Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Don't Say I Wanted a Four-Team Playoff

[Bo Pelinis Gum]

You ever hear of practice?

Or do you think these teams will just show up and play on gameday?

Every level of college other than the FBS has playoffs. And every level gets by just fine. Fail to see how just because it’s the FBS, everything is different. Sure, bigger faster stronger athletes, but it’s all relative. If the lower levels can do it with success, zero reasons the highest level cant.

 

[cm husker]

Every level of college other than the FBS has playoffs. And every level gets by just fine. Fail to see how just because it’s the FBS, everything is different. Sure, bigger faster stronger athletes, but it’s all relative. If the lower levels can do it with success, zero reasons the highest level cant.

When do the other levels (a) start the season, and (b) finish their regular season, and (c) how many total regular season games does the average FCS play?

A playoff doesn't solve anything (still left with a relatively arbitrary selection system that doesn't even incorporate a league champion requirement), and the only way to do it like the other divisions would be to seriously change the overall schedule of the season.

I also believe that there are significant limits on time commitments at the FCS and lower level. Are we going to change that at the FBS level?

And "relative" doesn't work when talking about everyone being bigger, faster, stronger. In fact, it's the opposite. The collisions and general wear and tear is significantly higher at the FBS level.

 

[Full Husker]

I want to see a play-off that teams qualify for by winning their conference championship--that means only the SEC champion, all the other SEC teamsk, like all the other non-conference champions and all the independents can go to the Sun Bowl or Boise or some place else for their reward. If it is only four teams, we don't need polls, computers, coaches voting, just the conference champions from the Big, pac 12, sec, and big 12 or ACC (maybe with a play in game); it is goes to eight, East, CUSA, Mountain West or whatever it is in the future, and ACC or Big 12. regular season conference champs only. This validates the season and provides a real champion.

 

[cm husker]

They'll follow the same bowl practice schedule teams do now. A hard week or two before finals. A soft week, or no practice, during finals. Kids can go home for a few days around Christmas. Then back for the New Years' bowls/semifinals.

Not exactly re-inventing the wheel.

I'm not sure how you figure that when conference championships are in early December.

Schedules vary among schools, but based on last year, you are talking about a game on Dec 10 (a week after conference championships), maybe a week off (total) between December 11 and Christmas, and then back to full practice on Monday, Dec 26 in preps for the Sat Dec. 31 game. The championship team will have at least 15 full practices. by contrast, according to this link (http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=204848356), Nebraska had about 7 practices before it's bowl game.

That's a significant difference.

One other point... how is it fair to give a team the SIGNIFICANT advantage of a week 1 home game when we don't even like the way the BCS ranks teams today? Playoffs would need to be in neutral locations.

College basketball teams practice (and travel) far more than that during December.

Basketball is a bad analogy because (a) it's not as demanding as football, and (b) basketball players continually rank among the lowest performing student athletes.... do we want to emulate those results in football?

 

[Bo Pelinis Gum]

When do the other levels (a) start the season, and (b) finish their regular season, and (c) how many total regular season games does the average FCS play?

A playoff doesn't solve anything (still left with a relatively arbitrary selection system that doesn't even incorporate a league champion requirement), and the only way to do it like the other divisions would be to seriously change the overall schedule of the season.

I also believe that there are significant limits on time commitments at the FCS and lower level. Are we going to change that at the FBS level?

And "relative" doesn't work when talking about everyone being bigger, faster, stronger. In fact, it's the opposite. The collisions and general wear and tear is significantly higher at the FBS level.

a) Looking at an FCS team, university of Montana, their first game is Sept. 1st. Just like the Huskers.
b) Not really relevant, as long as the start of the season is around the same time (9/1 for example) and having the common one bye week, the ending of the regular season will be the same, maybe one weekend ahead or behind the other (comparing NE and UofM; NE finishes with Iowa on 11/23, UofM finishes with Montana State 11/17.)
c) North Dakota State went 14-1 last year as the champions of the FCS.

Same scenario, saying the same schedule NE has next year, and a 20 team playoff system like the FCS has, and assuming NE finishes the season un-defeated and wins the national championship. They would go 17-0. So with the same schedule, they’d play 2 more games, have a playoff of 20 teams and finish the season at the exact same time. Jan 7th.

As you mentioned, changing the scheduling up would bring that 16/17 game scenario down to maybe 14/15 games. We wouldn’t need as many non conference games. But let’s be real here, every team schedules 3 or 4 "cup cake" games at the start of the year. (This year for us, I actually see it a challenge from the get go.) Other levels its game on from week 1 till the end of the season.

I said relative, because it is relative. The FCS athlete profile is similar across the board. And the FBS is relative for the most part across the board in a playoff scenario, especially at the end of the playoffs. And you kind of contradict your self, the NFL season is pushing 20 games, yet every year, there’s a champion crowned via playoffs. And they are the biggest, the fastest and the strongest. The wear and tear is the same at all levels. If we were arguing wear and tear on an FCS team playing against an FBS team, yes Id agree, it’s significant.

Bottom line, for me at least, if every level from the NAIA up to the FCS... skip FBS... and the NFL, has playoffs that work. Why does the FBS have to be skipped over?

 

[bilsker]

See. I argued the playoff would automatically expand from 4 teams. Even before it starts, people are clamoring for more.

Not exactly a bold prediction. Everyone knows it will be more than 4 at some point.

 

[The Big Red Lebowski]

You mean play about 70% of the games in front of an empty stadium.

Not to mention the physical toll on the player during finals time.

What great fun.

4 teams play one extra game than they do now. 2 teams will play 2 extra games for a total of 16. I would agree that's about the absolute limit, but it's very doable. And 70% of the games in front of empty stadiums? You could have zero fans travel for the semis and finals, and the local college fans will at least sell half the seats.

