Reply With Quote
I like it. Gives the weaker conference atleast a small fighting chance to win the NC.
What say you?
The Wetzel plan
Go Buckeyes!!
I like it. Gives the weaker conference atleast a small fighting chance to win the NC.
I like it, if this year's craziness doesn't get rid of the BCS bull , nothing will. There's no clear cut winner this year and a playoff system would eliminate all doubt.
I think an 8 team playoffs would be incredible, but any more teams than that is lame. Especially if one of them is a 7-5 MAC team.
my final four is
Ohio State
LSU
Oklahoma
Georgia
tOSU over Georgia
total points 41
I like it.
top 8 in the bcs have a playoff for the NC. no need to include the weaker conferences b/c it is pretty much accepted they aren't close to being good enough.
I don't like it.
Here's a suggestion for an 8 team playoff:
1) Only Teams in the BCS Top 15 are playoff eligible
2) Eligible conference champions receive automatic invites
3) Eligible teams with fewest losses will receive any remaining invites
4) Seeding of the final teams will be done by BCS rank.
This would protect the regular season as much as possible and still make every game worth something - The weaker conferences have incentive to schedule tougher OOC games to boost their ranking up. As well, by allowing at-larges in based on rank AND loss amount, it means that the fewest number of multiple-loss teams possible will be included - and those that did have multiple losses probably won their Conference Championship and proved they belonged that way.
Code:1 Missouri* BIG 12 2 West Virginia* BIG EAST 3 Ohio State* BIG 10 4 Kansas 1-LOSS AT LARGE 5 Virginia Tech* ACC 6 Louisiana State* SEC 7 Southern California* PAC 10 8 Hawaii* WAC 1 Missouri 8 Hawaii 1/8 ________ 4/5 ________ 4 Kansas 5 Virginia Tech __________ __________ 2 West Virginia 7 Southern California 2/7 ________ 3/6 ________ 3 Ohio State 6 Louisiana State
Last edited by SrA Husker; 11-27-2007 at 11:31 PM.
The problem with "protecting" the regular season is that it weakens the regular season.
As long as fewest losses are important in determining the champion, games between top 10 teams in the non-conference schedule will continue to be a rarity instead of the norm.
There are numerous OUTSTANDING college basketball match-ups taking place over the next month. They wouldn't be playing those games though if a loss put a serious hurt on one of those 2 teams.
Why even have the lower conferences then? If they're going to be ineligible for the le game because of the size of their school/conference, what's the point in allowing them to play games?
1/16 match-ups in the basketball tournament aren't lame despite the foregone conclusion.
Personally, I HATE the idea of a playoff. Actually I HATE the idea of a season at all.
I think we should just have spring practice, then let the voters determine the next fall's national champion right then and there. It makes as much sense as the current system, then we don't have to worry about the student-athletes missing ANY class time, playing too many games, or getting fatigued by not getting 60 days off between their final conference game and their bowl.
You know, that makes sense. So we can take the loss part out of it, and that way seeding will matter, which means Kansas is punished for their weak OOC. That's fair enough.
This basically sums my entire thoughts up from above, which was getting so complicated I couldn't understand it (and I wrote it!)
All conference champions in the Top 15 get first dibs at the 8 available slots. If 9 or more conference champions happen to be in the Top 15, then the lowest ranked of those gets left out. Sorry, Sun Belt. But in reality, the chances are there will never be more than 8 conference champions in the Top 15. Usually, none or one - which leaves room for an at-large such as Kansas or Georgia.
sounds good to me.
once we break down the barrier of a playoff to start, it will expand quickly.
look at fast the basketball tournament jumped to 32 then to 64 and now to 65 (with talk of 68) teams.
I like a top 10 playoff with a straight to semifinals bye for the #1 and #2 BCS teams. No automatic bids unless every conference can guarantee equal strength and either all have conference championship games or none have them. Since that will never happen, leave that out. The BCS does a good job of picking the top 10 teams, and if you're number 11 chances are you could have done something during the season to guarantee being in the top 10, but ed it up. Also, it rewards the two teams who managed to finish the season at the top of the heap.
I live right outside a MAC team city (Toledo) and trust me, they wouldn't deserve a playoff spot this year if there were 32 teams involved.
Down year for the MAC. Other than that an 8 team playoff is a great idea.
I think it should be determined by TV ratings.
I think it should be based on "classiest fans in the world" status, and "tradition", so that da order can be restored.
oh yeah... scoreboard huskerfan!
Anyone catch Herbstredt on Good Call/Bad Call re: PO's? 77% of those polled said this year was indicative of a need for a PO system in CFB. Herbstredt responded with "bad call". I understand many of those who like things the way they are and are not inclined to go with a PO system, but things evolve over time and several times this decade the point has been brought up at the end of the season due to the rankings.
Herby's been on the record on the no playoff side of things for quite a while now. I'd be shocked if he said anything else. As far as I'm concerned, he's dead wrong in his opinion.
Honestly, most of the time I can see the other side of an argument, even if I don't agree with it.
But to those who don't want playoffs, I don't understand their thinking.
There reasons are:
a) The regular season is a playoff: This is just bull . If that were true, everybody would be eliminated this year except Hawaii.
b) The season is too long as is: They used to make this argument a lot...and then the NCAA added a 12th game. Do they think we're freaking stupid?
c) Too much class time missed: College football players already miss FAR LESS class time compared to volleyball, basketball, and baseball players.
d) The bowls are great tradition: This used to be true, but they lost the right to make this argument when they started selling sponsorship on every aspect of the game that wasn't nailed down.
e) It would diminish the importance of the bowls that aren't involved in the playoff: This would be true if the bowls that aren't the le game were important now. But outside of the national le game, the only people who live and die with the other bowls are the fans of the teams playing in them.
I'm probably forgetting a couple of reasons off the top of my head, but they are just as easily refuted.
I like it! I've always thought that this PO format was the way to go. I read about a format like this a while back but instead of the 5 at-large teams, it called for the next 5 teams with the best records. I think I like the "Wetzel's Plan" better. I like the idea that the higher ranked team would get homefield through out except for the Championship game. I really can't understand why people don't like this format or any kind of playoff for that matter. Just think of the excitement a PO would bring, not to mention a "true national champion". Would I like to see a 12-0 Hawaii team vs. 11-1 Ohio St. ? YOU BET I WOULD!!!!!
If they go to that proposed 16 team with the ridiculous automatic bids is there any way we can pe ion to get UT moved into the MAC?
16 would probably be a bit too much ... probably more like 8 teams and some of the "lesser" bowls could pick up teams 9-???
, why not make a "new" division for the Big Six BCS Conferences so only they could compete in the BCS bowls. The 5 mid-major conferences could go the playoff route or continue on with the non-BCS bowls.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
