(01-05-2018 01:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:19 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  The title of this thread is "College football doesn't fairly name a national champion". There is an extraneous, and very misleading, word in that sentence - "fairly".

Including that modifier suggests that college football actually names a national champion. It does not, at least at the FBS level, and it never has. Personally, I find that stance on the part of the NCAA to be philosophically very satisfying. I am quite content to have a season conclude without a definitive pronouncement that some "we" is (are?) Number 1!

We could all pick some arbitrary tournament format and claim that the winner is the national champion. But then, many fans would misinterpret that to mean that the winner is somehow the "best" team. Those would usually be fans of the winning team, while fans of other good teams would continue to make the case that theirs was actually the better team. I don't see how that is much different than what we have now.

I believe the need on the part of Americans (and truth be told, other countries as well) that there only be one winner, and everybody else be losers, is a serious character flaw that does no one any good. Keep things just the way they are.

Why is that always the answer? "If you don't like it, leave." Nobody wants to leave the FBS. They just want improvement.

You say that as if I said or implied it. Maybe you meant to quote some other post that actually did say it.

Ken D,

My bad. My response was intended for Bearcat Jerry's comment. Good thing this is just a message board and not a work memo.

(01-05-2018 01:20 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:00 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 12:52 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 12:48 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 12:33 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  If LSU started their program now instead of 120 year ago they would never be allowed to grow into the program they have now due to current setup. As a fellow G5 fan that is the most frustrating thing about FBS football.

I can't even begin to tell you what a silly argument this is.

I can begin to tell you why it isn't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Then do it. Explain why a school just beginning a football program should be granted equality with a school that has invested 120 years into theirs. This should be good.

Except he didn't actually argue that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(01-05-2018 10:26 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:20 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:03 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

That might be fair if each conference championship was equally difficult to win. If not, then equally rewarding each conference champ would be "unfair" to teams competing in conferences that are more difficult to win.

And that's one reason why the bolded statement above is correct.

You aren't eligible to be hired because you don't have a job.

You can't enter the hospital if you are sick.

We can't mitigate the disparities in FBS football because there are disparities in FBS football.

Tired excuses to maintain the status quo.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Welcome to reality, those who have power will do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo.

Yes they will. They will also make absurd excuses and rationalizations and try to convince others that its normal and proper to have a corrupt monopoly and that it would be bad to not have it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

If you truly feel this way then get up from where you are sitting, switch off the computer you are typing on, and go out and talk to your neighbors and organize a grass roots movement for change.

If you don't feel like doing that nothing will ever change. Every revolution requires face time with those who believe as you do. When there are enough of you to realize that you are not alone change is possible. But if spewing your discontent online is what vents your frustration into the air where the efficacy of its energy is lost then nothing will change and you will just become another disconnected bitter loser.

I've done organizing work. Even small changes can be invigorating and formative experiences.

And I'm not being critical here. You should try it.

Even if you fail what you learn from the experience will be worthwhile for your outlook on life.

Once again the attempts are made to broaden the argument.

Nobody is asking for UCF's program to be made equal to Alabama's program.

The argument is for FBS conference champions to have access to FBS post-season like any other logical sports league.

Its really that simple.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(01-05-2018 01:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  The title of this thread is "College football doesn't fairly name a national champion". There is an extraneous, and very misleading, word in that sentence - "fairly".

Including that modifier suggests that college football actually names a national champion. It does not, at least at the FBS level, and it never has. Personally, I find that stance on the part of the NCAA to be philosophically very satisfying. I am quite content to have a season conclude without a definitive pronouncement that some "we" is (are?) Number 1!

We could all pick some arbitrary tournament format and claim that the winner is the national champion. But then, many fans would misinterpret that to mean that the winner is somehow the "best" team. Those would usually be fans of the winning team, while fans of other good teams would continue to make the case that theirs was actually the better team. I don't see how that is much different than what we have now.

I believe the need on the part of Americans (and truth be told, other countries as well) that there only be one winner, and everybody else be losers, is a serious character flaw that does no one any good. Keep things just the way they are.

FBS college football does indeed name a national champion. The NCAA does not, at least at the FBS level.

(01-05-2018 01:00 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  You don't get to just show up and say "Hi we are here, let us in now"..... you have to earn it like everybody else did.

