..but for the sake of competition it should be cut to 8 and get these trash teams out of there.
Last edited:
I understand because of money it'll go to 16 playoff teams...
- Thread starter Xenomorph
- Start date
I would not put it that way, but, YES.
Satisfying all the factions will be the problem.
Just leave it at 12 with some tweaks to the seeding. Gives everyone to have the opportunity to have a team in there.
I’m telling you guys, the correct number is 24 and get rid of the bowl games.
within 2-4 years, the parity in college football evens out and it becomes enjoyable again.
There was a year in the 4 team era where 82 of the top 100 high school recruits went to 6 schools. That will widen out in a 12-16 team playoff era but would be perfect at 24.
At 24, just about every school has a legitimate path to make the playoff.
within 2-4 years, the parity in college football evens out and it becomes enjoyable again.
There was a year in the 4 team era where 82 of the top 100 high school recruits went to 6 schools. That will widen out in a 12-16 team playoff era but would be perfect at 24.
At 24, just about every school has a legitimate path to make the playoff.
I agree with this (or even 32 because I'm not a huge fan of byes)
The purpose of the playoffs (or the NCAA Tournament in baseball, basketball, etc.) is to be a spectacle for the fans, not merely to crown a national champion, and a 24-32 team football tournament gives every program in the country a legitimate hope of making it. Going into November, over half of the programs in the country would still be alive, and fans would be engaged all season.
There are some blowouts in March Madness, but it's still the greatest sporting event in America most years. It would be eclipsed by a 32 team football bracket. Call it December Delirium.
16 teams, no byes. Take the top ranked 16 teams regardless of conference championships ect. Average the AP, Coaches, and playoff committee polls for the top 16.
I’ve thought of how you could do 24.
Top five conference champions get byes.
Top three at large get byes.
if a sixth conference champion is among the top 24 teams, then they get a guaranteed home game. Other than that, everything is seeded as normal.
Two rounds on campus then go to the New Years 6 for quarters and semis. Rotating site for championship
Got to get back to the computer formulas. NET has been excellent for basketball. Not enough games for that formula to work for football but I’d start there.
Top five conference champions get byes.
Top three at large get byes.
if a sixth conference champion is among the top 24 teams, then they get a guaranteed home game. Other than that, everything is seeded as normal.
Two rounds on campus then go to the New Years 6 for quarters and semis. Rotating site for championship
Got to get back to the computer formulas. NET has been excellent for basketball. Not enough games for that formula to work for football but I’d start there.
No special seeding rules. Guarantee each conference champion 1 bid, and the rest at large. Then just seed them wherever they are. If you want a home game, finish in the top 16. Any time you start monkeying around with the seeds, giving some teams better seeds than they really are and others worse, you get weird situations where teams are punished for being better. Case in point, #1 Oregon gets a harder path to the final 4 than #4 (artificially lowered to #6) Penn State.
I agree with using computer polls to eliminate the subjectivity, but we as a society have to be willing to accept that they may produce surprising results that don't line up with the polls or whatever a committee would choose.
That’s fine I don’t really care, don’t use it, and/.or use something else. The point was to not use just one single poll, but rather average at least two or more different polls or rankings to come up with the top 16.
For example, this is the top 32 (well, 29 with 3 autobids outside the top 32) of Massey's "computer consensus," from after the CCGs but before any bowls. It averages like 85 computer rankings. Are we OK with these seedings? I can understand why people would prefer the committee, although I also like the objective formula-based ratings. I would absolutely put in a rule that any poll included in the average would have to be public and auditable, or else how could we ever know if a mistake (or rigging) was made?
Maybe you do like the other tournaments and have 4 1-seeds, 4 2-seeds, etc. and then you could keep teams closer to home and/or avoid rematches.
Yall act like upsets can never happen. I guarantee you you’ll see big upsets in the coming years and if a lot of early games are blow outs who cares? They still get ratings so the networks are happy. It’s more meaningful football games so most of the fans are happy. If it bothers you so much just don’t watch it.
It's a sample size of one season. 16 is the right number. I haven't looked at the 24 proposal, but I wouldn't complain about that either because it'd increase our chances of making it and would have more "meaningful" games. and the games during the season would still be meaningful because of seeding/home field advantage
Get unlimited access today.