Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CFB today with an 8-team playoff
Author Message
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,010
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 729
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #81
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
8 team playoffs.
1.Georgia
2.Alabama
3.Wisconsin
4.Miami
5.Clemson
6.TCU
7.UCF
8.Boise State

Alabama/Georgia winner be in.
Oklahoma/TCU winner is in.
That would move Washington in.

1.Alabama/Georgia winner
2.Oklahoma/TCU winner
3.Wisconsin if they win out.
4.Miami/Notre Dame/Clemson winner
5.Washington
6.UCF
7.Boise State
8.Wild Card

The fans howled foul when Alabama got in over Stanford and Oklahoma State to a rematch for the National Championship against LSU. Adding too many P5 schools who did not win their conference will turn a lot of fans off. You do need some fresh blood. UCF and Boise State would add a wrinkle to the playoffs. Both have suggest in beating P5 schools in bowl games. They could weed out the weaker P5 school champs.
I could see the 8th spot go to the runner up of the SEC since they would only have a 1 lost team. As it is, the ACC, Notre Dame, Washington, Big 12, Big 10 and PAC 12's runner ups would have 2 or more loses. That will water down the playoffs.
11-05-2017 01:25 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
micahandme Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 301
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 20
I Root For: PSU
Location:
Post: #82
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
I like your enthusiasm, DavidSt. And you certainly should have pride in your Broncos. They have done some amazing things in the past decade. But Boise State would be a middle of the pack team in the Big Ten or SEC. Why should a middle of the pack team (like, let's say, Mississippi State or Iowa or Kansas State or Oregon) get in the playoff simply because they don't play a rigorous schedule?

Penn State would be undefeated with your schedule. Boise State would 5-4 or 6-3 with PSU's schedule.

The G5 should be glad to get an automatic bid to the 8-team playoff...plus a shot at the at-large bid should they ever have two transcendent teams again (like TCU/BSU back in the day).
11-06-2017 07:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
micahandme Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 301
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 20
I Root For: PSU
Location:
Post: #83
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-05-2017 12:47 PM)otown Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 08:57 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 08:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

um no. They aren't putting a team like Penn St(who could be #5 easily by end of the season) out even though they won't win their division to take a team in the Big Ten runner up who would be closer to 10. TV wants the top teams period.

What TV wants is RATINGS, not necessarily the top teams. That is why I completely dismiss the leftover conferences from the picture.

It's the same reason the bigger bowl games will take a team with a worse record but a larger fan base over a better record from a smaller program.

That's why conferences like the SEC & B1G would get the runner up. A playoff game with a Wisconsin will get just as many eyeballs as the same game with PSU and that's all that matters. I'm sure the same argument could be made in the SEC as well.

Amazing..... simply amazing. Any fan of sports should just shake their head in disgust.

It doesn't disgust me, in and of itself. I don't think there should be 130 teams that supposedly are all on the same level of play. Most G5 fans around here think we should scrap the regular season and do a 7-round playoff so that Coastal Carolina can have its "chance" at winning the tourney. Just ridiculous.

The TV networks wouldn't NEED to have priorities if they didn't have to worry about weak sauce games like UL-Lafayette on primetime TV ever.
11-06-2017 07:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,025
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #84
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-05-2017 12:38 PM)otown Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

So off on so many levels.
This would officially open up anti trust litigation due to the G5 effectively being banned from the playoff..........currently they technically can make it, even though we all know they can't....... courts would like that technicality in an anti trust case. You remove that and it becomes a lot more murkier and would favor a plaintiff.

Secondly and more importantly, what on GODS green earth makes you think the PAC, ACC, and BIG12 are just gonna roll over and allow B1G/SEC to get advantages. We all know that since they usually have more bias in their favor, they will get those last two slots most years.

Lastly, you are giving ND an inherent advantage. All they need to be is top 8. Other teams need to win their conference or compete in ranking with other runner ups......which is tough to do when the runner up would have just lost the championship game and taken a bath in the polls from the loss.

Look, I'm all for expanding the playoffs.......but just leave it to the current ranking system of the committee. You start making designated auto bids and it screws up the system and makes it weaker.

I am so amazed that a fan of any sport would be ok with making a playoff based off of potential ratings and not simply using the best teams.

