-
-
I just looked it up, Div II is already at 24 teams but FCS is only set to expand to 20, starting this postseason. I guess there are 4 teams who get byes?
But yeah, now that they've expanded to 20 it'll be 24 then 28 then 32 before you know it. I'm in favor of a playoff, I think the BCS sucks. But I'm worried about the slippery slope aspect of too many teams wanting to be included.
4 team playoff is fine by me. Any undefeated team automatically gets in and from there the top remaining conference champions get in based on a selection committee.
Comment
-
I don't think any playoff would lessen the regular season, I think that too big of a playoff would lessen the regular season. I'd rather take too few, than take too many. Why? Because when you start taking too many teams, you start devaluing regular season losses. Losses should impact whether or not you get a shot at the title and although you might be playing the best football at the end of the season, your ENTIRE season should matter, not just how you played at the end.
I have long said that a 4 team playoff with the top 4 conference champions and an improved BCS formula (Margin of Victory allowed for computers and replacing the Coaches Poll with the AP) would benefit college football. But if it went to 8 or 16 teams, then all of a sudden, late losses don't mean anything. Early losses don't mean anything. Just get to the top 16 and you are set. Why would teams try a big OOC opponent when they know that all that have to do is breeze through some easy OOC opponents, beat a majority of their conference and finish the season 10-2, thus getting into the playoffs?
As a WVU fan, you will remember several years ago when WVU had the stars align and was one win away from the NC game. Would that game have mattered as much if win or lose, WVU was guaranteed a place in a 8 or 16 team playoff? Of course not. WVU still would have tried, but at the end, would have shrugged their shoulders and still packed their bags and prepared to play for a championship even though they lost their final game. How does that not lessen the importance of the regular season?
I don't like it simply because in some cases, teams can burst out of the middle. The year before Ohio State won it all, they were 7-5 and lost their bowl game. They might have been in the lower division if they only had to play the top 60 teams. So instead of a once in a lifetime 14-0 season and arguably the most exciting single season for any team ever, we get them beating up on the lower division and really accomplishing nothing.
It is a good idea for fairness, but overall, it hurts the sport.Comment
-
They were 7-5 with their 7 wins being against Akron, Indiana, Northwestern, San Diego State, Minnesota, Purdue, and Michigan. If instead of bottom dwellers like Akron, Indiana, and San Diego State and instead had to play better teams, I would easily say that they could be a team under .500. They could have been relegated depending on who else was in their division.
I would like to hear your comments on the WVU example, though.Comment
-
all homerism aside, i still think that WVU team was the best team in CFB that year and would have won a NT if there had been a playoff... i see your point, but we are talking about a team that still won their conference and was considered one of the best teams that year, not some shitsquad who got lucky and caught the conference in a down year (Illinois in 2007, Pitt in 2004, Cincy in 2008, whoever wins the ACC every year)... i am not for a playoff of more than 6 teams, so your point is moot, and having said playoff would not weaken the regular season...Comment
-
On one hand, you guys are telling me rivalries mean more than titles, yet on the other hand, you are also saying rivalries would be hurt by a playoff if both teams were likely playoff teams.
Well, which is it? If these precious rivalries meant as much as you say, nothing could hurt them.
Talk your way out of that.
If the rivalries truly are the most impotant thing, a playoff wouldn't hurt them. Nothing would.Comment
-
:smugusa:
But you're given an opportunity. The smaller schools. Butler was in the College Basketball National Championship this year, man. Fucking Butler. Who knew Butler before this year? Nobody. Nobody would've picked them. Playoffs aren't perfect, nothing's perfect, but it is a definitive system. Everyone's given a chance and you're given one shot to prove you're the best.
And you can argue that "the bowl system has the regular season as a palyoff" and this and that and the other thing, but in any case nothing is going to get changed until "the cartel", as W2B so aptly named them, can be convinced that they're going to make more money off of a playoff.
If the rivalries are more important than the bowls, then they'd probably be more important than playoffs, too... Thereby, that really means nothing. If Ohio State is more interested in beating Michigan, and vice versa... then what else really matters? I mean, what bearing does that have on our argument?
---
What I find most interesting is that everyone is worried about the value of the regular season.
Pro-Playoff: "The regular season is made more important because of the playoff."
Pro-bowls: "The regular season is made more important because of the bowl system."
I'm confused. You both have points, and the argument is cyclical.
---
Personally, I'd be in favor of an 8-team playoff with the six BCS schools and the two non-BCS schools with the best records and conference records or something...
Or a 12-team with the eleven conference champs and a wild card... Or the best indy team.
Idk. Whatever happens, people are going to be disappointed in something, but I'd personally prefer a playoff.
Comment
Tweet
Comment