Started By
Message
re: Per Sports Illustrated, the CFP expansion to 12 teams is in peril
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:42 pm to phil4bama
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:42 pm to phil4bama
quote:
And again, I ask all of you: how many years has team #4 shown they belong in the playoff and not get blown off the field by #1?
By the way, I looked it up and only 1 year was the difference in the game less than double digits in #1 vs #4. That is since the 2014/2015 season.
0
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:46 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Sounds like you are scared to play the teams that could beat you.
Do you think it more likely the #12 team would beat you or the #4 team? because I would keep the 4 team playoff...and would be willing to do a 6 team playoff if they went with the BCS Bowl format of choosing teams and get away from the eye test.
quote:How would having more blow outs "grow the game"? As it is now I look forward to the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl and soem others. You would not have those compelling match ups so you could pit the #1 team against the #12 team.
Yes... we need to expand it. You reasons for not does not help grow the game. It actually makes it slowly die
Which game would you prefer to watch? #1 vs #12? or #5 vs #6?
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:48 pm to JetDawg
Jesus none of yall get it.
This has nothing to do with them rejecting a 12 team playoff as a concept.
The problem was the concept as it was presented would be accompanied by ESPN getting an extra to be the sole broadcaster for the playoffs, and the B1G and the Pac are looking to get away from it being tied to an ESPN that has a vested interest in the SEC and ACC.
Heck even the article says they might consider still doing it if ESPN will just pay extra without requiring an extension on the contract. But ESPN wants to control college football, and this whole expansion concept was just a way for them to sneak a contract extension in.
This has nothing to do with them rejecting a 12 team playoff as a concept.
The problem was the concept as it was presented would be accompanied by ESPN getting an extra to be the sole broadcaster for the playoffs, and the B1G and the Pac are looking to get away from it being tied to an ESPN that has a vested interest in the SEC and ACC.
Heck even the article says they might consider still doing it if ESPN will just pay extra without requiring an extension on the contract. But ESPN wants to control college football, and this whole expansion concept was just a way for them to sneak a contract extension in.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:51 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Jesus none of yall get it.
This has nothing to do with them rejecting a 12 team playoff as a concept.
I don't care why anybody wants or does not want to expand. I care about getting more competitive games. Expanding the playoffs will only make games less competitive.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:57 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
quote:
I think you will have blowouts regardless of the number of teams you have.
Absolutely will. We are having them every single year now with 4 teams. But the idea is to have good close games. What is the point if the first round or two are nothing but blow outs?
Yes, because a #1 team always blows out a #11 or 12 team. I mean look at Bama/UF last weekend.
My other point was that it is really hard for teams to play up for multiple games in a row (esp non SEC teams). A team can blow out a team one week and then get blown out themselves the next. You could also have a 1 or 2 seed sleep on a 15 or 16 and lose. Say you had Arkie playing Bama in the first round, maybe Bama destroys them, Arkie is playing with nothing to lose while Bama has all the pressure on them.
I'm just tired of seeing teams be able to coast through easy schedules where they play one or maybe two decent teams and then get in the Playoff with just 2 games to win a Natty. This year you could easily have Clemson losing their only game against a ranked team and making the Playoff with just 3 other teams. If there are 15 other teams I don't care.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 1:57 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Do you think adding 8 more teams will make this more competitive? Better games?
Why would anyone say no to more football games with top tier teams?
It's like people complaining about too many bowl games; if you're not interested, don't watch them. But some of us just enjoy the hell out of bigtime matchups you don't get to see every year. I want to see Oregon play Oklahoma or Georgia. Could it be a blowout? Sure. Just like nearly every regular season game is for the top playoff contenders.
How many close games has Alabama had in the past five years? Not many, but the country still watches them every week.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:01 pm to cardboardboxer
I understand this is far more about ESPN vs Fox and the Conferences wanting to have control than any of the discussion we have here about what would make the best matchups. I mean anyone that really thinks they sit around thinking about what would be the best thing for the fans vs the best way to make money and have control is a fool. Still, it's fun discussion.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:01 pm to JetDawg
There was nothing wrong with the BCS system. Four Teams has given us too many noncompetitive blowouts. 12 teams would be even worse.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:02 pm to Richard Dangler
quote:
I bet that they would change their mind if OU and Texas decided to stay in the Big 12.
From your lips to god’s ears lol
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:02 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
And yet the rules that were proposed for the 12 team format dictates every P5 champion get in.
No, they give the top 6 conference champions auto bids.
In 2020 that would have been SEC (1), ACC(3), Big Ten(2), Big 12(6), American(8) and Sun Belt(11).
Oregon was 14th in the final CFP poll.
This post was edited on 9/22/21 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:05 pm to aggressor
quote:
Yes, because a #1 team always blows out a #11 or 12 team. I mean look at Bama/UF last weekend.
Nobody said always. but all you have to do is look at the history of the playoffs to know what once the playoffs start it is an entirely different animal. The best teams turn it up 2 notches. Teams that lose 3 games during regular season? Not so much.
quote:How many games in a row do thye have to play for the conference championships then a 12 team playoff?
My other point was that it is really hard for teams to play up for multiple games in a row (esp non SEC teams). A team can blow out a team one week and then get blown out themselves the next. You could also have a 1 or 2 seed sleep on a 15 or 16 and lose. Say you had Arkie playing Bama in the first round, maybe Bama destroys them, Arkie is playing with nothing to lose while Bama has all the pressure on them.
1 for conference, then to make it to the finals of the playoffs it would be about 5 additional huge game? (4 or 5) If they have a hard time during regular season do you think they will have a hard time during playoffs?
quote:Picture those same teams doing that and still making the playoffs with 3 losses.
I'm just tired of seeing teams be able to coast through easy schedules where they play one or maybe two decent teams and then get in the Playoff with just 2 games to win a Natty.
You will see UCF, Coastal Carolina and Memphis make the playoffs. They already said that if they expand to 12, right? Do you really want to see Memphis play Alabama in the playoffs? Memphis is a good team, but they don't need to play in the playoffs.
Again....you do not make a product better by watering it down.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:07 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
quote:
Sounds like you are scared to play the teams that could beat you.
Do you think it more likely the #12 team would beat you or the #4 team? because I would keep the 4 team playoff...and would be willing to do a 6 team playoff if they went with the BCS Bowl format of choosing teams and get away from the eye test.
quote:
Yes... we need to expand it. You reasons for not does not help grow the game. It actually makes it slowly die
How would having more blow outs "grow the game"? As it is now I look forward to the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl and soem others. You would not have those compelling match ups so you could pit the #1 team against the #12 team.
Which game would you prefer to watch? #1 vs #12? or #5 vs #6?
Actually a 12 team playoff means 4 teams get byes because math. Still as I pointed out you can have 12-16 teams beat 1-4 teams, happens all the time. Part of why the games suck now is you have teams that play almost no one all year get in the Playoff and get the crap kicked out of them or in the case of last year they get up for one game and get destroyed in the next. I hate the sandbagging that the 4 Team playoff has created as an incentive for some teams. For instance OU and Clemson are first round Playoff blowouts waiting to happen this year and the SECCG is probably the real Playoff.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:10 pm to JetDawg
Expansion would be great for Alabama.
Lose one sec west game.
Skip the pseudo playoff, conference championship game, still make the playoff.
Less wear and tear on the players and risk of injury.
Who cares about conference crowns, when you can rack up national championships!
Lose one sec west game.
Skip the pseudo playoff, conference championship game, still make the playoff.
Less wear and tear on the players and risk of injury.
Who cares about conference crowns, when you can rack up national championships!
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:12 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/22/21 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:16 pm to aggressor
quote:
I hate the sandbagging that the 4 Team playoff has created as an incentive for some teams. For instance OU and Clemson are first round Playoff blowouts waiting to happen this year and the SECCG is probably the real Playoff.
Thsi confuses me. What sandbagging? I have not seen teams sandbagging while trying to make a 4 team field. maybe I am misunderstanding?
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:18 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
quote:
Yes, because a #1 team always blows out a #11 or 12 team. I mean look at Bama/UF last weekend.
Nobody said always. but all you have to do is look at the history of the playoffs to know what once the playoffs start it is an entirely different animal. The best teams turn it up 2 notches. Teams that lose 3 games during regular season? Not so much.
quote:
My other point was that it is really hard for teams to play up for multiple games in a row (esp non SEC teams). A team can blow out a team one week and then get blown out themselves the next. You could also have a 1 or 2 seed sleep on a 15 or 16 and lose. Say you had Arkie playing Bama in the first round, maybe Bama destroys them, Arkie is playing with nothing to lose while Bama has all the pressure on them.
How many games in a row do thye have to play for the conference championships then a 12 team playoff?
1 for conference, then to make it to the finals of the playoffs it would be about 5 additional huge game? (4 or 5) If they have a hard time during regular season do you think they will have a hard time during playoffs?
quote:
I'm just tired of seeing teams be able to coast through easy schedules where they play one or maybe two decent teams and then get in the Playoff with just 2 games to win a Natty.
Picture those same teams doing that and still making the playoffs with 3 losses.
You will see UCF, Coastal Carolina and Memphis make the playoffs. They already said that if they expand to 12, right? Do you really want to see Memphis play Alabama in the playoffs? Memphis is a good team, but they don't need to play in the playoffs.
Again....you do not make a product better by watering it down.
Only history proves you wrong if you look at seeds. Last year #3 blew out #2. In '18 you had #3 vs #4 and #4 blew out #1. #4 also won in '15.
As for Bama playing Memphis or Coastal or whomever in Round 1? Sure, I will watch that game. As I said you have a Cinderella with nothing to lose against a Blue Blood that has all the pressure in the world and is going to have to avoid looking past that first round. Bama likely wins anyway but it's probably more of an 80/20 type game as opposed to a 99/1. It gets more interesting as you go down to the 8/9 game.
I like more teams having meaningful games. It's more fun and it's better for the game itself. It also will make 5 Stars more likely to think about going to other schools than just feeling like they need to go to one of the elites if they want to have a chance to win a Natty or even play in the Playoff. That first weekend of games would also be freaking amazing with all of those games packed in, it would make March Madness look tame.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:19 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
No, they give the top 6 conference champions auto bids.
In 2020 that would have been SEC (1), ACC(3), Big Ten(2), Big 12(6), American(8) and Sun Belt(11).
Oregon was 14th in the final CFP poll.
Without looking I am going to guess that this is a highly unusual occurrence.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:22 pm to JetDawg
Have there been 3 good playoff games in the same season?
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:23 pm to JetDawg
Just do a 64-team Tourney and be done with it.
Posted on 9/22/21 at 2:26 pm to aggressor
quote:
Only history proves you wrong if you look at seeds. Last year #3 blew out #2. In '18 you had #3 vs #4 and #4 blew out #1. #4 also won in '15.
You are missing the point entirely. I am not arguing against a 4 team playoff. I am arguing that if you add 8 additional teams you will get MORE blow outs.
Surely you can see where this is the case. You are doing away with with good closely ranked matchups in the NY6 matchups for matchups between Alabama and Coastal carolina.
quote:I'm sure you will because you are a big college football fan. But the average, casual fan will never watch that game. Crap, I will watch any good match up....but no way I would tune in to Bama/Coastal Carolina. Not for more than 5 minutes anyway.
As for Bama playing Memphis or Coastal or whomever in Round 1? Sure, I will watch that game.
A casual fan will Watch Oklahoma/Ohio State. They are not going to watch Bama/Coastal.
I would be willing to bet you watched some nondescript Week 0 game this year. I would also guess that they had some very low TV Ratings.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News