|
Title: BCS Playoff? Post by: bsmooth on June 20, 2012, 08:02:10 pm http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577478672871762802.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories
Is this enough to answer the questions if it becomes reality or will there need to be a bigger pool? Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: Landshark on June 20, 2012, 08:03:57 pm I think there should be a bigger pool. Eight to ten teams, not four.
Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: el diablo on June 20, 2012, 08:45:47 pm I think there should be a bigger pool. Eight to ten teams, not four. I agree with you. I believe that the 8 major conference champions with 2 "wild card" teams. The top 2 would get a 1st rd bye. With over 100 teams in the top division, that's a fair way to do it. You want a guaranteed way in, win your conference. Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: Spider-Dan on June 21, 2012, 10:11:34 am I think 8 teams is plenty. If you can't finish in the top 8, you really have no legitimate claim to a title shot anyway; you definitely have at least one loss and if you're from a major conference, you probably have at least two losses.
Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: Phishfan on June 21, 2012, 10:13:43 am I agree with you. I believe that the 8 major conference champions with 2 "wild card" teams. The top 2 would get a 1st rd bye. With over 100 teams in the top division, that's a fair way to do it. You want a guaranteed way in, win your conference. Seriously? What are the 8 major conferences you speak of? Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: MyGodWearsAHoodie on June 22, 2012, 01:02:30 pm I think 8 teams is plenty. If you can't finish in the top 8, you really have no legitimate claim to a title shot anyway; you definitely have at least one loss and if you're from a major conference, you probably have at least two losses. I agree. But even think 4 is enough. When was the last time more than 3 teams had a legitimate claim they should be considered the #1 team. We don't need to oversolve the problem. Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: Brian Fein on June 22, 2012, 01:20:17 pm You give 2 teams a bye and play 4 games, then 4 winner + 2 byes make 6 teams in the second round. You going to give them a second round bye too?
It has to be a power of 2: meaning 2, 4, 8, or 16. You can do 6 with 2 first round byes, or 12 with 4 byes. I don't see how 10 works at all, unless you have 2 play-in games to get down to 8 before the playoffs start.. Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: suck for luck on June 22, 2012, 01:29:51 pm I want 8 teams eventually but I'm not going to whine about a first step of 4 teams. After all the years of BS the fact that this happening at all is amazing and beyond awesome.
Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: Phishfan on June 22, 2012, 01:45:36 pm It has to be a power of 2: meaning 2, 4, 8, or 16. You can do 6 with 2 first round byes, or 12 with 4 byes. I don't see how 10 works at all, unless you have 2 play-in games to get down to 8 before the playoffs start.. We always said it has to be a power of 4 (excluding the championship level) because 6, 10, etc. are powers of two. Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: Brian Fein on June 22, 2012, 01:48:47 pm We always said it has to be a power of 4 (excluding the championship level) because 6, 10, etc. are powers of two. no, they're not...2^2 = 4 2^3 = 8 2^4 = 16 6 and 10 are divisible by 2, but not powers of 2. but to your point, powers of 4 would also work, except you'd miss 8, 32, 128, etc Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: Phishfan on June 22, 2012, 02:05:14 pm You are right. I got myself confused for a minute. I am reading power but thinking multiple.
Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: Landshark on June 22, 2012, 11:49:59 pm You give 2 teams a bye and play 4 games, then 4 winner + 2 byes make 6 teams in the second round. You going to give them a second round bye too? It has to be a power of 2: meaning 2, 4, 8, or 16. You can do 6 with 2 first round byes, or 12 with 4 byes. I don't see how 10 works at all, unless you have 2 play-in games to get down to 8 before the playoffs start.. Exactly. Use the BCS formula to determine the top ten, and have two "play in" games to get down to 8. Then go from there. Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: Spider-Dan on June 23, 2012, 12:02:15 am I agree. But even think 4 is enough. When was the last time more than 3 teams had a legitimate claim they should be considered the #1 team. In 2009-10, Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, Boise State, and TCU were all undefeated when the title game was set.In 2008-09, UF (12-1) and OU (12-1) played for the title, while USC (11-1) and Utah (11-0) sat on the sidelines. In 2004-05, USC, OU, Auburn, and Utah were all undefeated when the title game was set. etc. This is all completely ignoring the fact that if there are 2 undefeated teams from outside the SEC and an SEC champion with one loss, there are already screams from every corner of the republic that one loss in the SEC is really better than going undefeated in any other conference (which is why the 06-07 title game was 12-1 UF vs. 12-0 Ohio State, with 12-0 Boise State left out in the cold). So you can imagine the upcoming righteous fury when a 4-team playoff deigns to include only ONE team from the SEC! My heart is already aching just thinking about such a travesty. 8 teams is really the only way to overcome this kind of conference bias; it allows for 2 teams from the "superior" SEC, the conference champs from PAC-12/Big XIII/Big 10/ACC/Big East, and 1 more at large team (read: undefeated mid-majors, or Notre Dame with <3 losses). Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: el diablo on June 24, 2012, 11:37:18 am You give 2 teams a bye and play 4 games, then 4 winner + 2 byes make 6 teams in the second round. You going to give them a second round bye too? It has to be a power of 2: meaning 2, 4, 8, or 16. You can do 6 with 2 first round byes, or 12 with 4 byes. I don't see how 10 works at all, unless you have 2 play-in games to get down to 8 before the playoffs start.. You're right, I messed myself up there. I was trying to incorporate too many conference champions there. I still believe there should be at least 8 teams with an emphasis on conference champions. Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: Brian Fein on June 25, 2012, 09:23:51 am You're right, I messed myself up there. I was trying to incorporate too many conference champions there. I still believe there should be at least 8 teams with an emphasis on conference champions. Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: Landshark on June 27, 2012, 07:41:38 pm Looks like they are going to a four team playoff in two years. Hopefully this is the first step towards a bigger playoff system later
Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: MaineDolFan on June 27, 2012, 08:24:31 pm Glad to see the BCS got on board with this. Ignoring the demand for a playoff system year after year would be missing the boat completely.
I'm a little bummed it doesn't start until 2014. Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: el diablo on June 28, 2012, 05:48:14 pm Looks like they are going to a four team playoff in two years. Hopefully this is the first step towards a bigger playoff system later Yep. That should coincide with my 50th birthday. Why is there a 14 yr trial with this format? Title: Re: BCS Playoff? Post by: BigDaddyFin on July 04, 2012, 01:30:43 am ^^^^ who knows but I'm pretty sure everything that goes on in college football as far as scheduling and the bowls and whatnot are planned years in advance.
|