Playoff expansion

RPMdawg

@JayDog said:

@Teddy said:

@JayDog said:

@Teddy said:

@PTDawg said:

@Teddy said:

@PTDawg said:

@Bankwalker said:
Name the 6,7,8 seeds since 2012 who would have had a LEGITIMATE chance to win the 3 games necessary. Expanded playoffs at this level is pointless.

You'd never know for sure unless you played the games.

That's why you need a good resume game to get in, and why the regular season of college football is the best out of every sport in the world. It keeps pretty much the entire regular season like playoff game atmospheres. You lose, your chances of getting in dwindle mightily, and requires other teams to start losing... And according to your theory, we will never know if Ga Southern could knock off Bama in the championship game last year do we? Will never know, since they didn't play that game.

I wasn't advocating a random matchup for the national title. I was talking about creating opportunity for access to a playoff across the entire sport rather than just the power 5. Your GA Southern vs Bama example is a red herring and not relevant to the discussion.

My point with the example is the “we’ll never knows” don’t work well in this debate. Again, your resume’ is what matters. No deserving team has been left out yet.

No deserving team has been left out--that is a subjective statement. Tell it to the fans and media who have been in vocal disagreement. The selection process itself is subjective. The "eye test" is one of the criteria the committee uses to determine who is "worthy". Strength of schedule also has an element of subjectivity. Alabama had a very weak SOS last year. A lot of opinion goes into all of it.

Name a team that should've been in, and we can then start this debate.

It doesn't matter--it's majority opinion. SOS can be debated. Comparison of Head to head matchups can be debated. The quality of wins/losses can be debated. If you use a computer program as has been done in the past for the BCS--the criteria for assessment can be debated. Set down firm criteria that can be quantified by objective, indisputable data--there will be no reason for debate.

Human nature. Everyone thinks THEY know best or what's right.

Steve_Zissou

Would need to expand scholarship #s drastically.
I actually liked BCS program model to determine rankings. I wonder who the top 4 in would have been last year if bcs still around?

JayDog

@Teddy I just did. Argue that a team is "worthy" until you are blue in the face. If the argument is subjective--you simply can't prove it.

For academic exercise see this article--https://usat.ly/2zJ6jP8

levander

ESPN is driving all this expanded playoff nonsense because they make so much money off the play offs. And too many people believe it because they saw it on TV.

If you expand it to ‘6 teams, team 7 and 8 are going to **** they didn’t get in. If you expense it to 8 teams, teams 9 and 10 are going to **** they didn’t get in. There is no magic number of teams to let in.

The game’s already too centralized with fewer teams winning the national championship . The game was more fun when more often some random team would have a really good year and swoop in and win it all.

JayDog

@levander said:
ESPN is driving all this expanded playoff nonsense because they make so much money off the play offs. And too many people believe it because they saw it on TV.

If you expand it to ‘6 teams, team 7 and 8 are going to **** they didn’t get in. If you expense it to 8 teams, teams 9 and 10 are going to **** they didn’t get in. There is no magic number of teams to let in.

The game’s already too centralized with fewer teams winning the national championship . The game was more fun when more often some random team would have a really good year and swoop in and win it all.

ESPN will make money no matter what format is used. They built that network on polls and bowls.

I've been a fan of a true playoff since Georgia won the conference (don't remember the year) and got leapfrogged in the polls. Auburn had a year where something similar happened. The only way to end all debate about who's in is an FBS conference champion playoff system. Win and you're in.

There are problems with any system. It will always be a matter of taste on which poison you choose. If you want to argue that "fan-atics" shouldn't be so rabid for their team to be national champs and accept the will of the majority of biased voters, that's OK. I don't think, in the end, any system will stop all debate.

levander

@JayDog said:

@levander said:
ESPN is driving all this expanded playoff nonsense because they make so much money off the play offs. And too many people believe it because they saw it on TV.

If you expand it to ‘6 teams, team 7 and 8 are going to **** they didn’t get in. If you expense it to 8 teams, teams 9 and 10 are going to **** they didn’t get in. There is no magic number of teams to let in.

The game’s already too centralized with fewer teams winning the national championship . The game was more fun when more often some random team would have a really good year and swoop in and win it all.

ESPN will make money no matter what format is used. They built that network on polls and bowls.

ESPN makes more money with more playoff games. If you’ve ever been involved with companies who have public ownership, driving EPS up an extra nickel is what those executives live for. There is no being happy with what we already got.

JayDog

@levander said:

@JayDog said:

@levander said:
ESPN is driving all this expanded playoff nonsense because they make so much money off the play offs. And too many people believe it because they saw it on TV.

If you expand it to ‘6 teams, team 7 and 8 are going to **** they didn’t get in. If you expense it to 8 teams, teams 9 and 10 are going to **** they didn’t get in. There is no magic number of teams to let in.

The game’s already too centralized with fewer teams winning the national championship . The game was more fun when more often some random team would have a really good year and swoop in and win it all.

ESPN will make money no matter what format is used. They built that network on polls and bowls.

ESPN makes more money with more playoff games. If you’ve ever been involved with companies who have public ownership, driving EPS up an extra nickel is what those executives live for. There is no being happy with what we already got.

I guess today that is true. At this point, they will never go back to the old system. The genie is out of the bottle. Frankly, from a broader societal benefit point of view, it wouldn't be bad if college presidents said, "no more national championships will be recognized" opting for education supporting football, rather than the other way around.

levander

Here’s a video I watched awhile back that should help you guys who want playoff expansion understand what you are pushing for.

One thing Saban doesn’t say is it not only affects players sitting out bowl games. But it also affects which schools recruits are willing to consider.

https://youtu.be/nTubMhVKDvI

Dawg1419

@pgjackson said:

@Dawg1419 said:

@Pigeons said:

@Bankwalker said:
Name the 6,7,8 seeds since 2012 who would have had a LEGITIMATE chance to win the 3 games necessary. Expanded playoffs at this level is pointless.

UCF beat Auburn, who beat both teams that played for the NCG. I don't know if that's a legitimate shot but had there been 8 teams they would have been one of those teams.

I realize transitive property of football doesn't always work or else we could say Troy > LSWho? > Auburn > Bama.

Troy University 2018 National Champions! Print the shirts!

Good point on ucf. Why rank them if they have no chance of making the NC

Because they get publicity and a good reputation, which increases recruit interest. They start recruiting better players and coaches and slowly build a consistent winning team. Next thing you know you get an invite to a P5 conference. Now you are a contender.

I dont’ think anyone seriously believes UCF would have had a chance in hell against any of the playoff teams.

And we will never know

RxDawg

Easy. 8 teams, 5 conference champions plus 3 wildcards. Have a crew pick the 3 wildcards similar to what it is now.

That said, it probably wont change the final result much.

I've always said it should be 8 teams. Buy I've also always said it should NEVER go over 8.

RxDawg

@brentwilson said:
Let's just do a field of 68 like basketball

That would take the whole off season to play out.... which would give us football year round....OMG OMG OMG, I'm on to your plan and I like it!

RxDawg

@Teddy said:

@JayDog said:

@Teddy said:

@PTDawg said:

@Teddy said:

@PTDawg said:

@Bankwalker said:
Name the 6,7,8 seeds since 2012 who would have had a LEGITIMATE chance to win the 3 games necessary. Expanded playoffs at this level is pointless.

You'd never know for sure unless you played the games.

That's why you need a good resume game to get in, and why the regular season of college football is the best out of every sport in the world. It keeps pretty much the entire regular season like playoff game atmospheres. You lose, your chances of getting in dwindle mightily, and requires other teams to start losing... And according to your theory, we will never know if Ga Southern could knock off Bama in the championship game last year do we? Will never know, since they didn't play that game.

I wasn't advocating a random matchup for the national title. I was talking about creating opportunity for access to a playoff across the entire sport rather than just the power 5. Your GA Southern vs Bama example is a red herring and not relevant to the discussion.

My point with the example is the “we’ll never knows” don’t work well in this debate. Again, your resume’ is what matters. No deserving team has been left out yet.

No deserving team has been left out--that is a subjective statement. Tell it to the fans and media who have been in vocal disagreement. The selection process itself is subjective. The "eye test" is one of the criteria the committee uses to determine who is "worthy". Strength of schedule also has an element of subjectivity. Alabama had a very weak SOS last year. A lot of opinion goes into all of it.

Name a team that should've been in, and we can then start this debate.

