(12-24-2020 09:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:27 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:16 AM)mlb Wrote:  Maybe it's because they throw in the same few teams year after year because of the name on their jersey?

Alabama and Clemson do not make the CFP every year because of the names on the jersey. They are proven commodities. They win a ton of games and obviously are loaded with talent. Ditto for Oklahoma and Ohio State.

Do you really doubt that the current CFP playoffs contain the two best teams in the country this year?

Clemson and Alabama weren't who I was referring to. I'm not a believer in Oklahoma, they've shown they are paper tigers and that the B12 is not up to par. OSU is another paper tiger. The P12 is straight up garbage. ND has been heavily overrated. If we believe the CFP people then we'd have never seen the Boise upset of Oklahoma. They'd have never been able to compete, right? The system is broken because they want blue bloods only in the CFP. Do I think Coastal Carolina or Cincinnati is as good as Alabama or Clemson? No. But I'd still love to see those games and root for Cinderella. I'm tired of watching ND get beat by 3 TDs or more.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I get that, but IMO, the weariness of watching Notre Dame or Oklahoma get beat by 3 touchdowns or more suggests going back to the BCS, not expanding it larger so even more teams can get blown out before we end up with Alabama or Ohio State or Clemson anyway.

It's not like if the committee passes over Notre Dame in favor of whoever they ranked #5 that they wouldn't get blown out too.

The issue is the subjectivity. People will be okay with a blow out if there were more teams in. But when you see such a limited numbers of teams allowed in, completely based on "eye test", with huge blow outs every year, you will get annoyed. I'd also add that more opportunities probably distributes the top talent across more teams. Right now only 4 or 5 schools get the highest rated talent because those schools are the hyped chosen ones. Go to 8 or 12 or 16 and you'll see top talent become more widespread.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Correct. I would like to see what Oregon could do. What Oklahoma could do. And yes, what Cinci or CCU would do in a playoff.

(12-24-2020 12:02 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  The issue is the subjectivity. People will be okay with a blow out if there were more teams in. But when you see such a limited numbers of teams allowed in, completely based on "eye test", with huge blow outs every year, you will get annoyed. I'd also add that more opportunities probably distributes the top talent across more teams. Right now only 4 or 5 schools get the highest rated talent because those schools are the hyped chosen ones. Go to 8 or 12 or 16 and you'll see top talent become more widespread.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Correct. I would like to see what Oregon could do. What Oklahoma could do. And yes, what Cinci or CCU would do in a playoff.

To add to the exclusivity of teams in the CFP era, I posted this over on our board. Every year there have been good arguments for teams that didn't get chosen - both metrics and "eye test." If you expand to at least 8 teams you minimize those arguments, keep more folks engaged due to the wider field and increase the chance for an upset to occur. I don't see a downside here.

Team appearances in the CFP:
6 Alabama
6 Clemson
4 Ohio St
4 Oklahoma
2 Notre Dame
1 Flordia St
1 Georgia
1 LSU
1 Michigan St
1 Oregon
1 Washington

Bama, Clemson, Ohio St and Oklahoma have accounted for 20 out of the 28 bids in the CFP era thus far. Not saying those teams are undeserving by any measure but there are a lot other great teams that haven't had access to even have a shot at settling it on the field.

(12-24-2020 12:11 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I'll reiterate my Madness reform: 96 teams, autobids to RS and tourney champ. (32 at-large)

I like that idea. Give the RS champ a bid and let them sit out on the conference tournament—the prize for a season well played. Let teams 2-whatever fight it out in the conference tournament for each conference’s 2nd bid.

(12-24-2020 09:54 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I get that, but IMO, the weariness of watching Notre Dame or Oklahoma get beat by 3 touchdowns or more suggests going back to the BCS, not expanding it larger so even more teams can get blown out before we end up with Alabama or Ohio State or Clemson anyway.

It's the concentration of talent, not the same old teams that is the issue. I'm sure there were baseball fans in the 1950's who grew tired of seeing the Yankees and the Dodgers in the World Series nearly every year, separated by just 15 miles. But even if you had introduced playoffs, they still would have been there because the Yankees and the Dodgers were that good.

The SEC (and its neighbors in SEC country in Clemson, SC) are playing at a different level than everyone else right now.

FWIW, the concentration of talent has always been a part of college football. The elite blue bloods tend to get the most talent and have the entire 50 years I've been watching CFB.

