Agree. Horrid idea. BCS formula (human & computers) pretty much got it right every year. Use BCS formula for top 6. #1 & #2 get a bye. #3 vs #6 & #4 vs #5 in the higher ranked campus stadium. Then go to final four.
Poll: Should the CFP expand?
- Thread starter Ldlane
- Start date
Let's not forget 'march madness' - you know why it's so large now? Because fairness?
Hahaha, it's the NCAA's cash cow - the NCAA makes roughly 75% of its annual income from the NCAA Basketball tournament.
It's ALL about the money.
Hahaha, it's the NCAA's cash cow - the NCAA makes roughly 75% of its annual income from the NCAA Basketball tournament.
It's ALL about the money.
Last edited:
I'm not in favor of any automatic entries. My idea would be the eye test of victories over quality opponents.
I know it doesn't favor us this year, but that's just the way it is. If we didn't play any cupcake teams, our chances of future playoffs would be better. That way more quality teams would play meaningful games.
That said I remember any game you lose is very meaningful...
Most are calling for a small tweak, and not a radical change. Most of this stems from the #1 seed not meaning anything to the committee's arbitrary selection. Not every change deserves the inevitable "sky is falling" response.
What?
[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]
This keeps being thrown around like candy on here, and I think it shows a lack of understanding of the sports that are being compared to college football. I mean has anyone ever heard of a team that wasn't trying to get a home playoff game in the NFL? I wonder how home playoff games in the NFL are decided?
FTR, most of us take the As low as reasonably necessary route on the change to the playoffs, but the OP didn't give us much of an option with the choices available. My biggest issue is that there is no benefit for being the #1 seed in the current format. Take last year for instance: Alabama went through hell to get the #1 spot while Clemson coasted through a cake schedule to get the #2 spot. Alabama's reward was getting a high powered offense while Clemson got an easy win in Dallas. Every single year #1 is put a serious disadvantage while #2 with the exception of 1 year gets to eat cake.
It's a conversation, but this is a classic grass is always greener/don't know what you got till it's gone situation here. College football doesn't have enough games to devalue them without facing real consequences. We don't have a really big fantasy sports scene and the like that the NFL has to prop up the regular season. Bowl games for example are still what many teams play for. My uncle once had these gigantic, just amazing blueberry, well trees. Massive things. You could go pick pounds of berries and not seem to make a dent. Then one year he cut them back too far, and they've never been the same since. To me that's what I see here, something great and if you mess with it too much it might never recover.
I gave a couple examples but I can go further...
I remember the time the Saints had to go on the road to play a team with a losing record, all the way across the country as a matter of fact. Why? The other team was in a crappy division. So, the Saints, who played demonstrably better in the regular season have to deal with a west coast road trip, because divisions and automatic criteria. It shouldn't have happened. I've also seen regular season games where teams just sit their starters because they outcomes don't matter.
Another thing that stuck with me was the change to the playoffs in baseball, specifically the wild card and 5 game series. The big issue there with expanding playoffs at all is they play a lot of games. So, you play this huge season, and then you let this new 5 game series determine who proceeds. It's not regular baseball, for instance one year the Cubs had two great young pitchers, Prior and Wood (been on the field when he pitched, amazing stuff pre-injury) and they pitched Wood on short rest and beat the Braves, 3-2. That abbreviated series erased the fact that the Braves that year won 101 games and the Cubs only won 88. What was the point of all those games if an abbreviated series was going to determine who moved forward? They're just unimportant things you do on a nice summer day I guess?
The NBA has a major issue with balance between conferences, that's one thing where LeBron had a cake walk to the Finals for years. But that aside, they regularly have stars sit now in big games, nationally televised games. The regular season games mean to little that teams are perfectly happy to take the loss just to rest stars. That's a viable thing to do in the NBA, because regular seasons mean so little.
For the record though, I do not like the committee due to criteria they may or may not implement (though I give them credit for not moving Alabama down), but the BCS formula did a heck of a job in my opinion.
Competition? What what where those 6 losses the Giants had? Practice?
Also, I supported the BCS. I never once said go back to just bowl games, so citing things that happened previously are not really relevant to me.
Last edited:
1-3 in the MLB are almost always division winners even if you take away the AQ. But even then you have a 1-5-7-7 setup so its not that much of a big deal.
NFL the only thing I would change is how they are seeded. Take away the automatic 1st round home reward, but keep them in the playoffs. Out of 16 teams on each side with the best football players in the country, I think there should be a reward for winning your division. The problem with using that as a factor in college is that 1) there are way too many teams even within the P5 2) conference scheduling rules are different and 3) not all conferences are comparable. You really need to have a system in which the best teams are there, and sometimes that means non conference winners.
They created the wild card games in the NFL playoff because making division winners automatic qualifiers was a horrible idea. To fix that horrible idea, they added other teams to the playoff instead of eliminating the divisions. Why? Money. The only reason that divisions were created was to create rivalries. The rivalries created interest in the games of other teams, not just the team that a fan followed. This created greater interest in the game overall, and increased TV viewership.
