Mike Aresco: "I'm Fine With The Playoff Staying At 4 Teams" | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Mike Aresco: "I'm Fine With The Playoff Staying At 4 Teams"

methodology said:
Just expand to 8 teams and give the top 2 teams a bye. Take all winners from the P6 conferences and fill the remaining 2 spots with the next best or however they did it.
Expand ...

Um what do you do with the second round with 5 teams?
 
I wrote to Kirby Hocutt and advocated for a 6 team tourney. The committee would use their current (however flawed) criteria to rank them #1---#6. #1 and #2 would get a bye.

#3 would play #6 while #4 would play #5. Their next opponent would either be based on a ranking system, with the higher ranked winner playing #2 in the semis and the lower ranked winner playing #1. Or for travel and fan convenience the bowl designees would be pre-determined each year so the fans would know beforehand where their team might land.

The winners would be the two teams playing in the Championship Game. I showed him how in every year of the playoff there would have been broader geographical representation and greater national interest. This year for example the system would have produced the following teams: 1.Clemson, 2.Oklahoma, 3.Georgia, 4. Alabama, 5.Ohio State 6. Wisconsin.

Clemson and Oklahoma would have had byes. Georgia would have played Wisconsin. Alabama would have played Ohio State. Winner of UGA/Wis (UGA) would play Clemson. Winner of Alabama/OSU (Alabama) would play Oklahoma. Those winners then would have played in NC game. Might still have been UGA vs Alabama, but maybe not.

This 6 team approach would give two other bowls (TBD) a compelling playoff game a week before New Years Day while still dedicating two of the New Years Day Bowls as Semi-Finals. It would broaden fan interest, and unlike the other 8 team, 12 team or "even more" team models being proposed by some, this plan would keep the total number of playoff games at a manageable and safer level, better satisfying those who object to expansion on both academic and player welfare grounds.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
Personally I’d do 12. Do the 10 champs and 2 wild cards.

Top 4 byes and everything on campus til semis.
Expand ...

This is probably the best scenario but I can't see the ncaa expanding it to that.
 
Nostical said:
I wrote to Kirby Hocutt and advocated for a 6 team tourney. The committee would use their current (however flawed) criteria to rank them #1---#6. #1 and #2 would get a bye.

#3 would play #6 while #4 would play #5. Their next opponent would either be based on a ranking system, with the higher ranked winner playing #2 in the semis and the lower ranked winner playing #1. Or for travel and fan convenience the bowl designees would be pre-determined each year so the fans would know beforehand where their team might land.

The winners would be the two teams playing in the Championship Game. I showed him how in every year of the playoff there would have been broader geographical representation and greater national interest. This year for example the system would have produced the following teams: 1.Clemson, 2.Oklahoma, 3.Georgia, 4. Alabama, 5.Ohio State 6. Wisconsin.

Clemson and Oklahoma would have had byes. Georgia would have played Wisconsin. Alabama would have played Ohio State. Winner of UGA/Wis (UGA) would play Clemson. Winner of Alabama/OSU (Alabama) would play Oklahoma. Those winners then would have played in NC game. Might still have been UGA vs Alabama, but maybe not.

This 6 team approach would give two other bowls (TBD) a compelling playoff game a week before New Years Day while still dedicating two of the New Years Day Bowls as Semi-Finals. It would broaden fan interest, and unlike the other 8 team, 12 team or "even more" team models being proposed by some, this plan would keep the total number of playoff games at a manageable and safer level, better satisfying those who object to expansion on both academic and player welfare grounds.
Expand ...

I bet they hadn’t thought of 6.
 
Anyone else just exhausted from the argument?

In a non TV $ drive world..

The bowl season should be a handful (10?) exhibition games and the rankings should be for fun mostly.

Winning your conference, which is an even playing field for all in your league, should be the goal and be what is really prioritized.

The non-sense with the P5, Bowl Committee (as if the members are spending 12 hours each Saturday watching games), 40 bowls, etc. is just dumb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,223
Messages
4,558,021
Members
10,443
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom