[stupac2]

OK, fine.  I'm OK with the playoffs not determining a "best team".  But what's your criteria for figuring out the optimum number of teams to go to a playoff?
BC

Well you can imagine a few. But the main one is "does it have enough room for every conference to have a team?" As far as I'm concerned that's the biggest issue.

After that you could ask something like "the largest you can make it where no team is, on average, greater than a double-digit favorite." That's a lot wonkier but also puts you around 8.

But really, what it's going to be is "what is the thing that makes us the most money without causing so much change that it pisses people off?" That's why I think we'll play out the contract at 4 and then get 8 later, and why I was pissed that the contract is so long. I just don't see it happening before the contract expires.

[stupac2]

OK, fine.  I'm OK with the playoffs not determining a "best team".  But what's your criteria for figuring out the optimum number of teams to go to a playoff?
BC

Well you can imagine a few. But the main one is "does it have enough room for every conference to have a team?" As far as I'm concerned that's the biggest issue.

After that you could ask something like "the largest you can make it where no team is, on average, greater than a double-digit favorite." That's a lot wonkier but also puts you around 8.

But really, what it's going to be is "what is the thing that makes us the most money without causing so much change that it pisses people off?" That's why I think we'll play out the contract at 4 and then get 8 later, and why I was pissed that the contract is so long. I just don't see it happening before the contract expires.

[BostonCard]

OK, but how does that make college football any better?

This year would be about the biggest argument for having an eight team playoff.  My team was just barely left out, despite winning its conference (thus making it the only conference champion to be left out) and being a pretty darned good team.  And yet, I am as happy or more so that we are going to the Rose Bowl than I would be if we were going to the Cotton Bowl for the national semifinal.  We are getting a marquee and entertaining matchup in the Rose Bowl, plus all the pageantry that surrounds the Rose Bowl.  So the argument that the playoff should have enough room for every conference (P5 conference of FBS conference?) to have a team doesn't mean much to me.  The fact that we no longer have a chance at a national championship is a minimal concern (and would be no different than if we had gotten into an eight team playoff and lost in the first round).

I'm also not sure why a bigger playoff would be better?  Yes, you get more games, and it is always fun to watch more football games.  But it is really diminishing returns, and regardless of what happens in the FCS, we know that football games take a toll on the people playing them, so I'm not sure that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

BC

[BostonCard]

OK, but how does that make college football any better?

This year would be about the biggest argument for having an eight team playoff.  My team was just barely left out, despite winning its conference (thus making it the only conference champion to be left out) and being a pretty darned good team.  And yet, I am as happy or more so that we are going to the Rose Bowl than I would be if we were going to the Cotton Bowl for the national semifinal.  We are getting a marquee and entertaining matchup in the Rose Bowl, plus all the pageantry that surrounds the Rose Bowl.  So the argument that the playoff should have enough room for every conference (P5 conference of FBS conference?) to have a team doesn't mean much to me.  The fact that we no longer have a chance at a national championship is a minimal concern (and would be no different than if we had gotten into an eight team playoff and lost in the first round).

I'm also not sure why a bigger playoff would be better?  Yes, you get more games, and it is always fun to watch more football games.  But it is really diminishing returns, and regardless of what happens in the FCS, we know that football games take a toll on the people playing them, so I'm not sure that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

BC

[stupac2]

OK, but how does that make college football any better?

Because, as a far, I want to see a larger number of important and evenly matched games, and I want the sport to crown a champion in a way that makes any semblance of sense. Seriously, is there any other team sport anywhere in the world where making the end-of-season tournament comes down to a beauty pageant with no set rules? Why are we okay with this in college football but literally nowhere else?

[stupac2]

OK, but how does that make college football any better?

Because, as a far, I want to see a larger number of important and evenly matched games, and I want the sport to crown a champion in a way that makes any semblance of sense. Seriously, is there any other team sport anywhere in the world where making the end-of-season tournament comes down to a beauty pageant with no set rules? Why are we okay with this in college football but literally nowhere else?

[standfan]

If it ever gets to 8 teams, you'll have to have the top four teams host the first game.

There is no way fans will travel and fill neutral site stadiums in 3 consecutive weekends.  It's hard enough at 2.  In fact, if Stanford had made the playoffs this year, how many of us would have attended both the semifinal and final?  How many would have brought families to same?

