Imagine if the NCAA basketball tourney did things this way.

Instead of 65 schools participating, there are 12.

Instead of conference tourney champions getting an autobid, all 12 bid selections were made by the selection committee.



Would it still be a legit National Championship? Of course not.

Would it still be magical? No way.

Would it be fair? Nope.

What would it be?


...a freakin' joke.

(12-09-2014 04:18 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  Imagine if the NCAA basketball tourney did things this way.

Instead of 65 schools participating, there are 12.

Instead of conference tourney champions getting an autobid, all 12 bid selections were made by the selection committee.



Would it still be a legit National Championship? Of course not.

Would it still be magical? No way.

Would it be fair? Nope.

What would it be?


...a freakin' joke.

Not sure the point of this. There is a lot more parity in Basketball than there is in Football.

Looking at the top 8 rankings for the last several years, I have come to the conclusion that the CFB playoff should be six teams - five P5 champs and one "at large" selected by the committee, which would also rank them for seeding purposes.

Any more than that is simply unnecessary.

welcome to the NCAA, where everything is made up, and the students don't matter.

Preach on, cajunnation. If it doesn't involve all ten conferences then it is lot legitimate. Period. Too many games? It's good enough for other divisions. It's okay to have other student athletes playing more games and on weeknights in far flung locales but not FBS football!

(12-09-2014 04:22 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 04:18 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  Imagine if the NCAA basketball tourney did things this way.

Instead of 65 schools participating, there are 12.

Instead of conference tourney champions getting an autobid, all 12 bid selections were made by the selection committee.



Would it still be a legit National Championship? Of course not.

Would it still be magical? No way.

Would it be fair? Nope.

What would it be?


...a freakin' joke.

Not sure the point of this. There is a lot more parity in Basketball than there is in Football.

Looking at the top 8 rankings for the last several years, I have come to the conclusion that the CFB playoff should be six teams - five P5 champs and one "at large" selected by the committee, which would also rank them for seeding purposes.

Any more than that is simply unnecessary.

Why do you think there is more parity in basketball than football? Because if the way they are setup. The setup in college football does not allow parity.

You aren't well-known enough so you can't be on tv. You aren't rich so you don't deserve a part of the money. Your players aren't as good so you aren't allowed access which might allow you to attract better players. There isnt any parity so we are going to do more things that will make the gap widen. 11-0 won't get you in the playoff but a win against a team you beat might get US in!

None of that makes a damn bit of sense except in college football. It's the WWE...entertainment not sports.

So are you saying that the NFL and NCAA should triple the season length?

You're comparing apples to oranges. There's no way to pick the top ~10 teams out of 350 teams from 30+ conferences and basketball can support a 35 game schedule, hence the big tournament. Football can't support that. I would support an increase to 6 where you take the top 5 ranked champions and 1 at large bid, maybe the top 8 with only 6 champions, but beyond that the pool gets too watered down.

In basketball (with more parity keep in mind) #1 seeds are 280-26 against 7-16 seeds for a .915 winning percentage. So in a decade you would probably see a #1 FB seed get knocked off by a lower seed once, maybe twice tops. A quick glance shows they are ~.750 against 4-7 seeds, so you're talking about playing more games, watering down both the tournament and regular season and playing about as many games as the NFL players are willing to tolerate for a scenario that really doesn't impact the final result. I don't think that juice is worth the squeeze. Sure you might say you would exclude the dark horse teams or underdogs, but I don't think a 8-4 or 9-3 team deserves a title shot and I would hate to see a 9-3 team go deep because they got lucky against a better team, maybe with a lucky break due to an injury. Plus this still leaves us with plenty of quality other bowl match ups. Bigger isn't always better

(12-09-2014 04:28 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 04:22 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 04:18 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  Imagine if the NCAA basketball tourney did things this way.

Instead of 65 schools participating, there are 12.

Instead of conference tourney champions getting an autobid, all 12 bid selections were made by the selection committee.



Would it still be a legit National Championship? Of course not.

Would it still be magical? No way.

Would it be fair? Nope.

What would it be?


...a freakin' joke.

Not sure the point of this. There is a lot more parity in Basketball than there is in Football.

Looking at the top 8 rankings for the last several years, I have come to the conclusion that the CFB playoff should be six teams - five P5 champs and one "at large" selected by the committee, which would also rank them for seeding purposes.

Any more than that is simply unnecessary.

Why do you think there is more parity in basketball than football? Because if the way they are setup. The setup in college football does not allow parity.

not sure what you mean by the setup, as it relates to parity, BUT the reason there is more parity in basketball, is because the talent gap is not as big(top to bottom of rosters), and 1 or 2 players can win games in basketball, where football requires many more players having impacts.

