Playoff Expansion Discussion

[cooljack]

I don't get the meaningless stuff. In 24 when OSU was in no matter what and UM was out no matter what, was that game meaningless to them? Did OSU sit players?

Didn't OSU lose that game? I hope nobody sat out.

 

[Da_Bull]

Didn't OSU lose that game? I hope nobody sat out.

Yeah OSU lost and there was a huge brawl afterwards over a meaningless game, according to Greeny.

 

[cooljack]

Yeah OSU lost and there was a huge brawl afterwards over a meaningless game, according to Greeny.

I know here in Jawja the GT-UGA game is never meaningless, quite the opposite is true. I'm sure that game means the world to both teams. I'd rather GT beat UGA than anybody else regardless of the circumstances.

 

[speedfrk]

Just don't be surprised when we have teams resting starters the last week of the season who have already clinched. Especially the teams in the 10-20 range, who are getting ready to ramp up for what could be another 5 games, and have nothing to play for.

No doubt. I do know coaches are looking to limit the games. There’s a big push to nix the CCGs and have the first round of the playoffs be on Army/Navy day but preserve that game in a stand alone window.

We are probably looking at week 0 ultimately becoming week 1.

 

[ericd7633]

I don't get the meaningless stuff. In 24 when OSU was in no matter what and UM was out no matter what, was that game meaningless to them? Did OSU sit players?

OSU was playing to make the B1GCG. With 24, that would also be going away.

 

[Hitman Hart]

Bcs era was way better than what we have now, and will have if this stupidly gets to 24.

BCS was awesome when the top two teams were clear and obvious. When that was not the case, it was a shitshow.

BCS worked well in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013

It did not work out well in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2011. It isn't even they got the top two teams wrong - there were years that #3 had a reasonable argument to be #2.

The bowl system sucked. We just have nostalgia for it because of it's heavy association with college football. I'm fine with the expanded playoffs especially since the Big Ten, SEC and Notre Dame are the only valuable entities in college football now.

The "every week is sudden death elimination!" talking point for the old regular season was just dumb people using a bad excuse about why their favorite sport had the worst post-season format in sports.

 

[ericd7633]

BCS was awesome when the top two teams were clear and obvious. When that was not the case, it was a shitshow.

BCS worked well in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013

It did not work out well in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2011. It isn't even they got the top two teams wrong - there were years that #3 had a reasonable argument to be #2.

The bowl system sucked. We just have nostalgia for it because of it's heavy association with college football. I'm fine with the expanded playoffs especially since the Big Ten, SEC and Notre Dame are the only valuable entities in college football now.

The "every week is sudden death elimination!" talking point for the old regular season was just dumb people using a bad excuse about why their favorite sport had the worst post-season format in sports.

I would agree, not every season it worked out. But IMO, I'd still take that over going to 24.

The thing that killed CFB was realignment anyway. I think I'd be more on board with expansion back when there was a P5. Without realignment, with a 24 team CFP, last year we would have had: 4 B1G, 5 SEC, 3 B12, 3 P12, 2 Independent, 3 ACC, 2 American and 1 CUSA. That actually would be pretty cool.

 

[dtgold88]

Just don't be surprised when we have teams resting starters the last week of the season who have already clinched. Especially the teams in the 10-20 range, who are getting ready to ramp up for what could be another 5 games, and have nothing to play for.

I wont be completely surprised if ever comes to nothing being on line. But we see this all the time in NFL and NBA. And in the NFL the last week is often rivalry/division games. Doesn't mean the better answer is eliminate all the playoff teams but 2.

 

[dtgold88]

BCS was awesome when the top two teams were clear and obvious. When that was not the case, it was a shitshow.

BCS worked well in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013

It did not work out well in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2011. It isn't even they got the top two teams wrong - there were years that #3 had a reasonable argument to be #2.

The bowl system sucked. We just have nostalgia for it because of it's heavy association with college football. I'm fine with the expanded playoffs especially since the Big Ten, SEC and Notre Dame are the only valuable entities in college football now.

The "every week is sudden death elimination!" talking point for the old regular season was just dumb people using a bad excuse about why their favorite sport had the worst post-season format in sports.

agree with a good portion of that other than the awesome part at beginning. Just as "clear and obvious" who 2 best teams are in other sport at end of some regular seasons. Doubt many want those 2 to play in a game or series and call it a season.

 

[dtgold88]

I would agree, not every season it worked out. But IMO, I'd still take that over going to 24.

The thing that killed CFB was realignment anyway. I think I'd be more on board with expansion back when there was a P5. Without realignment, with a 24 team CFP, last year we would have had: 4 B1G, 5 SEC, 3 B12, 3 P12, 2 Independent, 3 ACC, 2 American and 1 CUSA. That actually would be pretty cool.

Obviously entitled to opinion and can certainly understand reluctance to go to 24......But 2 of 134 teams with a chance at a title is better than 24 of 134? That's still only 18% of teams.

Also prefer how it was with the P5 conferences but killed? A sport is not killed just because not how you prefer.

 

[ericd7633]

I wont be completely surprised if ever comes to nothing being on line. But we see this all the time in NFL and NBA. And in the NFL the last week is often rivalry/division games. Doesn't mean the better answer is eliminate all the playoff teams but 2.