Where to start.....

1) Those seeds were based on THIS YEAR'S performances. In other years, those WC's could change, capiche? It's also possible that if, like last year, ND is down then that slot would go to another conference's runner up.

2) No one gives a flying duck about the G5 except G5 fanboys. If you think the PAC would have a problem with the SEC/B1G getting one of the WC's over their runner up they sure as hell aren't going to accept some G5 program getting in over theirs. That pretty much COMPLETELY destroys your argument.

3) The playoffs are about RATINGS. The networks didn't pay billions for the rights to televise the CFP to show the Memphis game. They WANT programs from the P5. They want programs with huge followings. They'll take and WANT a Bama-tOSU, OU-Washington or ND-OU matchup over what "some" might argue as a "better team". Which, BTW, is completely subjective and purely opinion based.

4) It amazes me that a fan of any sport would continue to fall for the old and untrue argument that all conferences are the same. I heard that same BS back in the Boise days. Oh, they're 12-1, they DESERVE to be there. Ah, no they don't. Playing an average Iowa or Mississippi team is still harder than playing a "good" MWC team.
11-06-2017 08:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,025
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #85
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-05-2017 01:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  8 team playoffs.
1.Georgia
2.Alabama
3.Wisconsin
4.Miami
5.Clemson
6.TCU
7.UCF
8.Boise State

Alabama/Georgia winner be in.
Oklahoma/TCU winner is in.
That would move Washington in.

1.Alabama/Georgia winner
2.Oklahoma/TCU winner
3.Wisconsin if they win out.
4.Miami/Notre Dame/Clemson winner
5.Washington
6.UCF
7.Boise State
8.Wild Card

The fans howled foul when Alabama got in over Stanford and Oklahoma State to a rematch for the National Championship against LSU. Adding too many P5 schools who did not win their conference will turn a lot of fans off. You do need some fresh blood. UCF and Boise State would add a wrinkle to the playoffs. Both have suggest in beating P5 schools in bowl games. They could weed out the weaker P5 school champs.
I could see the 8th spot go to the runner up of the SEC since they would only have a 1 lost team. As it is, the ACC, Notre Dame, Washington, Big 12, Big 10 and PAC 12's runner ups would have 2 or more loses. That will water down the playoffs.

(11-06-2017 07:17 AM)micahandme Wrote:  I like your enthusiasm, DavidSt. And you certainly should have pride in your Broncos. They have done some amazing things in the past decade. But Boise State would be a middle of the pack team in the Big Ten or SEC. Why should a middle of the pack team (like, let's say, Mississippi State or Iowa or Kansas State or Oregon) get in the playoff simply because they don't play a rigorous schedule?

Penn State would be undefeated with your schedule. Boise State would 5-4 or 6-3 with PSU's schedule.

The G5 should be glad to get an automatic bid to the 8-team playoff...plus a shot at the at-large bid should they ever have two transcendent teams again (like TCU/BSU back in the day).

(11-06-2017 07:26 AM)micahandme Wrote:  
(11-05-2017 12:47 PM)otown Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 08:57 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 08:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

um no. They aren't putting a team like Penn St(who could be #5 easily by end of the season) out even though they won't win their division to take a team in the Big Ten runner up who would be closer to 10. TV wants the top teams period.

What TV wants is RATINGS, not necessarily the top teams. That is why I completely dismiss the leftover conferences from the picture.

It's the same reason the bigger bowl games will take a team with a worse record but a larger fan base over a better record from a smaller program.

That's why conferences like the SEC & B1G would get the runner up. A playoff game with a Wisconsin will get just as many eyeballs as the same game with PSU and that's all that matters. I'm sure the same argument could be made in the SEC as well.

Amazing..... simply amazing. Any fan of sports should just shake their head in disgust.

It doesn't disgust me, in and of itself. I don't think there should be 130 teams that supposedly are all on the same level of play. Most G5 fans around here think we should scrap the regular season and do a 7-round playoff so that Coastal Carolina can have its "chance" at winning the tourney. Just ridiculous.

The TV networks wouldn't NEED to have priorities if they didn't have to worry about weak sauce games like UL-Lafayette on primetime TV ever.

So let me see if I get this straight.

