Jump to content

Screw the bowls, let's have a play-off!


lost_limey

Recommended Posts

As we've reached the BCS post-season phase, it's time for me to unleash my usual play-off suggestions:

16-team play-off. 11 Conference Winners, 5 at larges, seeded by BCS Rankings.

Play the last few games at the various BCS bowl sites, rotating the NC and stuff like they do now. Have the other minor bowls bid for each game in the brackets so the teams make money.Use whichever bowls remain as they are now as a nice post-season boost for teams that didn't crack the 16. start the play-offs this week just like 1-AA and below do.

That would give first round games of:

# 1 Auburn (SEC Champ) vs #16 Florida International (Sun Belt Champ)

# 2 Oregon (Pac-10 Champ) vs #15 Miami of Ohio (MAC Champ)

# 3 TCU (MWC Champ) vs. Central Florida (C-USA Champ)

# 4 Stanford (A Large 1) vs West Virginia (Big East Champ)

# 5 Wisconsin (Big 10 champ) vs Virginia Tech (ACC Champ)

# 6 Ohio State (At-Large 2) vs LSU (At-Large 5)

# 7 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ) vs Boise State (WAC Champ)

# 8 Arkansas (At-Large 3) vs Michigan State (At-Large 4)

Assuming chalk, that'd give a second round of:

# 1 Auburn vs #8 Arkansas

# 2 Oregon vs #7 Oklahoma

# 3 TCU vs #6 Ohio State

# 4 Stanford vs #5 Wisconsin

sounds like good match-ups. Again, assuming chalk gives us semi-finals of:

#1 Auburn vs #4 Stanford

#2 Oregon vs #3 TCU

Giving us a consolation bowl of

#3 TCU vs #4 Stanford

And a NCG of:

#1 Auburn vs #2 Oregon

Obviously, because I used BCS for seeding, that is the NCG we're going to get, but I don't think anyone would be too upset by this format if a TCU or a Stanford managed to win out

/In cases of co-champions, I've gone with the higher ranked team as the champion

//It's not hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As we've reached the BCS post-season phase, it's time for me to unleash my usual play-off suggestions:

16-team play-off. 11 Conference Winners, 5 at larges, seeded by BCS Rankings.

Play the last few games at the various BCS bowl sites, rotating the NC and stuff like they do now. Have the other minor bowls bid for each game in the brackets so the teams make money.Use whichever bowls remain as they are now as a nice post-season boost for teams that didn't crack the 16. start the play-offs this week just like 1-AA and below do.

That would give first round games of:

# 1 Auburn (SEC Champ) vs #16 Florida International (Sun Belt Champ)

# 2 Oregon (Pac-10 Champ) vs #15 Miami of Ohio (MAC Champ)

# 3 TCU (MWC Champ) vs. Central Florida (C-USA Champ)

# 4 Stanford (A Large 1) vs West Virginia (Big East Champ)

# 5 Wisconsin (Big 10 champ) vs Virginia Tech (ACC Champ)

# 6 Ohio State (At-Large 2) vs LSU (At-Large 5)

# 7 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ) vs Boise State (WAC Champ)

# 8 Arkansas (At-Large 3) vs Michigan State (At-Large 4)

Assuming chalk, that'd give a second round of:

# 1 Auburn vs #8 Arkansas

# 2 Oregon vs #7 Oklahoma

# 3 TCU vs #6 Ohio State

# 4 Stanford vs #5 Wisconsin

sounds like good match-ups. Again, assuming chalk gives us semi-finals of:

#1 Auburn vs #4 Stanford

#2 Oregon vs #3 TCU

Giving us a consolation bowl of

#3 TCU vs #4 Stanford

And a NCG of:

#1 Auburn vs #2 Oregon

Obviously, because I used BCS for seeding, that is the NCG we're going to get, but I don't think anyone would be too upset by this format if a TCU or a Stanford managed to win out

/In cases of co-champions, I've gone with the higher ranked team as the champion

//It's not hard.

Except Nevada won the WAC not Boise State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we've reached the BCS post-season phase, it's time for me to unleash my usual play-off suggestions:

16-team play-off. 11 Conference Winners, 5 at larges, seeded by BCS Rankings.

Play the last few games at the various BCS bowl sites, rotating the NC and stuff like they do now. Have the other minor bowls bid for each game in the brackets so the teams make money.Use whichever bowls remain as they are now as a nice post-season boost for teams that didn't crack the 16. start the play-offs this week just like 1-AA and below do.

