How this season changed my mind on a 12 team playoff

#77
#77
GUNTERSVOL said:
8 or 16 but not 12. NO reason for anybody to get a bye and a week to rest. Way too much potential for inequity in the 4 v 5 discussion for example. Everybody deserves the same opportunity to excel or even get injuries. If you do give them the week off they should not be allowed to practice till their fist game week, but even then a free week to heal is just not right. 1 v 16 and 2 v 15 is reward enough. 8 should cover the deal and save a week and a game for the field.
Click to expand...
This. Exactly. Until this year, no team outside of the top 3 teams stands a chance to win. In previous years the Bamas, OSUs, Georgias, LSUs would demolish any team ranked 4-12. We’ve seen it year after year when the #1 plays the random 4 seed (Cinci, ND, Washington) and it’s an absolute embarrassment of a game. There is no need for the top seeds to get a bye and an even further advantage than they already have. College football is already becoming a game of attrition. Who will be the healthiest at the end of the year. So let’s not add 3 extra games in which one team gets a week off then gets to slaughter a 9-3 UNC type team.
 
#78
#78
I think the committee, and polls for that matter, put far too much emphasis on W-L records. That is nutty considering how few common opponents teams from other conferences share. Ohio State doesn't share ANY common opponents with Alabama so why put so much credence into their comparative records? Alabama's two close losses should not be compared with Ohio State and their one loss season. OSU didn't play UT or LSU.

I think it'd be refreshing for the committee to put in a 2 or 3 loss team if worthy
 
#79
#79
Vol8188 said:
Is it about getting "good teams" in or finding the teams who have had the best season?
Click to expand...

That’s a great question and I think is one of the big sources of confusion when people are arguing about where a team should be ranked. I’d argue if you have a better season in terms of record that is more fair than trying to decide if a team in a stronger conference with a worse record should jump you.

Basically I favor the “give them the benefit of a doubt and a chance to prove it” approach. That approach is basically about who deserves it, not who is a better team. If you try to decide who the actual top teams are at the end of the season then a lot of subjective analysis can come into play.

I am not saying it’s wrong, just prone to using factors that are probably true but not provable. For example I think any of the other top 10 teams probably beats TCU pretty easily. Some people who agree believe this is a reason to put others in front. I think they deserve a chance.

If you look at any of the arguments people have about rank though you’ll see folks arguing both approaches to some degree.
 
#81
#81
Six teams with top 2 getting a first round bye. 12 would give us too many meaningless match ups (#12 vs #1), NO. Too many games added to college players bodies and too much time out of classes. Gotten use some common sense at some point.
 
#83
#83
Stephen Gray said:
That’s a great question and I think is one of the big sources of confusion when people are arguing about where a team should be ranked. I’d argue if you have a better season in terms of record that is more fair than trying to decide if a team in a stronger conference with a worse record should jump you.

Basically I favor the “give them the benefit of a doubt and a chance to prove it” approach. That approach is basically about who deserves it, not who is a better team. If you try to decide who the actual top teams are at the end of the season then a lot of subjective analysis can come into play.

I am not saying it’s wrong, just prone to using factors that are probably true but not provable. For example I think any of the other top 10 teams probably beats TCU pretty easily. Some people who agree believe this is a reason to put others in front. I think they deserve a chance.

If you look at any of the arguments people have about rank though you’ll see folks arguing both approaches to some degree.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with the question of "is TCU a top ten team", only "did TCU have a championship worthy season". So far they have, so they deserve a chance. That's why we expanded to 4. But outside of our top 3, no one else has had that level of a season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stephen Gray
#84
#84
I like the idea of teams getting to determine their own destiny, the way it is a committee determines too much for me, let them play and see who is deserving on the field, its the only true and fair way to determine who is the best of the best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stephen Gray
#85
#85
Vol8188 said:
There is zero reason for expansion. “Polling says otherwise”, doesn’t change that. There’s plenty of things people will proclaim they’d like in polls, but that would ultimately have poor results. This is one of those
Click to expand...
There are plenty of reasons for expansion, the enjoyment of the game being the primary one. Because after all, isn't that what sports are all about - the enjoyment for the participants and the spectators?
 