Penn State last year. Perhaps even UCF... last year. And that's just last year.

My biggest argument though is that we have 5 major conferences in college football, and 4 spots. How can you objectively fill that?

Teddy

@JayDog said:
@Teddy I just did. Argue that a team is "worthy" until you are blue in the face. If the argument is subjective--you simply can't prove it.

For academic exercise see this article--https://usat.ly/2zJ6jP8

It's always going to be subjective until we go the "everyone gets a trophy" route. You haven't seen me argue that point. But they haven't gotten it wrong yet either. You won't name a team that's been left out, that should've been in, as you know you won't win that argument (subjective or not), as the committee has gotten it right. To say the system is flawed, you need to point to where it's been wrong in practice. Not just in a hypothetical sense.

And that article is cute. Its main premise is that you're supposed to win your conference, which I'm failing to find anywhere in the prerequisites of making the playoff. As there's no rule on that. If it was a requirement, they'd already have it in the rule book. Then OSU was one of the teams that was referenced as deserving. Hmm, does a top 4 team lose to unranked Iowa by 31 points? Oh yeah, OSU had another loss to OU earlier in the year at home. The only other team he mentions as potentially worthy is USC. Who only had a couple convincing wins all year, and barely beat some teams they should've killed. And oh yeah, who also had two losses (lost to Washinton St. who finished unranked, and got killed by Notre Dame). So, I don't see anything wrong with their pick. Please feel free to argue otherwise, and I'll keep stating facts like the above. Like I said, point to where it's been wrong before you complain.

Teddy

@RxDawg said:

@Teddy said:

@JayDog said:

@Teddy said:

@PTDawg said:

@Teddy said:

@PTDawg said:

@Bankwalker said:
Name the 6,7,8 seeds since 2012 who would have had a LEGITIMATE chance to win the 3 games necessary. Expanded playoffs at this level is pointless.

You'd never know for sure unless you played the games.

That's why you need a good resume game to get in, and why the regular season of college football is the best out of every sport in the world. It keeps pretty much the entire regular season like playoff game atmospheres. You lose, your chances of getting in dwindle mightily, and requires other teams to start losing... And according to your theory, we will never know if Ga Southern could knock off Bama in the championship game last year do we? Will never know, since they didn't play that game.

I wasn't advocating a random matchup for the national title. I was talking about creating opportunity for access to a playoff across the entire sport rather than just the power 5. Your GA Southern vs Bama example is a red herring and not relevant to the discussion.

My point with the example is the “we’ll never knows” don’t work well in this debate. Again, your resume’ is what matters. No deserving team has been left out yet.

No deserving team has been left out--that is a subjective statement. Tell it to the fans and media who have been in vocal disagreement. The selection process itself is subjective. The "eye test" is one of the criteria the committee uses to determine who is "worthy". Strength of schedule also has an element of subjectivity. Alabama had a very weak SOS last year. A lot of opinion goes into all of it.

Name a team that should've been in, and we can then start this debate.

Penn State last year. Perhaps even UCF... last year. And that's just last year.

My biggest argument though is that we have 5 major conferences in college football, and 4 spots. How can you objectively fill that?

Please reference UCF's SOS. End of story. But if you want to dive deeper, winning by 7 over SMU and 10 over Navy (2 of their "tougher" games) really screams best team? Penn State: Lost to OSU and Michigan St. Pretty sure Bama only lost to Auburn... Any others?

pgjackson

@levander said:

@JayDog said:

@levander said:
ESPN is driving all this expanded playoff nonsense because they make so much money off the play offs. And too many people believe it because they saw it on TV.

If you expand it to ‘6 teams, team 7 and 8 are going to **** they didn’t get in. If you expense it to 8 teams, teams 9 and 10 are going to **** they didn’t get in. There is no magic number of teams to let in.

The game’s already too centralized with fewer teams winning the national championship . The game was more fun when more often some random team would have a really good year and swoop in and win it all.

ESPN will make money no matter what format is used. They built that network on polls and bowls.

ESPN makes more money with more playoff games. If you’ve ever been involved with companies who have public ownership, driving EPS up an extra nickel is what those executives live for. There is no being happy with what we already got.

Wiser words have never been spoken. There is no "that's good enough" in business. Anything to make an extra buck.