+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+----- Forum: P5 Discussion (/forum-997.html)
+----- Thread: Serious question for P5 members (/thread-929532.html)
Serious question for P5 members - DawgNBama - 09-13-2021 10:48 PM
What is wrong with having a college football playoff be all inclusive of Division I conferences like the NCAA tournament is for basketball? I want fan reasons first, and then think like a college president, athletic director and/or coach next please.
Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
RE: Serious question for P5 members - Wedge - 09-13-2021 11:06 PM
(09-13-2021 10:48 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: What is wrong with having a college football playoff be all inclusive of Division I conferences like the NCAA tournament is for basketball? I want fan reasons first, and then think like a college president, athletic director and/or coach next please.
Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
I said on this board before that as a fan I would be in favor of having all D-I teams compete in football together, no FBS/FCS, and have one big playoff tournament.
But I also said that I'm pretty sure most of FCS does not want that and would not vote for it. The few programs that would want it have already joined FBS or would like to.
As an aside: The restrictive rules about transitioning from FCS to FBS, or D-II to D-I, etc. -- those rules ought to be tossed out, given the recent Supreme Court case, right? They fit the category of rules that the court said would be invalid as anticompetitive in any other business.
RE: Serious question for P5 members - YNot - 09-14-2021 10:35 AM
Way too diluted. In basketball, games are shorter and you can play on back-to-back days or at least 2 or 3 games in a week. Football allows for a single game per week.
I have zero interest to watch the #1 team in FBS play the unranked 7-5 MAC champion let alone to play the Colonial Athletic champion. Negative interest in watching the Colonial and MEAC champs battle it out for the right to play FBS #1.
The inclusive plan that might hold *some* interest would be where you have multiple play-in rounds amongst the automatic bid FCS and unranked weaklings, but where their first tough game is against a #10-12 opponent, not #1. But, that would take multiple rounds over weeks of time and quickly runs into the President, AD, coach, and player objections and would be difficult to hold fan interest.
RE: Serious question for P5 members - bullet - 09-14-2021 08:43 PM
Number of games. Lack of competitiveness.
I think 10-15 Division I basketball conferences should be dropped.
A lot of FBS schools should be FCS.
To include all 10, you definitely would need a 16 team playoff. But even with 16, I wouldn't include more than 8 conference champs. And that is probably 1 or 2 too many.
RE: Serious question for P5 members - random asian guy - 09-15-2021 12:19 PM
(09-13-2021 10:48 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: What is wrong with having a college football playoff be all inclusive of Division I conferences like the NCAA tournament is for basketball? I want fan reasons first, and then think like a college president, athletic director and/or coach next please.
Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
I actually prefer that. A 16 team playoff including 10 champs and six at large bids.
RE: Serious question for P5 members - Wedge - 09-15-2021 02:01 PM
(09-15-2021 12:19 PM)random asian guy Wrote:(09-13-2021 10:48 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: What is wrong with having a college football playoff be all inclusive of Division I conferences like the NCAA tournament is for basketball? I want fan reasons first, and then think like a college president, athletic director and/or coach next please.
Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
I actually prefer that. A 16 team playoff including 10 champs and six at large bids.
The OP is suggesting a playoff including all D-I conferences, not just FBS. So that would be 20 conference champs (assuming the FCS conferences who declined autobids would continue to do so in a D-I playoff) and not 10.
If it is an NCAA playoff, then to comply with NCAA championship rules there would have to be at least as many at-large bids as autobids, thus this playoff would have at least 40 teams, with at least 20 at-large bids to go along with the 20 autobids.
RE: Serious question for P5 members - DawgNBama - 09-15-2021 02:32 PM
(09-15-2021 02:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:Actually, I do mean just FBS.(09-15-2021 12:19 PM)random asian guy Wrote:(09-13-2021 10:48 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: What is wrong with having a college football playoff be all inclusive of Division I conferences like the NCAA tournament is for basketball? I want fan reasons first, and then think like a college president, athletic director and/or coach next please.
Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
I actually prefer that. A 16 team playoff including 10 champs and six at large bids.
The OP is suggesting a playoff including all D-I conferences, not just FBS. So that would be 20 conference champs (assuming the FCS conferences who declined autobids would continue to do so in a D-I playoff) and not 10.
If it is an NCAA playoff, then to comply with NCAA championship rules there would have to be at least as many at-large bids as autobids, thus this playoff would have at least 40 teams, with at least 20 at-large bids to go along with the 20 autobids.
Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
RE: Serious question for P5 members - Wahoowa84 - 09-15-2021 03:09 PM
The obvious reasons why football playoffs can’t be as inclusive as basketball:
1) Physical toll on players means that the number of games played have to be limited. NCAA tournament can squeeze seven rounds in 21 days…while football plays one game per week. Shortening the playoffs allows for more regular season games (when more teams & players can play).
2) Football requires more players (it’s more of a team sport)…therefore, the difference in level of play is more variable in football. One star basketball player can transform a basketball team (e.g., Larry Bird, Ralph Sampson, Danny Manning, etc.). While the strength of a football is defined by its weakest link…hence Alabama achieves its dynasty by having a roster full of blue chip players. In football, championship teams don’t lose to teams that are much weaker…while upsets are common in basketball (IMO, UVa had a better overall basketball team than UMBC in 2018…but that doesn’t mean that UMBC didn’t play a better game in the first round of the NCAA tournament).
3) Winning in football carries so much more prestige that there are now barriers-to-entry into the elite, championship level. Dynasties like Alabama, Oklahoma and Ohio State have been around for decades…creating unmatched facilities funded by massive donor bases. These top-shelf programs are able to attract the best coaches and players. Even when a few upstart programs (e.g., Miami and Nebraska in the 1980s-2000s) get rolling, they’re generally really good for several decades.
At the end of the day, you don’t need a very large playoff to determine the best football team.
RE: Serious question for P5 members - Wedge - 09-15-2021 05:00 PM
(09-15-2021 03:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: The obvious reasons why football playoffs can’t be as inclusive as basketball:
1) Physical toll on players means that the number of games played have to be limited. NCAA tournament can squeeze seven rounds in 21 days…while football plays one game per week. Shortening the playoffs allows for more regular season games (when more teams & players can play).
From a fan point of view, a 10-game regular season followed by a 32-team, 5-week tournament would be better than a 12-game regular season followed by a 4-team "playoff".
What would the fan reaction be if college basketball replaced March Madness with a 4-team "tournament" plus 6 additional regular season games for every D-I team?
RE: Serious question for P5 members - ken d - 09-16-2021 10:51 AM
(09-15-2021 05:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:(09-15-2021 03:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: The obvious reasons why football playoffs can’t be as inclusive as basketball:
1) Physical toll on players means that the number of games played have to be limited. NCAA tournament can squeeze seven rounds in 21 days…while football plays one game per week. Shortening the playoffs allows for more regular season games (when more teams & players can play).
From a fan point of view, a 10-game regular season followed by a 32-team, 5-week tournament would be better than a 12-game regular season followed by a 4-team "playoff".
What would the fan reaction be if college basketball replaced March Madness with a 4-team "tournament" plus 6 additional regular season games for every D-I team?
As a fan, I have to disagree with you on that. I can't imagine myself watching any of the first round of such a tournament. I would actually have to watch the NFL that week instead. The plus side of that, of course, is that I would get a lot of quality nap time doing that.
Sixteen games in which nothing is at stake except the health of the good teams that are forced to compete in a mismatch against a team with nothing to lose is not my idea of entertainment. It's certainly not worth costing every FBS team at least one home game.
RE: Serious question for P5 members - Wedge - 09-16-2021 11:18 AM
(09-16-2021 10:51 AM)ken d Wrote:(09-15-2021 05:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:(09-15-2021 03:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: The obvious reasons why football playoffs can’t be as inclusive as basketball:
1) Physical toll on players means that the number of games played have to be limited. NCAA tournament can squeeze seven rounds in 21 days…while football plays one game per week. Shortening the playoffs allows for more regular season games (when more teams & players can play).
From a fan point of view, a 10-game regular season followed by a 32-team, 5-week tournament would be better than a 12-game regular season followed by a 4-team "playoff".
What would the fan reaction be if college basketball replaced March Madness with a 4-team "tournament" plus 6 additional regular season games for every D-I team?
As a fan, I have to disagree with you on that. I can't imagine myself watching any of the first round of such a tournament. I would actually have to watch the NFL that week instead. The plus side of that, of course, is that I would get a lot of quality nap time doing that.
Sixteen games in which nothing is at stake except the health of the good teams that are forced to compete in a mismatch against a team with nothing to lose is not my idea of entertainment. It's certainly not worth costing every FBS team at least one home game.
But you do watch the first round of March Madness, even though for every one UMBC-over-Virginia game there are a dozen unwatchable blowouts.
RE: Serious question for P5 members - ken d - 09-16-2021 12:46 PM
(09-16-2021 11:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:(09-16-2021 10:51 AM)ken d Wrote:(09-15-2021 05:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:(09-15-2021 03:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: The obvious reasons why football playoffs can’t be as inclusive as basketball:
1) Physical toll on players means that the number of games played have to be limited. NCAA tournament can squeeze seven rounds in 21 days…while football plays one game per week. Shortening the playoffs allows for more regular season games (when more teams & players can play).
From a fan point of view, a 10-game regular season followed by a 32-team, 5-week tournament would be better than a 12-game regular season followed by a 4-team "playoff".
What would the fan reaction be if college basketball replaced March Madness with a 4-team "tournament" plus 6 additional regular season games for every D-I team?
As a fan, I have to disagree with you on that. I can't imagine myself watching any of the first round of such a tournament. I would actually have to watch the NFL that week instead. The plus side of that, of course, is that I would get a lot of quality nap time doing that.
