(01-04-2015 01:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:42 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Eight teams is going to give us rematches from the regular season. Terrible idea.

Six teams gives you what you want if realignment hasn't worked itself out yet. The five teams from the majors and then one more spot for an Independent, a G5 team or if neither of those work out then you have a stand out second team from one of the majors.

Also, six means you have two less bowls to have to fill with repeat fans. The top two teams have something to seriously work for in regards to being the top two teams, the BYE. As we saw this year with four, being in the top two helps you out with location but Ohio State still got the win. The BYE is an even bigger deal than location is.

That being said, I do think the time zone difference was a big deal for FSU to have to add to their preparations that Oregon didn't have to worry about.

So 2 random teams out of the 6 get byes? The fact is that we don't know who the best 2 teams are, yet you're going to name 2 teams to get byes? Besides, I don't feel sorry for FSU having to travel time zones, every team in the north has to travel a long ways to get to their bowl games every year.

Random?

I'm sorry, where was the outrage at seeing Alabama and Oregon as the top two picks this year? Hardly random.

I didn't say to feel sorry about FSU travelling. I said it very likely affected the outcome. Oregon having that advantage is as akin to having a Bye and they playing someone that already played.

You may not like the idea of Byes but the Networks will. Why? Because it will keep the top two teams in the tournament longer.

So an Alabama team that wasn't as good as Ohio State would have received a bye, while Ohio State would have had to play, risking more injuries. And all of it based on the incorrect assumption that Alabama was better. They're already playing a lot of the bowls practically in the backyards of some of these teams. Now you're going to provide them a bye week too.

Nope, this season is in the history books and we have all learned a valuable lesson from it. A lesson that was very necessary before we start inserting Bye's into the National Playoff. You are right about the need for being responsible with them.

That is what comes with Growth though. You build upon the past and move beyond it. I never once thought this year that the SEC West was truly all that much better. I was very open about that and even said that I thought the PAC South would have beaten the SEC West in a direct challenge.

So pardon me for having thoughts of a system that would absolutely work when folks get their perceptions proper and stop being a flock led by the ESPN shepherd.

6 is still better than 4, I just think 8 would be better.

Also, I didn't see any lawsuits when players got injured in game 12 after they moved from the 11-game to the 12-game schedule. If they went to 11 games and then had an 8-team playoff you could argue that it's better for players' health since most would play fewer game than now. But it would be less money.

(01-04-2015 01:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:42 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So 2 random teams out of the 6 get byes? The fact is that we don't know who the best 2 teams are, yet you're going to name 2 teams to get byes? Besides, I don't feel sorry for FSU having to travel time zones, every team in the north has to travel a long ways to get to their bowl games every year.

Random?

I'm sorry, where was the outrage at seeing Alabama and Oregon as the top two picks this year? Hardly random.

I didn't say to feel sorry about FSU travelling. I said it very likely affected the outcome. Oregon having that advantage is as akin to having a Bye and they playing someone that already played.

You may not like the idea of Byes but the Networks will. Why? Because it will keep the top two teams in the tournament longer.

So an Alabama team that wasn't as good as Ohio State would have received a bye, while Ohio State would have had to play, risking more injuries. And all of it based on the incorrect assumption that Alabama was better. They're already playing a lot of the bowls practically in the backyards of some of these teams. Now you're going to provide them a bye week too.

Nope, this season is in the history books and we have all learned a valuable lesson from it. A lesson that was very necessary before we start inserting Bye's into the National Playoff. You are right about the need for being responsible with them.

That is what comes with Growth though. You build upon the past and move beyond it. I never once thought this year that the SEC West was truly all that much better. I was very open about that and even said that I thought the PAC South would have beaten the SEC West in a direct challenge.

So pardon me for having thoughts of a system that would absolutely work when folks get their perceptions proper and stop being a flock led by the ESPN shepherd.

6 is still better than 4, I just think 8 would be better.

Also, I didn't see any lawsuits when players got injured in game 12 after they moved from the 11-game to the 12-game schedule. If they went to 11 games and then had an 8-team playoff you could argue that it's better for players' health since most would play fewer game than now. But it would be less money.

They wont have to shorten the regular season. That is a fool's argument.

(01-04-2015 02:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:42 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Random?

I'm sorry, where was the outrage at seeing Alabama and Oregon as the top two picks this year? Hardly random.

