Author
Topic: Should playoff teams be expanded?
(Read 21433 times)

847badgerfan · « **Reply #126 on:** December 16, 2018, 12:11:11 PM »

King Barry has come out and publicly supported going to 8. That's a big change for him.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #127 on:** December 16, 2018, 12:41:39 PM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on December 16, 2018, 11:30:56 AM

We are about to spend the entire off season sifting through countless Fro-Threads debating who would have won a four team playoff had the system been in place way back when, but spit balling changes we'd like to see to the future post season format is a complete and total waste of time?

Alrighty then....

But yet even if something is a waste of time, you might enjoy it. Both can be true - it's a waste of time AND fun exploring. Have I suggested people stop posting in this thread?
All I've said is the decision-making stakeholders aren't likely to want to change, that's all. Pffft. I'm such an ass.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #128 on:** December 16, 2018, 12:56:44 PM »

We all know this college football (and any sport, really) monster exists on a sliding scale of competition vs entertainment. We need 2 earnest teams trying to win, which interests us enough to sit down and watch it.

Expanding the playoff, to me, seems like the scale is sliding further towards entertainment and away from competition, and my fear is that it's sliding too far that way. I may be completely wrong.

But there's corollaries with other sports - baseball is finding out that the best strategy to win games may come at the expense of entertainment - and so they're thinking up ways to "fix" it. College football, in a vast landscape of sports, was unique in that it lacked an expansive playoff. In baseball, perhaps more than any other sport, the worst team beats the best team a relatively high percentage of the time. This wasn't that big of a deal when each league had a champion and the only postseason was the World Series. But as leagues split first into 2 divisions each, and then 3, with extra rounds of playoffs, the World Series champion has become more or less random from that set of teams. The wild-card has only the extra task of overcoming home-field advantage to win the championship.
The NFL's playoff has allowed wild-card teams to win the Super Bowl. We had our first 9-7 team to win a SB. That team had a negative point differential during the regular season, btw. Ohhhh, OAM, who cares?!?! A team that was 9-7 BUT WAS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN THAT won the SB. A team who was still 8.5 games better than the SB champion had nothing to show for it. The team that wound up 12-7 wears the crown, but the one that went 17-1 wasn't good enough? WTF? Again, too far down the entertainment end, pulling away from the competition side.

I guess my argument is hey, let's NOT have a 3-loss NC. Let's not have G5 teams get stomped on the highest stage. This idea of 8 teams or 5+2+1 is akin to giving everyone a trophy. Everyone makes fun of that, but they're on board with expanding the playoff. Huh??

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #129 on:** December 16, 2018, 01:13:56 PM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 16, 2018, 12:56:44 PM

We all know this college football (and any sport, really) monster exists on a sliding scale of competition vs entertainment. We need 2 earnest teams trying to win, which interests us enough to sit down and watch it.

Expanding the playoff, to me, seems like the scale is sliding further towards entertainment and away from competition, and my fear is that it's sliding too far that way. I may be completely wrong.

But there's corollaries with other sports - baseball is finding out that the best strategy to win games may come at the expense of entertainment - and so they're thinking up ways to "fix" it. College football, in a vast landscape of sports, was unique in that it lacked an expansive playoff. In baseball, perhaps more than any other sport, the worst team beats the best team a relatively high percentage of the time. This wasn't that big of a deal when each league had a champion and the only postseason was the World Series. But as leagues split first into 2 divisions each, and then 3, with extra rounds of playoffs, the World Series champion has become more or less random from that set of teams. The wild-card has only the extra task of overcoming home-field advantage to win the championship.
The NFL's playoff has allowed wild-card teams to win the Super Bowl. We had our first 9-7 team to win a SB. That team had a negative point differential during the regular season, btw. Ohhhh, OAM, who cares?!?! A team that was 9-7 BUT WAS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN THAT won the SB. A team who was still 8.5 games better than the SB champion had nothing to show for it. The team that wound up 12-7 wears the crown, but the one that went 17-1 wasn't good enough? WTF? Again, too far down the entertainment end, pulling away from the competition side.

I guess my argument is hey, let's NOT have a 3-loss NC. Let's not have G5 teams get stomped on the highest stage. This idea of 8 teams or 5+2+1 is akin to giving everyone a trophy. Everyone makes fun of that, but they're on board with expanding the playoff. Huh??

Your idea for a 68 team format is a little over the top, imo. For one thing there are a lot more College Basketball teams and Conferences than what we have in College Football. On top of that, you can't play two Football games in one weekend, so the tourney would just drag on forever.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #130 on:** December 16, 2018, 01:36:17 PM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 16, 2018, 12:56:44 PM

I guess my argument is hey, let's NOT have a 3-loss NC. Let's not have G5 teams get stomped on the highest stage. This idea of 8 teams or 5+2+1 is akin to giving everyone a trophy. Everyone makes fun of that, but they're on board with expanding the playoff. Huh??

