stever,

In #16 you were talking about school not being in session. In either case, I don't think it matters. Season ticket holders will come watch the game, regardless.

Weather may or may not happen. Not a reason worth not scheduling at all.

(11-17-2016 02:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  stever,

In #16 you were talking about school not being in session. In either case, I don't think it matters. Season ticket holders will come watch the game, regardless.

Weather may or may not happen. Not a reason worth not scheduling at all.

a lot of the students wouldn't be there though.

bottom line, it's not happening. It's the old it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Well it's not happening any time soon -- that's pointless to say. Don't waste the message board just reciting how things are currently written up.

This message board should be for discussing how you think things should be, either now or eventually.

why? I think things are perfectly fine the way they are right now. College football has never been stronger. I hope Washington gets "screwed" so folks start to realize the CFP means business- if you schedule like a *****, you aren't rewarded. 2 teams would have tried that- and both would have been rejected.

(11-17-2016 01:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 12:24 PM)ken d Wrote:  If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.

Its been broke. Declining TV and attendance. You fix if by expanding the playoff and being more inclusive. The vast majority of the college football's growth potential is in the G5---the big king pin programs don't have much more room for growth.

Just make a small adjustment to the playoff that expands it to 8. The 4 extra games would simply snap onto the existing CFP framework and would occur on the home campus of the highest rated teams the week after Championship Saturday. Once those games are played, the entire CFP would continue on along the same schedule used today. All 5 P5 champs are in, the top G5 champ is in, and 2 wild cards selected by the committee.

Give the G5 a legit path to the playoff and I think you could see a nice spurt of growth in the overall Tv ratings and attendance as increased interest spurred by real access to the CFP promotes significant growth in the smaller programs of the G5.

Many, myself included, might argue that this is a case of "If it ain't broke, break it". It assumes, for one thing, that "growth" is a goal, or a measure of success. It also assumes that more is better. Personally, my take is that much of college football's popularity can be attributed to the very things some fans would like to change.

More teams in the playoff? At some point you will have a game of musical chairs where everybody gets a seat when the music stops. What fun is that? I like that there are more P5 conferences than there are seats at the playoff table. If every P5 champ is an automatic qualifier, you lose at least half of the pre-playoff conversation that the threat of being left out and disagreement about the ultimate selections causes.

It is the very quirkiness and lack of symmetry that makes college football special, and not just a minor league version of the NFL. I've stopped watching the NFL because of the cookie cutter sameness that permeates that league's structure. I don't want to see college football emulate that.

First off, out of 128 teams a total of 8 will make the playoff. That's not exactly "everyone gets a seat". As for conversation---there would still be 2 non-champions that get in---plenty of room for debate.

As for "cookie cutter" sameness, why don't you take a look at who has dominated college football championships. Nothing is as boring as a championship that rotates through the same 5 to 10 ten teams (weather they deserve it or not) while the other 118 cant get a fair shake because the "selection committee" cant see past "brand". All anyone is suggesting is to make what happens on the field outweigh what some biased "committee" thinks. Im much more interested in the drama that plays out on the field than the opinions of a dozen old men with their silly "because I said so" "eye test" jargon and shifting logic that changes whenever needed to get the preordained traditional result they want.

The more you can replace "opinion" with on the field results---the better. JMHO.

Alabama's brand has nothing to do with it. Since 2008 they are 108-12. Ohio St is 98-18. Doing well on the field is why they win championships.

(11-17-2016 02:00 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  If the "fix" involves a pundit that can't get a real sports job, I'll pass.

You can disagree with Klatt all you want (and in this case I disagree with him), but he's on Fox's #1 CFB announcing team and probably makes a high-six-figure salary for it. His Fox job is far more "real" than that of any of the bloggers and local sports-radio jocks whom people regularly cite here as "authority" for whatever argument fits into their own wish list.

stever #24,

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I never said I wanted to increase the number of crappy games scheduled. Particularly FCS games, I think should decrease, not increase.

I realize the OP was apparently advocating that. Fine. That's not what I was advocating.


I have nothing against you saying that you think it should stay the way it is, going forward. That's perfectly valid. So are others' desires for something to change.

The only thing I think is invalid is when someone says "no, that's not what the rules say right now" as an excuse for dismissing an idea for a change. That's a waste of the board, in my opinion.

We need a Cinderella team in football going for the championship like Villanova was last year in men's basketball. Boise State, Western Michigan and North Dakota State all could be interesting as well.

(11-17-2016 06:55 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  We need a Cinderella team in football going for the championship like Villanova was last year in men's basketball. Boise State, Western Michigan and North Dakota State all could be interesting as well.

The Villanova team that spent all year ranked in the top 20, had a six-week run at No. 1, and didn't lose to a non-ranked team all season? THAT'S what you consider a Cinderella?