I didn't say to feel sorry about FSU travelling. I said it very likely affected the outcome. Oregon having that advantage is as akin to having a Bye and they playing someone that already played.

You may not like the idea of Byes but the Networks will. Why? Because it will keep the top two teams in the tournament longer.

So an Alabama team that wasn't as good as Ohio State would have received a bye, while Ohio State would have had to play, risking more injuries. And all of it based on the incorrect assumption that Alabama was better. They're already playing a lot of the bowls practically in the backyards of some of these teams. Now you're going to provide them a bye week too.

Nope, this season is in the history books and we have all learned a valuable lesson from it. A lesson that was very necessary before we start inserting Bye's into the National Playoff. You are right about the need for being responsible with them.

That is what comes with Growth though. You build upon the past and move beyond it. I never once thought this year that the SEC West was truly all that much better. I was very open about that and even said that I thought the PAC South would have beaten the SEC West in a direct challenge.

So pardon me for having thoughts of a system that would absolutely work when folks get their perceptions proper and stop being a flock led by the ESPN shepherd.

6 is still better than 4, I just think 8 would be better.

Also, I didn't see any lawsuits when players got injured in game 12 after they moved from the 11-game to the 12-game schedule. If they went to 11 games and then had an 8-team playoff you could argue that it's better for players' health since most would play fewer game than now. But it would be less money.

They wont have to shorten the regular season. That is a fool's argument.

They could end up playing 16 games though, that is a lot of games.

(01-04-2015 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So an Alabama team that wasn't as good as Ohio State would have received a bye, while Ohio State would have had to play, risking more injuries. And all of it based on the incorrect assumption that Alabama was better. They're already playing a lot of the bowls practically in the backyards of some of these teams. Now you're going to provide them a bye week too.

Nope, this season is in the history books and we have all learned a valuable lesson from it. A lesson that was very necessary before we start inserting Bye's into the National Playoff. You are right about the need for being responsible with them.

That is what comes with Growth though. You build upon the past and move beyond it. I never once thought this year that the SEC West was truly all that much better. I was very open about that and even said that I thought the PAC South would have beaten the SEC West in a direct challenge.

So pardon me for having thoughts of a system that would absolutely work when folks get their perceptions proper and stop being a flock led by the ESPN shepherd.

6 is still better than 4, I just think 8 would be better.

Also, I didn't see any lawsuits when players got injured in game 12 after they moved from the 11-game to the 12-game schedule. If they went to 11 games and then had an 8-team playoff you could argue that it's better for players' health since most would play fewer game than now. But it would be less money.

They wont have to shorten the regular season. That is a fool's argument.

They could end up playing 16 games though, that is a lot of games.

So asking these kids to do more of what they love to do is a bad thing? Most of them aren't going to the NFL. For most of them, this is it. Adding more to the postseason is probably exactly what those kids want.

(01-04-2015 01:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:33 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Eight teams is going to give us rematches from the regular season. Terrible idea.

Six teams gives you what you want if realignment hasn't worked itself out yet. The five teams from the majors and then one more spot for an Independent, a G5 team or if neither of those work out then you have a stand out second team from one of the majors.

Also, six means you have two less bowls to have to fill with repeat fans. The top two teams have something to seriously work for in regards to being the top two teams, the BYE. As we saw this year with four, being in the top two helps you out with location but Ohio State still got the win. The BYE is an even bigger deal than location is.

That being said, I do think the time zone difference was a big deal for FSU to have to add to their preparations that Oregon didn't have to worry about.

NFL has rematches every year. It's no big deal. It's going to happen, even with a 4 team playoff.

IMO the big reasons to expand are two-fold- to capture all champs and all other teams with a legit argument for being the top team. An 8 team playoff accomplishes both, and allows a spot for a G5 team, which is also a desirable outcome.

Conference championship games are often rematches. And, as often as not, the team that lost in the regular season wins the championship game. That doesn't seem to bother HO. But this does?

Ohio State didn't play Wisconsin. Florida State didn't play Georgia Tech. Alabama didn't play Missouri.

Only Oregon and Arizona played previously. In that instance it built value in the match up because Oregon was the team lauded as the PAC team that could represent the PAC in the Playoff. If Arizona won, it wouldn't have been a sure thing that they make it to the Playoff so it was a chance for Oregon to make right their single wrong of the season BEFORE going to the playoff.

