Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
Author Message
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,047
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 71
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE
Post: #21
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
i tought we needed playoffs for true champion
now your telling me tourn don't give u a true champion
01-07-2019 01:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 29,194
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 695
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #22
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-06-2019 03:25 PM)ken d Wrote:  On any given day, the best team does not always win. Upsets happen. So the more games you must win in any given tournament, the more likely the best team will be upset and an inferior team will win the championship. That's simple statistics.

We see this all the time in college basketball, where the best team must win six games in a row to become champion. It is very common that the best team is not the champion.

Right, but we're talking an 8 team tournament here, going from two games to three games to win the title, not six, so the statistics may not manifest themselves.

They haven't at the FCS level, unless you think e.g. that NDSU would have won all 8 of the last 8 national titles with a 4 team playoff instead of merely 7 of the last 8.

Beyond that, though, you do make a good point - a larger playoff doesn't necessarily maximize our chance of the 'best' team known by God winning. Larger can increase the chance of fluke results. So there's probably an inflection point, a certain playoff size that maximizes the chances that the team that won did so because it was best.
(This post was last modified: 01-07-2019 08:57 AM by quo vadis.)
01-07-2019 08:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
micahandme Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 125
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 13
I Root For: PSU
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
But, if it stays at 8, then you are dealing with the top 5% of teams in D1 football. They are teams that either have played at an elite level OR won a P5 conference over other blockbuster teams. If one of those teams "gets hot" and wins three straight, so be it. It's not like 7-5 Iowa can sneak in and wreak havoc.

But you know they will have played--and beaten!--three great teams. With March Madness, if a good team is in a bracket with numerous upsets, they could theoretically make it to the title game and have only played 5 good teams (or average teams that are HOT)...and never beaten one GREAT team.

The best thing an 8 team tourney with auto-bids is make it a NATIONAL tourney. That was the original lure of bowls a hundred years ago...pit the best from various regions against each other. This is the final step in making CFB a truly national sport...a national champ.
01-07-2019 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,626
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 421
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #24
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-07-2019 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2019 03:25 PM)ken d Wrote:  On any given day, the best team does not always win. Upsets happen. So the more games you must win in any given tournament, the more likely the best team will be upset and an inferior team will win the championship. That's simple statistics.

We see this all the time in college basketball, where the best team must win six games in a row to become champion. It is very common that the best team is not the champion.

Right, but we're talking an 8 team tournament here, going from two games to three games to win the title, not six, so the statistics may not manifest themselves.

They haven't at the FCS level, unless you think e.g. that NDSU would have won all 8 of the last 8 national titles with a 4 team playoff instead of merely 7 of the last 8.

Beyond that, though, you do make a good point - a larger playoff doesn't necessarily maximize our chance of the 'best' team known by God winning. Larger can increase the chance of fluke results. So there's probably an inflection point, a certain playoff size that maximizes the chances that the team that won did so because it was best.

There is nothing in the definition of "champion" that requires the champion to be the "best" team (whether or not we could ever know which one that is). To the contrary.
A major part of the allure of competitive sports and tournaments is precisely that you don't have to be the best to win. That's what keeps fans engaged.
01-07-2019 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,517
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 105
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
I think so.

I'm not sure Washington or UCF would've made a ton of noise in a theoretical 8 team playoff, but I think UGA and Ohio State might have.

Perhaps we see Clemson/Georgia and Alabama/Ohio State semis instead? Those may have been closer games, or at least more interesting.
01-07-2019 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 16
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
You're completely overlooking the fact that in the 7 championships over the past 8 years NDSU has played 6 different teams. The only repeat was Sam Houston State.

In the 10 years prior to NDSUs run, there were 13 different teams that played in the championship game.


It's not just the champion that we all care about. We care if it's different teams that actually get to play there along the way. NDSU is just that good, but this shows that there is, in fact, parity behind them. Alabama got crushed in the championship game with what many people had described as their best team ever, certainly on offense at least. But they scored very little and gave up a ton. Would this happen 10 times out of 10? No, but it does show that even they have off days and could lose a game against another team that's good but not utterly fantastic.
01-08-2019 05:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 4,270
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 119
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
Expansion to eight would increase variety if only due to more teams making it in and the variability that comes with more varied schemes.

