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

[JQK]

Can somone explain the purpose and benefit of re-seeding round by round please? Seems like more trouble than it's worth to me and I'm curious as to why so many people seem to advocate it.

How is it trouble? Seriously? How is it trouble to have the highest remaining seed play the lowest remaining seed, 2nd Lowest play 2nd highest, etc. etc....

I'm not getting that...

[slightly shotgunned]

Can somone explain the purpose and benefit of re-seeding round by round please? Seems like more trouble than it's worth to me and I'm curious as to why so many people seem to advocate it.

How is it trouble? Seriously? How is it trouble to have the highest remaining seed play the lowest remaining seed, 2nd Lowest play 2nd highest, etc. etc....

I'm not getting that...

"Trouble" may have been a bad choice of words. Maybe "arbitrary" would have suited you better since you seem to be unfamiliar with the phrase more trouble than it's worth. Meh.

I know the NFL does it and I think the NHL did or used to maybe, I'm not sure. I've just never really gotten it because I don't really pay attention to rankings and the like. What I've always loved about the NFL is the way into the playoffs is usually just, 'did you beat more teams than the next guy?'

I also believe that once the playoffs start, those rankings and seeds mean very little IMO. The better team will win no matter where the game is played. "Better" here meaning that once all factors are considered the better team is just the team that wins. If your team struggles in cold weather or blistering heat or loud stadiums, your team is not as good as you'd like to think...Just my opinion on the matter. I'm sure plenty will disagree.

[McCall]

Can somone explain the purpose and benefit of re-seeding round by round please? Seems like more trouble than it's worth to me and I'm curious as to why so many people seem to advocate it.

How is it trouble? Seriously? How is it trouble to have the highest remaining seed play the lowest remaining seed, 2nd Lowest play 2nd highest, etc. etc....

I'm not getting that...

"Trouble" may have been a bad choice of words. Maybe "arbitrary" would have suited you better since you seem to be unfamiliar with the phrase more trouble than it's worth. Meh.

I know the NFL does it and I think the NHL did or used to maybe, I'm not sure. I've just never really gotten it because I don't really pay attention to rankings and the like. What I've always loved about the NFL is the way into the playoffs is usually just, 'did you beat more teams than the next guy?'

I also believe that once the playoffs start, those rankings and seeds mean very little IMO. The better team will win no matter where the game is played. "Better" here meaning that once all factors are considered the better team is just the team that wins. If your team struggles in cold weather or blistering heat or loud stadiums, your team is not as good as you'd like to think...Just my opinion on the matter. I'm sure plenty will disagree.

Actually, I believe all 4 major leagues do it. MLB to an extent, since they only have an initial 4 teams in the first round anyway, but the NBA does it too, or did. I don't believe they changed it. Someone may have to confirm that.

[rams80]

Can somone explain the purpose and benefit of re-seeding round by round please? Seems like more trouble than it's worth to me and I'm curious as to why so many people seem to advocate it.

How is it trouble? Seriously? How is it trouble to have the highest remaining seed play the lowest remaining seed, 2nd Lowest play 2nd highest, etc. etc....

I'm not getting that...

"Trouble" may have been a bad choice of words. Maybe "arbitrary" would have suited you better since you seem to be unfamiliar with the phrase more trouble than it's worth. Meh.

I know the NFL does it and I think the NHL did or used to maybe, I'm not sure. I've just never really gotten it because I don't really pay attention to rankings and the like. What I've always loved about the NFL is the way into the playoffs is usually just, 'did you beat more teams than the next guy?'

I also believe that once the playoffs start, those rankings and seeds mean very little IMO. The better team will win no matter where the game is played. "Better" here meaning that once all factors are considered the better team is just the team that wins. If your team struggles in cold weather or blistering heat or loud stadiums, your team is not as good as you'd like to think...Just my opinion on the matter. I'm sure plenty will disagree.

NFL and NHL reseed. NBA doesn't. Which is why, for example, a mediocre Jazz team made it all the way to the Conference finals the year Golden State took out Dallas. I assume you can now see the allure of reseeding.

[slightly shotgunned]

Can somone explain the purpose and benefit of re-seeding round by round please? Seems like more trouble than it's worth to me and I'm curious as to why so many people seem to advocate it.

How is it trouble? Seriously? How is it trouble to have the highest remaining seed play the lowest remaining seed, 2nd Lowest play 2nd highest, etc. etc....

I'm not getting that...

"Trouble" may have been a bad choice of words. Maybe "arbitrary" would have suited you better since you seem to be unfamiliar with the phrase more trouble than it's worth. Meh.

I know the NFL does it and I think the NHL did or used to maybe, I'm not sure. I've just never really gotten it because I don't really pay attention to rankings and the like. What I've always loved about the NFL is the way into the playoffs is usually just, 'did you beat more teams than the next guy?'

