Online Now 743

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

On this Board 504
Record: 4947 (7/23/2012)

Online now 826
Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell and swap tickets

Reply

SIAP: Playoff system...

  • Lead story on ESPN.com states CFB powers are close to approving 4 team playoff starting in 2014. Semis and NC games to be hosted either by current BCS bowl sites or they will go up for open bidding. They do not want college sites for semis due to some stadium and accommodation restrictions. In this format, BCS games will still be played but closer to NY Day. Most are in favor of 'taking back' NY Day w traditional bowls and setting aside the 'Final Four' for the spotlight.

    Thoughts?

    signature image signature image signature image

    tdiddy

  • tdiddy said...

    Lead story on ESPN.com states CFB powers are close to approving 4 team playoff starting in 2014. Semis and NC games to be hosted either by current BCS bowl sites or they will go up for open bidding. They do not want college sites for semis due to some stadium and accommodation restrictions. In this format, BCS games will still be played but closer to NY Day. Most are in favor of 'taking back' NY Day w traditional bowls and setting aside the 'Final Four' for the spotlight.

    Thoughts?

    You just made my day, tdiddy. Thanks.

    strez

  • it's a start. 8 or 16 would still be better.

    take 8 team:

    - No more than 2 from same conference
    - First round hosted by higher seed
    - Semi's hosted by BCS site on rotational basis (ie: semi at Orange Bowl, title at Sugar Bowl, next year, semi's at Fiesta, title at Orange, following year, semi's at Rose, title at Fiesta, etc)

    it's better, it's a step in the right direction at least.

    signature image signature image signature image

    white_out ●

  • The only part I don't like is that you can still get into the playoff without winning your conference championship.

    roughneck ●

  • Yeah it is a step in the right direction. I think 16 team is ideal though.

    16 team playoff would be 4 weeks, 15 total games. If it starts right after conference championships, it would go until mid January. Take the top 15 bowl games and keep the names and incorporate it into the playoff system.

    Could also have an "NIT" type tournament for the less fortunate teams going at the same time. Incorporate the remaning bowls into that tournament.

    signature image

    "People ask me why I stayed here so long, Look around, Look around, I stay here because I love you all" R.I.P. Joe - 12/21/1926-01/22/2012

    arch1102 ●

  • roughneck said...

    The only part I don't like is that you can still get into the playoff without winning your conference championship.

    But every major sport has some type of wildcard.

    I agree that it needs to be at least 8 teams and it would be cool to keep the classic bowl sites even though several have been torn down/relocated over the years

    frxank ●

  • frxank said...

    But every major sport has some type of wildcard.

    I agree that it needs to be at least 8 teams and it would be cool to keep the classic bowl sites even though several have been torn down/relocated over the years

    I think more than 4 teams is very unlikely. With 8 teams, the fans of the finalists would need to make 3 separate trips to watch their team play. Pretty difficult from a logistics standpoint.

    roughneck ●

  • For a variety of reasons I think 8 teams is the way to go, but anything is better than what's currently in place.

    gemrich ●

  • I think an 8 team playoff with the top 8 teams is what's needed. 4 isn't enough. Then again, even when/if the magic number is 8, some teams will still be left out and coaches/conferences/fans will still complain about the system being crooked. A playoff is definitely needed though and this is a good start.

    signature image

    PSUjosh11 ●

  • PSUjosh11 said...

    I think an 8 team playoff with the top 8 teams is what's needed. 4 isn't enough. Then again, even when/if the magic number is 8, some teams will still be left out and coaches/conferences/fans will still complain about the system being crooked. A playoff is definitely needed though and this is a good start.

    My feeling is that no one will ever care about the ninth team in the country complaining. They might complain, but no one will care. With 8 there's no chance of a complete screw job, 4 I think there is. I don't like 16 because I don't care to see 9-16 participate, the regular season truly would become far more irrelevant. It will never happen. It will be 4 for a while, maybe 8 sometime in the future.

    gemrich ●

  • I think expecting any more than 4 teams is setting yourself up for disappointment. 4 teams is a great start, and maybe 5-10 years down the road they'll bump it up to 8. The NCAA torney didn't start with 64 (or 68) teams. It evolved. Love that they're trying to take back NY Day with the big bowls. I'm annoyed every year by the title game that's 7 or 8 days after new years and the random Elmers Glue Bowl on Jan. 6 featuring Ohio U vs. Illinois St.

    beck881psu ●

  • white_out said...

    it's a start. 8 or 16 would still be better.

    take 8 team:

    - No more than 2 from same conference

    Don't think I could get on board with a hard cap on the # of teams from a given conference in an 8 team tourney. Doubt SEC fans/suits would either. It's happened before that 3 SEC teams have been in the top 8 BCS standings, and who knows, if all goes well in the B1G, it could conceivably happen with PSU, OSU, and Mich in the next 5 yrs or so. I know I wouldn't want PSU to be ranked 7 or 8 and shut out of the tourney because OSU and Mich are higher, just played each other in a tight game to end the season, and neither dropped past us in the final standings.

    beck881psu ●

  • Well it is a start. The current system is junk and can not go away soon enough.

    Personally, an 8 team playoff would be ideal. You can have 1 rep from each of the "major conferences" and 2 at large bids. I think they need a committee, similar to what is done for college basketball, to monitor the teams and select the teams. In my mind at least 1 round should be played on college campuses with some home field advantage factor. Not sure why there should be issues with that because these campuses host games all season long. I suspect the issue with having it on a college campus is the SEC is scared to come up North to play and lets face it they have a big voice.

