Quote:Lol, you're such a joke.  I dont feel like wasting my time, but you've backed off 8 being in as well.  You've changed your mind too.

 

16 is still the best approach, in my opinion (am I allowed to have one of those in a discussion with you?)....but you only want deserving teams, so I did say I would rather have 6 than 8 if those are the parameters. (which I've personally admitted to in this thread, but thank you for pointing it out.)  I would rather 6 or 16.....

 

Did I clear that up for you?  I'm still waiting a yes or no answer to trav's question.  You wont because it doesn't suit your arguement.  It's typical twisting from you.

 

I haven't backed off 8 or changed my mind. I think that 6 and 8 both accomplish what I think needs to happen. I support 6 for the same reason I support 8, it's just the issue of giving teams byes and home-field advantage I'm weary about. Just to be clear:

 

Quote:We agree that the more watered down it gets, the worse it becomes. This is why I think 16 teams is too many.


I think 6 would be good as it accomplishes the same thing as 8 does IMO. I think I'd rather see 2 additional teams than see two teams get byes, though. I'd have to think about that.

 

 

On the other hand, you're changing your parameters. You think 16 is best because you want to allow more teams, but also think 6 > 8 because 8 allows too many teams. That as bass-ackwards logic.

---