forums

Man I would love this

Advertisement
I mean, essentially, this is just another round of the playoffs. I’m not saying I hate it, but what he’s suggesting is a round of play-in games.
 
I'd like something "like" this. My only gripe is the ACC's 2 championship teams don't get automatic spots like every other P4 conference game due to the **** Dukies getting into the game. Does he plan on that situation every year? If he doesn't, his 5 game play-ins would leave you with 13 "playoff" teams.

Go to a 16 team playoff. Make every conference agree to have their first tiebreaker be H2H and 2nd tiebreaker be ranking to avoid this Duke bs from ever happening again. I'd say no more championship games. Each P4 conference gets 2 auto bids. The playoff actually begins with "championship" week play-in games like he said with the 7 highest ranked teams get into the play-in games plus best G5 conference winner. After that week, there will be 12 teams remaining in the playoff and follow the current format after reseeding.
 
The way he describes it isn’t a play in game, he’s just describing a first round of a playoff bracket where not all losers are eliminated. Everyone would just be arguing about who the best looser was. The goal of a playoff isn’t to see who all is good enough to make a playoff, the goal is to see who is good enough to be a national champion (one team that is the best). If you loose a conference championship game you obviously aren’t playing better than anyone at the end of the season and you should be out. Simple fix, top 16 no first round byes. Conference champions determined without a game like they used to when there were 8-10 teams in the conferences. If there’s a tie so be it, co-champions because it doesn’t matter for playoff anyways. Conference champions don’t get an auto bid at all. Just top 16 and that’s it.
 
Advertisement
canes_aaron said:
Exactly. We need play in games. Not add more teams to the playoff.
Click to expand...
Play-ins don’t really work in a non series sport. It just operates like an additional layer of the bracket. Also the system as Gruden describes it doesn’t work well, it protects the loser of the Big 12 championship, but the third place in the SEC plays in the play-in. It was also already stated that conference championship with large conferences is a joke. It is just a really sloppy way of expanding the playoff. If you want to”play-ins”, just remove the conference championship and make it a flat 16 team bracket.
 
Highline17 said:
Play-in doesn’t work in non series sports. It works in basketball because it is normally a 7 game series, but the play-in is only 1.
Click to expand...
Why doesn't the play-in work here? Football is the only non-series sport. One game in football = a series in other sports. It is an extension of the playoff in essence. So what?
 
Advertisement
CaneinBroward said:
Why doesn't the play-in work here? Football is the only non-series sport. One game in football = a series in other sports. It is an extension of the playoff in essence. So what?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t operate as play in traditionally does. It just operates as a full expansion of the playoff, just make it a regular 16 team format.
 
Mikeiavelli said:
So we would have to play ND again just to get in? Not that I am afraid of them, but what was the point of beating them the first time then? We already own the head to head.
Click to expand...
You're right. Unfortunately, there are 5 other 10-2 P4 teams that will also claim they should be in the playoff. With play-in games, they could at least suss that out on the field instead of begging and pleading with 12 committee members.
 
The truth of the matter is the FBS is too large to begin with. 134ish teams vying for 12 spots doesn't make sense to me. I understand the exclusivity that it represents, but there's too large of a gap (talent, resources, etc.) between the upper echelon and the Kent States of the world (Kent grad, I'm allowed) to make this sustainable.

I would be in favor of shrinking the FBS pool; shrinking the conferences; and allowing for a more competitive, less watered down field. I'll let smarter people discuss the criteria for inclusion (not a dirty word), but I believe a major problem is the size and scope of the FBS. Just my opinion.
 
Back
Top