Would you rather?

[Hang_On_Sloopy08]

There's a face palm available.......and I can't help you if you think the regular season is sacred now and wouldn't be if the playoffs are expanded.

The same shit was used when the playoffs expanded to four teams. And the regular season became MORE important, not less.

"The regular season sacred bullshit" is nothing but propaganda promoted by big money bowls.

Again... there's 4 playoff spots for 5 P5 conference teams. The 4th spot gets extremely competitive between the last 2 conference champions. The overall volume of work gets heavily scrutinized by the committee. That's where the committee starts to reward teams for playing tougher OOC. If you allow 4 extra teams, why risk playing the tougher OOC schedule? AD's will play it safe to ensure a pay day in the playoffs.

 

[CU#1Fan]

So you're another person with a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

Question was asked, I gave my answer. Don't like my answer, I don't give a shit. Piss off!

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Again... there's 4 playoff spots for 5 P5 conference teams. The 4th spot gets extremely competitive between the last 2 conference champions. The overall volume of work gets heavily scrutinized by the committee. That's where the committee starts to reward teams for playing tougher OOC. If you allow 4 extra teams, why risk playing the tougher OOC schedule? AD's will play it safe to ensure a pay day in the playoffs.

I can see that point of view and agree with it to a point. But looking at this year and not to take anything away from either team. Michigan and Washington do have very weak SOS. Especially OOC SOS. You could also make the argument a team like OSU,Wisconsin,Louisville,Clemson etc...Who scheduled stronger OOC games have a very strong case for the 4th playoff spot left out.Because of one loss due to conference play.In place of a team that had a very weak SOS. We could say this year makes a strong case for expanding the play offs. I like the idea of 6 to 8 teams for that reason

 

[4down20]

Question was asked, I gave my answer. Don't like my answer, I don't give a shit. Piss off!

That's about what I figured. TYCA.

 

[American Male]

Just think about this for a second guys. There are 5 major FBS conferences. Winning any one of them is a difficult task and IMO is enough to say a team deserves to compete for the National Title. That being the case I can't think of a scenario where the playoff doesn't go to 8 teams eventually. It just makes sense.

Automatic berths for each P5 conference champ with 3 at-large bids. Maybe reserve one for the highest ranked G5 champion as long as they meet certain criteria.

That alone will stop a lot of the whining about who should and shouldn't get in. Mad your team got left out? Well, they should have won their conference. Did your team go undefeated all year and then lay an egg in the CCG? Well good news, it's likely they'll get an at-large.

This shit just makes too much sense. It's inevitably going to happen. Accept it.

That is unless you're an Alabama Fan!!!

 

[Lions=TeHsUcKs]

8 teams on neutral sites. Bowls can eat a fat ass dick.

 

[Jekku]

Neither Ohio St nor Baylor had a claim on the #1 spot going into the playoffs. Ohio St was a team that improved as the year went on and got hot with a QB coming in that nobody at the time was ready to defend.

Ohio St made the best of an opportunity that was given to them by having an empty spot. Congrats to them, but their success doesn't somehow justify the addition of more teams.

You are arguing over not who has a legitimate claim to the 1st spot, but on who has a claim on the 4th spot.

If you think claims on the 4th spot are this difficult, do you understand that the further down the list you go, the more ambiguous it gets? Because if you look at the way people do their polls, you usually see pretty decent agreement in the first couple of ranks. And the further down the list you go, the more different it gets.

Lets assume we expand to 8. If the 8th place team happens to win one year, does it somehow justify the addition of adding 8 more teams because of the large number of teams who had a claim on the 8th spot?

No it doesn't. Because it's a claim on the 4th and 8th spots, not a claim on the 1st spot.

You seem to think I wanna just add team's for hell of it. I think it would be much better for college football to have 6 or 8 team's competing for the top spot. Not just for the extra team's but for the top team's as well. I also never claimed OSU had a claim to the number 1 spot. But they did win and are the champions that year, thereby proving, having more teams can really make it interesting and give a better indicator of who the champion should be. It's better for the game, it's better for the fans AND they would make more money. It's wins all around.

 

[Jekku]

There's a face palm available.......and I can't help you if you think the regular season is sacred now and wouldn't be if the playoffs are expanded.

The same shit was used when the playoffs expanded to four teams. And the regular season became MORE important, not less.

"The regular season sacred bullshit" is nothing but propaganda promoted by big money bowls.

This.

 

[4down20]

You seem to think I wanna just add team's for hell of it. I think it would be much better for college football to have 6 or 8 team's competing for the top spot. Not just for the extra team's but for the top team's as well.

