Started By
Message
re: Would you support the removal of SEC divisions and a requirement to win conference to go
Posted on 11/2/18 at 11:52 am to StopRobot
Posted on 11/2/18 at 11:52 am to StopRobot
quote:
So a four loss P5 team and a two loss G5 team can make the playoff automatically while two or three one loss P5 teams dont. Ill pass.
Well, if they're good enough, the one loss teams will get the at-large bids.
quote:
How exactly are you going to force the AP not to put out a poll till week 3?
NCAA coaxes compliance -- says either play ball or we retool the CFP committee to force your obsolescence. Expand membership, relax meeting requirements so that votes can be cast remotely starting at week 4, up until week 10 or whenever convening would first be required. Essentially, allow the CFP to act more like the AP for the first 2/3 of the season.
As part of the expanded Playoff negotiations, stipulate that when conferences renegotiate broadcast contracts, networks must use CFP committee rankings.
This post was edited on 11/2/18 at 12:03 pm
1
Posted on 11/2/18 at 12:13 pm to Moonwinx31
quote:
Moonwinx31
4 posts
Just for starters...
quote:
Limit regular season schedules to 11 games
Explain to us why the 80-100 teams who realistically have no chance of ever making the playoffs...certainly not more than once in 20 years...should cut their season back one game and deprive themselves and their communities of that revenue...just to include 4 more upper echelon teams into the playoffs and satisfy a bunch of fans who couldn't care less about them.
Illinois. Indiana. Arizona. Arizona State. Colorado. Minnesota. Wake Forest. Maryland. Rutgers. Vandy. Duke. Iowa State. Kansas. Oregon State. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Why in the hell would they ever agree to this? They wouldn't.
Pointless to even mention it...if not dumb.
This post was edited on 11/2/18 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 11/2/18 at 12:21 pm to LouisvilleKat
quote:Let's just let your rivals make your schedule.
frick it. 20 game schedule! Lets do this!
Posted on 11/2/18 at 12:25 pm to LMfan
quote:
That what you call losing by double digits on the final weekend of the regular season?
All I know, is the trophy is in Tuscaloosa.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 12:38 pm to phaz
quote:
We don't mind earning it,
That’s rich!
Posted on 11/2/18 at 12:40 pm to Moonwinx31
quote:
NCAA coaxes compliance -- says either play ball or we retool the CFP committee to force your obsolescence.
What the frick does that even mean?
Do you know what the AP is?
Do you know what an opinion poll is?
Do you know what the First Amendment is?
Do you know what a 'free country' is?
Do you know how the CFP committee works?
From my perspective, you don't know ANY of these things.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 12:52 pm to Jacknola
quote:
4 best teams
How do you know who the 4 best teams are if you're ignoring conference champions and head-to-head results?
You going to rely on the liberal MSM fake news to tell you who the best teams are?
Because if all you need is the eye test, we may as well go back to the pre-Bowl Alliance days, and just rely on the opinion polls to tell us who the champion is.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 1:08 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Explain to us why the 80-100 teams who realistically have no chance of ever making the playoffs...certainly not more than once in 20 years...should cut their season back one game and deprive themselves and their communities of that revenue...just to include 4 more upper echelon teams into the playoffs and satisfy a bunch of fans who couldn't care less about them.
Illinois. Indiana. Arizona. Arizona State. Colorado. Minnesota. Wake Forest. Maryland. Rutgers. Vandy. Duke. Iowa State. Kansas. Oregon State. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Why in the hell would they ever agree to this? They wouldn't.
You're assuming that expansion to 8 teams and implementing scheduling requirements would have to be unanimously agreed to by all 130 schools.
Do you honestly think all 130 consented to the current playoff system? is that how small your brain is? Why don't you go do some homework before spouting off about things you know nothing about.
The CFP was ratified by a majority vote of the BCS Board of Managers. The governance structure within the CFP is largely the same -- Conference Commissioners representing the 10 FBS conferences, plus the Notre Dame AD, whose decisions are subject to final approval by the CFP BoM. Care to venture who would have the tie-breaking vote there in your nonsense scenario of revolt? Again, ND. It would be passed with ease, as the original CFP did.
80-100 teams already have a de minimis chance at the playoffs. That was even more true under the BCS. At least my guaranteed bid gives a path to the title, albeit exceedingly exclusive.
The programs you quoted generate significant revenue, each within the top 45 of all fbs programs. If there was a point to be made with those particular schools, it was an extremely poor / inane one. Perhaps you were appealing to cash strapped G5 schools, in which case . . .
. . . the one valid issue you raise is the potential loss of income for G5 schools relying on P5 cupcake game checks. Two things to consider:
(1) It's relatively moot, if the CFP BoM wanted to expand to an 8 team playoff with scheduling requirements, they have the votes to do it.
(2) The cost of scheduling these G5 teams has increased astronomically (most exceed the $1 million mark now), to the point that often one game against a deep-pocketed P5 opponent is enough to meet the operational bottom line for a given season. Subsequent games are merely icing on the cake. By leaving room for to guaranteed games to be scheduled under my system, it leaves more than enough opportunity for cash flow.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 1:14 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
From my perspective, you don't know ANY of these things.
From my perspective, your perspective is that of someone with an associate's degree, at best. Maybe.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 1:20 pm to kingbob
quote:
No. What I'd rather see is an FBS split and conference realignment that results in 6 12 team conferences each with 6 divisions, each playing 8 conference games.
Problem is it will never be that clean because there is no "NCAA commissioner" to force such changes.
If we see a split in the sport it will be because of money and it will be messy. What the fans want or what makes the sport cleaner is irrelevant.
In 2027 when we have three national titles (the current one, Netflix's, Amazon's) we will all wish for the current messy arrangement of today when at least everyone is playing for the same thing.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 1:20 pm to Moonwinx31
quote:
From my perspective
Having your head up your arse, that perspective?
The CFP committee doesn't even use the AP or coaches poll in the deliberations. Therefore the AP poll already is irrelevant to the CFP, and you can't use that to coerce them into delaying publication.
The AP stands for the Associated PRESS. Absent coercion, how are you going to keep the press from publishing peoples' opinions whenever they please in this country?
Would you care to try to answer the question in some sort of coherent manner now?
Posted on 11/2/18 at 1:23 pm to Moonwinx31
quote:
You're assuming that expansion to 8 teams and implementing scheduling requirements would have to be unanimously agreed to by all 130 schools.
Do you honestly think all 130 consented to the current playoff system? is that how small your brain is? Why don't you go do some homework before spouting off about things you know nothing about.
The CFP was ratified by a majority vote of the BCS Board of Managers. The governance structure within the CFP is largely the same -- Conference Commissioners representing the 10 FBS conferences, plus the Notre Dame AD, whose decisions are subject to final approval by the CFP BoM. Care to venture who would have the tie-breaking vote there in your nonsense scenario of revolt? Again, ND. It would be passed with ease, as the original CFP did.
80-100 teams already have a de minimis chance at the playoffs. That was even more true under the BCS. At least my guaranteed bid gives a path to the title, albeit exceedingly exclusive.
The programs you quoted generate significant revenue, each within the top 45 of all fbs programs. If there was a point to be made with those particular schools, it was an extremely poor / inane one. Perhaps you were appealing to cash strapped G5 schools, in which case . . .
. . . the one valid issue you raise is the potential loss of income for G5 schools relying on P5 cupcake game checks. Two things to consider:
(1) It's relatively moot, if the CFP BoM wanted to expand to an 8 team playoff with scheduling requirements, they have the votes to do it.
(2) The cost of scheduling these G5 teams has increased astronomically (most exceed the $1 million mark now), to the point that often one game against a deep-pocketed P5 opponent is enough to meet the operational bottom line for a given season. Subsequent games are merely icing on the cake. By leaving room for to guaranteed games to be scheduled under my system, it leaves more than enough opportunity for cash flow.
Pretty much every word of this is just evidence that you're a moron.
But just for starters...
"80-100 teams already have a de minimis chance at the playoffs. That was even more true under the BCS. At least my guaranteed bid gives a path to the title,"
Illinois already has a path to the the title, and you're an idiot if you can't grasp that. Aside from the fact that the BSC is irrelevant to this discussion. Who gives a shite about the BCS?
Bottom line: 100 schools aren't going to go along with giving up a game. Anyone who has watched college football for more than 6 weeks understands that.
This post was edited on 11/2/18 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 11/2/18 at 1:32 pm to Moonwinx31
quote:
From my perspective, you don't know ANY of these things.
From my perspective, your perspective is that of someone with an associate's degree, at best. Maybe.