Sixteen games in which nothing is at stake except the health of the good teams that are forced to compete in a mismatch against a team with nothing to lose is not my idea of entertainment. It's certainly not worth costing every FBS team at least one home game.
But you do watch the first round of March Madness, even though for every one UMBC-over-Virginia game there are a dozen unwatchable blowouts.
Actually, I watch the #7-#10 seeds unless they cut into a potential monumental upset about to happen. For me, the "real" tournament starts on Saturday in the round of 32.
RE: Serious question for P5 members - Crayton - 09-17-2021 12:43 PM
(09-13-2021 10:48 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: What is wrong with having a college football playoff be all inclusive of Division I conferences like the NCAA tournament is for basketball? I want fan reasons first, and then think like a college president, athletic director and/or coach next please.
Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
The CCGs would be superfluous. Would rather the Gators get into the 8v9 game directly than play an additional week against a Top 4 SEC team and risk getting eliminated prematurely. At least in the 6+6, winning the SEC advances the Gators to the QFs (most likely).
Each year, I actually have a thread about how an all-inclusive playoff should be conducted. (1) No CCGs and (2) year-end rivalry games can eliminate a team from at-large consideration or from hosting a first-round game.
RE: Serious question for P5 members - VCE - 09-18-2021 08:07 PM
1) Football Bowl Subdivision. Now a bunch of teams who moved up from the Football Championship Subdivision want what they already had.
2) the BCS and later the 4 team playoff ruined NYD for me. What was once a chaotic day of flipping between games that may have a final impact is gone, replaced by an increasingly NFL lite.
3) The 12/16 team models will force a fracture of FBS. Why should one conference with 7 all time/annual top 25 schools be put on the same level as the five conferences with zero such programs? Yes, At larges, but the SEC isn’t getting 5 of those, the Big Ten isn’t getting 2/3, the PAC isn’t getting 1/2.
4) yes, there are P5 schools who probably aren’t worthy and G5 who are. Same with FCS and G5. We just saw 3/4 G5 get promoted depending on how you count G5(I.e., BYU). Since the playoff proponents have already won the day, I’d settle for a straight 8 where a UCF type team from a few years ago would have made the field.
5) I agree with the above posters about the length of the season with extended playoffs. We’ve had some great OOC matchups this year that probably wouldn’t happen with another two weeks of playoffs.
Edited for clarity.
RE: Serious question for P5 members - CardinalJim - 09-19-2021 06:51 AM
(09-13-2021 10:48 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: What is wrong with having a college football playoff be all inclusive of Division I conferences like the NCAA tournament is for basketball? I want fan reasons first, and then think like a college president, athletic director and/or coach next please.
There is nothing wrong with it. I think most college football fans would love to see it. Unfortunately you won’t be able to convince the powers that be to spread the wealth.
Cartoonist Johnny Hart, famous for the BC comic strip, one said “He who has the Gold, makes the rules”. There is little incentive for The PAC, SEC, ACC, Big 12 and Big Ten to change the present playoff format.
The playoff expansion being proposed isn’t being done to increase access for all conferences though that’s how its being sold. Its being done in an effort to give each P5 conference a guaranteed spot or an opportunity to get multiple teams into the playoff.
I doubt we’ll ever see a true college football playoff with every league represented. You’ll see every reason given, injury potential, class attendance, time etc. The reality is the only thing stopping it is greed.
RE: Serious question for P5 members - PicksUp - 09-21-2021 12:58 AM
(09-15-2021 03:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: The obvious reasons why football playoffs can’t be as inclusive as basketball:
1) Physical toll on players means that the number of games played have to be limited. NCAA tournament can squeeze seven rounds in 21 days…while football plays one game per week. Shortening the playoffs allows for more regular season games (when more teams & players can play).
2) Football requires more players (it’s more of a team sport)…therefore, the difference in level of play is more variable in football. One star basketball player can transform a basketball team (e.g., Larry Bird, Ralph Sampson, Danny Manning, etc.). While the strength of a football is defined by its weakest link…hence Alabama achieves its dynasty by having a roster full of blue chip players. In football, championship teams don’t lose to teams that are much weaker…while upsets are common in basketball (IMO, UVa had a better overall basketball team than UMBC in 2018…but that doesn’t mean that UMBC didn’t play a better game in the first round of the NCAA tournament).
3) Winning in football carries so much more prestige that there are now barriers-to-entry into the elite, championship level. Dynasties like Alabama, Oklahoma and Ohio State have been around for decades…creating unmatched facilities funded by massive donor bases. These top-shelf programs are able to attract the best coaches and players. Even when a few upstart programs (e.g., Miami and Nebraska in the 1980s-2000s) get rolling, they’re generally really good for several decades.
At the end of the day, you don’t need a very large playoff to determine the best football team.
Nebraska an upstart program? They were fairly relevant in the 60s and 70s. 80s and 90s. 40+ Years
They won 83 % of their games from 1962-2001.