Playoff Expansion Part II

[FargoBison]

First of all I wasn't a big fan of the wording the other poll had and I also think it could use a few more options(some may want more or less then 24 teams).

[bluehenbillk]

Is this the topic we're going to beat to death this off-season? How many actual polls do we need? I'm staying consistent & have already expressed my reasons why....16 teams.

[andy7171]

16 teams.
It's proven, it works.

No matter how many teams you allow, someone is always going to be pissed off they didn't make it.

[NoCoDanny]

We need another poll on this pronto.

[henfan]

How come "8 teams" wasn't an option? That's where my vote would be. Extend the regular season to 12 games with 3 weeks of playoffs. There would be no auto-bids awarded.

[lizrdgizrd]

How come "8 teams" wasn't an option? That's where my vote would be. Extend the regular season to 12 games with 3 weeks of playoffs. There would be no auto-bids awarded.
See! We obviously need another poll to include every option all the way down to just picking #1 vs #2 and having a 13 week regular season. xlolx

[andy7171]

How come "8 teams" wasn't an option? That's where my vote would be. Extend the regular season to 12 games with 3 weeks of playoffs. There would be no auto-bids awarded.
8?
Why don't we divise a computer ranking system that takes into account the human polls and computer polls, mysteriously processes all the numbers and comes out with a #1 team vs a #2. At the end of the year those two team can play for the National Championship. And if you want, all the conference champs can play each other in games leading up to the final game.

Think of the corporate sponsership money!

[henfan]

8?
Why don't we divise a computer ranking system that takes into account the human polls and computer polls, mysteriously processes all the numbers and comes out with a #1 team vs a #2. At the end of the year those two team can play for the National Championship. And if you want, all the conference champs can play each other in games leading up to the final game.

Think of the corporate sponsership money!

Actually, just program the results and allow the computer to run playoff results.:thumbsup:

[andy7171]

Actually, just program the results and allow the computer to run playoff results.:thumbsup:
That way we could include the Ivies and the SWAC just for giggles!

[MplsBison]

I guess I could live with 20. But ultimately 24 is where the playoffs are headed.

The 8 teams receiving first round byes won't know any difference. So there is no possible argument against it from their point of view.

[lizrdgizrd]

I guess I could live with 20. But ultimately 24 is where the playoffs are headed.

The 8 teams receiving first round byes won't know any difference. So there is no possible argument against it from their point of view.
The arguments have already been made. You just refuse to acknowledge them. :nonono2:

[Slammer50111]

I would like to see only conf. champs play in the playoffs. If you don't win your conf. why should you be able to say you are the best in the country. If you where the best you would have won your conf.

[andy7171]

I still don't understand. You couldn't even come up with a field of 24 worthy teams this past year!

[andy7171]

I would like to see only conf. champs play in the playoffs. If you don't win your conf. why should you be able to say you are the best in the country. If you where the best you would have won your conf.
What do you do with co-champs?

[BigApp]

who's the dolt who voted for 32 teams??

[NE MT GRIZZ]

Who are the dolts who voted for 20 and 24 teams

[MplsBison]

The arguments have already been made.


They're not arguments. They're just little kids who don't want to share.

[Slammer50111]

What do you do with co-champs?
It would be up to the conf. to decide who the champ is. I think most would go by who won the head to head meeting between the team. I know this would be a problem in the A10/CAA because they don't always play each other but that is something the conf. would have to work out maybe have a title game for the conf. champ. Not saying it is a perfect plan but if only conf. champs could get into the playoffs it would do away with who should have gotten in and who shouldn't have. :twocents:

[lizrdgizrd]

It would be up to the conf. to decide who the champ is. I think most would go by who won the head to head meeting between the team. I know this would be a problem in the A10/CAA because they don't always play each other but that is something the conf. would have to work out maybe have a title game for the conf. champ. Not saying it is a perfect plan but if only conf. champs could get into the playoffs it would do away with who should have gotten in and who shouldn't have. :twocents:
Except in the case where one team looses by 3 pts or less in the regular season at their conf. champs but beats everyone else. Who's to say the outcome wouldn't be different at a neutral site?

[lizrdgizrd]

They're not arguments. They're just little kids who don't want to share.
It's not about sharing. It's about earning the right to play for the championship. You want more weak teams in the game but refuse to admit that it'd make our product weaker. :nonono2:

[Slammer50111]

Except in the case where one team looses by 3 pts or less in the regular season at their conf. champs but beats everyone else. Who's to say the outcome wouldn't be different at a neutral site?
So if a road team loses by less then 3 points in the playoffs should they replay the game next week because they might have won on a neutral site?