From my perspective...and that of others in this conversation...your perspective is that of someone with a doctorate in some meaningless field who has been watching college football for about 6 weeks.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 1:34 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
The CFP committee doesn't even use the AP or coaches poll in the deliberations.
You assert with sincerity that the AP poll doesn't matter? You honestly think it doesn't factor into the initial CFP rankings? You think the AP doesn't serve as a measuring stick to the CFPC for victories and losses? The AP poll not being a defined probative criteria for the CFPC is irrelevant -- the perception created is in play. LSU is ranked #3 because they beat a (then) #2 UGA.
#2 according to . . . yes dumbass, the AP. So when the committee considers that win, they consider it with the AP #2 ranking in mind -- the perception of UGA's strength and the quality of the win, as dictated by the AP's high evaluation.
Jesus Christ
quote:
how are you going to keep the press from publishing peoples' opinions whenever they please in this country
Asked and answered. No one can force the AP to do or not do anything. But they can be coaxed into playing ball. If they refuse, then the CFPC can elect to expand its voter membership, and elect to begin voting starting in week 4 of the regular season. The AP then becomes relevant for all of 3 weeks (instead of the current 9), eventually no one will pay attention to them. That's very nearly the case now. The biggest blow dealt would be totally nullifying their influence on a late-season initial CFP ranking.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 1:35 pm to Kingpenm3
I would support the removal of this thread from the board
Posted on 11/2/18 at 1:37 pm to Kingpenm3
quote:
Conference would retain a conference championship between the top two teams.
What happens when LSU Plays UGA, AUB, UF, UA, UT, ATM and Bama gets UK, VU, Miz, OM, State,and LSU?
Posted on 11/2/18 at 1:41 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Illinois already has a path to the the title, and you're an idiot if you can't grasp that.
I didn't mention Illinois, you did.
quote:
Bottom line: 100 schools aren't going to go along with giving up a game
Goal posts moved as expected. Now it's 100 teams that wouldn't want a reduced schedule . . . not just the G5, cash-strapped 64.
Now you say that only 30 fbs schools would be interested in eliminating a totally meaningless cupcake game. Now you say only 30 fbs schools would be interested in not having to write another massive check for a meaningless win.
But the 100 left, they'd fight tooth and nail for that extra game. Well, really it's just the 64, you know, the G5 schools who claim to need the game for revenue. And the other 36 P5 teams? What is their position, pray tell? They just NEED that extra game? They just CRAVE it? They MUST write that massive check.
You're all kinds of smart
This post was edited on 11/2/18 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 11/2/18 at 2:07 pm to Moonwinx31
quote:
You assert with sincerity that the AP poll doesn't matter?
Yes.
quote:
You honestly think it doesn't factor into the initial CFP rankings?
It doesn't.
quote:
You think the AP doesn't serve as a measuring stick to the CFPC for victories and losses?
It doesn't.
quote:
when the committee considers that win, they consider it with the AP #2 ranking in mind
They don't.
quote:
But they can be coaxed into playing ball.
They cannot.
quote:
The AP then becomes relevant for all of 3 weeks (instead of the current 9), eventually no one will pay attention to them. That's very nearly the case now. The biggest blow dealt would be totally nullifying their influence on a late-season initial CFP ranking.
Wrong.
The AP publishes their preseason poll and college football starved consumers click on it, talk about it, debate it, say they shouldn't publish it, etc... All that clicking generates revenue for the AP. That's how they stay relevant. Also, you get people ITT who think that neither conference championships nor regular season head-to-head results should matter for the playoff, just who the "top 4 teams" are. As long as this is the case, the polls will remain relevant regardless of your lame threats.
The only way to eliminate the influence of the polls is to remove ALL opinions from the playoff selection process. Standings should be all that matters, not rankings.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 2:39 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
It is oblivious that Alabama is almost always one of the best, and LSU isn’t... except occasionally. But let’s humor your never ending seven year LSU crying and whining melt. Tell me, what team got left out of the playoffs in 2011 and 2017 that was better than Alabama?
Good GOD you people are pathetic...
Good GOD you people are pathetic...
Posted on 11/2/18 at 3:50 pm to Jacknola
quote:
Tell me, what team got left out of the playoffs in 2011 and 2017 that was better than Alabama?
quote:
How do you know who the 4 best teams are if you're ignoring conference champions and head-to-head results?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News