NCAA College football playoff scenario

[boonedoggle]

This is kicked around every year, but we seem to be inching closer each year. I kinda like it. Love the seeding idea:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?s...yhoo&type=lgns

[jdbwolverines]

Just got done reading it and was about to post the link too. Good article, and I don't even agree with with Wetzel a lot of the time. While I think a bit more tweaking would need to go into it, I would prefer that setup than over any BCS crap we've had to put up with over the last decade.

[taltos]

I would go for that in a heartbeat. Great plan.

[chippewastud79]

Can't argue with the Chippewas as the #16 seed. Fire up Chips! Check 'em out Saturday at 11 am ET on ESPN2.
(end of shameless plug)

[billybarue]

Excellent article - I'm sold.

In my mind I was thinking of a field of 8 post-bowl teams. But 16 (I guess) is better, as described in the article, and only means one more week (round) of play.

I thought the Bowls should stay in place for history/nostalgia sake. He says keep them in place and use them for League/divsion championship games. A very key element lost here is that no longer will the Rose Bowl (for example) be the typical Big 10 vs Pac 10 game. It will probably become the Pac 10 championship game under Wetzel's construct. That is why I was thinking about an 8 team playoff after the Bowls are played. If you Keep the Bowls as they historically have been, they in essence serve as the first round of a 16 team field. After the Rose Bowl we know who is moving on from the Big 10 Pac 10 show down. Now use that winner against against one of the "at large" type lower-ranked Bowl wins. In this case you probably end up with something like a Boise State, BYU, or Hawaii playing the winner of the Rose Bowl in the first round of the 8-team playoff.

So I like Wetzel's idea, but I don't like losing the nostalgia of the current Bowl games. If you can make the field smaller after the Bowl games I think it would be even better. Every year there is controversy after the Bowls are played, but how many teams are in the controversy - 2 or 3 maybe (never more than 4). You don't need a 16 team field (Wetzel plan) to deal with the controversy. Every year their is the minor controversy of who will make the NCAA playoffs in March for Basketball, but that is where the controversy ends - especially in deciding a national champion. So their will be minor controversy in a football playoff series, but it will end the "BIG" controversy of a national champ. The 2-5 teams we typically see in the football controversy would surely be in the playoffs after the Bowls are played. SO keep the Bowls as they are now and just make it an 8 team (3 game) championship playoff and you can keep the history and nostalgia of the Bowls. Might suck for the Rose Bowl (or Sugar Bowl or Orange Bowl) competitors who usually have to face real competition, but likely in the first round of the playoffs that follow you will face a "sure" win team. Than two tough games left for the national title and the result is no more controversy.

Another point I like in the article is the ability of the Universities to re-capture the revenues lost at Bowl games to sponsorship. You can do this with a post BOWL game playoff series and home field play. In addtion I thought before reading the ariticle a playoff series should be at venues with better weather than you see at Ann Arbor in the winter. But Wetzel is exactly right - let the games be played with home field advantage and see how Florida does up in Michigan for a playoff game in late Jan/early Feb. Slightly contradictory of me though, because the Rose Bowl (Big 10 vs Pac 10) would remain in Southern Cal, as described in paragraph above.

Bottom line - we need a playoff of some sort!!! And we get college football through early Feb (January is just dead sports-wise for me), than get to finish up the NFL playoffs and Super Bowl in Feb, waltz into March madness, and than MLB opening day is right around the corner. It's a win-win-win-win situation.

[BigDawgFan]

I like it! At least this way my Dawgs could kick some Gator ass twice this year or even maybe some Coonass Tigers!!!!! Oh I hope it happens in my lifetime!!!!

[Mark C]

I'm in, where do I send my letter?

I love the home-field advantage part of this plan. I've been bitching about the ACC championship in Jacksonville ever since it began. I'd love to see those Florida wimps play in Blacksburg in December for a change.

My second favorite feature is getting rid of the conference favoritism/money power. Hawaii would actually have their shot at earning respect.

