Mike Leach wants a 64 team football playoff

[Rutherford B Hays]

Cut the regular season to 10 games then start the playoff.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/17970838/mike-leach-wants-a-64-team-playoff

 

[QuaoarsKing]

If 64 gets into the conversation, 16 doesn't sound so extreme anymore, and 16 (Death to the BCS model) is the number he probably really wants.

 

[FreeDawg]

College football is the only sport were every regular season game matter. I do not ever want a playoff. What other sport has a game as big and fun as the regular season Bama/Lsu game was this past year. They dont. Every other sport you just play good enough during the season and try to "get hot" at the end.

Some ideas in life seem like good ones. And then you try it and realize you were dead wrong...

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

College football is the only sport were every regular season game matter. I do not ever want a playoff. What other sport has a game as big and fun as the regular season Bama/Lsu game was this past year. They dont. Every other sport you just play good enough during the season and try to "get hot" at the end.

Some ideas in life seem like good ones. And then you try it and realize you were dead wrong...

lulz at touting the CFB regular season then bringing up bama-lsu. bama-lsu is the epitome of a meaningless regular season game. hell, bama didn't even have to get all that lucky to make it back into the top 2, all they needed was for 1 team (ok st) to lose 1 game and they were back in the top 2, so you can't even argue that it was a strange chaotic set of circumstances that let them get back in the top 2.<div>
</div><div>you can have a 4 team CFB playoff and every game matters. you lose a game and you could easily be out. make it so that the 4 teams in the playoff are the top 4 conference champs (no BCS conferences, just the top 4 conf champs). think every conference game wouldn't mean the world? hell, it could promote teams to play a decent non-conference schedule knowing that a loss to a top 10 non-conference foe in september won't hurt their chances at winning the conference and making a playoff. high seed hosts the semis.</div><div>
</div><div>you could also do an 8 team playoff and take the top 4 conference champs as the top 4 seeds and have 4 at-large teams. the top 4 seeds host the bottom 4 seeds. in the quaters and the higher seed hosts the semis. </div><div>
</div><div>neither of those formats would take away from the regular season, and imo would make the final month of CFB must see. as of now, by november, i'm only interested in the msu game, the oregon game (grad school), and a game relevant to the national title matchup. ohio st-michigan suddenly has a hell of a lot more intrigue to me if the winner is in the position to make a playoff instead of merely getting to 10-2 and being in position to make the rose bowl.</div><div>
</div><div>face it, the younger generation doesn't get excited about glorified exhibitions. and that's what every bowl that's not the national title is. hell, most players are more excited about the parties and going out in the city than they are about playing a game to decide whether they finish 11-3 or 12-2.

</div>

 

[ckDOG]

argghhh!!!

 

[FreeDawg]

And Leach mentioned a 64 team playoff not 8 as you said. I wouldnt be horribly opposed to a +1, but thats it. The outcome of the Bama/Lsu game is not whats relevant in this argument. Whats relevant is how important that game was <span style="font-style: italic;">at that time.</span> If OSU doesnt lose to ISU (again backing my point) Bama was done and everyone in the country tuned in. The fact that Bama backslid in because they were hands down the best 1 loss is irrelevant. In college football the way to lock up a natl title is to go undefeated. If you dont, you're leaving it to chance. With an 8 team playoff the Bama/LSU game meant **** because we knew that neither would lose after that and they would both be top 8

 

[patdog]

My ideal would be an 8-team playoff, with the SEC, Big 12, Big 10, ACC & PAC-12 champions plus the highest ranked conference champion outside those conferences getting automatic bids and 2 at-large bids. Higher 4 seeds host the lower 4 2 weeks after the conference championship games. Semifinals on NYD at 2 of the big 4 bowls with the other 2 hosting consolation bowl games on Jan. 2 & 3, and the finals at a site to be bid out on the 2nd Saturday night after NYD.

Either of those formats is plenty for deciding a legitimate national champion while still keeping the regular season meaningful (it's not meaningful in any other sport).</p>

 

[Mullenation]

Top 6 teams in BCS. Top 2 get bye weeks.<div>
</div><div>If there is a playoff, at the rate the SEC is going, it's probably just going to be more SEC vs SEC national championship games.</div>

 

[patdog]

<div>If there is a playoff, at the rate the SEC is going, it's probably just going to be more SEC vs SEC national championship games.</div>

Which is why we're already seeingthe commisioner of the PAC-12 (and I think Big 10 too) calling for the 4-team playoff to be limited to conference champions. If that had been the case last year, we'd have seen #1 LSU, #3 OK St., #5 Oregon and #10 Wisconsinin the playoff. That would have been much worse than the current BCS format.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

