When I go to The NFL's tie breaking procedures and compared how The NCAA's all Divisions, let alone Div. 1A, set schedules, The BS and etc to the how The NFL set schedules, determines who are The Top 12-franchises and etc I find there is no way one could use The NFL tie breaking procedures*. Plus, The NFL has division franchises play twice, by way also a perfect finanical idea with home and away set-up, and use divisional games to determine divisional playoff franchises. It makes little logical sense to first tie-breaking step use all the games played within a conference to determine divisional playoff programs, but makes perfect sense to use conference games to determine third tie-breaking step, after head to head games. Especially, in split conferences, of any size.
*- I also strongly disagree with The NFL's Strength of Victory, Strenth of Schedule (since no longer using previous seasons' records to completely determining current seasons' non-divisional schedules) and all other determinates past Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference. I must say though I have not taken the time to find better tie breaking procedure.
The same can be made for all other sports' levels being compared to The NCAA's Div. 1A, simply because of not having a playoff determinates to set-up a playoff.
The BCS ranking is a little biased with strength of schedule though, as the higher SoS teams end up with a higher SoS year after year.
What I proposed above would allow the big school conferences to have an automatic bid even if their best team doesn't have as great of a record or BCS ranking as some other schools. The ACC didn't have a dominating team this year, but that is a tough conference with many schools.
If the Big 12, Big 10, Pac 10, ACC, and SEC each have a conference championship game, and the top schools from the other conferences play for bids, then the head to head competition should prove the most worthy teams. Texas and Texas Tech would be out - just as they are now, as is Alabama. Should these teams get another chance when other conference champions have not?
I cannot answer the question, in my reason neither can anyone else, until schedules are set by outside organization. Once that is achieved then every conference winner should receive higher playoff games then non-conference winners.
One could go to a full 16 team bid system and forego the traditional Bowl game match ups. That would be fair enough, but it would certainly eliminate a lot of tradition with one blow. As long as all of the schools know what they have to do to get in, I don't see too many problems with the aforementioned system.
I think 16-programs playoff is too small and simple, there are currently only 11-conferences there would need to be 8-conferences and no independent programs equals 96-programs (I perfer realignment by geography) and thus 24-programs playoff, with 8-conferences' winners having a bye, 8-conferences' runner-ups at home versus 8-programs (any amount from any conference) with next best records. Which I believe our differences are not that far way. There are just too many programs (119-programs, ton are just barely surviving any ways), for what I believe is the most possible playoff of the future.
If I was in control, then I would use the limit in possible playoffs. 96-teams are the limit, at least as far I can work out, and thus by the 25% of total making the playoffs rule- creates 384-world wide teams/programs/franchises that are in 32-conferences. Thus, that is exactly what I will use in The GW'sSA and all the Sports' Associations and thus Sports' Levels. yes, I know it is possible, because I have worked out three-years worth schedules and etc.
< Message edited by Great White -- 12/15/2008 7:19:40 PM >
Thank you. Not racist/favorite animal. Hate Madden/NCAA/Industry is behind. Past-coach/player/sports radio/referee, now-private: teacher/coach/owner-Great White's Sports Association-FootBall/Rugby/Lacrosse, planned-late ‘2010. Student/industry person? PM