Quote: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:

 

 

 

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.

 

No, I'm satisfying both sides of the parameters.  If you are going for people that are legit national title contenders, 6 is the max.  If you want a legit tournament where a dark horse team (most likely with a max of 2 losses, rarely 3) playing well at the end of the year has a shot, its 16.

 

I never considered 6 until tbgh mentioned it......you're 8 team model was debunked because of what you said.  If a team deserves a national title at the end of the year, its probably not if they are ranked 7 or 8.

---