64 Team CFB Playoff

[GATTACA!]

Yahoo put together a 64 team bracket with seeds based on last years rankings.

Bracket

ND as a 7 seed seems a tad low. I'd have us losing to Oregon in the sweet 16.

 

[wizards8507]

I know that the article is "just for fun" but I've said it before and I'll say it again. A tournament is the dumbest possible way to select a national champion. MLB, NHL, and NBA playoffs are all reasonable because they incorporate a series structure that eliminates the potential for a fluke "any given Sunday" win by an inferior team. The NCAA tournament, College Football Playoff, and NFL Playoffs are affronts to the integrity of their respective sports and serve as nothing more than profit and hype generators.

 

[greyhammer90]

I know that the article is "just for fun" but I've said it before and I'll say it again. A tournament is the dumbest possible way to select a national champion. MLB, NHL, and NBA playoffs are all reasonable because they incorporate a series structure that eliminates the potential for a fluke "any given Sunday" win by an inferior team. The NCAA tournament, College Football Playoff, and NFL Playoffs are affronts to the integrity of their respective sports and serve as nothing more than profit and hype generators.

So what would you suggest for college football? Can't be BCS because that has the same problems. Any given Saturday some terrible team can ruin a much better teams national championship.

 

[wizards8507]

So what would you suggest for college football? Can't be BCS because that has the same problems. Any given Saturday some terrible team can ruin a much better teams national championship.

I think that the search for a "perfect" system that always produces a "consensus" national champion is an exercise in futility. I say kick it back to the conferences and bowl commissioners to organize their own agreements. If the Rose Bowl wants to sign contracts with the Big 10 and the Pac 12, they should do so. If the Sugar Bowl wants to bring in the SEC and Big 12 champions, great for them. It would make the bowl games mean something again. If the AP thinks Notre Dame is #1 at the end of the season but the USA Today says they're #3, so be it.

I also think "head-to-head" is highly overrated. Consider this scenario: Alabama is 12-1 with a 20-point loss to mediocre Kentucky. Stanford enters the NCG at 13-0. Stanford loses the NCG 23-20 in double overtime. Both teams finish 13-1. Alabama is crowned the national champion because they won the NCG, but who really had the better season? Stanford had one loss in overtime to an outstanding team. Alabama had a blowout loss to a mediocre team. If I'm an AP voter, Stanford is getting my #1.

I'm not opposed to a tournament per se, but I think the "prize" for a tournament win should be the tournament championship, not the "national championship."

 

[GATTACA!]

I think that the search for a "perfect" system that always produces a "consensus" national champion is an exercise in futility. I say kick it back to the conferences and bowl commissioners to organize their own agreements. If the Rose Bowl wants to sign contracts with the Big 10 and the Pac 12, they should do so. If the Sugar Bowl wants to bring in the SEC and Big 12 champions, great for them. It would make the bowl games mean something again. If the AP thinks Notre Dame is #1 at the end of the season but the USA Today says they're #3, so be it.

I also think "head-to-head" is highly overrated. Consider this scenario: Alabama is 12-1 with a 20-point loss to mediocre Kentucky. Stanford enters the NCG at 13-0. Stanford loses the NCG 23-20 in double overtime. Both teams finish 13-1. Alabama is crowned the national champion because they won the NCG, but who really had the better season? Stanford had one loss in overtime to an outstanding team. Alabama had a blowout loss to a mediocre team. If I'm an AP voter, Stanford is getting my #1.

I'm not opposed to a tournament per se, but I think the "prize" for a tournament win should be the tournament championship, not the "national championship."

I hate this. This is the first thing i turn off when i start a dynasty in NCAA. Why should a Big10 team earn a spot in a bowl game that dont deserve just because their conference made an agreement with the bowl? It's completely unfair to teams that earned the right to play in that game but don't because of tie-ins. Its restricting the profits to those conferences as well. That system made sense back in the day where people where unable to see games from across the country. That was a great way to get exposure for teams in places they would otherwise never see. Now with the ability to watch any game at any time this system is just pointless.

A playoff is the only way to crown a true consensus champion. Determine it on the field, not in computers and arbitrary polls.

 

[NCND]

Honest question for Wizard.. Do u think the CFP won't be better than the BCS? C'mon man.

 

[wizards8507]

A playoff is the only way to crown a true consensus champion. Determine it on the field, not in computers and arbitrary polls.

Yeah, except the determination of who gets INTO the playoffs in the first place is done by a selection committee that's even more bullshit than any poll or computer.

Honest question for Wizard.. Do u think the CFP won't be better than the BCS? C'mon man.

Define "better". More enjoyable? Probably. More fair? Sure, unless you're the #5 team.

