Started By
Message
got to have a mimimum 6 team playoff
Posted on 12/4/19 at 11:53 am
Posted on 12/4/19 at 11:53 am
the fault in the old BCS system was there were generally 3 really good teams and 1 got left out unfairly. so we added 2 more, and there are still generally 3 teams head and shoulders above the rest, and 3 to 5 teams really struggling for that 4th spot. and it's hard to differentiate, since college team's schedules just aren't comparable.
I prefer 8, but 4 is not enough. allows too much subjectivity by the committee.
JMO.
I prefer 8, but 4 is not enough. allows too much subjectivity by the committee.
JMO.
16
Posted on 12/4/19 at 11:54 am to stephendomalley
How would you set up a 6 team playoff?
Byes for the #1 and #2 seeds?
Byes for the #1 and #2 seeds?
This post was edited on 12/4/19 at 11:56 am
Posted on 12/4/19 at 11:55 am to stephendomalley
I agree.
Posted on 12/4/19 at 11:56 am to stephendomalley
8 to 16. FCS does it. Cut regular season games to 10
Posted on 12/4/19 at 11:56 am to 225Tyga
quote:
How would you set up a 6 team playoff?
Top 2 seeds get byes
Posted on 12/4/19 at 11:58 am to LSUGent
quote:
Top 2 seeds get byes
Why does anyone ever think 'byes' are better than watching teams play football?
Get outta here with that bye shite.
Posted on 12/4/19 at 11:58 am to stephendomalley
8 is so logical it hurts.
Also, the talk about regular season being watered down would be bullshite if you made the P5 champs and highest G5 conference champs auto-qualifiers. That would make the conference champions/methods even more significant.
Also, the talk about regular season being watered down would be bullshite if you made the P5 champs and highest G5 conference champs auto-qualifiers. That would make the conference champions/methods even more significant.
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:00 pm to stephendomalley
i disagree. this allows the NCAA assholes to keep rigging sht for A****a with the bye seeding
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:00 pm to stephendomalley
quote:
since college team's schedules just aren't comparable.
So fix that instead. Your suggestion of expanding the playoff does not fix the problem, it just waters it down and creates other problems.
It's like going to the auto shop for a flat tire, and instead of fixing the tire, they add another axle right behind it. Now you have a car that drives, but one floppy tire that doesn't belong and makes a lot of noise. After a couple of weeks, you are so annoyed by the floppy tire that you get it fixed, and now you've got an extra axle for no reason. 2 years later you remove the extra axle and go back to the 4 tires you should have had the whole time.
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:10 pm to slackster
quote:
8 is so logical it hurts. Also, the talk about regular season being watered down would be bullshite if you made the P5 champs and highest G5 conference champs auto-qualifiers. That would make the conference champions/methods even more significant.
The talk about the regular season being watered down is not "bullshite." It's just one of the arguments for the people that have a different opinion than you. Why in the world should winning a G5 conference get you in a CFP playoff against teams who played infinitely harder schedules with supreme athletes? It's like pairing up NFL and College Football teams in a playoff on a smaller scale. This is the worst take of the year.
P5 and G5 conferences need to be permanently separated from competing at this point.
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:15 pm to slackster
I don’t like the auto qualifier talk. You can have a 2-3 loss conference champ that auto qualifies for playoff. Not all conferences are created equal. 3rd 4th and 5th teams from SEC could easily win other conference championships.
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:19 pm to Ipissexcellence
quote:
You can have a 2-3 loss conference champ that auto qualifies for playoff. Not all conferences are created equal. 3rd 4th and 5th teams from SEC could easily win other conference championships.
I agree...but you could just add some qualifiers to be auto-qualified like “Must win conference with maximum of 2 losses” “Must have played x number of P5 teams”...etc
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:26 pm to stephendomalley
The real fix?
Increase the average attendance qualifications for FBS from 15,000 to 25,000 for private universities and 60,000 for public universities.
Boom. Problem solved.
Increase the average attendance qualifications for FBS from 15,000 to 25,000 for private universities and 60,000 for public universities.
Boom. Problem solved.
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:29 pm to stephendomalley
It's far better to argue and get #4 and 5 wrong than #2 and 3. It's fine like this.
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:31 pm to stephendomalley
We have to decide whether to include non conference winners or get rid of conf title games (hard to get rid of money makers)
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:34 pm to stephendomalley
quote:
I prefer 8, but 4 is not enough. allows too much subjectivity by the committee.
And if you go 6, 7 will cry. And if you go to 8, 9 will cry. And if you go to 16, well...you get the picture. In other words, there will always be at least one team crying that they were left out.
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:35 pm to stephendomalley
There are three dominant teams this year and a bunch of tallest midgets fighting for the #4 spot. The CFP has yielded the same four teams as the old BCS formula every year. Four is enough.
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:50 pm to Rip N Lip
quote:
There are three dominant teams this year and a bunch of tallest midgets fighting for the #4 spot. The CFP has yielded the same four teams as the old BCS formula every year. Four is enough.
Agree completely. Right now, every game from the first game to the last is essentially a playoff game. When the tournament get's so big that certain teams are a lock they will coast knowing they can lose a game or two and make the playoffs....just like the NFL.
Using Clemson as an example this year, in an 8 game model they could afford to lose a game or 2 but in a 4 game model they've been on notice since the UNC game and they've have to bring thing their "A" game every week.
While I'm against expansion, I suppose I could live with a 4th vs 5th "play in game" played at the home field of the 4th ranked team but I don't want expansion because it will hurt the regular season which is the best part of college football.
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:53 pm to stephendomalley
I like 6 teams but your logic is flawed.
Right now its who can we put at 4 that doesn't actually suck.
If it were 6 teams, it'd have to be a Champions invitational with 1 At Large. But that would be Bama every year that they didn't win the SEC. (I think this year was a fluke and they are still better than most teams and probably wont lose more than 1 a year.)
Right now its who can we put at 4 that doesn't actually suck.
If it were 6 teams, it'd have to be a Champions invitational with 1 At Large. But that would be Bama every year that they didn't win the SEC. (I think this year was a fluke and they are still better than most teams and probably wont lose more than 1 a year.)
Posted on 12/4/19 at 12:54 pm to labamafan
quote:
8 to 16. FCS does it. Cut regular season games to 10
Screw that...regular season already feels too short. You put it to 8+ teams and the regular season means nothing
Needs to be 6 teams and top 2 get byes
This post was edited on 12/4/19 at 12:54 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News