07-12-2019, 08:57 AM
Pac12 not worst P5 Conference per 247 projection
07-12-2019, 09:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2019, 09:13 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Clemson has basically lapped the field in the ACC. There is no way the ranking of the ACC below the Pac-12 has any relevance whatsoever when it comes to playoff consideration, given this Clemson reality.
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2019, 09:13 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Clemson has basically lapped the field in the ACC. There is no way the ranking of the ACC below the Pac-12 has any relevance whatsoever when it comes to playoff consideration, given this Clemson reality.
07-12-2019, 10:19 AM
This is what I have hated about the so-called "playoff" since its inception. It makes everything else in college football irrelevant, especially to those supposed to be covering the sport. If you're wondering why college football is losing butts in the seats, look no further.
This is what I have hated about the so-called "playoff" since its inception. It makes everything else in college football irrelevant, especially to those supposed to be covering the sport. If you're wondering why college football is losing butts in the seats, look no further.
07-12-2019, 10:42 AM
It would easily be fixed by expanding to 6 or 8 teams so all the major conference winners have a chance to participate.
It would easily be fixed by expanding to 6 or 8 teams so all the major conference winners have a chance to participate.
07-12-2019, 02:02 PM
(07-12-2019, 12:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(07-12-2019, 10:42 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It would easily be fixed by expanding to 6 or 8 teams so all the major conference winners have a chance to participate.
Why not just expand to a 128 team playoff and do away with the regular season entirely.
BC
Because that is a totally over the top concept, and sarcasm masquerading as a devil's advocate position.
(07-12-2019, 12:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(07-12-2019, 10:42 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It would easily be fixed by expanding to 6 or 8 teams so all the major conference winners have a chance to participate.
Why not just expand to a 128 team playoff and do away with the regular season entirely.
BC
Because that is a totally over the top concept, and sarcasm masquerading as a devil's advocate position.
07-12-2019, 03:54 PM
(07-12-2019, 03:44 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(07-12-2019, 10:42 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It would easily be fixed by expanding to 6 or 8 teams so all the major conference winners have a chance to participate.
Same BS....different number.
Even if you're right, the playoff is only going in one direction and that is expansion. It isn't ever going away. Hell, the NFL is proposing two more games and limiting injury concerns by wanting to limit all players to 16 games. More games equal more money, and that is also the case when it comes to college football.
(07-12-2019, 03:44 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(07-12-2019, 10:42 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It would easily be fixed by expanding to 6 or 8 teams so all the major conference winners have a chance to participate.
Same BS....different number.
Even if you're right, the playoff is only going in one direction and that is expansion. It isn't ever going away. Hell, the NFL is proposing two more games and limiting injury concerns by wanting to limit all players to 16 games. More games equal more money, and that is also the case when it comes to college football.
07-12-2019, 04:24 PM
(07-12-2019, 10:19 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote: This is what I have hated about the so-called "playoff" since its inception. It makes everything else in college football irrelevant, especially to those supposed to be covering the sport. If you're wondering why college football is losing butts in the seats, look no further.
I know. I'm pretty happy to see us win the Pac-12 North, win a CCG, and play in a Rose Bowl once in a while. Would I love to see Stanford in the playoff, sure, but given the level of the competition these other things are worthy accomplishments in their own right. With the number of teams that play Div 1 football, you are not going to get that many cracks at it if you are not Alabama or Clemson.
(07-12-2019, 10:19 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote: This is what I have hated about the so-called "playoff" since its inception. It makes everything else in college football irrelevant, especially to those supposed to be covering the sport. If you're wondering why college football is losing butts in the seats, look no further.
I know. I'm pretty happy to see us win the Pac-12 North, win a CCG, and play in a Rose Bowl once in a while. Would I love to see Stanford in the playoff, sure, but given the level of the competition these other things are worthy accomplishments in their own right. With the number of teams that play Div 1 football, you are not going to get that many cracks at it if you are not Alabama or Clemson.
07-12-2019, 05:14 PM
(07-12-2019, 12:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote:You can have your cake and eat it, too.(07-12-2019, 10:42 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It would easily be fixed by expanding to 6 or 8 teams so all the major conference winners have a chance to participate.
