|
Replies: 12
| visibility 61
|
All-In [10911]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
Posts: 11032
Joined: 2007
|
Why an 8-team playoff is a bad idea.
Dec 5, 2017, 11:57 PM
|
|
Reason #1: No Motivation for Marquee Out of Conference Games
Many 8-team playoff advocates have stated that the benefit is that you're guaranteed to see conference champs from each Power-5 conference (since Power-5 conference champs get an automatic bid). Well, if all I have to do is win my conference, then why would an SEC team schedule Clemson over some FCS cupcake or why would Clemson play an Alabama, Auburn, UGA, TCU, or even South Carolina over a mid-major? Strength of Schedule becomes unimportant and downright detrimental except for the 6-8 spots, and those spots aren't even a given. Then, once a team is locked into their championship game, the regular season games after being locked in become unimportant. Coaches will be saving their starters and you'll likely see the scout team run on the field. Basically, college football becomes mundane and boring.
Reason #2: Ticket Sales/Parking on Campuses Would Become a Logistical Nightmare for Playoff Games
If the higher seed hosts, this would mean another game on a college campus. I could only imagine Clemson Ticket Office trying to crank out 83,000 tickets and lots of parking in 5 days (including Sunday), even if they were e-tickets. To add, the visiting teams would have to be afforded more parking and tickets to keep it from being a complete home game for the higher seed, and they're coming in not knowing lots or traffic patterns.
Reason #3: Ranking 6-8 Would Be Tougher
Due to reason #1
A lack cross-pollination would make it extremely tough to rank non-conf champions against eachother. Who knows which team is better when both played different teams with no common ground to eachother?!
I was on board initially, but when I see the long-term issues we'll see down the road, I'm not a "FOR" person any longer.
I've thought very little about the 6 team playoff, partially because I hate it when schools receive a week off when other teams are playing big games. I don't think it's right either.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Immortal [64578]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 41635
Joined: 2004
|
If only there were a successful college football playoff format that
Dec 6, 2017, 12:40 AM
|
|
one could look to as an example. Something other than FBS, say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2527]
TigerPulse: 93%
32
|
Re: If only there were a successful college football playoff format that
Dec 6, 2017, 6:44 AM
|
|
I know, but I think it's just a different world with respect to the health of 18-22 year olds between FBS and FCS. The size and speed difference and resulting wear and tear brings me to the side of not wanting to add more games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3686]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
so you're concerned about wear and tear with one extra game?
Dec 6, 2017, 6:52 AM
|
|
I really can't help but believe your motivation derives elsewhere but ummm.... if you say so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1514]
TigerPulse: 100%
30
|
Re: Why an 8-team playoff is a bad idea.
Dec 6, 2017, 2:07 AM
|
|
#1: Playing an out-of-conference schedule is still a good idea since without it Bama wouldn't be in the 8-team playoff in this hypothetical system of win-and-you're-in conference championship games.
#2: The teams in the playoffs can figure out logistics in a hurry when 80k people want to pay $100 each to show up and watch a game. You have to know that contingency plans for "if we make the playoff" are in place for every major school from the beginning of the year. And of course you can see how the season is shaping up as you go along. And frankly, if the NFL can figure out how the postseason works, I'm sure the NCAA can as well.
#3: Ranking 5-8 can be just as hard (or easy) as the first 4; I'm not sure why this would be an issue? The point is to make sure that the best team in the country is included in the playoffs so they can go win it. If you can't be certain that you have the best team in the final 8, you don't deserve to be ranking the teams. For instance, does anybody actually think that PennSt, Miami, Washington, or UCF are the best team? Those are teams 9 through 12. I think most would agree the top 8 are pretty solid whereas there is quite a bit of disagreement over whether Bama, OSU, Auburn, or USC should have been #4.
I like 8 teams more than 6, but that's personal preference. I think 6 or 8 is the sweet spot as it doesn't require a 4th extra game. There is time on the second saturday in december to fit in that quarterfinal round if needed.
Alternately, if we can get a true 8-team playoff, I don't know that I see any reason for the conference championships to take place at all...
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [19856]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 18087
Joined: 2012
|
We need an 8-team playoff
Dec 6, 2017, 6:04 AM
|
|
1 -;Make it so no auto birth for conference championship.
2- this does pose some problems. FCS handles it, but on a smaller scale
2 - see #1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redshirt [97]
TigerPulse: 87%
10
|
If we’re only going have a half-***ed playoff
Dec 6, 2017, 6:32 AM
|
|
We may as well go back to the BCS system. 4 teams is not a perfect number and no one can ever convince me that it is. If it was, then peewee, high school, and the NFL have been doing it oh so wrong all these years.
I thought the point of the playoff was to let teams play it out to see who the best is - but when the gatekeepers (committee) decide who they want to let in, what’s the point?