I also believe that once the playoffs start, those rankings and seeds mean very little IMO. The better team will win no matter where the game is played. "Better" here meaning that once all factors are considered the better team is just the team that wins. If your team struggles in cold weather or blistering heat or loud stadiums, your team is not as good as you'd like to think...Just my opinion on the matter. I'm sure plenty will disagree.

NFL and NHL reseed. NBA doesn't. Which is why, for example, a mediocre Jazz team made it all the way to the Conference finals the year Golden State took out Dallas. I assume you can now see the allure of reseeding.

I see where some would see the allure, yes, but I'm going to be stubborn and not agree.

If I remember right, the Rockets that year were pretty highly regarded before falling to that Jazz in the first round. Then they took out said Warriors before falling to eventual champion San Antonio. What does a re-seed prevent there? The Spurs still played the Suns and it was still a tremendous series and it didn't stop the Spurs from winning the title. I'm not convinced that re-seeds are needed.

[TalktoChuck]

Can somone explain the purpose and benefit of re-seeding round by round please? Seems like more trouble than it's worth to me and I'm curious as to why so many people seem to advocate it.

How is it trouble? Seriously? How is it trouble to have the highest remaining seed play the lowest remaining seed, 2nd Lowest play 2nd highest, etc. etc....

I'm not getting that...

"Trouble" may have been a bad choice of words. Maybe "arbitrary" would have suited you better since you seem to be unfamiliar with the phrase more trouble than it's worth. Meh.

I know the NFL does it and I think the NHL did or used to maybe, I'm not sure. I've just never really gotten it because I don't really pay attention to rankings and the like. What I've always loved about the NFL is the way into the playoffs is usually just, 'did you beat more teams than the next guy?'

I also believe that once the playoffs start, those rankings and seeds mean very little IMO. The better team will win no matter where the game is played. "Better" here meaning that once all factors are considered the better team is just the team that wins. If your team struggles in cold weather or blistering heat or loud stadiums, your team is not as good as you'd like to think...Just my opinion on the matter. I'm sure plenty will disagree.

NFL and NHL reseed. NBA doesn't. Which is why, for example, a mediocre Jazz team made it all the way to the Conference finals the year Golden State took out Dallas. I assume you can now see the allure of reseeding.

I see where some would see the allure, yes, but I'm going to be stubborn and not agree.

If I remember right, the Rockets that year were pretty highly regarded before falling to that Jazz in the first round. Then they took out said Warriors before falling to eventual champion San Antonio. What does a re-seed prevent there? The Spurs still played the Suns and it was still a tremendous series and it didn't stop the Spurs from winning the title. I'm not convinced that re-seeds are needed.

Reseeding is definitly not needed, but most people (myself included) prefer them because it gives the best teams the best chance of winning. Just think how much better that Suns/Spurs series would have been if it was the Conference Finals instead of the semi-finals.

[RyanMcD29]

I say no to the reseeding. You don't see it in any other college sport (including FCS and D-2 and 3 football if I'm not mistaken)

As for my proposal that I whipped up in the main college football thread

-12 team playoff, NFL style in structure but NCAA style bracketing

-6 BCS conferences get an autobid, plus the top 2 non-AQ schools in the polls (preferably conference champs but if it's like TCU #3 and Utah #8 [this year's alignment for argument's sakes] go by that)

-4 at-larges

Boom. Having the Sun Belt, MAC, etc. champs is going a bit too overboard and college football isn't like college hoops where every conference more or less is entitled to having its conference champ get an autobid. Top 4 seeds get a first round bye to ensure high quality matchups and you can rotate some bowls for it.

[slightly shotgunned]

Reseeding is definitly not needed, but most people (myself included) prefer them because it gives the best teams the best chance of winning. Just think how much better that Suns/Spurs series would have been if it was the Conference Finals instead of the semi-finals.

My argument is that the best team shouldn't need all that.

[infrared41]

Reseeding is definitly not needed, but most people (myself included) prefer them because it gives the best teams the best chance of winning. Just think how much better that Suns/Spurs series would have been if it was the Conference Finals instead of the semi-finals.

My argument is that the best team shouldn't need all that.

My thoughts exactly. If a team really is the best then they don't need any "help."

[aci]

Why not take the rankings, for as many Bowls as there are, and make a short playoff decide who gets to play in which bowl?

