posted by HereticWhich means nothing other than asking people whether they'd rather watch meaningful playoff games that potentially will be blowouts or meaningless bowl games that'll potentially be even further diminished because various key players skip them to prep for the NFL.
Would high draft picks playing for a low seed against a powerhouse make a different decision because it's the playoff?
posted by queencitybuckeyeand they were not competitive. That they were upsets is of no significance, the point is they were shitty games unless they involved "your" team. Most of the games in the playoff era have been shitty games. Why do you believe adding more games will change that fact?
I don't understand; are you wanting the games to be better games? Because that's 1) dumb and 2) not at all what I'm trying to argue.
The college football playoffs should have 6-8 teams in it. That's my point. Has nothing to do with wanting "better games"
posted by SportsAndLadyI don't understand; are you wanting the games to be better games? Because that's 1) dumb and 2) not at all what I'm trying to argue.
The college football playoffs should have 6-8 teams in it. That's my point. Has nothing to do with wanting "better games"
But why should it? If the top 4 only can hardly be competitive over the course of 5 seasons why should it be expanded to 8? The goal is to determine a champion
posted by Classyposter58But why should it? If the top 4 only can hardly be competitive over the course of 5 seasons why should it be expanded to 8? The goal is to determine a champion
Because you need 6-8 to figure out the top 4. Clearly they were wrong this year (and lots of people knew it).
posted by iclfan2Because you need 6-8 to figure out the top 4. Clearly they were wrong this year (and lots of people knew it).
Why were they wrong? You can’t just say Ohio State looks really good and Georgia had a hell of an SEC championship so let’s forget about those ugly losses to LSU and Purdue because they’re better than Oklahoma and Notre Dame
posted by Classyposter58Why were they wrong? You can’t just say Ohio State looks really good and Georgia had a hell of an SEC championship so let’s forget about those ugly losses to LSU and Purdue because they’re better than Oklahoma and Notre Dame
You can’t just say it that way either. That’s the point of why you need more than 4 teams. But anyone who watched Oklahoma knew they had no defense and anyone who watched Notre Dame knew they were ok but hadn’t played anyone besides UM (who looked pedestrian of late). You’re making the argument for more than 4 without even realizing it.
Mark Richt “retiring” from Miami.
Classy is basically saying because 12 old dudes got together and ranked a team the 5th best team in the country, there’s no way they could do better than the #4 team.
Like I said, it’s mind boggling that people (idiots) out there are arguing for it to stay at 4 teams.
posted by SportsAndLadyClassy is basically saying because 12 old dudes got together and ranked a team the 5th best team in the country, there’s no way they could do better than the #4 team.
Like I said, it’s mind boggling that people (idiots) out there are arguing for it to stay at 4 teams.
And if they expand to 8 the argument becomes "12 old dudes got together and ranked a team the 9th best team in the country, there’s no way they could do better than the #8 team." The argument will never go away.
Hell, they decided they need to expand the basketball tournament from 64 to 68....it will never be good enough
It may not be perfect with 8 but it would be a lot better
Mike Leach said it best
You simply cannot know for sure if you have the best teams unless you auto invite a conference champion. Then everyone has a chance.
posted by SportsAndLadyClassy is basically saying because 12 old dudes got together and ranked a team the 5th best team in the country, there’s no way they could do better than the #4 team.
Like I said, it’s mind boggling that people (idiots) out there are arguing for it to stay at 4 teams.
No what I’m saying is just because Ohio State is good doesn’t mean they deserve a playoff berth. You guys are making the case that the Purdue loss didn’t matter and I really don’t want a college football landscape like that. What made OSU-Michigan so great in 2006 is that the whole season for a shot at a title came down to that game. You’re going to ruin these classic games by having, well sucks we lost but we still make the playoffs and have a shot
posted by Laley23You simply cannot know for sure if you have the best teams unless you auto invite a conference champion. Then everyone has a chance.
That’s it. By doing this your conferences will only agree if the conference champions get home games and are seeded 1-5 before the 3 at larges are. Is Notre Dame considered an at large then? Also Michigan was ranked above UCF so we’ve gotta see that team make the playoffs as an at large?
Honestly instead of expanding the playoffs why don’t we mandate who teams play in the non conference much like how the NFL makes your schedule based on your division finish the previous season. So next year the Big 10 Champ has to play the Big 12 champ as an example. Next year Ohio State’s non conference schedule is FAU, Cincy and Miami OH while BG plays at Kansas State and at Notre Dame. In no world should Bowling fucking Green have a more difficult non-conference schedule than Ohio State. Make the regular season really matter and put these teams through a gauntlet
posted by Classyposter58That’s it. By doing this your conferences will only agree if the conference champions get home games and are seeded 1-5 before the 3 at larges are. Is Notre Dame considered an at large then? Also Michigan was ranked above UCF so we’ve gotta see that team make the playoffs as an at large?
Honestly instead of expanding the playoffs why don’t we mandate who teams play in the non conference much like how the NFL makes your schedule based on your division finish the previous season. So next year the Big 10 Champ has to play the Big 12 champ as an example. Next year Ohio State’s non conference schedule is FAU, Cincy and Miami OH while BG plays at Kansas State and at Notre Dame. In no world should Bowling fucking Green have a more difficult non-conference schedule than Ohio State. Make the regular season really matter and put these teams through a gauntlet
Please never compare a mid level MAC program who HAS to schedule games like ND and KSU to keep its program running to Ohio State.
BG is getting paid a small fortune to play those games. No one pays OSU to play them.
Also, Morgan State and Louisiana Tech.
posted by wildcats20Also, Morgan State and Louisiana Tech.
Who
posted by friendfromlowryWho
Right? Just casually forgot to include an FCS team and a CUSA team.
posted by wildcats20Please never compare a mid level MAC program who HAS to schedule games like ND and KSU to keep its program running to Ohio State.
BG is getting paid a small fortune to play those games. No one pays OSU to play them.
While the truly important fact here is that Classy's argument is hilariously stupid at best, as when you compare a MAC program to that of a major, title-contending one as far as scheduling goes, you've already lost before you even put the period at the end of your sentence, I do need to say that calling BGSU a mid-level MAC program is an insult to the actual mid-level programs in the conference. Those fucks were 3-9 and gave up 40+ seven damn times last year!
posted by queencitybuckeyeWould high draft picks playing for a low seed against a powerhouse make a different decision because it's the playoff?
Guaranteed? No, but how many people on ND or Oklahoma skipped their semifinal games? If the games matter, players are more likely to treat them as important. If they're a glorified exhibition taking place a whole month after the season, they're more likely to be treated as a nuisance not worth their time.
Simple fact is that the FBS is about the only level of legitimate, organized football in the country that does not have a legit playoff like the NFL, other levels of college football or high school football does. The only reason they don't is because TEH BOWLS MATTER!!! And while playing in the 13th installment of "random 6-6 team vs random 7-5 team" in December might be cool if you're a MAC/Sun Belt team or a mid-to-low-level major conference team that wouldn't sniff the postseason if it was 32 teams, it doesn't have that allure when the teams are legit and have legit aspirations.
And when the best arguments against an expanded playoff are "instead of shitty bowl games, we might have shitty playoff games" and "but having more teams takes away from the regular season because it's so much more fun when one bad week kills your whole season!!!", there really is no argument.
posted by iclfan2Because you need 6-8 to figure out the top 4. Clearly they were wrong this year (and lots of people knew it).
You don't need to "figure out the top 4". You only need to figure out the top team and/or maybe the top 2 teams. The point is it doesn't take 6-8 teams in a playoff to do that.
