-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
No, what I saying is this:
* This year, I think Georgia and Notre Dame will probably lose another game. So if we were undefeated, my belief is that would put us into the Semi-Finals under the current system.
* If we expanded to an 8-team system, then OSU would have to beat a really good team in order to earn their way into the Semi-Finals. I don't think any undefeated (or near to it) team should have to do that.
* I'm saying you could argue that the 4-team system has done a pretty could job of picking the best two teams (67%) while giving the 3/4 seed a chance to win (33%).
* I think that's as much "opportunity" as any teams deserve in a typical year.
Obviously the exceptions were the year when both Baylor and TCU got left out with 1 loss, but they did each lose a game. Its unfortunate when a team like UCF goes 2 years undefeated, but didn't get a chance. But they could have also scheduled more credible non-conference games to show themselves more deserving.
My point is most years you can probably only make a case for 4 teams anyway. After that you probably are giving teams a "second chance" which I don't believe makes sense to me. The regular season ought to mean something. I think 4 teams are enough most years to make that count.
* This year, I think Georgia and Notre Dame will probably lose another game. So if we were undefeated, my belief is that would put us into the Semi-Finals under the current system.
* If we expanded to an 8-team system, then OSU would have to beat a really good team in order to earn their way into the Semi-Finals. I don't think any undefeated (or near to it) team should have to do that.
* I'm saying you could argue that the 4-team system has done a pretty could job of picking the best two teams (67%) while giving the 3/4 seed a chance to win (33%).
* I think that's as much "opportunity" as any teams deserve in a typical year.
Obviously the exceptions were the year when both Baylor and TCU got left out with 1 loss, but they did each lose a game. Its unfortunate when a team like UCF goes 2 years undefeated, but didn't get a chance. But they could have also scheduled more credible non-conference games to show themselves more deserving.
My point is most years you can probably only make a case for 4 teams anyway. After that you probably are giving teams a "second chance" which I don't believe makes sense to me. The regular season ought to mean something. I think 4 teams are enough most years to make that count.
Don't expect good games....get lost.
This is college football... Upsets, near upsets, squeakers happen every single week by teams it shouldn't. Good teams overlook teams, bad teams get lucky breaks. If we had an 8 team playoff in 2011 Stanford / OSU would have been a potential playoff game... but that wasn't a good game.
Furthermore, who gives a darn if expanding to 8 games has ZERO impact on the NCG. It takes away the argument that "this team didn't have a chance" It creates more excitement and makes the regular season more meaningful for most programs. It creates more meaningful football for fans to consume.
This is college football... Upsets, near upsets, squeakers happen every single week by teams it shouldn't. Good teams overlook teams, bad teams get lucky breaks. If we had an 8 team playoff in 2011 Stanford / OSU would have been a potential playoff game... but that wasn't a good game.
Furthermore, who gives a darn if expanding to 8 games has ZERO impact on the NCG. It takes away the argument that "this team didn't have a chance" It creates more excitement and makes the regular season more meaningful for most programs. It creates more meaningful football for fans to consume.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Point to the playoff year with two good semifinals. I just don't see any case that there will all of sudden be 4 good games when they can't generate 2 good games right now.
And my argument is that it would have made zero difference to Iowa's trajectory had they made the playoffs in 2015. All that would happen is that the recruiting case for teams like Ohio State who would have made the CFP every year, unlike the current system where they have not even though they're already the biggest beneficiary of the current system.
And my argument is that it would have made zero difference to Iowa's trajectory had they made the playoffs in 2015. All that would happen is that the recruiting case for teams like Ohio State who would have made the CFP every year, unlike the current system where they have not even though they're already the biggest beneficiary of the current system.
Point 1: Currently there is an undefeated SEC, ACC, Big12, Big10, Pac12 team in the hunt. If this situation plays out, please tell me which school gets left out? I'm not saying it is likely or will happen but as long as we can speculate on what is going to happen, who do you will not make it?
Point 2: Every team is in that position, it is not just OSU that would have to play a really good team, its the playoffs. With exception to the 8th and maybe 7th seed, all would be very close in terms of quality.
