team playoff, that game could still be the difference between one team getting in and another team staying home.

Considering most regulars in here not only think CFB is the greatest sport on earth, but would probably commit some unspeakable acts to see their team win an MNC, I'm surprised at the level of support for a 16-team playoff. I think most of us would agree that one of the things that makes CFB great is the importance of the regular season. If that's the case, why are we so desperate to make it just like every other sport? Do you really want to see the CFB equivalent of the Arizona Cardinals playing for it all?

A few points in response:

1. I agree that college football has the greatest regular season in sports. But, as has been alluded to elsewhere in this thread, the rivalries are what help to make it great. Now, I'm not saying that other sports don't also have great rivalries. But the difference in college football is that the rivalries remain compelling regardless of how well the teams involved in said rivalries are doing, and regardless of how significant an impact that game has on the sport as a whole. How many times over the past, say, 50 years has Kansas-Missouri had an impact on the national championship? Once, perhaps (year before last). Or Oregon-Oregon State? But a quick perusal of this board in the week leading up to those games lets you know that it's still an important game. And even those of us who aren't fans of either team can appreciate it for that reason.

Hell, even if you want to talk about ND-USC, you'd have to go all the way back to 1988 for the last time that game had national championship implications for both teams. By contrast, how many NBA fans cared about the Knicks-Nets series this season who weren't a fan of either team?

Imho, Yankees-Red Sox is the only sports rivalry outside of college football that can even hold a candle to the great college football rivalries like ND-USC, Oklahoma-Texas, Michigan-Ohio State, Alabama-Auburn, etc. And that aspect of college football won't change if you go to a 16-team playoff. For that reason, college football will never be like "every other sport."

2. Even in a 16-team playoff, you won't see 4-loss teams in the playoff, at least not as at-large bids. You might see 1 or 2 3-loss teams in as at-large bids, but there will be several 3-loss teams left out.

3. You didn't bring this up, but it's worth noting that there's been a lot of complaints on this board about the pussification of OOC scheduling (in fact, that's sort of how this thread was started). And these days there are very few compelling OOC matchups that don't involve either Notre Dame or a legislatively-mandated matchup (e.g., Florida-Florida State). A 16-team playoff would at least give teams some margin for error in the regular season. One loss is no longer fatal, nor is even a second loss necessarily. A 16-team playoff might encourage some teams to schedule a little more aggressively OOC for that reason.

Or, it might not, because merely finishing in the top 16 would give them a pass to the dance. Choosing not to unnecessarily risk a loss that could take them out of the expanded 16 team dance is more of a reality to a team which is perennially outside the top 10.

A Cincinnati knows they're not going to finish in the top 8, but they could see themselves in the top 16, so why risk that top 16?

Teams in the top 8 are just going to continue doing what they always do, which, with the exception of USC, means they'll schedule just as pussified as they always do.

The scheduling issue won't truly begin to be rectified until mandatory 6-6 schedules with no D1-AAs is implemented. The only way teams will improve their scheduling is by forcing them to have to play two more road games. They're not going to be willing to travel to Louisiana-Lafayette, so they'll have to start calling Michigan St's AD, rather than Eastern Michigan's AD.

For all the ills of CF we talk about here, including a lack of a playoff, that's the single biggest issue hurting the game: scheduling.

If we're to retain the conferences, which we know we will, then this is the only way to fix it. Remove the financial incentive to schedule Weathervane Tech, force teams to go out on the road...bam, you've got an instant and enormous improvement in the quality of the games.

Van wrote:Or, it might not, because merely finishing in the top 16 would give them a pass to the dance. Choosing not to unnecessarily risk a loss that could take them out of the expanded 16 team dance is more of a reality to a team which is perennially outside the top 10.

A Cincinnati knows they're not going to finish in the top 8, but they could see themselves in the top 16, so why risk that top 16?

In a 16-team field, the Big East champ probably gets an automatic bid. So in Cincinnati's case, all they need to do is win the Big East, and they'd be in the playoff (yeah, they might have to finish in the Top 25 to get that automatic bid, but I'd be very surprised if the Big East champ wasn't in the Top 25).

Teams in the top 8 are just going to continue doing what they always do, which, with the exception of USC, means they'll schedule just as pussified as they always do.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that nobody finishes in the Top 8 every single year. Maybe USC over the last seven years or so. But I'm sure you remember what it was like before that.

A team on the cusp might be inclined to schedule more aggressively, in the hope that the schedule could put them over the top. Particularly if that team is a traditional power on something of a down year, say 9-3 or thereabouts.

The scheduling issue won't truly begin to be rectified until mandatory 6-6 schedules with no D1-AAs is implemented. The only way teams will improve their scheduling is by forcing them to have to play two more road games. They're not going to be willing to travel to Louisiana-Lafayette, so they'll have to start calling Michigan St's AD, rather than Eastern Michigan's AD.

For all the ills of CF we talk about here, including a lack of a playoff, that's the single biggest issue hurting the game: scheduling.

If we're to retain the conferences, which we know we will, then this is the only way to fix it. Remove the financial incentive to schedule Weathervane Tech, force teams to go out on the road...bam, you've got an instant and enormous improvement in the quality of the games.

When it comes to scheduling FCS teams, part of the problem is the bowl games. At present, you have 34 bowl games. That means that 68/120 FBS teams go to bowls. And 6 wins is still the minimum for bowl eligibility. Since FBS teams probably win about 95% of the games against FCS opponents, the NCAA usually doesn't have a problem with that scheduling practice, since it gets more teams to the bowl eligibility threshold.

I suppose you could eliminate some of the bowl games, but if we're talking about real world tendencies, that hasn't been the trend in recent years. In fact, the trend has been the opposite: toward more bowl games.

The move to a 12-game schedule helps, since 6 wins remains the threshold for bowl eligibility, it is possible to have more than 50% of FBS teams bowl eligible even with no games vs. FCS opponents. But getting to 68 would be a little difficult.

Speaking of bowls, I don't know if this is accurate, but from this link it looks like the ACC has 10 bowl bids, assuming they don't get a BCS at-large bid. Dunno if that would be a reaction to last year, but last year probably was a fluke anyway. And fwiw, Army has a guaranteed bowl bid, apparently, as long as they get to six wins. Of course, Army hasn't done anything in recent years to suggest that they'll accomplish that.