any thoughts on dan wetzel's playoff idea?
- Thread starter af102
- Start date
Go look at Nafoom. He made some minor tweaks to the seedings, but that's the idea I think is best. It won't ever happen, but it's the best one.
Its not even worth talking about.. The best thing they can do is make it to where 2 BCS bowls (Fiesta & Orange one year, Sugar & Rose the next) will be national semifinalist games and the winners will meet in the BCS Championship game. So, UF vs Texas winner would play the Bama vs TCU winner.
I'd like to see an 8-team playoff. I like that the regular season is so meaningful and every game matters. If this happens, basically all the games between LSU, Bama, and Florida were meaningless. Whoever won those games, they all 3 were headed to the playoffs.
My playoff would be: First round games would be played at the home team's stadium of the highest seed. Semifinals and finals would be at neutral sites.
1) Alabama
8) Georgia Tech
4) TCU
5) Boise State
2) Texas
7) Ohio State
3) Cincinnati
6) Oregon
My playoff would be: First round games would be played at the home team's stadium of the highest seed. Semifinals and finals would be at neutral sites.
1) Alabama
8) Georgia Tech
4) TCU
5) Boise State
2) Texas
7) Ohio State
3) Cincinnati
6) Oregon
I'm all for it. Use the existing bowl games for the tourney matchups. Even after taking the "playoff bowls" out of the regular bowl schedule, you'll still have 19 regular bowls to invite 38 teams that did not make it to the 16 team tournament. The only thing I may question is does it really need to be a 16 team tournament? I think just having the top 8 in a tournament may be enough.
In a 16 team tournament, two teams and fanbases would have to skip all across the country 4 times in a month-long time span, all on 7 day's notice each time. It's just not really feasible. I think you'd need on-campus events until the Final Four.
BFB
BFB
Bulldog from Birth said:
Meaningless huh? What about the fact that Alabama's win over Florida landed them a first round match up with Troy instead of Penn State?
And what about the fact that LSU's losses landed them a first round match up with undefeated TCU instead of potentially Troy, Central Michigan, or ECU?
That's my argument for why you have to give auto-bids to all conferences, because it still gives meaning to the regular season. Think of the NCAA basketball tournament. If they cut the field in half, to 32 teams, and they eliminated automatic bids only giving bids to the Top 32 teams, it really wouldn't matter where you finished in the regular season, as long as you finished in the Top 32.
As it stands though, the automatic bids make it extremely important to finish in the Top 4, 8, or 12 to try to get the first round match ups against gimme teams so that you get the easier road to the title.
Again, it'll never happen, but giving automatic bids to all conferences is the best way to guarantee that the regular season still holds meaning.
Also, how big would a Texas loss have been to them against Nebraska? Sure they'd still be in the playoff, but instead of playing Central Michigan or East Carolina, they'd draw Virginia Tech or someone like that in the opening game.
That's why I said I think 8 teams may be the right number. Other than the costs for the fanbases, I would prefer the 16 team format. On-campus events could still force fans to travel across the country unless you set up regional matchups in the 1st couple of rounds but, you could also set those up at neutral sites (existing bowl games).
I ain't voting for this ****.
Ain't gonna happen anyway....Congress go away, you don't belong in football.
Ain't gonna happen anyway....Congress go away, you don't belong in football.
Well thought out.
I agree with RebelBruiser in that awarding automatic bids still gives the regular season plenty of meaning. And with only 5 at-large spots, that meaning is reinforced.
I might would make a couple of tweaks....
No conference can have more than 2 at-large teams....maybe.
No at-large team can play at home vs. a conference champion in the first round. After that, go by seeding.
I could even go along with using a rating system like what the BCS currently uses to determine the at-large teams and the seeding.
I agree with RebelBruiser in that awarding automatic bids still gives the regular season plenty of meaning. And with only 5 at-large spots, that meaning is reinforced.
I might would make a couple of tweaks....
No conference can have more than 2 at-large teams....maybe.
No at-large team can play at home vs. a conference champion in the first round. After that, go by seeding.
I could even go along with using a rating system like what the BCS currently uses to determine the at-large teams and the seeding.