#86
#86
Vol8188 said:
You don't think the sudden death aspect adds to the value? TCU has to win. Back against the wall. That's way more interesting than "will they be the 3 seed or the 7"
Click to expand...
I think the sudden death aspect of a 12 team playoff is great.
I don't think sudden death beginning with the first game of the season is a good thing.
 
#87
#87
Vol8188 said:
The law of diminishing returns applies to both money and entertainment
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah.

You said there was zero reason for expansion. You're wrong and you know you are. May not be a good reason in Your opinion, but it's a reason. Football fans will be excited for more games. There will be more ticket sales. More travel. There will be some negatives too, there always is in life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stephen Gray
#88
#88
luthervol said:
There are plenty of reasons for expansion, the enjoyment of the game being the primary one. Because after all, isn't that what sports are all about - the enjoyment for the participants and the spectators?
Click to expand...

The participants and spectators already enjoy the game.
 
#90
#90
Behr said:
Blah blah blah.

You said there was zero reason for expansion. You're wrong and you know you are. May not be a good reason in Your opinion, but it's a reason. Football fans will be excited for more games. There will be more ticket sales. More travel. There will be some negatives too, there always is in life.
Click to expand...

Okay, that's fine. I can compromise on "there's zero good reason for expansion".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Behr
#91
#91
Vol8188 said:
The law of diminishing returns applies to both money and entertainment
Click to expand...
And it is currently determined that the greatest return is with a 12 team format.
I agree that it is a far better return than with a four team format.
 
#93
#93
Vol8188 said:
There is zero reason for expansion. “Polling says otherwise”, doesn’t change that. There’s plenty of things people will proclaim they’d like in polls, but that would ultimately have poor results. This is one of those
Click to expand...
There are many reasons, several billion of them, actually.

From a 2012 article:
ESPN announced Tuesday it has reached an agreement with "the group that will administer the new college football playoff" to broadcast that playoff and each of its six associated bowls for 12 seasons, from 2014 through 2025.

Terms of the agreement were not disclosed, but CBSSports.com previously reported the playoff had been valued at $475 million per season. The Wall Street Journal confirmed Tuesday that the total price tag for the 12-year deal reached approximately $5.64 billion, "about $470 million annually."

That deal was for 5 games per year. A 12 team playoff will increase the value proportionally.
 
#96
#96
burntorangeVOLffle said:
That is why you have to take the ranking out of it. Of make it the last part of the equation.

A 9-3 team would be a lower seed and have to go through a gauntlet to win a NC. If they do it then good on them.
Click to expand...
Why are they even given a shot?
The entire original problem/ question was: how do we know the top 2 in the bcs standings are really the best? #3 and 4, maybe 5 has a legitimate argument.
Ok, then we went to 4 teams.
Now all of a sudden we are going to 12. It's the nfl system now. It's not who has collectively had the best season of proving they are the best, but just who is hottest once the playoffs start.
 
#97
#97
Vol8188 said:
Why not? Why not make every game matter?
Click to expand...
Because if game one of the season eliminates you, games 2 - 12 become meaningless.
Where we disagree is with the impact on the importance of games.
I feel that with a 12 team format, far more games are important and meaningful whereas you seem to feel fewer games will be meaningful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stephen Gray
#98
#98
Might as well do away with the conference championships. Seriously. A 12 team playoff is going to be a LOT and the conference championship only adds another game of player attrition risks. It used to mean something - but with the expanded playoffs - why bother ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voltopia
#99
#99
I have always said had there been a playoff in 1985 we would have easily won the NC.
We finished 4th that year and had 2 ties with 1 loss.
No team was hotter than the Vols at the end of the Season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winchester73
#100
#100
Winchester73 said:
Might as well do away with the conference championships. Seriously. A 12 team playoff is going to be a LOT and the conference championship only adds another game of player attrition risks. It used to mean something - but with the expanded playoffs - why bother ?
Click to expand...
I could support eliminating the conference championships.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top