What we saw with Alabama and LSU is that rematches at that final stage, they don't go over well.

So once again, you whiff big. Keep on trying Bit, someday you may be able to put together something that isn't obviously more of an attack on me than it is a reasonable point. That and you can now go back underneath your bridge.

So you're going to take the sample size on one season to try to prove your point? That's an extremely short-sighted view. Any statistician would look at your conclusion and laugh in your face.

Look back through the history of conference championship games. One season does NOT prove anything. For a true statistical analysis, you need to look at the whole picture, not just one little corner of it.

Speaking of whiffs, I'm whiffing the your spouting. You'd better flush.

(01-02-2015 12:03 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  In my opinion, the playoff sucks and will continue to do so until the G5 is guaranteed at least one spot. Don't tell me that the best out of over 60 schools does not deserve a shot at the national championship.

Curious, why should the G5 be "guaranteed" a representative to make it legit when currently no single confernce has EVER been guaranteed a slot?

(01-04-2015 02:49 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:33 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Eight teams is going to give us rematches from the regular season. Terrible idea.

Six teams gives you what you want if realignment hasn't worked itself out yet. The five teams from the majors and then one more spot for an Independent, a G5 team or if neither of those work out then you have a stand out second team from one of the majors.

Also, six means you have two less bowls to have to fill with repeat fans. The top two teams have something to seriously work for in regards to being the top two teams, the BYE. As we saw this year with four, being in the top two helps you out with location but Ohio State still got the win. The BYE is an even bigger deal than location is.

That being said, I do think the time zone difference was a big deal for FSU to have to add to their preparations that Oregon didn't have to worry about.

NFL has rematches every year. It's no big deal. It's going to happen, even with a 4 team playoff.

IMO the big reasons to expand are two-fold- to capture all champs and all other teams with a legit argument for being the top team. An 8 team playoff accomplishes both, and allows a spot for a G5 team, which is also a desirable outcome.

Conference championship games are often rematches. And, as often as not, the team that lost in the regular season wins the championship game. That doesn't seem to bother HO. But this does?

Ohio State didn't play Wisconsin. Florida State didn't play Georgia Tech. Alabama didn't play Missouri.

Only Oregon and Arizona played previously. In that instance it built value in the match up because Oregon was the team lauded as the PAC team that could represent the PAC in the Playoff. If Arizona won, it wouldn't have been a sure thing that they make it to the Playoff so it was a chance for Oregon to make right their single wrong of the season BEFORE going to the playoff.

What we saw with Alabama and LSU is that rematches at that final stage, they don't go over well.

So once again, you whiff big. Keep on trying Bit, someday you may be able to put together something that isn't obviously more of an attack on me than it is a reasonable point. That and you can now go back underneath your bridge.

So you're going to take the sample size on one season to try to prove your point? That's an extremely short-sighted view. Any statistician would look at your conclusion and laugh in your face.

Look back through the history of conference championship games. One season does NOT prove anything. For a true statistical analysis, you need to look at the whole picture, not just one little corner of it.

Speaking of whiffs, I'm whiffing the your spouting. You'd better flush.

One glaringly obvious fact about conference championship games matters more than any other.

The Big 12 not having one cost them dearly.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/playoffPicture

Look at FSU's SoS before and after their conference championship game against GT. They went up about 20 spots while neither of TCU's or Baylor's games helped them much.

So keep on spouting your garbage but everyone knows why you are making this argument. You are simply Big 12 angry.

(01-04-2015 02:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nope, this season is in the history books and we have all learned a valuable lesson from it. A lesson that was very necessary before we start inserting Bye's into the National Playoff. You are right about the need for being responsible with them.

That is what comes with Growth though. You build upon the past and move beyond it. I never once thought this year that the SEC West was truly all that much better. I was very open about that and even said that I thought the PAC South would have beaten the SEC West in a direct challenge.

So pardon me for having thoughts of a system that would absolutely work when folks get their perceptions proper and stop being a flock led by the ESPN shepherd.

6 is still better than 4, I just think 8 would be better.

Also, I didn't see any lawsuits when players got injured in game 12 after they moved from the 11-game to the 12-game schedule. If they went to 11 games and then had an 8-team playoff you could argue that it's better for players' health since most would play fewer game than now. But it would be less money.

They wont have to shorten the regular season. That is a fool's argument.

