Another Playoff Article

Mean Green 93-98 · December 10, 2009

The subject's been covered just about every way imaginable, but I thought this was a pretty interesting read.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/s...otball-playoffs

forevereagle · December 10, 2009

64 is probably too many teams. That would be more than half getting in. It would definitely take too long to play out. 16 or a max of 32.

KingDL1 · December 10, 2009

I liked the 16 team one the best so far.

NT80 · December 11, 2009

16 sounds good as long as every conference champ gets a spot at a minimum, then at-large berths. Of course the Baylors of the world will say that's an unfair advantage to schools like NT in weaker conferences, but the stronger conferences would probably fill most of the at-large berths evening it up.

Mean Green 93-98 · December 11, 2009

I agree that 64 is way too many, but there is no way the Belt makes the dance with only 16 teams. Ever. Maybe have an 8 team play-in bracket before the 16, and use that to fill the one, two, or four bottom slots.

Otherwise 32 wouldn't be a bad number.

UNTflyer · December 11, 2009

I agree that 64 is way too many, but there is no way the Belt makes the dance with only 16 teams. Ever. Maybe have an 8 team play-in bracket before the 16, and use that to fill the one, two, or four bottom slots.
Otherwise 32 wouldn't be a bad number.

They would if all conference champions are admitted. 11 conference champions + the 5 highest ranked conference championship game losers.

NT80 · December 11, 2009

I agree that 64 is way too many, but there is no way the Belt makes the dance with only 16 teams. Ever. Maybe have an 8 team play-in bracket before the 16, and use that to fill the one, two, or four bottom slots.
Otherwise 32 wouldn't be a bad number.

The main problem will be incorporating the bowl locations somehow into the playoff scenerio. A 32-team playoff would involve 31 total games played to determine a true Champion, over 5 weeks. That's a similar number of games to the current number of Bowls. A bigger problem will be finding fans willing to travel and spend money and time on 5 consecutive weeks of playoffs following their team around the country.

Week one: 16 games

week two: 8 games

week three: 4 games

week four: 2 games (semifinals)

week five: National Championship Game

Edited December 11, 2009 by NT80

KingDL1 · December 11, 2009

The main problem will be incorporating the bowl locations somehow into the playoff scenerio. A 32-team playoff would involve 31 total games played to determine a true Champion, over 5 weeks. That's a similar number of games to the current number of Bowls. A bigger problem will be finding fans willing to travel and spend money and time on 5 consecutive weeks of playoffs following their team around the country.
Week one: 16 games
week two: 8 games
week three: 4 games
week four: 2 games (semifinals)
week five: National Championship Game

That is what I liked about the 16 game system described in the other post, it has Bowls out side of it and the first round and 2nd round of the playoffs would be in time to make selections of the teams that get knocked out for Bowl Games.

Edited December 11, 2009 by KingDL1

Mean Green 93-98 · December 11, 2009

They would if all conference champions are admitted. 11 conference champions + the 5 highest ranked conference championship game losers.

I find it hard to believe that the powers that be (SEC, Big 10, etc.) would agree in a 16-team field to give automatic bids to the Belt, Conference USA, and MAC. You could potentially have top 10 teams fail to make the dance while deservedly unranked teams would waltz right in.

Mean Green 93-98 · December 11, 2009

The main problem will be incorporating the bowl locations somehow into the playoff scenerio. A 32-team playoff would involve 31 total games played to determine a true Champion, over 5 weeks. That's a similar number of games to the current number of Bowls. A bigger problem will be finding fans willing to travel and spend money and time on 5 consecutive weeks of playoffs following their team around the country.
Week one: 16 games
week two: 8 games
week three: 4 games
week four: 2 games (semifinals)
week five: National Championship Game

That's why I suggested a play-in of some kind. For example, teams ranked 1-14 are automatically in, but another 8 teams vie for spots 15-16. So only those 8 teams play the extra games, something they'd be glad to do for the chance. And it hopefully would open the door to all 1-A conference champions getting a chance.

But pretty much any way you do a playoff would require a shortened regular season, probably 10 games.

KingDL1 · December 11, 2009

I find it hard to believe that the powers that be (SEC, Big 10, etc.) would agree in a 16-team field to give automatic bids to the Belt, Conference USA, and MAC. You could potentially have top 10 teams fail to make the dance while deservedly unranked teams would waltz right in.

I think it would work and you would probably see some major realignment, with more parity between all conferences. Also I think you would see D1a number of teams capped indefinitely. This would give all conferences more money, and arguably more equal ground for recruiting.

UNTflyer · December 11, 2009

I find it hard to believe that the powers that be (SEC, Big 10, etc.) would agree in a 16-team field to give automatic bids to the Belt, Conference USA, and MAC. You could potentially have top 10 teams fail to make the dance while deservedly unranked teams would waltz right in.

It doesn't matter - an NCAA playoff would have to include all conferences, and that is what we want. We don't want a playoff run by the BCS, we want one run by the NCAA. If the big boys don't want to participate in the NCAA FBS Playoff, that's their decision.

