Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said the discussion centers on a four-team playoff inside the existing bowl structure with the championship game up for bid nationally.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... ll-playoff

Nice a committee is going to decide the teams, though it depends who is on it. I like that strength of schedule and conference champs are getting consideration. We will see as the details are worked out. Keeping the BCS bowls, with rotating 2 of them is probably a good thing. This is set up to move to an eight or 16 team playoff perhaps someday?

It's about time! Now all we need to do is expand it to 16.

The first time a conf champ gets left out for a second SEC team shits gonna hit he fan. 
 
Can't wait. 

Sh1t's also going to hit the fan the first time a Pac-12 champ gets in instead of a second SEC team!

Can't wait for that either!

Happy Days!!

So that means 2012 and 2013 will be the last BCS champions? That is going to leave the SEC one short of 10 straight

SuperDuck wrote:It's about time! Now all we need to do is expand it to 16.

This, until then, politics will still ruin things. 4 teams at least moves to the right direction, 8 even better, 16/24/32 would be more ideal.

UOducksTK1 wrote:

SuperDuck wrote:It's about time! Now all we need to do is expand it to 16.

This, until then, politics will still ruin things. 4 teams at least moves to the right direction, 8 even better, 16/24/32 would be more ideal.

Personally, I think that 16 would be the perfect number. The reason is because it would allow ALL conference champions to be included (mid-majors as well) and it would still leave enough at large teams to include high ranking independents and runner-up teams from power conferences. It would also keep the field from being constantly diluted with 2-3 loss teams.

There would be no lawsuits (or tears) for leaving out conference champions and some #2 teams from power conferences that played brutal schedules would still have another shot at the title if their only loss came to a highly ranked team, they lost a game because of players injured and unable to play or simply fell flat one week (see Oklahoma State @ Iowa State last year).

That kind of thing happens and it shouldn't automatically disqualify a team, nor would it reduce the importance of the regular season. Stumble once and you're forgiven, but stumble twice and you likely won't get in. If you do, it would have to be as a lower seed, which would likely mean playing on the road vs a major power conference champion.

The biggest stumbling block would be logistics. The final 4-8 could still be played at Bowls, but the first round would have to be either at the higher seed or at the largest venue closest to the higher seed.

Thinkin' out loud again.

SuperDuck wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:

SuperDuck wrote:It's about time! Now all we need to do is expand it to 16.

This, until then, politics will still ruin things. 4 teams at least moves to the right direction, 8 even better, 16/24/32 would be more ideal.

Personally, I think that 16 would be the perfect number. The reason is because it would allow ALL conference champions to be included (mid-majors as well) and it would still leave enough at large teams to include high ranking independents and runner-up teams from power conferences. It would also keep the field from being constantly diluted with 2-3 loss teams.

There would be no lawsuits (or tears) for leaving out conference champions and some #2 teams from power conferences that played brutal schedules would still have another shot at the title if their only loss came to a highly ranked team, they lost a game because of players injured and unable to play or simply fell flat one week (see Oklahoma State @ Iowa State last year).

That kind of thing happens and it shouldn't automatically disqualify a team, nor would it reduce the importance of the regular season. Stumble once and you're forgiven, but stumble twice and you likely won't get in. If you do, it would have to be as a lower seed, which would likely mean playing on the road vs a major power conference champion.

The biggest stumbling block would be logistics. The final 4-8 could still be played at Bowls, but the first round would have to be either at the higher seed or at the largest venue closest to the higher seed.

Thinkin' out loud again.

+1, 16 would work great for me. 8 or anything less is just not going to fix any problems honestly. It'd be cooler, but just realigning the problem.

SuperDuck wrote:It's about time! Now all we need to do is expand it to 16.

I think 8 would be enough. I don't think 4 is.

RanDux wrote:

SuperDuck wrote:It's about time! Now all we need to do is expand it to 16.

I think 8 would be enough. I don't think 4 is.

So if Oregon goes undefeated with a top 5 non-conference win, only to lose in the Pac-12 championship game.. They shouldn't be given a spot?

8 team tournament would most likely imply that since Conf champs will probably only be included. Horrible system imo.

UOducksTK1 wrote:

RanDux wrote:

SuperDuck wrote:It's about time! Now all we need to do is expand it to 16.

I think 8 would be enough. I don't think 4 is.

So if Oregon goes undefeated with a top 5 non-conference win, only to lose in the Pac-12 championship game.. They shouldn't be given a spot?

8 team tournament would most likely imply that since Conf champs will probably only be included. Horrible system imo.

So you thinks Stanford should have gotten in instead of a 2 loss UO team?

to give up their "4 automatic wins" OOC schedule and play a 9 game schedule this is still a very flawed system...Also this talk of 16 teams is silly, think about it, how many key players would be injured playing 4 straight weeks of football against the highest competition...have to consider that as well, IMHO. AND don't forget academics. That's a lot of extra missed class time, you're talking 16 or 17 week seasons here.

nogerO wrote:to give up their "4 automatic wins" OOC schedule and play a 9 game schedule this is still a very flawed system...Also this talk of 16 teams is silly, think about it, how many key players would be injured playing 4 straight weeks of football against the highest competition...have to consider that as well, IMHO. AND don't forget academics. That's a lot of extra missed class time, you're talking 16 or 17 week seasons here.

Yet 1-AA makes it work. Weird, maybe their schools are easier and guys play two hand touch. Fact is only 2 teams would have to worry about any of these flawed money grubbing (not that I'm saying you get money or care about the money schools would lose doing a 16 team playoff) excuses.

Interesting take on how the new format would have worked. Ducks in the playoffs 4 times according to this.

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1196882.html