Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, I still favor a 6-team playoff based on conference winners.
The most common argument against it is that the Playoff may not capture the 4 best teams. My response to that is "So what?" The purpose of the playoff system is to determine the best team, not the best teams. If Georgia gets knocked out in the SEC championship game, then we can be assured that they are not the best team in the country, and we can keep it moving.
This type of system makes the polls completely irrelevant. In my mind, the polls have always been irrelevant. What does it matter that you're the 7th place loser?
Just saw this one. And, that is fair. This year. Look back over the past few years.. The gap is narrower and narrower than it has been historically. I'm not saying that the SEC isn't the best conference.. But, the gap is not where it was 20 years ago. Will Kentucky be a top-12 team next year? I'd be surprised. But, I also wouldn't be surprised if A&M took their place.
The ACC for a time was Clemson. Then it was Florida State. Then it became Florida State and Clemson. Lately, it's been Clemson, but there have been good other teams in as well.
No way Kentucky does that two years straight. They lose a lot of talent. And FSU should be back. Taggart is a good coach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Highly subjective and in some measure arbitrary.
There was a thread a while ago about why college football is better than the NFL. Well, one way college football is definitely worse than the NFL is the application of the transitive property and all of the whining and complaining about conference strength and strength of schedule. It never ends and there are always jaded fans at the conclusion of each season with an axe to grind.
The NFL doesn't have this problem. The rules are upfront and clear. Nobody cares if you beat the Patriots in Foxborough in Week 11. Nobody cares if you lost to a 0-14 team. At the end of the season, the dust is completely settled, and there's no talk about such and such team being robbed due to to ESPN bias, the Catholic Church, the Illuminati, etc.
I agree that the pro way is better. But the college teams are raking in cash as it is. Why would they change?
Arbitrary is random. In that case, I vote South Carolina #1. Have a great day.
I agree that the pro way is better. But the college teams are raking in cash as it is. Why would they change?
Wouldn't a six-team playoff where all P5 conferences are represented mean more cash? Which playoff roster would attract more viewership?
Alabama
Clemson
Georgia
Oklahoma
Or...
Alabama
Clemson
Ohio State
USC
Texas
Notre Dame/Michigan/UCF
I think most fans could get behind that and the networks could definitely get behind it. It would be a Battle Royale among the conferences. Each gets to send their best team to the playoff for a chance to achieve college football supremacy.
The problem with growing the playoff is it makes bowl games less relevant. That's a cash cow for the NCAA and ESPN. And the conferences ain't gonna let you pull their collective snouts out of the trough.
Just look at the payouts. Even for mediocre bowls.
The problem with growing the playoff is it makes bowl games less relevant. That's a cash cow for the NCAA and ESPN. And the conferences ain't gonna let you pull their collective snouts out of the trough.
Just look at the payouts. Even for mediocre bowls.
Expanding the playoff field is not going to make bowl games less relevant. Bowl games are already less relevant given the sheer number of them and the fact that a team only needs to go 6-6. The NCAA made bowl games less relevant starting in the late 90s when they started adding more and more games. I think they've added something like 24 new bowls in the last 22 years.
Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s it really meant something to make it to a bowl game.
Expanding the playoff field is not going to make bowl games less relevant. Bowl games are already less relevant given the sheer number of them and the fact that a team only needs to go 6-6. The NCAA made bowl games less relevant starting in the late 90s when they started adding more and more games. I think they've added something like 24 new bowls in the last 22 years.
Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s it really meant something to make it to a bowl game.
How about they become less relevant to the point of people not filling seats anymore. Because a lot of people still attend these crap games.
“I’ve never really thought much about it. Nobody’s really ever called me and said, ‘Hey, do you want to come coach this NFL team?’ I’ve never really put much thought into it,” Swinney said. “I’ve always just been so focused on what I’m doing. I guess you never say never.”
Expanding the playoff field is not going to make bowl games less relevant. Bowl games are already less relevant given the sheer number of them and the fact that a team only needs to go 6-6. The NCAA made bowl games less relevant starting in the late 90s when they started adding more and more games. I think they've added something like 24 new bowls in the last 22 years.
Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s it really meant something to make it to a bowl game.
The problem with growing the playoff is it makes bowl games less relevant. That's a cash cow for the NCAA and ESPN. And the conferences ain't gonna let you pull their collective snouts out of the trough.
Just look at the payouts. Even for mediocre bowls.
The bowl games are irrelevant now. We have top level players sitting out and not playing in them. We have teams that are more interested in the trip to the bowl as a vacation rather than focusing on the game. Attendance is way down at most of the bowls. You can't even sell your tickets for face value if you decide not to go. Most of them were selling for half of face value. The bowls suck but as long as advertisers will pay ESPN for commercial time and they make their money, we are going to be stuck with a bunch of pointless bowl games.
Why is it so hard for them to understand that if you expand the playoff, you can use the bowl games as the playoff games and all of the sudden they are relevant again, we wouldn't have players sitting out and the teams would be eager to play and win? I guess that is just too simple of a solution.
I don't agree with having automatic spots for conference champions. I am more for dropping the conference championship games and use that weekend for the first round of playoff games.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
