Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ESPN trying to validate the bogus playoff
Author Message
Pervis_Griffith Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,077
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 129
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #21
RE: ESPN trying to validate the bogus playoff
(12-03-2017 11:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Two things need to be done to make the CFP a static long lasting highly popular institution.

1) Expand the field to 8 teams. My preference at this point would be to make all 5 P5 conference champs AQ and the top G5 champ AQ with 2 wild cards selected by a Selection Committee.

2) The Committee needs to be revamped as its the biggest problem with the current system. The Committee needs to be a 10 man body with one representative from each FBS conference. Essentially, the Selection Committee needs to become a one-conference/one-vote council.

Those two moves would restore integrity and common sense to the current championship selection process. Effectively, it would create an avenue of access that eliminates subjective opinion--which is a HUGE problem with the current system. Any system where you can win all your games and not get into the playoff--is a system that is fundamentally flawed from the word go. By doing what I suggest, you create 6 slots of access that are ENTIRELY decided on the field of play. Additionally, in an effort to avoid the loss of the #1 and #2 ranked teams due to an upset along the way--the system still provides an avenue for deserving teams to make the playoff. In essence, its the best of both worlds. You can win your way in completely with on the field play (meaning every team holds its destiny in its own hands) and you still are guaranteed that the #1 and #2 ranked teams always make the playoff (which was how we did it for years under the BCS).


I prefer 6 teams total, with top 2 getting a bye. This uses all the bowls in the current setup every year, and preserves the conference championship week as a de facto quarterfinals.

Now if you go 8 teams, that's fine .. but NO automatic qualifiers.

Why put hand cuffs on the committee with auto bids?

Surely, a power 5 conference champion would be in the top 8. But if they aren't, they don't deserve to get in. Period. Keep that door open for a better team -- either a G5 Conference champ (UCF this year), an independent (Notre Dame or BYU potentially), or another team with a better resume who may have just missed their conference championship game (Bama this year, or Ohio State last year).

I don't understand the whole "Auto Bids" thing for a top 8 tourney.
12-03-2017 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,756
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 852
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #22
RE: ESPN trying to validate the bogus playoff
(12-03-2017 11:31 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 11:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Two things need to be done to make the CFP a static long lasting highly popular institution.

1) Expand the field to 8 teams. My preference at this point would be to make all 5 P5 conference champs AQ and the top G5 champ AQ with 2 wild cards selected by a Selection Committee.

2) The Committee needs to be revamped as its the biggest problem with the current system. The Committee needs to be a 10 man body with one representative from each FBS conference. Essentially, the Selection Committee needs to become a one-conference/one-vote council.

Those two moves would restore integrity and common sense to the current championship selection process. Effectively, it would create an avenue of access that eliminates subjective opinion--which is a HUGE problem with the current system. Any system where you can win all your games and not get into the playoff--is a system that is fundamentally flawed from the word go. By doing what I suggest, you create 6 slots of access that are ENTIRELY decided on the field of play. Additionally, in an effort to avoid the loss of the #1 and #2 ranked teams due to an upset along the way--the system still provides an avenue for deserving teams to make the playoff. In essence, its the best of both worlds. You can win your way in completely with on the field play (meaning every team holds its destiny in its own hands) and you still are guaranteed that the #1 and #2 ranked teams always make the playoff (which was how we did it for years under the BCS).


I prefer 6 teams total, with top 2 getting a bye. This uses all the bowls in the current setup every year, and preserves the conference championship week as a de facto quarterfinals.

Now if you go 8 teams, that's fine .. but NO automatic qualifiers.

Why put hand cuffs on the committee with auto bids?

Surely, a power 5 conference champion would be in the top 8. But if they aren't, they don't deserve to get in. Period. Keep that door open for a better team -- either a G5 Conference champ (UCF this year), an independent (Notre Dame or BYU potentially), or another team with a better resume who may have just missed their conference championship game (Bama this year, or Ohio State last year).

I don't understand the whole "Auto Bids" thing for a top 8 tourney.

Because it devalues what actually happens on the field of play and replaces it with the subjective opinions of the committee. I mean--why have a conference championship if it means nothing? Hell, why even play the games? Why not assemble your rosters on Sept 1 and let the committee decide who has the best teams?

The simple answer to your question is I'd actually prefer it if the Committee had no role at all in selecting playoff teams. I would prefer that the action on the field completely determine the playoff field. However, if you're going to have wild cards, thats the only way I can think of doing it. The truth is, like the basketball tournament, Im ok with the Selection Committee making these extra wildcard picks because the 6 champions (who have actually proven thier mettle on the field) are already in the playoff field. The subjective opinions of the committee are not in a position to override events that have already been decided on the field of play. In my system, the Committee is only in a position to add additional teams of merit. They cannnot deny a sitting champion.

What we have now is not a playoff. It is an invitational tourney.
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2017 11:46 AM by Attackcoog.)
12-03-2017 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,935
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 481
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #23
RE: ESPN trying to validate the bogus playoff
(12-03-2017 11:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 11:31 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  
(12-03-2017 11:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Two things need to be done to make the CFP a static long lasting highly popular institution.

1) Expand the field to 8 teams. My preference at this point would be to make all 5 P5 conference champs AQ and the top G5 champ AQ with 2 wild cards selected by a Selection Committee.

2) The Committee needs to be revamped as its the biggest problem with the current system. The Committee needs to be a 10 man body with one representative from each FBS conference. Essentially, the Selection Committee needs to become a one-conference/one-vote council.

Those two moves would restore integrity and common sense to the current championship selection process. Effectively, it would create an avenue of access that eliminates subjective opinion--which is a HUGE problem with the current system. Any system where you can win all your games and not get into the playoff--is a system that is fundamentally flawed from the word go. By doing what I suggest, you create 6 slots of access that are ENTIRELY decided on the field of play. Additionally, in an effort to avoid the loss of the #1 and #2 ranked teams due to an upset along the way--the system still provides an avenue for deserving teams to make the playoff. In essence, its the best of both worlds. You can win your way in completely with on the field play (meaning every team holds its destiny in its own hands) and you still are guaranteed that the #1 and #2 ranked teams always make the playoff (which was how we did it for years under the BCS).


I prefer 6 teams total, with top 2 getting a bye. This uses all the bowls in the current setup every year, and preserves the conference championship week as a de facto quarterfinals.

Now if you go 8 teams, that's fine .. but NO automatic qualifiers.

Why put hand cuffs on the committee with auto bids?

Surely, a power 5 conference champion would be in the top 8. But if they aren't, they don't deserve to get in. Period. Keep that door open for a better team -- either a G5 Conference champ (UCF this year), an independent (Notre Dame or BYU potentially), or another team with a better resume who may have just missed their conference championship game (Bama this year, or Ohio State last year).

I don't understand the whole "Auto Bids" thing for a top 8 tourney.

Because it devalues what actually happens on the field of play and replaces it with the subjective opinions of the committee. I mean--why have a conference championship if it means nothing? Hell, why even play the games? Why not assemble your rosters on Sept 1 and let the committee decide who has the best teams?

The simple answer to your question is I'd actually prefer it if the Committee had no role at all in selecting playoff teams. However, if your going to have wild cards, thats the only way I can think of doing it. Im ok with the Selection Committee making these wildcard picks because the 6 of the slots are already filled automatically based on the actual game outcomes on the field.

Right. The point of 8 is to 1) avoid possibly excluding the best team; 2) reduce subjectivity and 3) have what happened on the field matter.
12-03-2017 11:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GTFletch Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 785
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Georgia Tech
Location:
Post: #24
RE: ESPN trying to validate the bogus playoff
I like 6 teams total, with top 2 getting a bye. This uses all the bowls in the current setup!
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2017 12:17 PM by GTFletch.)
12-03-2017 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
hawghiggs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,450
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #25
RE: ESPN trying to validate the bogus playoff
(12-03-2017 11:29 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Bring back the BCS computers...


That was the only true way. But ESPN didn't like it. So they campaigned against it.
12-03-2017 12:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,889
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 79
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #26
RE: ESPN trying to validate the bogus playoff
If this was about tv ratings and tv markets? both Oklahoma, Alabama and Clemson would have been replaced with USC, Washington and Ohio State.
12-03-2017 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LR Eagle Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 885
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 11
I Root For: USM
Location:
Post: #27
RE: ESPN trying to validate the bogus playoff
(12-03-2017 02:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  If this was about tv ratings and tv markets? both Oklahoma, Alabama and Clemson would have been replaced with USC, Washington and Ohio State.

You actually think more people would watch Washington than Alabama?
12-04-2017 07:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 3,975
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 119
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #28
RE: ESPN trying to validate the bogus playoff
By winning a CCG for an AQ, an extra incentive is added and a hot team can succeed. What’s wrong with college football is the idea that games in September dictate who the best team in January is. It’s ridiculous! It’s archaic! College basketball has it absolutely correct with conference tournaments (although the Big 10 playing at MSG a week early is still bizarre to me).
12-04-2017 08:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SC-KNIGHT Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 61
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 0
I Root For: USC-RUTGERS
Location:
Post: #29
RE: ESPN trying to validate the bogus playoff
(12-03-2017 12:23 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  It should be called the BS fb playoff.

No it should be called the SEC playoff. 04-jawdrop 02-13-banana COGS 04-rock 01-ncaabbs 03-shhhh 03-idea 04-bow COGS 02-13-banana 05-stirthepot 05-stirthepot 05-stirthepot 04-cheers
12-04-2017 08:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,239
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 44
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #30
RE: ESPN trying to validate the bogus playoff
The ratings will be excellent south of the Mason-Dixon and Ohio River. But likely lag everywhere else.

Ideally you want a West Coast and a Great Lakes school as well as Southern schools for maximum audience.

That said, you can't force it. Legitimacy demand you pick the top four. So it is what it is.
(This post was last modified: 12-04-2017 08:26 PM by Stugray2.)
12-04-2017 08:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.