Your Fantasy Playoff

[Eric]

Well, this is that time of year where we start to throw our own playoff proposals out and about. Everybody has their own playoff system, so I'd like to hear yours.

My idea is kind of radical, but here it goes: No wildcards. I would only let conference champions take part in the postseason playoff and I would let the teams left out still travel and have their December bowl games. I would use 11 seeds for 11 conference champs. I know this may seem unfair to better teams who may get left out, but I think it preserves some equity in the game between the smaller conferences and I think it would keep the integrity of the regular season in tact. Since we have to work with 11 seeds, the top 5 teams get byes while 6 plays 11, 7 plays 10, and 8 plays 9 for the first round. Teams get re-seeded after the first round.

As an example:

Round 1 Byes
----------------

1. LSU
2. Oklahoma State
3. Oregon
4. Virginia Tech
5. Wisconsin


Round 1 Matchups
----------------------

(Higher seed gets homefield)

6. Houston
vs.
11. Arkansas State

7. TCU
vs.
10. Northern Illinois

8. Louisville
vs.
9. Louisiana Tech


Round 2
---------

12:00 @ Atlanta, Georgia

1. LSU
vs.
9. Louisiana Tech

3:30 @ Atlanta, Georgia

4. Virginia Tech
vs.
5. Wisconsin

7:00 @ Glendale, Arizona

2. Oklahoma State
vs.
7. TCU

10:30 @ Glendale, Arizona

3. Oregon
vs.
6. Houston



Round 3
----------

3:00 @ Miami, Florida

1. LSU
vs.
5. Wisconsin

7:30 @ St. Louis, Missouri

2. Oklahoma State
vs.
3. Oregon


Round 4 (Championship)
----------------------------

8:30 @ Arlington, Texas

1. LSU
vs.
2. Oklahoma State


Okay, I know this is my desired matchup, but let's ignore that for now. This is just an example


I would like to your playoff scenarios! How many teams, wildcards, auto-berths, etc.

[Vileborg]

I'm good with the top 4. Give me Oklahoma St-LSU and Va Tech-Bama where the winners play.

[WoVeU]

Huge problem...why do you have the 2nd place Big East team in the playoff?

[RazorHawk]

I would not be a fan of only having conference champions in the field. This would reward teams in the weak conferences and penalize those in tough conferences.

My preference would be in an 8 team playoff to have 4 or 5 automatic bids plus 3 or 4 at large.
In a 16 team playoff, you could give all conferences a spot, plus at large teams. ( I know some says this is a must as the NCAA stipulates it, but rules can and have been changed and this playoff may or may not be run by the NCAA )

[Cane from the Bend]

Better Yet:

Let's start the play off from the beginning of the year.
Lose a game, you play no more til next season.
After week one, there would be 60 teams left.
After week two, only 30 teams left.

Then, let the rest play in a double elimination.

As for the losers; everybody back to class, and remember, you are student athletes.

.

.

.

[Spence]

I would not be a fan of only having conference champions in the field. This would reward teams in the weak conferences and penalize those in tough conferences.

My preference would be in an 8 team playoff to have 4 or 5 automatic bids plus 3 or 4 at large.
In a 16 team playoff, you could give all conferences a spot, plus at large teams. ( I know some says this is a must as the NCAA stipulates it, but rules can and have been changed and this playoff may or may not be run by the NCAA )

The NCAA rule seems to be something the NCAA doesn't seem to be willing to change - at least up to now. Not saying they couldn't, but there are really 5 majors right now and there are six mid major conferences. It seems to me that they would out number the major conference votes and I think that kills the idea.

[GoBoilers]

I still think 4-16 team or 5-14 team conferences will eventually be where this will head. If you have 5-14 teams you are already pretty well set up. 7 team divisions where you have 6 games within. In the other division play 4 of the 7 so you can have 5 home games and 5 away (total of 10) within the conference, rotating a couple of teams out every 2 years so you can have home and home. That leaves 2 more non confrence games you can schedule. You have a natural playoff in the conference for an auto feed for 5 of the 8. That leaves 3 at large for an extra from a power conference or other confrences and you seed to a 3 game NC.

[Spence]

I still think 4-16 team or 5-14 team conferences will eventually be where this will head. If you have 5-14 teams you are already pretty well set up. 7 team divisions where you have 6 games within. In the other division play 4 of the 7 so you can have 5 home games and 5 away (total of 10) within the conference, rotating a couple of teams out every 2 years so you can have home and home. That leaves 2 more non confrence games you can schedule. You have a natural playoff in the conference for an auto feed for 5 of the 8. That leaves 3 at large for an extra from a power conference or other confrences and you seed to a 3 game NC.

That is my thought as well. That is the only way a playoff can work IMO. Of course the bowls would be gone and that sucks. I like the bowls. I would rather go back to no champ.

[Grayghost]

As the college football landscape currently sits...16 teams, 11 conference champs, 5 at larges...these being the 5 highest ranked teams that were not CC. The 16 teams seeded by end of year ranking.
I do this every year so this is easy for me. Numbers indicate seeding, not end of year ranking, though in some cases they may be the same.