Bama and UGA have made it from the SEC.
OU made it from the Big 12
Oregon and Washington made it from the PAC.
Clemson and FSU made it from the ACC.
Ohio State and Michigan State made it from the B1G.

So Saban, OU’s spread, two former Saban assistants running pro style offenses. Clemson, Michigan State pro style, Ohio State Under Urban, spread ND and pro style Washington.

So OU, Clemson, Ohio St, maybe ND, and one year of Oregon are the only prolific wide open ones really.

With expansion to 8 that list is much longer and the matchups that you would see schematically would lead to less predictable results as the chess match would be more varied.


Some names that would be added going in order since 2014
Baylor with veer n shoot
TCU with air raid and 4-2-5
Boise State - Washington like
Houston- Ohio State O and 3-3-5
Stanford- Pro style
Possibly Iowa in 15- Pro style
Western Michigan- spread to run
Penn State Spread to run
Michigan Pro Style
UCF spread to run
Auburn spread to run
Wisconsin Pro style power run

At the very least matchups change a lot more. That makes he likelihood of upsets higher
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2019 05:41 PM by 1845 Bear.)
01-08-2019 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 21,579
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 1965
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #28
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-08-2019 05:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Expansion to eight would increase variety if only due to more teams making it in and the variability that comes with more varied schemes.

We can have that now without watering down the playoffs: Have the teams you mentioned later in your post win enough games to qualify.
01-08-2019 05:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 4,270
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 119
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-08-2019 05:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 05:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Expansion to eight would increase variety if only due to more teams making it in and the variability that comes with more varied schemes.

We can have that now without watering down the playoffs: Have the teams you mentioned later in your post win enough games to qualify.

Several have and have been left out.

The subjective “eye test” will magically move the goalposts to favor the same logos over and over. Expand it and settle it on the field.
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2019 06:02 PM by 1845 Bear.)
01-08-2019 06:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 14,332
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 506
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #30
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
Again, getting variety between 5-8 doesn't mean that teams will come out of nowhere to win 3 playoff games and the title. It might mean that a different team from among the 25 most-advantaged programs wins it. That's true of any format change.

Take a look at how the champ might have been different if we had the BCS, or the pre-BCS, in any of the past five seasons. This assumes the same result in hypothetical BCS and pre-BCS scenarios where the same matchup was played in the playoff year. Pre-BCS assumes 1992 bowl ties and final pre-bowl AP rankings.

2018 season
Playoff final: Clemson defeats Alabama
BCS: #2 Clemson defeats #1 Alabama
Pre-BCS: Clemson (Sugar Bowl invites #2 Clemson to play #1 Alabama)

2017 season
Playoff final: Alabama defeats Georgia
BCS: #1 Clemson plays #2 Oklahoma, winner is #1
Pre-BCS: Orange Bowl invites #1 Clemson to play #2 Oklahoma; winner is voted #1

2016 season
Playoff final: Clemson defeats Alabama
BCS: #1 Alabama plays #2 Ohio State; winner is #1
Pre-BCS: Sugar Bowl is #1 Alabama vs. #3 Clemson; Rose Bowl is #2 Ohio State vs. #4 Washington; Clemson probably voted #1 after beating Alabama

2015 season
Playoff final: Alabama defeats Clemson
BCS: #2 Alabama defeats #1 Clemson
Pre-BCS: Alabama (Sugar Bowl invites #1 Clemson to play #2 Alabama)

2014 season
Playoff final: Ohio State defeats Oregon
BCS: #1 Alabama plays #2 Oregon; winner is #1
Pre-BCS: Sugar Bowl is #1 Alabama vs. #2 Florida State; winner probably voted #1
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2019 06:06 PM by Wedge.)
01-08-2019 06:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 21,579
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 1965
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #31
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-08-2019 06:01 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 05:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 05:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Expansion to eight would increase variety if only due to more teams making it in and the variability that comes with more varied schemes.

We can have that now without watering down the playoffs: Have the teams you mentioned later in your post win enough games to qualify.

Several have and have been left out.

The subjective “eye test” will magically move the goalposts to favor the same logos over and over. Expand it and settle it on the field.

Name one school left out with an overwhelmingly better resume than a school that got in.
01-08-2019 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 4,270
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 119
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-08-2019 07:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 06:01 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 05:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 05:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Expansion to eight would increase variety if only due to more teams making it in and the variability that comes with more varied schemes.

We can have that now without watering down the playoffs: Have the teams you mentioned later in your post win enough games to qualify.

Several have and have been left out.

The subjective “eye test” will magically move the goalposts to favor the same logos over and over. Expand it and settle it on the field.

Name one school left out with an overwhelmingly better resume than a school that got in.
1- Over the last 30 years we’ve seen anywhere from 2-9 teams in a given year have a legitimate argument for inclusion. 8 solves almost all of these years.


2- Directly answering your question- 2014 Baylor and TCU vs Ohio State

Both lost to a better opponent by equal or fewer points. BU Lost to a good WV team that gave Bama and TCU a scare. TCU Lost to BU. Ohio State Lost to a VT team at home that won only 5 other games that year in the regular season and still almost missed bowl season with two narrow wins to close the regular season at 6-6. Buckeyes also lucked into some fortunate calls Vs PSU that Big Ten refs retroactively apologized for or else they go down.

TCU beat a common opponent that almost defeated the Buckeyes and did so pretty easily

Bad luck down the stretch where two very good opponents (OU/WV) lost QBs which led to losses that dropped their ranking took two “quality wins” off the board. Beating either of them healthy along with Kansas state made the resumes similar or better to what Ohio State did.

Big Ten had nearly everyone lose in noncon that year too.

Both squads deserved a shot even if you disagree on who should be 4th, 5th, or 6th seed.

Expand it and let them decide it on the field. 6 or 8 doesn’t water it down. 12 or 16 does.


Counter question- Does the odd champion out not deserve a shot if all 5 P5 champs have he same record as either are unbeaten or 1 loss teams? What if Notre Dame or BYU do the same with de-facto P5 schedules?
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2019 07:27 PM by 1845 Bear.)
01-08-2019 07:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 21,579
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 1965
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #33
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-08-2019 07:19 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  1- Over the last 30 years we’ve seen anywhere from 2-9 teams in a given year have a legitimate argument for inclusion. 8 solves almost all of these years.

The past 30 years don't matter beyond the past five because it involved a selection process we do not use anymore, but even then there's never been a case where more than 5 had a legitimate claim.

Quote:2- Directly answering your question- 2014 Baylor and TCU vs Ohio State

Both lost to a better opponent by equal or fewer points. BU Lost to a good WV team that gave Bama and TCU a scare. TCU Lost to BU. Ohio State Lost to a VT team at home that won only 5 other games that year in the regular season and still almost missed bowl season with two narrow wins to close the regular season at 6-6. Buckeyes also lucked into some fortunate calls Vs PSU that Big Ten refs retroactively apologized for or else they go down.

TCU beat a common opponent that almost defeated the Buckeyes and did so pretty easily

Bad luck down the stretch where two very good opponents (OU/WV) lost QBs which led to losses that dropped their ranking took two “quality wins” off the board. Beating either of them healthy along with Kansas state made the resumes similar or better to what Ohio State did.

Big Ten had nearly everyone lose in noncon that year too.

Both squads deserved a shot even if you disagree on who should be 4th, 5th, or 6th seed.

Expand it and let them decide it on the field. 6 or 8 doesn’t water it down. 12 or 16 does.


Counter question- Does the odd champion out not deserve a shot if all 5 P5 champs have he same record as either are unbeaten or 1 loss teams? What if Notre Dame or BYU do the same with de-facto P5 schedules?