I agree with 16 teams instead of 8. As it stands now, Hawaii gets no respect, and they wouldn't be included in an 8-team field. Not the first time this has happened, won't be the last.

[boonedoggle]

Originally Posted by billybarue

Excellent article - I'm sold.

In my mind I was thinking of a field of 8 post-bowl teams. But 16 (I guess) is better, as described in the article, and only means one more week (round) of play.

I thought the Bowls should stay in place for history/nostalgia sake. He says keep them in place and use them for League/divsion championship games. A very key element lost here is that no longer will the Rose Bowl (for example) be the typical Big 10 vs Pac 10 game. It will probably become the Pac 10 championship game under Wetzel's construct. That is why I was thinking about an 8 team playoff after the Bowls are played. If you Keep the Bowls as they historically have been, they in essence serve as the first round of a 16 team field. After the Rose Bowl we know who is moving on from the Big 10 Pac 10 show down. Now use that winner against against one of the "at large" type lower-ranked Bowl wins. In this case you probably end up with something like a Boise State, BYU, or Hawaii playing the winner of the Rose Bowl in the first round of the 8-team playoff.

So I like Wetzel's idea, but I don't like losing the nostalgia of the current Bowl games. If you can make the field smaller after the Bowl games I think it would be even better. Every year there is controversy after the Bowls are played, but how many teams are in the controversy - 2 or 3 maybe (never more than 4). You don't need a 16 team field (Wetzel plan) to deal with the controversy. Every year their is the minor controversy of who will make the NCAA playoffs in March for Basketball, but that is where the controversy ends - especially in deciding a national champion. So their will be minor controversy in a football playoff series, but it will end the "BIG" controversy of a national champ. The 2-5 teams we typically see in the football controversy would surely be in the playoffs after the Bowls are played. SO keep the Bowls as they are now and just make it an 8 team (3 game) championship playoff and you can keep the history and nostalgia of the Bowls. Might suck for the Rose Bowl (or Sugar Bowl or Orange Bowl) competitors who usually have to face real competition, but likely in the first round of the playoffs that follow you will face a "sure" win team. Than two tough games left for the national title and the result is no more controversy.

Another point I like in the article is the ability of the Universities to re-capture the revenues lost at Bowl games to sponsorship. You can do this with a post BOWL game playoff series and home field play. In addtion I thought before reading the ariticle a playoff series should be at venues with better weather than you see at Ann Arbor in the winter. But Wetzel is exactly right - let the games be played with home field advantage and see how Florida does up in Michigan for a playoff game in late Jan/early Feb. Slightly contradictory of me though, because the Rose Bowl (Big 10 vs Pac 10) would remain in Southern Cal, as described in paragraph above.

Bottom line - we need a playoff of some sort!!! And we get college football through early Feb (January is just dead sports-wise for me), than get to finish up the NFL playoffs and Super Bowl in Feb, waltz into March madness, and than MLB opening day is right around the corner. It's a win-win-win-win situation.

WOW! Great input Joe...always with the long replies!

[Puffin Fresh]

Overall I like it, but it isn't a solution. For instance, 3 loss Florida is still an at-large team in his proposal. There'd still be controversy.

[Coach]

i like the concept but like stated b4 a 3 Loss FLA team in the field as well as Kansas getting HOME FIELD....can't agree(yeah they did go 11-1 but why punish an undefeated team in HI...BTW who's the only other to date "undefeated team" in the rankings). Just my $.02

[Mark C]

Who would you put in Florida's place? ASU, BYU, and Boise are the only 2-loss teams that are left off these brackets. ASU lost both of their big games. They were ranked high as a result of everyone else falling out of the polls ahead of them. This is another artifact of the current system supporting a weak schedule, and the poll participants not having a clue/not considering strength of schedule. I'd pick Florida ahead of them also, I believe Florida to be a better team, despite the difference in the "L" column. That's an advantage to this system.