That would give first round games of:

# 1 Auburn (SEC Champ) vs #16 Florida International (Sun Belt Champ)

# 2 Oregon (Pac-10 Champ) vs #15 Miami of Ohio (MAC Champ)

# 3 TCU (MWC Champ) vs. Central Florida (C-USA Champ)

# 4 Stanford (A Large 1) vs West Virginia (Big East Champ)

# 5 Wisconsin (Big 10 champ) vs Virginia Tech (ACC Champ)

# 6 Ohio State (At-Large 2) vs LSU (At-Large 5)

# 7 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ) vs Boise State (WAC Champ)

# 8 Arkansas (At-Large 3) vs Michigan State (At-Large 4)

Assuming chalk, that'd give a second round of:

# 1 Auburn vs #8 Arkansas

# 2 Oregon vs #7 Oklahoma

# 3 TCU vs #6 Ohio State

# 4 Stanford vs #5 Wisconsin

sounds like good match-ups. Again, assuming chalk gives us semi-finals of:

#1 Auburn vs #4 Stanford

#2 Oregon vs #3 TCU

Giving us a consolation bowl of

#3 TCU vs #4 Stanford

And a NCG of:

#1 Auburn vs #2 Oregon

Obviously, because I used BCS for seeding, that is the NCG we're going to get, but I don't think anyone would be too upset by this format if a TCU or a Stanford managed to win out

/In cases of co-champions, I've gone with the higher ranked team as the champion

//It's not hard.

Except Nevada won the WAC not Boise State.

No they didn't you idiot. This is just like the Big XII in 2008. Everyone focuses on "OMG LOLZ TEXAS BEAT OKLAHOMA!!!!111" but they forget that Texas Tech was also in the three way tie. Now everyone's like "OMG NO YOU'RE WRONG! NEVADA BEAT BOIZE!!!!!!11" when in reality, it was a 3-way tie between Nevada, Boise, and Hawai'i.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with what you've come up with, except LSU doesn't belong in there at all. If you're going to include all three Big 10 Champions, then you must include Nevada a co-champion. It's not as if LSU tied for a division title, heck if you want to go on co-champ theory, then Oklahoma State and Missouri both deserve to be in the tourney over LSU and Arkansas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to threadjack, but I've always wondered why we couldn't have a playoff AND keep the bowl games. And I don't mean the host one of the playoff games in Pasadena and call it the Rose Bowl idea that's been floated around plenty of times before. I mean playing the bowl games after the season in January just as they always have. The only difference is that they would go back to being exhibitions like they were before the 60s.

This argument always comes down to playoffs vs. bowl games... what's to say we can't have both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to threadjack, but I've always wondered why we couldn't have a playoff AND keep the bowl games. And I don't mean the host one of the playoff games in Pasadena and call it the Rose Bowl idea that's been floated around plenty of times before. I mean playing the bowl games after the season in January just as they always have. The only difference is that they would go back to being exhibitions like they were before the 60s.

This argument always comes down to playoffs vs. bowl games... what's to say we can't have both?

Actually, one could have both by having the the playoff teams play on Saturdays at the home of the higher seed, while the bowls play during the week. The problem is that the bowl system is "outsourced" while all other NCAA championships are held by the NCAA. The distribution of money would have to be addressed, but in basketball it's not a problem since there are two Non-NCAA tournaments at season's end which nobody watches.

There are currently 36 days from between Dec. 4 (conference title games) and the BCS title game. At 16-team playoff could be held on the Saturdays while the bowl games are played during the week and teams could still have the additional practices.

Book Report: For those who want to know more on the sujbect, then over the holidays and prior to the BCS title game, they should try to pick up the book Death to the BCS and read how the bowl system does its best to keep a playoff from happening. It is very interesting, especially when men like Jim Tressel, who is a straight shooter, thinks a playoff is coming within the next five years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except Nevada won the WAC not Boise State.

No they didn't you idiot. This is just like the Big XII in 2008. Everyone focuses on "OMG LOLZ TEXAS BEAT OKLAHOMA!!!!111" but they forget that Texas Tech was also in the three way tie. Now everyone's like "OMG NO YOU'RE WRONG! NEVADA BEAT BOIZE!!!!!!11" when in reality, it was a 3-way tie between Nevada, Boise, and Hawai'i.

Apparently I mispoke, so I retract my previous statement. In no way did I mean any disrespect to any WAC teams, co-champions and non-co-champions include or their fans.

I feel I must apologize to "sizemorematters" since it seems my (grammatically correct and concise) 8 word post offended his delicate sensibilities to such an extent that he was forced to resort to slander. I aplogize, and I will never darken your towels again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd keep the bowls around as well as consolation prizes, but instead of 16 teams I would take 12; All 11 winners plus (a) The best independent or (B) the best-rated conference runner-up. The top 4 teams (which might be four 13-0 teams if they all run the table and win their title games) would get a bye, while other conference winners that are 12-1, 11-2, etc., would still have to prove their mettle against another opponent before being considered for the national championship.

