So you don't even like the P5 Champions getting a shot? Not even that?
Just remember, those regional Trophies would be won WITH GAMES ON THE GRIDIRON and not through an "eye test".
USA Today....the end of college football is near
- Thread starter ratking17
- Start date
So you don't even like the P5 Champions getting a shot? Not even that?
Just remember, those regional Trophies would be won WITH GAMES ON THE GRIDIRON and not through an "eye test".
Conference geography is arbitrary, capricious, unequal, and ultimately economic. It's not some magical platonic ideal of football.
It amazes me that most of you think that even in an 8 team playoff that a P5 Champion could be unworthy?
If there was an eight team playoff, I'd want the eight best teams selected, probably based on RPI. I wouldn't want some 9-4 UCLA team sneaking in over a 11-2 Pitt just because the PAC 12 gets a spot for existing as a legal cash collecting entity.
Then to me, even an 8 team playoff is a BS subjective, beauty contest, "eye test" exercise that is still illegitimate if you don't even then take the CHAMPIONS. If you pick based on NONSENSE like RPI over WHO WON A GAME, then it's still a JOKE.
The 9-4 Pitt is more likely to sneak in over the 11-2 UCLA, and I'd want that to happen, stuff like that makes it a real sport.
That's not why they would get an automatic bid. It's because there aren't enough inter-conference games to make a true determination of which teams are the best. Most teams play 70-80% of their games against conference opponents, so that's the only group where you have enough data to make an accurate determination.
And the bottom line is, it doesn't matter who the best teams are, because being champion has nothing to do with being the best team.
College football has a VERY SHORT SEASON, mostly played in conference. That's why these sort of alternatives to something like a real playoff exist. You can't compare it to pro sports that have 16, 82, or 162 game seasons followed by playoffs that last up to four rounds long. Or to March Madness where there are 68 teams selected after a large sample size of a 30+ game regular season and (often) conference tournaments that are open to all conference members.
You also talk about THE CHAMPIONS but THE CHAMPIONS of what? Conferences admit teams based on financial considerations, not just football considerations. It's not like pro sports where the NBA tells the Atlantic Division that they have the Raptors now. The SEC might get UCF apply to be a member but they'll just say "no, we already have a team in Florida, we don't want another." The conferences aren't set up fairly to begin with, but I don't hear you complaining about that.
So since they aren't set up fairly, you want to make it even less fair and totally biased so that the vast majority of schools in the country can pretty much be excluded from playing for a title forever, and the same 8-10 teams can count on being there every year, and even when they fail in their conference you want them to get the benefit of the doubt over schools that didn't fail? The ony way Pitt could ever get into a playoff IMO is if they won the ACC championship, but even then, I see their chances as slim. I don't see why playing a 12 game regular season and winning the championship game of a P5 conference can be looked at as unworthy?
This is the entire reason for having automatic bids. There are so few inter-conference games, the only real way you have to evaluate teams are by what they do within their own conferences. The logical way to determine a playoff is to take teams from each conference (where they can be accurately evaluated) and then put them in a playoff to determine which of that group is the best.
Yeah, but anyone with an ounce of sense knew that it wouldn’t
The “playoff” is no different than the Bcs except that there’s two more teams and different people deciding the teams
The only cure for this is for the NCAA to run it like the NFL or any other pro league, where it sets up the conferences and the schedules, and thus concrete parameters are in place for the post season.
There’s no controversy over how Buffalo and Tennessee made the playoffs over Baltimore and Los Angeles, despite all four finishing with the same record
And no, Alabama should not have gotten in. Win your conference
No, see that's not true. The creators and operators of the CFP never claimed that. It was just fans and media who claimed that. The problem is that fans and media projected what they thought things should be onto the CFP, rather than accepting what the CFP actually claimed to be doing.
The Playoff system doesn't work. It's just a way to squeeze some more money out of the system. We used to argue who was really number one. Now, we argue over who or should not be in the playoffs. Just traded one argument for another.
The conference champs need guaranteed entry. There aren't enough data points to know how the conferences stack up against eachother. Putting two from one conference in based on "eye test" is a travesty.
Throw in 2 P5 at-large and 1 G5 at-large and you have the entire country watching the entire year. Every game retains its significance and the regular season remains the most compelling in any sport. You also get to keep the controversy and discussion going all year long. This is the right way to do it because as I stated we often have NO CLUE how strong the conferences are. That includes G5 conferences.
