Started By
Message
re: Save College Football: A New Regular Season and Post Season Format
Posted on 7/26/16 at 9:47 am to CockInYourEar
Posted on 7/26/16 at 9:47 am to CockInYourEar
quote:
I think the P5 champs and 3 at large teams should have a shot at the title. I don't like just 4 teams having a shot.
Not all P5 champs are equal. There are times when a winner of a P5 conference has 4-5 losses. Teams like that don't belong in the top 15 of the polls much less a playoff spot.
0
Posted on 7/26/16 at 9:48 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Because of scheduling. You can't play everyone in your conference home and away.
Irrelevant.
quote:
Sometimes an undefeated team wins a National Title. Sometimes a two loss team can win a National Title.
That's right, and sometimes a 3-loss team wins the conference championship. That just makes them champions and should be eligible for a tournament of champions.
I just think you're over-thinking it. That's my opinion anyway.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 9:54 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:
I would suggest reading the proposal to understand why this is necessary
Read the proposal, still disagree. Yes more widespread interest, but thats what the endless bowl games that are already on are for.
quote:
For the health of the sport, they really can't
For the health of the players, (influence on decisions to go/stay pro) and therefore health of the sport, yes, virtually meaningless games can be eliminated.
quote:
I think you need to read the proposal.
Again, I read it. You wanted feedback, so dont be an arse when people give you honest critiques. I think its a good idea, I just pointed out potential flaws that could be addressed if it were ever to go before a committee and gave my opinion of alternative formats to combat said flaws.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 9:57 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Fair enough. I can definitely see valid arguments for both sides, and each has its pros and cons.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 10:25 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
That's your opinion.
My opinion is that aggies think too highly of themselves and put out more copy on this site than any other fanbase thinking that, for some reason, all their shite is worth reading.
I saw your abortion of a complication, and it's just absurd. My main problem with the OP is in the title: "Save College Football". College football doesn't need saving, it's people like you who come along and frick shite up that everyone loved in some strange effort to save it.
If you can't explain your system is one simple paragraph, it's too complicated. If you allow non-conference champions, then you've destroyed the conference traditions of over 100 years. Apparently aggies are only interested in upholding their own bizarre traditions and not the tradition of actually winning championships.
Alright. Sorry for trying to have discussion. You seem to have some weird animosity, and I don't think it's beneficial to anyone to continue to engage it. I'll kindly ask you to leave this thread and focus your efforts somewhere else in a more constructive way. Thanks in advance. No response is required.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 10:27 am to BeauxNArreaux
quote:
Read the proposal, still disagree. Yes more widespread interest, but thats what the endless bowl games that are already on are for.
A bowl system that's failing.
quote:
Again, I read it. You wanted feedback, so dont be an arse when people give you honest critiques. I think its a good idea, I just pointed out potential flaws that could be addressed if it were ever to go before a committee and gave my opinion of alternative formats to combat said flaws.
The nature of your response suggested to me that you hadn't read the proposal. I wasn't being an arse, merely made an assumption.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 10:57 am to TeLeFaWx
One thing that I think could be important to look at is the effect it is going to have on the weak FBS & FCS schools when it comes to scheduling. The teams in the P5 conferences are going to be scheduling other teams in the P5 more often under this structure. I imagine this is going to hurt some of the FBS & FCS schools that schedule some of the top dogs to make money. Could be wrong but I have a feeling that this system would hurt some of the bottom dwellers money wise.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 11:03 am to TeLeFaWx
A bowl system that's failing.
Not sure how you define failing. We have new bowls every year with sponsors paying teams thousands of dollars to millions of dollars to come. How is that failing?
Not sure how you define failing. We have new bowls every year with sponsors paying teams thousands of dollars to millions of dollars to come. How is that failing?
Posted on 7/26/16 at 11:46 am to TeLeFaWx
I think that's too many teams...I think that, most years, 4 teams is probably about right. In 2014 was a little controversial, as Baylor and TCU were left out; but the Big 12's lack of a conference championship game and a weak OOC schedule (especially Baylor) probably cost them. Last year, there was no controversy and it was fairly easy pickings for the committee.
With a 4-team play-off, the regular season is more meaningful as there's no guarantee that a conference championship will get you in the CFP. Strength of schedule remains a key factor and after your first regular season loss, just 'bout every game afterwards is a play-off game...
With a 4-team play-off, the regular season is more meaningful as there's no guarantee that a conference championship will get you in the CFP. Strength of schedule remains a key factor and after your first regular season loss, just 'bout every game afterwards is a play-off game...
Posted on 7/26/16 at 2:28 pm to TeLeFaWx
Sorry, dude, but I don't have to read anything to believe that a double bye is too big a benefit. In fact, I prefer a 32 team playoff with no byes. The reward for the regular season top teams is in the seeding.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 2:29 pm to TeLeFaWx
Sorry, dude, but I don't have to read anything to believe that a double bye is too big a benefit. In fact, I prefer a 32 team playoff with no byes. The reward for the regular season top teams is in the seeding and early round home games.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:28 pm to ArabianKnight
quote:
Not sure how you define failing. We have new bowls every year with sponsors paying teams thousands of dollars to millions of dollars to come. How is that failing?
Ratings are down. Attendance is way down. ESPN, who owns the bowl inventory is losing money hand over fist and losing their ability to fund these bowls. They owed $20 million to advertisers last bowl season for failed ratings marks. That's failing in my book.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:35 pm to rockiee
quote:
One thing that I think could be important to look at is the effect it is going to have on the weak FBS & FCS schools when it comes to scheduling. The teams in the P5 conferences are going to be scheduling other teams in the P5 more often under this structure.
It's designed for the mid to lower level power 5 teams to be able to score a decent coefficient by scheduling group of 5 teams. I think the system should give incentive to trying to schedule teams you think you can beat, even if that's a Group of 5 team.
quote:
I imagine this is going to hurt some of the FBS & FCS schools that schedule some of the top dogs to make money. Could be wrong but I have a feeling that this system would hurt some of the bottom dwellers money wise.
The avoidance of FCS schools is an issue, and I've thought of giving a "freebie game" in to the equation as well. Meaning, you get one game in your average that won't count against you, but that arises more issues. I think the system is decent enough if the FCS schools are essentially half the value of a lower end FBS school. Neither helps you that much.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 7:38 pm to TeLeFaWx
I actually like it but home many games does it add to a season?
Posted on 7/26/16 at 10:45 pm to aggiegreen
quote:
I actually like it but home many games does it add to a season?
For the SEC Champ, 1 more game.
For a lesser conference champ, 2 games.
At most 3, but the odds are far less likely.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News