CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on April 29, 2021, 04:23:21 PM
-
Ugh.
I've long since resigned myself to the idea the expansion from the current four team model is inevitable but I was hoping that they would maintain at least some of the "every game matters" feel in the regular season. A 12 team playoff would likely eliminate that completely.
Looking at the last pre-pandemic season, here are the final CFP rankings:
- 13-0 LSU, SEC Champ
- 13-0 tOSU, B1G Champ
- 13-0 Clemson, ACC Champ
- 12-1 Oklahoma, B12 Champ
- 11-2 UGA
- 11-2 Oregon, PAC Champ
- 11-2 Baylor
- 10-3 Wisconsin
- 10-2 Florida
- 10-2 PSU
- 11-2 Utah
- 9-3 Auburn
- 10-2 Bama
- 9-3 Michigan
- 10-2 Notre Dame
- 9-3 Iowa
- 12-1 Memphis, AAC Champ
- 10-2 Minnesota
- 12-1 Boise St, MWC Champ
- 12-1 ApSt, SunBelt Champ
- 10-3 Cincy
- 8-4 USC
- 9-2 Navy
- 9-4 UVA
- 8-4 OkSU
-
Meh. Money.
-
12-teams and Bama is left out?
Perfect
-
Ugh.
I've long since resigned myself to the idea the expansion from the current four team model is inevitable but I was hoping that they would maintain at least some of the "every game matters" feel in the regular season. A 12 team playoff would likely eliminate that completely.
If it's a 10-2 model, it's really no different than an 8 team playoff. You are just throwing a bone to all conference champs, which would actually make more games matter, while likely never impacting the final 4, and almost never impacting the final 8
If you are talking a bunch of at large teams, then yeah, you are killing the every game matters
-
The final CFP rankings are penultimate.
-
The final CFP rankings are penultimate.
Not really because there isn't another one.
-
If it's a 10-2 model, it's really no different than an 8 team playoff. You are just throwing a bone to all conference champs, which would actually make more games matter, while likely never impacting the final 4, and almost never impacting the final 8
If you are talking a bunch of at large teams, then yeah, you are killing the every game matters
It would be ridiculous to include all of the tallest midgets while excluding really good teams like Wisconsin and Florida.
I hate it in BB and at least there the teams that get screwed over a middling major conference teams. In a 10+2 you'd be screwing a Wisconsin team that finished 10-3 but had to play tOSU twice and a 10-2 Florida team whose losses were to #1 LSU and #5 UGA to include teams that UW's and UF's backups could wipe the floor with.
-
Top 12....let's see, a third of them are from the SEC in a "down" year for Bama.
No mid-majors.
A couple of 3-loss teams that can get hot or face a team with a key injury.
.
Yeah, that's a great plan, everyone will love it. Let's be bored from August-December and all jerk off after New Year's!
-
LSU vs Wiscy/Fla winner
.
OSU vs Baylor/PSU winner
.
Clem vs Oregon/Utah winner
.
OU vs UGA/Auburn winner
.
So let me get this right. We could have a 2nd rd rematch, another 2nd rd rematch, a 1st rd rematch, and then a 2nd rd rematch? SIGN ME UP!
-
I'm assuming 4 byes then? Gross. Byes suck.
-
I thought they'd try six, then eight before twelve, which leads me to suspect that it will include the Mac and Sunbelt champs.
-
All conference champs plus at large to fill it out would be awesome. Just the committee picking more teams based on recruiting rankings would be a lot less awesome.
-
All conference champs plus at large to fill it out would be awesome. Just the committee picking more teams based on recruiting rankings would be a lot less awesome.
Why do you actively support completely screwing your school and all schools like it to include vastly inferior crappy tallest midgets?
-
Why do you actively support completely screwing your school and all schools like it to include vastly inferior crappy tallest midgets?
In this case, ensures closer to every game mattering.
:)
(I don't actually actively support it. I think eight would be just peachy. Four is weird and a little ragged to me. Though honestly, I mostly just try to appreciate CFB seasons for what they are, which seems to be something a lot of folks have little to no interest in doing)
-
They'll never win. And it creates a ton more interesting games. Allowing 3 loss P5 schools makes the regular season completely meaningless
-
Why do you actively support completely screwing your school and all schools like it to include vastly inferior crappy tallest midgets?
Because I am fan of sports, and when we get away from results on the field, we are doing away with the reason we watch sports in the first place. It is more fun when my team earns it as opposed to being the team that makes ESPN more money.
-
4 teams when there are 5 "power" conferences is perfect. It's survival of the fittest. It encourages working and becoming a multi-year elite program and earning those benefits o the doubt. At the start of the season, those P5 conferences know that one of them (or 2) are getting left out - claw and scratch and bite and don't be left out.
12 teams......screw it. It's college basketball. Finish 3rd in your conference, doesn't matter, get hot late. Or if it's including every conference, yeah, let's have some games over at halftime in the playoff. That's fun. Let's have backups playing it out from the 3rd quarter. Good stuff.
-
I've noted before, upsets happen. With an 8 team playoff, you have to win three times in succession against rather good opponents. It is very unlikely, even if you have "the best team".
-
Such a move might force schools like Notre Dame, BYU and Army to join a conference, which could result in some more realignment musical chairs.
-
4 teams when there are 5 "power" conferences is perfect. It's survival of the fittest. It encourages working and becoming a multi-year elite program and earning those benefits o the doubt. At the start of the season, those P5 conferences know that one of them (or 2) are getting left out - claw and scratch and bite and don't be left out.
this simply encourages a conference to protect their best team. That one or two conference teams that have a better chance of making the 4-team playoff.
giving Ohio St. and Oklahoma and Clemson and USC/Oregon the most advantages year after year to ensure your conference gets a seat at the money table is ugly
-
We aren't solving world hunger here, this is an entertainment product
-
We aren't solving world hunger here, this is an entertainment product
Yup.
Which is why they shoulda left it alone from about 1983 on.
-
yup, I'm surprised that going to a 4-team playoff didn't solve world hunger and world peace
-
In a few years, UGA has scheduled three P5 teams in a single season, two of whom are the likes of Ohio State and Clemson, etc. I think we'd see that end abruptly, as teams vied to play more pastries to get to 11-1 at least.
-
In a few years, UGA has scheduled three P5 teams in a single season, two of whom are the likes of Ohio State and Clemson, etc. I think we'd see that end abruptly, as teams vied to play more pastries to get to 11-1 at least.
Maybe, but the counter-argument is that if you do take a loss, but have a really strong OOC schedule, you might get the committee's nod over another 1-loss team that played a bunch of pastries.
-
this is a good idea for a PAC-12 team of a Big 12 team or an ACC team
not a great idea for an SEC team, that will get in above another 1-loss team
-
this is a good idea for a PAC-12 team of a Big 12 team or an ACC team
not a great idea for an SEC team, that will get in above another 1-loss team
Outside of Ohio State, the B1G's not getting any BOTD there, either.
-
but, this is the Big Ten board and I didn't want to stir the pot
-
this simply encourages a conference to protect their best team. That one or two conference teams that have a better chance of making the 4-team playoff.
giving Ohio St. and Oklahoma and Clemson and USC/Oregon the most advantages year after year to ensure your conference gets a seat at the money table is ugly
When has this happened?
When have the other 11-13 teams stood by as a conference catered to their best team?
-
In a few years, UGA has scheduled three P5 teams in a single season, two of whom are the likes of Ohio State and Clemson, etc. I think we'd see that end abruptly, as teams vied to play more pastries to get to 11-1 at least.
That's ridiculous.
With auto-bids for conference champs, you are better off sharpening iron with iron in the OOC slate, in order to best prepare yourself for a run at the conference title.
It would go back to pre-BCS OOC scheduling, imo.
-
I think you're better off playing two pastries to start the year, then your conference slate, then another pastry before a Big Game, and then some sole P5 team like Georgia Tech that isn't very good.
Then you can finish 11-1 and likely make a 12 game playoff. Play OSU and Clemson early and get beat twice, perhaps, and players injured, and a new QB scared of the rush, and bad things ensue.
-
If your goal is to avoid injuries, then yes.
If your goal is to play someone that will make you better, and prepare you for a conference title run, no.
-
I think you're better off playing two pastries to start the year, then your conference slate, then another pastry before a Big Game, and then some sole P5 team like Georgia Tech that isn't very good.
The SEC is allowed to do this. Nobody else is.
-
When has this happened?
When have the other 11-13 teams stood by as a conference catered to their best team?
ask the Big 12
remember that little 3-way tie breaker that just happened to go to the Sooners?
-
ask the Big 12
remember that little 3-way tie breaker that just happened to go to the Sooners?
Poor planning = funnelling support behind the best team?
If they are the best team, does it matter?
I'm confused. What year is this? Wasn't it just the hgihest-ranked in the BCS in 2008?
-
We aren't solving world hunger here, this is an entertainment product
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-0/p526x296/174528841_10158141676440920_1739654523490272543_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=ZyL0hHLij6QAX_1zQj5&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&tp=6&oh=99aa0d98411957f95519ffbd404f01d7&oe=60B08F1D)
-
Pro and Cons of an 8 team playoff (same as for 12 mostly).
Pros
1. More high level games in January
2. Just making the playoff gets your team some credit
3. More money, esp. if first round games are played at host stadia
4. Probably some more
Cons
1. The bowl games will become even less important outside the ones included.
2. That 8-9-10 pick will be controversial nearly every year, as will seeding.
3. On occasion, that 8 seed will upset a 1 seed (and 7-2 etc.).
4. School Presidents will jaw about student athlete stuff.
5. Some players may sit it all out and prepare for the Draft (esp. for bowl teams only).
6. The final rounds would need to be indoors or far south making many teams travel.
7. A fan would have to buy three tickets in effect if he thinks his team will make it through. $$$
8. Probably some more.
-
4 teams when there are 5 "power" conferences is perfect. It's survival of the fittest. It encourages working and becoming a multi-year elite program and earning those benefits o the doubt.
This makes me chuckle because it is so in line with the extremely particular and highly rigid OAM world view.
To most, The idea that playoff spots now is in part determined by the success of people years ago or decades ago is more bug than anything else. But to some, it’s a feature.
-
They'll never win. And it creates a ton more interesting games. Allowing 3 loss P5 schools makes the regular season completely meaningless
It strikes me that we just have to accept that if meaning is derived from the pursuit of a playoff, in any system, more than 8 in 10 (maybe 9 in 10) regular season games are completely meaningless.
Which I suppose is fine in its own way. It's fair to say we prefer the weight of meaning to be in a particular set of games vs. a particular other set of games.
-
as Saban eluded.........
it's fine for the top 15 teams, but the other 100 programs then have no reason to care. their bowl games and regular season are meaningless
-
as Saban eluded.........
it's fine for the top 15 teams, but the other 100 programs then have no reason to care. their bowl games and regular season are meaningless
But if there were two teams, or no title game at all, wouldn’t most of those games be about as meaningless?
if the answer is, having a good season by whatever standards you have, facing and beating a solid team in a bowl and getting a nice trip out of it are 100 percent without meaning, then the majority of the sport wasn’t worth caring about to start with. And I just don’t think that’s the case.
-
This makes me chuckle because it is so in line with the extremely particular and highly rigid OAM world view.
To most, The idea that playoff spots now is in part determined by the success of people years ago or decades ago is more bug than anything else. But to some, it’s a feature.
What's rigid about reality?
Under the current format, the have-nots aren't getting into the playoff. Whether you go back 4 years or 40 years, they're simply not invited to the party. But they could be. All they have to do is keep winning and keep winning and get into the playoff and win some more.
No, it's absoutely not fair to each individual team-season of that program, but it's the reality of the situation.
And yes, any playoff should be exclusive.
-
The Bowl Games have always been glorified exhibitions, and most of them didn't even exist until cable TV took off.
-
The Bowl Games have always been glorified exhibitions, and most of them didn't even exist until cable TV took off.
This is true, but bowl committees have a seat at the table, so to speak, a voice. We'd all agree an 8 gamer would generate more revenue, and usually that is the Trump Card, so why do we not have one by now?
-
There are plenty of fans of Purdue and Kansas State and Ole Miss, et al. They enjoy the sport, they aspire for a 9-4 season and a bowl game, and have fun, perhaps more fun than Bama fans. (I would assert this is true for Ole Miss fans.)
Even Rutgers has some fans, I imagine. South Carolina has some rabid fans, with no realistic chance of making any playoff. (They have had some good teams in the past.)
The sport should be about the fans I think, who pay the money and watch TV. All of them.
-
What's rigid about reality?
Under the current format, the have-nots aren't getting into the playoff. Whether you go back 4 years or 40 years, they're simply not invited to the party. But they could be. All they have to do is keep winning and keep winning and get into the playoff and win some more.
No, it's absoutely not fair to each individual team-season of that program, but it's the reality of the situation.
And yes, any playoff should be exclusive.
I mean, reality isn't that rigid. We'll soon enough have a larger playoff.
But your outlook is rigid. I don't really think that's arguable. And it's particular, right down to this silly hero's journey, if small team X just puts in the work and hits every arbitrary signpost for a skeptic's approval, only then does the magic happen.
What's interesting about an exclusive playoff is even back to the BCS, the exclusivity was always somewhat mixed. It never excluded teams that couldn't win their division or conference. I suppose it did once exclude all but one conference, which led to the playoff we have now. Could just exclude teams that don't win conference titles, and we'll be nice and exclusive with a 10-team format. And the wrong loss can still deny you a spot.
-
Isn't everyone pretty rigid on topics they've spent a lot of time on? I doubt many people on this planet have spent as much time as I have just thinking about college football and everything relating to it.
Hell, a big reason i crated a game was that it made sense to possibly make some money on something I was already doing in much of my leisure time toiling with.
I've spent hours and hours on every realignment idea, on every playoff incarnation, etc.
If you mean rigid in terms of haves and have-nots, I'm just going by what I've seen. There is a definitive barrier between X-programs and Y-programs and college football is currently living a lie, as if they're all on the same plane. There are 4 obvious levels of FBS all in one level. Yes, it's stupid that an Alabama fan can hope for a NC, a Purdue fan cannot, but then a James Madison fan can. Why does Purdue (or Arizona or South Carolina), a bigger, richer entity in every way, have lower expectations than James Madison?
Most every post of mine on this topic begins with LET'S STOP LIVING THE LIE - I want everyone who enjoys playing, coaching, and watching football to have that hope of being the best. That doesn't exist now. And an expanded playoff doesn't change anything. That's the problem. It's a band-aid on a speeding ticket.
-
There are plenty of fans of Purdue and Kansas State and Ole Miss, et al. They enjoy the sport, they aspire for a 9-4 season and a bowl game, and have fun, perhaps more fun than Bama fans. (I would assert this is true for Ole Miss fans.)
Even Rutgers has some fans, I imagine. South Carolina has some rabid fans, with no realistic chance of making any playoff. (They have had some good teams in the past.)
The sport should be about the fans I think, who pay the money and watch TV. All of them.
Hell, these days you can be under .500 and still make it to a bowl game under certain circumstances. The minor bowls aren't going anywhere. Nothing changes for a 9-4 middle of the road team, at all.
-
Most every post of mine on this topic begins with LET'S STOP LIVING THE LIE - I want everyone who enjoys playing, coaching, and watching football to have that hope of being the best. That doesn't exist now. And an expanded playoff doesn't change anything. That's the problem. It's a band-aid on a speeding ticket.
I don't really get behind this goal. Pro sports are at least in theory much more even, so if that's what you are looking for, there ya go. But they also tend to be a lot less interesting. College sports have real upsets that people remember forever. I like the idea of everyone being allowed to participate and compete for a title - that doesn't exist now. But competitive imbalance is also a lot of fun.
-
I don't really get behind this goal. Pro sports are at least in theory much more even, so if that's what you are looking for, there ya go. But they also tend to be a lot less interesting. College sports have real upsets that people remember forever. I like the idea of everyone being allowed to participate and compete for a title - that doesn't exist now. But competitive imbalance is also a lot of fun.
This is just tone-deaf.
It's not much fun if you're playing for a shitty team for 4 years. Where your only real chances for success are against FCS schools...or you're lining up against some All-American who kicks your ass around for 3 hours. The only times you do well are the plays he takes off or against his backup. That's not very fun.
Football is fun when you play well. Football is fun when you win. Football is fun when you have the chance to say "we're the best" of a district or division or conference or country.
.
With that phrase in bold, I have to ask if you ever played football? And who is your team/school/program?
-
I don't agree that pro football is worse because it has a square, even infrastructure. That's not what makes college better than the NFL. There's nothing inherently flawed with everyone on equal footing. I'm honestly stunned someone would make the argument that competitive balance is more fun.
.
If college football was an 8x8 (or 16x4) teams/conference alignment and went to a champs-only playoff, it wouldn't suddenly suck.
.
The NFL sucks because everyone's socks have to be the same and 9-7 teams are crowned the champions.....every single little thing is about $$$, teams just drop their best player because of the salary cap, it's HEAVILY reliant on fantasy football and gambling......and the same faces are in place for 10+ years.
The 4-year turnover in college football is underrated. The fact that your star LB, that cheerleader, and the backup kicker might all take the same class is neat. The stadiums are as famous as any of the players.
The uncertainty of what might happen at the end of a great season may appeal to some, but it's not a strength of the sport.
-
I had fun playing sports even when we didn't do that well. We won our region in baseball when I was a soph, that was cool of course.
Our Cincy baseball team would go to tournaments at times, once in Columbus, OH we played a team that was sponsored by a radio station and they were all a year or two out of the high minors. The obliterated us, but it was a lot of fun, they were really nice guys. They threw a pitcher at us we could sort of hit. We played on astroturf in the minor league stadium and it was 440 to center field. I thought walking out "Well no HRs here today."
They hit several monster shots. We used a pitcher on our side who threw 55 mph junk and they had trouble with him relatively.
-
If the other team purposely started a pitcher you could 'sort of hit',
a - you two shouldn't have been playing in the first place, and
b - if I knew that to be true, I'd probably sit out or quit....that's disrespectful
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5-iJUuPWis
Maybe I'm weird and went to the Herm Edwards school of sports. Losing sucks. Playing poorly sucks. Being placated with kid gloves by an opponent....NOPE.
-
If the other team purposely started a pitcher you could 'sort of hit',
a - you two shouldn't have been playing in the first place, and
b - if I knew that to be true, I'd probably sit out or quit....that's disrespectful
It was a double elimination tournament. We didn't choose our opponent. I'm sure their top two pitchers could have whiffed most of us, boring, and they got to save them for other top teams in the tourney. I personally had a lot of fun. We went 0-2, and then played two more consolation games, I think we won one of them.
We went to the Men's Senior World Series in Phoenix the next year and went 0-6, though we had a couple close losses, and had a blast. There were 360 teams there, divided into A, B, and C, we played "C".
One funny thing, I found a "reasonably priced motel" for us that advertised it had beer and snacks as happy hour, "free". It was a Best Western, usually OK. We went to the small room to find the beer sitting out at room temperature and two bags of nasty chips. Then they cut the hot water off two mornings in a row.
I volunteered to complain and the manager agreed to give us one night free, but we had paid cash for the rooms for a week, so she had to hit the ATM but we each got $90 back. The cold showers were not fun. Of course, this is an over 30 league "for fun". One pitcher on an opposing team pitched for the Reds, he was probably 50 but could still gun it, probably 85 mph. He threw every pitch down the middle of the plate, he was very hittable. He told me he had no interest in throwing anything else as it would be boring. Strikes outs are boring.
-
The question I ask about changes to CFB is "Would this make the game more enjoyable for the most people?"
There are some rules like targeting that do not, but it's for safety, purportedly. OK, I get that. But all these proposed playoff and realignments, would it make the game more enjoyable for you personally?
-
Football is fun when you play well. Football is fun when you win. Football is fun when you have the chance to say "we're the best" of a district or division or conference or country.
Yes - I agree. That's why I like the idea of everyone getting a chance to play their way in. That's what makes it fun. Excluding teams basically because they have bad recruiting rankings is the opposite of fun.
With that phrase in bold, I have to ask if you ever played football?
I played high school football. Sure, winning is great and losing sucks, that's the nature of competition.
The NFL sucks because everyone's socks have to be the same and 9-7 teams are crowned the champions..
But that goes with the territory. Every team is more or less about as talented as another, so upsets aren't particularly memorable or impactful. Not a formula college football really needs. I say - make the midmajor games more important, not less. Make the regular season meaningful again.
-
Yes - I agree. That's why I like the idea of everyone getting a chance to play their way in. That's what makes it fun. Excluding teams basically because they have bad recruiting rankings is the opposite of fun.
So let's do the 12-team playoff and let in the Sun Belt champs each season to play Alabama or Ohio State or whoever. Advance 10 years. The Sun Belt champs are 0-10 with an average margin of 45-13.
The Sun Belt's champs' reward for a great season is to get curb-stomped, having had no chance to win before the game began. They're supposed to look forward to that?!? THAT'S a reward?
It's masochistic. But it's fair!
-
So let's do the 12-team playoff and let in the Sun Belt champs each season to play Alabama or Ohio State or whoever. Advance 10 years. The Sun Belt champs are 0-10 with an average margin of 45-13.
The Sun Belt's champs' reward for a great season is to get curb-stomped, having had no chance to win before the game began. They're supposed to look forward to that?!? THAT'S a reward?
It's masochistic. But it's fair!
Also not accurate. I assume under a 12 team format you would have byes for the top 4. Coastal Carolina was the de facto Sun Belt champ. They probably would gave been seeded 8th, maybe playing San Jose St. In the first round. No chance against San Jose St.?
-
So let's do the 12-team playoff and let in the Sun Belt champs each season to play Alabama or Ohio State or whoever. Advance 10 years. The Sun Belt champs are 0-10 with an average margin of 45-13.
The Sun Belt's champs' reward for a great season is to get curb-stomped, having had no chance to win before the game began. They're supposed to look forward to that?!? THAT'S a reward?
It's masochistic. But it's fair!
Yep. They get the chance. They’re not good enough. The beauty of competition is put into action.
-
Well, there are reasons we don't have an 8 team playoff, despite its being very popular and would make more money.
Those must be pretty good reasons.
-
Not necessarily.
They could also be dumb reasons.
-
They may be dumb and still good, in the sense they are effective and influential among the PTBs.
Those reasons have to be traversed to effect change.
-
Well, there are reasons we don't have an 8 team playoff, despite its being very popular and would make more money.
Those must be pretty good reasons.
Some of the reason might just be that change is hard? Like, you’re moving money and funds around. The bowl system made a lot of bowl folks a good bit of money for somewhat minimal jobs.
The whole system climbed out of the primordial ooze kind of by accident. That’s not to say change is or was super necessary, but the fundamentals might just be based on momentum.
-
Also not accurate. I assume under a 12 team format you would have byes for the top 4. Coastal Carolina was the de facto Sun Belt champ. They probably would gave been seeded 8th, maybe playing San Jose St. In the first round. No chance against San Jose St.?
There are zero formats in which a SJST would play Coastal in a playoff.
-
Not necessarily.
They could also be dumb reasons.
I'm assuming selfish reasons, by those in power, promoting the status quo.
-
Yup.
Which is why they shoulda left it alone from about 1983 on.
At times I’ve tried to think through this counter factual. My assumption is this would lead to a situation more annoying than the one we have now for a key reason.
CFB fans are deeply unable to unplug from the national discourse. We no ranking have no meaning, but we allow them to create strong emotions. The posters on here are much smarter than average, but still we can say we don’t care about ESPN opinions (that’s good) and still worry the playoff is sucking up all the oxygen, where the oxygen is the very act of giving attention at all. And we’re in an era where you can deep dive into whatever team/seasons you care for and hardly note the national dialogue at all. But we just don’t.
In 1983, part of the reason the system could stand was because there was less info and many fewer voices. Maybe your local columnist or the SI writer broke down this weird system, but we weren’t all interconnected, we couldn’t all find everything in 10 seconds. If we had the old system, the national discussion from which we can’t unplug would just be trained on the system. Back then we were completely ok with sports writer rankings and coaches who maybe do their own ballots running the whole show. But that being it most certainly would be a disaster in our modern media environment.
Basically, we know too much, and a system built on the options of those two groups just wouldn’t stand up without a bonkers discourse we can’t help but plug into.
-
1983 is unique season where SOS didn't exist somehow. Auburn got screwed....hard....without its consent.
Miami jumped from 5 to 1. Had a blowout loss early on.
Texas beat Auburn early on, and lost by 1 point to UGA.
UGA only lost to Auburn, by a TD.
And of all of those, UNL was the juggernaut with the weakest schedule by far, and the 1-point loss to the Canes.
.
That would have been a slobberknocker of a 4-team playoff, but still, one of them is getting screwed out of it. Based on the final regular season poll:
Miami wouldn't have made the playoff (5th)
Georgia wouldn't either (7th)
10-1 SMU (a very popular team in Whoa Nellie) wouldn't make it
.
You'd have 1 Nebraska vs 4 Illinois, which would have been assault & battery, and
2 Texas vs 3 Auburn in a rematch
-
I want to live in a world where a team like Navy could win their conference, and then triple option their way through a few of the big boys in the playoffs. Take out Notre Dame in round one, then Oklahoma in round two, then give Bama a scare for a few quarters in the NCG. Tough to top that.
-
Well, there are reasons we don't have an 8 team playoff, despite its being very popular and would make more money.
Those must be pretty good reasons.
CD, your response strikes me as very similar to the Efficient Market Hypothesis [EMH], and with the same flaw.
People strawman the EMH as if current prices must reflect some certain reality and therefore whatever exists is "right"... Whereas the EMH merely suggests that the process moves towards economic efficiency, on balance, over time. But believing too hard in the EMH is like the old quote about the market and rationality... The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
There may be reasons why it hasn't happened yet. Those reasons may be effective at stopping it... It doesn't necessarily mean those reasons are good. We went decades and decades with the poll-based MNC system--for many of those decades with the final polls occurring before the bowl games, IIRC. Then we had the BCS for a little under two decades. Now we've only had the CFP since 2014. Due to the inertia, tradition, and pace of change in the sport, I'm not sure we can say that the reasons we're not at 8 teams are good ones.
-
By good reasons, I mean effective reasons, not reasons any of us might agree with. The reasons have been very effective at preventing any 8 team playoff despite of the obvious advantages and popularity of the concept with many.
So, call them effective reasons.
-
There are zero formats in which a SJST would play Coastal in a playoff.
I was saying that while on my phone, and trying to do it in my head. But a 12 team playoff with 10 autobids and 2 at large would have led to (assuming byes for top 4)
1. Alabama (SEC)
2. Clemson (ACC)
3. OSU (B1G)
4. ND (at large)
5. TAMU (at large) v. 12. UAB (CUSA)
6. Oklahoma (B12) v. 11. Ball St (MAC)
7. Cincinnati (AAC) v. 10. Oregon (P12)
8. Coastal Carolina (Sun Belt) v. 9. SJSU (MWC)
I'm basing the ratings on the final playoff rankings - UAB, Ball State, and Oregon weren't ranked so I am just guessing there. But Coastal was 12th and SJSU 24th so that's not crazy. Of course, I don't think the playoff types are pushing for autobids for every conference, even though I think that could really do wonders for TV ratings for MACtion and the like.
Edit: Oregon was 25th
-
1983 is unique season where SOS didn't exist somehow. Auburn got screwed....hard....without its consent.
Miami jumped from 5 to 1. Had a blowout loss early on.
Texas beat Auburn early on, and lost by 1 point to UGA.
UGA only lost to Auburn, by a TD.
And of all of those, UNL was the juggernaut with the weakest schedule by far, and the 1-point loss to the Canes.
.
That would have been a slobberknocker of a 4-team playoff, but still, one of them is getting screwed out of it. Based on the final regular season poll:
Miami wouldn't have made the playoff (5th)
Georgia wouldn't either (7th)
10-1 SMU (a very popular team in Whoa Nellie) wouldn't make it
.
You'd have 1 Nebraska vs 4 Illinois, which would have been assault & battery, and
2 Texas vs 3 Auburn in a rematch
Osborne always said he was in favor of a playoff
-
I was saying that while on my phone, and trying to do it in my head. But a 12 team playoff with 10 autobids and 2 at large would have led to (assuming byes for top 4)
1. Alabama (SEC)
2. Clemson (ACC)
3. OSU (B1G)
4. ND (at large)
5. TAMU (at large) v. 12. UAB (CUSA)
6. Oklahoma (B12) v. 11. Ball St (MAC)
7. Cincinnati (AAC) v. 10. Oregon (P12)
8. Coastal Carolina (Sun Belt) v. 9. SJSU (MWC)
I'm basing the ratings on the final playoff rankings - UAB, Ball State, and Oregon weren't ranked so I am just guessing there. But Coastal was 12th and SJSU 24th so that's not crazy. Of course, I don't think the playoff types are pushing for autobids for every conference, even though I think that could really do wonders for TV ratings for MACtion and the like.
Edit: Oregon was 25th
In real life, you wouldn't have a 4-3 PAC-12 champ, so the Sun Belt and MWC would be on the 9-12 seeded side of things. If you want to use the convoluted 2020 season as an example of anything, have at it, but I won't be paying attention.
-
In real life, you wouldn't have a 4-3 PAC-12 champ, so the Sun Belt and MWC would be on the 9-12 seeded side of things. If you want to use the convoluted 2020 season as an example of anything, have at it, but I won't be paying attention.
Using 2019
1. LSU (SEC)
2. OSU (B1G)
3. Clemson (ACC)
4. Oklahoma (B12)
5. Georgia (at large) v. 12. Miami (MAC)
6. Oregon (P12) v. 11. FAU (CUSA)
7. Baylor (at large) v. 10. App. State (Sun Belt)
8. Memphis (AAC) v. 9. Boise (MWC)
2018
1. Alabama (SEC)
2. Clemson (ACC)
3. Notre Dame (at large)
4. Oklahoma (B12)
5. Georgia (at large) v. 12. NIU (MAC)
6. Ohio State (B1G) v. 11. UAB (CUSA)
7. UCF (AAC) v. 10. App. State (Sun Belt)
8. Washington (P12) v. 9. Fresno State (MWC)
I wonder how much the rankings actually mattering would've affected that kind of booby prize of fifth place for UGA.
-
Using 2019
1. LSU (SEC)
2. OSU (B1G)
3. Clemson (ACC)
4. Oklahoma (B12)
5. Georgia (at large) v. 12. Miami (MAC)
6. Oregon (P12) v. 11. FAU (CUSA)
7. Baylor (at large) v. 10. App. State (Sun Belt)
8. Memphis (AAC) v. 9. Boise (MWC)
2018
1. Alabama (SEC)
2. Clemson (ACC)
3. Notre Dame (at large)
4. Oklahoma (B12)
5. Georgia (at large) v. 12. NIU (MAC)
6. Ohio State (B1G) v. 11. UAB (CUSA)
7. UCF (AAC) v. 10. App. State (Sun Belt)
8. Washington (P12) v. 9. Fresno State (MWC)
I wonder how much the rankings actually mattering would've affected that kind of booby prize of fifth place for UGA.
Thanks for the examples showing what I said. Look at these games.......every year, IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYOFF....we'd have 2 preseason-type games: Georgia vs Miami(OH). That's hot. And this isn't some middling, shitty UGA team who barely makes a bowl, but the 5th-ranked UGA team who will evicerate the MAC champs.
Oregon vs FAU? And the Owls aren't getting a fat check from the Ducks? For shame!
Ohio State vs UAB. UAB?
.
My TV would be off. Period.
-
I'd still be watching, but I hope it never comes to this
-
Honestly, this would be an even bigger lie to the have-nots.
Here, you get a seat at the table.....here's your chance! But it's no chance. Beat OSU then Clemson then Alabama.
That seat at the table is nothing more than an annual beat-down on national television. An opportunity to be on someone else's highlight film. It's disrespectful and a sick joke.
Woo-Hoo! We made it to the playoff! Hope we score!
-
but, with a seat, they pick up a check
it's all about the $$$
-
Thanks for the examples showing what I said. Look at these games.......every year, IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYOFF....we'd have 2 preseason-type games: Georgia vs Miami(OH). That's hot. And this isn't some middling, shitty UGA team who barely makes a bowl, but the 5th-ranked UGA team who will evicerate the MAC champs.
Oregon vs FAU? And the Owls aren't getting a fat check from the Ducks? For shame!
Ohio State vs UAB. UAB?
.
My TV would be off. Period.
I'm with OAM. I likely wouldn't watch any game until we were past the first-round byes and into the quarterfinals of 8.
It would be pointless before that.
-
It's conceivable that a team like Boise could get a major recruiting boost if the MWC has an auto-bid.
The Gonzaga phenomenon; football edition.
-
so, some Boise recruits and their mothers might attend those first round playoff games, if they're given tickets?
probably no one else in the seats
-
First Fro insists that there is no way that two G5 Champions could possibly face each other in round one. After being shown evidence that it would have indeed happened each of the last three years, he immediately moves the goalposts from that to braying about how the other three match ups are all P5 vs G5. Instead of calling him on it, the rest of the board is just like "damn right, um hum."
-
First Fro insists that there is no way that two G5 Champions could possibly face each other in round one. After being shown evidence that it would have indeed happened each of the last three years, he immediately moves the goalposts from that to braying about how the other three match ups are all P5 vs G5. Instead of calling him on it, the rest of the board is just like "damn right, um hum."
I think we were talking two different scenarios, one with few tallest midgets and one with automatic representation of every G5 conference champion.
I believe his first point was referring to the idea that throwing G5 teams in there would just be an automatic slaughter, which absolutely makes sense if you consider that there might only be 1 at large G5 team in the field (probably seeded around 9-11th) and one G5 auto-bid conference champ (quite likely seeded 12th and facing the 5th-best team in the country). A G5-G5 matchup in that sense would be extraordinarily uncommon.
Obviously if you have all G5 champions included, that means in the play-in to the quarterfinals you will likely have 5 G5 teams and 3 P5 teams. As a result you're forced to have at least one G5-G5 matchup, but will basically never have more than two.
-
I would guess that a lot of you were singing the same tune, equally dismissive about the Boise-Oklahoma or Michigan-Appalachian State match ups. I also bet that most of you who were that way wound up tuning in by the end of the game, because you didn't want to miss a monster upset that would be talked about for years to come.
It will be the same way here. You might not be exited to see Boise play Georgia, but if Boise comes out and lands a couple of early haymakers all of a sudden your interest will be perked.
-
I would guess that a lot of you were singing the same tune, equally dismissive about the Boise-Oklahoma or Michigan-Appalachian State match ups. I also bet that most of you who were that way wound up tuning in by the end of the game, because you didn't want to miss a monster upset that would be talked about for years to come.
It will be the same way here. You might not be exited to see Boise play Georgia, but if Boise comes out and lands a couple of early haymakers all of a sudden your interest will be perked.
Yeah, if I'm even watching any games that day, I might see a score pop up on the tracker on the bottom of the screen and tune in. If I'm browsing this site and one of you guys posts "WTF?!?! is going on in Athens right now?" I might as well. But that assumes I've even got the TV on, and on a sports channel, or I'm on this site.
But this isn't like the NCAA tournament where I'm going to have the R64 games on and flip to the most compelling one. Of course if I'm watching the NCAA and I see UMBC taking UVA down to the wire I'll flip over to that game to see what happens, but otherwise I'll be on the 8/9 or 7/10 matchup that looks close. If I don't have the games on to begin with, I might not even know that Boise got a couple early TDs and is making it interesting.
It's also not like Boise is going to beat Georgia to make the quarterfinals, and then win three more games straight against the best teams in the country to become champs. Just like in the NCAA tourney, only one 12 seed has ever reached the E8 and no 13-16 seed ever has. The tallest midget might get lucky, once. Maybe even twice with a good draw. But it'll be short-lived. So how compelling is it, if it's not for all the marbles? We talk about UMBC over UVA because it never happened before for a #16. Will we talk for years about the next #16 to pull it off?
-
First Fro insists that there is no way that two G5 Champions could possibly face each other in round one.
I said the Sun Belt and MWC champs wouldn't meet. And the last 2 full seasons supported that.
-
I would guess that a lot of you were singing the same tune, equally dismissive about the Boise-Oklahoma or Michigan-Appalachian State match ups.
Yes, of course, because that's 2 out of tens of thousands of games. You're making the point for me. You'd have decades of slaughters for that one absurd upset. Why?!?!
-
In this day and age with phones and social media people get "score alerts" when they aren't on TV or using their computers.
How many times do we see a weekend in September where all the pundits spend the whole week telling us to get our yardwork in because there won't be any compelling match ups, then when it unfolds it turns out to be one of the best Saturdays of the season full of monster upsets or last second beefs?
-
Cam would probably opt out
-
We can invent "worst case" scenarios under the current playoff format as well.
-
like when Iowa st and Notre Dame get in next season?
-
I'm with OAM. I likely wouldn't watch any game until we were past the first-round byes and into the quarterfinals of 8.
It would be pointless before that.
I take it this is a change from all the UAB games you watch now?
-
Honestly, this would be an even bigger lie to the have-nots.
Here, you get a seat at the table.....here's your chance! But it's no chance. Beat OSU then Clemson then Alabama.
That seat at the table is nothing more than an annual beat-down on national television. An opportunity to be on someone else's highlight film. It's disrespectful and a sick joke.
Woo-Hoo! We made it to the playoff! Hope we score!
I mean, you want the regular season to count or you don't. I think this system produces a regular season that counts without watering it down. Yes, you would get some mismatches, but we have lots of mismatches now, so I'm not sure that is much of an argument. The whole point is to spread the wealth - our current system puts all the best players on a small handful of teams, and then you are saying that having all the best players on a small handful of teams should prevent us from trying something else.
My points:
- Under this system, the regular season would count MUCH more
- It would encourage good programs to stay good. Boise, or Cincy, or whoever else can build a program and make it to a meaningful postseason, and isn't kept out basically due to politics.
-
I take it this is a change from all the UAB games you watch now?
I'm a proponent of the 5+1+2 system. It will produce one slaughter, not 3-4, but it actually does still give the G5 a meaningful path to have a seat at the table. I'd probably be willing to watch #8 UAB vs #1 Bama in the quarters just in case of an upset, but am I going to watch #11 UAB vs #6 Oregon? Eh... I don't really care if UAB upsets Oregon...
If you water the playoff down too much, those early games aren't going to be compelling TV.
-
I know some of you like criticizing me no matter what I say, and that's cool. It seems to be what the internet is all about.
.
My larger, overall point when it comes to the have-nots of college football winning it big or having something to look forward to is that in BOTH circumstances, both now and in an expanded playoff, the lie that they're in the same division as the upper 2/3 of the P5 programs. And that the lie doesn't go away with 8 or 12 teams in the playoff.
.
I don't understand why so many people want them in this purgutory forever for some impossible upset every 3 decades, THEN getting squashed in the next round. It's what I would design if I hated these programs - toturing them, making them have very public destructions, all while dangling that pretty brass ring perpetually out of reach. It's demented.
-
I mean, you want the regular season to count or you don't. I think this system produces a regular season that counts without watering it down. Yes, you would get some mismatches, but we have lots of mismatches now, so I'm not sure that is much of an argument. The whole point is to spread the wealth - our current system puts all the best players on a small handful of teams, and then you are saying that having all the best players on a small handful of teams should prevent us from trying something else.
My points:
- Under this system, the regular season would count MUCH more
- It would encourage good programs to stay good. Boise, or Cincy, or whoever else can build a program and make it to a meaningful postseason, and isn't kept out basically due to politics.
A mismatch that is expected vs a mismatch that isn't are two entirely different things, and you know this. Clemson waxing an Urban Meyer-led OSU team is major......waxing UAB? Yawn.
Why do I even have to type that????
-
I know some of you like criticizing me no matter what I say, and that's cool. It seems to be what the internet is all about.
.
My larger, overall point when it comes to the have-nots of college football winning it big or having something to look forward to is that in BOTH circumstances, both now and in an expanded playoff, the lie that they're in the same division as the upper 2/3 of the P5 programs. And that the lie doesn't go away with 8 or 12 teams in the playoff.
.
I don't understand why so many people want them in this purgutory forever for some impossible upset every 3 decades, THEN getting squashed in the next round. It's what I would design if I hated these programs - toturing them, making them have very public destructions, all while dangling that pretty brass ring perpetually out of reach. It's demented.
Dude, I get it. It is a have / have-not system.
I would not really be opposed to a system where the P5 break away into a league of 64-70 teams. As you say, it would at least be honest.
But I don't think that's very likely.
-
. Boise, or Cincy, or whoever else can build a program and make it to a meaningful postseason, and isn't kept out basically due to politics.
Politics? :s_laugh:
:NIGHT_1:
-
This topic has replaced conference realignment as my least favorite to discuss.
-
Under that system schools like Cincy and Boise that are constantly in the playoff hunt would have a tremendous recruiting advantage over a middle of the road P5 team that has little to no chance of ever getting in.
-
This topic has replaced conference realignment as my least favorite to discuss.
Well it would probably lead to some of that as well.
At the very least, the more desirable independents would have to start listening; Notre Dame, BYU, Army...
-
I know some of you like criticizing me no matter what I say, and that's cool. It seems to be what the internet is all about.
.
My larger, overall point when it comes to the have-nots of college football winning it big or having something to look forward to is that in BOTH circumstances, both now and in an expanded playoff, the lie that they're in the same division as the upper 2/3 of the P5 programs. And that the lie doesn't go away with 8 or 12 teams in the playoff.
.
I don't understand why so many people want them in this purgutory forever for some impossible upset every 3 decades, THEN getting squashed in the next round. It's what I would design if I hated these programs - toturing them, making them have very public destructions, all while dangling that pretty brass ring perpetually out of reach. It's demented.
I think the problem you are having is thinking everyone doesn't already know this. Obviously, some teams are at a disadvantage. Everyone who pays mild attention to college football, including the players and coaches for these teams, know this. The issue, for me, is you think that is meaningful and the end of the argument It is not meaningful Right now, under the system we have, 90 percent of the teams have no real chance at entering the playoffs. Roughly half are excluded because they are in the wrong conference, which means that no matter what they do on the field, they are eliminated. Of the teams in the right conference, the vast majority are average to middling and have a tough time competing against the handful of programs that are top of the class.
Who cares if Alabama blows out somebody? That happens all the time, including in the playoffs. You are claiming the regular season shouldn't matter, the results shouldn't matter, the only thing important to make sure the very top teams are as protected as possible and everyone else should be excluded so we can have some sort of "true" playoff. Not my preference (even as a fan of one of those teams).
-
Politics? :s_laugh:
:NIGHT_1:
Your image didn't load for me but whatever you want to call it. Recruiting rankings, scheduling comparisons, ESPN money, blahdy blah - anything but actual results on the field from playing the games.
-
I'm a proponent of the 5+1+2 system. It will produce one slaughter, not 3-4, but it actually does still give the G5 a meaningful path to have a seat at the table. I'd probably be willing to watch #8 UAB vs #1 Bama in the quarters just in case of an upset, but am I going to watch #11 UAB vs #6 Oregon? Eh... I don't really care if UAB upsets Oregon...
If you water the playoff down too much, those early games aren't going to be compelling TV.
I used to be for that, but my thinking changed in 2016 when Penn State beat OSU and won the B1G in a thrilling game against Wisconsin. That was fun, and also counted for nothing because playing your way into the playoffs is not a thing as long as you have a group of poindexters determining who is in and who is out and can include or exclude anyone based on anything they want.
-
I used to be for that, but my thinking changed in 2016 when Penn State beat OSU and won the B1G in a thrilling game against Wisconsin. That was fun, and also counted for nothing because playing your way into the playoffs is not a thing as long as you have a group of poindexters determining who is in and who is out and can include or exclude anyone based on anything they want.
I'm confused... Why would 2016 B1G mean that you don't favor the 5+1+2 system?
Penn State would have earned a playoff berth with that B1GCCG win. That game wouldn't have counted for nothing.
Ohio State would still have a shot at an at-large with their season, after going 11-1 in-conference and beating OU out of conference.
So if we have a 5+1+2, the poindexters only have to worry about selecting the 2 and seeding... And maybe picking the best G5 of the tall midgets.
-
I'm confused... Why would 2016 B1G mean that you don't favor the 5+1+2 system?
Penn State would have earned a playoff berth with that B1GCCG win. That game wouldn't have counted for nothing.
Ohio State would still have a shot at an at-large with their season, after going 11-1 in-conference and beating OU out of conference.
So if we have a 5+1+2, the poindexters only have to worry about selecting the 2 and seeding... And maybe picking the best G5 of the tall midgets.
Don't get me wrong, I like autobids for the Power 5. But I don't like limiting it to the Power 5. Why should half the teams be subjected to the Poindexter Boardroom when we have a pretty easy way to get rid of them entirely besides the at large bids.
-
I used to feel pretty strongly about an 8-team playoff with 5+2+1 admission.
But now I'm finding that I really don't care. Overall the nationalization and 24/7 news cycle have really started to wear me out. I absolutely care less about the sport now, than I did 20, or even 10 years ago.
At this point it's more academic for me. I think the 5+2+1 makes the most sense. But if it works out some other way, I really won't care.
-
Don't get me wrong, I like autobids for the Power 5. But I don't like limiting it to the Power 5. Why should half the teams be subjected to the Poindexter Boardroom when we have a pretty easy way to get rid of them entirely besides the at large bids.
Several reasons...
- I don't like 12 teams. The CFP already sucks the air out of anything that's not the playoff (i.e. the bowls and anything else that denotes a successful season other than making the CFP). The more teams we have, the more that occurs...
- The G5 don't have any reasonable ability to win... And never will. Even if access to a playoff improves their recruiting, all it does is take away players who would go to Purdue, not players who would go to OSU or Bama or Clemson etc. Those players won't ever win the NC. It's like if you removed all salary caps from NFL/MLB/NBA/etc, then the small-market teams might occasionally qualify for the playoffs, but they'll do so by stealing talent away from the mid-market teams, not the large-market teams.
- I really don't like 16 teams. If you allow all 10 conferences auto-bids, then you run into the size issue that 2 at-large is too small. And then you get back to point #1--if we're talking about the playoffs sucking all the air out of the room, then once you go to 16 teams the bowls might as well pack up and stop hosting.
I recognize the goal to get rid of the Poindexters--even as a giant nerd. The process for the entire history of CFP has been a beauty pageant. But I don't agree that we need to go to a 12 or 16 team playoff and let every G5 in to make it fair, because that doesn't really reflect the reality of the sport.
In my mind the ideal playoff is as small as you can possibly make it, but no smaller. I think 5+1+2 is the optimal for that.
-
You are claiming the regular season shouldn't matter, the results shouldn't matter, the only thing important to make sure the very top teams are as protected as possible and everyone else should be excluded so we can have some sort of "true" playoff. Not my preference (even as a fan of one of those teams).
You typing this makes me think you literally haven't read anything in the thread.
-
1 G5 spot would probably be enough, but there are probably some legal gobbledygook that inspires them to have autobids for the entire G5.
Either way, same number of P5 autobids and at large spots; 5 and 2. 5+1+2 or 5+5+2. Splitting hairs. Only difference is the number of G5s.
-
Don't get me wrong, I like autobids for the Power 5. But I don't like limiting it to the Power 5. Why should half the teams be subjected to the Poindexter Boardroom when we have a pretty easy way to get rid of them entirely besides the at large bids.
Let's push Purdue to join the MAC and Arizona State to join the Sun Belt!
-
The G5 don't have any reasonable ability to win... And never will.
This...I don't agree with this. While everyone grumbles about conferences and whatnot, movement in college football has always been a big part of the sport. Lots of teams were the equivalent of G-5 teams but built their program and became quite good. The AAC is full of programs that are trying to be good at football, but are also artificially prevented from becoming better programs, mostly because of this imaginary line between P5 and G5 teams. But that line doesn't need to exist.
Also, the other part is what is the downside here? Some more wide scores? We already have plenty of those and one more ain't going to hurt anything. Conversely, making a random Sun Belt conference games something that matters and has national stakes? That's fun. That adds to the sport. I am pro making college football more fun.
-
You typing this makes me think you literally haven't read anything in the thread.
I've read plenty and you simply can't get around the fact that keeping G5 teams out of the playoffs means those games just don't matter as much. You have proclaimed that you want the regular season to matter, but you also don't want to matter for half the teams. I say, make it matter for all the teams.
-
Let's push Purdue to join the MAC and Arizona State to join the Sun Belt!
Do it!
-
Let's push Purdue to join the MAC and Arizona State to join the Sun Belt!
Do it!
Now y'all are making this personal. :96:
-
Darrell Hazell's Kent teams would have smoked his Purdue squads.
-
If I'm Purdue and my conference affiliation is 85% about my biggest revenue sport (I know, it's not), then in a world where every conference champ is in, my ass is moving to the MAC and I'm winning 8 of the next 10 MAC titles, cashing that fat check year after year.
.
@MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572), your idea is lovely, but it's fantasyland. It actively ignores reality and wouldn't yield results for decades. We don't even know if football will exist in 2050, much less the near-infinite other aspects of this that we don't know.
It also perpetuates the lie that currently exists of matching programs on very different competitive levels and meshing them together. Those 5-12 and 6-11 games will be annual beatdowns....they might as well be nicknamed the Hunger Games.
.
Even OU gets chided for its poor showings in the playoff now, and it's a top-3 all-time program. Winning the MAC in your proposal is rewarding a good season with a public execution, year after year after year. Until one day (many years down the road), it suddenly isn't.
-
If I'm Purdue and my conference affiliation is 85% about my biggest revenue sport (I know, it's not), then in a world where every conference champ is in, my ass is moving to the MAC and I'm winning 8 of the next 10 MAC titles, cashing that fat check year after year.
.
@MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572), your idea is lovely, but it's fantasyland. It actively ignores reality and wouldn't yield results for decades. We don't even know if football will exist in 2050, much less the near-infinite other aspects of this that we don't know.
It also perpetuates the lie that currently exists of matching programs on very different competitive levels and meshing them together. Those 5-12 and 6-11 games will be annual beatdowns....they might as well be nicknamed the Hunger Games.
.
Even OU gets chided for its poor showings in the playoff now, and it's a top-3 all-time program. Winning the MAC in your proposal is rewarding a good season with a public execution, year after year after year. Until one day (many years down the road), it suddenly isn't.
The reality it ignores is college football administrator focusing on helping the sport instead of next year's bottom line. But I digress.
I don't care about the "public executions." They play these games now, every single season, and the only difference is you are guaranteed a quality MAC team instead of a bad one. The other part is making sure the best teams get something for being the best. Right now, there is really no advantage to being #1 or #4. With 8 teams, unless you move to home teams fielding games (yet another obvious change that would make games more fun), you still have the same although a clearer line between the top and bottom. Here you have byes, and the next four still have to play and win a game.
Further, there are good games out there! In 2018, UCF finished tenth on the fancy stats. Washington and Fresno State would have been the 8th and 13th ranked teams. Those are good games, not some sort of mismatch that should be eliminated from the sport.
-
If I'm Purdue and my conference affiliation is 85% about my biggest revenue sport (I know, it's not), then in a world where every conference champ is in, my ass is moving to the MAC and I'm winning 8 of the next 10 MAC titles, cashing that fat check year after year.
Not gonna be any fatter check than what we get from the TV rights being in the Big Ten.
-
Yeah, conference TV money pretty much swamps gate and local yaya.
-
Not gonna be any fatter check than what we get from the TV rights being in the Big Ten.
But Mex assured me that all of the conferences would quickly even out and MAC money will = B1G money in no time!
-
But Mex assured me that all of the conferences would quickly even out and MAC money will = B1G money in no time!
I don't recall reading him say that...
Maybe you're extrapolating what you thought he "meant" based on what he didn't say, as you seem to think we're all capable of doing when you offer half a thought and then get offended when we think the other unwritten half isn't what you intended?
-
Purdue won't join the Mac, so speculation is unwarranted for whatever reason.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEt1vjTVoAAqksk?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
-
Purdue won't join the Mac, so speculation is unwarranted for whatever reason.
you don't know what they'll do. those train boys are crazy, always going off the rails.
-
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/f7d3eea0a2174fa4334b7115231d45c6/tenor.gif?itemid=9771906)
-
I don't recall reading him say that...
Maybe you're extrapolating what you thought he "meant" based on what he didn't say, as you seem to think we're all capable of doing when you offer half a thought and then get offended when we think the other unwritten half isn't what you intended?
Or how I build half a castle and some here finish off with a giant rubber ducky, sure.
-
Purdue won't join the Mac, so speculation is unwarranted for whatever reason.
Of course it won't, but that system would incentivize them to.
-
Fro is truly a perineal powerhouse on these here boards.
-
I don't mind speculation, on things that are scantly possible at least.
-
Fro is truly a perineal powerhouse on these here boards.
I don't think much of you, either.
Especially recently. Did your dog die? Wife cheat on you? Lately you've been unbearable.
-
Or how I build half a castle and some here finish off with a giant rubber ducky, sure.
Maybe your past statements suggest that the rest is going to look like a rubber ducky.
Perhaps if you, ONCE, would complete the f$#&%g castle you wouldn't have to backtrack and act offended that we've misinterpreted what you DIDN'T say.
Of course it won't, but that system would incentivize them to.
No, it wouldn't because you're assuming Sam said something he didn't--that it would put the MAC on par (respect, money, etc) with the B1G.
Look at basketball. Every conference gets a seat at the tournament table. Have you seen any team struggling in a good conference try to leave for a lesser one, just to be the "big fish in a small pond"?
-
So because it hasn't happened means theres no incentive to?
I disagree.
-
Thanks for the examples showing what I said. Look at these games.......every year, IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYOFF....we'd have 2 preseason-type games: Georgia vs Miami(OH). That's hot. And this isn't some middling, shitty UGA team who barely makes a bowl, but the 5th-ranked UGA team who will evicerate the MAC champs.
Oregon vs FAU? And the Owls aren't getting a fat check from the Ducks? For shame!
Ohio State vs UAB. UAB?
.
My TV would be off. Period.
That second Georgia team definitely had the ability to play incredibly shitty. This is exceptionally beside the point, but that UGA team with the South Carolina loss it had on his résumé being number five was just horrific ranking.
-
So because it hasn't happened means theres no incentive to?
I disagree.
Not saying that... I'm saying that you're overestimating the incentive to leave, and not recognizing the incentive to stay.
For Purdue in particular, there are numerous reasons to stay in the Big Ten:
- Money... Money, money, money. Purdue makes tons of money from the Big Ten's TV contracts. Purdue makes more money from ticket sales hosting home games vs Big Ten opponents than it would hosting MAC opponents--Purdue doesn't always fill their stadium TODAY against lesser opponents due to location--1 hr from Indy and 2 hrs from Chicago. Purdue also makes money from Big Ten team revenue sharing with bowl appearances--even when Purdue doesn't make a bowl game.
- Pride... Purdue is a founding member of the Big Ten. Even though the football team is not regularly competitive, Purdue does not want to give up their seat at the big boy table. Fans would LOSE THEIR SH!T if Purdue chose to go to the MAC. The powers that be don't want to go to the MAC. It's like deliberately admitting we're not good enough to be Big Ten members, and nobody wants that.
- Basketball... Purdue may suck at football, but going to the MAC would lose our seat at the big boy table for basketball. That's also a revenue sport, and at Purdue it means something.
- Rivalries... Purdue and IU are rivals. Purdue is NOT going to walk away from that, PARTICULARLY if Purdue would unilaterally leave the Big Ten and Indiana didn't. This also goes back to pride... You think Purdue is going to duck IU by joining the MAC? In what world? Would Miss State ever move to a lower conference if it meant they looked like they were ducking Ole Miss to do it?
- Academics... I realize that some people don't believe that it matters, but it matters.
- Recruiting... Purdue today recruits who they recruit because they're in the B1G, even if they're not a power. Long-term, dropping to a lower conference would mean they're unlikely to be the "big fish in a small pond" forever--maybe they'd remain top-half of the MAC, but it's not like they could sustain B1G-level recruiting if they're not in the B1G.
The incentive of an outside chance of making it to the playoff by dropping to a lower level of competition is NOTHING compared to the above.
So no, it's not going to happen.
-
That second Georgia team definitely had the ability to play incredibly shitty. This is exceptionally beside the point, but that UGA team with the South Carolina loss it had on his résumé being number five was just horrific ranking.
There just wasn't anyone else to put at 5, in effect, and the USCe loss was particularly bad, no doubt.
-
It will be interesting to see how Fro tops the Purdue=>Mac argument with the next thing that he flings at the wall in order to see if it sticks.
I am not sure how he will manage to top it, but I do know that he will try.
-
Not saying that... I'm saying that you're overestimating the incentive to leave, and not recognizing the incentive to stay.
For Purdue in particular, there are numerous reasons to stay in the Big Ten:
- Money... Money, money, money. Purdue makes tons of money from the Big Ten's TV contracts. Purdue makes more money from ticket sales hosting home games vs Big Ten opponents than it would hosting MAC opponents--Purdue doesn't always fill their stadium TODAY against lesser opponents due to location--1 hr from Indy and 2 hrs from Chicago. Purdue also makes money from Big Ten team revenue sharing with bowl appearances--even when Purdue doesn't make a bowl game.
- Pride... Purdue is a founding member of the Big Ten. Even though the football team is not regularly competitive, Purdue does not want to give up their seat at the big boy table. Fans would LOSE THEIR SH!T if Purdue chose to go to the MAC. The powers that be don't want to go to the MAC. It's like deliberately admitting we're not good enough to be Big Ten members, and nobody wants that.
- Basketball... Purdue may suck at football, but going to the MAC would lose our seat at the big boy table for basketball. That's also a revenue sport, and at Purdue it means something.
- Rivalries... Purdue and IU are rivals. Purdue is NOT going to walk away from that, PARTICULARLY if Purdue would unilaterally leave the Big Ten and Indiana didn't. This also goes back to pride... You think Purdue is going to duck IU by joining the MAC? In what world? Would Miss State ever move to a lower conference if it meant they looked like they were ducking Ole Miss to do it?
- Academics... I realize that some people don't believe that it matters, but it matters.
- Recruiting... Purdue today recruits who they recruit because they're in the B1G, even if they're not a power. Long-term, dropping to a lower conference would mean they're unlikely to be the "big fish in a small pond" forever--maybe they'd remain top-half of the MAC, but it's not like they could sustain B1G-level recruiting if they're not in the B1G.
The incentive of an outside chance of making it to the playoff by dropping to a lower level of competition is NOTHING compared to the above.
So no, it's not going to happen.
I'm sorry you typed all this, I appreciate it.....I picked Purdue out of a hat. It could be Arizona to the MWC or Ole Miss to the Sun Belt.....it's about the idea, not the specific school.
I suppose I should have typed that out earlier, huh?
RUBBER DUCKY
-
It will be interesting to see how Fro tops the Purdue=>Mac argument with the next thing that he flings at the wall in order to see if it sticks.
I am not sure how he will manage to top it, but I do know that he will try.
I suppose I'm not used to interacting with people who take every single little thing so literally. It's....different.
-
I'm sorry you typed all this, I appreciate it.....I picked Purdue out of a hat. It could be Arizona to the MWC or Ole Miss to the Sun Belt.....it's about the idea, not the specific school.
I suppose I should have typed that out earlier, huh?
RUBBER DUCKY
Again, almost all of those arguments apply to almost any school you come up with.
Ole Miss is going to make MUCH more money from the SEC than the Sun Belt, regardless of playoff chances. Ole Miss isn't going to leave the SEC without Mississippi State out of pride and a desire to not look weak for their rivalry. Ole Miss doesn't have the basketball argument, of course, and I'm not sure about academics... It's the SEC after all.
Arizona has the same money/pride/rivalry/academic arguments, and in a PAC that is traditionally weaker than the other P5 conferences, their chances of an occasional playoff berth in the PAC isn't that bad. They do also have a good basketball team.
Again, you can pull all sorts of names out of a hat. You're dismissing all the non-Playoff advantages of being in a P5 conference, which are overwhelming.
-
It's a nonstarter, but if someone has it as their opinion, fine with me.
-
I suppose I'm not used to interacting with people who take every single little thing so literally. It's....different.
I suppose I'm just confused...
You tend to have a problem here because you offer half-thoughts and apparently we don't accurately interpret the meaning of what you DIDN'T say...
...and now you're saying that we shouldn't take what you DO say at face value [literally]?
Are you actually trying to communicate with anyone here? Because it's really not effective if you are.
-
He's trying to provoke posters into lengthy, pointless arguments for his self-gratification.
-
Why are the people who like you least always the expert on what you're doing and who you are?
-
Why are the people who like you least always the expert on what you're doing and who you are?
In my somewhat limited experience, people who actually are experts may or may not like me, or care about me at all, but I tend to listen to their perspective.
People who may dislike me and who claim to be experts at something but aren't are of no account to me.
I personally like the current system, FWIW, which is not much, I realize most would prefer an 8 team playoff. I think there are reasons why we don't have one, maybe not reasons folks agree with, but reasons nonetheless.
-
I suppose I'm just confused...
You tend to have a problem here because you offer half-thoughts and apparently we don't accurately interpret the meaning of what you DIDN'T say...
...and now you're saying that we shouldn't take what you DO say at face value [literally]?
Are you actually trying to communicate with anyone here? Because it's really not effective if you are.
Yes, sometimes I do a thing and sometimes I do something else.
I'm a shitty communicator.
Now you have no reason to be confused. :72:
-
Got it. You don't say what you really mean and you say what you don't really mean, and we'll work our best to figure that out.
That clears it up.
-
I mostly ignore the posts when they don't make sense to me, or perhaps try and ask a clarifying question, which usually results in some unhelpful retort.
Sometimes I post actual facts, which also seem not to be appreciated. Some folks don't want to learn.
-
But Mex assured me that all of the conferences would quickly even out and MAC money will = B1G money in no time!
Mmm we had Costco carnitas for dinner.
Anyway, no I'm not saying the MAC will equal the B1G. I am saying there are obvious advantages to being in the P5, but that doesn't equate that we should restrict the postseason to only those teams that get that advantage.
Also, while the B1G and SEC have been pretty stable, other conferences not so much. It would be nice if joining conference A or conference B wasn't determined by gatekeeping.
-
There just wasn't anyone else to put at 5, in effect, and the USCe loss was particularly bad, no doubt.
I think you coulda put Oregon at 5, but after that, it did get lean.
Looking back, that team had more nice wins than I remember. Just was very hard to watch on offense the last two-thirds of the year.
-
Of course it won't, but that system would incentivize them to.
The on-field system right now incentivizes Rutgers, Wake Forest and Vandy to drop down. All would be able to find basketball leagues they could push around and football leagues where they could have much more successful seasons.
They do not because the economics favor consolidation. This is still a world where brand and following are king. The most successful team in most mid-major leagues would trade places with Rutgers right now. (This is also why mid-majors in basketball and football mostly don't abandon their home stadiums to try to barnstorm the non-conference to impress people to skeptical to likely be impressed).
I'd be interested to see what would happen if there actually was an exodus. If Wake left and started hogging the MAC playoff spots (and if it mattered), eventually someone with more money would. We'd in essence have an anti-realignment where teams balance things out. The SWC and old Big East could reassemble (they wouldn't).
-
Do 19 other people want to post the same thing? Informing me of something I already know, while at the same time, missing the point?
-
Do 19 other people want to post the same thing? Informing me of something I already know, while at the same time, missing the point?
I dunno, it’s the most direct and logical response to a badly mangled point, I suppose, sure.
In this case, I would look at the common denominator and adjust the behavior accordingly.
-
I guess I always assumed you all were more apathetic. Yet paragraph after paragraph about my shortcomings flow from your fingertips.
I'm touched, really.
-
I don't care enough to be apathetic.