I'm telling you, THAT's a big concern (unless TV doesn't mind playing Elite 8s and Final Fours in half-empty stadiums).

+1

[standfan]

If it ever gets to 8 teams, you'll have to have the top four teams host the first game.

There is no way fans will travel and fill neutral site stadiums in 3 consecutive weekends.  It's hard enough at 2.  In fact, if Stanford had made the playoffs this year, how many of us would have attended both the semifinal and final?  How many would have brought families to same?

I'm telling you, THAT's a big concern (unless TV doesn't mind playing Elite 8s and Final Fours in half-empty stadiums).

+1

[BostonCard]

Getting into the playoffs is only marginally a beauty pageant (basically the 4th playoff spot in some cases); most cases it's win your conference and have fewer losses than at least one other conference winner or play a harder schedule than another conference winner if you are tied with another conference winner for most losses.  Then the rules are pretty straightfoward; win the semi-finals and finals.

Plus there are plenty of compelling games as it is.  You don't think the Rose Bowl qualifies as an "important and evenly matched game"?  Isn't Ohio State/Notre Dame in the Fiesta?  I'd like to see more compelling non-conference match-ups in the early season (USC/Alabama should be good) and wish more teams would schedule like we do, but that's not something that playoffs fix, and instead of expanding playoffs, I wish television would push to have better pre-season matchups (for example, I would love to have a Pac-12/SEC challenge)

And every sport has its share of idiosyncrasies.  The rules are set for the NFL, but they mean that there is a very good chance that a team from the NFC East with a losing record will make it into the playoffs (there's a chance that the AFC South winner will too).  Plus, an NFL playoff spot could come down to a coin toss (http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures).

Because the NCAA basketball tournament is a single elimination tournament, it routinely produces upsets.  Many people consider that a feature and not a bug (I know I do enjoy a good cinderella story), but it is an idiosyncrasy of the way NCAA basketball works.  You can have a dominant undefeated regular season and lose to an eight seed that underachieved all year in the second round.  Nor is it any less of a beauty pageant, since every year we hear about the last four in and first four out, as well as whether team X got screwed in their seed, or got screwed by getting shipped three time zones away.  I like the NCAA basketball tournament for basketball, but I don't want to see it for football.

Soccer has its own weird things; arguably games shouldn't be decided on penalty kicks, which are completely different from the rest of the game.

The arguments seem to be:

1) Every one else has a playoff.

To which I respond, so what?  The bowl system is great because it offers a reward to teams that have a good season, which is really what this is about.  A single post-season game (for most teams) offers fans a great way to travel to support their team over the winter break at (mostly) warm weather destinations.  The fact you need to be perfect or nearly perfect to make it into the playoffs (or, back in the day, the BCS title game) means that every regular season game is important.

2) There isn't a perfectly defined path to the playoff.

To which I respond that for all intents and purposes, there is.  Any Power-5 team with a perfect record will be there except in the most unlikely of situations.  With one loss, you better win your conference title and have a challenging schedule.  With more than one loss, you are at the whims of other teams.

BC

[BostonCard]

Getting into the playoffs is only marginally a beauty pageant (basically the 4th playoff spot in some cases); most cases it's win your conference and have fewer losses than at least one other conference winner or play a harder schedule than another conference winner if you are tied with another conference winner for most losses.  Then the rules are pretty straightfoward; win the semi-finals and finals.

Plus there are plenty of compelling games as it is.  You don't think the Rose Bowl qualifies as an "important and evenly matched game"?  Isn't Ohio State/Notre Dame in the Fiesta?  I'd like to see more compelling non-conference match-ups in the early season (USC/Alabama should be good) and wish more teams would schedule like we do, but that's not something that playoffs fix, and instead of expanding playoffs, I wish television would push to have better pre-season matchups (for example, I would love to have a Pac-12/SEC challenge)

And every sport has its share of idiosyncrasies.  The rules are set for the NFL, but they mean that there is a very good chance that a team from the NFC East with a losing record will make it into the playoffs (there's a chance that the AFC South winner will too).  Plus, an NFL playoff spot could come down to a coin toss (http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures).

Because the NCAA basketball tournament is a single elimination tournament, it routinely produces upsets.  Many people consider that a feature and not a bug (I know I do enjoy a good cinderella story), but it is an idiosyncrasy of the way NCAA basketball works.  You can have a dominant undefeated regular season and lose to an eight seed that underachieved all year in the second round.  Nor is it any less of a beauty pageant, since every year we hear about the last four in and first four out, as well as whether team X got screwed in their seed, or got screwed by getting shipped three time zones away.  I like the NCAA basketball tournament for basketball, but I don't want to see it for football.

Soccer has its own weird things; arguably games shouldn't be decided on penalty kicks, which are completely different from the rest of the game.

The arguments seem to be:

1) Every one else has a playoff.

To which I respond, so what?  The bowl system is great because it offers a reward to teams that have a good season, which is really what this is about.  A single post-season game (for most teams) offers fans a great way to travel to support their team over the winter break at (mostly) warm weather destinations.  The fact you need to be perfect or nearly perfect to make it into the playoffs (or, back in the day, the BCS title game) means that every regular season game is important.

2) There isn't a perfectly defined path to the playoff.

To which I respond that for all intents and purposes, there is.  Any Power-5 team with a perfect record will be there except in the most unlikely of situations.  With one loss, you better win your conference title and have a challenging schedule.  With more than one loss, you are at the whims of other teams.

BC

[g1313]

I'd like to see more compelling non-conference match-ups in the early season (Unbelievably Spoiled Children/Alabama should be good) and wish more teams would schedule like we do, but that's not something that playoffs fix, and instead of expanding playoffs, I wish television would push to have better pre-season matchups (for example, I would love to have a Pac-12/SEC challenge)

The #1 argument to me is that I want to see more games between top tier teams from the Pac-12 and SEC, and I think an expanded playoff is the most likely way that will happen on a regular basis. These matchups have not been happening organically, likely because neither conference wants to travel across the country and also the SEC's general attitude about OOC scheduling.

[g1313]

I'd like to see more compelling non-conference match-ups in the early season (Unbelievably Spoiled Children/Alabama should be good) and wish more teams would schedule like we do, but that's not something that playoffs fix, and instead of expanding playoffs, I wish television would push to have better pre-season matchups (for example, I would love to have a Pac-12/SEC challenge)

The #1 argument to me is that I want to see more games between top tier teams from the Pac-12 and SEC, and I think an expanded playoff is the most likely way that will happen on a regular basis. These matchups have not been happening organically, likely because neither conference wants to travel across the country and also the SEC's general attitude about OOC scheduling.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14003.msg147432#msg147432 date=1449813984]
I'd like to see more compelling non-conference match-ups in the early season (Unbelievably Spoiled Children/Alabama should be good) and wish more teams would schedule like we do, but that's not something that playoffs fix, and instead of expanding playoffs, I wish television would push to have better pre-season matchups (for example, I would love to have a Pac-12/SEC challenge)

The #1 argument to me is that I want to see more games between top tier teams from the Pac-12 and SEC, and I think an expanded playoff is the most likely way that will happen on a regular basis. These matchups have not been happening organically, likely because neither conference wants to travel across the country and also the SEC's general attitude about OOC scheduling.
[/quote]


Then you will like Alabama/USC the first week of the season.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14003.msg147432#msg147432 date=1449813984]
I'd like to see more compelling non-conference match-ups in the early season (Unbelievably Spoiled Children/Alabama should be good) and wish more teams would schedule like we do, but that's not something that playoffs fix, and instead of expanding playoffs, I wish television would push to have better pre-season matchups (for example, I would love to have a Pac-12/SEC challenge)

The #1 argument to me is that I want to see more games between top tier teams from the Pac-12 and SEC, and I think an expanded playoff is the most likely way that will happen on a regular basis. These matchups have not been happening organically, likely because neither conference wants to travel across the country and also the SEC's general attitude about OOC scheduling.
[/quote]


Then you will like Alabama/USC the first week of the season.

BC

[g1313]

Then you will like Alabama/Unbelievably Spoiled Children the first week of the season.

You're right I will! Although I do think that early season OOC games are not as good as postseason when teams are more locked in. The other issue with OOC games is that they are scheduled so far in advance that it could have turned into a brobdingnagian mismatch by the time they are played.

[g1313]

Then you will like Alabama/Unbelievably Spoiled Children the first week of the season.

You're right I will! Although I do think that early season OOC games are not as good as postseason when teams are more locked in. The other issue with OOC games is that they are scheduled so far in advance that it could have turned into a brobdingnagian mismatch by the time they are played.

[stupac2]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14003.msg147544#msg147544 date=1449869322]
Then you will like Alabama/Unbelievably Spoiled Children the first week of the season.

You're right I will! Although I do think that early season OOC games are not as good as postseason when teams are more locked in. The other issue with OOC games is that they are scheduled so far in advance that it could have turned into a of exceedingly large proportions mismatch by the time they are played.
[/quote]

Or if they're not going to be as big of a mismatch as one team wanted, they can back out, like Georgia did with Oregon not too long ago.

Alabama-USC is not a great matchup for the Pac-12, I don't think. Both schools will have new QBs, but that matters more for USC than Alabama. Alabama will also probably have a better defense. But it sure would be nice to knock the SEC homers down about 5 pegs with a USC win.

[stupac2]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14003.msg147544#msg147544 date=1449869322]
Then you will like Alabama/Unbelievably Spoiled Children the first week of the season.

You're right I will! Although I do think that early season OOC games are not as good as postseason when teams are more locked in. The other issue with OOC games is that they are scheduled so far in advance that it could have turned into a of exceedingly large proportions mismatch by the time they are played.
[/quote]

Or if they're not going to be as big of a mismatch as one team wanted, they can back out, like Georgia did with Oregon not too long ago.

Alabama-USC is not a great matchup for the Pac-12, I don't think. Both schools will have new QBs, but that matters more for USC than Alabama. Alabama will also probably have a better defense. But it sure would be nice to knock the SEC homers down about 5 pegs with a USC win.

[CornFed]

[quote author=g1313 link=topic=14003.msg147560#msg147560 date=1449871217]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14003.msg147544#msg147544 date=1449869322]
Then you will like Alabama/Unbelievably Spoiled Children the first week of the season.

You're right I will! Although I do think that early season OOC games are not as good as postseason when teams are more locked in. The other issue with OOC games is that they are scheduled so far in advance that it could have turned into a of exceedingly large proportions mismatch by the time they are played.
[/quote]

Or if they're not going to be as big of a mismatch as one team wanted, they can back out, like Georgia did with Oregon not too long ago.

Alabama-Unbelievably Spoiled Children is not a great matchup for the Pac-12, I don't think. Both schools will have new QBs, but that matters more for Unbelievably Spoiled Children than Alabama. Alabama will also probably have a better defense. But it sure would be nice to knock the SEC homers down about 5 pegs with a Unbelievably Spoiled Children win.
[/quote]

Hard to believe that there exists a situation in which one could really contemplate rooting for USC.  Just sayin'.  Not criticizing.

[CornFed]

[quote author=g1313 link=topic=14003.msg147560#msg147560 date=1449871217]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14003.msg147544#msg147544 date=1449869322]
Then you will like Alabama/Unbelievably Spoiled Children the first week of the season.

You're right I will! Although I do think that early season OOC games are not as good as postseason when teams are more locked in. The other issue with OOC games is that they are scheduled so far in advance that it could have turned into a of exceedingly large proportions mismatch by the time they are played.
[/quote]

Or if they're not going to be as big of a mismatch as one team wanted, they can back out, like Georgia did with Oregon not too long ago.

Alabama-Unbelievably Spoiled Children is not a great matchup for the Pac-12, I don't think. Both schools will have new QBs, but that matters more for Unbelievably Spoiled Children than Alabama. Alabama will also probably have a better defense. But it sure would be nice to knock the SEC homers down about 5 pegs with a Unbelievably Spoiled Children win.
[/quote]

Hard to believe that there exists a situation in which one could really contemplate rooting for USC.  Just sayin'.  Not criticizing.

[BostonCard]

Hey, they said something nice about McCaffrey, so there's that.

BC

[BostonCard]

Hey, they said something nice about McCaffrey, so there's that.

BC

[Rally]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14003.msg147566#msg147566 date=1449872347]
[quote author=g1313 link=topic=14003.msg147560#msg147560 date=1449871217]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14003.msg147544#msg147544 date=1449869322]
Then you will like Alabama/Unbelievably Spoiled Children the first week of the season.

