If there was a 16-team playoff...
- Thread starter chuckd4735
- Start date
Anyone who nay says against a larger playoff is just looking to keep an advantage for the big dogs. Any excuse other wise is fluff.
Then get rid of the 12th game and the conference championships. I want 24 (just like FCS, with top 8 seeds having a first round bye) and a slightly smaller NIT of sorts (no bowls).
Just having more teams will result in a bigger distribution of talent, giving a larger margin of error for wins.
I remember doing this every year when I was younger and playing the games out in NCAA Football and keeping track on a handwritten bracket... ahhh, memories. 
I agree though op, this would be excellent, I like giving the smaller conferences a shot, it's essentially a bye for the top seeds but you never know!
I agree though op, this would be excellent, I like giving the smaller conferences a shot, it's essentially a bye for the top seeds but you never know!
8 teams would be perfect. If your not in the top 8 your not good enough to win it anyways. Years like this year, teams 5-8 could compete for the title. But I think it should be 5 Power 5 conference winners, 2 At-Large, then if the group of 5 goes undefeated then they get that spot. If there is no undefeated group of 5 then that would add an extra at-large team.
Look something like this:
#1 Alabama (SEC CHAMP) vs #8 W.Michigan (GROUP OF 5 UNDEFEATED)
#4 Washington (PAC-12 CHAMP) vs #5 Penn State (BIG 10 CHAMP)
#3 Ohio State (AT-LARGE) vs #6 Michigan (AT-LARGE)
#2 Clemson (ACC CHAMP) vs #7 Oklahoma (B12 CHAMP)
Look something like this:
#1 Alabama (SEC CHAMP) vs #8 W.Michigan (GROUP OF 5 UNDEFEATED)
#4 Washington (PAC-12 CHAMP) vs #5 Penn State (BIG 10 CHAMP)
#3 Ohio State (AT-LARGE) vs #6 Michigan (AT-LARGE)
#2 Clemson (ACC CHAMP) vs #7 Oklahoma (B12 CHAMP)
This would be tricky...I suppose go by the old BCS formula/computers?
Otherwise you've got potential for a team like Florida, who's 9-3, upsetting Alabama who's obviously generally better, and getting in.
I like 8 teams and then be done.
Who knows though...it's apparent that 64 isn't a fair enough number for basketball.
Not going to work since one less game means less money for everyone, but knock the regular season down to 11 games.
Ive been trying to think through this, and although 16 teams is really just 1 more game, i think it is unnecessary to expand it that large right away. It is something that could be scaled to add another week of games if needed in the future, though. My 8 team plan:
Each of the Power 5 conferences get 1 auto bid. They can assign it as they choose. Whether that be championship game, best record, etc. (It makes sense for me to be a championship game, but if they do not want to put an extra game on the schedule they can determine their birth another way...looking at you Big 12) Rankings of 1 - 5 seeding would be based off of a new "Playoff Ranking" that would compile a number of ranking systems to keep it out of the hands of "voters" and "bias" as much as possible, with the top 4 getting a "home" game in round 1.
Team 6 is the highest ranked Non-Power 5 team. This team would be based off of the ranking system above.
Teams 7 and 8 are the 2 highest ranked, non champion teams. This could be Power 5 or otherwise, but are based on the same ranking system as above.
Items for poll to consider: Championship, Wins vs ranked opponents, road wins, Statistical Offensive/defensive metrics, injuries/suspensions, and a vote from Coaches and Media.
1st round of games would be played next weekend (2nd weekend after conference championship games) at the Home of the highest seed, and 1 week of rest minimum for all teams participating.
2nd and 3rd rounds would be just like the playoff today with the highest and lowest remaining seeds playing and the middle 2 teams playing with the championship game the following week.
Pros:
- gives a larger opportunity to all teams to compete for championship.
- puts value on conference championship as seeds 1-4 will HAVE to be champions and would get a home game in the first round
- Provides avenue for at least 1 mid-major to get a "shot" at the championship
Cons:
- With only 2 at large, the 3rd place team that misses out because of whatever BS reason people come up, but are better than the non-power 5 team, will *****.
- 1 extra game for teams to play than today
Each of the Power 5 conferences get 1 auto bid. They can assign it as they choose. Whether that be championship game, best record, etc. (It makes sense for me to be a championship game, but if they do not want to put an extra game on the schedule they can determine their birth another way...looking at you Big 12) Rankings of 1 - 5 seeding would be based off of a new "Playoff Ranking" that would compile a number of ranking systems to keep it out of the hands of "voters" and "bias" as much as possible, with the top 4 getting a "home" game in round 1.
