header pic

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.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 20   Go Down
Author

Topic: The CFP Era so far

 (Read 12870 times)

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #42 on: December 27, 2019, 11:19:35 AM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on December 27, 2019, 11:16:28 AM
Well, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt... "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
I love this quote because I think it is true so often!
Logged

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17672
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #43 on: December 27, 2019, 11:20:18 AM »
Quote from: FearlessF on December 27, 2019, 11:17:41 AM
this is true

and I'm not a fan

under the old system we could easily have had Clemson/Ohio St. and LSU/OU in bowls

or LSU vs OSU

the plus 1 game will be fun to watch as a fan, but I don't see it as any more of a big thing than a MNC from the 80's or 90's - including a split in 97 for Nebraska and Michigan
That would have been a fun game to watch as a fan
Man, that is one year where I REALLY would have loved a plus-one.  Would have been so much fun to see those two teams face off.
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #44 on: December 27, 2019, 11:21:19 AM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on December 27, 2019, 11:16:28 AM
Well, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt... "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

If we're going to agree that this is purely for show, and not even intended to be the four "best" teams, then it only strengthens my case that there should be objective criteria for inclusion (conference championships). Let them play politics with the at-large selections.
agreed

back in the 80's only the Big 8 champ was rewarded with a trip to the Orange bowl

the Big Ten may have had some illogical tie-breakers for the Rose Bowl, but that was Schembechler's problem
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25208
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #45 on: December 27, 2019, 11:22:43 AM »
Quote from: FearlessF on December 27, 2019, 11:17:41 AM
this is true

and I'm not a fan

under the old system we could easily have had Clemson/Ohio St. and LSU/OU in bowls

or LSU vs OSU

the plus 1 game will be fun to watch as a fan, but I don't see it as any more of a big thing than a MNC from the 80's or 90's - including a split in 97 for Nebraska and Michigan
That would have been a fun game to watch as a fan
OU/LSU, maybe, but I doubt the Fiesta would pass on OU for the sake of helping the Sugar Bowl. And I am 100 sure that the Rose would have taken OSU over UW if given a choice.
Logged
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12187
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #46 on: December 27, 2019, 11:25:08 AM »
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 27, 2019, 11:13:04 AM
    Bama in 2017 was "better" than #4 but they didn't "deserve" a better seed because they didn't win their conference.  I think if the committee had simply seeded based on how good they thought the teams were rather than on what they deserved, Bama would have been higher and possibly #1. 


Well, I've long argued that the problem is that some people want the "best" teams in the playoff, and others want the "most deserving" in the playoffs. The charter of the CFP committee is the four best teams in the land. Not the 4 most deserving. And if that's their charter, they should be seeding based on the best team instead. 
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #47 on: December 27, 2019, 11:27:26 AM »
they obviously do NOT adhere to any type of charter

It's about the money
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71537
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #48 on: December 27, 2019, 11:45:43 AM »
The specific wording is "four best teams FOR THE PLAYOFF", which I submit may not be "the four best teams, period".

I'm sure opinions vary within the committee, just as our opinions may vary on the 4 spot each year (this year seems clear cut to me).

Given "we" cannot devise a system that determines the "best team" with any credibility, maybe we should quit trying?
Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12187
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #49 on: December 27, 2019, 11:56:24 AM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on December 27, 2019, 11:45:43 AM
Given "we" cannot devise a system that determines the "best team" with any credibility, maybe we should quit trying?
Agreed. I see two options.

  • Go back to the old way, in which there is no clear champion, and it's all a beauty pageant. 
  • Go forward to establish clear objective criteria for a playoff (P5 conference champs), such that we don't have to make it a beauty pageant for anything more than 2-3 at-large bids. At that point the teams that are excluded from at-large berths have little to complain about, because they didn't even manage to win their own conference. 


I'd be fine with #1, honestly. I don't think we can put that genie back in the bottle, though, so I continue to argue for #2.
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71537
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #50 on: December 27, 2019, 11:58:19 AM »
Given that an 8 team playoff would generate more money, I'm still surprised it hasn't happened.  I THINK the bowls have influence over what happens and are against it.
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #51 on: December 27, 2019, 12:08:50 PM »
you mean, you THINK ESPN has influence and is against it
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12187
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #52 on: December 27, 2019, 12:14:59 PM »
Quote from: FearlessF on December 27, 2019, 12:08:50 PM
you mean, you THINK ESPN has influence and is against it
Well, ESPN spends hours every week talking about who will get selected for the CFP, which will diminish if 5 of 8 spots are auto-bids (and even moreso if one of the remaining is an auto-bid for the top G5 team that won't generate ratings/clicks to argue which one it is).

So not even counting the bowls, which I believe are almost all ESPN properties, they have yet another reason to prefer the chaos and subjective nature of the CFP--it gives them more to talk/argue about.
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71537
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #53 on: December 27, 2019, 12:16:06 PM »
Maybe, but I thought ESPN had the lesser bowls for the most part.  I don't think ESPN has particular influence beyond its checkbook.  If the 8 teamer generates more revenue for CFB, ESPN wouldn't be a factor, in my view.

I think most folks want an 8 team playoff but we'd still have arguments about who should be #7 and #8 in most years.

This year, if we went by the CFP rankings, we'd have:

LSU - Wisconsin
OSU - Baylor
Clemson - Oregon
Oklahoma - somebody else

Nice games, I'd watch, I'd expect an upset in there somewhere.
Logged

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17672
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #54 on: December 27, 2019, 12:23:37 PM »
Right, ESPN owns almost all of the bowls, and the entire CFP.  I'm relatively certain that CFP games generate a lot more revenue for ESPN and the conferences than the minor bowl games do, so further cannibalizing some of the revenue from minor bowls isn't going to be much of a deterrent.  

ESPN paid SIX BILLION DOLLARS for the playoff in its current incarnation.  And I believe they stand to make a lot more by doubling the field.
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: The CFP Era so far
« Reply #55 on: December 27, 2019, 01:05:24 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on December 27, 2019, 12:16:06 PM
Maybe, but I thought ESPN had the lesser bowls for the most part.  I don't think ESPN has particular influence beyond its checkbook.  If the 8 teamer generates more revenue for CFB, ESPN wouldn't be a factor, in my view.

I think most folks want an 8 team playoff but we'd still have arguments about who should be #7 and #8 in most years.

This year, if we went by the CFP rankings, we'd have:

LSU - Wisconsin
OSU - Baylor
Clemson - Oregon
Oklahoma - somebody else

Nice games, I'd watch, I'd expect an upset in there somewhere.
I think most of us assume that it wouldn't simply be the top-8.  I for one think that it would be the P5 Champs, the highest ranked G5 Champion, and two at-large.  I also have advocated for the top four Champs hosting the first round.  In THAT set-up the games this year would be:
  • Memphis at LSU
  • Georgia at Oklahoma
  • Winners play in Atlanta
And:
  • Baylor at Ohio State
  • Oregon at Clemson
  • Winners play in Glendale
Then:
  • Atlanta winner (LSU, OU, UGA, or Memphis) vs Glendale winner (tOSU, Clemson, Oregon, Baylor)

The two at-large teams would be the SEC and B12 CG losers, UGA and Baylor.  

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 20   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
Smokey Record TShirt

Hidden Safe