OT: College Football Playoff Expansion

[iupgroundhog]

Sorry, yes, you're right. Not sure why I thought Alamo when I know its Sun. But I think those older more established bowls are much more than a game - like to Rose Bowl with a marquis parade down Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena - and offer a lot more than the ones where they convert a baseball stadium to host a football game. Before cable TV these games brought a lot of people to a place like El Paso that isn't on many vacation or work conference lists. I've been to El Paso (granted for just 3 days for a side job at UTEP) and it was surprisingly nice and unique. I do wish I had a day to explore and get a sense of its character. And that is why some of them are run by a local visitors bureau. Some also do raise money for charity, which is always good, too. Some had their own stadiums too. I saw the 97 Rose Bowl, 98 Orange Bowl, and 99 Cotton Bowl in their respective stadiums.

I was just pointing out the difference between the Alamo Bowl and Sun Bowl. I actually agree with you to a point about the decline of traditional bowl games. I don't think I agree with your ideas on playoff expansion. I might want to hold onto the past traditions. I have no problem with expanding to up to 12 teams. If it goes further it becomes only about money. Expanding to 12 teams will not change who is in the semis or finals, though. Refer to the lack of parity discussion. I think you can see an upset between top teams in college football but I don't think it's like basketball where you would see a cinderella run by a lower-tier team.

[IUP24]

I was just pointing out the difference between the Alamo Bowl and Sun Bowl. I actually agree with you to a point about the decline of traditional bowl games. I don't think I agree with your ideas on playoff expansion. I might want to hold onto the past traditions. I have no problem with expanding to up to 12 teams. If it goes further it becomes only about money. Expanding to 12 teams will not change who is in the semis or finals, though. Refer to the lack of parity discussion. I think you can see an upset between top teams in college football but I don't think it's like basketball where you would see a cinderella run by a lower-tier team.

Agreed. There was a previous mention of the College World Series too. Basketball/Baseball isn't football of this era. One or two pitchers give you a shot. One guy taking the mound and shoving for 7 or 8 innings give you a legitimate chance for any team to upset anybody in college baseball. 1 or 2 guys going off for UMBC in the NCAA Tournament for a night against Virginia can allow them to pull the upset.

Toledo, even with the best team in their school's history, isn't beating Clemson, Alabama, or Ohio State. Football is just different. The number of guys on the field. The depth. The totality of team; sum of the parts; etc.

[IUP24]

There are 10 conferences and you could include 2-6 additional runner-ups from P5 schools to get a 12 or 16 team bracket.

This thing hasn't even happened yet and you're already talking about a 16 team playoff bracket. How many non-competitive football games do you want?

[Fightingscot82]

This thing hasn't even happened yet and you're already talking about a 16 team playoff bracket. How many non-competitive football games do you want?

I want a full fcking playoff with every conference represented.

[CALUPA69]

I want a full fcking playoff with every conference represented.

I'd prefer a "blind" survey of X number (30-40 varying selectors each year) of Head Coaches of FBS teams. Sunday evening after final regular season game the announcement show, with brackets based on seeding (#1- whatever number of teams). Coaches can't vote for their team. Selectors are not named publicly in advance. Collusion ( communicating with other selectors) gets you banned from the selection process for 5 years. IMO, closest you're apt to get to a balanced, talent based tournament that negates the power of conferences, boosters and the media.

[Matt Burglund]

I want a full fcking playoff with every conference represented.

[boatcapt]

So you are in favor of engineered playoff selection results?

[Matt Burglund]

So you are in favor of engineered playoff selection results?

[IUP24]

I want a full fcking playoff with every conference represented.

I have zero interest in watching that. And in fact, I seem to have less interest in watching a 4 team playoff annually having already knowing what the end outcome will be. To each their own though. We don't have common ground on the issue.

[Fightingscot82]

You'd rather watch the third-place ACC team play the third-place Big 12 team than cheer for the MAC champ to upset the SEC runner-up? I just find this baffling. Especially from someone who for decades has covered a team that is always the best team from the underfunded conference.

[boatcapt]

So you are in favor of selection officials using their "judgment" to determine who should be in the playoffs. To use your example, you'd prefer a 9-2 North Carolina being selected over an 11-0 Utah team. Would there ever be a situation were an 11-0 Utah team (or Troy or App State or UCon or Wash State, etc) would make it in to the playoffs over a P5 team?

[boatcapt]

I have zero interest in watching that. And in fact, I seem to have less interest in watching a 4 team playoff annually having already knowing what the end outcome will be. To each their own though. We don't have common ground on the issue.

I feel the same way. When it was the top two teams in the nation selected, I watched. Now that it is 4 teams, I rarely watch and when I do, it's maybe 10 minutes at the most. I'd have even less interest in watching what amounts to a 4 week "season" after the REAL season!

Another problem...starting to hear people squaking that they want the regular season shortened by one game due to the four week playoff season. So to give 12 teams the chance to play up to four extra games, they want to eliminate a regular season game for 118 teams.

[Fightingscot82]

I feel the same way. When it was the top two teams in the nation selected, I watched. Now that it is 4 teams, I rarely watch and when I do, it's maybe 10 minutes at the most. I'd have even less interest in watching what amounts to a 4 week "season" after the REAL season!

Another problem...starting to hear people squaking that they want the regular season shortened by one game due to the four week playoff season. So to give 12 teams the chance to play up to four extra games, they want to eliminate a regular season game for 118 teams.

The extra game was all about money and really created the opportunity to play the FCS games, which provided a veil of success (for polls, bowls, and coaching bonuses) and improved profitability (lesser revenue sharing).

[IUPbigINDIANS]

So you are in favor of selection officials using their "judgment" to determine who should be in the playoffs. To use your example, you'd prefer a 9-2 North Carolina being selected over an 11-0 Utah team. Would there ever be a situation were an 11-0 Utah team (or Troy or App State or UCon or Wash State, etc) would make it in to the playoffs over a P5 team?

Utah and Washington State are P5 teams.

[Matt Burglund]

You'd rather watch the third-place ACC team play the third-place Big 12 team than cheer for the MAC champ to upset the SEC runner-up?

Yes.

I just find this baffling.

Especially from someone who for decades has covered a team that is always the best team from the underfunded conference.

My part-time job covering a D2 team doesn't have anything to do with my preferences for D1 football playoffs. I like the Pittsburgh Pirates, so does that mean I should not be interested in seeing North Carolina vs. Iowa State instead of Ohio vs. Georgia?

So you are in favor of selection officials using their "judgment" to determine who should be in the playoffs.

Yes.

To use your example, you'd prefer a 9-2 North Carolina being selected over an 11-0 Utah team.

Would there ever be a situation were an 11-0 Utah team (or Troy or App State or UCon or Wash State, etc) would make it in to the playoffs over a P5 team?

Yet.