You'd put a 2 loss Boise team (who lost to Wash ST & Virginia) in over a ND team who's 2 losses would be to two top 10 teams?

Hate to break it to you, but a 2 loss ND team would hammer Boise & UCF like a nail.
11-06-2017 08:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,229
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #86
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
You will not see a champions only/8 team playoff. There is no controversy.
Who's in sells, reporting conference standings does not.
11-06-2017 09:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big Frog II Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,015
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 116
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #87
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-06-2017 09:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  You will not see a champions only/8 team playoff. There is no controversy.
Who's in sells, reporting conference standings does not.

You still have the at large controversy.
11-06-2017 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,165
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 255
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #88
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-06-2017 08:33 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-05-2017 12:38 PM)otown Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

So off on so many levels.
This would officially open up anti trust litigation due to the G5 effectively being banned from the playoff..........currently they technically can make it, even though we all know they can't....... courts would like that technicality in an anti trust case. You remove that and it becomes a lot more murkier and would favor a plaintiff.

Secondly and more importantly, what on GODS green earth makes you think the PAC, ACC, and BIG12 are just gonna roll over and allow B1G/SEC to get advantages. We all know that since they usually have more bias in their favor, they will get those last two slots most years.

Lastly, you are giving ND an inherent advantage. All they need to be is top 8. Other teams need to win their conference or compete in ranking with other runner ups......which is tough to do when the runner up would have just lost the championship game and taken a bath in the polls from the loss.

Look, I'm all for expanding the playoffs.......but just leave it to the current ranking system of the committee. You start making designated auto bids and it screws up the system and makes it weaker.

I am so amazed that a fan of any sport would be ok with making a playoff based off of potential ratings and not simply using the best teams.

Where to start.....

1) Those seeds were based on THIS YEAR'S performances. In other years, those WC's could change, capiche? It's also possible that if, like last year, ND is down then that slot would go to another conference's runner up.

2) No one gives a flying duck about the G5 except G5 fanboys. If you think the PAC would have a problem with the SEC/B1G getting one of the WC's over their runner up they sure as hell aren't going to accept some G5 program getting in over theirs. That pretty much COMPLETELY destroys your argument.

3) The playoffs are about RATINGS. The networks didn't pay billions for the rights to televise the CFP to show the Memphis game. They WANT programs from the P5. They want programs with huge followings. They'll take and WANT a Bama-tOSU, OU-Washington or ND-OU matchup over what "some" might argue as a "better team". Which, BTW, is completely subjective and purely opinion based.

4) It amazes me that a fan of any sport would continue to fall for the old and untrue argument that all conferences are the same. I heard that same BS back in the Boise days. Oh, they're 12-1, they DESERVE to be there. Ah, no they don't. Playing an average Iowa or Mississippi team is still harder than playing a "good" MWC team.

Oye vei, lets try this a little slow. Try to form logical arguments instead of pounding your chest like a drunken frat boy running in circles.

1. Year in and year out, there are more powerful P5 conferences, and they seem to have consistency at that. It will be owned by the same two P5 conferences more times then not. that wont pass muster over the long term. PAC, Big 12, and probably the ACC will take issue.

2. Stop the keg stand pounding the chest rant. Take some time and read the anti trust implications other then a juvenile rant about "P5 dont care about G5" nonsense..... thats not the point. You think the P5 wanted to have an access spot for the G5......they did this for a reason.

3. Any sports fan should want the best matchups. When TV companies create the best ratings matchups...... its no longer a championship..... its simply a show. Now you want ratings match ups, see point #1 about ND. Not only will they have an easier time getting in via your convoluted autobids........ but they will also have a ratings handicap..... because like it or not...... the TV executives would MUCH rather have ND in the playoffs over Wisconsin.

4. Yes, the conferences are not the same. I would put the top 3 from the SEC in over your undefeated Wisconsin with their baggage of a cute little powder puff schedule. That is why I would simply expand the playoffs without making autobids.

I hope you can understand. If not, carry on with the screaming, chest thumping, keg stand, frat house diatribes.
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2017 10:24 AM by otown.)
11-06-2017 10:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,025
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #89
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-06-2017 10:01 AM)otown Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 08:33 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-05-2017 12:38 PM)otown Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

So off on so many levels.
This would officially open up anti trust litigation due to the G5 effectively being banned from the playoff..........currently they technically can make it, even though we all know they can't....... courts would like that technicality in an anti trust case. You remove that and it becomes a lot more murkier and would favor a plaintiff.

Secondly and more importantly, what on GODS green earth makes you think the PAC, ACC, and BIG12 are just gonna roll over and allow B1G/SEC to get advantages. We all know that since they usually have more bias in their favor, they will get those last two slots most years.

Lastly, you are giving ND an inherent advantage. All they need to be is top 8. Other teams need to win their conference or compete in ranking with other runner ups......which is tough to do when the runner up would have just lost the championship game and taken a bath in the polls from the loss.

Look, I'm all for expanding the playoffs.......but just leave it to the current ranking system of the committee. You start making designated auto bids and it screws up the system and makes it weaker.

I am so amazed that a fan of any sport would be ok with making a playoff based off of potential ratings and not simply using the best teams.

Where to start.....

1) Those seeds were based on THIS YEAR'S performances. In other years, those WC's could change, capiche? It's also possible that if, like last year, ND is down then that slot would go to another conference's runner up.

2) No one gives a flying duck about the G5 except G5 fanboys. If you think the PAC would have a problem with the SEC/B1G getting one of the WC's over their runner up they sure as hell aren't going to accept some G5 program getting in over theirs. That pretty much COMPLETELY destroys your argument.

3) The playoffs are about RATINGS. The networks didn't pay billions for the rights to televise the CFP to show the Memphis game. They WANT programs from the P5. They want programs with huge followings. They'll take and WANT a Bama-tOSU, OU-Washington or ND-OU matchup over what "some" might argue as a "better team". Which, BTW, is completely subjective and purely opinion based.

4) It amazes me that a fan of any sport would continue to fall for the old and untrue argument that all conferences are the same. I heard that same BS back in the Boise days. Oh, they're 12-1, they DESERVE to be there. Ah, no they don't. Playing an average Iowa or Mississippi team is still harder than playing a "good" MWC team.

Oye vei, lets try this a little slow. Try to form logical arguments instead of pounding your chest like a drunken frat boy running in circles.

1. Year in and year out, there are more powerful P5 conferences, and they seem to have consistency at that. It will be owned by the same two P5 conferences more times then not. that wont pass muster over the long term. PAC, Big 12, and probably the ACC will take issue.

2. Stop the keg stand pounding the chest rant. Take some time and read the anti trust implications other then a juvenile rant about "P5 dont care about G5" nonsense..... thats not the point. You think the P5 wanted to have an access spot for the G5......they did this for a reason.

3. Any sports fan should want the best matchups. When TV companies create the best ratings matchups...... its no longer a championship..... its simply a show. Now you want ratings match ups, see point #1 about ND. Not only will they have an easier time getting in via your convoluted autobids........ but they will also have a ratings handicap..... because like it or not...... the TV executives would MUCH rather have ND in the playoffs over Wisconsin.

4. Yes, the conferences are not the same. I would put the top 3 from the SEC in over your undefeated Wisconsin with their baggage of a cute little powder puff schedule. That is why I would simply expand the playoffs without making autobids.

I hope you can understand. If not, carry on with the screaming, chest thumping, keg stand, frat house diatribes.

I ALWAYS love the pseudo-intellectual who THINKS they're taking the high road when, in fact, they're just as down in the muck as those they're looking down upon.

Both the XII and the PAC have advocated expanding to an 8 team playoff. Why? It CERTAINLY isn't to get some non-P5 wannabee into the playoffs, it's so they have the opportunity to get another team in PLUS their champion. The final three would be a combo of ND and the two best remaining. Those teams and conferences will most likely change year to year so everyone will get their shot.

Your anti-trust "implications" and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. The fact is that the networks and the conferences can write their contracts however they wish. If the powers that be decide that the national champion will be from one of the P5 or ND, that's their option to do so. If there were any legal issues, there'd be lawsuits already filed. Considering there aren't any, the system works. Even if they expand to 8, it won't change. The "rest" will get their opportunity to play in a NYD game and be happy with it. If not, they might find out that the P5 will simply break away and do things their own way.

"The Best" idea is simply a fallacy. It's entirely based on OPINION. It won't matter if the playoff is 4, 6, 8, 12, or whatever, you'll ALWAYS have someone left out that "can make the argument" they're "better" that those who are in. What makes the most sense is to take the leagues that are PROVEN to have the best teams, take their champions, and leave room for a group of experts to select the next best three. Let's be honest, if the conferences are going to expect the networks to shell out billions for TV contracts, those networks are GOING TO HAVE A SAY in how things are done. Schools want money, networks want ratings and as far as I'm concerned, taking the champion 5 plus 3 wild cards is a very good compromise that allows for competition plus ratings.

So ND would make for better ratings than Wisconsin. Thanks for that Captain Obvious. With the possible exception of Bama, ND would have better ratings than ANYONE so taking that example isn't truly fair now is it? There's a reason big bowl games will take names over records, that being names travel better and draw better ratings. As for scheduling, I don't remember anyone taking pity on Wisconsin last year when they had LSU, Michigan, and tOSU. Normally, BYU would be good. Normally, Nebraska would be better than they are. They hit Northwestern on a down swing during the year. Iowa still remains to be seen as does Michigan. You play the schedule you're given and win the games you're supposed to win and thus far, they have. That's all they (or anyone) can do. Do I think they can beat Bama? Probably not. Are they a top 4 team? Maybe, maybe not. I do know they'd hold their own and then some against just about anyone.
11-06-2017 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,165
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 255
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #90
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-06-2017 02:47 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 10:01 AM)otown Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 08:33 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(11-05-2017 12:38 PM)otown Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

So off on so many levels.
This would officially open up anti trust litigation due to the G5 effectively being banned from the playoff..........currently they technically can make it, even though we all know they can't....... courts would like that technicality in an anti trust case. You remove that and it becomes a lot more murkier and would favor a plaintiff.

Secondly and more importantly, what on GODS green earth makes you think the PAC, ACC, and BIG12 are just gonna roll over and allow B1G/SEC to get advantages. We all know that since they usually have more bias in their favor, they will get those last two slots most years.

Lastly, you are giving ND an inherent advantage. All they need to be is top 8. Other teams need to win their conference or compete in ranking with other runner ups......which is tough to do when the runner up would have just lost the championship game and taken a bath in the polls from the loss.

Look, I'm all for expanding the playoffs.......but just leave it to the current ranking system of the committee. You start making designated auto bids and it screws up the system and makes it weaker.

I am so amazed that a fan of any sport would be ok with making a playoff based off of potential ratings and not simply using the best teams.

Where to start.....

1) Those seeds were based on THIS YEAR'S performances. In other years, those WC's could change, capiche? It's also possible that if, like last year, ND is down then that slot would go to another conference's runner up.

2) No one gives a flying duck about the G5 except G5 fanboys. If you think the PAC would have a problem with the SEC/B1G getting one of the WC's over their runner up they sure as hell aren't going to accept some G5 program getting in over theirs. That pretty much COMPLETELY destroys your argument.

3) The playoffs are about RATINGS. The networks didn't pay billions for the rights to televise the CFP to show the Memphis game. They WANT programs from the P5. They want programs with huge followings. They'll take and WANT a Bama-tOSU, OU-Washington or ND-OU matchup over what "some" might argue as a "better team". Which, BTW, is completely subjective and purely opinion based.

4) It amazes me that a fan of any sport would continue to fall for the old and untrue argument that all conferences are the same. I heard that same BS back in the Boise days. Oh, they're 12-1, they DESERVE to be there. Ah, no they don't. Playing an average Iowa or Mississippi team is still harder than playing a "good" MWC team.

Oye vei, lets try this a little slow. Try to form logical arguments instead of pounding your chest like a drunken frat boy running in circles.

1. Year in and year out, there are more powerful P5 conferences, and they seem to have consistency at that. It will be owned by the same two P5 conferences more times then not. that wont pass muster over the long term. PAC, Big 12, and probably the ACC will take issue.

2. Stop the keg stand pounding the chest rant. Take some time and read the anti trust implications other then a juvenile rant about "P5 dont care about G5" nonsense..... thats not the point. You think the P5 wanted to have an access spot for the G5......they did this for a reason.

3. Any sports fan should want the best matchups. When TV companies create the best ratings matchups...... its no longer a championship..... its simply a show. Now you want ratings match ups, see point #1 about ND. Not only will they have an easier time getting in via your convoluted autobids........ but they will also have a ratings handicap..... because like it or not...... the TV executives would MUCH rather have ND in the playoffs over Wisconsin.

4. Yes, the conferences are not the same. I would put the top 3 from the SEC in over your undefeated Wisconsin with their baggage of a cute little powder puff schedule. That is why I would simply expand the playoffs without making autobids.

I hope you can understand. If not, carry on with the screaming, chest thumping, keg stand, frat house diatribes.

I ALWAYS love the pseudo-intellectual who THINKS they're taking the high road when, in fact, they're just as down in the muck as those they're looking down upon.

Both the XII and the PAC have advocated expanding to an 8 team playoff. Why? It CERTAINLY isn't to get some non-P5 wannabee into the playoffs, it's so they have the opportunity to get another team in PLUS their champion. The final three would be a combo of ND and the two best remaining. Those teams and conferences will most likely change year to year so everyone will get their shot.

Your anti-trust "implications" and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. The fact is that the networks and the conferences can write their contracts however they wish. If the powers that be decide that the national champion will be from one of the P5 or ND, that's their option to do so. If there were any legal issues, there'd be lawsuits already filed. Considering there aren't any, the system works. Even if they expand to 8, it won't change. The "rest" will get their opportunity to play in a NYD game and be happy with it. If not, they might find out that the P5 will simply break away and do things their own way.

"The Best" idea is simply a fallacy. It's entirely based on OPINION. It won't matter if the playoff is 4, 6, 8, 12, or whatever, you'll ALWAYS have someone left out that "can make the argument" they're "better" that those who are in. What makes the most sense is to take the leagues that are PROVEN to have the best teams, take their champions, and leave room for a group of experts to select the next best three. Let's be honest, if the conferences are going to expect the networks to shell out billions for TV contracts, those networks are GOING TO HAVE A SAY in how things are done. Schools want money, networks want ratings and as far as I'm concerned, taking the champion 5 plus 3 wild cards is a very good compromise that allows for competition plus ratings.

So ND would make for better ratings than Wisconsin. Thanks for that Captain Obvious. With the possible exception of Bama, ND would have better ratings than ANYONE so taking that example isn't truly fair now is it? There's a reason big bowl games will take names over records, that being names travel better and draw better ratings. As for scheduling, I don't remember anyone taking pity on Wisconsin last year when they had LSU, Michigan, and tOSU. Normally, BYU would be good. Normally, Nebraska would be better than they are. They hit Northwestern on a down swing during the year. Iowa still remains to be seen as does Michigan. You play the schedule you're given and win the games you're supposed to win and thus far, they have. That's all they (or anyone) can do. Do I think they can beat Bama? Probably not. Are they a top 4 team? Maybe, maybe not. I do know they'd hold their own and then some against just about anyone.

Outside of your childish frat boy diatribes, simply expanding the playoffs to 8 without any requirement for auto bids would work just fine. It would be next to impossible to not get all the P5 champions in via that scenario. It still has a pathway for a G5 to make it in if the CFP chooses that they have the resume for it. This would avoid the anti-trust headache, despite what you and your self perceived Alpha Beta Law degree feels. CFP still run by the supposed independent committee.
If once in a blue moon a team like Houston from last year goes undefeated (yes, I know they stumbled in conference) while beating the #3 Oklahoma, #3 Louisville, as well as #18 Memphis while running the rest of their table, kind of hard to keep them out.
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2017 03:03 PM by otown.)
11-06-2017 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
micahandme Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 301
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 20
I Root For: PSU
Location:
Post: #91
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
Using this week's rankings...here is your 8-team playoff and "New Year's Seven"

Quarterfinals...Friday Dec 15 and Saturday Dec 16.
#8 UCF (G5 rep) at #1 Georgia (SEC champ) (8pm FRIDAY)
#7 Washington (Pac-12 champ) at #2 Alabama (at-large) (1pm SAT)
#6 Wisconsin (Big 10 champ) at #3 Notre Dame (at-large) (5pm SAT)
#5 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) at #4 Clemson (ACC champ) (9pm SAT)

