Playoff consensus reached

Moderators: greenyellow, Autzenoise, UOducksTK1

uodux1212
Senior
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Playoff consensus reached

Post by uodux1212 »

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
Image

"How do we go from nine to one?" - Chip Kelly

“Our expectations are to win every game we play." - CK
soduck
Four Star Recruit
Posts: 601
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:33 pm

Re: Playoff consensus reached

Post by soduck »

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?
Image
SuperDuck
Senior
Posts: 4635
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:29 am
Location: Arizona, USA
Contact:

Re: Playoff consensus reached

Post by SuperDuck »

It's about time! Now all we need to do is expand it to 16. :-)
John 3:36
uodux1212
Senior
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Playoff consensus reached

Post by uodux1212 »

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

"How do we go from nine to one?" - Chip Kelly

“Our expectations are to win every game we play." - CK
User avatar
pezsez1
All Pac-12
Posts: 6184
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:30 pm
Location: RIP CITY

Re: Playoff consensus reached

Post by pezsez1 »

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! :lol:
Willie Taggart is a dick.
User avatar
Bud Lee
All Pac-12
Posts: 5541
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:03 am
Location: Da Boot

Re: Playoff consensus reached

Post by Bud Lee »

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 :(
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 40366
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Playoff consensus reached

Post by UOducksTK1 »

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.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
SuperDuck
Senior
Posts: 4635
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:29 am
Location: Arizona, USA
Contact:

Re: Playoff consensus reached

Post by SuperDuck »

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. :-)
John 3:36
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 40366
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Playoff consensus reached

Post by UOducksTK1 »

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.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
RanDux
Senior
Posts: 2840
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:19 pm
Location: Happy Valley, OR

Re: Playoff consensus reached

Post by RanDux »

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.
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 40366
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Playoff consensus reached

Post by UOducksTK1 »

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.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
buckmarkduck
All-American
Posts: 10983
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
Contact:

Re: Playoff consensus reached

Post by buckmarkduck »

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?
User avatar
nogerO
Senior
Posts: 4516
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:48 pm
Location: Wyoming

Until they force the SEC

Post by nogerO »

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.
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine
buckmarkduck
All-American
Posts: 10983
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
Contact:

Re: Until they force the SEC

Post by buckmarkduck »

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.
wlduck
Sophomore
Posts: 1721
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:19 pm

Re: Playoff consensus reached

Post by wlduck »

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
Post Reply