If you went with a 16 team playoff, then the playoff berths should go to the top 16 teams. If CUSA or any of the other weak conference champion teams are not one of the top 16 teams, then why should they be rewarded with a playoff berth just for winning their ****** conference?
I would rather have an 8 team playoff. Just don't see a playoff happening.
Pair 2 BCS bowl games as someone posted above with the winner of those playing for the title. This is the most logical for many the reasons that have already been listed and could at least eliminate alot of the controversy that we have now. It's usually only 3 or 4 teams each year that have legimate arguement to play for the title, so this would take care of that. You would still have all the bowl games that you have now. The NC is basically an extra game on the bowl schedule now anyway, so simply playing it a week later would only create more money and spotlight on college football
I would rather have an 8 team playoff. Just don't see a playoff happening.
Pair 2 BCS bowl games as someone posted above with the winner of those playing for the title. This is the most logical for many the reasons that have already been listed and could at least eliminate alot of the controversy that we have now. It's usually only 3 or 4 teams each year that have legimate arguement to play for the title, so this would take care of that. You would still have all the bowl games that you have now. The NC is basically an extra game on the bowl schedule now anyway, so simply playing it a week later would only create more money and spotlight on college football
S
sack07
Guest
Bulldog from Birth said:
Did you read the article? Winning all those games during the regular season has turned out so meaningful to Cincy, TCU and Boise State? Every game really mattered for them. Nope, they don't get a shot at the national championship now. And, in the article, it says that the higher seeds would have homefield advantage through most of the playoffs, making the LSU, Bama and Florida games meaningful for seeding purposes and easier early round opponents.
We have a great BCS system now - just use it to pick the top 8 teams, in combination with BCS conference champions. No way sun belt champs should get an automatic bid. No reason to feel like we've got to include everybody.
I've always said, the BCS conference champs get an automatice bid, but exceptions can be made if they have something like 4 or more losses. Then there are two at large spots - for the top two undefeated non-BCS schools, and then in case there are none, they would go to the remaining top ranked schools. Those rankings would be according to the current BCS rankings.
Nothing will ever be perfect, but a 4 team or 8 team playoff would be a thousand times better than what we got now.
I've always said, the BCS conference champs get an automatice bid, but exceptions can be made if they have something like 4 or more losses. Then there are two at large spots - for the top two undefeated non-BCS schools, and then in case there are none, they would go to the remaining top ranked schools. Those rankings would be according to the current BCS rankings.
Nothing will ever be perfect, but a 4 team or 8 team playoff would be a thousand times better than what we got now.
I was actually arguing with a few friends about this the other day. I like that 8 team playoff, with the 6 BCS conference champions getting automatic bidsand then having two at large bids. My friends were saying hell no because this year for example florida is better than ohio state but ohio state gets in because they won a weaker conference. While I agree with that, I also feel stronger about the fact that I do not believe Florida should have a chance to play for a national championship when they aren't even their conference champions. How can you be a national champion when you are not a conference champion? That is why UGA di not go to the BCS National Champ. in 2003 when LSU did because Tennessee played LSU instead of UGA, who had a very high BCS ranking. If Florida were to make the 8 team conference champ. playoff this year, what does that say for the importance of the SEC Championship...nothing. My friends were responding with, "Florida has a bad Saturday and that should not cost them a chance for the championship." My argument in the setting of that 8 team playoff was that they would of screwed themselves, no computer would screw them...Any thoughts?
...the Wetzel plan has 3 additional games to get to a 4th Championship Game. Right now there are 12 games in a season, with a 13th for conferences with a Championship game. I like the idea of 8 teams, with current bowl organizing committees bidding for participation in the playoff, then rotating the host levels. The bowls system would remain intact, with certain bowls counting as NCAA Playoff games and others not.
Round One: Great 8 to 4 different bowls.
Round Two: Final 4 to 2 different bowls.
Round Three: Championship Game to 1 bowl.