I still like the idea of tying the big four bowls into it as the quarter-finals, but it could go either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd keep the bowls around as well as consolation prizes, but instead of 16 teams I would take 12; All 11 winners plus (a) The best independent or (B) the best-rated conference runner-up. The top 4 teams (which might be four 13-0 teams if they all run the table and win their title games) would get a bye, while other conference winners that are 12-1, 11-2, etc., would still have to prove their mettle against another opponent before being considered for the national championship.

I still like the idea of tying the big four bowls into it as the quarter-finals, but it could go either way.

Basically the idea that I've had for years. 12 teams is not an impossibility to do... Hell, the FCS has a 20 team tourny, Division II has 24 and Division III has 32. 12 is not hard to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to threadjack, but I've always wondered why we couldn't have a playoff AND keep the bowl games. And I don't mean the host one of the playoff games in Pasadena and call it the Rose Bowl idea that's been floated around plenty of times before. I mean playing the bowl games after the season in January just as they always have. The only difference is that they would go back to being exhibitions like they were before the 60s.

This argument always comes down to playoffs vs. bowl games... what's to say we can't have both?

The people who run the bowls have a lot of power. I'm guessing their argument would be that a playoff would significantly affect the interest in the bowl games, which in turn would lose them a lot of money. Also, I'm a little confused with your suggestion. Do you suggest continuing the bowls WITHOUT the playoff teams? If so that would make the Rose Bowl between, Iowa and Washington. Much less exciting than TCU and Wisconsin, especially considering it truly is just an exhibition. Again this works for the bowl people, as there is less interest and less money for them. Or, do you suggest continuing the bowl games WITH the playoff teams? In this scenario, the playoff teams could potentially play 2 games in one week. That would be a little too much for people to get behind. I do like the idea of keeping the bowl games WITHOUT the playoff teams. Because it gives fans of teams like Maryland a chance to play for something in the postseason. Unfortunately you have to overcome a corrupt and greedy group, so I don't think it is happening anytime soon.

Also, I don't like the idea of a 16 team playoff. I think it is too much. 8 teams is perfect IMO. I'm sorry but teams like West Virginia and Virginia Tech have no business competing for a championship this year. Florida International definitely doesn't belong. I know the argument that they won their conference, but I don't think that should matter. They aren't championship caliber teams. Teams like Boise State and TCU have proven that non-BCS conference schools can compete and would be eligible if a playoff existed. I see no reason to include bad teams just because they took advantage of a weak conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this...

-All teams that go undefeated in a season guarantee themselves a spot in an 8-team playoff

-The remaining spots are filled by any school that wins a current BCS conference and is in the Top 12 of the final BCS rankings (or the top 5 for example if Boise, TCU, and Northern Illinois all go undefeated in any one season)

-Then any remaining spots are filled by the teams left in descending order of the BCS standings.

-The current four BCS bowls are part of the playoff, and additionally so is the Cotton Bowl and the Peach Bowl (let's return it to its original name). Once every three years, a bowl game is a national semi-final, and if say, the Rose Bowl is part of the Round of 8, a Big Ten/Pac 10 matchup would be preferred (for tradition's sake). Additionally, each of these cities gets to host both a quarterfinal and the championship game in a given year. You could play the Round of 8 on New Year's Day, the semifinals on the weekend following, and then this year the championship could be played on the 15th (only a couple days after it really is being played this year).

So for this year, here's what my plan would look like...

-Oregon, Auburn, and TCU automatically qualify for going undefeated

-Wisconsin and Oklahoma get in by winning their BCS Conference and being ranked in the top 12

-Stanford, Ohio State, and Arkansas also get berths in the tournament by being the next available ranked teams in the BCS.

Playoff.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know what, I am pretty fine with things as they are. I just think there are too many teams in the NCAA for a playoff system to work in football. Is it perfect? No, buts it's respectful of tradition and makes sure that most teams in a strong conference get a shot at the title. Also in such a large system I think it's pretty cool that several teams take something from the season.

I do realise I am something of a lone voice on this, mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'm a little confused with your suggestion. Do you suggest continuing the bowls WITHOUT the playoff teams?

For the record, no. Aside from the teams that played in the championship, there's no reason the rest of them couldn't participate in bowl games after the playoffs are done since it wouldn't require them to play any more games than if they'd advanced to the championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not decided on 12 or 16 teams, but there should only be 3 rounds of the playoffs before the final. So this year, round 1 would've been last weekend on (Dec. 4th), round 2 this weekend (Dec. 11) and the semi-finals the following (Dec. 18).

