USC had damn well better be a top 4 seed or we will definitely get screwed in the seeding. can you imagine how envious and angry the power five teams are going to be if Caleb wins the Heisman.
with all the bitch'n going on in the SEC about getting their favorites in and the PAC about to be downgraded why wouldn't both the SEC and PAC love this idea. It really is dumb IMHO either 8 or 16 would be the right numbers. Looks like 12 teams will not only mean seeding but with one school getting a pass when they get down to three schools probably based upon seeding at that time for the teams that ate left.. and I would like to see them do away with conference championship games and let the outright winner be the only school considered if possible....
I agree that conference championships games are bullshit, especially in basketball. But it's hard not to determine a conference champion in football without a title game, given how large these conferences have become.
In the case of the Pac 12, the tiebreaker rules are absurd, to add insult to injury. It was better with divisions. I don't know whose idea it was to come up with the current deal in the Pac 12, but he should be strung up by his nutsack.
Prefer 8 to 12 don’t like 16 prefer to see top 4 rewarded with a bye
otherwise, why have a playoff?
Whatever. Ducks still wouldn’t have made it.
Wouldn't 16, i.e 8 games, be better?
How the hell do you break down 6 games into a title game with the top two teams?
Bullshit is unavoidable. No matter how many teams you have, they will be seeded. Therefore, some committee has to decide the seeding. I have no objection to seeding per se, as long as it has a patina of legitimacy; it's necessary. You can't seed by record, like they do in the NFL, so it's going to be subjective. But I'm chary about leaving it to the computers or the Paul Dees of the world.
I don't want or need a tournament with more teams than there are conference champions. The goal should be to find a way to identify the best team, not just to crown a champion, like they do in college basketball. Sorry, but if you finish 4th in a conference you shouldn't get to play in a tournament whose winner is declared the national champion.
I agree that the NCAA hoops tournament can be pretty stupid that way, but I also think if you're really the "best" team, you shouldn't lose to Sisters of the Poor in the first round. If you do, fuck you. If everyone is subjected to pretty much the same type of minefield, i.e. no byes and single elimination, then who is to say the best team isn't the team that wins it all? People cry all the time about the "best" team not winning it all. Well, if they were the best team they wouldn't have lost, so fuck 'em.
That said, I agree that there don't need to be that many teams in the playoffs. Maybe even 8 would suffice. But 4 is ridiculous, esp. the way they currently determine it.
As for byes, nobody has byes in the playoffs except the NFL, and I think it blows. Byes during the season are one thing, but to hell with byes in the playoffs. Not all divisions are created equal, and in some years the disparity is downright absurd. Less so if you broaden it to conferences, but it still exists in certain years. So certain teams are often rewarded unfair advantages just because they played a lot more shitass teams than teams in other divisions that were loaded.
NO byes in the playoffs! It's bullshit. They don't have them in lower divisions in football, and it works out just fine. There are no byes in MLB, NBA, or NHL either.
Play the games.
Watch the seedig in NCAA BB where certain schools get an easy path and others have to climb up hil the whole way...bet they do the same thing here particularly once they get past the seeding of the first three or four schools..