1. LSU vs 16. La Tech
2. Oklahoma St. vs 15. Arkansas St.
3. Alabama vs 14. Northern Illinois
4. Stanford vs 13. West Virginia
5. Michigan vs 12. Clemson
6. Wisconsi vs 11. Southern Miss
7. Oklahoma vs 10. TCU
8. Boise St. vs 9. Oregon

The games would be broken up into 4 brackets with seeds 1-4 heading each individual brackett. My system utilizes the bowl games making 14 bowls part of the playoffs plus the NCG. The other bowls could be used as a secondary reward for teams that did not make it, and because 14 of the existing bowls are already being used, you would see better matchups in the remaining bowl games (consider if footballs NIT). There are currently 35 bowl games rewarding 70 teams...too many IMHO. Using 15 of these, the remaining 20 would pit better teams against each other, as the total amount of post season teams is reduced to 56. Meaning you need to be better than 6-6 or 7-5 and have a pulse to play in the post season. The remaining bowls would not be anymore irrelivant than they are now...being of interest to the two schools playing, and college football junkies like me.

Now these are based on my rankings and only being used as an example, so don't beat me up if some team you think is more deserving of an at large got left off the list.

[RazorHawk]

As the college football landscape currently sits...16 teams, 11 conference champs, 5 at larges...these being the 5 highest ranked teams that were not CC. The 16 teams seeded by end of year ranking.
I do this every year so this is easy for me. Numbers indicate seeding, not end of year ranking, though in some cases they may be the same.

1. LSU vs 16. La Tech
2. Oklahoma St. vs 15. Arkansas St.
3. Alabama vs 14. Northern Illinois
4. Stanford vs 13. West Virginia
5. Michigan vs 12. Clemson
6. Wisconsi vs 11. Southern Miss
7. Oklahoma vs 10. TCU
8. Boise St. vs 9. Oregon

The games would be broken up into 4 brackets with seeds 1-4 heading each individual brackett. My system utilizes the bowl games making 14 bowls part of the playoffs plus the NCG. The other bowls could be used as a secondary reward for teams that did not make it, and because 14 of the existing bowls are already being used, you would see better matchups in the remaining bowl games (consider if footballs NIT). There are currently 35 bowl games rewarding 70 teams...too many IMHO. Using 15 of these, the remaining 20 would pit better teams against each other, as the total amount of post season teams is reduced to 56. Meaning you need to be better than 6-6 or 7-5 and have a pulse to play in the post season. The remaining bowls would not be anymore irrelivant than they are now...being of interest to the two schools playing, and college football junkies like me.

Now these are based on my rankings and only being used as an example, so don't beat me up if some team you think is more deserving of an at large got left off the list.

Not that it matters, but why is Arkansas not one of the 5 at large teams?

[Grayghost]

Remember...I said I used my rankings...not the BCS...just to put together an example. I did not have Arkansas ranked high enough to be an at large...that is just me, or my system anyway.

So please don't take it any other way than an opinion that you can disagree with. Normally, when I put my playoff together, I use the BCS rankings, in which Arkansas would be an at large, but since the new one is not out yet...viola...my rankings. Like I said, it was merely to put together a playoff example...the teams used are irrelevant.

[RazorHawk]

Remember...I said I used my rankings...not the BCS...just to put together an example. I did not have Arkansas ranked high enough to be an at large...that is just me, or my system anyway.

So please don't take it any other way than an opinion that you can disagree with. Normally, when I put my playoff together, I use the BCS rankings, in which Arkansas would be an at large, but since the new one is not out yet...viola...my rankings. Like I said, it was merely to put together a playoff example...the teams used are irrelevant.

I would not be in favor of having teams from mid-majors ala La Tech, Northern Illinois and Arkansas St and leaving off more deserving teams. I know this is done in BB, but there are also 64 teams in the BB tourney.

I actually liked the model that I believe Herbstreit was suggestion of a 6 team playoff. The top 2 teams getting a bye and then 3 vs 6 and 2 vs 5. All teams being at large and selected by a committee.

[Grayghost]

Okay...but if that is the way you want it, then lets quit pussyfooting around and ship all the non-deserving conferences off too the FCS, or create the super elite playoff subdivision...no others need apply outside the big 5 conferences. I don't have a problem with that, but since that is not the way it is, it has to include every conference champion which is why we don't have a playoff. There is just way too much hypocrisy in the FBS. We talk about it all the time on this forum. So let us declare that not all FBS confereces are created equal and split it up between the haves and the have nots. I am not trying to be a jerk, and I apologize if it comes off that way, but if we are going to declare that only the elites may play for the title, then come up with some way to determine who the elites are and form them into some super subdivison. But that also means that when a team like Vanderbilt and Kentucky don't make the cut, they go, or Indiana, or Duke, or Iowa St. or Kansas or Wash St....remember we are talking football, not basketball, so no basketball arguments on why a conference should keep a team.

And there is the rub...what we really want to say is Elite Conferences, but there are some good football schools that do not play in one of these conference (maybe someday the way everyone is jumping around), but there are bad to mediocre football schools in these Elite conferences that really should not be there from a "football" standpoint. Tradition is a lousy argument as we are throwing tradition under the bus on a daily basis...which is sad.

Long story short Razorhawk (I know...too late. ), no playoff system put together in the current landscape of college football will appeal to everyone. My system appeals to me. Your system appeals to you, and everyone who has put something forth on this thread has system that appeals to them. And until the day the someone with the power comes along and says "This is how it will be", we just get to offer our opinions here.

[donovan]

Amen Grayghost

The SEC is the strongest conference only when it is convenient. Boise beats Georgia and it is because Georgia is no good. They win 10 straight and lose to LSU and it is because the SEC is so strong.

[RazorHawk]

Actually, I have not proposed a playoff, I quote Herbstreit's and I could live with that. I do think there probably should be two levels of conferences for the 120 or so teams. Hard to put MAC or Conf USA in the same category with the Big Ten, SEC, etc.