So far, this playoff system is proving that there are not 12 teams that deserve the shot at the NC. The four team playoff was much better.
And there aren’t 68 teams that can win the NCAA Tournsment. I don’t know why people are opposed to more meaningful post season games in college football.So far, this playoff system is proving that there are not 12 teams that deserve the shot at the NC. The four team playoff was much better.
So far, this playoff system is proving that there are not 12 teams that deserve the shot at the NC. The four team playoff was much better.
The biggest issue is putting in teams that don’t have a chance to win a game even if they play pretty well. Just not enough personnel in these teams with good records and easy schedules in the unweighted schedule system. SMU shouldn’t be a stunner that they don’t have enough. They lost to Clemson and Clemson was smashed by UGASo far, this playoff system is proving that there are not 12 teams that deserve the shot at the NC. The four team playoff was much better.
Does not matter if you expand to a 32 team playoff, most years 3 of 4 teams will still be the same.I just think 4 was too limiting and people got tired of seeing the same teams rotate through it. So I could get expansion. What I don't care for is how they set it up with seeding and things.
Personally I say scrap this whole committee and lets bring back the BCS model and let that thing rank the teams. Some guy's website did that and he basically had the same teams in the field.
There might be 12 deserving teams but not necessarily those 12. When they eventually go to 16, they should just seed it like they do the basketball tourney,So far, this playoff system is proving that there are not 12 teams that deserve the shot at the NC. The four team playoff was much better.
So far, this playoff system is proving that there are not 12 teams that deserve the shot at the NC. The four team playoff was much better.
If they had 4 teams it would have most likely been Oregon, UGA, Texas, and either ND/PsU. No way that would be better. Def should be top 12 and no auto byes. That would make it better but this is still better than 4So far, this playoff system is proving that there are not 12 teams that deserve the shot at the NC. The four team playoff was much better.
And there aren’t 68 teams that can win the NCAA Tournsment. I don’t know why people are opposed to more meaningful post season games in college football.
Yes. Totally agree. I'm just thinking that if Kentucky ever squeaked in, it would probably be an away game. Our fans would be bummed out not getting any tickets.Disagree with it being split down the middle, as I think the better seed deserves a home field advantage. But, the visiting teams are only getting 3500 tickets and that's too few. It's odd though, demand for these games is not high (outside of Indiana vs. ND last night). Get in prices in Columbus tonight are as low as $50, and that could mean a reported 30,000 vol fans in the horseshoe.
I do think some tweaks need to be made though:
-More true home games. The top four seeds deserve at least one game at home.
-Truly seed the field. There is zero reason why Boise gets the third seed in this tournament.
-Increase importance of Strength of schedule. Indiana, Boise, and Texas beat zero really good teams this year (at least Texas can say that it beat ok teams like Florida and vandy and A&M; Indiana beat....MICHIGAN?).
8 was the correct number, imo. I think you HAVE to give every power conference champ an auto bid, last year's situation demanded an expansion. But we jumped straight to too many teams. If we did the 5 champs getting bids (to stave off antitrust lawsuit from the G5 schools) and 3 at large you'd have:So far, this playoff system is proving that there are not 12 teams that deserve the shot at the NC. The four team playoff was much better.
8 was the correct number, imo. I think you HAVE to give every power conference champ an auto bid, last year's situation demanded an expansion. But we jumped straight to too many teams. If we did the 5 champs getting bids (to stave off antitrust lawsuit from the G5 schools) and 3 at large you'd have:
1 Oregon vs 8 Clemson
4 Penn St vs 5 Notre Dame
3 Texas vs 6 Boise St
2 Georgia vs 7 Arizona St
8 was the correct number, imo. I think you HAVE to give every power conference champ an auto bid, last year's situation demanded an expansion. But we jumped straight to too many teams. If we did the 5 champs getting bids (to stave off antitrust lawsuit from the G5 schools) and 3 at large you'd have:
1 Oregon vs 8 Clemson
4 Penn St vs 5 Notre Dame
3 Texas vs 6 Boise St
2 Georgia vs 7 Arizona St
They do it in every other sport in the NCAA. Baseball, basketball, lacrosse, soccer, FCS football, DII football, DIII football, etc etc. ….every single sport.I don’t understand the “we do it in basketball, so why not football” argument. People like the Cinderella basketball upsets. Fine. But, the college football tournament used to start with the first game of the season. Now, not as much. See Clemson.
They do it in every other sport in the NCAA. Baseball, basketball, lacrosse, soccer, FCS football, DII football, DIII football, etc etc. ….every single sport.
I just don’t know why people don’t want more meaningful games in college football. Why the need to cut it to 8 when you can have 4 more meaningful games on the Saturday behote Christmas?
Bowl games lost their luster with guys opting out, transferring etc. That model no longer worked in modern college football. I’d love 16 teams personally. I know we are opposite ends on this debate.The idea that every sport needs to do the same thing makes no sense. Football has always made the season key. Now it is less so. I do not care about Cinderellas. But, the make it like everything else fans won the debate ($$$$).
Bowl games lost their luster with guys opting out, transferring etc. That model no longer worked in modern college football. I’d love 16 teams personally. I know we are opposite ends on this debate.
I bring in the bowl discussion because FBS post season football was broken and the 12 team playoff has 100% helped.IMO, the bowl issue has no moment in this discussion. It’s about finding a national champion. This year 12 has sucked. ABC can try and hype it all the want, we have had two bad games and one mediocre game. Now the Buckeyes jump out of the gate bitch slapping the Vols. If this holds, the first year was a football bust, regardless of the ratings.
Lol, yea let's do it in the NFL too!(Rolling eyes)And take away home field advantage? Big no to that.
Get a better seed. PeriodYes. Totally agree. I'm just thinking that if Kentucky ever squeaked in, it would probably be an away game. Our fans would be bummed out not getting any tickets.
What makes you think Boise State is a cupcake? Their only loss was by 3 to Oregon this year. And Clemson had a chance tonight to knock off Texas. They probably put up the best fight of a low seeded team in round 1.So in your 8 team playoff the cupcake 9th, 12th and 16th ranked teams get in. SEC and Big 10 just need to break away and form their own playoff (add a few more teams to each so u get your clemsons and fsus and so forth included). I'd be far more interested in watching that.
IMO you have to incentivize winning the conferences. And no one is going to go along with only top 12 when their conference could be left out. Ideally getting the top 12 would be great but that still doesnt even happen in pro sports as division winners get guaranteed bids.I'm no OSU fan but if we are looking for the best teams, I don't see how everyone is leaving them out in their reduced format. They are arguably the most talented team this year and their two losses were by a total of four points. They also beat PSU head to head. I think the goal should always be the 12 best teams, if the conference champs make a strong enough case then I'm fine with it but it doesn't need to be a lock for a team from a conference that is having a down year.