Another way you could do it would be simply to say that if 2 wins, it's in, but if not then either 5 (beat 2) or the winner of 3v4 could go. And the 3v4 game always plays first, more intrigue/drama.


EV, because you can't expand the rounds. The current contract is only setup for two SF and a NC. Adding another round is too much.

ok take 2 years ago...
#1 Alabama bye(which is another DOA concept)
#2 Oregon beats #5 Baylor 62-59
#4 Ohio St beats #3 Florida St 52-10

you're telling me that Ohio St would have no chance of making the title game? That's some mighty fine **** you're smoking.

Alabama bye - correct ... you're telling me that won't fly with SEC fans???? Dude, come on.

Ohio St would've been #5 in that case, selection committee wouldn't have had to bs OSU up to 4.

Oregon 2 v Ohio St 5 - we know Ohio St wins and looks good doing it
FL St 3 v Baylor 4 - don't know who wins


Title: Alabama v either Ohio St or winner of FLSt/Baylor.

Even if this has no chance in heck, you can't tell me that it's less fair than telling one of five completely equal P5 champs "sorry, no room for you!"

I don't think so bub.

(07-29-2016 11:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Alabama bye - correct ... you're telling me that won't fly with SEC fans???? Dude, come on.

Ohio St would've been #5 in that case, selection committee wouldn't have had to bs OSU up to 4.

Oregon 2 v Ohio St 5 - we know Ohio St wins and looks good doing it
FL St 3 v Baylor 4 - don't know who wins


Title: Alabama v either Ohio St or winner of FLSt/Baylor.

Sorry but you have to remember the garbage schedule that Baylor had. You can't just assume that they would have been ahead of Ohio St...

And anyways. Defend your plan with what I posted...
Oregon 62 Baylor 59
Ohio St 52 Florida St 10

Oregon in title game instead of Ohio St.

The plus one model or any bye model was dead on arrival. It's perfect the way it is. Maybe add 8 clubs, but I wouldn't until we go to the P4 and a new subdivision, in which case the CCG's are the quarters.

The defense is simple:

Current plan: One of five equal P5 doesn't even get a shot.
My plan: they all get a shot and at least have a chance.


That's the reward you get for being 1 and 2. The regular season means something.


At the very least, you can basically make it a plus one with #1 getting the bye. Selection committee takes best winner of 2v5 and 3v4 to face 1. But at that point, might as well make it a true plus one.

(07-29-2016 11:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The defense is simple:

Current plan: One of five equal P5 doesn't even get a shot.
My plan: they all get a shot and at least have a chance.

Sorry but in your plan the 3 and 4 seed don't control their own destiny at all whatsoever. That isn't having a shot. And the 5 seed really doesn't have a shot either.

Your plan would be lambasted worse than anything we ever saw from the BCS....

Oh, and also in your plan- with my scenario. Oregon beats Alabama by 3. A VERY real chance that Ohio St is voted as National Champions.

(07-29-2016 09:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  so a team could win a semifinal game and not advance to the final? DOA. and Dumb as ****.

This is a worse version of the old 2 team BCS.

None sense. Your just making up whatever you want.

Impossible to say that it's less fair giving all five a game than to exclude one of the five entirely. Impossible.

bullet,

Giving five teams a chance is worse than only giving two teams a chance??

Does not compute.

Guys, feel free to stop replying at any time. I'm not forcing your eyes to the screen or your fingers to the keyboard.

Perfectly happy to take it to PM as well.

what doesn't compute is a plan where a team could win a semifinal game 52-10, and not make the title game.

Completely arbitrary example.

Counter-example: other semi wins it 53-10. There you go.


End of the day: mine is certainly no less fair than just telling that team who won 52-10 and didn't advance "oh sorry, we decided arbitrarily to keep you out if he post season entirely because we only have four slots".


I'm happy to agree to disagree and leave it be at this point. I clearly did not convince you or anyone else.

(07-29-2016 11:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Completely arbitrary example.

Counter-example: other semi wins it 53-10. There you go.


End of the day: mine is certainly no less fair than just telling that team who won 52-10 and didn't advance "oh sorry, we decided arbitrarily to keep you out if he post season entirely because we only have four slots".

Yeah and if 5 seed wins it 53-10, they get left out.

And yes, your plan is less fair. A team who is in the playoffs should be guaranteed if they win their last game that they would win a championship. PERIOD. That's the definition of a playoff.

Of course your plan has as much of a chance of getting implemented as DavidSt becoming a mod on this site.

(07-29-2016 11:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Completely arbitrary example.

Counter-example: other semi wins it 53-10. There you go.


End of the day: mine is certainly no less fair than just telling that team who won 52-10 and didn't advance "oh sorry, we decided arbitrarily to keep you out if he post season entirely because we only have four slots".


I'm happy to agree to disagree and leave it be at this point. I clearly did not convince you or anyone else.