I'd even go as far as all conf champs get an automatic bid to the "playoff"
Printable View
I'd even go as far as all conf champs get an automatic bid to the "playoff"
Nothing is perfect, but what seems to happen more often, an uproar over the national champion in college football with the BCS or an uproar over the Super Bowl champion in the NFL? The Super Bowl may not always end up being a matchup between the perceived best two teams, but there is really never an argument that a team that deserved a shot to win it all didn't even get it by being shut out of the playoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aclone
Or even just making it the conference champs playing in the playoff. Give the #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-seeded teams 1st round byes, and in the first round have 6-11, 7-10, and 8-9 matchups. Second round have 1-(8-9), 2-(7-10), 3-(6-11), and 4-5 matchups. Proceed from there. You really can't argue about being "unfairly snubbed," because if you didn't win your conference you don't get to participate.
It's apples and oranges, logistically. You have more games, more inter-conference play to measure a more valid RPI and I think it's easier for Goliath to be slayed in basketball which almost merits a deeper tournament, a la George Mason.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdoggivjc
To me, it's not a valid comparison to begin with.
That's why I used a football example that will legitimately cause conflict in a hypothetical playoff scenario.
Would the Bowls factor into this scenario?Quote:
Originally Posted by jdoggivjc
But yet they seem to make it work at the FCS, Div II, Div III, and NAIA levels with just as few if not fewer games and just as little inter-conference play to determine which teams do and don't belong there - and guess what? You hear very few complaints at those levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by egami
I like the scenario of keeping the bowls as a separate entity from the championship, much like an NIT.Quote:
Originally Posted by weR138
So you're talking a 12 team playoff minimum?Quote:
Originally Posted by CycoCyclone
I will say this, egami, if the NCAA can't figure out a way to do a playoff, I am all for going back to the old method. The BCS has solved absolutely nothing, except render a whole lot of formerly outstanding bowls meaningless. When you look at the empty seats at some of the tradition rich bowl games, such as the Orange Bowl, you know the current mess was a mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by egami
Well, I played D3, so I heard plenty of complaints, I mean you don't hear much from those levels, period...but, regardless, the real issue is the bowl system and money. The logistics is just the secondary argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdoggivjc
But can't you see where say the #17 team in the country has a lot less to complain about than say a #3 team and conference champion about getting snubbed when it comes to determining the national champion?Quote:
Originally Posted by egami
This might actually sway my opinion on this subject. I like this idea. But for playoff proponents who use fairness as an argument; don't you have to let every D1 conf. champ into the tournament to be fair truly fair?Quote:
Originally Posted by jdoggivjc
I can. I never really argued against that particular point though. Clearly some aspects of the playoff system are desirable, but I think the mere fact that every proposal has problems demonstrates that it's not as clear cut as most of you supporting it think.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdoggivjc
I used to be a huge advocate of it...now, not so much.
Yes, you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by weR138
And then, the Elite Eight play in 4 regional bowls, with a rotating national championship bowl.
I don't see what is so hard about developing a system. The NCAA already has a model that works in the FCS. There are about the same number of teams in the FCS as the FBS, so just use the exact same format.