Hawkfromnorwalk
Well-Known Member
What's wrong with a tourney? Most other college sports have some sort of tourney to decide the champion. Hell, lower football divisions use a tourney. Why shouldn't the premier college football league do they same?
CFB Heading Towards Selection Committee?
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
What's wrong with a tourney? Most other college sports have some sort of tourney to decide the champion. Hell, lower football divisions use a tourney. Why shouldn't the premier college football league do they same?
hogeye
Well-Known Member
Money.
Section136
Well-Known Member
You dont think a 16 team tournament for college football would create more money than the bowl system?
There is a reason why the NFL, NBA and MLB just dont send the teams with the best records in their respective conferences to their respective championship games/series'.
Hawkfromnorwalk
Well-Known Member
A tourney would generate more revenue and lets be honest here, if anybody here ever wants Iowa to really be in the picture of having a shot at the title they will need to expand it to 8 or 16 teams.
hogeye
Well-Known Member
No, I don't. Cash is king, if CFB officials and leaders thought there was more money there they'd be there.
Also, you can't compare NFL, NBA and MLB. It's apples and oranges in every respect. You have too many CFB teams and conferences at 119. Until this gets addressed we'll never be geared for a real playoff system anyway.
Section136
Well-Known Member
Then how does college basketball do it with a 68 team tournament out of 330+ D1 teams.
68/330 is 20.6% of the D1 basketball teams making the NCAA tourney field.
16/119 is 13.4% of FBS teams making this mythical football tourney.
It can work. You just love your Poinsetta Bowl too much hogger.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
First off, I could care less about where Notre Dame fits into all of this. Because they DON'T. They haven't been a legit contender for 20 years.
Regarding the selection committee - I agree that my fear is that will turn into a "pick your favorite SEC teams" session, unless they limit the number of teams per conference to 2. Why can't it be a Top-4 in the BCS situation?
SEC in recent years has certainly been deserving of the titles they have won, but that's what worries me - that it's a situation where "getting the best teams" is going to become one where SEC teams get picked because the committee just assumes they are the best teams in the country because of the conference they play in. Who's to say that one team is really better than another until they actually play each other?
I guess what I'm saying is that I just want a system where there is no bias towards one conference over another. Guess I can dream.
Regarding the selection committee - I agree that my fear is that will turn into a "pick your favorite SEC teams" session, unless they limit the number of teams per conference to 2. Why can't it be a Top-4 in the BCS situation?
SEC in recent years has certainly been deserving of the titles they have won, but that's what worries me - that it's a situation where "getting the best teams" is going to become one where SEC teams get picked because the committee just assumes they are the best teams in the country because of the conference they play in. Who's to say that one team is really better than another until they actually play each other?
I guess what I'm saying is that I just want a system where there is no bias towards one conference over another. Guess I can dream.
Last edited:
SpiderRico
Well-Known Member
My thoughts on this.....
Why does it have to be one way or the other (conference champions vs. best teams)? There's an easy solution to this. Instead of a 4 team playoff, you make it a 6 team playoff.
You take the conference champions from the Pac 12, Big 10, Big 12 and SEC plus 2 wildcard teams. The top 2 rated teams get a bye and the other 4 play the games at the higher rated teams' home stadium. The winners of those two games get matched up against the Top 2 teams, with the games played at the home stadiums of the Top 2 teams. The final game would be played at a neutral site (could be rotated between different sites each year).
You always hear the mantra "the games need to be decided on the field, not in the polls or in the computers". If you don't take conference champions, where the games WERE decided on the field, how else do you decide the best 4 teams? Do you take sportswriters' word for it? Coaches who don't even watch the games? Computers? A selection committee that will always have built-in biases? To me, this is the fairest way. You reward conference champions (which should happen, otherwise, why even have conference games), plus give an opportunity to two other high-caliber teams who may have gotten upset in their conference championship game or maybe lost a game early on due to injuries or a fluke play, etc.
Why does it have to be one way or the other (conference champions vs. best teams)? There's an easy solution to this. Instead of a 4 team playoff, you make it a 6 team playoff.
You take the conference champions from the Pac 12, Big 10, Big 12 and SEC plus 2 wildcard teams. The top 2 rated teams get a bye and the other 4 play the games at the higher rated teams' home stadium. The winners of those two games get matched up against the Top 2 teams, with the games played at the home stadiums of the Top 2 teams. The final game would be played at a neutral site (could be rotated between different sites each year).
You always hear the mantra "the games need to be decided on the field, not in the polls or in the computers". If you don't take conference champions, where the games WERE decided on the field, how else do you decide the best 4 teams? Do you take sportswriters' word for it? Coaches who don't even watch the games? Computers? A selection committee that will always have built-in biases? To me, this is the fairest way. You reward conference champions (which should happen, otherwise, why even have conference games), plus give an opportunity to two other high-caliber teams who may have gotten upset in their conference championship game or maybe lost a game early on due to injuries or a fluke play, etc.
Section136
Well-Known Member
Stopped reading here because you care about Notre Dame and where they fit in all this. They need to join a conference or STFU.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
No, I DON'T care where ND fits into things. I believe I was quite clear on that point.
If it was 8 teams I would go for this. That being said I believe that 16 teams would be most effective. The chances a conf. champion would not be in the top 16 is next to 0 so they would always be included in the best 16 teams. May not be the case with 8 when you consider the Big East.
Section136
Well-Known Member
You were quite clear. Clear that you care, at least a little, about where Notre Dame fits into all of this. Your words, not mine.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Um, then you're reading something that isn't there. I'm not going to argue about what I did or did not say.
Saying "I could care less" means that I don't give a rip. Sometimes people just get sick of hearing about Notre Dame. I wa referencing Jon's references to Notre Dame in his article. My only point: Enough about Notre Dame already. They are irrelevant.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
which is exactly why im sick of the sos argument with them. you cant bang on them for not playing a tough schedule then refuse to schedule them cause you are scared to lose to them.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
congratz, you can regurgitate cherry picked numbers from someone elses post.
Section136
Well-Known Member
Saying "I couldn't care less" means you dont give a rip
Saying "I could care less" is implying that you care, at least a little.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Section136
Well-Known Member
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Tournaments are great! Football teams should play indoors on wooden courts and throw balls into baskets! Let's change everything! Get this done!
