Started By
Message
In regards to expanding the playoffs
Posted on 1/13/20 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 1/13/20 at 1:23 pm
Part of the issue is that the playoffs have not generated as many "great" games as it should have. You would think with the top 4 teams playing each other, each game would be spectacular.
While it hasn't always been the higher seeds that win the games (at least two #4 seeds have won the whole thing), the number of legitimately competitive games is in the minority.
Number of semifinal games that finished within 1 score or OT:
4 (including this year)
Number of semifinal games that finished with a difference over 14 points:
8 (including 4 games with margins of victory greater than 30)
I'm not immediately opposed to expanding the playoff, but at some point we need a better system of determining which teams make it and at which seeds.
The history is short, but the fact that no #1 seed has ever won it is a bit telling. Only one #3 seed has made the final game; but the #4 seed has two titles and the #2 seed has 3.
Partially this is because the other conferences look on par with the SEC and Clemsons until they actually play, especially the Big 12 and Pac 12.
Interesting tidbit: Oklahoma has made the playoffs two years in a row, and went up against a top tier SEC QB both times.
Combined stats in those two games by the starting QBs:
53-66, 811 yards and 11 TDs (and the backups went a perfect 4-4 for 49 yards).
Starting QB Rating vs OU:
238.52 (Despite being a perfect 4-4, the backups would actually bring DOWN this stat).
So the question is, if we expand - do we just end up with more Oklahomas?
While it hasn't always been the higher seeds that win the games (at least two #4 seeds have won the whole thing), the number of legitimately competitive games is in the minority.
Number of semifinal games that finished within 1 score or OT:
4 (including this year)
Number of semifinal games that finished with a difference over 14 points:
8 (including 4 games with margins of victory greater than 30)
I'm not immediately opposed to expanding the playoff, but at some point we need a better system of determining which teams make it and at which seeds.
The history is short, but the fact that no #1 seed has ever won it is a bit telling. Only one #3 seed has made the final game; but the #4 seed has two titles and the #2 seed has 3.
Partially this is because the other conferences look on par with the SEC and Clemsons until they actually play, especially the Big 12 and Pac 12.
Interesting tidbit: Oklahoma has made the playoffs two years in a row, and went up against a top tier SEC QB both times.
Combined stats in those two games by the starting QBs:
53-66, 811 yards and 11 TDs (and the backups went a perfect 4-4 for 49 yards).
Starting QB Rating vs OU:
238.52 (Despite being a perfect 4-4, the backups would actually bring DOWN this stat).
So the question is, if we expand - do we just end up with more Oklahomas?
7
Posted on 1/13/20 at 1:24 pm to skrayper
No expansion, four is fine.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 1:26 pm to Sid E Walker
Keep it exclusive. Letting peasants like UCF and Hawaii have their seat at the table has resulted in nothing but trouble.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 1:27 pm to skrayper
More games gives more chances at great games though that we remember . In the current system we have 3 games with national title implications. If it was an 8 team there would suddenly be 7 of those games.
The BCS national title game was often a blowout and that was a huge dud. More games gives more chances for classics. Plus I feel like the semifinals have even more juice than the national title game sometimes (because you are playing to stay alive and advance). Quarterfinals would create more of those type of games.
The BCS national title game was often a blowout and that was a huge dud. More games gives more chances for classics. Plus I feel like the semifinals have even more juice than the national title game sometimes (because you are playing to stay alive and advance). Quarterfinals would create more of those type of games.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 1:27 pm to skrayper
Any thought of expansion will have to take into account the players themselves who you will be asking to play additional games.
You don't want to cheapen the regular season either.
Those games have to count for something.
You might see removal of conference title games as a start as well as taking away one/two non conference games just to even begin discussions.
Any playoff expansion should also include a provision for home games in the playoffs, possible byes for top seeds (which I don't like).
Are players willing to risk their professional future without compensation to play in additional games. Will they even have a voice? Will that drive recruits to some of these start up professional leagues with a shot to make the NFL from there.
There will be a ton of issues to iron out but we all know TV revenue dictates everything.
You don't want to cheapen the regular season either.
Those games have to count for something.
You might see removal of conference title games as a start as well as taking away one/two non conference games just to even begin discussions.
Any playoff expansion should also include a provision for home games in the playoffs, possible byes for top seeds (which I don't like).
Are players willing to risk their professional future without compensation to play in additional games. Will they even have a voice? Will that drive recruits to some of these start up professional leagues with a shot to make the NFL from there.
There will be a ton of issues to iron out but we all know TV revenue dictates everything.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 1:31 pm to skrayper
Last two years should have been two SEC teams tOSU and Clemson...Big dropoff thereafter.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 1:34 pm to skrayper
Most seasons the #8 team playing @#1 would be completely pointless. This year Alabama, Penn State, Wisconsin, Utah, Auburn etc. did not deserve a shot at the nattie
6 teams with 1 and 2 getting a bye isn’t terrible though
6 teams with 1 and 2 getting a bye isn’t terrible though
This post was edited on 1/13/20 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 1/13/20 at 1:52 pm to Glorious
Might as well do that and do away with some of these crap bowl games, especially with how kids deciding to sit out bowl games recently, if they are in the playoff less will sit out. Then the lesser teams will receive the better remaining bowls. I see no reason why 6-6 teams should be playing in bowls.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 1:53 pm to skrayper
Last years final was a real bust too
Posted on 1/13/20 at 2:39 pm to skrayper
I agree with you. I believe expanding would create even more matchups that end in blowouts. Should stay at 4.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News