To be clear, my preferred system is neither the BCS nor the CFP.

 

[ACamp1900]

Playoffs were made for breaking ties when, on rare occasion, the reg. season couldn't do its job. The only reason we have now thrown out the much larger sample size, and more legit findings, of the regular season is because of dollars, legitimacy or consensus have absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[TheRealLynch51]

I know that the article is "just for fun" but I've said it before and I'll say it again. A tournament is the dumbest possible way to select a national champion. MLB, NHL, and NBA playoffs are all reasonable because they incorporate a series structure that eliminates the potential for a fluke "any given Sunday" win by an inferior team. The NCAA tournament, College Football Playoff, and NFL Playoffs are affronts to the integrity of their respective sports and serve as nothing more than profit and hype generators.

If youre going to do this, then just say screw the national championship as an award in general then. Teams will claim championships based off whatever poll they are number one (I.e Alabama) and if two people are "winning" a championship every year, it devalues the award for when there actually is a consensus #1.

 

[wizards8507]

Playoffs were made for breaking ties when, on rare occasion, the reg. season couldn't do its job. The only reason we have now thrown out the much larger sample size, and more legit findings, of the regular season is because of dollars, legitimacy or consensus have absolutely nothing to do with it.

This.

If youre going to do this, then just say screw the national championship as an award in general then. Teams will claim championships based off whatever poll they are number one (I.e Alabama) and if two people are "winning" a championship every year, it devalues the award for when there actually is a consensus #1.

You can't ban the AP from publishing a poll and building a trophy, nor can you ban Alabama from "claiming" a national championship if they're #1 in said poll. We can argue about whether that claim is legitimate or not, but if a school wants to brag about the time they were #1 in the final Bleacher Report Fan Voting, so be it. I do agree that these polls should not be any "official" program of the NCAA.

 

[TheRealLynch51]

This.


You can't ban the AP from publishing a poll and building a trophy, nor can you ban Alabama from "claiming" a national championship if they're #1 in said poll. We can argue about whether that claim is legitimate or not, but if a school wants to brag about the time they were #1 in the final Bleacher Report Fan Voting, so be it. I do agree that these polls should not be any "official" program of the NCAA.

Allright. So if you were the NCAA commissioner, what kind of system would you employ to determine a national champion?

 

[wizards8507]

Allright. So if you were the NCAA commissioner, what kind of system would you employ to determine a national champion?

I wouldn't, that's exactly what I'm saying. The flaw is thinking of "the NCAA" as a league. It isn't.

 

[TheSunIsRising]

Playoffs were made for breaking ties when, on rare occasion, the reg. season couldn't do its job. The only reason we have now thrown out the much larger sample size, and more legit findings, of the regular season is because of dollars, legitimacy or consensus have absolutely nothing to do with it.

This.

So, a 119 game regular season for CFB?? Actually, should probably be 238 games, so there is a home and away schedule. That's over 4 games a week throughout the entire year.

SEC would probably have the schools in the North schedule games in summer, but I really think that it would be great to see how fast the SEC teams are playing on turf/grass/whatever in February when it is -20.

 

[wizards8507]

So, a 119 game regular season for CFB?? Actually, should probably be 238 games, so there is a home and away schedule. That's over 4 games a week throughout the entire year.

"Larger sample size" doesn't require every opponent to play every other opponent. Every criticism of using the regular season to determine a champion is an equally valid criticism of using the regular season to determine who makes the playoffs. Let's go to the other extreme. Expand D1A to 128 teams and have a 7-round tournament. Winner takes all. You better not suck or your season is only one game long.

 

[ACamp1900]

We should just have all of the captains of every top 25 team play a big game of Duck, Duck, Goose...

 

[TheSunIsRising]

"Larger sample size" doesn't require every opponent to play every other opponent. Every criticism of using the regular season to determine a champion is an equally valid criticism of using the regular season to determine who makes the playoffs. Let's go to the other extreme. Expand D1A to 128 teams and have a 7-round tournament. Winner takes all. You better not suck or your season is only one game long.

So, hypothetically:
ND schedules a normal load for a 12 game schedule, and OSU counters with a B-10 slate, and Iowa St/Kentucky/Western Michigan/Army. ND goes 11-1; OSU goes 12-0.

OSU wins National Championship based on regular season records?


Given that a regular season full of doormats would be what teams would aspire to schedule, I would prefer your suggested 7 round tournament to the above. That's just me. I'd put more weight in the team claiming a National Championship going through a 7 game tournament, than a team that can pick and choose its opponents to build a 12-0 record (which will be replicated by about 10 other schools, so a tournament will be required as a tie-breaker anyways)

 

[TheRealLynch51]

I wouldn't, that's exactly what I'm saying. The flaw is thinking of "the NCAA" as a league. It isn't.

