Maybe in a four team playoff but not in a plus one format (which was the proposal I was commenting on).
The problem with a four team playoff is that even though you’re most likely going to sweep in all the undefeateds, as Flordia showed, there is the strong possibility that there is a one loss team that is much better than an undefeated. Eight teams allows that team in.
For some reason you think all of them would be in that game? I would like to see that.
Besides the pros have already rated them long before the last game. Do you think Suh could have added or subtracted from his rating by anything he did in the bowls?
I beg your pardon.
I think you’re wrong to suggest bowl performances do not go into pro scouting. I think it is possible to considerably raise or lower your value in the national spotlight against a non-conference opponent.
I hope you’re kidding. Both Tech and Iowa had two losses headed into the bowl games. I mentioned them because they rounded out the top ten.
Which is it gonzo? You said, “more games would not be welcome”. Now you’re down to one “that game”. Make up your mind.
An excellent cherry-pick. No - I don’t think Suh could add to his rating, since he’s currently rated the highest. Do you know what topped him off? The Big XII championship game, where he was in the biggest spotlight Nebraska had been in all season long. Don’t you think a senior with something to prove would KILL for a second chance at that?
Doesn’t matter. Those two games serve no purpose other than for people that want to watch the spectacle and for the NCAA/institutions to milk more money out of it.
And? If you can’t list a reason against it specifically (i.e. how it hurts the scholar part of the scholar-athlete equation), then I see no reason why you shouldn’t institute it.
Wait, what purpose does any game serve? It’s entertainment. The fates of nations are not at stake.
And so did Oregon and Ohio St. (2 losses) And Ga Tech was ranked higher in computer polls than Ohio St. It was only the Subjective Poll Power of OSU of humans that put OSU higher in the BCS poll.
My point, no matter what playoff structure is used, teams are going to be left out, while other teams with similar records will get in. No matter what happens, it is going to be subjective.
College football does have a playoff, at the Division I FCS, Division II, and Division III levels. If they can do it at those levels without a problem, I don’t see why it would be a problem organizing it for the FBS level.
and my point is that with 8 teams you’ll sweep in the undefeateds and deserving one-loss teams. You might also sweep in some two loss teams and to the extent that serves as ammunition for other two loss teams to argue for a spot in the tournament, the answer is, “shouldn’t have lost two games, then there wouldn’t be an issue.” I agree that there will always be a dispute at some level, but the further away from making that a dispute between undefeateds, the better.
Based on your response, I will assume you’re advocating for Tech. If anything the post-season showed Tech had no place in a tournament. Their one trick pony office crumbles in the presence of disciplined, athletic defenses and their defense is porous. One of their regular season losses was to an anemic Georgia that enver should have been in the game. Johnson shit the bed in that game. With less than two minutes in Georgia territory and a chance to win he calls the same deep route three times in a row. Ths places his all-American receiver in a tough spot when he drops what would have been a first down pass.
So the burden is on me to prove why the season shouldn’t be extended, yet I haven’t seen a reason to extend it whatsoever?
But it’s also entertainment with amateur student-athletes. If you pay them, then we can talk about extending it. If you make them just athletes, instead of student-athletes, then we can talk about extending it. It’s a pretty big distinction that you’re glossing over.
I wish it weren’t necessary to milk these college cash cows for all they’re worth, but it is.
No u.
:rolleyes:
My argument: extending the season by 1 or 2 weeks to accomodate a playoff system increases the schedule by a total of 1 or 2 games (with at most 3 teams being affected). This is not an unreasonable burden. Since I cannot prove a negative*, you’ll have to prove that it IS an unreasonable burden.
*I will, however, point to the success of every single other NCAA sport in existence, which also have playoff systems, including all other levels of football. NCAA basketball is a sport with games played during the week, a much larger burden on the student-athlete, and has a 65 team playoff structure.
I might point out that Ga Tech did not lose to a team that was as bad as Purdue, which Ohio St did.
My argument is against a 4 team, 8 team, or 16 team playoff. There is a two team playoff, and I am find with that. And I am also partial to Auburn, but I feel they should have been the odd team out when they went undefeated, along with USC and OU in the regular season a few seasons ago.
No matter, what happens, teams are going to get that aren;t deserving and/or teams will not get that are deserving.
Why extend it? There’s going to bitching any way you slice it. Nobody will be happy. You’ve created a problem, then brought a solution that creates another problem.
In an 8-team playoff, you’d have 3 rounds. You’re looking at three road trips to three bowl cities in successive weeks. How many fans (or for that matter, teams) can afford that?
Enough to fill 70,000-seat stadiums each week?
Because more football is better than less football. I’m sure there’s a point where more football is worse, but it sure ain’t three more games (total).
Trying to envision a world where all college football fans are happy is impossible. Trying to envision a world where all college football fans are happier isn’t.
False. Many people will be happy. Many more will be happier. No one will be less happy.
You’ve yet to define that problem.