Example (without team names, because I frankly don't want to spend 95% of this post looking up who fits where):

Round 1

A- 1 vs 8

B- 2 vs 7

C- 3 vs 6

D- 4 vs 5

E- 9 vs 16

F- 10 vs 15

G- 11 vs 14

H- 12 vs 13

I- 17 vs 24

J- 18 vs 23

K- 19 vs 22

L- 20 vs 21

Round Two

M- Winner A vs Winner D

N- Winner B vs Winner C

O- Loser A vs Loser D

P- Loser B vs Loser C

Q- Winner E vs Winner H

R- Winner F vs Winner G

S- Loser E vs Loser H

T- Loser F vs Loser G

U- Winner I vs Winner L

V- Winner J vs Winner K

W- Loser I vs Loser L

X- Loser J vs Loser K

Bowl Round

1. Winner M vs Winner N

2. Loser M vs Loser N

3. Winner O vs Winner P

4. Loser O vs Loser P

5. Winner Q vs Winner R

6. Loser Q vs Loser R

7. Winner S vs Winner T

8. Loser S vs Loser T

9. Winner U vs Winner V

10. Loser U vs Loser V

11. Winner W vs Winner X

12. Loser W vs Loser X

Then, let the sponsors for the lesser Bowl games bid for the rights to have the higher-ranked teams play in their game each year. Whoever pays the most gets the better match-ups, but because of the playoff system, no one can know for sure which team will play in which bowl. It's not too drawn out, it relies on how the teams play during the year, but it still provides an opportunity for a surprise team to come in, sweep three huge games against higher ranked opponents and become the NCAA champion.

[Panhead1]

Here's my idea for a FBS tournament:

The twelve divisions would be divided into four regions: North, South, East, and West.

North: Big 10, Big East, Independants.

South: Big 12, WAC, Sun Belt.

East: SEC, ACC, Conference USA.

West: Pac-10, Mountain West, MAC.

The winners of each conference that is not in italics would get an automatic bid into the 16-team field. Any conferences in italics would have to settle for an at-large bid. Each region sends four teams to the playoffs: Two conference winners (Three if the minor conference champion of the region is good enough.) and two at-large bigs.

Note: I split them into regions to keep any one conference from dominating. The way I have things structured, no conference can send more than three teams to the playoffs. That just keeps things interesting, in my opinion.

Here are my hypothetical opening round matchups:

North

1. Michigan State

4. West Virginia

2. Ohio State

3. Wisconsin

South

1. Nevada

4. Nebraska

2. Oklahoma

3. Boise State

East

1. Auburn

4. UCF

2. Virginia Tech

3. South Carolina

West

1. Oregon

4. Northern Illinois.

2. Stanford

3. TCU

[McCall]

Some of these playoff concepts are a lot more complicated than they need to be.

[dfwabel]

Some of these playoff concepts are a lot more complicated than they need to be.

You think?

[mania]

Some of these playoff concepts are a lot more complicated than they need to be.

So, if the Beers beat Detroit and Denver beats Atlanta in the American Southwestern Division East Northern, then Milwaukee goes to the Denslow Cup, unless Baltimore can upset Buffalo and Charlotte ties Toronto, then Oakland would play LA and Pittsburgh in a blind choice round robin. And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.

[pianoknight]

So, if the Beers beat Detroit and Denver beats Atlanta in the American Southwestern Division East Northern, then Milwaukee goes to the Denslow Cup, unless Baltimore can upset Buffalo and Charlotte ties Toronto, then Oakland would play LA and Pittsburgh in a blind choice round robin. And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.

You forgot it's December. This model only applies to games from September - November, and not on weekends with a full moon.

[Panhead1]

Some of these playoff concepts are a lot more complicated than they need to be.

I'll admit mine is a little elaborate, but at least it actually helps to pick a champion. And the regions should be able to keep one conference from being totally dominant over the rest.

[McCall]

Some of these playoff concepts are a lot more complicated than they need to be.

You think?

Yes I do...

[Panhead1]

So, if the Beers beat Detroit and Denver beats Atlanta in the American Southwestern Division East Northern, then Milwaukee goes to the Denslow Cup, unless Baltimore can upset Buffalo and Charlotte ties Toronto, then Oakland would play LA and Pittsburgh in a blind choice round robin. And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.

You forgot it's December. This model only applies to games from September - November, and not on weekends with a full moon.

Okay, then... What model applies to December?

[BaltimoreFan]

So, if the Beers beat Detroit and Denver beats Atlanta in the American Southwestern Division East Northern, then Milwaukee goes to the Denslow Cup, unless Baltimore can upset Buffalo and Charlotte ties Toronto, then Oakland would play LA and Pittsburgh in a blind choice round robin. And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.

You forgot it's December. This model only applies to games from September - November, and not on weekends with a full moon.

Okay, then... What model applies to December?

It depends, which day of the week is it?

[Panhead1]

So, if the Beers beat Detroit and Denver beats Atlanta in the American Southwestern Division East Northern, then Milwaukee goes to the Denslow Cup, unless Baltimore can upset Buffalo and Charlotte ties Toronto, then Oakland would play LA and Pittsburgh in a blind choice round robin. And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.

You forgot it's December. This model only applies to games from September - November, and not on weekends with a full moon.

Okay, then... What model applies to December?

It depends, which day of the week is it?

Right now, Sunday.