The teams that fill spots 5-8 are 4 teams that either played poor schedules or just lost the conference championship. You are offering no more of an intriguing matchup than is already provided by the bowl games, which generally pit those same teams against each other already.

I also never claimed OSU had a claim to the number 1 spot. But they did win and are the champions that year, thereby proving, having more teams can really make it interesting and give a better indicator of who the champion should be.

This is an absurd assertion. If what you said is true, it would also be to say that last year, #4 Oklahoma and #3 Michigan St who both lost in the semi-finals proved the exact opposite. That all it did was add extra games when #1 and #2 ended up meeting anyway. Which of course isn't true, because the wins and losses of those teams in the playoffs doesn't prove a damn thing in these areas.

It's better for the game

No it's not. Right now SoS actually still has some meaning. Taking it down to 8 teams means you start taking in teams with 2 losses - among many teams with 2 losses. Generally these are the same teams who just lost their conference championships.

it's better for the fans

Actually, the games you want to add already exist between those same teams, they just aren't playoff games, they are regular bowl games.

AND they would make more money.

No, these games already exist, they just aren't tied to the playoffs.

It's wins all around.

It's adding games for the sake of adding games(even though it's not really adding them as you think) and provides a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

College football isn't broke, it's pretty fucking awesome right now and anyone who wants to change it can lick my ball sack.

 

[Jekku]

The teams that fill spots 5-8 are 4 teams that either played poor schedules or just lost the conference championship. You are offering no more of an intriguing matchup than is already provided by the bowl games, which generally pit those same teams against each other already.



This is an absurd assertion. If what you said is true, it would also be to say that last year, #4 Oklahoma and #3 Michigan St who both lost in the semi-finals proved the exact opposite. That all it did was add extra games when #1 and #2 ended up meeting anyway. Which of course isn't true, because the wins and losses of those teams in the playoffs doesn't prove a damn thing in these areas.


No it's not. Right now SoS actually still has some meaning. Taking it down to 8 teams means you start taking in teams with 2 losses - among many teams with 2 losses. Generally these are the same teams who just lost their conference championships.



Actually, the games you want to add already exist between those same teams, they just aren't playoff games, they are regular bowl games.



No, these games already exist, they just aren't tied to the playoffs.



It's adding games for the sake of adding games(even though it's not really adding them as you think) and provides a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

College football isn't broke, it's pretty fucking awesome right now and anyone who wants to change it can lick my ball sack.

Well first of all, its a fallacy to say somethings not broke so no need to change anything. Something does not have to be broken to be improved.

SoS will still have meaning. I dont understand this whole "the season will be destroyed" stuff. The season has been enhanced by a playoff, not devalued. Who's to say it won't continue to get better? You realize more teams will try get better SoS's because theres more teams in contention for more spots right? And they can afford a loss or 2. That will give schools incentive to play better games.

On the "extra teams will be conference championship game losers". We already have teams that don't win their divisions in discussion for playoff spots. So it really won't change much, just give more teams a chance to get in. I can actually see the argument of not wanting non champions to participate. It's a valid one. But you would have to stipulate (with the current rules) that only conference champions can participate. That is not the current reality so it's not really an anti 6 or 8 team playoff argument.

Regarding your brief comment about the bowls, the bowl system is garbage and antiquated. We can have bowls but the system needs to be completely overhauled. Too many garbage bowls no one care about and trophies for teams that are 8-5, come on.

Regarding your point on Mich State and OU losing. That proves that the #1 and #2 teams were better. That doesn't invalidate my point that a lower seeded team can win it. Not at all, to make that connection is ridiculous. You see that in many sports. Some years the favorites win, some year's there are upsets. Upsets would make this system glorious. Because the favorites usually win, does that mean we should do away with playoffs and just give the trophy to the team who won the season grind?

Your last comment is very interesting, it seems to imply that your wishes for CFB should go above what people want. That is not the case. If the common sense and people wish something to be, it will be. It's why we have a playoff (its why we got the BCS). The playoff IS going to expand, regardless of our little debate about it. Stewart Mandel said it in 07 in his first book. It eventually will be 8 teams (personally I want 6 and no more) but it's gonna happen.

 

[4down20]

Your last comment is very interesting, it seems to imply that your wishes for CFB should go above what people want. That is not the case. If the common sense and people wish something to be, it will be. It's why we have a playoff (its why we got the BCS). The playoff IS going to expand, regardless of our little debate about it. Stewart Mandel said it in 07 in his first book. It eventually will be 8 teams (personally I want 6 and no more) but it's gonna happen.