Strength of schedule in 2014"

Ohio State 29th
TCU 51st
Baylor 59th

Versus top 10

Ohio State 3-0
TCU 1-1
Baylor 1-1

Versus top 20

Ohio State 4-0
TCU 1-1
Baylor 1-1


There is nothing that absolutely makes Baylor or TCU overwhelmingly better than Ohio State in 2014. Had Baylor played a better OOC than SMU, Northwestern State and Buffalo or TCU played a better OOC than Samford, Minnesota and SMU it would have been a different argument. The injury to other teams excuse is just that, and excuse. Everybody has injuries, it's part of the game.


In five years of the playoffs there hasn't been enough teams with a legitimate claim to being the best in the country to expand beyond four.


As for the counter question it's hard to say since it's theoretical. In the off chance that ever happens is when strength of schedule really comes into play and teams that play decent OOC games will be rewarded while teams that play little sisters of the poor OOC will not.
01-08-2019 08:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,850
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 775
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-08-2019 07:19 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 07:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 06:01 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 05:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 05:40 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Expansion to eight would increase variety if only due to more teams making it in and the variability that comes with more varied schemes.

We can have that now without watering down the playoffs: Have the teams you mentioned later in your post win enough games to qualify.

Several have and have been left out.

The subjective “eye test” will magically move the goalposts to favor the same logos over and over. Expand it and settle it on the field.

Name one school left out with an overwhelmingly better resume than a school that got in.
1- Over the last 30 years we’ve seen anywhere from 2-9 teams in a given year have a legitimate argument for inclusion. 8 solves almost all of these years.


2- Directly answering your question- 2014 Baylor and TCU vs Ohio State

Both lost to a better opponent by equal or fewer points. BU Lost to a good WV team that gave Bama and TCU a scare. TCU Lost to BU. Ohio State Lost to a VT team at home that won only 5 other games that year in the regular season and still almost missed bowl season with two narrow wins to close the regular season at 6-6. Buckeyes also lucked into some fortunate calls Vs PSU that Big Ten refs retroactively apologized for or else they go down.

TCU beat a common opponent that almost defeated the Buckeyes and did so pretty easily

Bad luck down the stretch where two very good opponents (OU/WV) lost QBs which led to losses that dropped their ranking took two “quality wins” off the board. Beating either of them healthy along with Kansas state made the resumes similar or better to what Ohio State did.

Big Ten had nearly everyone lose in noncon that year too.

Both squads deserved a shot even if you disagree on who should be 4th, 5th, or 6th seed.

Expand it and let them decide it on the field. 6 or 8 doesn’t water it down. 12 or 16 does.


Counter question- Does the odd champion out not deserve a shot if all 5 P5 champs have he same record as either are unbeaten or 1 loss teams? What if Notre Dame or BYU do the same with de-facto P5 schedules?

I agree with you. TCU was rated #3 in the next to last CFP poll and then beat Kansas by 50 something points and dropped to #6. I think TCU was the best team that year. And in retrospect, they won 42-3 in the bowl over the only team to beat CFP#1 Alabama.

I think #3 Texas was the best team in 2008 but they didn't get to play for it. They had a run of 6 games against teams ranked in the top 11 and lost the 6th one on a TD with 1 second left. They beat #2 OU by 10 head to head in a neutral site. But some people after the bowls thought #5 in the BCS USC was best. They had an early season loss and nobody paid attention to them.
01-08-2019 08:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,850
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 775
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-08-2019 08:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 07:19 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  1- Over the last 30 years we’ve seen anywhere from 2-9 teams in a given year have a legitimate argument for inclusion. 8 solves almost all of these years.

The past 30 years don't matter beyond the past five because it involved a selection process we do not use anymore, but even then there's never been a case where more than 5 had a legitimate claim.

Quote:2- Directly answering your question- 2014 Baylor and TCU vs Ohio State

Both lost to a better opponent by equal or fewer points. BU Lost to a good WV team that gave Bama and TCU a scare. TCU Lost to BU. Ohio State Lost to a VT team at home that won only 5 other games that year in the regular season and still almost missed bowl season with two narrow wins to close the regular season at 6-6. Buckeyes also lucked into some fortunate calls Vs PSU that Big Ten refs retroactively apologized for or else they go down.

