Mark Cuban's Playoff Idea? Crazy? You bet!

http://www.obnug.com/2011/1/17/1933539/is-mark-cubans-newest-playoff-idea-crazy-enough-to-work" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



So this is Mark Cuban's new playoff idea... a mid-season playoff, held after 5 games. Teams are ranked into brackets based on # of loses, so all the undefeateds go into the same bracket and top ranked plays bottom ranked, same with 1 loss teams, and so on.



After the first game, it's reshuffled based on new loss counts and now the top ranked team plays the 2nd ranked team.



And same for the third and final round.



What do you think?

This would be great if you started week 9 instead of week 6. You know, if this were a championship playoff instead a mid-season tournament.



Here's Cuban's initial blog post:

http://blogmaverick.com/2011/01/11/tcu-vs-auburn-wont-happen-and-more-on-the-bcs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



The more I think about this the better it could be. You can get a +1 in the form of a bowl game after week 12/conference championship weekend.

My spring football champions league style system was better than this offering from Cuban.

I like the fact they had Utah losing in the first round. :crazy:

kitic77 wrote:
My spring football champions league style system was better than this offering from Cuban.

I just loved your spring league idea... ;)

kitic77 wrote:
My spring football champions league style system was better than this offering from Cuban.

I'd much prefer a spring champions league-style system (I've posted my idea too). I'd take the top 16 teams, seed the top 4 teams and assign them to 4 different groups, and then draw the next 12 teams into the 4 groups, not allowing conference mates into the same group. Each team plays 3 round robin games against their group opponents (higher seeded team hosting), and the top 2 in group move onto the knockout stage.



The knockout stage is final 8 teams (4 group winners and 4 runners up) playing a conventional single elimination tournament on neutral fields. The total tournament takes 6 weeks (3 weeks of pool play and 3 of knockout stages).



The main reason I prefer this setup is because it forces teams play a slate of intersectional games during the knockout stages. Because teams dumb down their non-conference schedule, this give us a set of interesting interconference games we'd never see.

Mingjai wrote:

My spring football champions league style system was better than this offering from Cuban.

I'd much prefer a spring champions league-style system (I've posted my idea too). I'd take the top 16 teams, seed the top 4 teams and assign them to 4 different groups, and then draw the next 12 teams into the 4 groups, not allowing conference mates into the same group. Each team plays 3 round robin games against their group opponents (higher seeded team hosting), and the top 2 in group move onto the knockout stage.



The knockout stage is final 8 teams (4 group winners and 4 runners up) playing a conventional single elimination tournament on neutral fields. The total tournament takes 6 weeks (3 weeks of pool play and 3 of knockout stages).



The main reason I prefer this setup is because it forces teams play a slate of intersectional games during the knockout stages. Because teams dumb down their non-conference schedule, this give us a set of interesting interconference games we'd never see.

Hmmm...that sounds crazily similar to World Cup tournament structure for the "other" football....!

Yes. The Champions League is a "football" tournament held each year with the best teams from the European leagues.

kitic77 wrote:
Yes. The Champions League is a "football" tournament held each year with the best teams from the European leagues.

Ah, that capitalization helps; thanks. I mistook your "champions league style system" to be merely a system involving a (flexible) league comprised of the champions of the various NCAA football conferences.

...Which is essentially what the Champions League is, minus the NCAA.

I like the 16 team playoff at the end of the season. 11 champs and 5 at-large. First 8 out are released to the "minor" bowls. Next four losers play in two of the predetermined BCS bowl games, with the next two losers playing in the 3rd place BCS bowl game and the last two standing play in the final BCS bowl game for all the marbles. This way you get to have your cake and eat it too!

imuakahuku wrote:
I like the 16 team playoff at the end of the season. 11 champs and 5 at-large. First 8 out are released to the "minor" bowls. Next four losers play in two of the predetermined BCS bowl games, with the next two losers playing in the 3rd place BCS bowl game and the last two standing play in the final BCS bowl game for all the marbles. This way you get to have your cake and eat it too!

Works for me. The more college football the better, I say (which I did if you listen to the most recent Cougar Corner podcast!)



Crimson,

I'd even be okay with taking the 11 conference champions and then 5 at-large bids based on the final BCS standings the previous year for the spring CL.

kitic77 wrote:

I like the 16 team playoff at the end of the season. 11 champs and 5 at-large. First 8 out are released to the "minor" bowls. Next four losers play in two of the predetermined BCS bowl games, with the next two losers playing in the 3rd place BCS bowl game and the last two standing play in the final BCS bowl game for all the marbles. This way you get to have your cake and eat it too!

Works for me. The more college football the better, I say (which I did if you listen to the most recent Cougar Corner podcast!)



Crimson,

I'd even be okay with taking the 11 conference champions and then 5 at-large bids based on the final BCS standings the previous year for the spring CL.

Just note that a 16-team single elimination tournament would take 4 weeks to complete. A 16-team tournament with 3 weeks of pool play and an 8-team single elimination knockout stage only adds 2 more weeks. Since I'm in favor of more football--especially more meaningful football--I find the pool play idea particularly enticing.



This year we could have seen the following groups for pool play (I took the BCS top 16, put them into pots by quartile, drawing 1 team per quartile into each group, with the caveat that conference-mates couldn't be in the same group):



Group A

Auburn

Oklahoma

Michigan State

Nevada



Group B

Oregon

Ohio State

LSU

Oklahoma State



Group C

TCU

Arkansas

Missouri

Virginia Tech



Group D

Stanford

Wisconsin

Boise State

Alabama



Think of the amazing games we'd see during the 3 weeks of pool play--remember higher seed hosts the games in pool play.