College Fusbol

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if you lose in the round of 16, is your season over after week 6? If not, since you don't know in advance who will win, how do you arrange the rest of the season which obviously has to be planned well in advance?

Whether you win or lose in week 6, you then play out the rest of your conference schedule.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Whether you win or lose in week 6, you then play out the rest of your conference schedule.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Still see issues, interested in your responses.
First, any team that loses in weeks 1, 2, or 6 has little incentive to keep playing their best. I realize most teams don't have any hope of winning, but what if, say, Alabama loses in week 2. They're out, right? But we all know a team like Alabama that loses one early can get right back into the running in the current system.

Second, I still see scheduling issues. All 64 teams would have to leave weeks 2 and 6 open in case they advance. Or you would have to allow for cancellations.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Still see issues, interested in your responses.
First, any team that loses in weeks 1, 2, or 6 has little incentive to keep playing their best. I realize most teams don't have any hope of winning, but what if, say, Alabama loses in week 2. They're out, right? But we all know a team like Alabama that loses one early can get right back into the running in the current system.

Second, I still see scheduling issues. All 64 teams would have to leave weeks 2 and 6 open in case they advance. Or you would have to allow for cancellations.

The specific issues with either Al's or my suggestions I consider irrelevant. We are not that close to reality to deal with scheduling, cancellations or the like to make a change work. At least my system has a track record of workability in jolly old England.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Still see issues, interested in your responses.
First, any team that loses in weeks 1, 2, or 6 has little incentive to keep playing their best. I realize most teams don't have any hope of winning, but what if, say, Alabama loses in week 2. They're out, right? But we all know a team like Alabama that loses one early can get right back into the running in the current system.

Second, I still see scheduling issues. All 64 teams would have to leave weeks 2 and 6 open in case they advance. Or you would have to allow for cancellations.

This would be a single-loss tournament, so no backsies. I do think though, because the teams would be seeded, that the first two rounds would be almost entirely mis-matches. If a top team lost a regular season game to a weak opponent now, their championship hopes would be dashed. Once you get to the third round (Week 6) when you are down to 16 teams, then you are right: the team that loses is out of the championship and the winner moves on. It might make sense to move the 3rd round back a week or two, to soften that, but the reality for most teams is they will need to adjust their goals downward as the season goes down. Once you are out of the mix for the championship, you need to look to the conference standings, or to a bowl game. Or maybe just the end-of-season game against your rival.

Yes, scheduling will be a big issue. Now many games are planned years in advance. Patsy schools get big money for going on the road to play an early season game against a Power 5 team. I think an in-season tournament could legitimize these games a bit and even increase the pot for the underdog teams. You'd still want to give the favored team home field advantage. The first games could be scheduled as soon as the prior season is over. However the second round and third round games would need to be scheduled on the fly. Schools would need to have options in place for who to play next if they lose in their tourney game. It might also make sense to move the second round game back to week 3, to allow for more time to plan for the game.

The advantage of an in-season tourney that winds through the season is that it lets all teams (at least the top 64) have a fair chance to prove it on the field. It also avoids what I believe is a big problem with the 12-team playoff the FBS will have, which is that teams could be playing up to 5 post-season football games. That I think is crazy.

[frankbmd]

I agree that the 12 team playoff will be no better than the four team playoff. That's why I prefer a 66 game playoff for the top twelve teams called the regular season in the premier league relegation model. I know it will never happen but it just makes sense, not only for the first division but all the way down the ladder. It creates incentives and competition at all levels.

I know that people who enjoy Alabama winning 77-0 will disagree with me.