(11-17-2016 07:30 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 06:55 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  We need a Cinderella team in football going for the championship like Villanova was last year in men's basketball. Boise State, Western Michigan and North Dakota State all could be interesting as well.

The Villanova team that spent all year ranked in the top 20, had a six-week run at No. 1, and didn't lose to a non-ranked team all season? THAT'S what you consider a Cinderella?

They are mid-majors like the rest of them. If you are not in the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12 or SEC? You are practically a nobody and a mid-major.

(11-17-2016 10:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 07:30 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 06:55 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  We need a Cinderella team in football going for the championship like Villanova was last year in men's basketball. Boise State, Western Michigan and North Dakota State all could be interesting as well.

The Villanova team that spent all year ranked in the top 20, had a six-week run at No. 1, and didn't lose to a non-ranked team all season? THAT'S what you consider a Cinderella?

They are mid-majors like the rest of them. If you are not in the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12 or SEC? You are practically a nobody and a mid-major.

So Georgetown is a mid-major too?

(11-17-2016 07:30 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 06:55 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  We need a Cinderella team in football going for the championship like Villanova was last year in men's basketball. Boise State, Western Michigan and North Dakota State all could be interesting as well.

The Villanova team that spent all year ranked in the top 20, had a six-week run at No. 1, and didn't lose to a non-ranked team all season? THAT'S what you consider a Cinderella?

Oh, c'mon, for DavidSt that is relatively strongly attached to reality ... it's absurd, but at least he didn't apply "Cinderella" to a team that didn't make the tourney.

Cinderella has been totally not being used like it was originally coined.

It was a term that was used for any team that may have had a sub .500
record and then went into their conference tourney and won then getting the auto ncaa tourney bid and maybe winning a game in the big dance

The team could have been from any conference (high, mid or low major)

Now it has been changed to mean any mid major that wins in the tourney

If you take the top eight, you will almost certainly always get the five P5 champions in any case. This is all about giving the G5 a guaranteed spot in the CFP. Why do this? It will come at the expense of a more worthy and more competitive alternative, and will likely produce the equivalent of a bye for the top-seeded team.

No, if you go to eight, then take the best eight.

(11-18-2016 12:22 AM)crewbear742 Wrote:  If you take the top eight, you will almost certainly always get the five P5 champions in any case. This is all about giving the G5 a guaranteed spot in the CFP. Why do this? It will come at the expense of a more worthy and more competitive alternative, and will likely produce the equivalent of a bye for the top-seeded team.

No, if you go to eight, then take the best eight.

This is how you guarantee to undermine the excellent college football regular season.

The Michigan-Ohio St.-Wisconsin-Penn St. games wouldn't matter, except for seeding.

Top-4 is much better than top-8.

"Top-8" with autobids and 2 Wild Cards is better than top-4. You get the "Best Four" and the "Most Deserving Four" - often with some overlap, of course.

(11-18-2016 11:38 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 12:22 AM)crewbear742 Wrote:  If you take the top eight, you will almost certainly always get the five P5 champions in any case. This is all about giving the G5 a guaranteed spot in the CFP. Why do this? It will come at the expense of a more worthy and more competitive alternative, and will likely produce the equivalent of a bye for the top-seeded team.

No, if you go to eight, then take the best eight.

This is how you guarantee to undermine the excellent college football regular season.

The Michigan-Ohio St.-Wisconsin-Penn St. games wouldn't matter, except for seeding.

Top-4 is much better than top-8.

"Top-8" with autobids and 2 Wild Cards is better than top-4. You get the "Best Four" and the "Most Deserving Four" - often with some overlap, of course.

yeah yeah we heard all that crap all the time when they were saying we can't go to 4 because it would undermine the regular season. and that's all it was crap. Because it's not been undermined at all. And same thing would happen going to 8.

I don't think we should conflate two separate things: auto-bids and playoff expansion.

I see no reason why you must automatically implement the former, if you implement the latter.

(11-18-2016 11:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't think we should conflate two separate things: auto-bids and playoff expansion.

I see no reason why you must automatically implement the former, if you implement the latter.

You don't have to, of course, but you'll probably get more buy-in from the power conferences if you can ensure that one of their teams will be in it every season.

Expansion this way allows the stronger P5s a better chance at multiple playoff teams every season, the weaker P5s assurance that they'll always have someone at the party, and the G5s a golden ticket to the best of their lot. All for the low, low price of one more week on the postseason schedule.

On the contrary: the P5 bought in to the current CFP knowing that one of them would miss the playoff, every year.

So I don't agree that opening the bracket up to six or eight would require auto-bids.


And if you don't require auto-bids, I think that takes out a large part of the disagreement, here.