If there are two undefeated teams, then I would say that the system worked if a one loss SEC team was not in.
A four team playoff is ok, and even preferred, but I do not want to expand it beyond that personally.
NCAA Football 2012-13 season
- Thread starter hancox
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 207K
- Status
If there are two undefeated teams, then I would say that the system worked if a one loss SEC team was not in.
A four team playoff is ok, and even preferred, but I do not want to expand it beyond that personally.
That would take forever. Teams play on back to back days sometimes and usually no more than a day or two between games in march madness. You can only play once a week in football. I wouldn't go past 4 or maybe 8 teams either. Plus if you put the top 32 or 64 teams in the regular season would be meaningless.
Sent from my Kindle Fire HD using tapatalk 2
The ratings would be horrible until the final rounds. Nobody would care (beyond fans of the teams playing) to watch north Texas vs USM (example) in round one. It would be much like the lower tier bowls that have half empty stands. Plus it would take forever to play and as was mentioned, would make the regular season as meaningless as college basketball is today.
I would like to see 8 teams in with the potential of 12 .... but NO MORE than that.
Perfect. This is how I see it as well. More is just more but not necessarily better.....
I like the 8 team playoff scenario too.
Although I think the BCS system is working this year, can you imagine the chaos if Oregon, Kansas St., and Notre Dame all somehow manage to drop one before the season is over? Not likely, but you never know.
Although I think the BCS system is working this year, can you imagine the chaos if Oregon, Kansas St., and Notre Dame all somehow manage to drop one before the season is over? Not likely, but you never know.
That's your opinion.My opinion differs.Conference championships and regular season would still be very meaningful.To get byes higher seeds etc.You also just validated what I'm saying,well sort of.(It would be much like the lower tier bowls that have half empty stands) If they are going to continue having these meaningless bowl games then why not change it to playoffs where it does mean something?Why is everyone so against 16-or 32 teams for playoffs?64 go to bowls now and it takes what 2 months to get them all in?So saying it would take forever wouldn't be true either.The first time there was an upset or two you mark my words ratings would go through the roof.Most folks love an underdog or a cinderella story,what better way to offer that chance than with a true playoff system.They way it is now it's pretty much a popularity contest.The little schools have next to no chance at all.It shouldn't be that way imo.
Unless 1 of the 2 manage to lose, I don't see people being happy with the BCS. Same thing if 2 or all 3 of them lose a game.Although I think the BCS system is working this year, can you imagine the chaos if Oregon, Kansas St., and Notre Dame all somehow manage to drop one before the season is over? Not likely, but you never know.
BCS is only problem-free if there are 2 (and only 2) undefeated teams.
Especially now when the computers are so different than what the polls are saying.
I don't see ratings as a problem either. The Basketball tournament is a perfect example. Only bad ratings are for the play-in games. Which is also why there should be no byes in a football tourney.
Having everyone play full rounds in a 16-team playoff keeps ratings up.
The fans of the top schools will watch the 1-16 seeded games, and fans will watch the action of the 8-7 seeded games. Probalby moreso than bother with the nobody bowls that perminate ESPN December schedule.
The auto-birth for conference champions also enhances the conference championship games as well.
I'm not worried about ratings but adding 5 games (or 6 if they went to 64) is basically half a season. It's just too much and in a physical sport like football there would be an increased chance of injury.
Sent from my Kindle Fire HD using tapatalk 2
LOL yet we have crap bowls with the very same records.
Fine 64 is too much but 24-32 certainly isn't.
And honestly which would be worse?Getting injured in the satelliteguys.com bowl or getting injured in a playoff game with a chance at a championship?Top teams get byes,eliminate the conference championship games if too many games are an issue.They use to play 11 games in a a regular season now with conference championships some teams play 14 total games.I really don't see how it could add that many games.It could be easily solved.
BCS is flawed and imo a sham.Playoffs baby...playoffs!
There is no way the conferences (that have them ) will give up a championship game between two highly ranked teams (in the instance of the top conferences ) to replace it with a game between Bama and southern Oregon.
Too many reasons that a large playoff won't be palatable. A small one could, and would work. A large one works for basketball. It will not for a much shorter season such as football (with as many teams in play as is in college ).
Too many reasons that a large playoff won't be palatable. A small one could, and would work. A large one works for basketball. It will not for a much shorter season such as football (with as many teams in play as is in college ).
That is true.LOL yet we have crap bowls with the very same records.
Fine 64 is too much but 24-32 certainly isn't.
that's brings up the other point of too many bowl games IMO. You have a losing record why should you be going to a bowl game as if you accomplished something? you guys are way more into this than I am and know more about it,but thats one of the things I don't like about college football.
See there you go with the rankings again.
Poop on rankings,playoffs and may the best team win! As for conference championships if the NCAA says they are no longer needed then they would be eliminated.This crap BCS bowl stuff has got to stop at some point.As I said its pretty much a popularity contest.
I agree that there are too many bowl games. Admitting that fact in no way concedes that a large field playoff would work or is better.
With the bowls, even if tons of teams get in, the season means something. You don't win the championship be getting to Birmingham.
With a large field playoff, it most certainly diminishes the importance of the regular season somewhat. You won't see even the few big game matchup a we have now. Why would they be scheduled ? Why risk the loss ?
Both should be cut down IMO.
With the bowls, even if tons of teams get in, the season means something. You don't win the championship be getting to Birmingham.
With a large field playoff, it most certainly diminishes the importance of the regular season somewhat. You won't see even the few big game matchup a we have now. Why would they be scheduled ? Why risk the loss ?
Both should be cut down IMO.
- Status