TCU beat a common opponent that almost defeated the Buckeyes and did so pretty easily

Bad luck down the stretch where two very good opponents (OU/WV) lost QBs which led to losses that dropped their ranking took two “quality wins” off the board. Beating either of them healthy along with Kansas state made the resumes similar or better to what Ohio State did.

Big Ten had nearly everyone lose in noncon that year too.

Both squads deserved a shot even if you disagree on who should be 4th, 5th, or 6th seed.

Expand it and let them decide it on the field. 6 or 8 doesn’t water it down. 12 or 16 does.


Counter question- Does the odd champion out not deserve a shot if all 5 P5 champs have he same record as either are unbeaten or 1 loss teams? What if Notre Dame or BYU do the same with de-facto P5 schedules?

Strength of schedule in 2014"

Ohio State 29th
TCU 51st
Baylor 59th

Versus top 10

Ohio State 3-0
TCU 1-1
Baylor 1-1

Versus top 20

Ohio State 4-0
TCU 1-1
Baylor 1-1


There is nothing that absolutely makes Baylor or TCU overwhelmingly better than Ohio State in 2014. Had Baylor played a better OOC than SMU, Northwestern State and Buffalo or TCU played a better OOC than Samford, Minnesota and SMU it would have been a different argument. The injury to other teams excuse is just that, and excuse. Everybody has injuries, it's part of the game.


In five years of the playoffs there hasn't been enough teams with a legitimate claim to being the best in the country to expand beyond four.


As for the counter question it's hard to say since it's theoretical. In the off chance that ever happens is when strength of schedule really comes into play and teams that play decent OOC games will be rewarded while teams that play little sisters of the poor OOC will not.

"more than 5." So you are agreeing with the point. A legitimate team will get left out.
01-08-2019 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 4,270
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 119
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-08-2019 08:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 07:19 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  1- Over the last 30 years we’ve seen anywhere from 2-9 teams in a given year have a legitimate argument for inclusion. 8 solves almost all of these years.

The past 30 years don't matter beyond the past five because it involved a selection process we do not use anymore, but even then there's never been a case where more than 5 had a legitimate claim.
2008 easily did among other years. Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, USC, unbeaten Utah, one loss Bama, Texas Tech, unbeaten Boise. You’ve got at least 5 there.
Quote:
Quote:2- Directly answering your question- 2014 Baylor and TCU vs Ohio State

Both lost to a better opponent by equal or fewer points. BU Lost to a good WV team that gave Bama and TCU a scare. TCU Lost to BU. Ohio State Lost to a VT team at home that won only 5 other games that year in the regular season and still almost missed bowl season with two narrow wins to close the regular season at 6-6. Buckeyes also lucked into some fortunate calls Vs PSU that Big Ten refs retroactively apologized for or else they go down.

TCU beat a common opponent that almost defeated the Buckeyes and did so pretty easily

Bad luck down the stretch where two very good opponents (OU/WV) lost QBs which led to losses that dropped their ranking took two “quality wins” off the board. Beating either of them healthy along with Kansas state made the resumes similar or better to what Ohio State did.

Big Ten had nearly everyone lose in noncon that year too.

Both squads deserved a shot even if you disagree on who should be 4th, 5th, or 6th seed.

Expand it and let them decide it on the field. 6 or 8 doesn’t water it down. 12 or 16 does.


Counter question- Does the odd champion out not deserve a shot if all 5 P5 champs have he same record as either are unbeaten or 1 loss teams? What if Notre Dame or BYU do the same with de-facto P5 schedules?

Strength of schedule in 2014"

Ohio State 29th
TCU 51st
Baylor 59th

Versus top 10

Ohio State 3-0
TCU 1-1
Baylor 1-1

Versus top 20

Ohio State 4-0
TCU 1-1
Baylor 1-1


There is nothing that absolutely makes Baylor or TCU overwhelmingly better than Ohio State in 2014. Had Baylor played a better OOC than SMU, Northwestern State and Buffalo or TCU played a better OOC than Samford, Minnesota and SMU it would have been a different argument. The injury to other teams excuse is just that, and excuse. Everybody has injuries, it's part of the game.
1- Pretty sure those numbers have playoff games included
2- Ohio State played a meh Vt team, 8 league games, and a league title game. TCU played Minnesota and 9. Baylor played 9.
The difference isn’t big. The best argument you can give isnrheir weakest three games were easier. Wisconsin Vs KSU was pretty even at the top too. TCU played Minnesota too. Baylor and TCU at the top is pretty strong for a top game too.