    Either way, count me in as happy that the college football powers that be (i.e. Jim Delany) are waking up and realizing a playoff is what the fans want...not 2 teams from the same freaken conference replaying a game that wasn't all that great the first time around.

    PvillePA_Lion ●

  • roughneck said...

    I think more than 4 teams is very unlikely. With 8 teams, the fans of the finalists would need to make 3 separate trips to watch their team play. Pretty difficult from a logistics standpoint.

    Not an issue if Quarters and Semis are played at site of higher seeded team. However, the organizers' 'logic' is that certain areas don't possess the infrastructure to support such a scene on short notice. For instance, if Boise, Oregon, or TCU were to host Ohio State, Texas, or LSU...there would be nowhere near enough seats or lodging for the demands. IMO...that's life. The diehards will find a way, just like they do for the NFL playoffs every year.

    There are a lot of conflicts by jumping the pot from 4 to 8 teams though. How do you televise the quarterfinals when NFL playoffs are on Sat and Sun? How do you get 4 NFL stadium sites to juggle midweek games with potential playoff games? How many sites now become involved? 4 for quarters, 2 for semis, 1 for Champ game. That's a lot to manage. I think 4 is as good as it's going to get for a little while. Midweek semis on Wed/Thu night in primetime so no conflict w NFL.

    signature image signature image signature image

    tdiddy

  • white_out said...

    it's a start. 8 or 16 would still be better.

    take 8 team:

    - No more than 2 from same conference - First round hosted by higher seed - Semi's hosted by BCS site on rotational basis (ie: semi at Orange Bowl, title at Sugar Bowl, next year, semi's at Fiesta, title at Orange, following year, semi's at Rose, title at Fiesta, etc)

    it's better, it's a step in the right direction at least.

    Agree. I think it should be eight teams (not 16), but it's a start, like you said.

    BoulderFish

  • white_out said...

    it's a start. 8 or 16 would still be better.

    take 8 team:

    - No more than 2 from same conference - First round hosted by higher seed - Semi's hosted by BCS site on rotational basis (ie: semi at Orange Bowl, title at Sugar Bowl, next year, semi's at Fiesta, title at Orange, following year, semi's at Rose, title at Fiesta, etc)

    it's better, it's a step in the right direction at least.

    8 teams is good to me. Realistically....anyone ranked any lower probably has 2-3 losses at that point and shouldn't really be considered anyway. Top 8 would include all undefeated and I would assume most, if not all, 1 loss teams. Allows you to have 1 slip up.

    What you said sounds good to me.

    md154 ●

  • I personally like 8 teams. I really doesnt bother me that a team can make the playoffs that diddnt win their conference championship game. It's just like the wild card in the nfl.

    DjHart

  • I guess I'll have to be the dissenter. It just seems at the end of most seasons there are not 8 elite teams that deserve a shot. Those beyond the top 4 would primarily serve as spoilers IMO.

    roughneck ●

  • 4 teams, no more. Plus one has been the best option all along. I really dont even mind the BCS at all, but I did like this sort of option.

    8 would be ok. But definitely pushing it.

    16 would be ridiculous and hopefully never ever happen.

    This post was edited by MTayl72 on 4/25/2012 at 9:29 AM

    MTayl72 ●

  • 16 would allow for much more drama which would be cool to watch. Everyone loves the underdogs.

    It works fine for FCS, so i'm not sure why it would be so far-fetched.

    signature image

    "People ask me why I stayed here so long, Look around, Look around, I stay here because I love you all" R.I.P. Joe - 12/21/1926-01/22/2012

    arch1102 ●

  • arch1102 said...

    16 would allow for much more drama which would be cool to watch. Everyone loves the underdogs.

    It works fine for FCS, so i'm not sure why it would be so far-fetched.

    People forget about what runs major college football: money.

    You can either cut out regular season games, to have that extra 4 weeks of football, which kills revenue for the teams which won't happen. And then you cut out the extra practice time for all teams, which pisses off the coaches. Then there is the fact that if you keep 12 game seasons and add it to 16 you are playing a pro season with these guys.

    4 games is the best of both worlds. Keep the major bowls, have a small, elite playoff. Point is this isn't basketball, you cannot play 2 games in 3 days. D1AA, DII, and D3 teams play fewer home games to fit those types of post seasons in, and that WILL NOT be an option in D1 football, especially to the big major teams (PSU) and conferences (B1G).

    MTayl72 ●

  • MTayl72 said...

    4 teams, no more. Plus one has been the best option all along. I really dont even mind the BCS at all, but I did like this sort of option.

    8 would be ok. But definitely pushing it.

    16 would be ridiculous and hopefully never ever happen.

    exactly

    signature image

    'Just to make it clear, I'm not transferring, I like it here too damn much to leave.' Jordan Kerner

    ejb5212

  • 4 is good, maybe 8.

    NittnyLion14

  • I'm of the opinion that 8 is best, like most people. I do think 6 would work, though, where the top 2 seeds are given a bye in the first round.

    Would appreciate seeing 4, though. However, that just means teams like Boise are going to be consistently bumped down to 5th in the rankings instead of 3rd.

    signature image

    psubills62 ●

  • psubills62 said...

    I'm of the opinion that 8 is best, like most people. I do think 6 would work, though, where the top 2 seeds are given a bye in the first round.

    Would appreciate seeing 4, though. However, that just means teams like Boise are going to be consistently bumped down to 5th in the rankings instead of 3rd.

    Good unless they are undefeated they don't deserve to be in anyways.

    MTayl72 ●

Penn State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports