Number 4 wins title!

[Jekku]

How did I not present a counter argument? I'M the one that brought up baseball and basketball and gave concrete examples on how they were different... I* did that... So, how in the world did I not present an argument when i'm the one who brought it up and gave the examples??

Your cherry picking your "cmon man" argument. Instead of focusing on that, why don't you present why you system is better.

 

[ElTexan]

-

-So what do you want? What you say can affect any sport anytime! So you want 4 team 1 game playoff for all sports? .

yes, but MUCH more in football... which is my point... that *I* brought up.

In baseball, they play 4 out of 7 in case one pitcher does really well or really badly one game.

In basketball, there are 100+ scoring opportunities in case one player has a streak or lull or whatever... the better team can be said OVER ONE HUNDRED scoring opportunities to get past that.

IN FOOTBALL, there are VERY few scoring opportunities and you only get ONE game per opponent in the tourney... so that speaks to why you only want THE VERY BEST PROVEN teams in the tourney... you don't want to chance injuries or let an undeserving team "get lucky or streaky" and take out a team that proved itself all year.

I've said all this. Don't say I haven't given an argument... I'M the one who brought up the arguments in detail in the first place.

 

[Jekku]

Hey, Canuck, do you think my system is fair?

Lol I like your fairness but it's very unrealistic. No way it can happen. We must focus on what can be changed now I think!

 

[Jekku]

yes, but MUCH more in football... which is my point... that *I* brought up.

In baseball, they play 4 out of 7 in case one pitcher does really well or really badly one game.

In basketball, there are 100+ scoring opportunities in case one player has a streak or lull or whatever... the better team can be said OVER ONE HUNDRED scoring opportunities to get past that.

IN FOOTBALL, there are VERY few scoring opportunities and you only get ONE game per opponent in the tourney... so that speaks to why you only want THE VERY BEST PROVEN teams in the tourney... you don't want to chance injuries or let an undeserving team "get lucky or streaky" and take out a team that proved itself all year.

I've said all this. Don't say I haven't given an argument... I'M the one who brought up the arguments in detail in the first place.

Well at least your bringing up an argument, I will give you that. And its a decent one. But how can you stop at 4 teams when you just said there's ONE GAME! To prove one selves. That should say we need to give a few more teams that chance to PROVE themselves over one game! The new system has already shown that our previous understanding was lacking. So I think we may need to expand our outlook.

 

[Robotech]

Lol I like your fairness but it's very unrealistic. No way it can happen. We must focus on what can be changed now I think!

It's idealistic I know. It would basically involve the Power 5 conferences accepting teams that they feel are beneath them and giving equal status to 3 other conferences, but heck, some of the Power 5 have been accepting lesser teams into their conferences recently, so who knows, maybe it could happen one day.

I love that we've gone to a 4-team playoff, but I definitely would like to see it expand to 8 even if it remains an unfair beauty contest.

 

[Jekku]

It's idealistic I know. It would basically involve the Power 5 conferences accepting teams that they feel are beneath them and giving equal status to 3 other conferences, but heck, some of the Power 5 have been accepting lesser teams into their conferences recently, so who knows, maybe it could happen one day.

I love that we've gone to a 4-team playoff, but I definitely would like to see it expand to 8 even if it remains an unfair beauty contest.

I agree we need AT LEAST 8 teams minimum. I would like to see that tried out for a few years see what outcomes we would get :P.

 

[ElTexan]

There is a balance, and for many reasons that I have brought up on these forums, 4 is the best.

Some of the reasons are the ones i have listed here above.

Some others:
- 2 is not enough... because of so very few inter-conf games, we just don't know who the two best are.

- Most year, the #3 team has a legit argument for being the best team in the land... but is beyond rare for the #5 team to have that same claim.

- We want to encourage harder/better OOC games In a 4-team scheme, the UPSIDE to scheduling harder OOC [competing against other 1-loss teams for very few spots in the CFP] is close to the DOWNSIDE of scheduling harder OOC [the second loss that knocks you out completely]
In an 8-scheme, the downside of the 2nd loss is slightly less, but there is practically no UPSIDE to scheduling harder OOC, that is, there's about 30 "popular" teams that know if they can just skirt the season with one loss, they are a shoe-in for one of the MANY MORE spots virtually reserved for 1-loss popular teams in the 8-team CFP scheme.

 

[Robotech]

We have that system... always have, in fact.

Not true, at least not within an individual season. A team from a non-Power Five conference that goes undefeated won't get one of the four spots in the current system let alone get one of the two spots in the old system.

The only way your statement would be correct is if you meant that every school has a chance to win the championship by building up its program over some years. That non-Power Five conference team could eventually get a seat at the table, but it would only get one after years of improving its image.

 

[Jekku]

There is a balance, and for many reasons that I have brought up on these forums, 4 is the best.

Some of the reasons are the ones i have listed here above.

Some others:
- 2 is not enough... because of so very few inter-conf games, we just don't know who the two best are.

- Most year, the #3 team has a legit argument for being the best team in the land... but is beyond rare for the #5 team to have that same claim.

- We want to encourage harder/better OOC games In a 4-team scheme, the UPSIDE to scheduling harder OOC [competing against other 1-loss teams for very few spots in the CFP] is close to the DOWNSIDE of scheduling harder OOC [the second loss that knocks you out completely]
In an 8-scheme, the downside of the 2nd loss is slightly less, but there is practically no UPSIDE to scheduling harder OOC, that is, there's about 30 "popular" teams that know if they can just skirt the season with one loss, they are a shoe-in for one of the MANY MORE spots virtually reserved for 1-loss popular teams in the 8-team CFP scheme.

