USA Today Posts Hypothetical 64 Team Playoff Bracket

[Warrior10]

In the USA Today bracket I would legitimately like our chances of going to the Elite 8.

[JTrain]

My biggest complaint against this is how the (current) SEC bias can easily occupy 2-3 of the top 4 spots. Make it 8 or 10 and its hard for bias to affect the outcome.

i do not understand why they do not keep the bcs ranking system and just use it to pick the top four for the playoffs.

 

Because unfortunately it isn't about objectively picking the most deserving teams, which a group of good computer rankings can do perfectly well. It's about picking teams and match-ups that are acceptable and exciting to the public. They want games that will fill seats, maximize ratings, and not bother the public's faulty logic. Thanks to great minds like Craig James and Jesse Palmer , the public is convinced that the BCS is the devil (even though many have no idea what it is) and that computer rankings are devised by nerdy mathematicians who have no idea what football is. This works right into the hands of the NCAA, who has slowly but surely pushed out the influence of the computers since the BCS's inception. Now they have a small group of powerful people who are not at the mercy of anything outsider of themselves.

[killer cacti]

http://ftw.usatoday....layoff-bracket/

 

My thoughts.

 

Yes, this would be awesome, but won't work and here is why.

1. Regions can't work the same way they do in Men's basketball. You can't have different teams playing on the same field for 4 consecutive games.
   
2. Fans won't travel week in and week out to far off places.
   
3. There is a big difference flying a team of 12 players and maybe 5-6 support staff compared to flying a team of 85 plus staff.
   
4. Teams who lose early in the season what happens to them.
   

 

 

If it WERE up to me this is how I would do it.

 

I used strength of Schedule and multiplied it by winning percentage to get final rankings.

 

 

I'd to hear what you think.

I'd take it.

[Hooked on Huskers]

i do not understand why they do not keep the bcs ranking system and just use it to pick the top four for the playoffs.

That's right. I'm sorry for playoff committee including Tom Osborne. Guaranteed hot topic of discussions. Secret ballot or what?

[killer cacti]

I think they should expand the FBS to 128 schools with 16 8-team conferences based on location. Play 8 reg season games (7 conference and 1 non-conference for rivalry) and then start a regional playoff with 2 conferences against each other (1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5, etc) and then you're down to a 8 team winners super playoff.

 

Worst teams play 9 games, best play 14 games. Trick is, can't recruit until your team is out of the playoffs - for parity.

 

Everybody's in, noone can complain.

[TAKODA]

8 teams only!

[TonyStalloni]

Some have mentioned 10 teams as a good number for a playoff. I see it as adding an extra week to the season which makes an already tight season tighter. If the top two teams had a bye, the bottom 8 would play to get to four and when blended with the top two still gives you 6 teams left. Do the top two get another bye week? I would be all in on a four or at the most an 8 team playoff if the decision can be made on which are the best teams and not which teams will make the most money and generate the most profit. The politicking next year will be unreal as every conference as well as the media (ESPN especially) will want their teams in the four choices.

[sd'sker]

killer, that would be awesome and perfect; so it will never happen.

[killer cacti]

killer, that would be awesome and perfect; so it will never happen.

I have it all drawn up as a graphic design project / infographic...I need to finish & publish it.

[Kiyoat Husker]

I think they should expand the FBS to 128 schools with 16 8-team conferences based on location. Play 8 reg season games (7 conference and 1 non-conference for rivalry) and then start a regional playoff with 2 conferences against each other (1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5, etc) and then you're down to a 8 team winners super playoff.

 

Worst teams play 9 games, best play 14 games. Trick is, can't recruit until your team is out of the playoffs - for parity.

 

Everybody's in, noone can complain.

How about 8 16-team conferences? We are pretty close to that already, and a conference is more likely to add teams than give them up anyway.

 

B1G adds 2

SEC adds 2

ACC adds 2

PAC adds 4

BIG12 adds 6

CUSA adds 2

MAC adds 3

MWC adds 4

 

Sun Belt and AAC dissolve. some teams drop down to 1AA

 

8 champs no wild cards, CCG is de-facto part of playoff.

 

edit: I guess you could say this is the same thing as the 16- eight team conf except it is 16 divisions in 8 conferences

[Kiyoat Husker]

however we do it the FBS/FCS crap needs to go away. D1AA and D1A made more sense.

[killer cacti]

I think they should expand the FBS to 128 schools with 16 8-team conferences based on location. Play 8 reg season games (7 conference and 1 non-conference for rivalry) and then start a regional playoff with 2 conferences against each other (1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5, etc) and then you're down to a 8 team winners super playoff.

 

Worst teams play 9 games, best play 14 games. Trick is, can't recruit until your team is out of the playoffs - for parity.

 

Everybody's in, noone can complain.

How about 8 16-team conferences? We are pretty close to that already, and a conference is more likely to add teams than give them up anyway.

 

B1G adds 2

SEC adds 2

ACC adds 2

PAC adds 4

BIG12 adds 6

CUSA adds 2

MAC adds 3

MWC adds 4

 

Sun Belt and AAC dissolve. some teams drop down to 1AA

 

8 champs no wild cards, CCG is de-facto part of playoff.