I have full confidence you’ll proceed to move the goalpost to fit your position. Simple reality here is all 6 of Bama, Oregon, FSU, Ohio State, Baylor, and TCU all deserved a shot and 1/3 didn’t get one.
Quote:In five years of the playoffs there hasn't been enough teams with a legitimate claim to being the best in the country to expand beyond four.
2014 has six from the P5 leagues. So you are wrong there.

I also believe unbeaten G5’s deserve a shot as they at least earned the right to try.

More years will provide more examples from the P5.

Quote:]As for the counter question it's hard to say since it's theoretical. In the off chance that ever happens is when strength of schedule really comes into play and teams that play decent OOC games will be rewarded while teams that play little sisters of the poor OOC will not.

Look at the entire resume. Especially rich considering Bama got in that year with three cupcakes as well since they had an extra noncon game. Nobody debates their inclusion. Oregon played two.

All six deserved a shot that year.
01-08-2019 08:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 11,024
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 487
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-06-2019 07:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-06-2019 06:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(01-06-2019 04:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-06-2019 03:30 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  One way to create parity in college football is to cut scholarships from 85 to about 65. The Alabamas, LSUs, Oklahomas and Clemsons wouldn't be 4 deep at every position -- those backups would go elsewhere to play, thus theoreatically spreading the wealth of talent to lesser teams.

You mean like it did when it was dropped from 95 to 85 between 1993 and 1995?

That cut wasn't nearly deep enough to create parity... all that really did was cut some legacy players who didn't belong on the field anyway. If you want to create parity, you must cut into depth.

The public doesn't like parity. They love and hate dynasties but watch the games anyway. What has been proven in almost every sport is that they don't watch parity.

Besides if you limited everyone to 66 scholarships, enough for 3 deep at every position but kicker, the same schools (the ones with effective coaches) would still win. They would still recruit coachable kids, still teach them to play well, and still win.

To hell with parity. That's socialism's answer to everything. Parity is participation trophies. Parity is average. Parity doesn't excite. Parity is an excuse for losing. Parity is absolutely abhorrent to anyone who ever played for the enjoyment of winning. And the day we settle for parity is the day this country ceases to exist. We should exile anyone here who wants parity and should destroy any system designed to produce it!

What all of us should do is to insist on the pursuit of excellence. Strive to win all of the time. And recognize those who give their all in pursuit of it. That's what made us great. It sure as hell was not the pursuit of parity.

I disagree. The NFL became the most popular sport in the U.S. because the rule changes allowed talent to be spread out over a larger number of teams. Even at that, there is still a hierarchy within the NFL where the better run teams rise to the top while the more poorly run teams will sink. Contrast that with MLB where the large market teams can basically buy a team that can compete for the pennant and World Series trips almost annually while small market teams are lucky to compete occasionally if a number of factors line up to their benefit. You can argue that other factors tanked the popularity of MLB like the strikes - but bottom line it's no longer America's official sport and the lack of parity is a significant factor in that.

I get the spirit of you post but think it's built upon a false premise when we consider the vast majority of FBS teams are essentially government entities.
01-08-2019 08:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 14,332
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 506
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #38
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-08-2019 08:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(01-06-2019 07:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-06-2019 06:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(01-06-2019 04:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-06-2019 03:30 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  One way to create parity in college football is to cut scholarships from 85 to about 65. The Alabamas, LSUs, Oklahomas and Clemsons wouldn't be 4 deep at every position -- those backups would go elsewhere to play, thus theoreatically spreading the wealth of talent to lesser teams.

You mean like it did when it was dropped from 95 to 85 between 1993 and 1995?

That cut wasn't nearly deep enough to create parity... all that really did was cut some legacy players who didn't belong on the field anyway. If you want to create parity, you must cut into depth.