Yes, *who* among the elite is getting it changes. Right now, it's Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia and Ohio State. In the 2000s it was USC, FSU, Florida, LSU and Ohio State. In the 1990s it was FSU, Miami, Nebraska, Florida and for part of the decade Notre Dame. It moves around, but there are always 4-5 of the blue bloods that are getting the most talent.

Not sure playoffs would solve this. E.g., in college hoops, who gets basically all of the "one and done" five-star recruits? Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina and Kansas. Occasionally a UCLA or Louisville or Michigan State in the second tier, or a Memphis, if it has a former NBA All-Star coach as a gimmick. San Jose State and Tulsa aren't getting them.

Muskie: my ONLY hesitation with giving RS champs byes out of the conference tournament: rust.The 1-bid leagues are done a week before the power conferences.

(12-24-2020 01:15 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 12:02 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  The issue is the subjectivity. People will be okay with a blow out if there were more teams in. But when you see such a limited numbers of teams allowed in, completely based on "eye test", with huge blow outs every year, you will get annoyed. I'd also add that more opportunities probably distributes the top talent across more teams. Right now only 4 or 5 schools get the highest rated talent because those schools are the hyped chosen ones. Go to 8 or 12 or 16 and you'll see top talent become more widespread.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Correct. I would like to see what Oregon could do. What Oklahoma could do. And yes, what Cinci or CCU would do in a playoff.

To add to the exclusivity of teams in the CFP era, I posted this over on our board. Every year there have been good arguments for teams that didn't get chosen - both metrics and "eye test." If you expand to at least 8 teams you minimize those arguments, keep more folks engaged due to the wider field and increase the chance for an upset to occur. I don't see a downside here.

Team appearances in the CFP:
6 Alabama
6 Clemson
4 Ohio St
4 Oklahoma
2 Notre Dame
1 Flordia St
1 Georgia
1 LSU
1 Michigan St
1 Oregon
1 Washington

Bama, Clemson, Ohio St and Oklahoma have accounted for 20 out of the 28 bids in the CFP era thus far. Not saying those teams are undeserving by any measure but there are a lot other great teams that haven't had access to even have a shot at settling it on the field.

Shame on Georgia, Georgia Tech, Texas, Texas A&M, Florida State, Florida and Miami (fl). They are big dogs in the 3 greatest, richest recruiting states in America. How is it that none of these schools have won a NC in the CFP? I really don't care and it is no fault of Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State or Oklahoma! Do better and beat the best teams and there will be change at the top.

In this off year due to covid, I would have had no problem with Cincinnati being in over a 6 game Ohio State, I truly wouldn't. But, this same conversation happens every year.

Does ESPIN want the best markets in the playoff? Sure, but beat those teams and it will turn out how you want it.

(12-24-2020 12:51 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  That 16-seed was an AQ!

Okay. So? My point is they had a shot to beat them, and they did. I’m not saying a 16-seed will win it all; what I am saying is they can win it all if everything goes right for them. We’ve seen underdogs like George Mason make the Final Four. How does that make March Madness like the CFP?

As I already said, midmajors need a perfect storm to get into the CFP or March Madness. The power schools get a benefit of the doubt mid-majors aren't afforded.

(12-24-2020 04:37 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  As I already said, midmajors need a perfect storm to get into the CFP or March Madness. The power schools get a benefit of the doubt mid-majors aren't afforded.

Midmajors can get into March Madness through the autobid. There is no autobid in the CFP. Apples vs oranges.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(12-23-2020 10:44 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I love March Madness, but agree it makes regular season far less interesting (even #1 vs. #2 games seem like exhibitions). Its also a weird way to declare a champion (after 30+ games, we can end up calling a team that finished 4th or worse in their conference the national champs?)

I've never really felt MM hurt the regular season. I do feel the conference tourneys are what weakens the regular season.

(12-24-2020 04:40 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 04:37 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  As I already said, midmajors need a perfect storm to get into the CFP or March Madness. The power schools get a benefit of the doubt mid-majors aren't afforded.

Midmajors can get into March Madness through the autobid. There is no autobid in the CFP. Apples vs oranges.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Yeah I was going to say this as well. Here is a link showing teams that made the tourney at .500 or worse. That's not happening with the CFP.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...-make-ncaa

(12-24-2020 04:40 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 04:37 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  As I already said, midmajors need a perfect storm to get into the CFP or March Madness. The power schools get a benefit of the doubt mid-majors aren't afforded.