Ok, well you aren't going to get your way so cry more.

 

[Jekku]

Ok, well you aren't going to get your way so cry more.

Clearly I am crying in my responses. I cannot hold back the tears. It is why I cannot sleep!

 

[Jekku]

Btw, why is there no poll about this? Perhaps I shall start one tomorrow. Love to get a figure on where people on here stand.

 

[4down20]

Btw, why is there no poll about this? Perhaps I shall start one tomorrow. Love to get a figure on where people on here stand.

This topic has been beat to death around here and most people tell the guy who is constantly starting the topic to fuck off.

 

[4down20]

Clearly I am crying in my responses. I cannot hold back the tears. It is why I cannot sleep!

Looks to me like all you are doing is crying about how bad things are. Claiming the bowls are "antiquated" and blah blah. When #4 wins, it proves everything, when everyone else wins, it proves nothing.

Blah blah blah.

Nothing but complaints for college football.

Answer me this - how long have you been watching college football? Because you clearly have no respect for the things that make college football great.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

No it's not. Right now SoS actually still has some meaning. Taking it down to 8 teams means you start taking in teams with 2 losses - among many teams with 2 losses. Generally these are the same teams who just lost their conference championships.

I'd argue that the SOS would still mean plenty at 8 teams, at least in the format I proposed where P5 champs get in automatically. Teams would still be looking to have a strong SOS to win the at-large bid if they didn't win their CCG, and because winning the CCG means you get it there would be no reason to fear losing an early season non-conference game. Just look at FCS right now. The big name programs like EWU and NDSU schedule FBS programs and other top FCS schools in the non-conference all the time. The 24 team playoff doesn't deter them from seeking out competition.

Actually, the games you want to add already exist between those same teams, they just aren't playoff games, they are regular bowl games.

You're 100% correct here, but the problem is people want to see more games that mean something. A match up of top 10 teams with the opportunity to move on to play for the championship is exponentially more interesting than the same top 10 teams meeting in a glorified exhibition game. Maybe I'm being a little harsh there, but you have to admit that winning a non-playoff NY6 bowl game has become less of an accomplishment since the inception of the playoff.

It's adding games for the sake of adding games(even though it's not really adding them as you think) and provides a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

The argument for the expanded playoff is that you're adding more games that mean something. Not just that you're adding game for the hell of it. It's "adding" games for the purpose of better entertainment value.

Does a "problem" exist? Probably not. The system right now is okay. It's certainly better than the BCS which was a complete joke. But there is room for improvement IMO.

For the record, I think 8 is the perfect number here. 16 would require even more intervention and more teams being selected by a committee.

College football isn't broke, it's pretty fucking awesome right now and anyone who wants to change it can lick my ball sack.

Although I appreciate the offer, I'm going to have to decline kind sir.

 

[4down20]

I'd argue that the SOS would still mean plenty at 8 teams, at least in the format I proposed where P5 champs get in automatically. Teams would still be looking to have a strong SOS to win the at-large bid if they didn't win their CCG, and because winning the CCG means you get it there would be no reason to fear losing an early season non-conference game. Just look at FCS right now. The big name programs like EWU and NDSU schedule FBS programs and other top FCS schools in the non-conference all the time. The 24 team playoff doesn't deter them from seeking out competition.



You're 100% correct here, but the problem is people want to see more games that mean something. A match up of top 10 teams with the opportunity to move on to play for the championship is exponentially more interesting than the same top 10 teams meeting in a glorified exhibition game. Maybe I'm being a little harsh there, but you have to admit that winning a non-playoff NY6 bowl game has become less of an accomplishment since the inception of the playoff.


The argument for the expanded playoff is that you're adding more games that mean something. Not just that you're adding game for the hell of it. It's "adding" games for the purpose of better entertainment value.

Does a "problem" exist? Probably not. The system right now is okay. It's certainly better than the BCS which was a complete joke. But there is room for improvement IMO.

For the record, I think 8 is the perfect number here. 16 would require even more intervention and more teams being selected by a committee.



Although I appreciate the offer, I'm going to have to decline kind sir.

Bob Saget sucks.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Bob Saget sucks.

This is also 100% correct

 

[4down20]

This is also 100% correct

I'm going to bed, I'm too tired to put a real response to that long shit.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

I'm going to bed, I'm too tired to put a real response to that long shit.

All I read was "You're right Cave, I concede to your masterful argument. You don't have to lick my bawls".