(12-10-2019 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 11:52 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  "Lack of inclusion" only makes sense as a complaint if you think left-out teams were really the best and would have won. The FCS has a big expanded playoffs and yet North Dakota State wins 7 out of 8 years, something that has never come close to happening in FBS under any system.

I don't want to go back to the old poll system, I liked the BCS and like the CFP just fine. And you claim "many others" want something else, well as of now what I want prevails, LOL, so good luck with changing it.

You're completely ignoring the fact that just being included is a massive victory for the university and the students. It doesn't matter who won. There were teams and players that made some noise that could help improve their trajectory moving forward.

A team that has never made a playoff, or a run in a playoff, won't be able to use it as a recruiting chip. Conversely, if an unseeded team makes it to a championship then it can be used in the future as "they underestimated us once, you can help us make sure they won't underestimate us again."

If a player is borderline to be drafted and then has no playoffs to go to, that's it. If there's a playoff to go to, and potentially make some noise in, they can improved their standings and potentially make their way into a future in the sport they love.


You keep skipping directly to the end results and completely bypass everything that comes with getting to them.

I've skipped that part because I didn't think anyone was serious about it, but since you insist: So ... you like your local end of year Little League awards picnic having a table crowded with participation trophies for everyone, right?

OK, that's probably an exaggeration, but you get the point: Playoffs shouldn't be designed so that more schools have "Feel Good" moments or whatever, they should be designed to crown a worthy champion. Occam's Razor should apply.

And we already have than now anyway - 40 bowl games where even 3-5 MAC teams get to go.

Nah, you're just doing your normal trolling self here.

I've provided evidence that teams either seeded or ranked in double digits have made it to the championship game. This isn't even looking to who made it to the quarters or semis. All those teams have proven themselves worthy of being in the playoffs. The fact that teams outside of your proposed "top 4" have made it, and in one case actually won the damn thing, shows that your premise is faulty.

19% of the FCS makes the playoffs. 18.6% Division 1 basketball schools make the playoffs. This is hardly participation trophy territory there. I can see how you might think it's too much, and that's fair. I'd be fine with a top 16 actually (for FCS, which would be 12.8% of the teams)

In the pros: 37.5% playoffs in the NFL. 53% of NBA teams. After Seattle joins up, it's be 50% for the NHL. 33% make the MLB playoffs.

3% make the FBS playoffs. Your argument is about why the majority don't model themselves after the outlier as opposed to the other way around. That's not always a bad thing, but in this case there's been proof that champions came come outside of the top 3% based on polls. Keeping it limited to that ensures the status quo of who can win it all stays the same. I understand your argument about NDSU winning it all every year lately, but sometimes dynasties happen. As Alabama proved this year, though, they eventually might end (meaning this is the first year Alabama didn't make the playoffs, and not literally that they won't win again soon...that has yet to be proven).