Point 3: 33% is actually a pretty strong number considering the small sample size and that they are going against what "experts" feel are the top two teams. With that sample size it is only 2 games from being 50/50 so that stat doesn't do anything for me. One stat that is interesting is that the 1 seed has one the NCG once... 17%
Point 4: I can't stand the argument that the team should have been better about scheduling better nonconference games. There is so much luck involved with that. Do you realize most major OCC games are scheduled years in advance. There are so many times that teams schedule what looks like a good opponent 6-7 years out and then the opponent starts to suck. Furthermore, with the exception of a few, most other CFP participants did not schedule strong OOC. So its hard to hold something against one team and not another.
Point 5: The regular season will mean much more to more teams now than it ever would have in the past. So you don't have 1 game that can completely wreck a season, doesn't mean the season doesn't matter. You think the season matters to OU this year now? Or would it mean more to them if they went out every week that if they take care of business and hope for an upset, they can be back where they want to be.
-
2
- Show all
Flipping the argument around completely, how can anyone argue that a 4-team playoff in a league with 130 teams makes sense?
Other football leagues:
NCAA FCS – 24 of 125 teams
NCAA D2 – 28 of 169
NAIA – 16 of 96
NFL – 14 of 32
Other men’s sports:
NBA – 16 of 32
NCAA Basketball – 68 of 350
NCAA D2 Basketball – 64 of 312
NCAA Baseball – 64 of 297
NCAA Soccer – 48 of 205
Golf – 81 of 301
As others have mentioned, expanding the playoff may not change the outcome much this year, but the concept will allow other teams to recruit with a playoff in mind. It would completely change the dynamic of the post season.
Other football leagues:
NCAA FCS – 24 of 125 teams
NCAA D2 – 28 of 169
NAIA – 16 of 96
NFL – 14 of 32
Other men’s sports:
NBA – 16 of 32
NCAA Basketball – 68 of 350
NCAA D2 Basketball – 64 of 312
NCAA Baseball – 64 of 297
NCAA Soccer – 48 of 205
Golf – 81 of 301
As others have mentioned, expanding the playoff may not change the outcome much this year, but the concept will allow other teams to recruit with a playoff in mind. It would completely change the dynamic of the post season.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
So lets apply the above proposal to the 2019 season.
The Top-4 were:
LSU/Ohio State/Clemson/Oklahoma.
Teams 5-8 would have been
11-2 Georgia (who lost to LSU in the SEC Title game and unranked S. Carolina in the reg season).
11-2 Oregon (2 loss Pac-12 Champ with losses to unranked Ariz St and Auburn)
11-2 Baylor (who lost to OU in the Big-12 title game and the regular season).
10-3 Wisconsin (who lost to Ohio State in the Big-10 title game and the regular season).
(The highest ranked Group of 5 Champ would have been #17 Memphis at 12-1 with a loss to Temple. Keeping in mind Memphis lost by 2 TD's to Penn St in their Bowl which doesn't lend well to the idea of being competitive against the 8 teams listed above)
Not sure I see any of those next 4 teams having a season/resume's deserving of a shot at the National Title. So I think in 2019, the 4 team playoff worked well.
Then why did it provide no benefit for Michigan State? The benefits to Washington over and above having Chris Petersen as the coach and USC and Oregon (at the time) in disarray seem marginal at best.
I think all of the talk about it providing benefits to these other teams isn't really looking at what has happened after an expansion from 2 to 4. There has been more consolidation by the blue bloods in recruiting, not less.
From the most recent Blue Chip Ratio article:
"In 2014, no team was above 75 percent. In 2015, only Alabama was. In 2016 and 2017, it was still just Alabama. 2018 saw Ohio State get into that super elite class.
But 2019 saw three of the top four highest ratios ever. And 2020 has the first, second, and fourth (tie) highest rates of blue chips ever with Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio State."
I think all of the talk about it providing benefits to these other teams isn't really looking at what has happened after an expansion from 2 to 4. There has been more consolidation by the blue bloods in recruiting, not less.
From the most recent Blue Chip Ratio article:
"In 2014, no team was above 75 percent. In 2015, only Alabama was. In 2016 and 2017, it was still just Alabama. 2018 saw Ohio State get into that super elite class.
