Super 6 Schedules

The regular season for college football will remain at 12 games for the Super 6 teams. Since a full-slate of only Super 6 teams would result in an insufficient amount of home games and with teams too far under .500 each year, a maximum of two non-Super 6 teams (now called the NCAA schools) would be allowed on each team’s schedule. By limiting the number of NCAA schools on the schedule, the Super 6 is limiting the exposure and thus potential success of the competition (the NCAA). The bowl season is outlined here, but bowl eligibility would still be the same. With 16 bowls remaining (including the national semifinal games which are incorporated in the BCS bowls), 32 teams would achieve post-season play out of the 74 teams in the Super 6. That means 43% of the Super 6 teams make the post-season, which is only slightly less than the current number of BCS conference teams in bowls. (Teams left in the old NCAA will participate in a tournament to maximize revenue and minimize the losses that the bowls inflicted on them.)

The college basketball regular season will remain capped at 32 games. Outside of a team’s conference, each team can play no more than 6 non-Super 6 teams. With just 74 teams eligible for the Super 6’s March Madness, a 64 team tournament would be a joke. However, by reducing to a 32 team format, the same number of teams from major conferences (roughly 42% with the current 68 team tournament system) would still participate in the championship tournament. Rather than having an opening weekend for rounds 1 and 2 at a neutral site, perhaps those first 16 games can be played at the highest seed’s home court, and the games could be spread out over the four days for maximum TV exposure and excitement. Once 16 teams remain, then the current wonderful system can be utilized again.

Again, my proposal allows the same number of teams from major conferences–in both men’s basketball and football–to participate in the post-season as the current system does.


2 Responses to Super 6 Schedules

  1. joe4psu says:

    I like this to a point but it makes the path of least resistance an advantage if you base the playoff only on rankings. If you allow all conference champions, which I discuss on the Super 6 Playoff page, OOC scheduling could provide many more exciting matchups.

    • If you only allowed 2 non-Super 6 games, then the schools would be forced to play 2 Super 6 opponents OOC in a 12 game season (or 1, if you go to a 9 game schedule…but that’s still 10 games that are Super 6 caliber schools. Sure, Alabama could schedule Iowa St. and Washington St. and Duke each year and meet that criteria, but in general, my rule would keep the schedules tougher.

      And since you still are valuing the polling system, strength of schedule (12-0 in Big East vs. 12-0 in Big Ten) would matter. So, if Alabama has weak OOC games but Oklahoma has tough ones, they’ll be higher in the polls. It could still bite Alabama in the rear. That’s why a hybrid system (i.e. “…conference champs are in IF…”) works best. Your surest way to the playoffs is a top 4 finish…and you can ask Utah and PSU in 2008 how voters feel about SOS? A top 4 finish is only going to happen if you are a strong team that plays a strong schedule.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s