How to Fix College Football

[CJH9972]

Again, having two different discussions. One is things we would all like to see, and things likely to happen if any change does at all.

While I don't want to see them go to 8, it is more likely if they do it's more of the same or with minor tweaks not likely to change the OOC value.

I don't agree that giving home field for 4 games will move the needle. There's just no evidence that changes things IMO. It's wishful thinking. There are things they could do to change it, but I can't see those happening either.

We all do agree it is currently weak and we would like to see it change. I just don't see it happening.

Of course things don't change if you keep the broken parts of the current system if moving to 8. Again, you don't have to like 8 no matter what but you could go to 8 and create more incentive to schedule better by using a different ranking method, awarding home games, and perhaps using a flexible bracket.

 

[dtgold88]

Again, having two different discussions. One is things we would all like to see, and things likely to happen if any change does at all.

While I don't want to see them go to 8, it is more likely if they do it's more of the same or with minor tweaks not likely to change the OOC value.

I don't agree that giving home field for 4 games will move the needle. There's just no evidence that changes things IMO. It's wishful thinking. There are things they could do to change it, but I can't see those happening either.

We all do agree it is currently weak and we would like to see it change. I just don't see it happening.

If by no evidence you mean because it hasn't happened in this way, I guess that's right.

But in what sport do teams not fight for homefield advantage any time they have the opportunity?

I do think most of us would like to see improvements and universal scheduling in all the conferences.

 

[dtgold88]

Again, you are only here right now to make this something personal. Notice I've answered the thin attempt you gave to be relevant and you chose to fully ignore it and go back to just making it personal.

The other person in this thread is staying on topic and not going on attacks. What kinds of posts are the two of us exchanging?

You aren't interested in a discussion. That is clear. Fine by me. We have no lack of idiots up here looking to rant, trying to find gotcha moments, and masterbating to their own circular logic. They will surely welcome you into their fold.

You could not be more irrational if you tried....and I suspect you will.

You complain I follow you around while you reply to all my posts. You complain about attacks while making personal attacks. You complain about circular logic while keeping the circle going.

And, yes, there are many like you here and in Rivas.

 

[WizardHawk]

Of course things don't change if you keep the broken parts of the current system if moving to 8. Again, you don't have to like 8 no matter what but you could go to 8 and create more incentive to schedule better by using a different ranking method, awarding home games, and perhaps using a flexible bracket.

And again, if there are things that could be changed beyond going to 8, look at doing those now. Heck, even offering HFA is something they could do now. I just don't see that moving anything. That 'different ranking method' could be done now without moving to 8.

I'm just trying to point out that the issue with bad OOC games isn't related to having 4 playoff teams. Going to 4 didn't help, and in recent years appears to have hurt what we had before. It's not getting better, it's getting worse. Expanding alone would not change that. They aren't entirely tied together.

End FCS games. It really needs to start there.

If by no evidence you mean because it hasn't happened in this way, I guess that's right.

But in what sport do teams not fight for homefield advantage any time they have the opportunity?

I do think most of us would like to see improvements and universal scheduling in all the conferences.

In what other sport does fighting for homefield also involve schedules they control? College basketball also has OOC games they control and that too is always controversial each year, however they do not have any type of HFA component. You appear to want to create an argument based on another strawman.

No shit teams fight for HFA. There is no evidence adding HFA changes the narrative to the point where suddenly teams change their views of OOC given that we already know they aren't doing this to even get into the system we have. If they aren't willing to do it just to get in, why would HFA make any change AT ALL to it? I'm simply using extrapolated logic here.

You have to fundamentally change the incentive. Not just try to add another carrot. They aren't biting at the ones already in front of them. Who can blame them really? Oregon was punished for scheduling Auburn, and while their HC says it won't make them reduce going for those games in the future, you can bank that it comes up in discussions and that other AD's around the game will look at that as well. Clemson getting into a high spot on the backs of a weak schedule does not help going forward.

You could not be more irrational if you tried....and I suspect you will.

You complain I follow you around while you reply to all my posts. You complain about attacks while making personal attacks. You complain about circular logic while keeping the circle going.

And, yes, there are many like you here and in Rivas.

More projection and going personal. We are for sure learning more and more about you by the post. Keep on assuming I'm upset or complaining instead of what makes a lot more sense, that I'm just pointing out where your posting failures are coming from.

I do enjoy poking newer posters to see what makes them tick and you are for sure delivering a solid backstory now for future reference.

 

[dtgold88]

And again, if there are things that could be changed beyond going to 8, look at doing those now. Heck, even offering HFA is something they could do now. I just don't see that moving anything. That 'different ranking method' could be done now without moving to 8.