NT80 · December 11, 2009

It doesn't matter - an NCAA playoff would have to include all conferences, and that is what we want. We don't want a playoff run by the BCS, we want one run by the NCAA. If the big boys don't want to participate in the NCAA FBS Playoff, that's their decision.

And that's where all this is headed to....either all in or a split totally of membership organizations. It's a fight between $$ vs. inclusion. Similar to the NFL/AFL or NBA/ABA. I can see the Top75 (BcS) saying "see ya" but right now they need to play the non-BcS schools to keep from beating each other up and preserve their 7 home game schedules ($).

Edited December 11, 2009 by NT80

Mean Green 93-98 · December 11, 2009

It doesn't matter - an NCAA playoff would have to include all conferences, and that is what we want. We don't want a playoff run by the BCS, we want one run by the NCAA. If the big boys don't want to participate in the NCAA FBS Playoff, that's their decision.

The thing is, who really calls the shots in NCAA 1-A (or "FBS" :rolleyes: ) football? There is no way the NCAA would have a 1-A playoff without the consent of the big boys.

untjim1995 · December 11, 2009

And that's where all this is headed to....either all in or a split totally of membership organizations. It's a fight between $$ vs. inclusion. Similar to the NFL/AFL or NBA/ABA. I can see the Top75 (BcS) saying "see ya" but right now they need to play the non-BcS schools to keep from beating each other up and preserve their 7 home game schedules ($).

If/when they do break off (the top 60-75), they will probabbly create their own playoff system to make up fo that scheduling issue. Although some of those schools will always get 7 home games per year, such as Texas, Bama, LSU, etc, most would play 6 games at home and make up for it by sharing the dollars.

How this realtes to UNT is fairly simple. Most likely, we wouldn't be int hat group, unless some miracle occurs, but to be in a conference/classification that involved the next 50-60 would be somewhat acceptable, as long as it included being in a league with other local schools. I still believe that the support would be as good if not better than what we currently have if we were in a below the super-wealthy schools and got to play in a league made up of Western CUSA, Western SBC, and Eastern WAC schools.

cwb · December 11, 2009

If/when they do break off (the top 60-75), they will probabbly create their own playoff system to make up fo that scheduling issue. Although some of those schools will always get 7 home games per year, such as Texas, Bama, LSU, etc, most would play 6 games at home and make up for it by sharing the dollars.
How this realtes to UNT is fairly simple. Most likely, we wouldn't be int hat group, unless some miracle occurs, but to be in a conference/classification that involved the next 50-60 would be somewhat acceptable, as long as it included being in a league with other local schools. and I still believe that the support would be as good if not better than what we currently have if we were in a below the super-wealthy schoolsgot to play in a league made up of Western CUSA, Western SBC, and Eastern WAC schools.

Like the Southland Conference?

forevereagle · December 11, 2009

That's why I suggested a play-in of some kind. For example, teams ranked 1-14 are automatically in, but another 8 teams vie for spots 15-16. So only those 8 teams play the extra games, something they'd be glad to do for the chance. And it hopefully would open the door to all 1-A conference champions getting a chance.
But pretty much any way you do a playoff would require a shortened regular season, probably 10 games.

So 8 teams kick the crap out of each other playing for 2 spots, then have to continue to play if they win? Why would you want to do that? It is pretty much a guaranteed loss since you just played at least 2 extra games to get the worst draw in the bracket. I am not sure that formula would work. And I don't see how it really opens the door since it doesn't really give you a fair chance at winning. Besides, a playoff to get into the playoffs is a bit ridiculous.

Mean Green 93-98 · December 11, 2009

So 8 teams kick the crap out of each other playing for 2 spots, then have to continue to play if they win? Why would you want to do that? It is pretty much a guaranteed loss since you just played at least 2 extra games to get the worst draw in the bracket. I am not sure that formula would work. And I don't see how it really opens the door since it doesn't really give you a fair chance at winning. Besides, a playoff to get into the playoffs is a bit ridiculous.

There is a play-in game in the NCAA basketball tournament, and I don't recall any team turning down an opportunity to play in it. The better teams get a couple of byes, the teams on the outside get a chance they wouldn't otherwise have.

It wouldn't be "at least 2 extra games," it would be 2 extra games. The SEC has played an extra game or two more than the Big 10 every year for the right to beat Ohio State--I don't think it's hurt the SEC too much. But if 2 extra games are too many, you could make it 8 teams playing for the bottom 4 spots. Or 10 teams playing for the bottom 5. I just don't think 16 teams is enough where the powers that be are realistically going to agree to giving every 1-A conference champion a shot.

But then again, until several undefeated BCS AQ teams gets shut out of the BCS championship game, the powers that be are not going to agree to bringing in a playoff, so it's probably a moot point for a while.

forevereagle · December 11, 2009

There is a play-in game in the NCAA basketball tournament, and I don't recall any team turning down an opportunity to play in it. The better teams get a couple of byes, the teams on the outside get a chance they wouldn't otherwise have.