Actual game attendance is largely irrelevant anyway. Even if there are tens of thousands of empty seats, it's small potatoes compared to the incremental TV revenue that will be generated. We are talking about a few million in gate revenue (at most) vs. hundreds of millions in TV dollars.

 

[bilsker]

8 is the perfect number. Host week 1 on campuses, week 2 at the bowl sites and bid out the championship. I really don't care how the teams get picked. I'm getting to watch 7 epic college matchups. Even if the selection process is flawed at the margin, there will be a worthy champion.

First two rounds at home sites....bid out the title game. The bowls can pound sand.

 

[cm husker]

First two rounds at home sites....bid out the title game. The bowls can pound sand.

Explain how you decide who gets the home field advantage.

Feel free to use last year to build an example.

 

[cm husker]

4 teams play one extra game than they do now. 2 teams will play 2 extra games for a total of 16. I would agree that's about the absolute limit, but it's very doable. And 70% of the games in front of empty stadiums? You could have zero fans travel for the semis and finals, and the local college fans will at least sell half the seats.

So it'd be like a soccer match... a bunch of mildly interested fans engaged. Wow.

Everyone keeps assuming that a team should be given home field. Why???

Actual game attendance is largely irrelevant anyway. Even if there are tens of thousands of empty seats, it's small potatoes compared to the incremental TV revenue that will be generated. We are talking about a few million in gate revenue (at most) vs. hundreds of millions in TV dollars.

Like I said... what great fun.

 

[Bo Pelinis Gum]

Explain how you decide who gets the home field advantage.

First two rounds at home sites....bid out the title game. The bowls can pound sand.

Feel free to use last year to build an example.

lets say 8 teams;

8 @ 1
7 @ 2
6 @ 3
5 @ 4

then lets assume the highest seeds won,

4@1
3@2

Then you have your championship game...

 

[bilsker]

Explain how you decide who gets the home field advantage.

Feel free to use last year to build an example.

The higher seeds. Pretty simple. In all likelihood a committee will do that. Same as basketball, baseball, volleyball...not sure how D1aa seeds but whatever.

The people who love the argument side of things will have plenty to argue about on message boards and talk radio...who got screwed by being left out, who got screwed with the seeding, etc. After all...some argue that the arguements are what make the current system so great.

 

[Cardinal]

When do the other levels (a) start the season, and (b) finish their regular season, and (c) how many total regular season games does the average FCS play?

I also believe that there are significant limits on time commitments at the FCS and lower level. Are we going to change that at the FBS level?

And "relative" doesn't work when talking about everyone being bigger, faster, stronger. In fact, it's the opposite. The collisions and general wear and tear is significantly higher at the FBS level.

North Dakota State won the FCS title in the 2011 season. They played 11 regular season games. Their first game was September 3. Their final regular season game was November 19. They played playoff games on Dec. 3, 10 and 17. They played the national championship game on January 7, 2012.

Their "little", "slow" players won 14 of their 15 games, including a win on the road against the Big Ten's Minnesota Golden Gophers' big, fast players, on whom they put 28 second quarter points to coast home with an easy victory. Their starting O-line had guards who went 6'3" 314 lbs, 6'3 1/2" 300 lbs, center was 6'2' 302 lbs, and tackles were 6'6" 309 lbs and 6'4" 294, just as an example of the size of the kids.

They beat South Dakota State on the road by 38-14, a program NU struggled to beat in Lincoln the year before 17-3 (a five loss ND St. team the year before beat that 2010 SD St. team 31-24 on the road, leading comfortably 31-14 late in the fourth before giving up a meaningless TD and FG).

But yeah, you are probably right. It is apples and oranges having those intramural-level ND State athletes practice in December, which is far different than having those D-1 FBS teams practice a little in December.


http://www.gobison.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=2400&SPID=695&SPSID=11850

 

[Porkchopexpress]

A 12-team playoff is an interesting number for me. The top 4 seeds get a first round bye and a second round home game, which should assuage those that fear that the top teams will have no reason to play their best the last game of a season (a CCG???) if they have a playoff berth cinched. With 12 you could have all BCS conference champs, plus two to four more from mid-majors (if they meet certain criteria, so we don't get 8-4 MAC champs, but we do get 11-0 MWC champs), then fill out the rest with 3-5 wild cards.

I like the 12-team model. It reduces the chance of a deserving team getting left out, but still gives the top teams insentive to take game 12 as seriously as game 1, by awarding first round byes to the top 4.

However, for a 12-team model to work, the first and second rounds would have to be played at an on-campus site. For some reason, on-campus games seem to be a big sticking point at this time.

I honestly can never see a FBS playoff going to 16 teams. I don't think the powers that be would want playoff games to compete head-to-head with each other for TV ratings. That's the biggest reason why the BCS spread all their bowl games out over the course of the week.

 

[cm husker]

My take:

This (or an 8 team) playoff really solves nothing because it's still essentially predicated on the BCS, which people claim is flawed.

The playoff is ALL about money and very little about the student athlete or "fairness" (as evidenced by the B12 and SEC wanting a chance at two pieces of the big pie).

I could support a playoff (but not enjoy it) if you actually addressed the real underlying problems, such as the disparity in the conferences, the fact that the currently proposed systems don't really "decide it on the field" and the too long football season.

Break up the existing conferences, drop the bottom 36 or so teams, form regional super conferences that only play in conference and then have the winner of each go to an 8 team playoff that's played at a neutral site. That's the only serious way to address what people claim are all sorts of fatal flaws in the existing system. Anything short of that is going to hurt CFB far more than it will help it.