AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Conference Expansion - Big 12 is a tire fire
- Thread starter hokiehead
- Start date
If you want good teams to schedule good teams, you need to be more flexible.
For example, if LSU or Auburn or Wisconsin ran the table the rest of the way I wouldn't bat an eye if any made the playoff.
I think 12 would be pushing it and 16 would bring in mediocrity.
I have a really hard time imagining a situation where the #11 seed deserves to get close to the trophy. Frankly I have trouble seeing the #8 team deserving it.
I can see the argument that 4 teams deserve a shot, past that it is nothing but second chances for teams that blew it already.
Dating back to 2008, no 3 loss team has finished the season ranked higher than 9th, so there's that.
As to the idea of a regular season undefeated... First of all, it doesn't happen every year, and secondly, based on your logic, why should an undefeated team have to play anybody else at all? Why have any sort of National Championship if there's only 1 undefeated team at the end of the year? Might as well shut it down and have zero postseason at all, right? What about a G5 program who goes undefeated? Are they the only team worthy of playing for a NC?
In 2014, FSU was 13-0 and a 1 loss Oregon team ran them by 39... But according to you, FSU shouldn't have even had to bother with the peasants with a blemish on their record.
I hate conversations about expanded playoffs.
Regardless of how you go about it, if you expand the playoffs, you end up with wildcards.
The FBS is too big to have an all-inclusive championship playoff system like the NCAA has with basketball. With the combination of conference tournaments and the 64 team field, it is possible, however unlikely, for a team to go 4-22 and somehow have a magical run where they win their conference tourney, get an automatic bid, and win the national championship.
The nature of college football and the size of FBS makes it to where you can't do that, obviously, so you have to depend on the regular season to weed everyone out. Once you've done that, then you can go about with playoffs to get a national champion. But to go with an expanded playoff and add wild cards, then you get into half-measures. You're using the regular season to get to a playoff field, but you're still going to allow teams that don't win their conferences or even their divisions to compete for the national championship, which makes no sense if you're using the regular season as part of the weeding out process.
NU playing for the 2001 national title after not winning the Big 12 North was a joke. Alabama winning the national title a few years later despite not winning the SEC West was an even bigger joke.
I understand that people are going to say, "If they're one of the 2/4/8 best teams, what does it matter?" My response to that would be, if they're one of the 2/4/8 best teams, they should have won their conference championship.
Regardless of how you go about it, if you expand the playoffs, you end up with wildcards.
The FBS is too big to have an all-inclusive championship playoff system like the NCAA has with basketball. With the combination of conference tournaments and the 64 team field, it is possible, however unlikely, for a team to go 4-22 and somehow have a magical run where they win their conference tourney, get an automatic bid, and win the national championship.
The nature of college football and the size of FBS makes it to where you can't do that, obviously, so you have to depend on the regular season to weed everyone out. Once you've done that, then you can go about with playoffs to get a national champion. But to go with an expanded playoff and add wild cards, then you get into half-measures. You're using the regular season to get to a playoff field, but you're still going to allow teams that don't win their conferences or even their divisions to compete for the national championship, which makes no sense if you're using the regular season as part of the weeding out process.
NU playing for the 2001 national title after not winning the Big 12 North was a joke. Alabama winning the national title a few years later despite not winning the SEC West was an even bigger joke.
I understand that people are going to say, "If they're one of the 2/4/8 best teams, what does it matter?" My response to that would be, if they're one of the 2/4/8 best teams, they should have won their conference championship.
The challenge is that in some years you would be right and some years you'd be wrong. Without a clear "right" answer to the contrary, I'm sure it will follow the money.
Knew that was coming at some point
And this is why we will eventually go to 8 then 12 then 16 then 24.
Just like we now have what 72 teams in the BB tourney. It's a great event but as a means of determining the best team of that year (not just that moment) it is a joke.
And you end up with multiple teams that neither won their conference regular season championship or their conference tourneys yet they deserve another shot?
Doesn't make it.
I
Deleted member 807
Guest
Baylor and its collection of scheduled cupcakes likes where you are going.
I can't imagine it going past 16 (though I think 16 is too many). You just don't have enough time after finals weeks to do more than that many.
this. the people who really make the decisions will continue to do so focused on maximizing short term revenue, even if it destroys the sport long term.
many don't find this to be a relevant analogy, but before CFB, the last major US sport to add a playoff was NASCAR (they call it the "Chase") in 2004. There may be something to learn.
It has resulted in attendance numbers <50% of where they were pre-Chase and declining TV ratings (to the point where NASCAR is now exiled to NBCSN).
NASCARs response after revenue started dropping? Double-down on stupid and expand the playoffs from 10 to 12. Attendance continued to fall, as did TV revenue. What did NASCAR do? they went full-retard and expanded the chase to 16 drivers. Today, the stands are empty and race track owners are looking at hosting football games in an effort to find revenue. It's now so bad that in 2013 NASCAR directed tracks to cease reporting attendance figures.
Fully acknowledging that correlation does not imply causation, it's reasonable to attribute the declining importance of the regular season as a factor.
There are something like 350 college basketball teams eligible for the NCAA tournament. Only 68 make it with 64 being the real number. That's like 18% of college basketball gets a shot at the Natty, including every conference champion. With that many teams, there's no fool proof way to truly determine the "best" in the country, but if you're truly among the elite, prove it by playing your best ball in March for 6 straight games. Don't see an issue there.