(12-09-2014 04:28 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 04:22 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 04:18 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  Imagine if the NCAA basketball tourney did things this way.

Instead of 65 schools participating, there are 12.

Instead of conference tourney champions getting an autobid, all 12 bid selections were made by the selection committee.



Would it still be a legit National Championship? Of course not.

Would it still be magical? No way.

Would it be fair? Nope.

What would it be?


...a freakin' joke.

Not sure the point of this. There is a lot more parity in Basketball than there is in Football.

Looking at the top 8 rankings for the last several years, I have come to the conclusion that the CFB playoff should be six teams - five P5 champs and one "at large" selected by the committee, which would also rank them for seeding purposes.

Any more than that is simply unnecessary.

Why do you think there is more parity in basketball than football? Because if the way they are setup. The setup in college football does not allow parity.

The setup is a function of the amount of resources required to have a top-flight football program program. It is just not comparable to basketball.

Now, I'm all for a European-style system of relegation where each P5 conference is paired with a G5 conference and based on performance factors, teams can be sent down or moved up from one to the other.....but that isn't going to happen.

Saying G5 champions deserve to be treated the same as P5 champions is just silly.

Make the regular season 12 games max which would include a conference championship game. Institute a 16 team tournament including all conference champions and the next 6 highest ranked teams. The post season tournament would only take one more weekend of play than the current playoff system entails. JMO

(12-09-2014 04:39 PM)balanced_view Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 04:28 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 04:22 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 04:18 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  Imagine if the NCAA basketball tourney did things this way.

Instead of 65 schools participating, there are 12.

Instead of conference tourney champions getting an autobid, all 12 bid selections were made by the selection committee.



Would it still be a legit National Championship? Of course not.

Would it still be magical? No way.

Would it be fair? Nope.

What would it be?


...a freakin' joke.

Not sure the point of this. There is a lot more parity in Basketball than there is in Football.

Looking at the top 8 rankings for the last several years, I have come to the conclusion that the CFB playoff should be six teams - five P5 champs and one "at large" selected by the committee, which would also rank them for seeding purposes.

Any more than that is simply unnecessary.

Why do you think there is more parity in basketball than football? Because if the way they are setup. The setup in college football does not allow parity.

not sure what you mean by the setup, as it relates to parity, BUT the reason there is more parity in basketball, is because the talent gap is not as big(top to bottom of rosters), and 1 or 2 players can win games in basketball, where football requires many more players having impacts.

If it was texas or Oklahoma in the exact position as tcu and Baylor... Do you think neither get in? That setup, the most money setup, the we don't want parity setup. That's the way they like it... Control of the money of who gets and who doesn't.

What I don't like is if the New England Patriots were all wearing App State uniforms and won every game 50-0 they still wouldn't break the top 4. It's all based on reputation and they would have down played the schedule. But if the Spurs did the same thing in basketball they would win the championship. It's more about the uniform you wear than the player inside it. Boise State couldn't break in....heck I don't even know if some of the lower P5s will ever break through.

(12-09-2014 05:25 PM)Duncan20 Wrote:  What I don't like is if the New England Patriots were all wearing App State uniforms and won every game 50-0 they still wouldn't break the top 4. It's all based on reputation and they would have down played the schedule. But if the Spurs did the same thing in basketball they would win the championship. It's more about the uniform you wear than the player inside it. Boise State couldn't break in....heck I don't even know if some of the lower P5s will ever break through.

Yup... I'm all for giving traditional and established programs the benefit of a doubt in many situations, but I can't get behind a system that can watch a team win all of its games - no matter the difficulty of schedule - and hand out an 'attaboy' and a decent bowl game with no shot to at least keep working towards a title until someone beats you.

Hell, make it like the FA Cup in soccer. Make the lowest of the lowly win a couple of games before they even have a chance to play a P5 team in a playoff while giving the established powers a bye up until the last few stages.*** I'm sure that G5s and even doormat P5s would much rather get a chance and get kicked in the balls by an Alabama or Oregon than have a chance to stay perfect by playing a lesser team in a meaningless bowl.



*** - I realize that system couldn't be viable in college football, but still, the sentiment is there.

Why is it that every other sport has a multi round playoff, but some say it won't work for FBS college football? NFL? FCS? D2? D3?

This business of "we only want the best teams in" is ludicrous. Why not just go ahead and pick the one "best" team and call them National Champions? Why do we have these other three "not best" teams in the playoff? College football fans say the most absurd things to justify the elitism.

The goal ought to be to have a set path to a National Championship for everyone. If I do this....then I will be champion. That is sports. No polls, no committees, no beauty contests. The only rational way is Conference Champions. Win your conference championship and you go to the playoffs. You can seed them according to all that other perception stuff....but they have their shot.