Further, I don't think any conference should be guaranteed a spot, rather that conference overall Strength of Schedule be the determining factor, such that the 4 conferences with the strongest overall SOS <span style="font-weight: bold;">"earn"</span> automatics, then the other four teams come in "at large." Maybe then, some teams wouldn't schedule teams like The SE Louisiana School of Nursing or the Northern Arizona School of the Blind.
Round One: Great 8 to 4 different bowls.
Round Two: Final 4 to 2 different bowls.
Round Three: Championship Game to 1 bowl.
Further, I don't think any conference should be guaranteed a spot, rather that conference overall Strength of Schedule be the determining factor, such that the 4 conferences with the strongest overall SOS <span style="font-weight: bold;">"earn"</span> automatics, then the other four teams come in "at large." Maybe then, some teams wouldn't schedule teams like The SE Louisiana School of Nursing or the Northern Arizona School of the Blind.
Interestingly enough, if I were filling out a bracket, I would probably take Virginia Tech to get out of the bottom right quadrant and play Texas in one of the semifinals. I would probably pick Alabama and Florida to play in the other semifinal.
I think the only drawback to this system might be a forced elimination of conference championship games. Probably not, but I could see it used as an argument.
I think the only drawback to this system might be a forced elimination of conference championship games. Probably not, but I could see it used as an argument.
Region 1 could include the Big 10, Big East, Notre Dame, Navy, Army, and other northeast based independents.
Region 2 could include the ACC, SEC, Sun Belt.
Region 3 could include the Big 12, C-USA, WAC
Region 4 could include the Pac 10, Mountain West
You would eliminate all conference championship games ( I know this would be a dealbreaker) and instead conferences would have their teams play a heavier conference schedule. For example, You might play an 10 game SEC schedule instead of an 8 game schedule. All conference champions are in the playoffs, and there are 6 teams per region. If that happened, this is what it would look like. 1st and 2nd seeded teams get byes.
Region 1- 1. Cincinnatti, 2. Ohio State, 3. Iowa, 4. Penn State, 5. Pittsburg, 6. Wisconsin
Region 2- 1. Alabama, 2. Florida, 3. Georgia Tech, 4. LSU, 5. Miami, 6. Troy
Region 3- 1. Texas, 2. Boise State, 3. OK State, 4. Nebraska, 5. East Carolina, 6. Missouri
Region 4- 1. TCU, 2. Oregon, 3. Oregon State, 4. USC, 5. BYU, 6. Utah.
Now I know this would never work, but you could play out the seeds, then give them a break to let them have the regional finals in bowls and play it out from there. I would just like to see teams like Boise and TCU get a shot to see if they belong. Heck, I'd like to see Cincy get a shot because I really think in a one game scenario they could give Texas fits, and maybe Bama.
Region 2 could include the ACC, SEC, Sun Belt.
Region 3 could include the Big 12, C-USA, WAC
Region 4 could include the Pac 10, Mountain West
You would eliminate all conference championship games ( I know this would be a dealbreaker) and instead conferences would have their teams play a heavier conference schedule. For example, You might play an 10 game SEC schedule instead of an 8 game schedule. All conference champions are in the playoffs, and there are 6 teams per region. If that happened, this is what it would look like. 1st and 2nd seeded teams get byes.
Region 1- 1. Cincinnatti, 2. Ohio State, 3. Iowa, 4. Penn State, 5. Pittsburg, 6. Wisconsin
Region 2- 1. Alabama, 2. Florida, 3. Georgia Tech, 4. LSU, 5. Miami, 6. Troy
Region 3- 1. Texas, 2. Boise State, 3. OK State, 4. Nebraska, 5. East Carolina, 6. Missouri
Region 4- 1. TCU, 2. Oregon, 3. Oregon State, 4. USC, 5. BYU, 6. Utah.
Now I know this would never work, but you could play out the seeds, then give them a break to let them have the regional finals in bowls and play it out from there. I would just like to see teams like Boise and TCU get a shot to see if they belong. Heck, I'd like to see Cincy get a shot because I really think in a one game scenario they could give Texas fits, and maybe Bama.
