January 5, 200917 yr My thoughts: Has to be at least 12 teams. 16 is fine, but I like giving the top 4 seeds a week off. 8 will still leave out a legit team or two. All other bowl eligible teams still play in non-playoff bowl games. Teams seeded using current BCS rankings. I like a 3 team per conference max (especially if its only 12 teams) but don't care too much either way. 1st round at home sites. 2nd round at minor bowl sites Final Four can be one or two sites. As for the money, you're telling me you will make LESS money with Florida/Bama/USC/Oklahoma/Texas playing two or three more games?
January 5, 200917 yr That is why the 16-team playoff format works the best ... every BCS team has the way to play their way into the field by winning their conference championship and the teams from the non-BCS leagues can earn their way in, too. Frankly, there are years that the #9 team could conceivably get to the national title game. That is why 16 is the best cutoff ... I don't see a team ranked below that having a shot at doing it. And in no way do I see Penn State, Ohio State, Texas Tech, Utah, Boise, Virgina Tech, U.C. beating a team like U.S.C, Texas, Florida, OU or 'Bama more than once. 16 teams is way too many. Four is enough. If anything it should look like this... OU vs USC Texas vs Florida
January 5, 200917 yr 16 teams is way too many. Four is enough. If anything it should look like this... OU vs USC Texas vs Florida That leaves just as much controversy as now. 8 is better, but it will take 12 or 16 to make sure the legit contenders are included. A playoff without Alabama, Utah, or TT this year would have been pointless.
January 5, 200917 yr That leaves just as much controversy as now. 8 is better, but it will take 12 or 16 to make sure the legit contenders are included. A playoff without Alabama, Utah, or TT this year would have been pointless. And 12 or 16 takes away from the regular season. College football would not be nearly as intriguing week in and week out if you only had to qualify in the top 16 for postseason. USC, OU, Florida and Texas are all much better than Tech, Utah and 'Bama, IMO.
January 5, 200917 yr And 12 or 16 takes away from the regular season. College football would not be nearly as intriguing week in and week out if you only had to qualify in the top 16 for postseason. USC, OU, Florida and Texas are all much better than Tech, Utah and 'Bama, IMO. That O is the entire reason for implementing a playoff. If you don't want a playoff at all, thats fine, but a 4 team playoff isn't much better at determining a true national champion than the BCS.
January 5, 200917 yr Author And 12 or 16 takes away from the regular season. College football would not be nearly as intriguing week in and week out if you only had to qualify in the top 16 for postseason.Funny, but I don't hear anyone complaining that college basketball's regular season has lost its intrigue ...
January 5, 200917 yr That O is the entire reason for implementing a playoff. If you don't want a playoff at all, thats fine, but a 4 team playoff isn't much better at determining a true national champion than the BCS. I dont want a playoff system. Just saying, if there is going to be one, it should only be 4 teams.
January 5, 200917 yr Funny, but I don't hear anyone complaining that college basketball's regular season has lost its intrigue ... Irrelevant. Just because one sport has it one way both should? March Madness is great. Every week in college football is great. I am a much bigger fan of basketball than football, but I like college football season much more than college basketball regular season.
January 5, 200917 yr I would happy with a first step being a plus 1 OR a 8 game playoff. Either is better than what we have now.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.