Cotton, Camping, Peach, Fiesta - "So long, losers!" Edition

18in32 said:
I agree that UCF's two-year stint of success has been the biggest challenge to the system so far. But expanding the playoff isn't necessarily the only solution to that problem. In both years we could've just changed the rules so that an undefeated G5 team gets the nod over any P5 teams with losses.
Click to expand...
Or we could just let the top 8 teams from the amalgamation of the polls play it off and stop the silliness of having a committee select the national championship contenders.
 
daBuzz said:
Or we could just let the top 8 teams from the amalgamation of the polls play it off and stop the silliness of having a committee select the national championship contenders.
Click to expand...
Huh? Using the top 8 from the polls doesn't stop a committee from choosing contenders – it just makes the committee bigger.

We both want to stop football insiders from having so much power. My solution (limits on the committee's discretion) does that. Your solution (top 8 from the polls) doesn't do that – as the polls are themselves just the result of the insiders' opinions (journalists and coaches).

Moreover, your solution lets a lot more mediocre teams into the playoff (including UGA, arrgh), watering down the regular season and conference championships. Even with the current set up, I kinda hate that one team could go undefeated throughout the season, but then teams that lost one (or even two) games are given another chance at the prize.

I'm not sure why my solution isn't more appealing to you...?

Can we at least all agree there's no reason for the multi-week layoff between the semi-finals and finals? Just another example of college athletics sacrificing themselves on the alter of TV profit. Embarrassing, IMHO.
 
18in32 said:
Moreover, your solution lets a lot more mediocre teams into the playoff (including UGA, arrgh), watering down the regular season and conference championships. Even with the current set up, I kinda hate that one team could go undefeated throughout the season, but then teams that lost one (or even two) games are given another chance at the prize.

I'm not sure why my solution isn't more appealing to you...?
Click to expand...
What's appealing about watching LSU beat up on Georgia Southern, Northwestern State, and Utah State? Because those were the out of conference games they played this year. Alabama played a similar OOC schedule. Meanwhile, Clemson played Texas A&M, Charlotte, Wofford, and South Carolina but they also played an ACC schedule that was filled with a bunch of bad teams.

Point is...regular season schedules aren't the same and they are, by necessity, created years prior to the season so there really isn't a good way to ensure that the schedule for one team is like the schedule for another. So, given that schedules aren't equal, then regular season scheduling and "this team has a loss so it's a shame they got in"...which is the argument you are making...is a faulty argument.

It's very simple. I like seeing meaningful college football games. So if it means UGA gets a shot as a one-loss team sometimes, so be it. Give me the "top 8" teams and let's let them play it off to see who wins. I'll take that over more patsy out-of-conference regular season games all day long.
 
Last edited:
18in32 said:
Can we at least all agree there's no reason for the multi-week layoff between the semi-finals and finals? Just another example of college athletics sacrificing themselves on the alter of TV profit. Embarrassing, IMHO.
Click to expand...
The playoff is getting screwed by Rose and Sugar bowl having long contracts for new year's day with ESPN. Hopefully, once one of those contracts end, they will have semi-finals always on the new year's day, and final on the first Monday after that.

I'm not sure how they got the long layoff this season. Jan 6th would have been too early if the semi finals were on Jan 1st, but they weren't...
 


ACC did ok considering how bad it was this season. It looks like average...
 
daBuzz said:
What's appealing about watching LSU beat up on Georgia Southern, Northwestern State, and Utah State? Because those were the out of conference games they played this year. Alabama played a similar OOC schedule. Meanwhile, Clemson played Texas A&M, Charlotte, Wofford, and South Carolina but they also played an ACC schedule that was filled with a bunch of bad teams.

Point is...regular season schedules aren't the same and they are, by necessity, created years prior to the season so there really isn't a good way to ensure that the schedule for one team is like the schedule for another. So, given that schedules aren't equal, then regular season scheduling and "this team has a loss so it's a shame they got in"...which is the argument you are making...is a faulty argument.