Midmajors can get into March Madness through the autobid. There is no autobid in the CFP. Apples vs oranges.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Let's not get confused here. The purpose of the NCAAT is NOT to give every D-I school an opportunity to compete for a national championship. Most of the schools that are the beneficiaries of this provision have zero chance of actually doing that.

There is only one purpose for the autobid. That is to permit the majority of D-I schools to make a blatant money grab at the expense of the schools that actually have a chance of winning. If not for that bid, most would never have moved up to D-I in the first place, despite everything the NCAA has done to minimize the investment those schools would have to make to compete. Most D-I schools are there for the sole purpose of exploiting the interest in major college hoops to sell their L's for cash and finance their athletic departments.

So let's drop the bogus "fairness" arguments.

(12-24-2020 10:22 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  My problem with the CFP is that tOSU, who barely played half a season, is in over Cincinnati and Coastal Carolina. Two teams with full, undefeated seasons. Would either win a NC? Probably not, but they deserve the shot.

On that point I agree. I think Texas A&M had more of argument than OSU. I do think Cinci should have been given more consideration but G5 singed off on this when they took the money. It will be interesting to see how the next CFP goes or will the split finally occur.

Alanda: most of those teams won conference tournaments.

(12-24-2020 09:27 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:16 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 10:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I don't see the comparison. 4 teams invited by some backroom meetings to win a chip vs a field of 64 [68] that all have a "chance" at the title. Not to mention, winning the conference in basketball equals an auto-bid to the postseason - winning your conference actually means something.

Well first, as Nick Saban says, winning a conference title is meaningful in and of itself, it's a moment worth celebrating no matter what else happens, it's something worthy of a trophy for the school and rings for the players.

Second, basketball needs a larger tournament because the nature of the sport is that it's harder to tell the best teams from each other. E.g., while most years a team ranked in the top 5 wins the NCAA title, occasionally you get a team like UConn in 2014, who was ranked #18 going in to the tournament. But that would never happen in football, e.g. last year there's no chance Memphis, the #18 team in the final AP poll, could have beat teams like Clemson or LSU to win the title.

As I've said, if anything, the CFP has shown that most years we don't even need four teams, two or three is good enough. We've never had both semifinal games be competitive, every year at least one is a blowout. This year is likely to be no different.

Maybe it's because they throw in the same few teams year after year because of the name on their jersey?

Alabama and Clemson do not make the CFP every year because of the names on the jersey. They are proven commodities. They win a ton of games and obviously are loaded with talent. Ditto for Oklahoma and Ohio State.

Do you really doubt that the current CFP playoffs contain the two best teams in the country this year?

Clemson and Alabama weren't who I was referring to. I'm not a believer in Oklahoma, they've shown they are paper tigers and that the B12 is not up to par. OSU is another paper tiger. The P12 is straight up garbage. ND has been heavily overrated. If we believe the CFP people then we'd have never seen the Boise upset of Oklahoma. They'd have never been able to compete, right? The system is broken because they want blue bloods only in the CFP. Do I think Coastal Carolina or Cincinnati is as good as Alabama or Clemson? No. But I'd still love to see those games and root for Cinderella. I'm tired of watching ND get beat by 3 TDs or more.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

1) Yet ND keeps going undefeated in the regular season, whether as an independent or as an ACC football member this year. 12-0 in 2012 and 2018 and 10-0 this season.


2) Meee too !!!!

(12-23-2020 10:44 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I love March Madness, but agree it makes regular season far less interesting (even #1 vs. #2 games seem like exhibitions). Its also a weird way to declare a champion (after 30+ games, we can end up calling a team that finished 4th or worse in their conference the national champs?)

I really don't see a need to give a team that finished .500 in their conference and who didn't win the conference tournament yet another chance in a 68 team tournament. They had two chances to truly earn a slot and failed.

But it also seems pretty silly to have the bottom 10 conferences who rarely produce anyone better than a 14 seed and who usually get destroyed in the first round.

(12-24-2020 12:46 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Conference tourneys are big $$ makers. But 80 is a good middle ground. :)

48 is a good middle ground. 68 is too big.

(12-24-2020 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 10:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I don't see the comparison. 4 teams invited by some backroom meetings to win a chip vs a field of 64 [68] that all have a "chance" at the title. Not to mention, winning the conference in basketball equals an auto-bid to the postseason - winning your conference actually means something.

