Death to the BCS- What this year's playoff would have looked like!!!

Page 3 of Originally Posted by Show Stopper I completely understand that but I was just offering a scenario to leatherneck to reduce the number of games if the h... 48 comments | 1659 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #31
    gchs_uk9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 02
    Posts
    22,632

    Quote Originally Posted by Show Stopper View Post
    I completely understand that but I was just offering a scenario to leatherneck to reduce the number of games if the health and safefty of the players because of the long season was a concern. I'm sure all the schools would be fighting hard to keep the same number of games intact so as to keep the same revenue they are getting now.
    I agree with you. Of course the argument could be make that lost game revenue could be augmented by increased television money to be shared among the schools.
    Advertisement

  2. #32
    gchs_uk9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 02
    Posts
    22,632

    Quote Originally Posted by westsider View Post
    Every other level of college football, I believe, has a 16-team tournament to determine its champion.
    I-AA actually went to a 20-team field this past season. They did it because two more conferences gained automatic bids, but it seems a little unwieldy at 20 teams. 16 is/was much better.

  3. #33
    oldrambler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 06
    Location
    I'm ftom the Other Side of the Tracks ....where your momma warned you about.
    Posts
    38,979

    JMO but 16 teams is far too many. I honestly think that 8 teams might be a little too much.
    Maybe a 6 team type with the top 2 seeds having bye in the first round. Say no. 1 and 2 have the bye, No. 3 would play no. 6 and 4 play 5. Next round 1 plays 4/5 winner, 2 plays 3/6 winner. Should there be too many teams in a playoff then is jmo the season would mean less and less. As is now the regular season is a type of a playoff meaning if you lose then you are probably out. A 6 team playoff and one would more than likely get team/teams that are very deserving but may have lost a game.
    Anyway, all of this talk is just that, something to do bc imo we will probably see a plus one type format (semi final per say) in the future but that would be all. Really imo that would be o.k., a 4 team playoff should get the very best teams and would still keep the bowl structue/university a.d,'s and coorporate sponsors happy. I hope that no one doubts the university and coorporations $$$ are what it's about, if so then wake up out of that dream,lol. jmo.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Aug 01
    Location
    The last "big town" before you leave Kentucky ...
    Posts
    22,986

    Quote Originally Posted by oldrambler View Post
    JMO but 16 teams is far too many. I honestly think that 8 teams might be a little too much.
    Maybe a 6 team type with the top 2 seeds having bye in the first round. Say no. 1 and 2 have the bye, No. 3 would play no. 6 and 4 play 5. Next round 1 plays 4/5 winner, 2 plays 3/6 winner. Should there be too many teams in a playoff then is jmo the season would mean less and less. As is now the regular season is a type of a playoff meaning if you lose then you are probably out. A 6 team playoff and one would more than likely get team/teams that are very deserving but may have lost a game.
    Anyway, all of this talk is just that, something to do bc imo we will probably see a plus one type format (semi final per say) in the future but that would be all. Really imo that would be o.k., a 4 team playoff should get the very best teams and would still keep the bowl structue/university a.d,'s and coorporate sponsors happy. I hope that no one doubts the university and coorporations $$$ are what it's about, if so then wake up out of that dream,lol. jmo.
    Why is 16 teams too many?

    Football needs a tournament like every other sport, with automatic bids going to conference champions and teams that have more than one loss still have a shot to win a national championship. Does anyone really think there are no two-loss teams in any given year that would be capable of winning it all?

  5. #35
    gchs_uk9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 02
    Posts
    22,632

    Quote Originally Posted by westsider View Post
    Every other level of college football, I believe, has a 16-team tournament to determine its champion.
    As I mentioned, I-AA has a 20 team field for their postseason.

    After looking into it, Division II has a 24 team field, with 8 teams getting first round byes. Division III has a 32 team field, with the winner required to win 5 games to win a championship (just like the KHSAA).

  6. #36
    oldrambler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 06
    Location
    I'm ftom the Other Side of the Tracks ....where your momma warned you about.
    Posts
    38,979

    Quote Originally Posted by westsider View Post
    Why is 16 teams too many?

    Football needs a tournament like every other sport, with automatic bids going to conference champions and teams that have more than one loss still have a shot to win a national championship. Does anyone really think there are no two-loss teams in any given year that would be capable of winning it all?
    JMO but this isn't basketball or baseball, I don't think that D1A football is structured for a big tournament format. Besides, go back to my last point made, it's all about - 1. the a.d.'s and imo they don't want it. 2. Coorporate bowl sponsorship and the almighty dollar. IMO it's just not going to happen.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Aug 01
    Location
    The last "big town" before you leave Kentucky ...
    Posts
    22,986

    Quote Originally Posted by oldrambler View Post
    JMO but this isn't basketball or baseball, I don't think that D1A football is structured for a big tournament format.
    Why not?