They could end up playing 16 games though, that is a lot of games.

So asking these kids to do more of what they love to do is a bad thing? Most of them aren't going to the NFL. For most of them, this is it. Adding more to the postseason is probably exactly what those kids want.

Asking them to do so to make the school's more money of which (as of now) they get none of, while risking injury, I doubt it "exactly what those kids want." They want a fair chance to win, but not necessarily by playing more and more games.

(01-04-2015 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  6 is still better than 4, I just think 8 would be better.

Also, I didn't see any lawsuits when players got injured in game 12 after they moved from the 11-game to the 12-game schedule. If they went to 11 games and then had an 8-team playoff you could argue that it's better for players' health since most would play fewer game than now. But it would be less money.

They wont have to shorten the regular season. That is a fool's argument.

They could end up playing 16 games though, that is a lot of games.

So asking these kids to do more of what they love to do is a bad thing? Most of them aren't going to the NFL. For most of them, this is it. Adding more to the postseason is probably exactly what those kids want.

Asking them to do so to make the school's more money of which (as of now) they get none of, while risking injury, I doubt it "exactly what those kids want." They want a fair chance to win, but not necessarily by playing more and more games.

The kids are getting more and that trend will continue. I would disagree with you wholeheartedly though if you are actually going to make the argument that these kids don't want to play more games. Have you ever played?

(01-04-2015 02:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  They wont have to shorten the regular season. That is a fool's argument.

They could end up playing 16 games though, that is a lot of games.

So asking these kids to do more of what they love to do is a bad thing? Most of them aren't going to the NFL. For most of them, this is it. Adding more to the postseason is probably exactly what those kids want.

Asking them to do so to make the school's more money of which (as of now) they get none of, while risking injury, I doubt it "exactly what those kids want." They want a fair chance to win, but not necessarily by playing more and more games.

The kids are getting more and that trend will continue. I would disagree with you wholeheartedly though if you are actually going to make the argument that these kids don't want to play more games. Have you ever played?

Nobody has asked the kids. So any conclusion about what you think these kids want is kind of silly without their input.

However, you're probably right about the kids not minding playing extra games. But let ONE kid miss out on an NFL career because they played in those extra games, and you'll see another lawsuit against the NCAA coming, on the grounds that the NCAA cared more about the money involved in these extra games than the welfare of the student athletes playing in the games. This is the age of litigation, after all.

(01-04-2015 02:49 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:33 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Eight teams is going to give us rematches from the regular season. Terrible idea.

Six teams gives you what you want if realignment hasn't worked itself out yet. The five teams from the majors and then one more spot for an Independent, a G5 team or if neither of those work out then you have a stand out second team from one of the majors.

Also, six means you have two less bowls to have to fill with repeat fans. The top two teams have something to seriously work for in regards to being the top two teams, the BYE. As we saw this year with four, being in the top two helps you out with location but Ohio State still got the win. The BYE is an even bigger deal than location is.

That being said, I do think the time zone difference was a big deal for FSU to have to add to their preparations that Oregon didn't have to worry about.

NFL has rematches every year. It's no big deal. It's going to happen, even with a 4 team playoff.

IMO the big reasons to expand are two-fold- to capture all champs and all other teams with a legit argument for being the top team. An 8 team playoff accomplishes both, and allows a spot for a G5 team, which is also a desirable outcome.

Conference championship games are often rematches. And, as often as not, the team that lost in the regular season wins the championship game. That doesn't seem to bother HO. But this does?

Ohio State didn't play Wisconsin. Florida State didn't play Georgia Tech. Alabama didn't play Missouri.

Only Oregon and Arizona played previously. In that instance it built value in the match up because Oregon was the team lauded as the PAC team that could represent the PAC in the Playoff. If Arizona won, it wouldn't have been a sure thing that they make it to the Playoff so it was a chance for Oregon to make right their single wrong of the season BEFORE going to the playoff.

What we saw with Alabama and LSU is that rematches at that final stage, they don't go over well.

So once again, you whiff big. Keep on trying Bit, someday you may be able to put together something that isn't obviously more of an attack on me than it is a reasonable point. That and you can now go back underneath your bridge.

So you're going to take the sample size on one season to try to prove your point? That's an extremely short-sighted view. Any statistician would look at your conclusion and laugh in your face.