[lizrdgizrd]

So if a road team loses by less then 3 points in the playoffs should they replay the game next week because they might have won on a neutral site?
Yep! xlolx :doh:

Let me try that another way. That losing team may be every bit as good as the conf. champ. So why shouldn't they get a shot at the title rather than a team who is in a weak conference who lost to the teams the #2 team beat?

[Slammer50111]

Yep! xlolx :doh:

Let me try that another way. That losing team may be every bit as good as the conf. champ. So why shouldn't they get a shot at the title rather than a team who is in a weak conference who lost to the teams the #2 team beat?
If they are both in a weak conf. then most likly only one team would get in under the current rules and that would be the auto bid winner. Now if you are saying the #2 team from a strong conf should be in ahead of a team from a weak one I still say win your conf. You may see schools switching conf. if they think that is the only way for them to get to the playoffs. I think the Great West and Big South would love to see some schools leave the A10/CAA or Big Sky for their conf. But back to your question look at it like this in the playoffs you lose a game you are done. Does that mean the team that lost is always the worse team No but on that day they where. So should they get another shot at the championship?

[lizrdgizrd]

If they are both in a weak conf. then most likly only one team would get in under the current rules and that would be the auto bid winner. Now if you are saying the #2 team from a strong conf should be in ahead of a team from a weak one I still say win your conf. You may see schools switching conf. if they think that is the only way for them to get to the playoffs. I think the Great West and Big South would love to see some schools leave the A10/CAA or Big Sky for their conf. But back to your question look at it like this in the playoffs you lose a game you are done. Does that mean the team that lost is always the worse team No but on that day they where. So should they get another shot at the championship?
That's why the playoffs are different from the regular season. We all know that conference teams beat up on each other because they know each other so well. Not to mention the fact that weak teams dilute the product we call FCS football. Weak product means even less coverage of our division.

[Slammer50111]

So a team that can't even win its conf. being Nat. Champ is ok. So why even have conf. if it doesn't mean anything just base who gets into the playoffs by SOS and win loss records. Winning the pennent doesn't mean near as much in baseball anymore with the wild cards. In the NBA half the teams make the playoffs does winning their div. even mean anything. Same with football AFC NFC is just a way to divide up the bracket to see who plays in the super bowl.

[lizrdgizrd]

So a team that can't even win its conf. being Nat. Champ is ok. So why even have conf. if it doesn't mean anything just base who gets into the playoffs by SOS and win loss records. Winning the pennent doesn't mean near as much in baseball anymore with the wild cards. In the NBA half the teams make the playoffs does winning their div. even mean anything. Same with football AFC NFC is just a way to divide up the bracket to see who plays in the super bowl.
Now you're getting it. Winning your conference is great and all, but the point of the playoffs is to win the NC. There should be the top 16 teams playing to find out who is the best.

[Slammer50111]

The point of the playoffs is to win the NC but what I am saying is you should have to win your conference to even get into the playoffs. That is just my thoughts.

[lizrdgizrd]

The point of the playoffs is to win the NC but what I am saying is you should have to win your conference to even get into the playoffs. That is just my thoughts.
I'm saying that winning some of the conferences is not an indication that you belong in the playoffs. Best of the least isn't such a great resume.

[GannonFan]

I'm saying that winning some of the conferences is not an indication that you belong in the playoffs. Best of the least isn't such a great resume.

Absolutely - what if the A10/CAA breaks in half tomorrow, and the top 6 teams from the conference form one conference, and the bottom 6 teams form a second conference. Just because they are now separated by conference the #1 team of the original 12 is now equal to the #7 team?

[JALMOND]

I went for 20. I'll be careful in what I say, but I want to explain myself. This year I believe that there were teams left out, for one reason or another, that could have made some noise in the playoffs. Next year, with more teams emerging from the probationary period, it increases the chances that others will be excluded as well. This year also showed that the FCS is becoming more competitive in all conferences. Other non-autobid, non-scholly conferences are also becoming competitive with the rest of the FCS, to the point that they feel they deserve to be included, at least in the discussion. 24 is probably too many right now, but could become realistic as more teams become eligible. Even so, right now 16 is probably too few and needs to be changed. 20 may be right for now.