But 2019 saw three of the top four highest ratios ever. And 2020 has the first, second, and fourth (tie) highest rates of blue chips ever with Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio State."
Depends on how you define "deserving."
The NCAA basketball tournament doesn't remotely attempt to crown the "best" or most "deserving" team as National Champs. It's a vehicle designed to hype the sport by providing 65 win-or-go-home games between teams that meet the selection criteria. Maybe 8-10 teams have a reasonably realistic chance of winning it all, but there is a reasonable chance of an upset in probably 40 of those games. It's why we commonly flip around and watch the ends of games between 2 teams we really care nothing about - because they're exciting and we're pulling for the underdog about 90% of the time. Especially in basketball, you won't identify the "best" team unless they play a multi game series.
College football could use the extra hype. We used to have it when bowl games were tough to qualify for. Nowadays we know who 80% of the bowl teams will be and we typically know who 2-3 of the playoff teams will be before the season starts. The regular season is mostly a formality and many people don't watch games unless they involve your favorite team(s) or you see/hear there's an upset brewing, in which case you might flip over and pull for the underdog.
So right now you have fans of 6-8 teams really watching the battle for the 4 playoff spots. If you go to an 8-team playoff with auto bids to 5 conference winners you have half of each conference still engaged halfway into the conference season (30 teams!?) and 2-3 teams per conference (up to 15 teams!) fully engaged up to the last week of the season. Not only for conference championships, but looking for at-large bids as well.
Even if it never results in a national champion from outside the blue bloods (though it will, at some point), the value to the brand of college football is incredible. If you want the "best" or "most deserving" team to be champion you pick the 2 best teams and hope the right one wins. The NCAA wanted more interest, so they went to 4 teams, which may or may not have doubled overall interest in the postseason. But go to 8 teams and I think you quadruple interest in the regular season and at least redouble interest in the playoff.
Edit, TL;DR version: 8 teams far better than 4.
The NCAA basketball tournament doesn't remotely attempt to crown the "best" or most "deserving" team as National Champs. It's a vehicle designed to hype the sport by providing 65 win-or-go-home games between teams that meet the selection criteria. Maybe 8-10 teams have a reasonably realistic chance of winning it all, but there is a reasonable chance of an upset in probably 40 of those games. It's why we commonly flip around and watch the ends of games between 2 teams we really care nothing about - because they're exciting and we're pulling for the underdog about 90% of the time. Especially in basketball, you won't identify the "best" team unless they play a multi game series.
College football could use the extra hype. We used to have it when bowl games were tough to qualify for. Nowadays we know who 80% of the bowl teams will be and we typically know who 2-3 of the playoff teams will be before the season starts. The regular season is mostly a formality and many people don't watch games unless they involve your favorite team(s) or you see/hear there's an upset brewing, in which case you might flip over and pull for the underdog.
So right now you have fans of 6-8 teams really watching the battle for the 4 playoff spots. If you go to an 8-team playoff with auto bids to 5 conference winners you have half of each conference still engaged halfway into the conference season (30 teams!?) and 2-3 teams per conference (up to 15 teams!) fully engaged up to the last week of the season. Not only for conference championships, but looking for at-large bids as well.
Even if it never results in a national champion from outside the blue bloods (though it will, at some point), the value to the brand of college football is incredible. If you want the "best" or "most deserving" team to be champion you pick the 2 best teams and hope the right one wins. The NCAA wanted more interest, so they went to 4 teams, which may or may not have doubled overall interest in the postseason. But go to 8 teams and I think you quadruple interest in the regular season and at least redouble interest in the playoff.
Edit, TL;DR version: 8 teams far better than 4.
-
1
-
1
-
3
- Show all
Lets Apply it to 2017.
The Top-4 were:
Clemson/Oklahoma/Alabama/Georgia
Teams 5-8 would have been
12-1 Wisconsin (Only loss was to Ohio State in Big10 championship game)
11-2 Ohio State (2 Loss Big10 Champ)
12-0 UCF undefeated G5 (Went on to beat Auburn which was Alabama's only loss)
10-3 USC (PAC-12 Champ)
OU was a Big 12 Champ - Lost to ISU (7-5)
Clemson ACC Champ - Lost to Syracuse (4-8)
Georgia SEC Champ - Lost to Auburn in Season, Beat Auburn in CCG.
