Alabama vs. Boise State or Utah

floridajacket said:
Even in playoff systems, teams get jobbed out of spots or unfair things happen. It happens all the time either with March Madness committees or bizarre NFL tiebreakers.

If Oklahoma goes to Kansas City in a threeway tie, I'm guessing it's due to playing better opponents from the Big 12 North. Just like the NFL, sometimes those kind of tiebreakers are needed, even though it's no fault of Texas or TT who they drew from the other side of the conference. Oklahoma still played the better schedule.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the teams that get "jobbed out" in other tournament situations such as March Madness are teams that are "unlikely" to win the national championship anyway. Therefore, you don't have a huge ruckus. This is unlike college football where you leave undefeated teams without a chance to compete for the national title (Auburn in 2004 was undefeated AND from the SEC, but not allowed to play for the National Title). People don't have much of a case in March Madness complaining about their "2 win above .500 team" not making it to the tourney.
 
I'm fully in support of a playoff system, but you guys are missing one key thing: it will be the death of the BCS bowls. You can't do the playoff games at a neutral site because far less people will fly in and help the city economy or whatnot. It costs close to $1000(maybe more) to go to a BCS bowl, which is okay one time a year, but certainly not three weekends in a row(for teams going to the national title game). You just won't get the mass influx of people from each team like you do for current BCS bowls. All the other playoff systems have the games at the higher seed's home site until the championship game, and that's probably the way it would need to be for D1A as well.
 
gth816f said:
I'm fully in support of a playoff system, but you guys are missing one key thing: it will be the death of the BCS bowls. You can't do the playoff games at a neutral site because far less people will fly in and help the city economy or whatnot. It costs close to $1000(maybe more) to go to a BCS bowl, which is okay one time a year, but certainly not three weekends in a row(for teams going to the national title game). You just won't get the mass influx of people from each team like you do for current BCS bowls. All the other playoff systems have the games at the higher seed's home site until the championship game, and that's probably the way it would need to be for D1A as well.
Click to expand...

Good points, but I dont think it affects the NCAA tournament attendance having it 3 weekends in a row.
I'm certain the first round games and the Championship game will sell out every time. You may be onto something for the semifinals though. Its a problem I'm willing to live with though.
 
cajunjacket said:
Yes, but the teams that get "jobbed out" in other tournament situations such as March Madness are teams that are "unlikely" to win the national championship anyway. Therefore, you don't have a huge ruckus. This is unlike college football where you leave undefeated teams without a chance to compete for the national title (Auburn in 2004 was undefeated AND from the SEC, but not allowed to play for the National Title). People don't have much of a case in March Madness complaining about their "2 win above .500 team" not making it to the tourney.
Click to expand...

If the system I proposed was in place, in 2004 all three teams would have been in the playoffs as conference champions. You would an occasional Texas/TT/OU conundrum, but they would be exceedingly rare.

A better example would be OSU/Michigan in 2006, where OSU was the conference champion due to play on the field. Michigan certainly had a case that year to be in the playoffs over the mighty ACC champion Wake Forest, but they would have lost their chance playing Michigan. It's not "fair," but it decides champions almost always by play on the field and not any BCS or "at-large" politics.
 
gth816f said:
I'm fully in support of a playoff system, but you guys are missing one key thing: it will be the death of the BCS bowls. You can't do the playoff games at a neutral site because far less people will fly in and help the city economy or whatnot. It costs close to $1000(maybe more) to go to a BCS bowl, which is okay one time a year, but certainly not three weekends in a row(for teams going to the national title game). You just won't get the mass influx of people from each team like you do for current BCS bowls. All the other playoff systems have the games at the higher seed's home site until the championship game, and that's probably the way it would need to be for D1A as well.
Click to expand...

I agree, the playoff games shouldn't be at a neutral site. It works for March Madness because of sheer number of venues. For the first weekend, most of them are home games for the highest seed.
 
3 rounds (8 teams) - Top 4 seeds host a 1st round game, top team remaining on each side hosts 2nd round, and the title game is in a warm weather city (LA, SD, Miami, Tempe) or dome (New Orleans, San Antonio, Houston).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top