People make fun of that because it’s a dumb metaphor that started with appeasing dumb parents and has literally been stretched to the stupid limit.
In this case, for a long time, it was just decided. Teams played the games for the reasons they did, and at the end, someone said, you’re prettiest. Then they decided, what if they play for the trophy by means of actual competition? Interesting idea. And it expands outward from there.
This isn’t “let’s give everyone a trophy.” This is let’s have everyone compete for a trophy by rules with a modicum of logic and structure. And there’s a good argument we don’t want that.
The old system was akin to coming to the end of a tied game and saying “that team played better, so they win.” That’s what happened to Ohio State. And if our simple answer is, college football is good becuase there will almost always be a level of giving someone a trophy rather than a hard and fast system to compete for one, and that why we like it, that’s OK.
But with a playoff, you compete for a trophy, with the old system, some teams are handed chances to, or just given one.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #131 on:** December 16, 2018, 03:36:57 PM »

Who are the powers resisting an expanded playoff?

There would be more money, right? And yet we don't seem to be heading to one.

ELA · « **Reply #132 on:** December 16, 2018, 03:48:42 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on December 16, 2018, 03:36:57 PM

Who are the powers resisting an expanded playoff?

There would be more money, right? And yet we don't seem to be heading to one.

I'm guessing the issue would be CCGs in jeopardy if we did, and the SEC at least, would likely lose money by giving up their CCG in favor of a shared additional round?
Otherwise, that was my point all along, when, currently, do you see people make decisions that leave money on the table?

Cincydawg · « **Reply #133 on:** December 16, 2018, 03:50:39 PM »

They do so when there are overriding objections, clearly, which is why I think my question is important.

SOMEONE is resisting this, successfully. Who and why are critical questions.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #134 on:** December 16, 2018, 03:52:43 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on December 16, 2018, 03:50:39 PM

They do so when there are overriding objections, clearly, which is why I think my question is important.

SOMEONE is resisting this, successfully. Who and why are critical questions.

I know the UW chancellor is a foe of expanded playoffs. I also know the UW AD is now in favor of expanded playoffs.

One can fire the other, but I'm not sure that would a good move for the lady.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #135 on:** December 16, 2018, 03:58:33 PM »

CFB always moves at a snails pace. It took us 20 years just to get to this point, and half the people on this board still want to drag us back to the old poll n bowl system. It is what it is.

ELA · « **Reply #136 on:** December 16, 2018, 04:20:26 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on December 16, 2018, 03:50:39 PM

They do so when there are overriding objections, clearly, which is why I think my question is important.

SOMEONE is resisting this, successfully. Who and why are critical questions.

Aside from the SEC, fear of lawsuits? Adding an additional game.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #137 on:** December 16, 2018, 04:40:13 PM »

I suggested some above:

1. University presidents.
2. Bowl committees.
3. Some/many ADs.
4. Some conference commissioners. ( don't know how the SEC comish thinks about this.)
5. Maybe some PTBs in the NCAA.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #138 on:** December 16, 2018, 05:16:09 PM »

Quote from: bayareabadger on December 16, 2018, 01:36:17 PM

But with a playoff, you compete for a trophy, with the old system, some teams are handed chances to, or just given one.

This is true, but the more teams you allow into a playoff, the less deserving each additional team is. Socially, as a culture, we should be inclusive. But when determining a champion of a sport, we should be exclusive. If you don't win the beauty contest, keep knocking at the door or kick it in and eventually make them see you by winning.
Take UCF. We have learned that a UCF team with 13 straight wins isn't allowed in. We've learned a UCF team with 25 straight wins isn't allowed in. But at some point (whether it's 38 or 50 or 100), they will be let in. I guess it's not fair that a Notre Dame can get in after "only" 12 straight wins, but that's life. If those UCF players could've gotten a scholarship from ND, they'd be playing for ND. This is competition, dog-eat-dog, from recruiting to facilities to games on the field and to the rankings. What should UCF do? Keep winning. Win until you get in.
Why is 8 the right number? Why not 16? Why not 6? It's so arbitrary. It'd be random if cubed numbers didn't exist, which is hilarious, actually. And if 8/130 teams (6%) is the right number, then why does every single other sport have way more than that in their playoffs (NFL 37.5%, NBA 53%, MLB 31%)??? If the best answer to that is "because it's more than 4", then that's embarrassing.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #139 on:** December 16, 2018, 05:38:47 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on December 16, 2018, 04:40:13 PM

I suggested some above:

1. University presidents.
2. Bowl committees.
3. Some/many ADs.
4. Some conference commissioners. ( don't know how the SEC comish thinks about this.)
5. Maybe some PTBs in the NCAA.

SEC commissioner will never be for expansion until an SEC misses the playoff. So, the SEC commissioner will never be for expansion. At least as long as ESecPN has the contract to broadcast, that is. I'm only partly tongue-in-cheek on this.

There will never be a playoff game in Chicago. It wouldn't be fair to make Nick's kids wear gloves.

To take your #2 a little further, it's not just the committee. It's the City, County and State in which the bowl is located too. There is money to be made there.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Should playoff teams be expanded?

847badgerfan

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

bayareabadger

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

Cincydawg

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

ELA

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

Cincydawg

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

847badgerfan

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

ELA

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

Cincydawg

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?

847badgerfan

Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?