Just because we all exist in a give it to me now - instant gratification world, it doesn't mean everything works that way. You actually have to prove your worth, you cannot just declare it.

No to over simplify it, but if Arkansas Sate / Umass / Lafayette / Sisters of the Poor or any other school can prove that they can bring value to the table, the P5's would fall all over themselves to invite you.

NOT everybody gets a ******* trophy - GET OVER IT!

It shouldn't be about money. It should be about who is the best on the field, like it is for any other sport.

A more fair competition would see more top teams play each other before determining who is best. But, you would need a scheduling commissioner to achieve that.

Or, you could structure it more like the World Cup, where you have the different qualifier regions (conferences) that spill into the multi-stage World Cup tournament (CFP) - which includes Group play and then a bracket-style playoff.

That's just unrealistic for college football because of the length of the season, number of schools involved, TV contracts, how the power brokers want it to look, etc.

But, I think that would be sweet. Conference play first, then advance to a CFP Group stage - then to the CFP tournament. The major difference is that you would need a system for additional games for schools that don't advance to the CFP Group stage.

(01-05-2018 09:52 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It would be equally as unfair to put a 12-0 team that had the easiest schedule in college football in the mix.

I'm not alluding to UCF in that statement but speaking generally.

There isn't a "fair" way to do it that everybody in college football would call fair.

Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Not all conferences are created equally...

...to prove my point

In other words, let's just give it the Winner of the SEC????

(01-05-2018 02:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:00 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  You don't get to just show up and say "Hi we are here, let us in now"..... you have to earn it like everybody else did.

Just because we all exist in a give it to me now - instant gratification world, it doesn't mean everything works that way. You actually have to prove your worth, you cannot just declare it.

No to over simplify it, but if Arkansas Sate / Umass / Lafayette / Sisters of the Poor or any other school can prove that they can bring value to the table, the P5's would fall all over themselves to invite you.

NOT everybody gets a ******* trophy - GET OVER IT!

It shouldn't be about money. It should be about who is the best on the field, like it is for any other sport.

Well it is about money. The reality is that there is a reason that the top of the P5 is so valuable, and why networks and fans spend countless amounts of money every year on them. It's the same reason why the top of the P5 essentially pays football tv revenue to the rest of the P5, and the same reason why there is such a gap between the P5 and the G5. Due to the system, which has already created a massive divide between these two groups, the top of the P5 have more financial resources, greater opportunity for top recruits, higher attendances and more viewership.

The reality, like everything in the world, is that nothing will change until one of two things are guaranteed of happening:

1) The networks/P5 get guaranteed more money by including the G5 in said playoff OR
2) The networks/P5, due to public scrutiny and backlash, lose viewership/sponsorship over the CFP, and are forced to change the system in order to continue making the high financial returns they currently receive.

IMO, both are very, very unlikely. It is more likely that the G5, forming its own division in FBS, create its own playoff and get paid a hefty sum from the networks to set up.

(01-05-2018 12:42 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  @Quo, (66)

Right, is that why an UNDEFEATED UCF team was left out of the top ten, let alone top 5? What do they have to do, win all all their games by 50? Or would you just assume none of the teams they played are good at all if they blew everyone out? Until bowl season, they were Memphis' only losses.

It's just a carnival game, rig it so you get the result you want. There's no way to convince the committee of anything, they're bought out.

Be honest: Would any committee in the entire football world, except one consisting of Aresco and eight ADs from AAC schools, have put UCF in the playoffs?

Answer: No. And the whole world can't be bought out, can it?

UCF just did not play a tough enough schedule to show that they were one of the four best teams. Remember, there are 130 teams, so you can be really, really good and still not be worthy of the playoffs.

Based on the evidence available at the time, UCF did not deserve a playoff spot. They just didn't. At best, maybe a #9 ranking.

(01-05-2018 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It would be equally as unfair to put a 12-0 team that had the easiest schedule in college football in the mix.

I'm not alluding to UCF in that statement but speaking generally.

There isn't a "fair" way to do it that everybody in college football would call fair.

Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

So if Ark-State wins its conference with a 7-5 record and makes the playoffs, while 12-1 Clemson doesn't win its conference so doesn't make the playoffs, that's "fair"?

That kind of thing happened in the NCAA basketball tournament back when the NCAA only permitted a conference's champ in the tournament.

There was one year that #1 NC State played #3 Maryland in the ACC tournament final. NC State won the game in 3 OTs. Maryland was left out. There was another season, in which UCLA was #1 in the polls and USC was #2. The Pac-8 didn't have a tournament, UCLA won the conference, USC was out.

If that's what someone wants to see in CFB... no thanks. Hard pass.

(01-05-2018 11:10 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  16 team playoff:
10 conference Champs
6 at-Large

Everybody has a chance.

Not really.

(01-05-2018 01:16 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Without a P5 invitation, there is absolutely nothing UCF could do to make it into a four team playoff.

Not with the schedule they played this year. They didn't play enough good teams to prove they belonged.

Now had Houston run the table last year? I think they get into the playoffs.

That's what it will take: Playing some top-level teams, which is basically what it takes for P5 teams.

(01-05-2018 11:12 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It would be equally as unfair to put a 12-0 team that had the easiest schedule in college football in the mix.

I'm not alluding to UCF in that statement but speaking generally.

There isn't a "fair" way to do it that everybody in college football would call fair.

Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

So if Ark-State wins its conference with a 7-5 record and makes the playoffs, while 12-1 Clemson doesn't win its conference so doesn't make the playoffs, that's "fair"?

In most every other sport, that's the status quo. It's not exactly uncommon for undeserving teams to make the playoffs over more deserving teams, look at MLB, where about a quarter century ago a 103-win team missed the playoffs and most years a good team is left out in favor of a weaker one. The same holds true in the NFL many, many times over the years and even the NBA has suffered this because the conferences aren't balanced.

Also in most other sports you don't have 27 of the 130 members that have been added in the last 25 years (and 14 in the last dozen) when most of those are lower level programs that just happen to have a new label and scholarship limit.

(01-05-2018 03:02 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 02:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:00 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  You don't get to just show up and say "Hi we are here, let us in now"..... you have to earn it like everybody else did.

Just because we all exist in a give it to me now - instant gratification world, it doesn't mean everything works that way. You actually have to prove your worth, you cannot just declare it.

No to over simplify it, but if Arkansas Sate / Umass / Lafayette / Sisters of the Poor or any other school can prove that they can bring value to the table, the P5's would fall all over themselves to invite you.

NOT everybody gets a ******* trophy - GET OVER IT!

It shouldn't be about money. It should be about who is the best on the field, like it is for any other sport.

Well it is about money. The reality is that there is a reason that the top of the P5 is so valuable, and why networks and fans spend countless amounts of money every year on them. It's the same reason why the top of the P5 essentially pays football tv revenue to the rest of the P5, and the same reason why there is such a gap between the P5 and the G5. Due to the system, which has already created a massive divide between these two groups, the top of the P5 have more financial resources, greater opportunity for top recruits, higher attendances and more viewership.

The reality, like everything in the world, is that nothing will change until one of two things are guaranteed of happening:

1) The networks/P5 get guaranteed more money by including the G5 in said playoff OR
2) The networks/P5, due to public scrutiny and backlash, lose viewership/sponsorship over the CFP, and are forced to change the system in order to continue making the high financial returns they currently receive.

IMO, both are very, very unlikely. It is more likely that the G5, forming its own division in FBS, create its own playoff and get paid a hefty sum from the networks to set up.

I realize it's reality - that that's how it is currently. That's why I bring it up. It's one of the things that makes FBS college football dysfunctional.

(01-05-2018 11:13 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  With all of that said, if we get 8 teams, ii think a compromise position would be in. Independents or Group of 5 champions would be in automatically if ranked higher than a power 5 champion or in the top 14 overall (similar to the BCS).

I would want the top G5 in automatically to avoid the discretion and possibly gaming the system. Put the P5 champs and the top G5 champ along with 2 wild cards. Now there is discretion in those last 3 slots, but not whether or not they exist.

(01-05-2018 11:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:44 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It would be equally as unfair to put a 12-0 team that had the easiest schedule in college football in the mix.

I'm not alluding to UCF in that statement but speaking generally.

There isn't a "fair" way to do it that everybody in college football would call fair.

Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

So if Ark-State wins its conference with a 7-5 record and makes the playoffs, while 12-1 Clemson doesn't win its conference so doesn't make the playoffs, that's "fair"?

In real sports you generally have division champions and a couple of wildcards. This is not unusual or "unfair".

What makes it seem "unfair" in college football is that the cartel structure has stunted any potential parity between conferences and widened the gap.

LSU, Bama, and the rest of the elites have extreme institutionalized recruiting advantages, one of which is the fact that they have playoff access and others do not.

How many wild cards? Not enough to cover the disparity. The NCAA hoops tourney works because there are enough "wild cards" to let all reasonably deserving non-champs in. Football can't do that so auto-bids for champs is a no-go.

Recruiting? LSU and Bama have massive recruiting advantages over Ark-State not because of CFP or BCS, they've always had it, because they have built up huge fan bases over 120 years of playing football and thus have created an extremely attractive platform - in terms of home attendance, TV, and media attention - for players to play on.

Nobody gave that to them. Heck, you go to LSU's Tiger Stadium, which now seats 103,000, and you can see the outline of the original stadium built in the 1920s that seated 12,000.

And that 12,000-seater was built 30+ years after they started playing football. Before then, they played in a place that was even smaller.

There's a lot more difference between 85 man football squads with 40-50 playing regularly and 15 man basketball squads with 7-8 playing regularly. A #50 basketball team can have a hot player and beat a #1 basketball team a whole lot more frequently than a #50 football team can beat a #1 football team.

(01-05-2018 11:46 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  @Quo

They have it built in because of media bias, among other things. What was the difference between BYU and Miss. State 25 years ago? If anything, BYU was much more prominent but that stupid SEC and Big 12 tag changed everything.

It wasn't all that long ago Louisville, Cincinnati and Marquette were treated like minors and the BCS tag meant everything for Baylor, Texas A&M and Ole Miss, who never meant anything in basketball and were exalted above them.

BYU is still more prominent.

Media merely reflects fan interest. There are a handful of schools like Wake Forest that were "grandfathered in" to the big revenues, but almost everyone in the p5 is really a top 65 program.

(01-05-2018 12:02 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:35 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  And they maintain those advantages by having a cartel that freezes those advantages in place and limits others from following and acheving the same level of success.

This is patently untrue. I don't know how old you are, but in my lifetime, the ACC was not considered on the same level as the Big 10 or SEC, but it certainly is now. Penn State and Florida State had to win their way to respectability, but they weren't given "top program" status because someone gave it to them to achieve "fairness."

The advantages aren't "frozen in place" if there is upward mobility. The schools that have been added to the P5 conferences over the years proves that nothing has been static and that programs that commit to their athletics programs have eventually been rewarded with membership to the big boy club. Certainly you can see that nothing is frozen in place if schools like Louisville and Utah get invitations to P5 conferences, as well as returners like TCU. The only thing holding Houston back is demographics or they would already have returned to the club. There is upward mobility, so all of the chest beating about the lack of fairness is just untrue.

True. It was considered embarrassing to lose to an ACC school in football in the 70s. It was on a par with the WAC. Clemson winning a national title in 1981 was considered about as big a fluke (not the team, but the fact that they won) as BYU in 1984.

(01-05-2018 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:38 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Hit that SQUARELY on the head.

To think that the Conference USA champ is more deserving of a playoff spot that this years Bama (1 loss, not a conference champ) is absurd and simple minded.

Is it? It used to be no one could make the NCAA Tournament except conference champions.

Not exactly. There were spots reserved for independents, e.g. in 1973, before the Big East formed, Syracuse and Providence played in the tournament as independents.

But no conference could send more than 1 team to the tournament.

Why did that system break down and was replaced more than 40 years ago? Because too many top-level teams that didn't win their conference were being left out.

So no going back to that. The only way a "all conference champs in" system will fly is if all reasonably deserving non-champs get in too, and I'm not sure that is workable.

There was one year USC was 24-2 and only lost to national champs UCLA and was probably the 2nd best team in the country, but didn't go to the NCAA.

With football in 2008, Texas was in a 3 way tie for the Big 12 South with OU and Texas Tech, all 7-1 in conference and 11-1 overall. Texas beat OU 45-35 in a neutral site game and lost to Texas Tech in Lubbock on a TD with 1 second left while Tech laid an egg in Norman. The Texas loss to Tech was at the end of an unprecedented 5 game run vs. teams ranked in the top 11. The system at the time only allowed 2 teams in the BCS. The BCS selected Oklahoma and Florida, both 11-1 regular season, 12-1 with ccg wins.