It's very simple. I like seeing meaningful college football games. So if it means UGA gets a shot as a one-loss team sometimes, so be it. Give me the "top 8" teams and let's let them play it off to see who wins. I'll take that over more patsy out-of-conference regular season games all day long.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I like seeing meaningful college football games, too. What do we mean by meaningful? I mean "everything's riding on this." And giving UGA another crack at LSU is the opposite of that principle, IMHO. It says: the huge UGA/LSU game we all got psyched for... didn't really matter, since both teams were going to keep playing anyhow. The conf champ games should be treated as play-in games, and it works just fine.

The reality is that while in almost every year there are 2-3 teams that people think might be the best in the country, there are never 8 teams that look like they're the very best in the country. This year your idea would've let Wisconsin into the CFP – a team that had already lost *twice* to Ohio State, once by 31 points. Ain't nobody out there really thinks they're as good as Ohio St. But you're gonna give them a *third* bite at the same apple?

It is very simple – that's a horrible idea!
 
cyptomcat said:


ACC did ok considering how bad it was this season. It looks like average...
Click to expand...

The VPI loss kinda stings but otherwise not bad not great and potential for the national championship. BC still to play?
 
18in32 said:
Yeah, I like seeing meaningful college football games, too. What do we mean by meaningful? I mean "everything's riding on this." And giving UGA another crack at LSU is the opposite of that principle, IMHO. It says: the huge UGA/LSU game we all got psyched for... didn't really matter, since both teams were going to keep playing anyhow. The conf champ games should be treated as play-in games, and it works just fine.

The reality is that while in almost every year there are 2-3 teams that people think might be the best in the country, there are never 8 teams that look like they're the very best in the country. This year your idea would've let Wisconsin into the CFP – a team that had already lost *twice* to Ohio State, once by 31 points. Ain't nobody out there really thinks they're as good as Ohio St. But you're gonna give them a *third* bite at the same apple?

It is very simple – that's a horrible idea!
Click to expand...
Perhaps they should televise the playoff committee's deliberations since you seem to enjoy that more than watching teams play it off?

FWIW, I remember almost the exact same argument being made when they expanded the NCAA basketball tournament to 64 teams in 1985. "There are really only a few teams who deserve a chance at it...blah blah blah." Now, it's hard to imagine going back to that arcane BS. FWIW, I was only a boy when they expanded it to 32 teams but I'm sure they made the same argument then as well.

And I remember the arguments made with vivid clarity as to why we didn't need to change away from the BCS and go to a 4-team playoff for NCAA football. Same arguments...and they were wrong, too.
 
daBuzz said:
Perhaps they should televise the playoff committee's deliberations since you seem to enjoy that more than watching teams play it off?

FWIW, I remember almost the exact same argument being made when they expanded the NCAA basketball tournament to 64 teams in 1985. "There are really only a few teams who deserve a chance at it...blah blah blah." Now, it's hard to imagine going back to that arcane BS. FWIW, I was only a boy when they expanded it to 32 teams but I'm sure they made the same argument then as well.

And I remember the arguments made with vivid clarity as to why we didn't need to change away from the BCS and go to a 4-team playoff for NCAA football. Same arguments...and they were wrong, too.
Click to expand...
I would be ok with going back to 32 teams for NCAA basketball.
 
cyptomcat said:
I would be ok with going back to 32 teams for NCAA basketball.
Click to expand...
Yes, it makes great TV having all these games and the win-or-go-home tension of it. But 68 teams is kinda crazy. And a bizarre model for football.
 
daBuzz said:
Perhaps they should televise the playoff committee's deliberations since you seem to enjoy that more than watching teams play it off?

FWIW, I remember almost the exact same argument being made when they expanded the NCAA basketball tournament to 64 teams in 1985. "There are really only a few teams who deserve a chance at it...blah blah blah." Now, it's hard to imagine going back to that arcane BS. FWIW, I was only a boy when they expanded it to 32 teams but I'm sure they made the same argument then as well.

