Creed Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Playoffs are a huge step in the right direction but there's always going to be subjectivity until we take scheduling out of the hands of the individual schools and have a parity based scheduling system administered by a centralized organization. Also there is absolutely no reason to create your schedule 8+ years down the road. It can be done the season prior. I am not a fan of the NFL but they seem to have a good scheduling system down. Quote Link to comment
VA Husker Fan Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Playoffs are a huge step in the right direction but there's always going to be subjectivity until we take scheduling out of the hands of the individual schools and have a parity based scheduling system administered by a centralized organization. Also there is absolutely no reason to create your schedule 8+ years down the road. It can be done the season prior. I am not a fan of the NFL but they seem to have a good scheduling system down. Nailed it. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 8 years ahead of time is probably too far ahead. But 4 years in advance is fine. Waiting too long you could end up facing no power 5 teams and miss out on a playoff berth. I like the direction the Pac 12/Big Ten agreement was headed before that fell through. However I would rather see us mix it up a hit more. Play 1 group of 5 team, play one power 5 basement dweller (Purdue/ISU), and play one power 5 actual contender. Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Does anyone know how other NCAA sports create their schedules, i.e. basketball, volleyball, & baseball? Are they almost all entirely up to the schools/conferences or does some centralized agency like the NCAA do it? Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 8 years ahead of time is probably too far ahead. But 4 years in advance is fine. Waiting too long you could end up facing no power 5 teams and miss out on a playoff berth. I like the direction the Pac 12/Big Ten agreement was headed before that fell through. However I would rather see us mix it up a hit more. Play 1 group of 5 team, play one power 5 basement dweller (Purdue/ISU), and play one power 5 actual contender. I like where your head is at, but, I'm wondering about the implications of the bolded. Hypothetically, I think it would be tough, even one season ahead of time, to determine who is a basement dweller and who is an actual contender. And are there enough basement dwellers to go around? Does that mean a team like Purdue would get screwed and have to play Bama, Baylor and Oregon in one non-con? Just playing Devil's Advocate a bit. I think it'd be tough to project how good some teams are year-to-year and use that as justification for scheduling. Quote Link to comment
Undone Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I've felt for some time that the real point of the four team playoff is simply to ensure that the two best teams get a chance to play for the title. For me, it's really not any more complicated than that. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 8 years ahead of time is probably too far ahead. But 4 years in advance is fine. Waiting too long you could end up facing no power 5 teams and miss out on a playoff berth. I like the direction the Pac 12/Big Ten agreement was headed before that fell through. However I would rather see us mix it up a hit more. Play 1 group of 5 team, play one power 5 basement dweller (Purdue/ISU), and play one power 5 actual contender. I like where your head is at, but, I'm wondering about the implications of the bolded. Hypothetically, I think it would be tough, even one season ahead of time, to determine who is a basement dweller and who is an actual contender. And are there enough basement dwellers to go around? Does that mean a team like Purdue would get screwed and have to play Bama, Baylor and Oregon in one non-con? Just playing Devil's Advocate a bit. I think it'd be tough to project how good some teams are year-to-year and use that as justification for scheduling. Not all teams could do something like that but we certainly could. I would like to see us schedule something like this: Wake Forest Arizona State Central Michigan Or Kansas Clemson Western Kentucky Get a yearly game with an Iowa State or Kansas lined up and you typically have a basement dweller power 5 team on the schedule. Most years, a respectable MAC team would be better on field but not on paper so it would strengthen the schedule. 1 Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 8 years ahead of time is probably too far ahead. But 4 years in advance is fine. Waiting too long you could end up facing no power 5 teams and miss out on a playoff berth. I like the direction the Pac 12/Big Ten agreement was headed before that fell through. However I would rather see us mix it up a hit more. Play 1 group of 5 team, play one power 5 basement dweller (Purdue/ISU), and play one power 5 actual contender. I like where your head is at, but, I'm wondering about the implications of the bolded. Hypothetically, I think it would be tough, even one season ahead of time, to determine who is a basement dweller and who is an actual contender. And are there enough basement dwellers to go around? Does that mean a team like Purdue would get screwed and have to play Bama, Baylor and Oregon in one non-con? Just playing Devil's Advocate a bit. I think it'd be tough to project how good some teams are year-to-year and use that as justification for scheduling. Not all teams could do something like that but we certainly could. I would like to see us schedule something like this: Wake Forest Arizona State Central Michigan Or Kansas Clemson Western Kentucky Get a yearly game with an Iowa State or Kansas lined up and you typically have a basement dweller power 5 team on the schedule. Most years, a respectable MAC team would be better on field but not on paper so it would strengthen the schedule. That would make more sense that way - as long as we could ensure we'd have one really good non-con opponent would be my big concern. I'm sure years ago it was projected Miami would be better than they are these last couple seasons. It'll be disappointing if we don't have at least one really good squad on our non-con. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 That's why I like scheduling a team up to only 5 years in advance, gives a better expectation on where they will be by the time we play them. Quote Link to comment
InOmaha Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 The other problem is that almost 1/2 of the teams in FBS football realistically aren't ever going to be allowed to compete in a championship. Maybe it's time to stop pretending these schools have a shot at a title game. One or two good teams here and there can join the rest in conference realignment and then the NCAA could drop C-USA, MAC, MW, and the Sun Belt Conference from the mix. In the new P5/6 FBS, FBS schools must play other FBS schools in non-conference play. Then teams won't have any super easy non-conference teams on their schedule. If you start with 64 teams it makes it easier to pick 4 at the top. You toss out the odd mid-major team here and there that goes undefeated by playing nobody all year long before the season even starts so you don't have to deal with them being undefeated at the end of the year. Quote Link to comment
dvdcrr Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Needs to be 8 or 16 teams. Quote Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 If it gets to 8 or 16 teams, we need to stop pretending these are student athletes and just pay them for the hundreds of millions of dollars they'll be making for someone else. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I would be in favor of 8 IF it went as follows: Big Ten champ SEC champ Big 12 champ Pac 12 champ ACC champ Group of 5 champ ranked highest Independent ranked in top 8 or at large At large That gives each power 5 champ a shot, a runner up who got upset in title game, a group of 5 champ and one other to fill it out. If it expanded to 16, which I'm against, we would almost have to cut back to 11 game regular season OR use conference championship games as a 1st round. SEC East SEC West B1G East B1G West ACC Coastal ACC Atlantic Big 12 whatever Big 12 who knows Pac 12 North Pac 12 South MAC champ AAC champ Sun Belt champ CUSA champ MtnWest champ Independent That could actually be a pretty great playoff. After the above round takes place, seed the remaining 8 teams accordingly. 1 Quote Link to comment
The Dude Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 I just hope the Big XII gets left out again. Quote Link to comment
deedsker Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 I would be in favor of 8 IF it went as follows: Big Ten champ SEC champ Big 12 champ Pac 12 champ ACC champ Group of 5 champ ranked highest Independent ranked in top 8 or at large At large That gives each power 5 champ a shot, a runner up who got upset in title game, a group of 5 champ and one other to fill it out. If it expanded to 16, which I'm against, we would almost have to cut back to 11 game regular season OR use conference championship games as a 1st round. SEC East SEC West B1G East B1G West ACC Coastal ACC Atlantic Big 12 whatever Big 12 who knows Pac 12 North Pac 12 South MAC champ AAC champ Sun Belt champ CUSA champ MtnWest champ Independent That could actually be a pretty great playoff. After the above round takes place, seed the remaining 8 teams accordingly. Holy bananas! That may be the best expanded playoff idea I have ever sent! Kudos. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.