    Basketball and baseball invite way more than 16 teams, so that analogy doesn't fly.

    Quote Originally Posted by oldrambler View Post
    Besides, go back to my last point made, it's all about - 1. the a.d.'s and imo they don't want it. 2. Coorporate bowl sponsorship and the almighty dollar. IMO it's just not going to happen.
    I said nothing about that.

  8. #38
    gchs_uk9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 02
    Posts
    22,632

    Quote Originally Posted by westsider View Post
    Why not?

    Basketball and baseball invite way more than 16 teams, so that analogy doesn't fly.
    I think you and I have talked about this before, but basketball is a three-weekend tournament playing two games per weekend. Obviously you can't play two football games in one weekend. My biggest reasoning for an 8-team tournament is that it would take three weekends, just as basketball does.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Aug 01
    Location
    The last "big town" before you leave Kentucky ...
    Posts
    22,986

    Quote Originally Posted by gchs_uk9 View Post
    I think you and I have talked about this before, but basketball is a three-weekend tournament playing two games per weekend. Obviously you can't play two football games in one weekend. My biggest reasoning for an 8-team tournament is that it would take three weekends, just as basketball does.
    And, unlike, basketball, most or all of those four weeks would take place when school isn't in session.

  10. #40
    oldrambler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 06
    Location
    I'm ftom the Other Side of the Tracks ....where your momma warned you about.
    Posts
    38,979

    Quote Originally Posted by gchs_uk9 View Post
    I think you and I have talked about this before, but basketball is a three-weekend tournament playing two games per weekend. Obviously you can't play two football games in one weekend. My biggest reasoning for an 8-team tournament is that it would take three weekends, just as basketball does.
    Correct and as another mentioned earlier legthing the season by 4 weeks/games would be a safety concern, depending on if and how much they would cut the regular season. Should you cut the season to much then that would hurt the schools that didn't make the playoffs, less games=less money for those schools and their athletic dept.. Less money in the athletic dept. = lower budgets,less money spent on their program. I just don't think that all schools presidents would go along with it.

  11. #41
    oldrambler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 06
    Location
    I'm ftom the Other Side of the Tracks ....where your momma warned you about.
    Posts
    38,979

    Quote Originally Posted by westsider View Post
    Why not?

    Basketball and baseball invite way more than 16 teams, so that analogy doesn't fly.

    I said nothing about that.
    1. Basketball and baseball will play more than one game a week.
    2. I said before that the a.d.'s didn't want it, I meant to say the university presidents. University presidents making money on the system as is imo are not going to go along with a system that could possibly cost them money if they weren't in the playoffs.

  12. #42
    oldrambler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 06
    Location
    I'm ftom the Other Side of the Tracks ....where your momma warned you about.
    Posts
    38,979

    The bottom line imo is it's all about the money. Anyone that thinks that it's not is dreaming and if University Presidents as a whole can make more money on the current setup then a plus one format is probably all we are going to get, if that. That is what I think anyway.
    Should anyone on here be able to get a playoff system in then by all means do so and lets kick it off.

  13. #43

    Join Date
    Aug 01
    Location
    The last "big town" before you leave Kentucky ...
    Posts
    22,986

    Quote Originally Posted by oldrambler View Post
    Correct and as another mentioned earlier legthing the season by 4 weeks/games would be a safety concern, depending on if and how much they would cut the regular season. Should you cut the season to much then that would hurt the schools that didn't make the playoffs, less games=less money for those schools and their athletic dept.. Less money in the athletic dept. = lower budgets,less money spent on their program. I just don't think that all schools presidents would go along with it.
    So ... every other division can play that many extra games, with fewer players on scholarship, but the big boys can't because it's a safety concern?

  14. #44

    Join Date
    Aug 01
    Location
    The last "big town" before you leave Kentucky ...
    Posts
    22,986

    Quote Originally Posted by oldrambler View Post
    1. Basketball and baseball will play more than one game a week.
    2. I said before that the a.d.'s didn't want it, I meant to say the university presidents. University presidents making money on the system as is imo are not going to go along with a system that could possibly cost them money if they weren't in the playoffs.
    Again, I've never said anything about the ADs and presidents ... I'm talking about the number of teams for a playoff. Nothing more, nothing less.

  15. #45

    Join Date
    Nov 02
    Location
    Louisville; Mason, OH
    Posts
    41,510

    Another factor to think about. Bowl Games are "wet"....NCAA run tournaments are not. Now, we know that the NCAA doesn't get any of the "action" from the bowl season, but if they were, how would the "dry" factor play a role.

Top