And I remember the arguments made with vivid clarity as to why we didn't need to change away from the BCS and go to a 4-team playoff for NCAA football. Same arguments...and they were wrong, too.
Click to expand...
This is why I continue the conversation... because it doesn't seem like I've succeeded in communicating my point yet (and you're not being snarky like lev).

I hate watching the deliberations and want to minimize them... but your proposal does not eliminate them! Expanding the playoff does not eliminate deliberations – it just pushes them down to an ever-less-likely-to-be-the-best pool of potential playoff teams. Instead of debating between the #4 and #5 team, you'd be debating between the #8 and #9 team. That's just a money generating exercise and has very little to do with deciding which of the handful of teams with legitimate claims are actually the best in the country.

I want to minimize the deliberations by restricting the committee's discretion, by imposing rules on how it chooses teams (like must win your conference champ, and undefeated's always get the nod over one-loss teams, etc.).

Anytime you start to think your idea might actually make sense, remember that you'd be giving Wisconsin a ticket to the CFP after they already lost twice to another CFP team. That possibility alone should make all of your CFB-loving-hairs stand on end.
 
18in32 said:
Anytime you start to think your idea might actually make sense, remember that you'd be giving Wisconsin a ticket to the CFP after they already lost twice to another CFP team. That possibility alone should make all of your CFB-loving-hairs stand on end.
Click to expand...
I honestly could care less how they select the 8 teams; whether by an amalgamation of the various polls (ala the way they used to do it for BCS) or via a committee. OK I mis-stated that...I would prefer the amalgamation of polls but if it had to be a committee...ok, fine.

And, no, it doesn't make my hair stand on end that a 2-loss Wisconsin team would potentially make the playoffs, any more than a 1-loss Oklahoma team that was vastly overrated made the 4-team playoff.

Personally, I like watching the win-or-go-home games of the playoffs and FWIW, if you wanted to get rid of the remainder of the bowls that would be perfectly fine with me. (I do realize college players feel differently about them to an extent and like the experience and the accompanying prize packages.) Giving me 3 weeks of those instead of 2 is great with me. Put em on the field and let them play. The one team left standing at the end is the champ and they earned it on the field.
 
daBuzz said:
I honestly could care less how they select the 8 teams; whether by an amalgamation of the various polls (ala the way they used to do it for BCS) or via a committee. OK I mis-stated that...I would prefer the amalgamation of polls but if it had to be a committee...ok, fine.

And, no, it doesn't make my hair stand on end that a 2-loss Wisconsin team would potentially make the playoffs, any more than a 1-loss Oklahoma team that was vastly overrated made the 4-team playoff.

Personally, I like watching the win-or-go-home games of the playoffs and FWIW, if you wanted to get rid of the remainder of the bowls that would be perfectly fine with me. (I do realize college players feel differently about them to an extent and like the experience and the accompanying prize packages.) Giving me 3 weeks of those instead of 2 is great with me. Put em on the field and let them play. The one team left standing at the end is the champ and they earned it on the field.
Click to expand...
Wisconsin was rated #8 with THREE losses... a 1 point loss to Illinois, a 31 point loss to Ohio St, and a 13 point loss to Ohio St.
And yet you say you want "meaningful" games...
 
18in32 said:
More to the point, it's not like a 16 team should win the tournament.
Click to expand...
Why? America LOVES a Cinderella story.

Hell, look at the one I pointed out before. Valvano's NC State team beat a team that people had been talking about as one of the best teams of all time. Wanna know why they aren't down in history as one of the best? They couldn't win the big game when it counted.

That Houston team had Larry Micheaux, Michael Young and two future NBA Hall of Famers in Clyde "the Glide" Drexler and Akeem Olajuwon. But they couldn't beat an NC State team on the biggest stage under the brightest lights. As the old saying goes, "You don't have to be the best team...you just have to be the best team that day."
 
18in32 said:
Wisconsin was rated #8 with THREE losses... a 1 point loss to Illinois, a 31 point loss to Ohio St, and a 13 point loss to Ohio St.
And yet you say you want "meaningful" games...
Click to expand...
Ummm...they were rated #8 by the um.....the committee....the very same all-knowing wise ones used to pick the top 4. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top