Basketball and Football are different sports, and that is one game. They wouldn't really be getting that good a shot. They play their extra games and get beat up while the other team rests and prepares for them and gets 2 weeks to do it. Then, you are playing the best or second best team in the tournament. Doesn't seem like you are getting a very good chance.

It wouldn't be "at least 2 extra games," it would be 2 extra games. The SEC has played an extra game or two more than the Big 10 every year for the right to beat Ohio State--I don't think it's hurt the SEC too much. But if 2 extra games are too many, you could make it 8 teams playing for the bottom 4 spots. Or 10 teams playing for the bottom 5. I just don't think 16 teams is enough where the powers that be are realistically going to agree to giving every 1-A conference champion a shot.

Ok, does having it be 2 or 3 games really matter? The SEC plays one extra game over a month before the bowl game. Doesn't seem to equate. 16 teams should be plenty. Want a guaranteed chance to win it all? Win your conference. That is a pretty simple equation. If you aren't the best team in your conference, then you may not get your shot. How is that different from today? Only 2 teams get a shot now.

But then again, until several undefeated BCS AQ teams gets shut out of the BCS championship game, the powers that be are not going to agree to bringing in a playoff, so it's probably a moot point for a while.

USC, Auburn, and Cincinnati all were shut out of the NC game and were undefeated. That looks like several to me. On top of that, Utah (x2), Boise (x2), Hawaii, and TCU have been shut out with undefeated with undefeated seasons. The argument is pretty simple, but no one wants to listen.

Mean Green 93-98 · December 12, 2009

Basketball and Football are different sports, and that is one game. They wouldn't really be getting that good a shot. They play their extra games and get beat up while the other team rests and prepares for them and gets 2 weeks to do it. Then, you are playing the best or second best team in the tournament. Doesn't seem like you are getting a very good chance.

Again, try to find a team that would turn down the opportunity. Teams have won the Super Bowl although they have played an extra wild card game. Are you going to tell me the Cowboys would turn down a wild card spot, because they would have to play an extra game and then face the best team in the conference? I don't think so.

Ok, does having it be 2 or 3 games really matter?

You're talking out of both side of your mouth. You say that playing 1 or 2 extra games gives you no chance, and then you say that the difference between 2 and 3 or 4 doesn't matter? You can't have it both ways.

The SEC plays one extra game over a month before the bowl game. Doesn't seem to equate.

For a few years, Big 10 teams were still playing 11 game schedules while everyone else was playing 12 game schedules plus a conference championship. I'll give you that it is around a month before BCS bowl time, but it's still an extra game or two.

16 teams should be plenty. Want a guaranteed chance to win it all? Win your conference.

Again, the point I'm making is the Big 10, SEC commishes won't let it happen in that small a bracket. You say it like we're going to tell them what to do, and they'll like it. There is no way the SEC commish sits idly by while an 8-4 Sun Belt team gets into the playoffs while a 9-3 SEC team gets left out.

USC, Auburn, and Cincinnati all were shut out of the NC game and were undefeated. That looks like several to me.

Yes, USC and Auburn, but that's been several years. You're right, Cincy is technically a BCS AQ, but they aren't really one of the "big boys." I had in mind the teams with clout--Michigan, Florida, Notre Dame, etc. That's why it doesn't matter if Utah, TCU, Boise, etc. get left out--they have no clout.

The argument is pretty simple, but no one wants to listen.

It's pretty obvious why, don't you think? The current arrangement favors the big boys, and they're not going to listen until that's no longer the case, or until the protests become too strong.

UNTflyer · December 12, 2009

The UNTFlyer playoff plan would have resulted in these match ups:

Troy at Alabama

Georgia Tech at Ohio State

Penn State at TCU

LSU at Florida

East Carolina at Texas

Iowa at Oregon

Central Michigan at Cincinnati

Virginia Tech at Boise State

KingDL1 · December 12, 2009

The UNTFlyer playoff plan would have resulted in these match ups:
Troy at Alabama
Georgia Tech at Ohio State
Penn State at TCU
LSU at Florida
East Carolina at Texas
Iowa at Oregon
Central Michigan at Cincinnati
Virginia Tech at Boise State

I wonder what half the proceeds would be of a Troy & Alabama playoff game after TV and sponsors?

UNTflyer · December 12, 2009

I wonder what half the proceeds would be of a Troy & Alabama playoff game after TV and sponsors?

Attendance for the Alabama-UNT game was 92,012. That's the exact same attendance for the Alabama-LSU game.

I would imagine a playoff game, even against Troy, would be a sell out.

KingDL1 · December 12, 2009

Attendance for the Alabama-UNT game was 92,012. That's the exact same attendance for the Alabama-LSU game.
I would imagine a playoff game, even against Troy, would be a sell out.

I am thinking that could be a 30+ million dollar deal with Troy walking away with 15 million, I don't know how that would split out with our conference would be or if it would at all. But considering Bowls would still exist even more money could be made.

Bama Stadium Expansion Approved

They are expanding this stadium to 101,000, if the average playoff seat was $250 for a total of $25,250,000.00 plus sponsors and TV who knows but 30+ million seems safe.