You're right I will! Although I do think that early season OOC games are not as good as postseason when teams are more locked in. The other issue with OOC games is that they are scheduled so far in advance that it could have turned into a of exceedingly large proportions mismatch by the time they are played.
[/quote]

Or if they're not going to be as big of a mismatch as one team wanted, they can back out, like Georgia did with Oregon not too long ago.

Alabama-Unbelievably Spoiled Children is not a great matchup for the Pac-12, I don't think. Both schools will have new QBs, but that matters more for Unbelievably Spoiled Children than Alabama. Alabama will also probably have a better defense. But it sure would be nice to knock the SEC homers down about 5 pegs with a Unbelievably Spoiled Children win.
[/quote]

Hard to believe that there exists a situation in which one could really contemplate rooting for Unbelievably Spoiled Children.  Just sayin'.  Not criticizing.
[/quote]

This will be the first time in my life I root for the Trojans.  There is a story that, a few years ago ( maybe 50?) USC went into Tuscaloosa and whipped them.  Bear Bryant said later that that game did more to integrate th University of Alabama than anything else.

[Rally]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14003.msg147566#msg147566 date=1449872347]
[quote author=g1313 link=topic=14003.msg147560#msg147560 date=1449871217]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14003.msg147544#msg147544 date=1449869322]
Then you will like Alabama/Unbelievably Spoiled Children the first week of the season.

You're right I will! Although I do think that early season OOC games are not as good as postseason when teams are more locked in. The other issue with OOC games is that they are scheduled so far in advance that it could have turned into a of exceedingly large proportions mismatch by the time they are played.
[/quote]

Or if they're not going to be as big of a mismatch as one team wanted, they can back out, like Georgia did with Oregon not too long ago.

Alabama-Unbelievably Spoiled Children is not a great matchup for the Pac-12, I don't think. Both schools will have new QBs, but that matters more for Unbelievably Spoiled Children than Alabama. Alabama will also probably have a better defense. But it sure would be nice to knock the SEC homers down about 5 pegs with a Unbelievably Spoiled Children win.
[/quote]

Hard to believe that there exists a situation in which one could really contemplate rooting for Unbelievably Spoiled Children.  Just sayin'.  Not criticizing.
[/quote]

This will be the first time in my life I root for the Trojans.  There is a story that, a few years ago ( maybe 50?) USC went into Tuscaloosa and whipped them.  Bear Bryant said later that that game did more to integrate th University of Alabama than anything else.

[BostonCard]

Not even 50 years ago.  The game was in 1970 and was the subject of a documentary on Showtime.

https://youtu.be/pA5YlCVLLGA

That being said, at the time the game was played, Alabama had already signed a black football player (he was a freshman and ineligible to play at the time).  So it might have been less about bringing about integration at Alabama than about winning over the "hearts and minds" of the Alabama fans.

BC

[BostonCard]

Not even 50 years ago.  The game was in 1970 and was the subject of a documentary on Showtime.

https://youtu.be/pA5YlCVLLGA

That being said, at the time the game was played, Alabama had already signed a black football player (he was a freshman and ineligible to play at the time).  So it might have been less about bringing about integration at Alabama than about winning over the "hearts and minds" of the Alabama fans.

BC

[Rally]

Not even 50 years ago.  The game was in 1970 and was the subject of a documentary on Showtime.

https://youtu.be/pA5YlCVLLGA

That being said, at the time the game was played, Alabama had already signed a black football player (he was a freshman and ineligible to play at the time).  So it might have been less about bringing about integration at Alabama than about winning over the "hearts and minds" of the Alabama fans.

BC

I was dose.  45 years.  Not bad for a fuzzy major :)

[Rally]

Not even 50 years ago.  The game was in 1970 and was the subject of a documentary on Showtime.

https://youtu.be/pA5YlCVLLGA

That being said, at the time the game was played, Alabama had already signed a black football player (he was a freshman and ineligible to play at the time).  So it might have been less about bringing about integration at Alabama than about winning over the "hearts and minds" of the Alabama fans.

BC

I was dose.  45 years.  Not bad for a fuzzy major :)