Alabama NOT CHAMP - Lost to Auburn in Season, DID NOT PLAY IN CCG.
Wisconsin - Undefeated going into CCG with close lose to OSU
UCF Undefeated G5 - went on to beat Auburn who was the only team to beat Alabama.
Here Alabama had the luxury of not playing in a CCG and watching an undefeated Wisconsin stumble in their CCG. Clemson and Oklahoma were conference champs but had horrible losses. UCF had a good football program and never had a chance.
So what is important? Conference Champ? Not if Alabama is in, heck they didn't even play in the CCG... No bad losses, not if Clemson and OU are in.... Maybe its this subjective mix where people use the "eyeball test" and not hold all teams accountable to the same qualifiers to try to to determine an "unbiased" group of 4.
One could make so many arguments on who is let in....So by all accounts 2017, the 4 team playoffs were a complete dumpster fire.
The point being... We could sit here cherry pick all day. Maybe the expanding to 8 doesn't impact the final outcome in a lot seasons. However, when it does, it provides an injustice to the programs that were not let in. When you weigh the Pros and Cons of expansion its not even close...
At the end of the day you support a system in which it is possible for an Oklahoma State team to go undefeated, win the conference championship, and have the potential to not play for play for the national championship...Just because you feel that a 4 team playoff gets it right more often than not...
-
2
-
2
- Show all
1) You don't know that it provided no benefit to Michigan State. (Agreed, it didn't seem to help them much, just like our 2011 season didn't seem to help us much.)
2) The consolidation in recruiting started before the CFP, it even started before the BCS. Increasing national (vs regional) TV coverage and the impact of the internet on recruiting are two of the main culprits. The CFP is part (but not all) of that national media exposure piece. The expansion from 2 to 4 didn't make much difference because most of the teams promoted by the CFP had already been included in the BCS. It didn't really change much in terms of which teams received exposure. It just meant that Bama and OU and Ohio State were now included almost every year, instead of just every couple of years. May have made it worse.
3) Whatever the drivers are, the exposure provided by whatever national title system is in place is clearly a factor. The purpose of expansion should be to spread that exposure to teams that don't get it now. If the expanded system (based solely on ranking) just means we get two extra SEC teams and one extra Big10 team each year plus ND, that's not helpful. If you always include a G5 team, always include the Big12 champ (even when it's not OU or UT), always include the Pac12 champ, then it probably does spread whatever wealth comes from inclusion. Of course the impact of that is unknown, but it can't hurt.
4) In this era of truly national recruiting driven by the internet, national TV exposure, and easy cross-country flights, probably more needs to be done than just expanding to 8 teams. If we really want to reverse this trend of reducing parity, you have to find some way of changing those statistics you quoted, and I agree that expanding the CFP alone probably won't move the needle much. Lowering scholarship limits is the big hammer that no one wants to bring out. Maybe in the future if players making an income becomes more of a thing we can find a lever there?
5) As has been pointed out, a system that may leave out an undefeated P5 champ is just plain wrong. I know it hasn't happened yet, but why wait until it happens? Let's fix it before some rising program is dealt that blow. (You know when it happens it won't be OU or Alabama that gets left out, it will be OSU or Wisconsin or Mississippi State.)
2) The consolidation in recruiting started before the CFP, it even started before the BCS. Increasing national (vs regional) TV coverage and the impact of the internet on recruiting are two of the main culprits. The CFP is part (but not all) of that national media exposure piece. The expansion from 2 to 4 didn't make much difference because most of the teams promoted by the CFP had already been included in the BCS. It didn't really change much in terms of which teams received exposure. It just meant that Bama and OU and Ohio State were now included almost every year, instead of just every couple of years. May have made it worse.
3) Whatever the drivers are, the exposure provided by whatever national title system is in place is clearly a factor. The purpose of expansion should be to spread that exposure to teams that don't get it now. If the expanded system (based solely on ranking) just means we get two extra SEC teams and one extra Big10 team each year plus ND, that's not helpful. If you always include a G5 team, always include the Big12 champ (even when it's not OU or UT), always include the Pac12 champ, then it probably does spread whatever wealth comes from inclusion. Of course the impact of that is unknown, but it can't hurt.