Well first, as Nick Saban says, winning a conference title is meaningful in and of itself, it's a moment worth celebrating no matter what else happens, it's something worthy of a trophy for the school and rings for the players.

Second, basketball needs a larger tournament because the nature of the sport is that it's harder to tell the best teams from each other. E.g., while most years a team ranked in the top 5 wins the NCAA title, occasionally you get a team like UConn in 2014, who was ranked #18 going in to the tournament. But that would never happen in football, e.g. last year there's no chance Memphis, the #18 team in the final AP poll, could have beat teams like Clemson or LSU to win the title.

As I've said, if anything, the CFP has shown that most years we don't even need four teams, two or three is good enough. We've never had both semifinal games be competitive, every year at least one is a blowout. This year is likely to be no different.

UConn wasn't the best team. Neither was Kentucky who they beat in the final.
Florida was probably the best team. They went 18-0 in SEC, but they didn't match up well with UConn and lost twice to them, once in the regular season and once in the tourney. Louisville won the Big East by 3 games and was probably the 2nd best team, but Kentucky managed to beat them twice, once in the regular season and once in the Tourney. Meanwhile, Louisville beat UConn every time they played them and Florida beat UK every time they played them (2 or 3 times each).

But basketball is more of an individual game and only involves 5 players. That one guy can carry a lesser team against a better team more often than the 22 from a lesser football team can beat the 22 from a better team. And matchups matter more in basketball than in football because it is only 5 on 5.

The problem with the large tournament now are twofold:
1) there are a lot of really bad first round matchups; and
2) the extra rounds give the best team more chances to lose focus and fail. The more in a row you force the champion to win, the less likely the best team will prevail.

(12-24-2020 05:49 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 10:44 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I love March Madness, but agree it makes regular season far less interesting (even #1 vs. #2 games seem like exhibitions). Its also a weird way to declare a champion (after 30+ games, we can end up calling a team that finished 4th or worse in their conference the national champs?)

I've never really felt MM hurt the regular season. I do feel the conference tourneys are what weakens the regular season.

(12-24-2020 04:40 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 04:37 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  As I already said, midmajors need a perfect storm to get into the CFP or March Madness. The power schools get a benefit of the doubt mid-majors aren't afforded.

Midmajors can get into March Madness through the autobid. There is no autobid in the CFP. Apples vs oranges.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Yeah I was going to say this as well. Here is a link showing teams that made the tourney at .500 or worse. That's not happening with the CFP.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...-make-ncaa

I think its the expansion of the tourney that hurt the regular season. Conference tournaments started being widespread before the expansion to 64 teams. The ACC even had a tourney back when the NCAA was only 25 teams. The conference tourney is a lottery ticket to get in March Madness. The regular season is earning it. But now all you have to do to "earn it" is finish in the top half of a power conference. Good programs will do that nearly every year.

(12-25-2020 12:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 10:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I don't see the comparison. 4 teams invited by some backroom meetings to win a chip vs a field of 64 [68] that all have a "chance" at the title. Not to mention, winning the conference in basketball equals an auto-bid to the postseason - winning your conference actually means something.

Well first, as Nick Saban says, winning a conference title is meaningful in and of itself, it's a moment worth celebrating no matter what else happens, it's something worthy of a trophy for the school and rings for the players.

Second, basketball needs a larger tournament because the nature of the sport is that it's harder to tell the best teams from each other. E.g., while most years a team ranked in the top 5 wins the NCAA title, occasionally you get a team like UConn in 2014, who was ranked #18 going in to the tournament. But that would never happen in football, e.g. last year there's no chance Memphis, the #18 team in the final AP poll, could have beat teams like Clemson or LSU to win the title.

As I've said, if anything, the CFP has shown that most years we don't even need four teams, two or three is good enough. We've never had both semifinal games be competitive, every year at least one is a blowout. This year is likely to be no different.

UConn wasn't the best team. Neither was Kentucky who they beat in the final.
Florida was probably the best team. They went 18-0 in SEC, but they didn't match up well with UConn and lost twice to them, once in the regular season and once in the tourney. Louisville won the Big East by 3 games and was probably the 2nd best team, but Kentucky managed to beat them twice, once in the regular season and once in the Tourney. Meanwhile, Louisville beat UConn every time they played them and Florida beat UK every time they played them (2 or 3 times each).