You say no motivation to schedule marquee OoC games, but the committee showed that doesn’t even matter. It doesn’t matter that FSU was horrific. It doesn’t matter that Bama’s SoS is weak. All that matters is they want who they want, and they’ll change their reasoning on a week to week and year to year basis.
I’m about done with playoff myself. And Clemson has had a great run in it but it’s patently unfair to have a boardroom decide the championship matchup instead of the teams. (They choose what 4 teams get in so they decide who will be champions essentially).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2527]
TigerPulse: 93%
32
|
Re: If we’re only going have a half-***ed playoff
Dec 6, 2017, 6:47 AM
|
|
What's fair got to do with it? It's a committee formed and owned by the 10 FBS conferences to pick the 4 best teams at the end of the season. End of story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3686]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
the problem is Saban poloticked his team in and that shouldn't happen
Dec 6, 2017, 6:58 AM
[ in reply to If we’re only going have a half-***ed playoff ] |
|
If, as Saban himself said should happen last season, the Big 10 conference champ were in it would look a lot more legit. Now we have, rightly so, people questioning the fairness of the committee and they should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [661]
TigerPulse: 86%
21
|
Re: Why an 8-team playoff is a bad idea.
Dec 6, 2017, 6:35 AM
|
|
Seems silly just because they can’t decide on the 4th best team - because each candidate has major flaws - to add 4 more. 8 teams would ensure at least 3 SEC teams and make regular season games mean less as Auburn for example would be afforded 3 losses as long as they peak at the right time
The playoff worked wonderfully this year because it got Clemson, UGA, and OU in with a 4th team just because.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6785]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Why an 8-team playoff is a bad idea.
Dec 6, 2017, 7:28 AM
|
|
Why go to 6 ? It's either 4 or 8.
Taking another 4 teams out of bowl games makes those even further diluted.
Depending how the season plays out, say we end up as a seven seed and earn a trip to Columbus. Fans travel to Columbus, semi bowl game and championship bowl game.
Four is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32628]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 35510
Joined: 2003
|
Ok #1:wouldn't happen
Dec 6, 2017, 7:40 AM
|
|
These coaches already hate marquee ooc games. They do it anyway for money.
#2 has nothing to do with an 8 team playoff, just the way you describe locating the teams. It could still be done at bowls.
#3 ain't no worse than ranking 5 -7 right now.
The #1 and only reason an 8 team playoff is not needed is because there are only 5 power 5 conferences. Each has its own 1st Rd of playoffs.l in their conference champ games.
Only need a 5 team playoff and you don't need no stupid committees, polls, or rankings. Stop trying to eye test/poll your way in...stop worrying about the top or best 5 teams. Let each conference choose their own representative and play ball.
In fact thats the real reason to keep it at 4. Espn makes a lot of money off these polls , rankings, and cfp commmittee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2328]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Each year varies our opinions
Dec 6, 2017, 7:47 AM
|
|
Our opinion changes each year based on where the separation seems to occur with who deserves to be in and who is obviously out. The last two years their were arguments for 5 teams. In 2015 the top 4 were pretty clear and in the first year of the playoffs there were 6. Therefore, there will always be arguments unless you give the committee the ability to have play in games when they see fit, which I can't see happening.
If we are going to have a setup with no byes then I like the 4 team number. Unlike a lot of people, I do not have a problem with byes. A team or two having 1 less game as a reward for a good season seams fair to me. They would have earned that position during the regular season, thereby, giving a reason for a tough schedule. It would also give us better odds that the best team was national champion.
If we are going to tweek it, how about the 5 conference champs, the top non power 5 team and 1 wild card. The top seed gets the advantage of the buy. Make the wild card only eligible for seeds 5-7 so that they are the visitor. There is incentive for a good schedule to get a buy. There is incentive to continue to play after clinching a division because of a buy and to get a better seed. Non power 5 teams are given a chance so that a team will have a chance to compete for coaches and players that want to win championships.
We are always going to argue regardless of the number. At least we now have an argument that is based on who is in instead of just who is #1 after everything like 20 years ago or so. I think it was '91 when Colorado with the 5th down and Georgia Tech were champs in different polls, and probably nobody in the country outside of those 2 schools thought they were the best.
Considering someone referenced 1 more game not being hard on these young men, I will respectfully disagree. Though it is easy to forget, these young men are Student athletes. Exams, generally, are at the beginning of December. They are given very convenience but they still have many obstacles. As for there bodies, they are tough but not unbreakable. There is a reason for the trend to skip low level bowl games. These kids would not skip a playoff game, but they may pay with a lifelong or career ending injury. They are not just out there for our enjoyment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 12
| visibility 61
|
|
|
50
