A 16 team playoff grabs me. It would put my interest in college football at an all time high.

 

Anyone else? Or do you think 4 is right? 8? Any speculation on how big the controversy for the final four will be this year?

A 16 team playoff grabs me. It would put my interest in college football at an all time high.

 

Anyone else? Or do you think 4 is right? 8? Any speculation on how big the controversy for the final four will be this year?

 

Thinking back on most years, I think 4 will get it right in almost every scenario I can recall. If you expand it too much you run the risk of the regular season being not as important which I think would be detrimental to college football.

A 16 team playoff grabs me. It would put my interest in college football at an all time high.

 

Anyone else? Or do you think 4 is right? 8? Any speculation on how big the controversy for the final four will be this year?

 

I think 8 is right. A 16 team playoff extends the season for an entire month for the two teams in the finals, and a 4 team playoff is just too small.

I agree, a four team playoff is probably best in determining the champion. For us fans however, the eight team playoff is much more appealing. Anything after that is too much.

16 team is too much. I'd be very in favor of 8. I think in some years there is a large amount of parity between the top 8, but it's one game. Any team can win on any given night in the top 8 is my belief. I'd even be okay with top 10 and the top 2 get byes for the first round. They earned it.

I'm OK with 4 teams. After a couple of years, if there is still uncertainty, then I could see 8 teams.

 

But I don't see a necessity for more than 8 teams.

A 16 team playoff grabs me. It would put my interest in college football at an all time high.

 

Anyone else? Or do you think 4 is right? 8? Any speculation on how big the controversy for the final four will be this year?

 

I don't remember who I initially heard it from, so I can't give credit where credit is due...but I absolutely love this 16 team scenario.

 

Each conference gets an automatic bid, either determined through their regular season competition, or from their conference championship. I think there's 10-12 of those.

 

The remainder of the 16 (so probably between 4-6 of them) are "at-large" births. This is where you can reward a conference for having multiple strong teams.

 

The 16 teams are then seeded. Having won your conference does NOT guarantee you of a higher seed than an at-large team. Again, this is where you can allow for conference and schedule strength to come in.

 

The higher seeds host the first two rounds. This automatically eliminates travel for half of the teams, and would pretty much guarantee you a sellout in each of the 8 locations the first round, and the four in the second round.

 

The third round and the finals would rotate amongst three "neutral" sites...the Orange Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl, and the Rose Bowl.

 

Absolutely love that idea. Could it create some lopsided mismatches? Sure. But the basketball tourney has that, and I don't hear many people talking about reducing it back down to 32. Would you have a team from a small conference win it? Probably not. But, just like basketball, you'd have some Cinderella story-like moments along the way.

I don't remember who I initially heard it from, so I can't give credit where credit is due...but I absolutely love this 16 team scenario.

 

Each conference gets an automatic bid, either determined through their regular season competition, or from their conference championship. I think there's 10-12 of those.

 

The remainder of the 16 (so probably between 4-6 of them) are "at-large" births. This is where you can reward a conference for having multiple strong teams.

 

The 16 teams are then seeded. Having won your conference does NOT guarantee you of a higher seed than an at-large team. Again, this is where you can allow for conference and schedule strength to come in.

 

The higher seeds host the first two rounds. This automatically eliminates travel for half of the teams, and would pretty much guarantee you a sellout in each of the 8 locations the first round, and the four in the second round.

 

The third round and the finals would rotate amongst three "neutral" sites...the Orange Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl, and the Rose Bowl.

 

Absolutely love that idea. Could it create some lopsided mismatches? Sure. But the basketball tourney has that, and I don't hear many people talking about reducing it back down to 32. Would you have a team from a small conference win it? Probably not. But, just like basketball, you'd have some Cinderella story-like moments along the way.

 

Love it!

 

And I am all for 17 through 32 playing a Football NIT with higher seeds getting home games up until the finals.

.......

 

My post from July 21 (no reason to re-type it, I still feel the same way).

 

If they go to 16 the bowls will be incorporated into the structure, which I know you know (and alluded), so that is understood. Therefore, with four (five for Conference Championship games) neutral site games in a row, travel / attendance is going to be a very real issue. Those bowls generate a TON of money for their communities, their attached charities, and fat-cat bowl chairmen, so eliminating those are not going to happen.

 

I'm not sure why your interest in college hoops from Labor day to Thanksgiving has anything to do with how a National Champion is decided, but so be it. I've never been one to rail on the BCS system, I don't hate the every game matters mentality nor the "it is hard for the little guy to be included" structure. The debate for the BCS from week 9 through the first of December was always entertaining.

 

Since the bowls aren't going away, the expansion of the "playoff" will be a major issue as Bob and Shirley Booster can only go to so many games 500 miles away.

Since the bowls aren't going away, the expansion of the "playoff" will be a major issue as Bob and Shirley Booster can only go to so many games 500 miles away. [/i]

 

That's going to be the big change. Leagues and schools are now asking fans to potentially buy seats to six or seven home games, a conference championship game and then a national semifinal and championship game. Add another round and things get crazy.

 

It's one thing when a school's allotment for basketball games is six thousand seats in an arena, but when stadiums are expecting schools to sell upwards of 20,000 tickets for each round of the playoffs, they're going to be sorely disappointed.

 

If the playoff gets any larger, then we have to murder the bowls (which is nigh on impossible at this point) and have earlier rounds at home sites.

8 teams is perfect. Not too big. Not too small. Especially in a year like this when it is clear that the number 8 team is good enough to win the title.

 

 

16 is too many. You'll never convince me that the #16 team in the nation deserves a chance to be the champion.

That's going to be the big change. Leagues and schools are now asking fans to potentially buy seats to six or seven home games, a conference championship game and then a national semifinal and championship game. Add another round and things get crazy.

 

It's one thing when a school's allotment for basketball games is six thousand seats in an arena, but when stadiums are expecting schools to sell upwards of 20,000 tickets for each round of the playoffs, they're going to be sorely disappointed.

 

If the playoff gets any larger, then we have to murder the bowls (which is nigh on impossible at this point) and have earlier rounds at home sites.

 

If you didn't force season ticket holders to buy those tournament games, do you think there'd be a problem selling them individually? I honestly can't. (Unless they start pricing them out the wazoo.) I think you'd still have some group of die-hards that would be all-in regardless. And the people that couldn't, would easily be replaced by people off the street who couldn't afford to buy a whole season to begin with, but can/will for a single game or two.

16 teams

If you didn't force season ticket holders to buy those tournament games, do you think there'd be a problem selling them individually? I honestly can't. (Unless they start pricing them out the wazoo.) I think you'd still have some group of die-hards that would be all-in regardless. And the people that couldn't, would easily be replaced by people off the street who couldn't afford to buy a whole season to begin with, but can/will for a single game or two.

 

The attendance at early round NCAA tournament basketball games by fans of teams that aren't very close by suggests to me that it's just not true. If the tournament expands, they're going to have real difficulty selling tickets at neutral sites.

 

You'd have a few top teams that sell tickets and several early games being played in front of some pretty sparse crowds. They're either going to have to work on how they do this or simply decide that the big gains in TV money are all that matters and just say "to heck with attendance."

I'm good with 4. 8 would be the max but in most years the only complaint is that one team was left out of the finals. It's rarely more than 1 team and the 4 team format includes a second.