So what the hell are the players playing for then? A sense of pride and a warm feeling inside?

 

[TheSunIsRising]

We should just have all of the captains of every top 25 team play a big game of Duck, Duck, Goose...

Hunger Games

 

[ACamp1900]

So what the hell are the players playing for then? A sense of pride and a warm feeling inside?

Oddly, when all this started, that's exactly what they played for.

 

[anarin]

The ncaa should adopt the nfl playoff model.

 

[TheRealLynch51]

Oddly, when all this started, that's exactly what they played for.

They also didnt wear pads....and didnt have the forward pass. And Michigan was dominant. We dont want to go back there.

 

[IrishLion]

I'm not sure if ND would beat Mizzou in the second round of this tournament.

 

[chicago51]

Personally I like 16 teams.

Everyone not in the playoff with winning records gets a bowl.

All 11 bowl subdivision conference champions (what the heck give the little guys a shot)

5 at large teams.

First two rounds are at the home fields of the numerically lower (higher ranked) seeded teams in mid December. Enough with this warm weather only crap. For instance if FSU has to go to ND or Ohio State in mid December so be it. Using the 2014 calendar we would be talking first round Sat December 13 with maybe a game or two Thursday night December 11th. Second round December 20th.


Off for Christmas week.

Final 4 at neutral sites on New Years weekend. So we are talking Thursday Jan 1st or Saturday Jan 3rd. I like January 1st giving teams a little extra time to prepare the championship game.

Championship the following week again at a neutral site. Based on 2014 calendar we are looking at January 10th if we make it a Saturday but since NFL playoffs have started I assume the NCAA sticks with Monday for the championship thus making it Monday Jan 12th, 2015.

 

[GATTACA!]

Yeah, except the determination of who gets INTO the playoffs in the first place is done by a selection committee that's even more bullshit than any poll or computer.


Define "better". More enjoyable? Probably. More fair? Sure, unless you're the #5 team.

To be clear, my preferred system is neither the BCS nor the CFP.

So you would rather have them screw up the decision between who is number 1 and 2, rather than screw up the choice between numbers 8 and 9. If you are in 9th than it's your own fault, you could have done more during the season to secure yourself a spot in the tournament. #1 and 2 presumably both have a claim to the title, especially if we stick to the rediculous bowl tie ins where #1 and #2 may not even face each other.

 

[wizards8507]

So, hypothetically:
ND schedules a normal load for a 12 game schedule, and OSU counters with a B-10 slate, and Iowa St/Kentucky/Western Michigan/Army. ND goes 11-1; OSU goes 12-0.

OSU wins National Championship based on regular season records?

No. There is no capital-N capital-C National Championship.

So what the hell are the players playing for then? A sense of pride and a warm feeling inside?

That'd be nice, wouldn't it?

The ncaa should adopt the nfl playoff model.

With over 100 teams?

So you would rather have them screw up the decision between who is number 1 and 2.

No, I'd rather there not be a "them" at all.

 

[Irish#1]

I know that the article is "just for fun" but I've said it before and I'll say it again. A tournament is the dumbest possible way to select a national champion. MLB, NHL, and NBA playoffs are all reasonable because they incorporate a series structure that eliminates the potential for a fluke "any given Sunday" win by an inferior team. The NCAA tournament, College Football Playoff, and NFL Playoffs are affronts to the integrity of their respective sports and serve as nothing more than profit and hype generators.

Okay

 

[gkIrish]

I wouldn't, that's exactly what I'm saying. The flaw is thinking of "the NCAA" as a league. It isn't.

Unless you answered the original question later on and I missed it, you are completely dodging the question.

What system would you employ?


IMO, a 4-6 team playoff is the best system because it allows teams to settle it on the field and includes enough teams so that no one with a legitimate gripe is excluded. We should never have a situation where 3 teams are undefeated and one gets excluded from a shot at the championship (2003 Auburn?).

 

[koonja]

Haven't read the thread so I apologize if it's mentioned, but IMO 8 team playoff is where it's at.

 

[wizards8507]

What system would you employ?

The question was asked in the context of "if I were the NCAA commissioner." I do not believe there should be ANY "system" at the NCAA level.

 

[TheRealLynch51]

No. There is no capital-N capital-C National Championship.


That'd be nice, wouldn't it?


With over 100 teams?


No, I'd rather there not be a "them" at all.

So you have shot down everyone elses ideas, but what would you do in regards to a champion? Just have teams schedule each other for shits and gigs, and when the season is over, its just over? How do we decide who was best?