Look back through the history of conference championship games. One season does NOT prove anything. For a true statistical analysis, you need to look at the whole picture, not just one little corner of it.

Speaking of whiffs, I'm whiffing the your spouting. You'd better flush.

To his point a while back I did look at EVERY CCG since their inception, and rematches have been in the minority. The PAC 12 skews he numbers since they have 12 teams and play nine games, but the rematch percentage was around 3/8, 37.5%. I don't remember the exact number but by and large the team who won the first game also won the rematch. Only one sec team lost the rematch, and one or two ACC teams, but I don't remember for sure. Also small sample size, but no rematches yet with 14 team conferences, with only the PAC 12 likely to have remAtches going forward due to nine games and 12 teams (only skip two teams in conference). And I typcially don't like to be on the side of the trenches with H1 but he's right here.

Rematches may be in the minority, due to unequal conference schedules in those conferences that have championship games. But they happen often enough that the possibility of one happening in the playoff is irrelevant. If a team can fight back from a loss become a playoff contender, even if that loss is to another team that makes it into the playoff, they should be included. The fact that there might be a rematch shouldn't matter one way or the other.

(01-04-2015 01:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:50 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  No it didn't. We can't have this hybrid system. Either have the old bowl system or move to a broader playoff system.

What we had this year was light years better than the old system. In the old system it would have been Alabama vs Florida State. I bet you would like that though, wouldn't you?

A championship game of both losers simply because they are both from the South and MUST be the better teams right?

No. I've been saying this for a year. This new system is even worse than the old system. The little guys would at least get a chance at a big bowl game in the old system. In the new system it has become all contract bowls.

(01-04-2015 02:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  They wont have to shorten the regular season. That is a fool's argument.

They could end up playing 16 games though, that is a lot of games.

So asking these kids to do more of what they love to do is a bad thing? Most of them aren't going to the NFL. For most of them, this is it. Adding more to the postseason is probably exactly what those kids want.

Asking them to do so to make the school's more money of which (as of now) they get none of, while risking injury, I doubt it "exactly what those kids want." They want a fair chance to win, but not necessarily by playing more and more games.

The kids are getting more and that trend will continue. I would disagree with you wholeheartedly though if you are actually going to make the argument that these kids don't want to play more games. Have you ever played?

He's which makes it easier to answer. Late season games are much harder on the body, in addition to extra games, but because your body loses some of the routine from playing every week, and hits hurt a lot more. Granted players tend to be a little more healthy in bowl games than late season games, but most are worn down by years' end. I also worked for a pro team and spoke directly with many a player. Rookies were usually barely able to get out of bed by week 10 or 11 Because their bodies were so worn down and not used to the extra games (they play all preseason and week 8 for them is like week 11). It's not an accident that the NFL player's Union has vehemently opposed extra games even if it would mean more money for players. And it's not accident that NFL injury rates skyrocket every week past week 13, and players miss more games despite the games being more important and teams have less options to replace them in the lineup. Just look at the playoffs now: every team that lost Can attribute it to the loss of a key player, many of the west and tear variety (as opposed to the Carson Palmer ACL which had nothing to do with games played).

So yes I can DEFINITELY speak on this from experience. Can you?

(01-04-2015 04:12 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Rematches may be in the minority, due to unequal conference schedules in those conferences that have championship games. But they happen often enough that the possibility of one happening in the playoff is irrelevant. If a team can fight back from a loss become a playoff contender, even if that loss is to another team that makes it into the playoff, they should be included. The fact that there might be a rematch shouldn't matter one way or the other.

I am not speaking on that. I read you saying he was making a conclusion based off one year, and that it otherwise Your ascertation was wrong. No big deal but just acknowledge it and move on. What that means for the rest of it is unimportant to me, but don't change the subject after you made it sound like he didn't know what he was talking about. I man he gets so few right, don't take them away from him

All of this 6 or 8 or even 16 talk is fun. But until there is at least another 5 years of data under the 4 team model, it's all just that - talk.

But that is what message boards are about, so carry on.

As for myself, I think we had an 8 team playoff this year. Oregon vs Arizona, Ohio State vs Wisconsin, FSU vs GT, Alabama vs Missouri with TCU and Baylor waiting in the wings for one or two of the favorites to get knocked out so they could get a seat in the playoffs.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-04-2015 05:01 PM)omniorange Wrote:  All of this 6 or 8 or even 16 talk is fun. But until there is at least another 5 years of data under the 4 team model, it's all just that - talk.