You do realize that the lower seeded teams will play the so called "power" teams which should beat them easily. Football is not like basketball or baseball in that sense. The power teams usually win out. Esp in longer sequances (playoff). So none of what you said deters an 8 team playoff.

 

[Jekku]

You do realize that the lower seeded teams will play the so called "power" teams which should beat them easily. Football is not like basketball or baseball in that sense. The power teams usually win out. Esp in longer sequances (playoff). So none of what you said deters an 8 team playoff.

Its funny i'm arguing an 8 team playoff because I was the most ardent BCS guy when it was fairly new in early 2000's. I thought it was the perfect system (maybe cause miami was getting in lol :P).

 

[ElTexan]

You do realize that the lower seeded teams will play the so called "power" teams which should beat them easily. Football is not like basketball or baseball in that sense. The power teams usually win out. Esp in longer sequances (playoff). So none of what you said deters an 8 team playoff.

tell that to tOSU who lost to VT.. or about a BILLION other examples.

 

[Robotech]

There is a balance, and for many reasons that I have brought up on these forums, 4 is the best.

Some of the reasons are the ones i have listed here above.

Some others:
- 2 is not enough... because of so very few inter-conf games, we just don't know who the two best are.

- Most year, the #3 team has a legit argument for being the best team in the land... but is beyond rare for the #5 team to have that same claim.

- We want to encourage harder/better OOC games In a 4-team scheme, the UPSIDE to scheduling harder OOC [competing against other 1-loss teams for very few spots in the CFP] is close to the DOWNSIDE of scheduling harder OOC [the second loss that knocks you out completely]
In an 8-scheme, the downside of the 2nd loss is slightly less, but there is practically no UPSIDE to scheduling harder OOC, that is, there's about 30 "popular" teams that know if they can just skirt the season with one loss, they are a shoe-in for one of the MANY MORE spots virtually reserved for 1-loss popular teams in the 8-team CFP scheme.

The 4-team scheme discourages teams from scheduling absolute cupcakes, but I'm not sure it does anything more than that.

 

[Jekku]

There is a balance, and for many reasons that I have brought up on these forums, 4 is the best.

Some of the reasons are the ones i have listed here above.

Some others:
- 2 is not enough... because of so very few inter-conf games, we just don't know who the two best are.

- Most year, the #3 team has a legit argument for being the best team in the land... but is beyond rare for the #5 team to have that same claim.

- We want to encourage harder/better OOC games In a 4-team scheme, the UPSIDE to scheduling harder OOC [competing against other 1-loss teams for very few spots in the CFP] is close to the DOWNSIDE of scheduling harder OOC [the second loss that knocks you out completely]
In an 8-scheme, the downside of the 2nd loss is slightly less, but there is practically no UPSIDE to scheduling harder OOC, that is, there's about 30 "popular" teams that know if they can just skirt the season with one loss, they are a shoe-in for one of the MANY MORE spots virtually reserved for 1-loss popular teams in the 8-team CFP scheme.

I must add that it seems like your gunning against a 12 or 20 team playoff by your scaredness and agrument. I think those are both too big I agree. But dont let that delude you into looking into the future of our favorite sport!

 

[Sgt Brutus]

4 team seems good to ne

 

[Jekku]

tell that to tOSU who lost to VT.. or about a BILLION other examples.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED 8 (at least)! I have said it before in this thread. You are defeating your own argument against it, it seems.

 

[Jekku]

The 4-team scheme discourages teams from scheduling absolute cupcakes, but I'm not sure it does anything more than that.

Honestly it barely does that. Each team will play one good team out of conference. Not much diff from the BCS.

 

[ElTexan]

I wish the old ESPN forums were still active. i actually have the link saved to the thread that I kept going from 2001 until the ESPN forums died about why a 4-team Playoff was the right way to go.

In fact, my conspiracy theory mind thinks they stole the idea from me [like the Dr pepper guy, larry].

It went:
A. Choose 4 teams via a BCS style system making the QW QL and SOS components weightier.
B. Rotate semis and finals within the major bowls.
C. add the Cotton as a major bowl.

We don't extend season, we keep bowl structure, we keep every game counts atmosphere of CFB. The only Con was less traditional match-ups in Rose Bowls and such.

 

[Beggs]

I used to be heavily in favor of an 8 team playoff, but after learning that an 8 team playoff would mean college players are dealing with the same amount of snaps as an NFL team, which 18-20 year olds should not be doing, and that usually the #5-#8 teams are interchangeable, it doesn't seem fair to the teams who are in the top 4. For once I want to say keep it how it is.

 

[Sgt Brutus]

Fucking A eltexan you're Larry

 

[ElTexan]

THIS IS WHY WE NEED 8 (at least)! I have said it before in this thread. You are defeating your own argument against it, it seems.

You DO keep saying it, but not explaining yourself...

You don't want undeserving teams knocking off deserving teams in a football playoff.

You can risk it in the NBA and MLB because you play series of games against every opponent.

You can risk it a bit in CBB because basketball gives each team 100+ scoring opportunities to overcome luck, lulls, streakiness, etc.

You do not want that in FOOTBALL because of the small amount of scoring opps and much higher chance of injury over several games.

The best teams already survived and proved themselves over a season... you don't want to have them get knocked off by undeserving teams in an overly-large tourney... even for the sake of making "that much more sure" that you give everyone a chance.