THEN, the final 2 obviously play in the Championship, and then the 4 BCS bowls either serve as the consolation games working back from 3rd place to 7th (champ game would rotate like it does now where one site hosts their bowl game and the champ game, only they would host the champ game and the 7th place bowl) OR the BCS bowls wouldn't be designated as a place game, but would have to choose from the teams in the playoffs or that made it to the second round.

So using Limey's playoff, here's what I mean, but I agree, no more than 2 teams from one conference as it is now. Either both teams that play for the championship, or the champ and the next highest ranked team. This would leave Michigan State out, but I'm just using his for a reference, so I'm leaving them:

(Dates are 2010)

DEC. 4

# 1 Auburn (SEC Champ) vs #16 Florida International (Sun Belt Champ)

# 2 Oregon (Pac-10 Champ) vs #15 Miami of Ohio (MAC Champ)

# 3 TCU (MWC Champ) vs. Central Florida (C-USA Champ)

# 4 Stanford (A Large 1) vs West Virginia (Big East Champ)

# 5 Wisconsin (Big 10 champ) vs Virginia Tech (ACC Champ)

# 6 Ohio State (At-Large 2) vs LSU (At-Large 5)

# 7 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ) vs Boise State (WAC Champ)

# 8 Arkansas (At-Large 3) vs Michigan State (At-Large 4)

DEC. 11

Assuming chalk, that'd give a second round of:

# 1 Auburn vs #8 Arkansas

# 2 Oregon vs #7 Oklahoma

# 3 TCU vs #6 Ohio State

# 4 Stanford vs #5 Wisconsin

DEC. 18

sounds like good match-ups. Again, assuming chalk gives us semi-finals of:

#1 Auburn vs #4 Stanford

#2 Oregon vs #3 TCU

So here's how the "Bowl" portion would play out:

Championship Game - Glendale, AZ

#1 Auburn vs #2 Oregon

3rd Place Bowl - Sugar Bowl

TCU vs Stanford

5th Place Bowl - Orange Bowl (game decided by rankings from teams left)

Ohio State vs Wisconsin (not too sure what to do when it'd be 2 teams from the same conference)

7th Place Bowl - Rose Bowl

Arkansas vs Oklahoma

I guess the Fiesta Bowl could then host the highest ranked teams out in the first round or something. This may be a good reason to just allow the bowls to pick from any team in the second round and beyond and not designate them as a place game.

Just my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Direct from it's successful run in the NCAA Football thread....Here again is my realistic playoff proposal. I've added a few tweaks from the previous version.

It's very simple. It uses the current bowls and three extra games. The bowl tie-ins will remain unless that conference doesn't produce a playoff team. The three extra games would be rotated like the NC game currently is or they can be bid on like the Super Bowl. It maintains the importance of the regular season (In fact, I think it makes the regular season even more important) and it allows the "other" bowls to remain in business. The BCS rankings are used to determine the participants.

Here's how it works.

The six highest ranked conference champions and two at-large bids. A conference champion must be at least top ten in the rankings to qualify. Same with at-large bids. If there are fewer than six conference champs in the top ten then the remaining slots become at-large bids. If there are more than six conference champs in the top ten then each additional team takes the place of an at-large bid. Because of the bowl tie-ins there is no seeding of the playoff teams.

(This is another idea I've kicked around but I'm not sure if it would work..If a team loses in a conference championship game then they are automatically out of the running for an at-large bid. People want the regular season to be "important" so let's make it really important. So I tried it out for three seasons. It works in this year's example but in 2008 it meant keeping out #6 Alabama at 11-1 and adding #10 Ohio State at 10-2

This season it my playoff would look like this...

Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Wisconsin

Sugar Bowl: Auburn vs. TCU

Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Boise State

Orange Bowl: Ohio State vs. Stanford (highest ranked non-champions although I'd argue that Michigan State should get the bid over Ohio State. And people think a playoff solves everything.)

In 2009 it would have looked like this...

Rose Bowl: Ohio State vs. Oregon

Fiesta Bowl: Texas vs. Boise State

Orange Bowl: Georgia Tech vs. Cincinnati

Sugar Bowl: Alabama vs. TCU

In 2008...(I don't remember the conference champs so I guessed based on the rankings the week of December 7th)

Rose Bowl: Penn State vs. USC

Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Utah

Orange Bowl: Boise State vs. Alabama

Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Texas Tech

Lights Out should be thrilled with this. His team made the playoff every season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.