Now, will some of the early games be competitive? No, some will not at first. But pretty soon every kid will realize that they can have their shot at the playoffs in any conference. Some guys who would sit on the bench at Bama will have an incentive to go play at Troy instead. The regular season for ALL conferences would be more important and garner more press and attention. ALL conference champions would be pondered. The vast mass of P5 football fans might want to actually watch an SBC and CUSA championship game because they might be playing the winner. ALL conference championship games would see advertising rates and viewership increase.

We would never have complete parity. Bama is still going to be Bama. USC is still going to be richer. The SEC will still get better ratings. But parity would be increased and ALL conferences would have a chance to improve and make more money and be relevant.

But mainly, it would be fun. Underdogs and Cinderella stories are okay...even for college football. The health of the sport overall would improve. It would actually be an athletic competition.

The current system is an oligarchy designed to protect the status quo and put a select number of hand-chosen teams from 5 preferred conferences into a playoff so they can keep all of the money and attention to themselves and suppress any challenge....in perpetuity.

(12-09-2014 07:28 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  This business of "we only want the best teams in" is ludicrous. Why not just go ahead and pick the one "best" team and call them National Champions? Why do we have these other three "not best" teams in the playoff? College football fans say the most absurd things to justify the elitism.

The goal ought to be to have a set path to a National Championship for everyone. If I do this....then I will be champion. That is sports. No polls, no committees, no beauty contests. The only rational way is Conference Champions. Win your conference championship and you go to the playoffs. You can seed them according to all that other perception stuff....but they have their shot.

Now, will some of the early games be competitive? No, some will not at first. But pretty soon every kid will realize that they can have their shot at the playoffs in any conference. Some guys who would sit on the bench at Bama will have an incentive to go play at Troy instead. The regular season for ALL conferences would be more important and garner more press and attention. ALL conference champions would be pondered. The vast mass of P5 football fans might want to actually watch an SBC and CUSA championship game because they might be playing the winner. ALL conference championship games would see advertising rates and viewership increase.

We would never have complete parity. Bama is still going to be Bama. USC is still going to be richer. The SEC will still get better ratings. But parity would be increased and ALL conferences would have a chance to improve and make more money and be relevant.

But mainly, it would be fun. Underdogs and Cinderella stories are okay...even for college football. The health of the sport overall would improve. It would actually be an athletic competition.

The current system is an oligarchy designed to protect the status quo and put a select number of hand-chosen teams from 5 preferred conferences into a playoff so they can keep all of the money and attention to themselves and suppress any challenge....in perpetuity.

doesnt have so much to do with the status quo but with media marketing. tcu while probably able to beat fsu or osu is more of a regional draw and these games are for the hype. the only way a team other than one of the same old top few gets into a 4 team playoff is if there is a huge wave of media hype around it that will peak interest like years ago when all you could read or hear about was boise state.

I think college football should have gone to a six team playoff system instead of a four team playoff. I would have taken the five P5 conference champions plus the best G5 school. The top two seeds would get a bye. Then you would end up with this:

Quarterfinals
Boise State vs. Florida State
Baylor vs Ohio State

Semifinals
Oregon vs Boise State/Florida State winner
Alabama vs Baylor/Ohio State winner

Championship Game

The extra two games would be additional revenue to be divided among all FBS conferences. It would be a real simple process for P5 schools to understand. You win your conference, you are in. It would give one G5 school a shot in the playoffs each season.

G5 fans have been trained to think one slot for 5 conferences picked by a P5 committee is ok enough. It's really not.

(12-09-2014 06:30 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Why is it that every other sport has a multi round playoff, but some say it won't work for FBS college football? NFL? FCS? D2? D3?

Exactly. Guess what, you give G5 schools a shot every year at a national championship, they will be able to land 1 or 2 more players that right now will go ride the bench at an Auburn or Ole Miss, etc. Then Parity may actually exist in the coming years. Right now, $$$$ is what is keeping this from happening. A true playoff would be phenomenal. Sure, more than likely a Bama, Oregon, or FSU may win it every year, but it's legit. No more questioning who the true champ is.

(12-10-2014 12:25 PM)Liberty22 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 06:30 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Why is it that every other sport has a multi round playoff, but some say it won't work for FBS college football? NFL? FCS? D2? D3?

Exactly. Guess what, you give G5 schools a shot every year at a national championship, they will be able to land 1 or 2 more players that right now will go ride the bench at an Auburn or Ole Miss, etc. Then Parity may actually exist in the coming years. Right now, $$$$ is what is keeping this from happening. A true playoff would be phenomenal. Sure, more than likely a Bama, Oregon, or FSU may win it every year, but it's legit. No more questioning who the true champ is.

that is actually a good point. I never thought about that.