4) In this era of truly national recruiting driven by the internet, national TV exposure, and easy cross-country flights, probably more needs to be done than just expanding to 8 teams. If we really want to reverse this trend of reducing parity, you have to find some way of changing those statistics you quoted, and I agree that expanding the CFP alone probably won't move the needle much. Lowering scholarship limits is the big hammer that no one wants to bring out. Maybe in the future if players making an income becomes more of a thing we can find a lever there?
5) As has been pointed out, a system that may leave out an undefeated P5 champ is just plain wrong. I know it hasn't happened yet, but why wait until it happens? Let's fix it before some rising program is dealt that blow. (You know when it happens it won't be OU or Alabama that gets left out, it will be OSU or Wisconsin or Mississippi State.)
I'm telling you, the B1G & PAC12's shortened season & their protocols will put both conferences in serious jeopardy of making the CFP simply due to not being able to play enough games.
B1G has their mandatory 21 day quarantine for positive cases, PAC12 has no bye weeks.
Assuming Oregon's your PAC12 champ, playing at most 7 games (which would mean no cancellations at all) is hard to justify vs. teams playing 10 or 11 games. It'd be one thing if you were comparing 10 games for one team vs. 11 games for another-that's a discussion worth having. A team who's played 3 or 4 whole games less than the other? Not even worthy of talking about.
Obviously, tOSU's loaded as always, but how much of the B1G schedule do they get through? The 21 day quarantine policy in the B1G could have a serious domino effect, unless they change it. Just look at Wisconsin right now. You add a couple more positives next week, let's say, & you've got overlapping quarantines affecting them for 4, 5, 6 weeks. They're down to a 3rd team QB already, & the other 2 can't play for 3 weeks now.
What looked like the SEC, Big 12 & ACC just being football crazed hicks when they launched their plans for the season & like the PAC12 & B1G were 'leading the way' safely now looks like those 2 conferences have potentially hamstrung themselves with little to no wiggle room now.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...n-unravels-wisconsin-cancellation/6054939002/
B1G has their mandatory 21 day quarantine for positive cases, PAC12 has no bye weeks.
Assuming Oregon's your PAC12 champ, playing at most 7 games (which would mean no cancellations at all) is hard to justify vs. teams playing 10 or 11 games. It'd be one thing if you were comparing 10 games for one team vs. 11 games for another-that's a discussion worth having. A team who's played 3 or 4 whole games less than the other? Not even worthy of talking about.
Obviously, tOSU's loaded as always, but how much of the B1G schedule do they get through? The 21 day quarantine policy in the B1G could have a serious domino effect, unless they change it. Just look at Wisconsin right now. You add a couple more positives next week, let's say, & you've got overlapping quarantines affecting them for 4, 5, 6 weeks. They're down to a 3rd team QB already, & the other 2 can't play for 3 weeks now.
What looked like the SEC, Big 12 & ACC just being football crazed hicks when they launched their plans for the season & like the PAC12 & B1G were 'leading the way' safely now looks like those 2 conferences have potentially hamstrung themselves with little to no wiggle room now.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...n-unravels-wisconsin-cancellation/6054939002/
Their starter, Coan, is out for the year (ankle surgery?). His backup Mertz is out 3 weeks with Covid, but could be back against Michigan, but will not have had any practice in 3 weeks. Third string quarterback Chase Wolf has also tested positive and will be out 21 days. So their starter for the Purdue game would be Danny Vanden Boom, backup to Mertz. There isn't another QB on their roster.
[rant]
On another note, sports reporting has been terrible this year. It's almost as if some articles are written by people who don't know jack about what they're writing about and no one proof reads the articles. A small but picky example from ESPN, "Alvarez and Chryst both were unable to say when the seven-day pause will expire." At the end of 7 days, duh! Otherwise it's not a 7 day pause.
[rant]
On another note, sports reporting has been terrible this year. It's almost as if some articles are written by people who don't know jack about what they're writing about and no one proof reads the articles. A small but picky example from ESPN, "Alvarez and Chryst both were unable to say when the seven-day pause will expire." At the end of 7 days, duh! Otherwise it's not a 7 day pause.