Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
Author Message
DefCONNOne Online
That damn MLS!!
*

Posts: 10,642
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 281
I Root For: UCONN
Location: MLS HQ
Post: #61
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(Today 12:33 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(Today 12:15 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(Today 12:08 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(Today 12:03 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(Today 10:53 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Do this:

All P5 champs that are in the top 12 of the playoff ranking. That way the #17 down year champs don't foul up the deal.

The best UNBEATEN G5. If you win all your games you deserve a shot. No further autobids for unbeatens so you don't incentivize scheduling down in noncon.

At large after that.

Spoken like the loyal P5 apologist you are. Well done loyal P5 minion, well done. 04-clap2

Nice ad hominem rather than an argument. Do you always attack the messenger rather than the message?

Back to the argument at hand:
Do you think the team with two losses and the 85th ranked schedule deserves a bid over a potential one loss runner up from a P5 who played a top 30 schedule? Or what about a 2 loss non-champ that beat three top 15 teams?

When you trot out garbage prerequisites for keeping the G5 on the "plantation", then that's the response you'll get.

When you advocate for the top-rated G5 champ without prerequisites, such as being undefeated and only undefeated, making this possible 8-team playoff, then I'll have an actual substantive response.

Nice victim signalling though. Do they teach that at Baylor?


Another personal attack with no justification for it. Are you trying to look insecure?

1- I prefer unbeaten due to extreme differences in SOS. It's simply a different week to week grind injury wise and you can see it at Utah, TCU, and even BYU who is playing what amounts to a P5 schedule since going independent.

2- With that said I would be willing to adjust the G5 requirement to any in the top 12 or top 15 like I did for the P5 champs and keep whichever number even with the P5 champ req. A 1-Loss team from the G5 that scheduled up and got some quality wins would belong. A team that lost a game playing a 100+ ranked SOS likely wouldn't have that argument.

3- I want the best deserving teams in. If you lose twice as a G5 it's hard to argue you deserve it more than a 2 loss nonchamp who played a gauntlet of a schedule. It's also hard for a 3 loss champ to argue as well.

Still playing the victim card, I see.

Now, I get it, you desperately want those of us in the G5 to stay on the "plantation" and not raise a stink about our 2nd-class citizenship. Except we won't, and you know we won't. Which brings us to your prerequisite that the G5's only way to get in the "playoff" is to be undefeated and ONLY undefeated. Even then, under your ridiculous plan, the G5 isn't even guaranteed an automatic spot. Even you know the G5 would never go for that, hence your proposal.

You can drop the charade about wanting the best teams in, as well. We all know the "best teams" is code for the P5 and ONLY the P5.
Today 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 4,130
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 117
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #62
Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(Today 02:43 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(Today 12:33 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(Today 12:15 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(Today 12:08 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(Today 12:03 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Spoken like the loyal P5 apologist you are. Well done loyal P5 minion, well done. 04-clap2

Nice ad hominem rather than an argument. Do you always attack the messenger rather than the message?

Back to the argument at hand:
Do you think the team with two losses and the 85th ranked schedule deserves a bid over a potential one loss runner up from a P5 who played a top 30 schedule? Or what about a 2 loss non-champ that beat three top 15 teams?

When you trot out garbage prerequisites for keeping the G5 on the "plantation", then that's the response you'll get.

When you advocate for the top-rated G5 champ without prerequisites, such as being undefeated and only undefeated, making this possible 8-team playoff, then I'll have an actual substantive response.

Nice victim signalling though. Do they teach that at Baylor?


Another personal attack with no justification for it. Are you trying to look insecure?

1- I prefer unbeaten due to extreme differences in SOS. It's simply a different week to week grind injury wise and you can see it at Utah, TCU, and even BYU who is playing what amounts to a P5 schedule since going independent.

2- With that said I would be willing to adjust the G5 requirement to any in the top 12 or top 15 like I did for the P5 champs and keep whichever number even with the P5 champ req. A 1-Loss team from the G5 that scheduled up and got some quality wins would belong. A team that lost a game playing a 100+ ranked SOS likely wouldn't have that argument.

3- I want the best deserving teams in. If you lose twice as a G5 it's hard to argue you deserve it more than a 2 loss nonchamp who played a gauntlet of a schedule. It's also hard for a 3 loss champ to argue as well.

Still playing the victim card, I see.