I'm just trying to point out that the issue with bad OOC games isn't related to having 4 playoff teams. Going to 4 didn't help, and in recent years appears to have hurt what we had before. It's not getting better, it's getting worse. Expanding alone would not change that. They aren't entirely tied together.

End FCS games. It really needs to start there.

In what other sport does fighting for homefield also involve schedules they control? College basketball also has OOC games they control and that too is always controversial each year, however they do not have any type of HFA component. You appear to want to create an argument based on another strawman.

No shit teams fight for HFA. There is no evidence adding HFA changes the narrative to the point where suddenly teams change their views of OOC given that we already know they aren't doing this to even get into the system we have. If they aren't willing to do it just to get in, why would HFA make any change AT ALL to it? I'm simply using extrapolated logic here.

You have to fundamentally change the incentive. Not just try to add another carrot. They aren't biting at the ones already in front of them. Who can blame them really? Oregon was punished for scheduling Auburn, and while their HC says it won't make them reduce going for those games in the future, you can bank that it comes up in discussions and that other AD's around the game will look at that as well. Clemson getting into a high spot on the backs of a weak schedule does not help going forward.

More projection and going personal. We are for sure learning more and more about you by the post. Keep on assuming I'm upset or complaining instead of what makes a lot more sense, that I'm just pointing out where your posting failures are coming from.

I do enjoy poking newer posters to see what makes them tick and you are for sure delivering a solid backstory now for future reference.

ok

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Tweaks to any system can be done without axing them entirely.

So far your argument against this year is that Clemson will get in on a weak schedule. The system you want would also have that same weak resume team in. It's just not a good argument. At least wait until you see who is left out before you do your normal rant.

Expanding the play offs is not axing them by any means. That would be the definition of “tweaking” the play offs and system. That is in need of an upgrade.

And this goes far beyond Clemson.....They are just one example of many teams that were rewarded for a watered down regular season. While other teams were punished for playing top tier match ups. There’s really no point in scheduling anyone OOC when it has no benefit to any team. I’m not going to debate using copy and paste arguments.

But I can say going to 8 and using P5 auto bids with a fail safe. Will allow teams to earn their way into the play offs. And promote tougher scheduling for a team to have its best chance at an at large bid. While not punishing them in the process. Which means a much higher quality regular season. Where CCG’s and schedule actually hold meaning.

Outside the Rose bowl this may be the worst NY6 and boel seasons I’ve seen. The only thing settling for the “status quo” and putting so much emphasis on outside human opinion is going to accomplish. Is continuing the steady decline of quality games and increasing watered down football.

I get you love the debate aspect of things. But I’m more interested in the sport in the field. I would think the majority of fans would not want to see this great sport. Turned into an ESPN sideshow imo......

 

[WizardHawk]

Expanding the play offs is not axing them by any means. That would be the definition of “tweaking” the play offs and system. That is in need of an upgrade.

And this goes far beyond Clemson.....They are just one example of many teams that were rewarded for a watered down regular season. While other teams were punished for playing top tier match ups. There’s really no point in scheduling anyone OOC when it has no benefit to any team. I’m not going to debate using copy and paste arguments.

But I can say going to 8 and using P5 auto bids with a fail safe. Will allow teams to earn their way into the play offs. And promote tougher scheduling for a team to have its best chance at an at large bid. While not punishing them in the process. Which means a much higher quality regular season. Where CCG’s and schedule actually hold meaning.

Outside the Rose bowl this may be the worst NY6 and boel seasons I’ve seen. The only thing settling for the “status quo” and putting so much emphasis on outside human opinion is going to accomplish. Is continuing the steady decline of quality games and increasing watered down football.

I get you love the debate aspect of things. But I’m more interested in the sport in the field. I would think the majority of fans would not want to see this great sport. Turned into an ESPN sideshow imo......

No, I'm in favor of actual thought on the subject, not knee jerk reactions.

Our current system of picking conference champions is flawed. Expanding them to have more meaning is a bad idea. Without balanced schedules using the results to seed playoffs isn't logical.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

No, I'm in favor of actual thought on the subject, not knee jerk reactions.

Our current system of picking conference champions is flawed. Expanding them to have more meaning is a bad idea. Without balanced schedules using the results to seed playoffs isn't logical.

Then you’re logic is flawed. It’s not hard to see the current formula is failing college football....

 

[WizardHawk]

Then you’re logic is flawed. It’s not hard to see the current formula is failing college football....