Look at other sports, professional and college:
<table> <tbody> <tr> <td>League</td> <td>Playoff teams</td> <td>Total Teams</td> <td>Percentage to playoffs</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFL</td> <td>12</td> <td>32</td> <td>37.5%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>MLB</td> <td>8</td> <td>30</td> <td>26.7%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NBA</td> <td>16</td> <td>30</td> <td>53.3%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NHL</td> <td>16</td> <td>30</td> <td>53.3%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NCAA Basketball</td> <td>65</td> <td>347</td> <td>18.7%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NCAA Football (Proposed)</td> <td>16</td> <td>120</td> <td>13.3%</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
This "16 is too many teams" talk needs to be taken to the NBA and NHL, where you can have a losing season and still easily make the playoffs. Even pre-1994 MLB playoffs with 2 teams from each league going to the postseason had a higher percentage (4 of 26 or 15.4%).
<table> <tbody> <tr> <td>League</td> <td>Playoff teams</td> <td>Total Teams</td> <td>Percentage to playoffs</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFL</td> <td>12</td> <td>32</td> <td>37.5%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>MLB</td> <td>8</td> <td>30</td> <td>26.7%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NBA</td> <td>16</td> <td>30</td> <td>53.3%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NHL</td> <td>16</td> <td>30</td> <td>53.3%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NCAA Basketball</td> <td>65</td> <td>347</td> <td>18.7%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NCAA Football (Proposed)</td> <td>16</td> <td>120</td> <td>13.3%</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
This "16 is too many teams" talk needs to be taken to the NBA and NHL, where you can have a losing season and still easily make the playoffs. Even pre-1994 MLB playoffs with 2 teams from each league going to the postseason had a higher percentage (4 of 26 or 15.4%).
I agree, the NBA and NHL is a joke. To have such long seasons, then half of the teams make the playoffs is silly. NFL, MLB, and NCAA tourney all seem about right for their leagues. For college football, I think 8 is the right number, but that could always expand, if necessary.
a highly ranked team that loses to another highly ranked team during the regular season should not be able to play that team again at a neutral site in the 1st round of a playoff....
if say a #5 ranked team plays a #7 ranked team, the game needs to have national championship ramifications... the system you are talking about would destroy that...
have 1-4 host 5-8 then the 4 winners would square off in two bowls that would create a college super bowl....
it's the only way to save the integrity and tradition of the regular season
if say a #5 ranked team plays a #7 ranked team, the game needs to have national championship ramifications... the system you are talking about would destroy that...
have 1-4 host 5-8 then the 4 winners would square off in two bowls that would create a college super bowl....
it's the only way to save the integrity and tradition of the regular season
and the regular season more than counts. Hell more than often good teams get left out (see the 10-6 Browns 2 years ago).
game, you want that game to mean absolulte dick.....
it will have no impact whatsover on the who is crowned national champion
you really would want that?
it will have no impact whatsover on the who is crowned national champion
you really would want that?
It was 1 vs 2 and both were undefeated. People clamored for them to rematch for the national championship. Then both of them got whipped in their bowl games because Florida kicked OSU's *** and USC kicked Michigan's ***. The game ended up meaning nothing anyway.
They would be playing for seeding. And there would be 15 games in a 16 team tournament that were all or nothing. I think that's a pretty good tradeoff.
Ole Miss to a NYD bowl and we get to stay home for Christmas and New Years. What difference did the game make?
Don't tell me that the SECCG would have been less meaningful had if both teams would still make it to the playoffs. Compare the first two rounds for Alabama and Florida in Wetzel's playoff scenario. Plus a conference title isn't shabby either.
Don't tell me that the SECCG would have been less meaningful had if both teams would still make it to the playoffs. Compare the first two rounds for Alabama and Florida in Wetzel's playoff scenario. Plus a conference title isn't shabby either.
So, the Iron Bowl was meaningless.
Is that right?
The "meaningless games" argument holds as much water as the "too many games" or "what about their exams" argument!
None.
Is that right?
The "meaningless games" argument holds as much water as the "too many games" or "what about their exams" argument!
None.