Why not just expand to a 128 team playoff and do away with the regular season entirely.
BC
The first seven games of the season are conference games, used strictly for seeding for the 128-team playoff, which constitutes the last seven games. Every team gets seven home and seven away games. Lesser teams end up playing each other, better teams end up playing each other. Only the first seven game schedule is assured, then seed #1 plays #65, seed #2 plays #66 and so forth. Upsets would be few, just the way the big schools like them.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(07-12-2019, 12:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote:You can have your cake and eat it, too.(07-12-2019, 10:42 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It would easily be fixed by expanding to 6 or 8 teams so all the major conference winners have a chance to participate.
Why not just expand to a 128 team playoff and do away with the regular season entirely.
BC
The first seven games of the season are conference games, used strictly for seeding for the 128-team playoff, which constitutes the last seven games. Every team gets seven home and seven away games. Lesser teams end up playing each other, better teams end up playing each other. Only the first seven game schedule is assured, then seed #1 plays #65, seed #2 plays #66 and so forth. Upsets would be few, just the way the big schools like them.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
07-12-2019, 10:17 PM
(07-12-2019, 03:54 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Even if you're right, the playoff is only going in one direction and that is expansion. It isn't ever going away. Hell, the NFL is proposing two more games and limiting injury concerns by wanting to limit all players to 16 games. More games equal more money, and that is also the case when it comes to college football.
I don't think I intimated that it wasn't the future. I just said I hated it. Now, get off my lawn!
(07-12-2019, 03:54 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Even if you're right, the playoff is only going in one direction and that is expansion. It isn't ever going away. Hell, the NFL is proposing two more games and limiting injury concerns by wanting to limit all players to 16 games. More games equal more money, and that is also the case when it comes to college football.
I don't think I intimated that it wasn't the future. I just said I hated it. Now, get off my lawn!
07-12-2019, 10:41 PM
It’s a myth. The problem right now is not that there is insufficient supply of football games to watch. If anything there are too many meaningless ones. And while the four games in the first round of a three round, eight team playoff will get more viewers than, say, the corresponding second tier bowl games, by devaluing the rest of the bowl schedule they will drive down interest even further. The fans aren’t going to materialize from nowhere. They’ll watch the first round, but chose not to watch the now meaningless Holiday bowl.
BC
BC
It’s a myth. The problem right now is not that there is insufficient supply of football games to watch. If anything there are too many meaningless ones. And while the four games in the first round of a three round, eight team playoff will get more viewers than, say, the corresponding second tier bowl games, by devaluing the rest of the bowl schedule they will drive down interest even further. The fans aren’t going to materialize from nowhere. They’ll watch the first round, but chose not to watch the now meaningless Holiday bowl.
BC
BC
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2019, 08:41 AM by SamuelMcF.)
(07-13-2019, 04:30 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Bowl Games need to die.
They're slowly getting there. More and more guys are sitting out the lower-tier ones, and we just started seeing guys sit out "higher tier" bowls (e.g. the Fiesta, Sugar, and Peach bowls saw guys sit out this season).
07-15-2019, 12:19 PM
The issue for me is having both bowl games and the CFP. I would prefer either (1) ditching the CFP and going back to the old bowl system with the conference tie-ins or (2) eliminating all bowl games and having a 16-team tournament with every conference champion plus some wildcard teams.
Neither one of the above will happen, but as it stands I pretty much tune out the college postseason unless it is the Rose Bowl or a team I care about is playing.
Neither one of the above will happen, but as it stands I pretty much tune out the college postseason unless it is the Rose Bowl or a team I care about is playing.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
The issue for me is having both bowl games and the CFP. I would prefer either (1) ditching the CFP and going back to the old bowl system with the conference tie-ins or (2) eliminating all bowl games and having a 16-team tournament with every conference champion plus some wildcard teams.
Neither one of the above will happen, but as it stands I pretty much tune out the college postseason unless it is the Rose Bowl or a team I care about is playing.
Neither one of the above will happen, but as it stands I pretty much tune out the college postseason unless it is the Rose Bowl or a team I care about is playing.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »