[Husker] End of the Season

[Duane Feldman]

I like my own version of a playoff for many of Bob's reasons.

1. Twelve teams with the top four teams getting byes in round #1.
2.  Teams ranked #5-8 are home venues for teams ranked #9-12 with #5 playing #12, #6 v #11 etc (a side benefit of 12 over 8 is that smaller conference winners are more likely to be included).
3. Winners of the first round are hosted by the top four teams in round 2 (No team has more than one home game, all venues are likely to be sold out, rankings do make a difference so the regular season is not invalidated).
4.  Final four teams play in three games hosted by the bowls (sites selected via round robin fashion). (No more than two teams have extended travel seasons EXCEPT for a cinderella team making it to the finals).
5.  Automatic entrants are winners of SEC, B12, B10/11, ACC, BEast, P10, and perhaps top ranked "Other Conferences plus Independents."  Remaining five come from top ranked teams (FL/GA, KU/MU, P10#2, UW/UM/PSU, and ????).  Of the last five, this year, probably GA, KU. or MU would be the fourth home game in the first round along with the three lowest ranked of the conference winners.
6.  Four weeks starting with the second week of December lasting to the first week in January.
7.  All other bowls remain as they currently are with playoff invitees not eligible for other bowls even if they lose early.

The biggest detriments are:
1.  System does not use all of the major bowls in the playoff (three bowls participate and two sit out every year but can play on Jan 1).
2.  Bowls in general and the Rose Bowl especially will like this even less than the BCS arrangement (special consideration for the P10vB10 to always meet in the RB in round #2 regardless of rankings?  Tradeoffs are neither conference champ must play in round #1 ever, but they will always draw each other rather than potentially lower ranked teams.  RB is no longer a Jan 1 bowl, never sits out a year and never hosts round #3 or the title game).
3.  Four post season games for two teams (counter argument doesn't hold water, as other divisions use a four game playoff system).

I personally prefer this to a 16 team playoff since teams can host a game only once each (8 of 12 teams at least) and travel is restricted to two games and only for two teams at that (again, except for a cinderella team).  The system preserves the integrity of the regular season and rewards those teams who have won consistently throughout the year (first round bye and home field in round #2).  Nonparticipating major bowls could form a version of the NIT????

If the bowl objections are insurmountable, then 16 teams with top eight hosting the first round and 8 bowls participating after that point.  The downside is the travel and attendance issues that Bob describes.

[NOTE:  No humor or satire intended in this post.]

Food for thought.

Duane Feldman


----- Original Message ----
From: Bob Beach <baseballguy at neb.rr.com>
To: husker at tssi.com
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2008 10:19:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Husker] End of the Season



. . . it would be physically and monetarily impossible for the lion's share of  [any team's] fans to support three weeks in a row [traveling] all over the country. . . .   I would guess bowl sponsors are putting up a fuss as well believing they possibly may lose money or at least not make what they do now.

    Before you make everyone have a conference championship game you would
have to make everyone be in a conference. There [aren't] that many Independents
They are Army, Navy, Western Kentucky, and Notre Dame. That would be very
difficult especially when one of them is Notre Dame. The best way is for the
BCS to not include the conference championship results in the BCS standings.