What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

JimC Boynton Beach, Fl — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:18:25 GMT

The weakness in your playoff is "if form held".
You have to accept a no upset playoff to agree with
your outcome.

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

flashypaws — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:46:13 GMT

there's really no way attendance for these playoffs would ever be less than for the existing bowl games...

i'd think the tv ratings would be decent too. :p

the main concern i'd have is that we'd suddenly have 16 conferences. schools would be bolting for greener patures and an easier shot at that playoff spot.

im not saying that would be bad... or good. or even that it would happen. just that a 16 team playoff might change things in ways we haven't considered.

no matter what happens though, it would be better than the BCS bull$#%t.

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

Rodney Thacker ,Tulsa,Oklahoma — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:05:34 GMT

Don't like it at all. If your going to have a 16 team playoff I think that you have to take the top 16 ranked teams. Screw the one from each conference crap. That would creat a lot of unfair situations. It is logic. If you finish in the top 16 you earned the right to go to the play off despite what conference you are from.Lets not create any more systems that unfairly let teams in .What could be more fair than just take the top 16 teams. Playoff-Good idea- You just tried to get too tricky and smart for your own good. Keep it simple with anything you invent. That usually works the best.

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

kelscruggs — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:54:26 GMT

Why does the Big 12 get 3 & not the SEC?

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

Michael R. — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:08:23 GMT

I personally am in favor of an 8 team playoff (would settle for a 4 team one initially). It would be a one sided bracket with 1 playing 8 and so on. Would there be upsets? Of course and that not only would be the drama of it, but also show that just like in every other sport with a playoff, you have to win your games if you want to hoist the trophy. The playoffs would start right after the regular season so there wont be any more of this 31 days between last game and bowl game. I think most fans want a playoff and its all the money makers that dont want it. I personally think the current bowl system is stupid because only one game actually matters unless you are about the teams in a given bowl. Lets finally bring some real excitement to college ball.

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

Chris in PHX — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:28:01 GMT

I love it! I've been talking about this for years! If you win your conference, you should get an automatic bid. Top 16 teams? Says who? Some computer? This gives no one any gripe, if you cannot win your conference, what business do you have playing for a national title? And you still have 5 slots open for the what-ifs (like the Big 12 where 3 teams were tied for first) and whinners like all the rest who couldn't beat that team for whatever reason

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

Dave Bennett — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:33:49 GMT

You all are getting close.The selection pool should be the top 20 in some agreed upon poll because polls are incurably subjective.1st step: select the eight highest ranked conference champions in the pool.2nd step: seed them according to poll rank and grant them homefield status for the first round. If there are fewer than eight conference champs in the top twenty, fill the slots with the highest ranked teams remaining in the pool of 20. 3rd step: Fill visiting team slots with the highest ranking teams remaining in inverse order.(i.e the highest ranking visitor will play the lowest ranking home team, etc.Rounds two and three will utilize the six largest current bowls on a rotating basis. The championship game will be selected annually on a bid basis as currently done with basketball. Losers of first round games will be eligible for lesser holiday bowl selection as currently done.
The important principle is that every team, player and fan knows at the beginning of the season what will be required to compete for a championship.

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

Dave, Boise Idaho — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:54:32 GMT

Rodney, the current setup is already unfair to half of all D1-A teams. The proposed scenario is this article actually makes it fair for everyone. Todays football isn't like it was 20 years ago. Teams from the non-AQing leagues are just as good or better then the blue blooded teams from years past. Boise State and Utah have proven that time and again.

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

Sungod — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:01:26 GMT

I love it!! I think this is the only way to truly determine a national champion (the "only the top 16 ranked teams" notion wouldn't work either. You still have to contend with "the national champion should have won their conference" crowd, which is just as noisy as the playoff crowd). If the BCS wants to keep their precious computers, use the BCS rankings to pick the at large bids.

People would jump at the bit to go to a "true" playoff, and TV ratings would be high. Let's get this thing started!!

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

Gary McAuley Portland, Oregon — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:13:06 GMT

Have the Play-off AND bowl games. The Oregon's can still get to play the Oklahoma State's which is fun for their fans and fun for everybody. There are some 25 bowl games, the 16 game play-off can suck up some of these "lesser" bowls (Sun Bowl, etc.) and the bigger bowls can still host the semi finals and the finals on a rotating basis.

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

Matt, NJ — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:28:31 GMT

You could conceivable fit a 16 team playoff into the same slot you having with the gap between reg. season and bowls. You could also appease the bowl people by having each game signify a "bowl". The Fiesta or whatever would be the last game and it would rotate each year. You'd start with the lower bowls like the Gator bowl or something.

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

John L, San Francisco, California — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:07:59 GMT

I agree with Rodney that if we're going to have a 16 team playoff schedule, those 16 teams should be the top 16 teams. It should NOT be based on who is the champion of which conference. Clearly, certain conferences are stronger and there are several teams I would place well ahead of teams you listed such as Buffalo, Troy or East Carolina.

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

Mike A Orlando, Fl — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:36:15 GMT

What makes you think Utah would not prevail

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

Patrick, Detroit, MI — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:50:00 GMT

Texas who needed a miracle to beat Ohio st who were slaughtered by USC is going to beat USC>? Who do you think believes this crap? Enough of the stupid SEC & big 12 already for christ's sake

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

Chris, Cincinnati,Ohio — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:38:20 GMT

Four Team playoff...Start the bowl season with the semis and then the championship game can fall right in line with the BCS bowl schedule. It seems almost to logical to make sense to the ncaa and college presidents.

What would a 'Sweet 16' have looked like?

John, Orlando, FL — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:59:19 GMT

Does a team that can't finish in the top 8 deserve a a shot at the Nat'l Champ? One of the blowholes' (read pac-10, big-10 execs) gripes is that a playoff reduces the importance of the regular season. We don't need more than 8 teams IMHO.