The real fix was obvious - eliminate the divisions and take the 4 teams with the best records in each conference. But that would have hurt revenue. Better for the integrity of the sport - worse for the pocket book. $$$ wins every time.
I don't want to see it changed, but it already has been. And, on top of that, the powers that be will change it again. So, I'll hold on as long as I can until I finally let go and do something else on fall weekends. In the meantime, I'll suggest gradual changes that don't so dramatically screw up what is still a pretty good thing.
And one of the things that has stuck in my craw over the years is going 11-1 when another West division team has a hot year and has a miracle win over us, eliminating us from everything. I'd like to pretty much be assured an at-large spot in a 6 team playoff in that case. Granted, we've gotten in a couple of times when this happened. We've also been left out a couple times as well. Some people like that all or nothing proposition in November. I happen to not like it.
Very well then, the BCS had embarrassing results as well. 2000,2001,and 2003. None of these had the two best and deserving teams in them.
Part of that was because you had an influx of new teams so you either needed to play everyone in your conference in a Big XII style way while only having few to no games vs the other side or make a wild card. Personally I like interconference play more than a round robin. I think the issue is more of seeding than inclusion IMO
Which says the Big 12 has the right idea....play the conference schedule and take the top 2 teams. But you've got to play all the other teams in conference, which is impossible with 14 teams.
Or you expand each division and have inter divisional games or have just 1?
So expand the power 5 conferences, each division with at least 9 teams, for a minimum of 8 division games, maybe one cross over per major conference.....take the top 2 from each division as a 1st round playoff type game, division championship....those winners play the winner of the other division in conference. Four power 5 conferences so those conference championship teams are your top 4 and are seeded for the semis.
Super Conferences?
Nope - you do not. You do not have to do this perfectly. The wild card is not perfect. It rewards the teams with the best W/L record no matter who they played. It isn't perfect now, so why would it have to be perfect then? They were not interested in perfection. They wanted more teams in for the $$$.
LOL - nope. You guys are missing the forest for the trees. Who cares who wins a conference? Conferences are meaningless in a college football playoff world.
You guys have one foot in the old world and one foot in the new.
The Big XII has an advantageous idea that was granted by the NCAA is more accurate. Keep in mind that they have 10, Pac 12 has 12, and everyone else has 14. Meaning that if we do that idea then 1) The Big XII gets 4 more teams and PAC 12 gets 2 more, 2) everyone has effectively 14 games to prove they belong in a national championship discussion (13 + CCG), and 3) its either a 6 or 8 game playoff unless you get rid of one conference. I really don't think that is the answer because interleague play is a good determining factor in college football.
Are you saying getting rid of conferences, divisions, or both? If its just getting rid of divisions then you would have a round robin regular season with the 4 best teams emerging for a playoff in each conference.
All right, you're gonna make me have to create my own Super Conference scenario, complete with teams and how a playoff would work out....I'll get back to ya when I've compiled the data.
We call all come up with things that would work on paper. But if it includes the elimination of any conference - it aint happening. Folks who only care about the $$$ set up the playing field a long time ago. The game has to be played on that field. We have to figure out how to get the best that we can out of that mess.All right, you're gonna make me have to create my own Super Conference scenario, complete with teams and how a playoff would work out....I'll get back to ya when I've compiled the data.
I know man, but now I have to do it just so I can see it. Will give me a little side project to do.
I have reviewed extensively every single BCS result and I believe the data I compiled showed that not once did the #3 team finish with as good or better a record than the #1 team. Certainly nothing that even came close to rising to the level of embarrassment. There is no perfect system, but they never gave a championship to a team with a mediocre regular season, like some examples of other sports I gave.
The idea that 10-6 and getting beat by the 16-0 team in the regular season, but still being champion is any way comparable to a top 2 team winning is unfathomable to me. I guess it's better to be in a 4 way tie for 7th like that Giants team, they deserved it.
Edit: Sorry I gave the Giants too much credit and moved them up one spot, had to fix that.
Last edited:
Because you refuse to make an attempt to understand the system that you are complaining about.
1) 16 games is bound to produce 3-4 losses minimum in any format in football. If Alabama went to a 13 game SEC schedule then I guarantee you that we aren't coming out of there with 0-1 losses
2) While the Patriots had the easiest division in football (and still to this day do), the Giants had arguably the hardest one in the NFL.
3) NFL teams are far more equal in talent than college football teams. Alabama could start their second string and beat most SEC teams on their schedule by 2-3 scores. The talent gap in the pros is much much closer. The Patriots would be in the fight of their lives if they started their 2nd string vs the Bengals or the Dolphins
The Giants were the 3rd best team in the NFC, but rewarded the hardest road to the Super Bowl. Sounds a lot like Alabama in 2011 and 2017. But I don't think you were boohooing for LSU and UGA those years.
The NFL is a different game than college, but far less sham champions because they have a true playoff. I remember the whole talk in the offseason was that Clemson had a whole year to prepare for Alabama, but its funny that it isnt as loud on this thread as it was from February to October.
Last edited:
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 6
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-