The 4-team, conference champs only playoff would rarely have a team outside the top 5. Wisconsin being in last year would be a major aberration, and even then, remember their only 2 losses were on Hail Marys.<div>
</div><div>It really wouldn't hurt the SEC as badly as people are saying.</div>

 

[FreeDawg]

Isnt a horrible setup. You probably still end up with the best team. You just shuffle the problem to the 7-10th teams. With that model a 10-2 Notre Dame would get in every time (also Fla,Mich,Bama...). Also what constitutes the top 4 conference champions? If its predetermined that leaves alot of chance for undeserving teams getting in. The big east hasnt deserved a team in the discussion in years. I believe that any playoff other than a +1 cheapens the regular season. And if you're gonna cheapen it a little, you may as well make it a 10 game regular season and a 64 team playoff

 

[VegasDawg13]

<div>but I don't understand how anti-playoff people can continue to say this:</div>

College football is the only sport were every regular season game matter.

That is an objectively false statement, and it seems to be the first thing brought up by anyone trying to defend the current system.

 

[patdog]

There's only 2 at-large bids and they'll usually only go to 1-loss teams. You'd seed the teams the same way they select the teams now. By BCS ranking. My plan wouldn't cheapen the field at all, but would ensure that you have to either win your conference or be a great team to get in. My playoffs last year would have been:

#18 TCU at #1 LSU
#15 Clemsonat #2 Alabama
#10 Wisconsin #5 Oregon at #3 OK St.
#5 Oregon #10 Wisconsinat #4 Stanford

Since we have 2 teams from the same conference on the same half of the draw, I'd drop Oregon from the #5 seed to the #6.

 

[Seinfeld]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should be eliminated by any means but I also don't get the obsession with them anymore. I used to really enjoy bowl season, but the over-saturation has gotten me to a point where I only care about our game, any bowl that an SEC team is in, and the BCS championship. That's pretty much it.

Also, I'm not trying to imply that you're wrong about anything because you're 100% entitled to your opinion, but I've never understood the "playoffs will diminish the value of the regular season" argument. Yeah, it may diminish it a bit for the 3-4 teams on top because it will allow them to lose a game or two at the end and still have a good shot. However, it will add a significant deal to regular season game value for just about everyone else. Think how much more we'd care about a late season Arkansas game if it meant that we'd have an outside shot at making the playoffs as opposed to going to a peach bowl. For the record, I think a 64-team format is ridiculous, but I'd love to see a 16-team format.

 

[FreeDawg]

Its about liking the regular season. To keep using last year for reference, week 1 LSU vs Oregon was huge. Most other sports don't open with a game that will have enormous implications on the season. The bowl season itself is oversaturated. Outside of MSU, SEC, and a few match ups of interest I don't watch all of them. To defend bowl season, isn't the NCAA tourney over saturated as well. I rarely watch games before sweet 16 either

 

[Seinfeld]

To defend bowl season, isn't the NCAA tourney over saturated as well. I rarely watch games before sweet 16 either

I think that the first week of NCAA tourney games is one of the best weeks in sports. This year, alone, you would have missed two 15 seeds knocking off two 2 seeds. Usually, the cinderellas are about done by the time you get past the sweet 16, so if you care about underdogs at all, you have to watch the first couple rounds to catch them.

As far as the oversaturation goes, though, I guess I look at it from a proportion standpoint. I believe that roughly 50% of college football teams go to bowl games whereas the NCAA tourney's field of 68 only represents about 20% of college basketball teams. I'm not sure how many total teams there are these days, but I think those figures are about right. Now, if you want to talk about the 3-4 different postseason basketball tournaments that exist, then yes, that is definitely oversaturation in my mind.

 

[blacklistedbully]

Shorten regular season to 10 games.<div>Big 6 each get 2 teams in. If 2 divisions, then each division winner goes, based on division round-robin record. If no divisions then top 2 conference records go. Eliminate Conference CG's.</div><div>8 at-large teams invited to "play-in" based on RPI, seeded according to RPI for matchups, avoiding intra-conference matchups by shuffling closely-seeded teams when necessary. 4 winners advance to join the 12 above.</div><div>All 16 teams in playoff are seeded according to RPI and matched accordingly, same as above. Winners advance to Round of 8, again matched to seed, etc, etc.</div><div>
</div><div>Would probably need to adjust somewhat by breaking into regions once the 16 are decided so as to allow for fan/team logistics, just like the NCAA basketball tourney, using traditional bowl-sites for the playoffs.</div><div>
</div><div>All teams would play a minimum of 10 games. Worst case scenario would be 15 games if a "play-in" team went all the way to the CG.</div><div>
</div><div>Traditional bowl games could still be offered pitting any of the teams failing to make the 16.</div>