But that is what message boards are about, so carry on.

As for myself, I think we had an 8 team playoff this year. Oregon vs Arizona, Ohio State vs Wisconsin, FSU vs GT, Alabama vs Missouri with TCU and Baylor waiting in the wings for one or two of the favorites to get knocked out so they could get a seat in the playoffs.

Cheers,
Neil

From my perspective, waiting in the wings while 8 teams battled for the championship kinda stinks, especially with arguably one of the best two or three teams out there, at least according to the computers. It's a debatable point but that is the point ( that it's debatable). Consider this, if we beat Baylor Ohio State would have been the team left out (even as a 12-1 undisputed Big 10 champ winning 59-0); they could be the champs this year. If there's an a poster child for 8, it might be them and not us...

And that's the point. With 4, some worthy team or two is going to be left out each year. The playoff needs all teams with a good argument to be #1. 8 is going to capture all of the 1 loss teams with a viable argument.

But that debate never ends. Twice in the last decade the very last team invited to the NCAA basketball tournament made it to the final four. Does that mean teams number 69 and 70 had a gripe for being left out, even though in theory they could have made it to the end?

The last team in the NFL playoffs have won the super bowl a couple of times this decade. Does that mean the last team eliminated had a gripe? Even tigt now, the last AFC team in will be lambic next week and the last NFC team is winning 14-0 at this moment: should the Chargers and Eagles also be in the playoffs?

(01-04-2015 05:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  But that debate never ends. Twice in the last decade the very last team invited to the NCAA basketball tournament made it to the final four. Does that mean teams number 69 and 70 had a gripe for being left out, even though in theory they could have made it to the end?

The last team in the NFL playoffs have won the super bowl a couple of times this decade. Does that mean the last team eliminated had a gripe? Even tigt now, the last AFC team in will be lambic next week and the last NFC team is winning 14-0 at this moment: should the Chargers and Eagles also be in the playoffs?

It's easier for a basketball team to win a game, they only need a few good players. And there's already a large percentage of NCAA teams in the tournament. Even 8 teams out of, say 120 FBS schools is less than 7% of teams. And there are a very limited number of FBS schools with the talent to beat a top team. It's a lot harder to argue that your team at #9 is the best team in the country. Besides, 4 doesn't even give you the best team from each P5 conference, much less anyone else.

(01-04-2015 04:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  They could end up playing 16 games though, that is a lot of games.

So asking these kids to do more of what they love to do is a bad thing? Most of them aren't going to the NFL. For most of them, this is it. Adding more to the postseason is probably exactly what those kids want.

Asking them to do so to make the school's more money of which (as of now) they get none of, while risking injury, I doubt it "exactly what those kids want." They want a fair chance to win, but not necessarily by playing more and more games.

The kids are getting more and that trend will continue. I would disagree with you wholeheartedly though if you are actually going to make the argument that these kids don't want to play more games. Have you ever played?

He's which makes it easier to answer. Late season games are much harder on the body, in addition to extra games, but because your body loses some of the routine from playing every week, and hits hurt a lot more. Granted players tend to be a little more healthy in bowl games than late season games, but most are worn down by years' end. I also worked for a pro team and spoke directly with many a player. Rookies were usually barely able to get out of bed by week 10 or 11 Because their bodies were so worn down and not used to the extra games (they play all preseason and week 8 for them is like week 11). It's not an accident that the NFL player's Union has vehemently opposed extra games even if it would mean more money for players. And it's not accident that NFL injury rates skyrocket every week past week 13, and players miss more games despite the games being more important and teams have less options to replace them in the lineup. Just look at the playoffs now: every team that lost Can attribute it to the loss of a key player, many of the west and tear variety (as opposed to the Carson Palmer ACL which had nothing to do with games played).

So yes I can DEFINITELY speak on this from experience. Can you?

Yes I can and I absolutely loved it. I hated it when the season came to an end. I look at that block of text and the player in me goes "blah blah blah". They know the risks, they know the rewards and one of those rewards is the enjoyment they get from the game. It is something that life will never again replicate. For many of them when their college football career ends, that will be it for them in football. So you go try to pass off that garbage on a player and see if they get angry about playing more postseason games in college football.

I bet they laugh at you if you try to sell that garbage to them.