 

edit: I guess you could say this is the same thing as the 16- eight team conf except it is 16 divisions in 8 conferences

I did 16 8-team conferences because each team could play each team in every conference and still have a short enough regular season to have a large playoff.

 

I have it written out, but Texas would have it's own conference that would compete with Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma in the first playoffs, if I remember correctly.

 

It was basically Florida schools vs GA, Alabama, SC & NC schools (Bama and NC would have some teams in other conferences).

 

This is what I mean by regionally. I think I had it down to all but 5 or 6 states that would not have all of its teams in the same conference.

 

Conferences as we know them now would be dissolved.

[huskerinacaveman]

o start off I know the bracket I made is junk. I just picked team on a whim of who I think might win on that day.

 

Anyways.

 

You can't change the conferences by relegating them to what we want them to suit our needs of a playoff.

 

Conferences are much more than just football, and you change them for football you change everything in all sports, can't be, and shouldn't be done.

 

College football is different than the NFL namely on the traditions we have.

 

Our post season traditions are conferences, and bowl games.

 

The non conference is junk, that's a tradition we can do without.

 

Every year college basketball creates a new schedule, and the fact that they say that footballs needs years in preparation for it is a joke, and cop-out.

 

A Conference title game loss shouldn't be counted against a team when they lose.

 

A buddy of mine discussed this over lunch the other day.

1. First game is play one of the small schools to give them an opportunity to play a big name school and get a paycheck.
   
2. Non CCG conferences play 9 games
   
3. CCG conferences play 8 games, 1 game to determine AQ *This should allow for all of these conferences to establish their divisional winners
   
4. 32 teams gives 5 additional weeks to the season for max total of games played 16 for two teams max.
   
5. Season still starts in late august early September. The week before Christmas to give all teams a bye during finals week.
   
6. Consolation brackets keep top 32 teams playing through 14 weeks.
   
7. 32+ teams have the option to enter another bracket if the it is available *NIT*
   
8. Bowl games moved to spring break. The week before the bowls is your annual practice game, the week after is the bowl game of exhibition
   

[JTrain]

I would really rather not homogenize everything to the point where it looks far more like the NFL or NBA than the college football of five years ago, much less 25 years ago. Although unfortunately with recent moves that seems to be the direction we're headed.

 

College football is built on crowning a season champion. Most other leagues are built on crowing a postseason champion. These are two different approaches that can of course both be fun. But the difference is what makes CFB stand out among most other sports. When someone hoists the crystal ball in early January, it's the result of a truly special season. Every game was vitally important, including games way back in early September.

 

In sports like the NFL, NBA and CBB, the season is a qualifying run for the postseason. Regular season games only matter in so far as they help you get in and get a high seed in the playoffs. Winning the playoffs is the real goal. Many people have become convinced that this system determines a champion in the fairest way. I say this is not the case at all. Brackets are great fun to look at, but ultimately they aren't that great at determining who the best team was in any given year, especially in single elimination versions. The team that has all the important elements come together at just the right time (health, team chemistry, momentum, luck) is crowned champion. This has historically included plenty of teams that had quite unimpressive seasons on the whole (1995 Rockets, 2011 Giants, 2010 Packers, 2003 Marlins, etc.). Everyone loves a Cinderella run, and I wouldn't for a second deny the excitement in watching these teams beat the odds and make improbable runs to win the playoffs. But let's not confuse that with being the best or most deserving team in regards to the whole season.

 

In CFB, the bowl system has attempted to take the two best teams (often both undefeated) that normally did not get the chance to play each other, and let the championship game act as a tie-breaker of sorts to crown the season champion. Therefore the only teams involved are teams that had truly championship-worthy seasons (99% of the time, no more than one loss). This has sometimes resulted in controversy when the #3 team, and sometimes even the #4 team, seem to have had championship-worthy seasons as well. And for this reason, I am not disappointed with the four-team playoff (although I am disappointed in the selection process).

 

But historically I think you will find it very rare to find #5 or #6 teams that had truly championship-worthy seasons. That's not to say they didn't have great seasons, but for one reason or another they clearly fell below the level of greatness that CFB national champions have almost always had. And for that reason, to start to expand beyond four teams is to move college football away from its unique history and allow for the possibility of more and more national champions whose whole-season effort came short of the traditional championship-worthy benchmark. And it's also to move college football into a more postseason-heavy value system, stripping it little by little of its unique season-centric value system. The more teams you expand the playoff to, the more games like this year's Auburn-Alabama (or, closer to home, 1971 Nebraska-Oklahoma) lose their ultimate importance, and become mere seeding struggles. I love the fact that these games are absolutely legendary and held importance to the championship in ways that no regular season match-up between the Heat and Pacers, Broncos and Chiefs or Buckeyes and Badgers (basketball) ever could.

 

Although I get just as googly-eyed staring at a enormous 68-team March Madness bracket, I find the college football way to be more unique, more exciting on the whole, and ultimately more fair. I know my arguments won't sway anyone, as most people long ago determined the BCS was the devil and playoffs were the fair way to "settle it on the field". But I figure I would lay out what I think at least.

[CockInYourEar]

Whoever thinkgs clemson would win a National Championship after getting beat down by FSU and USC is nutty. clemson wouldn't get out of the 2nd round.

 

I like the idea of an 8 team playoff though.