Now, I get it, you desperately want those of us in the G5 to stay on the "plantation" and not raise a stink about our 2nd-class citizenship. Except we won't, and you know we won't. Which brings us to your prerequisite that the G5's only way to get in the "playoff" is to be undefeated and ONLY undefeated. Even then, under your ridiculous plan, the G5 isn't even guaranteed an automatic spot. Even you know the G5 would never go for that, hence your proposal.

You can drop the charade about wanting the best teams in, as well. We all know the "best teams" is code for the P5 and ONLY the P5.


1- I never want anyone to be denied a shot but realistically I think the politics at play will end up with a setup you won't ever be happy with. My ideal scenario is a flexible bracket that adjusts annually to teams with legit gripes based on set criteria. Won't ever happen. Just like I will be shocked if more than one G5 accommodation is made even if I personally want more than that.

Example: 2004 would have seen USC, OU, Auburn, Utah, and Boise in my preferred model. 2008 would have had eight teams that included Utah. 2005 and 2002 would have been a two team affair as you had a clear #1 and #2. 2010 Probably would have ended up with Oregon, Auburn, TCU.



2- I just made an accommodation for non-unbeatens. Nice reading comprehension bud.

3- All P5 champs and the top G5 champ if they are top 12 or 15, whichever ends up being the better number.

After that at-large with a strongly phrased bias in selection to help a second G5 that meets certain criteria get in. (unbeaten, 1 loss but scheduled up). The ideal case for this would be a 2010 Boise that lost once but had proven a lot in noncon but might be left out since TCU was unbeaten for example.

That may be as good as the political situation will allow. The networks and P5 execs will fight against going that far, and fight even harder going beyond that.

My preferred model is unlikely to ever happen or even be considered.

My realistic preference is what I outlined above.

What is YOUR preferred realistic option?
Today 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,168
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 718
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(Today 02:43 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(Today 12:33 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(Today 12:15 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(Today 12:08 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(Today 12:03 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Spoken like the loyal P5 apologist you are. Well done loyal P5 minion, well done. 04-clap2

Nice ad hominem rather than an argument. Do you always attack the messenger rather than the message?

Back to the argument at hand:
Do you think the team with two losses and the 85th ranked schedule deserves a bid over a potential one loss runner up from a P5 who played a top 30 schedule? Or what about a 2 loss non-champ that beat three top 15 teams?

When you trot out garbage prerequisites for keeping the G5 on the "plantation", then that's the response you'll get.

When you advocate for the top-rated G5 champ without prerequisites, such as being undefeated and only undefeated, making this possible 8-team playoff, then I'll have an actual substantive response.

Nice victim signalling though. Do they teach that at Baylor?


Another personal attack with no justification for it. Are you trying to look insecure?

1- I prefer unbeaten due to extreme differences in SOS. It's simply a different week to week grind injury wise and you can see it at Utah, TCU, and even BYU who is playing what amounts to a P5 schedule since going independent.

2- With that said I would be willing to adjust the G5 requirement to any in the top 12 or top 15 like I did for the P5 champs and keep whichever number even with the P5 champ req. A 1-Loss team from the G5 that scheduled up and got some quality wins would belong. A team that lost a game playing a 100+ ranked SOS likely wouldn't have that argument.

3- I want the best deserving teams in. If you lose twice as a G5 it's hard to argue you deserve it more than a 2 loss nonchamp who played a gauntlet of a schedule. It's also hard for a 3 loss champ to argue as well.

Still playing the victim card, I see.

Now, I get it, you desperately want those of us in the G5 to stay on the "plantation" and not raise a stink about our 2nd-class citizenship. Except we won't, and you know we won't. Which brings us to your prerequisite that the G5's only way to get in the "playoff" is to be undefeated and ONLY undefeated. Even then, under your ridiculous plan, the G5 isn't even guaranteed an automatic spot. Even you know the G5 would never go for that, hence your proposal.

You can drop the charade about wanting the best teams in, as well. We all know the "best teams" is code for the P5 and ONLY the P5.

1. People can talk about various scenarios of a playoff without intending to victimize the G5.

2. You have attacked 1845 Bear here to pursue your personal beef with the way college football has been taken over and manipulated by the networks. I call that displaced aggression.

3. You are stating that 1845 Bear is playing victim. I found that hilarious since your whole slant on this is from the standpoint of victim with UConn having been thus far left out. Where I went to school we call that projection.

4. Let the thread be about the OP and not your feelings.

Have a nice day! JR
Today 04:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,539
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
The networks simply have too much control, the article says that if a UCF is good enough to win a natty it won’t matter because the powers that set up current playoffs won’t allow it because they can’t make as much money, hmmm, even teams within the playoff conferences are in danger of being deamed not worthy enough for the networks to play in the playoffs, they tell the committee to rank them 5th or 6th, this is how it works it seems to me, just my feelings...
Today 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,953
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 518
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #65
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(Today 04:44 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The networks simply have too much control, the article says that if a UCF is good enough to win a natty it won’t matter because the powers that set up current playoffs won’t allow it because they can’t make as much money, hmmm, even teams within the playoff conferences are in danger of being deamed not worthy enough for the networks to play in the playoffs, they tell the committee to rank them 5th or 6th, this is how it works it seems to me, just my feelings...

That's a good point. E.g., since the day it happened in 2014, many believe that if TCU and Ohio State were in flipped positions, no way would TCU been vaulted over Ohio State by the CFP committee the way Ohio State leaped over TCU.

There's the 10-15 blue bloods at the very top, and then degrees of victimhood that cascade down from there.

And there's hypocrisy. At a lower level on the totem pole, the same AAC fans who yelp outrage about the lack of respect that UCF is getting have in prior years denounced an unbeaten Marshall or somesuch as "not being as good as a two loss AAC champ", etc.

07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: Today 04:57 PM by quo vadis.)
Today 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,689
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 282
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(Today 03:08 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  What is YOUR preferred realistic option?

8 teams. Quarterfinals on New Years' EVe/Day at traditional bowls. 2 bowls "double-host" semifinal games a week-to-ten-days later. National Championship Game goes to the stadium with the highest bid.

Automatic bids for the P5 champions and for the highest-ranked G5 champion. 2 at-large bids.

2 at-large bids provides a very narrow path, which means that one-loss teams are not eliminated, but no one can "clinch" a spot in the regular season.*

I could even imagine the conferences reviving their traditional bowl ties--Big 10 vs Pac 10 in the Rose, SEC in the Sugar, ACC in the Orange, Big 12 in Fiesta or Cotton--as quarterfinals. (When those bowls are semifinals, work out something else.)

* I say no one, but Alabama would have "clinched" a spot in the 8 team field going into the Iron Bowl--they were 11-0 and no one else was undefeated in the P5 except a lightly-regarded Wisconsin, and more importantly they're Nick Saban's Alabama. That's pretty rare, though.
Today 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,168
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 718
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(Today 04:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(Today 04:44 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The networks simply have too much control, the article says that if a UCF is good enough to win a natty it won’t matter because the powers that set up current playoffs won’t allow it because they can’t make as much money, hmmm, even teams within the playoff conferences are in danger of being deamed not worthy enough for the networks to play in the playoffs, they tell the committee to rank them 5th or 6th, this is how it works it seems to me, just my feelings...

That's a good point. E.g., since the day it happened in 2014, many believe that if TCU and Ohio State were in flipped positions, no way would TCU been vaulted over Ohio State by the CFP committee the way Ohio State leaped over TCU.

There's the 10-15 blue bloods at the very top, and then degrees of victimhood that cascade down from there.

And there's hypocrisy. At a lower level on the totem pole, the same AAC fans who yelp outrage about the lack of respect that UCF is getting have in prior years denounced an unbeaten Marshall or somesuch as "not being as good as a two loss AAC champ", etc.

07-coffee3

A quibble if I may. Substitute the words "national draw" for "blue bloods" and I will wholeheartedly agree with your post. We have some recent brands that might not qualify as a "blue bloods" but which do have national interest that are among those favored by ESPN.
Today 05:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
msm96wolf Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,139
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 90
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
Please remember the Golden Rule
[Image: remember-the-golden-rule-whoever-has-the...-rules.jpg]
Today 05:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,539
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Never thought I ever agree with Dennis Dodd
(Today 05:38 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Please remember the Golden Rule
[Image: remember-the-golden-rule-whoever-has-the...-rules.jpg]

Another rule: don’t put all your golden nuggets into one basket !
It’s all very simple really, networks want to make as much money as possible, don’t blame them for that, but their absolute control over college football and their total disregard for traditional rivalry’s is tearing up the fan base as we have known it but I think” and these are my feelings “ their actions are building up other fan bases all across this nation, I mean I think it’s having a great effect for the growth of cfb
Just take a look at the most active conference boards here at bbs, and it’s the non autonomous ones, it’s kinda like “ who are you to tell me that I am second class “ and there you have the spark needed to get a bunch of fans all riled up
Another rule: when the going gets good, don’t get greedy [/quote]
(This post was last modified: Today 06:29 PM by JHS55.)
Today 06:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: smytiger, 5 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.