16 is too many. Regardless of what anybody says, it does take away from the regular season. I think even 8 may be too many. The question is how do you fix the BCS without destroying anything it represents in FBS football. The only way a playoff happens is if it doesn't take away from the regular season, doesn't take away from the significance of other bowls and doesn't extend the post season. If you have an 8 team playoff, you are automatically creating two more BCS bowl games. Right now there are 5. To keep from changing the amount of games, you can't have any more than 6 teams. 6 teams with a 1st round bye for the top two BCS rated teams, and this will last about the same length of bowl season, 3 rounds in the span of 2 weeks. This would eliminate 4 teams from the current BCS system, but it would serve more of its primary purpose of crowning a national champion. The BCS could do 6 teams or 4 teams and just make it two rounds. Either would improve the chances of crowning a true champion.
Again, you go back to the purpose of the BCS. Its purpose is to crown the national champion which is pretty questionable in the current system in probably half or more of the years it has existed. Don't turn it into a true playoff post season, because you take so much away from the regular season. I mean just look at Wetzel's possibilities for just Bama. Bama has a pretty good chance of playing an SEC team it has already beaten in the regular season...they are already the SEC champion, this shouldn't happen, and on the opposite side of the bracket they have the chance of rematching with Va Tech which Bama beat in its first regular season game. This should tell you right here, that this is too many teams and is unnecessary.
If the BCS bends at all to correct its margin of error, it has to stick with a very small playoff (2 or 3 rounds deep) to accommodate years when you have too many unbeatens or too many 1-loss teams and no unbeatens. It should serve to help those big time conferences like the Big 12 and SEC whose schedules are grueling under their own affiliations and also to help the small time teams that go undefeated but can't get the respect. But what it shouldn't do is create a field of qualifiers which is what too many teams does, and you have changed the meaning of FBS football which makes it so unique and exciting from everything else in the sports world. Crown a true champion should and would be the goal, not create another season to decide a season.
It is said that other divisions in college football do playoffs just fine, but FBS is an entirely different game. It's alot more physically, mentally, and emotionally draining garnering 100 times more national attention and scrutiny. There's just no way to ask these teams to play up to 4 or 5 more games that it currently gets done in one. And in the end if you do a playoff of that magnitude, you've pretty much defeated the purpose, and just who have you really crowned the national champion...some team that had a cakewalk season, fully healthy that took down a war torn SEC school in the first round.
Again, you go back to the purpose of the BCS. Its purpose is to crown the national champion which is pretty questionable in the current system in probably half or more of the years it has existed. Don't turn it into a true playoff post season, because you take so much away from the regular season. I mean just look at Wetzel's possibilities for just Bama. Bama has a pretty good chance of playing an SEC team it has already beaten in the regular season...they are already the SEC champion, this shouldn't happen, and on the opposite side of the bracket they have the chance of rematching with Va Tech which Bama beat in its first regular season game. This should tell you right here, that this is too many teams and is unnecessary.
If the BCS bends at all to correct its margin of error, it has to stick with a very small playoff (2 or 3 rounds deep) to accommodate years when you have too many unbeatens or too many 1-loss teams and no unbeatens. It should serve to help those big time conferences like the Big 12 and SEC whose schedules are grueling under their own affiliations and also to help the small time teams that go undefeated but can't get the respect. But what it shouldn't do is create a field of qualifiers which is what too many teams does, and you have changed the meaning of FBS football which makes it so unique and exciting from everything else in the sports world. Crown a true champion should and would be the goal, not create another season to decide a season.
It is said that other divisions in college football do playoffs just fine, but FBS is an entirely different game. It's alot more physically, mentally, and emotionally draining garnering 100 times more national attention and scrutiny. There's just no way to ask these teams to play up to 4 or 5 more games that it currently gets done in one. And in the end if you do a playoff of that magnitude, you've pretty much defeated the purpose, and just who have you really crowned the national champion...some team that had a cakewalk season, fully healthy that took down a war torn SEC school in the first round.
postseason is where you man up and win big or go home. The regular season is already a joke outside of conference play. Even then there's really only 10 good games each week worth watching outside of your favorite team. The rest are a bunch of nobodys and/or blowouts. You gonna sit here and tell me Missouri/Baylor, Minnesota/Northwestern, and ULL/Arkansas State are legit games worth watching every year?