If an NCAA 16-team playoff were instituted how would you determine the playoff teams?
- Thread starter her209
- Start date
I actually think that the BCS standings would work well for something like this. I think the biggest problem with the current use of the BCS is that only the top 2 teams are eligible for the national championship game. In any given year, there could very well be 3 or 4 teams that deserve a shot at the title which is where the BCS breaks down IMO. But using the BCS formula to determine the top 8 or 16 teams and establish the seeding for a playoff would work really well I think.
-Tom
-Tom
it devalues the regular season, and just moves the controversy to who should be in the 16. It would aslo create a situation where a 3 or 4 loss team could win a national championship. Think about FSU last year and winning the ACC with 4 losses. It would have been possible for them to run the table (in theory).
Getting into the 16 would be the only thing people aim for. If it was conf champs + a few other high ranked people, the non-conference games would become totally meaningless. The current set up is more or less a 12 game playoff. You lose 2 games you are out of the championship picture *cough* miami*cough*
Getting into the 16 would be the only thing people aim for. If it was conf champs + a few other high ranked people, the non-conference games would become totally meaningless. The current set up is more or less a 12 game playoff. You lose 2 games you are out of the championship picture *cough* miami*cough*
BrokenVisage
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2005
- 24,771
- 14
- 81
I think you take the top 4 teams and put them in 2 pre-selected BCS bowl games, 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3, the winners (who should then be #1/#2 in the rankings) play for a National Championship.
These would be the playoff teams:
16 teams:
ACC top 2
Big East top 2
Big Ten top 2
Big 12 top 2
Pac 10 top 2
SEC top 2
Conference USA winner
Mountain West winner
and:
Mix up MAC, WAC, and Sun Belt based off of strength of schedule to determine automatic bid/play-in game but go something like this for the last two bids:
Mid-American winner
Playin game:
Sun Belt winner vs Western Athletic winner
16 teams:
ACC top 2
Big East top 2
Big Ten top 2
Big 12 top 2
Pac 10 top 2
SEC top 2
Conference USA winner
Mountain West winner
and:
Mix up MAC, WAC, and Sun Belt based off of strength of schedule to determine automatic bid/play-in game but go something like this for the last two bids:
Mid-American winner
Playin game:
Sun Belt winner vs Western Athletic winner
16? 4 WOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH. REALLY, THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP IS WHAT MATTERS. 4 WOULD DEFINITELY CUT DOWN ON THE CONTROVERSY OF HAVING TO PICK THE BEST TWO. AND IF YOU'RE NO. 5 AND THINK YOU SHOULD BE NO. 4? TOO BAD, YOU SHOULD HAVE WORKED HARDER AT BEING NO. 2...
ANOTHER WAY TO DISPELL THE CONTROVERSY IS TO HAVE MORE INTER-CONFERENCE PLAY AMONG TOP 25 TEAMS. THEY SHOULD HAVE A RULE THAT THE TOP 25 TEAMS AT THE END OF SEASON X, SHOULD HAVE TO SCHEDULE AT LEAST TWO NON-CONFERENCE TOP 25 TEAMS IN SEASON X +1.
THIS, OF COURSE, CAUSES OTHER PROBLEMS AS GAMES ARE SCHEDULED FAR MORE THAN 9 MONTHS IN ADVANCE.
It's funny, because I was wondering the same thing yesterday. I made a playoff bracket using last year's BCS standings from week 7.
By using Week 7's standings, I eliminated the Conference Chapionship games. If there is ever a playoff institued I think we'll see these games disappear because all they'll really do is eliminate one deserving team from contention.
What do you think of this bracket?
By using Week 7's standings, I eliminated the Conference Chapionship games. If there is ever a playoff institued I think we'll see these games disappear because all they'll really do is eliminate one deserving team from contention.
What do you think of this bracket?
They wouldnt need to do that.
What they should do is still use the BCS games,
#1 plays #8
#2 plays #7
#3 plays #6
#4 plays #5
Then the winners of the four games play eachother, then those winners play in the Championship game.
Have the four BCS games on Jan 1. The second round a week later, and then the final a week later. Doesnt effect academics at all because the final game would still likely be before the spring semester starts.
The only issue is, two teams will play potentially 16 games(12 games + conf championship + round 1 + round 2, championship game).
This plan would keep ALL the money from bowl games and would add a LOT MORE(3 extra games). Its a win-win for everyone except the players, although really they would have ~ a month to a month and a half off, so it wouldnt be to hard on them.
What they should do is still use the BCS games,
#1 plays #8
#2 plays #7
#3 plays #6
#4 plays #5
Then the winners of the four games play eachother, then those winners play in the Championship game.