Team 6 is the highest ranked Non-Power 5 team. This team would be based off of the ranking system above.
Teams 7 and 8 are the 2 highest ranked, non champion teams. This could be Power 5 or otherwise, but are based on the same ranking system as above.
Items for poll to consider: Championship, Wins vs ranked opponents, road wins, Statistical Offensive/defensive metrics, injuries/suspensions, and a vote from Coaches and Media.
1st round of games would be played next weekend (2nd weekend after conference championship games) at the Home of the highest seed, and 1 week of rest minimum for all teams participating.
2nd and 3rd rounds would be just like the playoff today with the highest and lowest remaining seeds playing and the middle 2 teams playing with the championship game the following week.
Pros:
- gives a larger opportunity to all teams to compete for championship.
- puts value on conference championship as seeds 1-4 will HAVE to be champions and would get a home game in the first round
- Provides avenue for at least 1 mid-major to get a "shot" at the championship
Cons:
- With only 2 at large, the 3rd place team that misses out because of whatever BS reason people come up, but are better than the non-power 5 team, will *****.
- 1 extra game for teams to play than today
That would be awful to watch.
I still like the idea of re-shuffling the P5 conferences to 4 conferences - 2 divisions each. The Division winners make the "playoffs" and play the conference championships Dec 1st range. Losers get to play in a bowl game like they do today and the 4 winners go to the final 4.
Your schedule would only include P5 schools and everyone in the division would play the same teams.
I still like the idea of re-shuffling the P5 conferences to 4 conferences - 2 divisions each. The Division winners make the "playoffs" and play the conference championships Dec 1st range. Losers get to play in a bowl game like they do today and the 4 winners go to the final 4.
Your schedule would only include P5 schools and everyone in the division would play the same teams.
No reason to get rid of bowls - no matter the size of the playoff.
People said a 4-team playoff would kill bowls, that hasn't happened. Just like an 8 team or 16 team playoff wouldn't kill the bowls. Bowls are for individual fan bases and TV - that's it. They are basically already meaningless so might as well keep them around.
To each his own... I think it would be really fun to watch Appalachian State get a shot at Alabama, even though they'd probably lose by 7 touchdowns.
Then again, I always watch the 1/16 matchups in basketball until they get out of hand, I just love that there's a chance, albeit tiny, of the underdog pulling it off.
I haven't watched a whole bowl game since the last one we were in. The playoff is interesting to me, the rest is not. I suppose they could keep them, but I'd have to imagine that viewership is down and will continue to decline. Probably beats a lot of other stuff that they could run, but the money may eventually disappear.
There will never be a clear-cut right answer, regardless of the number we decide on. Someone will always complain. Even the March Madness tourney has complaints, and there are 64 that make the real tournament.
A 4-team tournament with 5 power conferences is just stupid. You may as well make the power 5 conferences happy. I'd like to see a 6 team playoff, with the top 2 getting byes.
Six would allow one from every power 5 conference, plus the next best option. Teams from power 5 may ***** about not getting that spot, but they had their chance to win their spot at the dance.
A 4-team tournament with 5 power conferences is just stupid. You may as well make the power 5 conferences happy. I'd like to see a 6 team playoff, with the top 2 getting byes.
Six would allow one from every power 5 conference, plus the next best option. Teams from power 5 may ***** about not getting that spot, but they had their chance to win their spot at the dance.
I don't watch many of the bowl games either because they are exhibitions. But that's always been the case. Viewship is still up and they keep adding bowls so I guess they are doing fine financially. Like I said, they are for the participants and their fans and TV. So I'm all for keeping them no matter how many teams are in the CFP.
I love bowl games, especially ours when we are in one . I don't like anything that takes away from our bowl game and our conference games.
This year's treatment of the Big 12 and Big 10 shows that we are already starting to sacrifice our tradition-rich conferences for the TV-rich national championship playoffs.
This year's treatment of the Big 12 and Big 10 shows that we are already starting to sacrifice our tradition-rich conferences for the TV-rich national championship playoffs.
The Six could work. I still think that the other conferences will or should copy the big 12 championship game concept for next year. Where the highest 2 teams play each other in the conference title game.This gives an extra difficult game to allow a team on the edge to jump into top 4 or 6 whoever it works out. This will still allow teams to schedule difficult games in non conference.