The public doesn't like parity. They love and hate dynasties but watch the games anyway. What has been proven in almost every sport is that they don't watch parity.

Besides if you limited everyone to 66 scholarships, enough for 3 deep at every position but kicker, the same schools (the ones with effective coaches) would still win. They would still recruit coachable kids, still teach them to play well, and still win.

To hell with parity. That's socialism's answer to everything. Parity is participation trophies. Parity is average. Parity doesn't excite. Parity is an excuse for losing. Parity is absolutely abhorrent to anyone who ever played for the enjoyment of winning. And the day we settle for parity is the day this country ceases to exist. We should exile anyone here who wants parity and should destroy any system designed to produce it!

What all of us should do is to insist on the pursuit of excellence. Strive to win all of the time. And recognize those who give their all in pursuit of it. That's what made us great. It sure as hell was not the pursuit of parity.

I disagree. The NFL became the most popular sport in the U.S. because the rule changes allowed talent to be spread out over a larger number of teams. Even at that, there is still a hierarchy within the NFL where the better run teams rise to the top while the more poorly run teams will sink. Contrast that with MLB where the large market teams can basically buy a team that can compete for the pennant and World Series trips almost annually while small market teams are lucky to compete occasionally if a number of factors line up to their benefit. You can argue that other factors tanked the popularity of MLB like the strikes - but bottom line it's no longer America's official sport and the lack of parity is a significant factor in that.

I get the spirit of you post but think it's built upon a false premise when we consider the vast majority of FBS teams are essentially government entities.

You're both kind of right. Parity is good for selling hope, and that works for the NFL. At the same time, there are waaaaaaay too many teams in college football for all of them to hold the attention of casual fans.

The right balance for maximum fan attention, which we may never see in reality, would be to have 25-30 CFB teams that consistently have a solid chance of reaching the playoff (about the same number that has realistic hope at the start of an NFL season).
01-08-2019 09:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,074
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Not ESEACCPN
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
"The same teams winning all the time" is a result of what happens before the season starts, even well before the season starts. I can't speak with respect to NDSU but the culture of college football favors status quo over constant change. Conferences are usually made up of programs who are always favorite to win over prime recruits, surrounded by programs who are just happy to line up to get their weekly beatings. Occasionally, an also-ran would do a Purdue and beat Ohio State and handily. But most of the time you can guess who is likely to win by looking at the team names. Then when the teams that are always favored to win continue to win they also create a constant feedback among high school recruits who want to be associated with winners. The other teams don't mind as long as they can get the next tier of players who fit the academic criteria. This is how a hierarchy is formed within a group of college programs.

The only difference is that the also-rans don't want to have more than a given number of programs in a conference if it results in less money per program.

This is what a particular Indiana Catholic school understands and why they are doing everything they can to avoid joining a football conference to continue to be in a position to attract prime players.

This was the case in the past and is the case today, apart from the military academies and the Ivy League fading away from power. Major media corporations have simply exacerbated the trend toward maintaining hierarchy by playing up programs which attract attention from casual viewers. Thus, the appearance of bias towards certain conferences over others.
01-08-2019 11:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 29,194
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 695
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #40
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-08-2019 08:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Contrast that with MLB where the large market teams can basically buy a team that can compete for the pennant and World Series trips almost annually while small market teams are lucky to compete occasionally if a number of factors line up to their benefit. You can argue that other factors tanked the popularity of MLB like the strikes - but bottom line it's no longer America's official sport and the lack of parity is a significant factor in that.

I have no idea why this myth persists. In fact, MLB revenue has risen 18 straight years, and has gone up 350% over the past 25 years, adjusted for inflation. MLB revenues have never been better, not even when it was America's undisputed dominant sport between the 1920s and 1960s. In 1960, when MLB was clearly the #1 sport, average franchise value was $33 million (in 2018 dollars), last year it was $1.3 billion.

Last year, MLB revenue topped $10.3 Billion, second only to the NFL among all global sports leagues, and more than the NBA and NHL combined:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/...73da1c5bea
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2019 08:07 AM by quo vadis.)
01-12-2019 08:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2019 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, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.