College Football 2016 - Cracks in the Golden Dome

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The playoffs need more than 4 teams.

I agree. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I agree. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

You're probably correct but I'd love to see a 10 team playoff system for College football.

[Rhom]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The playoffs need more than 4 teams.

Do they?

Wouldnt we have gotten Clemson v Bama both of the past two years under the BCS set up?

In my mind, picking the top two is pretty simple.  Where things get complicated are when we start trying to figure out 4 vs 5 or worse.  That's when teams like Ohio State get in even though they didn't play for their conference title.

(And before we bring up LSU v Bama, that loss was to the other.)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Rhom said:

Do they?

Wouldnt we have gotten Clemson v Bama both of the past two years under the BCS set up?

In my mind, picking the top two is pretty simple.  Where things get complicated are when we start trying to figure out 4 vs 5 or worse.  That's when teams like Ohio State get in even though they didn't play for their conference title.

(And before we bring up LSU v Bama, that loss was to the other.)

I think so.  I've always hated the lack of a real playoff in College football.  But, obviously, opinions vary.  The 4 team playoff is better than what previously existed.  It's still not what I'd like to see.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

4 minutes ago, Rhom said:

Do they?

Wouldnt we have gotten Clemson v Bama both of the past two years under the BCS set up?

In my mind, picking the top two is pretty simple.  Where things get complicated are when we start trying to figure out 4 vs 5 or worse.  That's when teams like Ohio State get in even though they didn't play for their conference title.

(And before we bring up LSU v Bama, that loss was to the other.)

True. I guess the idea is that like the NFL when you actually have to play the games, then, you know, things happen. Does the "best" team win the Super Bowl every year? No, we've had multiple Wild Card champions. As I mentioned before, teams get hot, Oklahoma would been a tough out for Clemson or Bama the way they were playing at the end of the year. USC and Penn State playing really great football. Decide it on the field not a conference room.

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, Rhom said:

Do they?

Wouldnt we have gotten Clemson v Bama both of the past two years under the BCS set up?

In my mind, picking the top two is pretty simple.  Where things get complicated are when we start trying to figure out 4 vs 5 or worse.  That's when teams like Ohio State get in even though they didn't play for their conference title.

(And before we bring up LSU v Bama, that loss was to the other.)

Would we have gotten Ohio State 3 years ago, though? It would have been Florida State v Alabama most likely.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

Would we have gotten Ohio State 3 years ago, though? It would have been Florida State v Alabama most likely.

Yep. And that would have been pretty horrible, all told. 

The last two years we've lucked out in getting two high quality teams that would likely have been the top spots, but 2014 should show precisely why that isn't the best case all the time. And if OSU or Washington happened to go undefeated, they would have replaced Clemson - and then got their asses handed to them in another uninspiring championship game. Even though Clemson did nothing particularly different.

At the same time, Clemson and Alabama showed that you don't want that many more games. Does anyone think that there are any better teams than those two right now? Do you really believe that Penn State or USC could hold a candle to either given what both teams did to their respective conferences? This year the BCS would have been fine if  it would have picked Alabama vs. Clemson. Same with last year.

That's the real issue - that there's a pretty big variety in really good teams from year to year. Some years we have basically one or two, some we have 4, and rarely we have more. Note that 'really good' doesn't mean undefeated, either - that's a bug in the system that sucks, and why we need playoffs at all (as an example: Notre Dame in 2012).

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Well, Pitt beat Clemson, so yea, I don't think I would count out PSU, USC or Oklahoma with the football they were playing at the end of the year. I don't want my college championship decided by hypotheticals. I do think we got the right game last night, but that doesn't mean I think we have the right system. Close, but not right. 

The NFL has 32 teams and 12 of those make the playoff. Div. 1 has over 100 and you think that we get the best possible matchup every year by the way the systems has been set up? Its gotten better over the years, but far from right. 8 teams. Power 5 champs and the best 3 highest ranked and I think you get the best possible matchup each year. That's only adding one more game, yet 4 more teams a shot at a NC. The conference championships will mean something. How you're playing at the end of the year will mean even more. I can't possibly see how it could be worse for the sport. Bama and Clemson would've still had the same opportunity and we might've seen the same game last night. 

[Rhom]

I still think that two was better than four, but since we aren't going back; I do think we need to go to eight.  At two, multiple conferences were being left out and that feels okay to me.  At four, we are leaving one conference on the outside and saying "too bad, so sad... suck less bro."  At this point, I think eight is inevitable.

On a personal level, I'm still trying to teach my son the importance of not being a frontrunner.  He's six now and a solid UK basketball fan.  That doesn't waver.  Anything else is up for grabs though.  I let him watch most of the first quarter before bedtime last night.  He went to bed a Bama fan and woke up this morning a Clemson fan.   

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

22 minutes ago, Rhom said:

On a personal level, I'm still trying to teach my son the importance of not being a frontrunner.  He's six now and a solid UK basketball fan.  That doesn't waver.  Anything else is up for grabs though.  I let him watch most of the first quarter before bedtime last night.  He went to bed a Bama fan and woke up this morning a Clemson fan.   

My son is 4, I try and teach the same values. He is firmly a WVU fan, so not a front runner on that front. Anything else he decides on the color of the uniform, preferably blue. Yes, he rooted for UK against Louisville a week or two ago.

[Rhom]

14 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

My son is 4, I try and teach the same values. He is firmly a WVU fan, so not a front runner on that front. Anything else he decides on the color of the uniform, preferably blue. Yes, he rooted for UK against Louisville a week or two ago.

Attaboy!

[KingintheNorth4]

I believe it's for the best for the system to remain at 4 teams. Were it to expand to 8 or 16 teams, I feel that it would make the regular season mean less. Having two losses in the regular season should eliminate a team from title contention. Even if it was expanded, there would still be debates over what team deserves to be in over another. For example, in an 8 team playoff, the debate would just switch to who deserves to be in, 8 or 9? You can apply this to a 16 team playoff as well. A 4 team playoff may not be a perfect system, I do believe it's the BEST system for college football.

[sperry]

Clemson played like shit all year. They put it all together finally for the final two years, almost exactly like Ohio State in 2014.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Well folks, last night we got definitive proof that God picks who wins and loses football games.

[HokieStone]

12 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Yea, no. The ACC bowl record outside of Clemson was 5-4 (i believe).

LMAO - you make your claim after excluding one team, and then still getting the numbers the wrong.  The ACC was 9-3 in bowls this year, not 5-4.  SEC was 6-7, the Big 10 was 3-7.  And since the SEC is the usual measuring stick, the ACC was a combined 10-4 against the SEC this year...the rest of the FBS conferences were a combined 9-31. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

As long as college football refuses to pay its athletes i'll be in favor of potential first rounders skipping the post season bowls and playoffs. If the programs are going to go 15 game seasons and chase all this lucrative playoff money then they need to compensate the athletes that are making that product possible, often putting their own health on the line.

Until the system changes I hope the boycotts only increase. If they want go to an expanded 3 or 4 game playoff series then the players shouldnt be playing anymore then a 10 game regular season. To do otherwise your foisting an entire pro length season onto unpaid players risking a variety of debilitating injuries. Are we going to eventually ask the college kids to play 17 or 18 game seasons, or 20 games? Where does the greed end?

If the playoffs are going to 8 or more teams, these regular seasons need to be shortened. For  many years the NFL only played 14 game regular seasons with their salaried athletes.

For the McCaffreys, Peppers and the rest that said, thanks but no thanks, to another unpaid bowl, GOOD FOR YOU GUYS. Even the NBA D League and Baseballs farm teams pay their athletes. If college football is the feeder system for the NFL, then they should be contributing to the costs of the developing (training employees) just as MLB and the NBA is doing.

[dbunting]

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

As long as college football refuses to pay its athletes i'll be in favor of potential first rounders skipping the post season bowls and playoffs. If the programs are going to go 15 game seasons and chase all this lucrative playoff money then they need to compensate the athletes that are making that product possible, often putting their own health on the line.

Until the system changes I hope the boycotts only increase. If they want go to an expanded 3 or 4 game playoff series then the players shouldnt be playing anymore then a 10 game regular season. To do otherwise your foisting an entire pro length season onto unpaid players risking a variety of debilitating injuries. Are we going to eventually ask the college kids to play 17 or 18 game seasons, or 20 games? Where does the greed end?

If the playoffs are going to 8 or more teams, these regular seasons need to be shortened. For  many years the NFL only played 14 game regular seasons with their salaried athletes.

For the McCaffreys, Peppers and the rest that said, thanks but no thanks, to another unpaid bowl, GOOD FOR YOU GUYS. Even the NBA D League and Baseballs farm teams pay their athletes. If college football is the feeder system for the NFL, then they should be contributing to the costs of the developing (training employees) just as MLB and the NBA is doing.

I agree that college players for teams that make money should receive some type of compensation, personally I think the Power 5 should simply abandon the NCAA and make their own football only league and pay their players. I don't quite understand the NBA and MLB comparisons though. NBA requires a player to be one year removed from high school, hence the one and dones. These players play in the NCAA tourney which is a billion dollar industry, so shouldn't those players get paid? The NBA D league has nothing to do with amateurs getting paid. Same with MLB. Yes high school players get drafted and spend years in the minors, it's as pro's, not amateurs, the high school isn't paying them.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

11 hours ago, HokieStone said:

LMAO - you make your claim after excluding one team, and then still getting the numbers the wrong.  The ACC was 9-3 in bowls this year, not 5-4.  SEC was 6-7, the Big 10 was 3-7.  And since the SEC is the usual measuring stick, the ACC was a combined 10-4 against the SEC this year...the rest of the FBS conferences were a combined 9-31. 

And the BIGXII was 5-1, yet you exclude them..... And, that's a false measuring stick, because the SEC was weak, very weak this year. 

[Ded As Ned]

New thread started.