BOWL GAMES
Orange—#9 Miami (ACC) vs. #14 Penn State
Peach—#12 Michigan State (Big Ten) vs. CFP loser
Cotton— CFP loser vs. #10 TCU (Big 12)
Fiesta #11 USC vs. #13 Ohio State (Big 10)

*Citrus—CFP loser vs. CFP loser

Rose and Sugar...seminfinals.
11-10-2017 02:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #92
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-10-2017 02:26 AM)micahandme Wrote:  Using this week's rankings...here is your 8-team playoff and "New Year's Seven"

Quarterfinals...Friday Dec 15 and Saturday Dec 16.
#8 UCF (G5 rep) at #1 Georgia (SEC champ) (8pm FRIDAY)
#7 Washington (Pac-12 champ) at #2 Alabama (at-large) (1pm SAT)
#6 Wisconsin (Big 10 champ) at #3 Notre Dame (at-large) (5pm SAT)
#5 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) at #4 Clemson (ACC champ) (9pm SAT)

BOWL GAMES
Orange—#9 Miami (ACC) vs. #14 Penn State
Peach—#12 Michigan State (Big Ten) vs. CFP loser
Cotton— CFP loser vs. #10 TCU (Big 12)
Fiesta #11 USC vs. #13 Ohio State (Big 10)

*Citrus—CFP loser vs. CFP loser

Rose and Sugar...seminfinals.

can't you guys get it thru your thick skulls? NO CFP loser is EVER going to play a game after the CFP. PERIOD.
11-10-2017 02:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AntiG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,396
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 40
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NYC
Post: #93
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-10-2017 02:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 02:26 AM)micahandme Wrote:  Using this week's rankings...here is your 8-team playoff and "New Year's Seven"

Quarterfinals...Friday Dec 15 and Saturday Dec 16.
#8 UCF (G5 rep) at #1 Georgia (SEC champ) (8pm FRIDAY)
#7 Washington (Pac-12 champ) at #2 Alabama (at-large) (1pm SAT)
#6 Wisconsin (Big 10 champ) at #3 Notre Dame (at-large) (5pm SAT)
#5 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) at #4 Clemson (ACC champ) (9pm SAT)

BOWL GAMES
Orange—#9 Miami (ACC) vs. #14 Penn State
Peach—#12 Michigan State (Big Ten) vs. CFP loser
Cotton— CFP loser vs. #10 TCU (Big 12)
Fiesta #11 USC vs. #13 Ohio State (Big 10)

*Citrus—CFP loser vs. CFP loser

Rose and Sugar...seminfinals.

can't you guys get it thru your thick skulls? NO CFP loser is EVER going to play a game after the CFP. PERIOD.

Agree... this is not the Olympics, there isn't a bronze medal to compete for, and there's no reason to play an additional exhibition game and get your players hurt.
11-10-2017 02:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
micahandme Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 301
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 20
I Root For: PSU
Location:
Post: #94
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
As long as college athletes are indentured servants to their universities (isn't that what the "pay for play" people always tell us?), they will do what their schools tell them to do.

And if playoff loser "Team X" is on television (even if they don't care to be there and are giving 50%, which I doubt happens), fans and bored Americans will watch.

Speaking of thick skulls :), I'm wondering when you will realize that this isn't about competition...it's about television entertainment. The bowls have NEVER meant anything. You're telling yourself that they did...and that they do currently. They don't.

Play on...
11-10-2017 07:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
micahandme Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 301
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 20
I Root For: PSU
Location:
Post: #95
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-10-2017 02:26 AM)micahandme Wrote:  Using this week's rankings...here is your 8-team playoff and "New Year's Seven"

Quarterfinals...Friday Dec 15 and Saturday Dec 16.
#8 UCF (G5 rep) at #1 Georgia (SEC champ) (8pm FRIDAY)
#7 Washington (Pac-12 champ) at #2 Alabama (at-large) (1pm SAT)
#6 Wisconsin (Big 10 champ) at #3 Notre Dame (at-large) (5pm SAT)
#5 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) at #4 Clemson (ACC champ) (9pm SAT)

BOWL GAMES
Orange—#9 Miami (ACC) vs. #14 Penn State (Big Ten)
Cotton— #12 Michigan State (Big Ten) vs. #10 TCU (Big 12)
Fiesta #11 USC (Pac-12) vs. #13 Ohio State (Big 10)

(drop the current 6th New Year's Six bowl...Peach)

Rose and Sugar...seminfinals.