With this system, teams would actually be incentivized to schedule massive OOC games. With only 2 at-large you will need to do something special to get an at-large bid. And the downside for losing those games is no longer the death of your season because you can backdoor your way in through your conference. If PSU schedules Mercer instead of Pitt last year they get into the playoffs. If OSU schedules Mercer instead of Oklahoma this year they are in as well.
The ABSOLUTE WORST THING the committee keeps doing is punishing teams for playing against real opponents. They are destroying everything as Brian Kelly alluded to when he said he was looking into significantly weakening the Notre Dame schedule. College football is severely damaged if Notre Dame starts playing Mercer every week. This destructive behavior is exactly what the committee has been encouraging.
Throw in 2 P5 at-large and 1 G5 at-large and you have the entire country watching the entire year. Every game retains its significance and the regular season remains the most compelling in any sport. You also get to keep the controversy and discussion going all year long. This is the right way to do it because as I stated we often have NO CLUE how strong the conferences are. That includes G5 conferences.
With this system, teams would actually be incentivized to schedule massive OOC games. With only 2 at-large you will need to do something special to get an at-large bid. And the downside for losing those games is no longer the death of your season because you can backdoor your way in through your conference. If PSU schedules Mercer instead of Pitt last year they get into the playoffs. If OSU schedules Mercer instead of Oklahoma this year they are in as well.
The ABSOLUTE WORST THING the committee keeps doing is punishing teams for playing against real opponents. They are destroying everything as Brian Kelly alluded to when he said he was looking into significantly weakening the Notre Dame schedule. College football is severely damaged if Notre Dame starts playing Mercer every week. This destructive behavior is exactly what the committee has been encouraging.
"This destructive behavior is exactly what the committee has been encouraging."
Isn't this what the Big Ten has been doing? For example, PSU not wanting to play Pitt every year, and end up with one in conference game that is challenging, and maybe one OOC, if at that?
At is stands now, being a conference champion doesn't mean any team is one of the best four (or six) teams in the country.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, it's currently the logical move if making the playoffs is your goal. More teams will follow suit.
Doesn't have to be, Being the best team has nothing to do with being the champion.
College football is fine. The small divisions are among the few spectator sports seeing attendance growth despite some of their games being televised in recent years.
Major college ball has serious issues. I'm with the crowd saying that the NFL should be forced to create their own farm league. Not only would I not pay the players, I wouldn't even allow athletic scholarships. Attendance would drop slightly, viewership would go down a bit as would coach salaries and yes the product would not be as good. In ten years, nobody would care.
Major college ball has serious issues. I'm with the crowd saying that the NFL should be forced to create their own farm league. Not only would I not pay the players, I wouldn't even allow athletic scholarships. Attendance would drop slightly, viewership would go down a bit as would coach salaries and yes the product would not be as good. In ten years, nobody would care.
It works better than the previous system, where the national championship game would have been Clemson vs. Oklahoma.
I agree with this. In the end it would be a better measure of Pittsburgh vs. Alabama if it was just regular students who decided to play ball and not scholarship athletes from all over the country. I'd still watch, it would still be Pitt vs. Penn State, even if the quality was slightly less.
So the kids already get a free education worth a lot more than $25,000/yr. at most colleges. And you're saying give them each $25,000 more per year just because they know how to play a silly sport? That's nonsense.
I agree with the notion of making a semi-pro league. The kids play for the school but don't go to school there and don't have scholarships. They're just dumb jocks. Then pay them a small amount to compete for the school and to prepare for a possible pro career. Most won't make it so it's up to them to prepare for that as well. Treat them as what they are....prostitutes for the school and for the NFL or NBA. But giving kids on scholarship even more money just because they're dumb jocks is ludicrous.
If you got it to 24, Pitt might even have a slight chance to sneak in some day! LOL.
Those kids are generating an obscene amount of money for their school, conference and NCAA, they deserve a cut bigger than their scholarship.
Read the rest of my post. Forget the scholarship if you want to pay them. They're not students anyhow. Pay them as a semi-pro league. If they want to get an education so they have something to use to make a living when they're done playing, they have to pay for it themselves with the money they make playing the sport.
This whole thing has gotten way out of hand in so many ways.
Latest posts
-
-
-
My guess as to why this site is STILL in 'no mans land' at the moment- Latest: Zeldas Open Roof
-