There are plenty of things wrong in college football. This is true. Your proposed solution fixes none of them and causes more issues.

We certainly have discussed this before, however you aren't ever willing to discuss the issues with balanced and unbalanced schedules at all. It seems you are entirely fine with how varied some of the schedules are in each conference and how entirely unfair it is to compare win/loss on two very different schedules. SEC teams miss FIVE of their own conf every single year.

Take USC for example. This year the trojans missed making the CCG by 1 game. They missed playing Oregon State and WSU. Utah missed Stanford and Oregon. USC had a tougher path. And got punished for it.

I know you won't have a discussion about this because it pokes too many holes in your desired format, but until they go back to balanced scheduling it's not the correct approach to finding more fairness in playoff seeding. It simply isn't.

 

[dtgold88]

Then you’re logic is flawed. It’s not hard to see the current formula is failing college football....

I'd say failing is a little harsh

 

[TheRobotDevil]

There are plenty of things wrong in college football. This is true. Your proposed solution fixes none of them and causes more issues.

We certainly have discussed this before, however you aren't ever willing to discuss the issues with balanced and unbalanced schedules at all. It seems you are entirely fine with how varied some of the schedules are in each conference and how entirely unfair it is to compare win/loss on two very different schedules. SEC teams miss FIVE of their own conf every single year.

Take USC for example. This year the trojans missed making the CCG by 1 game. They missed playing Oregon State and WSU. Utah missed Stanford and Oregon. USC had a tougher path. And got punished for it.

I know you won't have a discussion about this because it pokes too many holes in your desired format, but until they go back to balanced scheduling it's not the correct approach to finding more fairness in playoff seeding. It simply isn't.

False and let’s not pretend Stanford was a good team this year.....Or SC didn’t lose to a really bad Huskies team. That was the difference between SC and Utah....Here I’ll bump it for you....



The best way to do it IMO is to have an 8 team playoff with 5 autobids CC and 3 WC at large bids. But there are some rules.

1.Every P5 team plays 10 P5 games and 2 patsy G5/FCS games. The committee can only use P5 games to evaluate a team.

2. If you have more than 2 losses and win your conference you lose your autobid. That spot becomes an extra WC spot.


This is the best way IMO.

2017
Clemson 12-1 CC, 12–1 Oklahoma CC,, 11-2 Ohio State CC , 11-2 USC,
Are in on Auto bid and12-1 Alabama most likely gets the At Large spot

2016
12- 1 Clemson CC, 12-1 Oklahoma CC,11-2 Penn State CC,11-1 Washington CC, 13-0 Alabama CC,
Are all in on Auto bid 11-1 Ohio State most likely gets the At Large Bid

2015
13-0 Clemson CC,,12-1 Oklahoma CC,12-1 Michigan State CC,11-2 Stanford CC,12-1 Alabama CC

Are allí in on Auto Bids 11-1 Ohio State or !!-1 Iowa most likely get the At Large Bid

2014
13-0 FSU CC, 12-1 Ohio State CC, 12-1 Oregon CC,12-1 Alabama CC
Are all in on Auto Bid 11 - 1 TCU and !1 - 1 Baylor are most likely in as the At Large Bids


To simplify it decreasing the amount of influence in deciding the auto bids. While using a fail safe...The regular season games do not just gain meaning because teams are playing to get in. But it encourages stronger OOC scheduling. For teams competing for the at large bids. By cutting down being penalized for scheduling big games. That increases quality and more competitive games/scheduling by design.....

I’m always open for discussion.....When there’s actual discussion.....

 

[WizardHawk]

That last line is a pure lie. You haven't ever been willing to have a discussion lol.

You don't currently have any issues at all with imbalanced schedules. That's really all I got out of that. It doesn't matter to you if a SEC team has a much easier or much harder path because they all miss a different mix of 5 teams from their conference.

Obviously you have to say that because it damages that format otherwise.

That's not having an honest discussion. There really isn't anyone that can't admit imbalanced schedules are less than fair/ideal.

 

[Fitbud]

Once again.

Just wanted to let you know just how much you suck.

See you next year pumpkin.

Wow you really take this stuff personally don't you?

 

[gotigersgo]

Still, it's not broken. The best 4 teams are in. The playoff happened during the regular season. Oregon does not deserve to be in. They lost to Auburn and Arizona State. Baylor lost to Oklahoma twice. Wisconsin lost to Ohio State twice. Georgia lost to unranked South Carolina and got pummeled by LSU. Florida lost to LSU and Georgia. Penn St lost to Minnesota who lost to Michigan and Wisconsin.

Four is the right number.