mrandyk Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 Every other level of college football has a 24 team playoff system where every conference champion gets an invite. The revenue from a 24 team playoff would dwarf the revenue from the current bowls and you can still keep your traditional bowl sites involved like they have been with the 4 team system. Just make it happen already. A conference champion winner would have already played 13 games by the time they entered the playoff, so if they reached the title game they would end up playing like 17 games. That is excessive. The lower level champions play 15 or 16 game seasons, without a conference title game. Seems to work well for them. Drop the conference title game and move to an 11 game season. Conference title game becomes unnecessary with the advent of a playoff anyways. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 Every other level of college football has a 24 team playoff system where every conference champion gets an invite. The revenue from a 24 team playoff would dwarf the revenue from the current bowls and you can still keep your traditional bowl sites involved like they have been with the 4 team system. Just make it happen already. A conference champion winner would have already played 13 games by the time they entered the playoff, so if they reached the title game they would end up playing like 17 games. That is excessive. The lower level champions play 15 or 16 game seasons, without a conference title game. Seems to work well for them. Drop the conference title game and move to an 11 game season. Conference title game becomes unnecessary with the advent of a playoff anyways. No need to move to 16 teams since we already have conference championships. Why would thr leagues give those up to lessen a the chance one of their teams wins the national championship? Incoporate the title games into the playoff, it's the only way to properly expand past 4. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 Bump .... because Stanford should have a shot. Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Bump .... because Stanford should have a shot. Yeah...this is my problem with the 4-team format. 12-2 Stanford or 12-1 Ohio State couldn't have had won the national title, if given a shot? Quote Link to comment
huKSer Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 8 teams - first round at the campus of the highest rated school 1 Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted November 27, 2016 Author Share Posted November 27, 2016 Going to be a great year for those arguing for an eight team playoff. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted December 5, 2016 Author Share Posted December 5, 2016 So here's what it would look like this year using the committee's rankings an my own arbitrary rule of no more than two per conference. Five Power 5 champions and next three at-large. Higher seed hosts quarterfinal games next week with semifinals the same as they are now. Losers of the quarterfinals would also advance to New Year's Six games. #11 Florida State @ #1 Alabama #5 Penn State @ #4 Washington #7 Oklahoma @ #3 Ohio State #9 USC @ #2 Clemson Without the two-per-conference rule: #8 Wisconsin @ #1 Alabama #5 Penn State @ #4 Washington #6 Michigan @ #3 Ohio State #7 Oklahoma @ #2 Clemson Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 So here's what it would look like this year using the committee's rankings an my own arbitrary rule of no more than two per conference. Five Power 5 champions and next three at-large. Higher seed hosts quarterfinal games next week with semifinals the same as they are now. Losers of the quarterfinals would also advance to New Year's Six games. #11 Florida State @ #1 Alabama #5 Penn State @ #4 Washington #7 Oklahoma @ #3 Ohio State #9 USC @ #2 Clemson Without the two-per-conference rule: #8 Wisconsin @ #1 Alabama #5 Penn State @ #4 Washington #6 Michigan @ #3 Ohio State #7 Oklahoma @ #2 Clemson Hate it, but only because Wisconsin is in there. I vote we simply and arbitrarily bend the rules every season so the teams we find irritating aren't allowed to play for it all. Quote Link to comment
dvdcrr Posted December 18, 2016 Share Posted December 18, 2016 Its not statistically valid unless 8 teams are present. There are 8 seeds in any sport who can win it all. 4 teams mean they care about money more than seeing which team can battle through when it matters at the end of the year. If Rex Grossman can get to the Superbowl ANYTHING can happen. Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Its not statistically valid unless 8 teams are present. There are 8 seeds in any sport who can win it all. 4 teams mean they care about money more than seeing which team can battle through when it matters at the end of the year. If Rex Grossman can get to the Superbowl ANYTHING can happen. I think this argument would hold more water if all things were equal between college sports, but they're not, so the justification can't be 'everyone else does it.' Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted January 3, 2017 Author Share Posted January 3, 2017 So here's what it would look like this year using the committee's rankings an my own arbitrary rule of no more than two per conference. Five Power 5 champions and next three at-large. Higher seed hosts quarterfinal games next week with semifinals the same as they are now. Losers of the quarterfinals would also advance to New Year's Six games. #11 Florida State @ #1 Alabama #5 Penn State @ #4 Washington #7 Oklahoma @ #3 Ohio State #9 USC @ #2 Clemson Without the two-per-conference rule: #8 Wisconsin @ #1 Alabama #5 Penn State @ #4 Washington #6 Michigan @ #3 Ohio State #7 Oklahoma @ #2 Clemson Yeah, including Florida State, Penn State and USC wouldn't have been any fun anyway.... 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.