Interesting playoff idea

Pantone4515

Pantone4515

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
1,384
I know nothing about Australian rules football, but Dr. Saturday just posted this playoff idea based on its current playoff system.

Very interesting, and I think I like it. Read the article, but basically it's an 8-team playoff where the top 4 seeds are double-elimination, and until the later rounds, the higher seed hosts the game, so there's incentive to get into the top 8, to get into the top 6 to host a game, and a ton to get into the top 4 for a chance to lose a game but still win it all. And it basically eliminates an Arizona Cardinals-type run because they'd have to really prove themselves by winning a bunch of road games.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...-Plan-Australian-Rules-blood?urn=ncaaf,135859
 
I like that idea a lot, though I think you'd have to go to 16 teams to make the think palatable for the NCAA. You'd have to have all conference champions, plus a couple of at large bids, but the idea of rewarding the very top teams with home games and a double elimination option sounds good. Would be an incentive to schedule the tougher OOC games, and not just focus on winning your conference, especially if you're USC or a weaker conference big dog team.
 
MatatoGT said:
I like that idea a lot, though I think you'd have to go to 16 teams to make the think palatable for the NCAA. You'd have to have all conference champions, plus a couple of at large bids, but the idea of rewarding the very top teams with home games and a double elimination option sounds good. Would be an incentive to schedule the tougher OOC games, and not just focus on winning your conference, especially if you're USC or a weaker conference big dog team.
Click to expand...
Going to 16 teams here would make the playoffs around 2 months in length.

It's an interesting idea, but I think a plus 1 format would be just as productive. It really doesn't matter what format, if any, is ever chosen. There's always going to be a flaw, and there's always going to be someone whining.
 
I like this one, and I think it would work. Of course there would be some controversy. The BBall tourney lets in 65 teams and there always someone who feel left out.

The problem with the +1 system is deciding who is deserving to play in the final game. Take this year; who plays Florida? A strong argument could be made for USC, Utah, and Texas. It would be the same as the BCS, just with double the arguments.
 
RamblinWreck09 said:
I like this one, and I think it would work. Of course there would be some controversy. The BBall tourney lets in 65 teams and there always someone who feel left out.

The problem with the +1 system is deciding who is deserving to play in the final game. Take this year; who plays Florida? A strong argument could be made for USC, Utah, and Texas. It would be the same as the BCS, just with double the arguments.
Click to expand...
That's a wrong assumption with the plus one, at least the way I understand it. Florida would have played USC or Texas and OK would have had the other or perhaps Utah. I thought the purpose of the plus one was to pit a 1-4 winner against a 2-3 winner. The season was a bad example of how fundamentally broken the whole BCS system is though.
 
Allen Koholic said:
That's a wrong assumption with the plus one, at least the way I understand it. Florida would have played USC or Texas and OK would have had the other or perhaps Utah. I thought the purpose of the plus one was to pit a 1-4 winner against a 2-3 winner. The season was a bad example of how fundamentally broken the whole BCS system is though.
Click to expand...

The way I understood it, the plus-1 was just that: ONE extra game between the two best teams after bowls had been played. In that case, RamblinWreck would be right, you would have just as much controversy over who plays in the plus one game as who plays in the BCS title game.
 
GTSaxophone said:
The way I understood it, the plus-1 was just that: ONE extra game between the two best teams after bowls had been played. In that case, RamblinWreck would be right, you would have just as much controversy over who plays in the plus one game as who plays in the BCS title game.
Click to expand...

Certainly we'll have controversy no matter what; but some start on a playoff system would be good, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Another idea would be to promote two conferences to the "BCS" level, say the Mountain West and Conference USA. Those 8 (ACC, SEC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, Mountain West, and Conference USA) would all expand to 12 teams, or 96 teams total. The remaining 23 D1A teams (the ones who perenially lose 8+ games) will go down to D1AA where they'll be more competitive. Then, the winner of each conference will be put into a playoff to decide the NC. 20 bowl games could be kept for the teams who don't win their conference.

I know it might end all awesome non-conference matchups, but it would require a team to win games to be named NC. With this system, it would be absolutley imposible to go undefeated without a National Title.
 
Interesting plan but it would take too long after a 12 game season and conference championship games. If anything we should hope for a plus 1 as a way to start getting to a real champion, or just go back to the old bowl lineup and not worry about it. Let the polls decide like they used to.
 
8 Team playoff would only take 3 weeks. You could start it at the beginning of bowl season and have a champion the same time you would with the current system.
 
I don't like the australian rules football at all. If you lose you should be out, you don't get a second chance in playoffs! I don't see anything wrong with the run the Cardinals had.
 
RamblinWreck09 said:
8 Team playoff would only take 3 weeks. You could start it at the beginning of bowl season and have a champion the same time you would with the current system.
Click to expand...
The the teams in the championship game would play 16 games? I'm not seeing it.
 
Allen Koholic said:
That's a wrong assumption with the plus one, at least the way I understand it. Florida would have played USC or Texas and OK would have had the other or perhaps Utah. I thought the purpose of the plus one was to pit a 1-4 winner against a 2-3 winner. The season was a bad example of how fundamentally broken the whole BCS system is though.
Click to expand...


No, no, no. That would be a four team playoff and the BCS couldn't consider calling anything a playoff.:rolleyes:

The matchups in the bowls would go back to the old system. Of course, if such seeded matchups could happen that would be great. But, in theory, #5 might have an outstanding victory over #1 and be voted into one of the top two slots for the +1 game.

But yes,

There might still be some controversy <> We would have the same controversy as today

as some seem to be contending.

The +1 format would most help teams like Utah that need a chance to prove themselves against top competition to be respected as a contender.
 
lonestarjacket said:
No, no, no. That would be a four team playoff and the BCS couldn't consider calling anything a playoff.:rolleyes:

The matchups in the bowls would go back to the old system. Of course, if such seeded matchups could happen that would be great. But, in theory, #5 might have an outstanding victory over #1 and be voted into one of the top two slots for the +1 game.

But yes,

There might still be some controversy <> We would have the same controversy as today

as some seem to be contending.

The +1 format would most help teams like Utah that need a chance to prove themselves against top competition to be respected as a contender.
Click to expand...
I actually prefer this to all other proposals, as I'd rather we go back to the traditional bowl structures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top