Quote: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.

 

Right, but which one do YOU like? If you are supporting 6 teams, you are going against all of the reasons you supported 16 teams. If you still support 16 teams, you are going against the reasoning behind 6 teams. You support both, even though they contradict eachother.

 

I've said time and time again that 6 teams is probably a large enough cut off to include all deserving teams. I've even said I could support a 6 team system because of that. It just because an issue of is giving two teams byes better or allowing two extra great-but-not-elite teams in? I'd probably side with the 6 team with 2 by system, as long as home field advantage wasn't given, too.

 

Quote: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.

 

Not sure how you fail to grasp this concept.

---