Have the four BCS games on Jan 1. The second round a week later, and then the final a week later. Doesnt effect academics at all because the final game would still likely be before the spring semester starts.
The only issue is, two teams will play potentially 16 games(12 games + conf championship + round 1 + round 2, championship game).
This plan would keep ALL the money from bowl games and would add a LOT MORE(3 extra games). Its a win-win for everyone except the players, although really they would have ~ a month to a month and a half off, so it wouldnt be to hard on them.
BrokenVisage
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2005
- 24,771
- 14
- 81
It would never be 16-team playoff, at best the NCAA might use the BCS bowls to rank the winners, then have the top 2 BCS scoring teams play in the Championship Series Bowl.
It should be a 6 team playoff, enabling the #1 and #2 ranked teams an advantage, getting a bye in the first round of the playoff.
#3 vs #6,
#4 vs #5,
Lowest rank winner will play the #1 team.
There has to be somesort of reward for being #1 or #2, something that is marginalized in the 8 team playoff, and a lesser extent in the 16 team playoff. Not having to play a game is a tremendous advantage for the top two.
Its bad enough with the NFL where last year the Seahawks basically took off their final game, it really does cheapen games, especially, if somebody like Texas last year took the Big 12 Conference championship game off. In a 8 team playoff, Texas could have rested its players and still would have been a lock to make it, and it gets even worse in a 16 team playoff.
#3 vs #6,
#4 vs #5,
Lowest rank winner will play the #1 team.
There has to be somesort of reward for being #1 or #2, something that is marginalized in the 8 team playoff, and a lesser extent in the 16 team playoff. Not having to play a game is a tremendous advantage for the top two.
Its bad enough with the NFL where last year the Seahawks basically took off their final game, it really does cheapen games, especially, if somebody like Texas last year took the Big 12 Conference championship game off. In a 8 team playoff, Texas could have rested its players and still would have been a lock to make it, and it gets even worse in a 16 team playoff.
16 is too many.
If this were the last week of the season, #14-16 Boise State, Rutgers, and Arkansas have no business playing with Ohio State, Michigan and USC with national championship ramifications on the line. One cheap shot on a top-tier QB could ruin an elite team's chances of winning the championship.
8 team playoff based on BCS rankings would be awesome
If this were the last week of the season, #14-16 Boise State, Rutgers, and Arkansas have no business playing with Ohio State, Michigan and USC with national championship ramifications on the line. One cheap shot on a top-tier QB could ruin an elite team's chances of winning the championship.
8 team playoff based on BCS rankings would be awesome
WELL LET'S BE CLEAR. THE REASON FOR A PLAYOFF IS TO DECIDE THE NATIONAL CHAMPION.
IT'S NOT TO DECIDE WHETHER THE 15TH RANKED TEAM SHOULD ACTUALLY BE RANKED 14TH, OR IF THE 7TH-RANKED TEAM IS REALLY BETTER THAN THE 6TH RANKED TEAM, OR WHATEVER.
IN 2005, IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR WHO THE TOP 2 TEAMS WERE.
IN 2004, AUBURN HAD A VALID GRIPE ABOUT NOT GETTING A SHOT
IN 2003, EVEN WORSE, THERE WAS A SPLIT CHAMPIONSHIP, AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TOUGH TO ARGUE THAT MICHIGAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
IN 2002, CLEARLY MIAMI-OSU
THAT SAID, YOU HIT DIMINISHING RETURNS PRETTY QUICKLY WHEN ADDING MORE TEAMS.
WHEN IT'S NOT TOTALLY CLEAR WHO THE TOP TWO ARE, THERE'S VERY RARELY MORE THAN ONE EXTRA TEAM WITH A VALID ARGUMENT AS TO WHY THEY SHOULD GET A SHOT.
It would take some experimentation in my opinion. Expand the brackets until the lowest ranked team does not beat the highest ranked team. This is why the NCAA basketball tourney is the perfect size... To date no 16 seed has beat a 1 seed, so the number of teams in each bracket is right.
R
R
In 2004, Utah had a gripe as well. Sure, they hadn't played the schedule of some teams, but who is to say that they couldn't have beaten them? Even if Utah had been the best team in the nation in 2004 (I'm not saying they were), they had absolutley no chance to win the national championship.
My preference for a playoff would be as follows: every conference champion gets in. Then take the highest seeded teams from the BCS rankings to fill out a pool of 16 teams. This way, the very top seeds get gimme games for the first round (e.g. OSU vs Arkansas St.), but it still gives teams from every conference the chance to win. With only 5 at large spots available, teams will not be able to take any game during the regular season lightly.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter