Started By
Message
re: The Biggest Flaw With The New College Football Playoff Is Already A Huge Problem
Posted on 10/21/14 at 11:12 am to IT_Dawg
Posted on 10/21/14 at 11:12 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
NCAA basketball uses a committee
NCAA basketball started with a 16 team tournament, and that was all they really needed. Each growth since then has been to make money, not to provide a fair platform for the best college basketball teams to select a champion.
The more teams you add, the more money you make. The tradeoff is you water down the field and you diminish the value of the regular season games. Playoffs make money for the folks who control them but it costs the regular season teams money at the gate during the regular season.
College basketball taught us this very clearly by cheapening the product just to make money. If attendance is already falling for regular season college football games then adding more teams to a playoff will just make it worse.
Personally, my belief is if you can not win 8 or more of your regular season games you should not get a bowl invite. That leaves money on the table for folks who make bowl money so they lower the bar and reward 6-6 teams. It is all about the money but they sell it to the fans who lap it up so they create even more bowls.
quote:
4 is fine, frick you if you aren't undefeated in a Power 5 conference.
Well said, and actually the truth. Just as 16 was fine for basketball, 4 is fine for college football. If you do not get this, you are being manipulated by folks who just want to make more money while selling the fans a reason to do so.
1
Posted on 10/21/14 at 11:24 am to lsufball19
quote:
quote:
The OP is right, U have 5 Power conferences how can u have 4 spots? And whether u believe there are 5 real power conferences doesnt matter, theyre there.
ok, so in 2012 Nebraska was Big10 champs. They were 7-5. Did they deserve to be in the playoffs because they had one big game and benefitted from the fact that the top two teams in their division were on probation? Sounds fair, right? The NCAA football champion should be awarded to the best team, not the team who has a couple good games, period. You have 12 regular season games to show your worth. If you lose 3 games or more, imo, you haven't earned the right to play for the national title.
We can get into all kinda scenarios 19. Like what if all five champs are undefeated then what? or one is 7-5.
Life isnt fair. How do the Giants make the playoffs at 9-7 twice while others dont get in at 11-5?
If u go to six teams how do u find the 6th team? Is it a team, who wasnt good enough to get into their conference's championship game or is it a loser of that game and now they have one more loss and its a recent one.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 11:29 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
Well said, and actually the truth. Just as 16 was fine for basketball, 4 is fine for college football. If you do not get this, you are being manipulated by folks who just want to make more money while selling the fans a reason to do so.
I think that viewpoint is overstated and cynical. The cry for a playoff has been coming from the fans for decades. It dates all the way back to 1990 and the Colorado-Georgia Tech debacle.
The powers-that-be found a way to make money from the playoff, for sure, just as they did for the Bowl Coalition and the BCS. They always do. But its not like the idea of a playoff originated as a money-making scheme. It was a ground-up, fan-based movement that gradually gained traction with media and institutions.
This post was edited on 10/21/14 at 11:31 am
Posted on 10/21/14 at 11:30 am to bama1959
quote:
I say no automatic ins even with 8. If your conference sucks why reward it? There's a good chance all Big12's teams will have 2 losses and none inside the top 10 in the end. I don't think any of them are good enough for even 8 team PO.
Agreed.
Just look at last year.
Big 10 champ was Michigan State. They were 12-1 with a 4 point loss at Notre Dame early in the year. Beat OSU in the championship game. Clearly deserved to be there.
ACC was undefeated FSU. Clearly deserved to be there.
SEC was Auburn, with that lone loss to LSU early in the season, and beat top ranked bama down the stretch. Clearly deserved to be there.
Big 12 was Baylor. One loss to a ranked team. Deserved to be there.
What gets muddy is the Pac-12. Stanford had two losses in conference and was the champ. Added a third loss in the Rose to Sparty. Should a two loss team been an automatic into this hypothetical playoff, when there were one loss teams in Alabama, UCF, Ohio State (if they weren't on postseason ban), and a few others ranked in the teens with just one loss?
You can't just give the power 5 auto bids. It should be the top 8.
Here's the top 10 BCS standings after Championship games and prior to bowls.
1 Florida State 13-0
2 Auburn 12-1
3 Alabama 11-1
4 Michigan State 12-1
5 Stanford 11-2
6 Baylor 11-1
7 Ohio State 12-1
8 Missouri 11-2
9 South Carolina 10-2
10 Oregon 10-2
The only difference between that and the AP from the same week is Mizzou and S. Carolina are switched from 8-9. If you're just using the top 8 in the rankings, that one is easy if they're that close since they played head to head and Carolina won.
In a 4 team playoff, Stanford would have been left out, as well as the Big 12 champ Baylor, going strictly by rankings. So only 3 of those power 5 conference champs get in, with an at large Alabama.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 11:35 am to TU Rob
quote:
In a 4 team playoff, Stanford would have been left out, as well as the Big 12 champ Baylor, going strictly by rankings. So only 3 of those power 5 conference champs get in, with an at large Alabama.
So Missouri gets penalized for winning the east and Alabama get rewarded for losing to Auburn to the point that they get a bye while Auburn must beat Mizzou to continue. I want to be the 3rd place team in the best conference, then that way Im in and I get a bye.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 11:35 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
It dawned on me this weekend that the powers that be settled on a 4 team playoff for a reason. They knew that having 5 power conferences and only 4 teams would create a lot of buzz and controversy. We're only halfway through the season and look at all the talk, arguments and controversy there is already. Just imagine how this will ramp up as the season unfolds.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 11:39 am to SadSouthernBuck
quote:
It dawned on me this weekend that the powers that be settled on a 4 team playoff for a reason. They knew that having 5 power conferences and only 4 teams would create a lot of buzz and controversy
Im with u Buck
Its the only thing that makes sense.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 11:39 am to TxTiger82
quote:
But its not like the idea of a playoff originated as a money-making scheme. It was a ground-up, fan-based movement that gradually gained traction with media and institutions.
Bless your heart! Your innocence is quite dear.
quote:
It dates all the way back to 1990 and the Colorado-Georgia Tech debacle.
it dates back to the 1950's when the B1G and PAC tightened their NCAA monopoly by having their man run the NCAA TV contract for about 3 decades. It was not till Oklahoma sued the NCAA and won that the CFA formed and broke the monopoly.
It is not overstated and cynical, it is the truth and I am old enough to have watched it unfold firsthand. Go back and read the history sometime and you will see this is correct and true. Granted you may have to go back to looking at old newspapers and such as the internet was not around then and those documents are not online.
I might suggest the special collections of Vanderbilt if you are really interested in the actual history instead of what is spoon fed to the ADD internet crowd born after 1980.
Old people are not as unaware because they actually lived through history instead of reading what somebody wrote about it.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 8:59 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
Interesting read.
After reading through the arguments I'm noticing logical inconsistency.
Sure, when asked what the best conference is, I always say "SEC" but that doesn't mean the SEC champion is better than PAC, B10, BIG12 champion per se.
My point is: Better conference doesn't mean best team
Frankly, football is all about matchups, and you really don't know who's better until they settle it on the field. For example, in 2011, I think LSU matched up really well with Oregon, but I think Alabama, the eventual champ, wouldn't match up as well. Not saying they lose, because I wouldn't really know unless they played.
Conclusion: Expand so that all FBS champs play, cut the regular season back to 10 games.
After reading through the arguments I'm noticing logical inconsistency.
Sure, when asked what the best conference is, I always say "SEC" but that doesn't mean the SEC champion is better than PAC, B10, BIG12 champion per se.
My point is: Better conference doesn't mean best team
Frankly, football is all about matchups, and you really don't know who's better until they settle it on the field. For example, in 2011, I think LSU matched up really well with Oregon, but I think Alabama, the eventual champ, wouldn't match up as well. Not saying they lose, because I wouldn't really know unless they played.
Conclusion: Expand so that all FBS champs play, cut the regular season back to 10 games.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 9:30 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
And the same problem that happened in 2011. LSU goes and risks it all in the seccg while Alabama rested. Could happen again if both win out and then Ole Miss beats State in Egg Bowl. I could see them both getting in the playoff, assuming Ole Miss beats UGA. Four is just straight up ig'nant
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News