Since it's hard to read words when you're red with fury...I'll adjust for you. You're welcome.03-cloud9
11-10-2017 07:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #96
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-10-2017 07:06 AM)micahandme Wrote:  As long as college athletes are indentured servants to their universities (isn't that what the "pay for play" people always tell us?), they will do what their schools tell them to do.

And if playoff loser "Team X" is on television (even if they don't care to be there and are giving 50%, which I doubt happens), fans and bored Americans will watch.

Speaking of thick skulls :), I'm wondering when you will realize that this isn't about competition...it's about television entertainment. The bowls have NEVER meant anything. You're telling yourself that they did...and that they do currently. They don't.

Play on...

Did Fournette and McCaffery do what their schools told them to do last year? Nope. And this would be that times 50.
11-10-2017 12:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #97
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-10-2017 07:06 AM)micahandme Wrote:  As long as college athletes are indentured servants to their universities (isn't that what the "pay for play" people always tell us?), they will do what their schools tell them to do.

And if playoff loser "Team X" is on television (even if they don't care to be there and are giving 50%, which I doubt happens), fans and bored Americans will watch.

Speaking of thick skulls :), I'm wondering when you will realize that this isn't about competition...it's about television entertainment. The bowls have NEVER meant anything. You're telling yourself that they did...and that they do currently. They don't.

Play on...

Exactly. Conference championship losers play in bowl games every year. Teams that go 2-6 in conference play in bowl games every year.

I don't see where Washington would reject the opportunity to play in the Cotton Bowl or Wisconsin would reject the opportunity to play in the Peach Bowl just because they lost a playoff game to Alabama or Notre Dame.
11-10-2017 12:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #98
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-10-2017 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 07:06 AM)micahandme Wrote:  As long as college athletes are indentured servants to their universities (isn't that what the "pay for play" people always tell us?), they will do what their schools tell them to do.

And if playoff loser "Team X" is on television (even if they don't care to be there and are giving 50%, which I doubt happens), fans and bored Americans will watch.

Speaking of thick skulls :), I'm wondering when you will realize that this isn't about competition...it's about television entertainment. The bowls have NEVER meant anything. You're telling yourself that they did...and that they do currently. They don't.

Play on...

Did Fournette and McCaffery do what their schools told them to do last year? Nope. And this would be that times 50.

Did LSU and Stanford cancel their bowl games because of it? NO. Because the Sun and Citrus bowls pay a lot of money and ABC and CBS get a lot of viewers.
(This post was last modified: 11-10-2017 12:14 PM by YNot.)
11-10-2017 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,614
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 162
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE Temple T
Post: #99
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
looks like CWS playoffs [baseball]
loser of CCG drop to loser bracket
play loser of Quaterfinals
winner play winner of Quaterfinals
now final 4 play double elimnation
11-10-2017 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #100
RE: CFB today with an 8-team playoff
(11-10-2017 12:13 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 07:06 AM)micahandme Wrote:  As long as college athletes are indentured servants to their universities (isn't that what the "pay for play" people always tell us?), they will do what their schools tell them to do.

And if playoff loser "Team X" is on television (even if they don't care to be there and are giving 50%, which I doubt happens), fans and bored Americans will watch.

Speaking of thick skulls :), I'm wondering when you will realize that this isn't about competition...it's about television entertainment. The bowls have NEVER meant anything. You're telling yourself that they did...and that they do currently. They don't.

Play on...

Did Fournette and McCaffery do what their schools told them to do last year? Nope. And this would be that times 50.

Did LSU and Stanford cancel their bowl games because of it? NO. Because the Sun and Citrus bowls pay a lot of money and ABC and CBS get a lot of viewers.

You don't get it. That's a whole lot different. The comment though was that the athletes will do what their schools tell them to do. And nothing could be further from the truth-as we've seen. This dumb ass message board proposal has no chance in hell of passing. NONE.
11-10-2017 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.