Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Comments
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?
@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
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.
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.
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.
And we will never know
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.
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!
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?
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.
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?
Wiser words have never been spoken. There is no "that's good enough" in business. Anything to make an extra buck.
I like the 4-team system. But, if it were to expand to 8 they need to get rid of some of the BS bowl games. Start the playoffs the week after the end of the season. The 4-week layoff is ridiculous. Need to burst that
"New Year's" mystique. Saban brings up a good point that the playoffs diminishes the importance of the lesser bowls. So, get rid of all the 6-6, 7-5 type of bowl games. Make bowl games a significant achievement again. People complain about participation trophies...well, half of the bowl games are just that. How many P5 teams went to a bowl game with a 6-6 record, but 3 of those wins were against FCS teams? In summary, start the big-bowls earlier and get rid of all the crap bowl games. 13,000 went to the Bahamas Bowl. 14,000 went to the Frisco Bowl. 16,000 went to the Gasparilla Bowl (WTH is that?) 16,000 at the Idaho Potato Bowl. I kind of miss the days when just getting to a bowl game was a major achievement.