The NFL it does happen all the time, which I don't like. The eagles have rested their starters 5 of the last 6 years in that last game. Against Washington, Dallas or New York. Which stinks because those are rivalry games.

 

[dtgold88]

The NFL it does happen all the time, which I don't like. The eagles have rested their starters 5 of the last 6 years in that last game. Against Washington, Dallas or New York. Which stinks because those are rivalry games.

OK, but when you earn that right by playing really well......? Is the better answer just eliminate the playoffs other than for 2 teams?

 

[ericd7633]

Obviously entitled to opinion and can certainly understand reluctance to go to 24......But 2 of 134 teams with a chance at a title is better than 24 of 134? That's still only 18% of teams.

Also prefer how it was with the P5 conferences but killed? A sport is not killed just because not how you prefer.

Rutgers and Oregon are in the same conference. Cal and Syracuse are in the same conference. Money, greed, and no centralized leadership have definitely made it worse. It's football so people will watch, but nothing about the sport is better, IMO, than it was 20 years ago.

 

[dtgold88]

Rutgers and Oregon are in the same conference. Cal and Syracuse are in the same conference. Money, greed, and no centralized leadership have definitely made it worse. It's football so people will watch, but nothing about the sport is better, IMO, than it was 20 years ago.

As I sad for me it's worse than it was as I liked the P5 model how it was before all those teams moved. And, sure. A Rutgers-Oregon or Cal-Syracuse pretty wild (or even lame if you prefer). But is Rutgers-NW so much better because they travel less?

And again, your opinion to think NOTHING better and if you prefer 2 teams of 134 to have a shot over 4 or 12 (or 24) you certainly get to have that right.

 

[ericd7633]

OK, but when you earn that right by playing really well......? Is the better answer just eliminate the playoffs other than for 2 teams?

Oh I agree they've earned that right. And with nothing on the line, I'm fine they do it, but those are supposed to be the best games of the year, and they just aren't. That's my point about resting starters. It's not just OSU/Michigan. What if Clemson bounces back to what they were and are 11-0 going into a game against South Carolina. Would they play starters?

The best thing about the sport, IMO, were the stakes of the games. Now instead of it being between a 10-1 OSU vs 10-1 Michigan, it'll be a 8-3 Iowa vs 8-3 Nebraska.

 

[dtgold88]

Oh I agree they've earned that right. And with nothing on the line, I'm fine they do it, but those are supposed to be the best games of the year, and they just aren't. That's my point about resting starters. It's not just OSU/Michigan. What if Clemson bounces back to what they were and are 11-0 going into a game against South Carolina. Would they play starters?

The best thing about the sport, IMO, were the stakes of the games. Now instead of it being between a 10-1 OSU vs 10-1 Michigan, it'll be a 8-3 Iowa vs 8-3 Nebraska.

Maybe wait and see if that even happens as so far it hasn't even though if they wanted OSU could have rested guys vs. UM last year.

entitled to my opinion, too, and still crazy to me to think the better choice is vote 2 teams into a title game and give no one else a shot than 4, 12 or even 24 teams.

 

[ericd7633]

As I sad for me it's worse than it was as I liked the P5 model how it was before all those teams moved. And, sure. A Rutgers-Oregon or Cal-Syracuse pretty wild (or even lame if you prefer). But is Rutgers-NW so much better because they travel less?

And again, your opinion to think NOTHING better and if you prefer 2 teams of 134 to have a shot over 4 or 12 (or 24) you certainly get to have that right.

Rutgers vs anyone isn't any better. But Rutgers sucks at everything lol. But Oregon vs Oregon State and Oregon even vs Wazzu was a hell of a lot better than Oregon vs MD, or Purdue or anyone not named OSU, PSU or Michigan. Even Oregon vs Stanford was fun.

 

[ericd7633]

Maybe wait and see if that even happens as so far it hasn't even though if they wanted OSU could have rested guys vs. UM last year.

entitled to my opinion, too, and still crazy to me to think the better choice is vote 2 teams into a title game and give no one else a shot than 4, 12 or even 24 teams.

That's fair. And for the record, I am fine with 12. 4 didn't make a lot of sense to me. 24 just doesn't really do anything for me.

 

[Da_Bull]

I would agree, not every season it worked out. But IMO, I'd still take that over going to 24.

The thing that killed CFB was realignment anyway. I think I'd be more on board with expansion back when there was a P5. Without realignment, with a 24 team CFP, last year we would have had: 4 B1G, 5 SEC, 3 B12, 3 P12, 2 Independent, 3 ACC, 2 American and 1 CUSA. That actually would be pretty cool.

I can agree on the realignment. Big conferences and unbalanced schedules make it difficult to pin down the best few teams. With talent spread out expanding the playoffs was necessary and may still be necessary moving forward.

 

[dtgold88]

That's fair. And for the record, I am fine with 12. 4 didn't make a lot of sense to me. 24 just doesn't really do anything for me.

Yeah as I said earlier 24 did seem like a lot. Letting nearly an entire top 25 in seems like a little much. Think if I got to choose the formula solely based on what I'd want to see (and not caring about their finances, bowl groups, etc) I'd go with 16 teams NFL style with all rounds on college campus of higher seed until a title game at a neutral site. Realize that's not going to happen. 2 rounds on campus with rotating P6 for semis and title game OK, too, I guess.