But basketball is more of an individual game and only involves 5 players. That one guy can carry a lesser team against a better team more often than the 22 from a lesser football team can beat the 22 from a better team. And matchups matter more in basketball than in football because it is only 5 on 5.

The problem with the large tournament now are twofold:
1) there are a lot of really bad first round matchups; and
2) the extra rounds give the best team more chances to lose focus and fail. The more in a row you force the champion to win, the less likely the best team will prevail.

Sorry, if you got beat by the same team twice, two teams who competed for the national title, than you aren't the best team they are. Which is a perfect explanation of why the NCAA tourney is a true national championship and the CFP is a true expression of public bias.

16 teams, 10 conference champions and any independent in the top 12 gets an auto bid. Committee fills at large and seeds. Only auto gets to host first round. That replicates the format for every other NCAA tournament. Every team will start with the chance. The at larges will be dominated by p5 teams, there will be upsets, and every team will begin the year with an opportunity. Remember Gonzaga's first run? Butler? VCU, Wichita St, George Washington? I know the p5 does which is why they won't take their chances with such an easy simple money making set up. Which fundamentally tells us CFB is broke.

(12-25-2020 12:42 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-25-2020 12:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-24-2020 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 10:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I don't see the comparison. 4 teams invited by some backroom meetings to win a chip vs a field of 64 [68] that all have a "chance" at the title. Not to mention, winning the conference in basketball equals an auto-bid to the postseason - winning your conference actually means something.

Well first, as Nick Saban says, winning a conference title is meaningful in and of itself, it's a moment worth celebrating no matter what else happens, it's something worthy of a trophy for the school and rings for the players.

Second, basketball needs a larger tournament because the nature of the sport is that it's harder to tell the best teams from each other. E.g., while most years a team ranked in the top 5 wins the NCAA title, occasionally you get a team like UConn in 2014, who was ranked #18 going in to the tournament. But that would never happen in football, e.g. last year there's no chance Memphis, the #18 team in the final AP poll, could have beat teams like Clemson or LSU to win the title.

As I've said, if anything, the CFP has shown that most years we don't even need four teams, two or three is good enough. We've never had both semifinal games be competitive, every year at least one is a blowout. This year is likely to be no different.

UConn wasn't the best team. Neither was Kentucky who they beat in the final.
Florida was probably the best team. They went 18-0 in SEC, but they didn't match up well with UConn and lost twice to them, once in the regular season and once in the tourney. Louisville won the Big East by 3 games and was probably the 2nd best team, but Kentucky managed to beat them twice, once in the regular season and once in the Tourney. Meanwhile, Louisville beat UConn every time they played them and Florida beat UK every time they played them (2 or 3 times each).

But basketball is more of an individual game and only involves 5 players. That one guy can carry a lesser team against a better team more often than the 22 from a lesser football team can beat the 22 from a better team. And matchups matter more in basketball than in football because it is only 5 on 5.

The problem with the large tournament now are twofold:
1) there are a lot of really bad first round matchups; and
2) the extra rounds give the best team more chances to lose focus and fail. The more in a row you force the champion to win, the less likely the best team will prevail.

Sorry, if you got beat by the same team twice, two teams who competed for the national title, than you aren't the best team they are. Which is a perfect explanation of why the NCAA tourney is a true national championship and the CFP is a true expression of public bias.

16 teams, 10 conference champions and any independent in the top 12 gets an auto bid. Committee fills at large and seeds. Only auto gets to host first round. That replicates the format for every other NCAA tournament. Every team will start with the chance. The at larges will be dominated by p5 teams, there will be upsets, and every team will begin the year with an opportunity. Remember Gonzaga's first run? Butler? VCU, Wichita St, George Washington? I know the p5 does which is why they won't take their chances with such an easy simple money making set up. Which fundamentally tells us CFB is broke.

When there is a conference schedule of 18 games or so and you are 3 or more games back, you aren't the best team even in your own conference. One game in the tourney only means you were better that day. And when UConn won that year there was a team who beat them 2 or 3 times straight. Just as there was a team who beat their opponent Kentucky 3 straight times. UConn was the undisputed "champion", but nobody really thinks they were the "best" team that year.

At least when North Carolina St. won the tourney over Houston, they had won the ACC tourney and had lost 6 of 8 games when their best player was injured mid-season. So they had an argument despite their 10 losses. They were 24-4 other than that bad spell.