In college football, there are 128 teams "eligible" to make the CFP. If they moved to an 8 team playoff, that's ~6% of the teams that get an opportunity to win the NC. Tell me again how 8 teams in the CFP would water it down?
Except that playoffs and conference championship games have coincided with growth in college football. Growing the NCAA basketball tourney has coincided with growing that sport.
So very different from NASCAR that I'm not sure it is analogous. Golf does something similar and that is also stupid. Those sports tried to turn themselves into something they're not. College football has been avoiding something it is (and has done on FCS, D2 & D3 levels for decades). This is mostly about power shifting away from an antiquated bowl system.
Try to come up with a list of 32 teams in BB who based on their body of work deserve to be called the best that year. It would be hard to get past 16 or even 12.
I am sick of the "everybody deserves a second (or third) chance" mentality.
@hokiehead is absolutely spot on. The drive for the short term dollar and the short term thrill can and does destroy what makes a sport great. College football is great in large part because every game matters. Not because they are playing to be one of the ones who qualifies for the real games.
We have already seen what the if some is good more is better is doing to the NFL. Ratings are down overall by 11% and Monday night, Sunday night, and especially Thursday night even more. As great a game as it is there is a point where you hit to much. In college football I don't think we are far away from that point.
I like, and agree with this statement.
One thing that hasn't been brought up is how much AD's and University Presidents love them some bowl games. A week of pre-game shmoozing with your top donors on 3-4 weeks notice and a 50% chance of finishing the season with a win? Yes, please, I will take another!
While I do believe it is somewhat inevitable that the playoff will expand. The universities themselves are not in much of a hurry for it.
4 is perfect, if conferences are that worried about it, go to 4 conferences and quit bitching. The bowl system +1 is what makes the regular season so great and I sure as hell would be pissed if we got rid of bowls and went to just a playoff because there is no reason to wish for less college football. even if north west Missouri state is playing Illinois tech, I still tune in.
All the data I find says this is false.
data, by year
summary CBS article
"growth" may be short term monetary revenue increases with new TV playoff deals, but I would contend that is unsustainable if regular season attendance keeps declining.
Attendance should not be your measure. That's a cultural paradigm shift. Same shift that has eliminated most arena concerts compared to the heyday (and iTunes is not to blame).
The NFL has had the same playoff system for years and is part of what made it the highest rated sport in the country by a WIDE margin (and still is even though ratings are down). The ratings this season aren't due to the regular season games not mattering as much or 12 teams making the playoffs; parity is actually part of what has made the NFL great. The problem with the NFL is the greed of the owners putting games on Thursday night, far less full contact practice time, and the year round NFL news cycle that is constantly in your face.
Also, you are being far too dramatic and hyperbolic with your statements. Nobody is saying everybody should get a 2nd chance. We're talking about 2-4 more well deserving, teams in college football getting a shot. I don't see how that's watered down at all.
jrj84105
Active Member
I have a convoluted idea for PAC expansion. It's essentially a PAC/BigXII scheduling agreement taken a step further.
- PAC invites UT, OU, KU, Mizzou as full members.
- PAC invites TTU, TCU, OkSU, KSU, ISU, WVU as football only affiliates (half share revenue). BigXII football folds.
- PAC divides into two football conferences:
PAC10
- PAC4 division: Cal, Furd, USC, UCLA
- PAC6 division: UW, WSU, UO, OrSU, AZ, ASU
PAC XII
- PAC VIII division: UU, CU, UT, OU, KU, Mizzou
- PAC VI division: TTU, TCU, OkSU, KSU, ISU, WVU
UU/CU schedule: 1 vs B1G, 3 OOC, 8 Conference: 2 games vs PAC4 (CA schools), 1 game vs PAC6 (NW/AZ schools), 5 games versus division (UU/CU, UT, OU, KU, Mizzou), 0 games vs PAC VI division (they're essentially a completely separate conference that retains a shared CCG with the PAC ensuring that they are still nominally P5 despite being relegated). PAC VIII is like a PAC East in a standard 16 school format except UU and CU get to retain greater CA exposure with 2 games vs CA schools annually.
PAC gets 2 CCG plus second contract bowl vs SEC (Cotton).
- PAC invites UT, OU, KU, Mizzou as full members.
- PAC invites TTU, TCU, OkSU, KSU, ISU, WVU as football only affiliates (half share revenue). BigXII football folds.
- PAC divides into two football conferences:
PAC10
- PAC4 division: Cal, Furd, USC, UCLA
- PAC6 division: UW, WSU, UO, OrSU, AZ, ASU
PAC XII
- PAC VIII division: UU, CU, UT, OU, KU, Mizzou
- PAC VI division: TTU, TCU, OkSU, KSU, ISU, WVU
UU/CU schedule: 1 vs B1G, 3 OOC, 8 Conference: 2 games vs PAC4 (CA schools), 1 game vs PAC6 (NW/AZ schools), 5 games versus division (UU/CU, UT, OU, KU, Mizzou), 0 games vs PAC VI division (they're essentially a completely separate conference that retains a shared CCG with the PAC ensuring that they are still nominally P5 despite being relegated). PAC VIII is like a PAC East in a standard 16 school format except UU and CU get to retain greater CA exposure with 2 games vs CA schools annually.
PAC gets 2 CCG plus second contract bowl vs SEC (Cotton).
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
WV pushing it a bit geographically, don't you think (even with the pods). Basketball and other sport travel is killing them.
I like it at 12, but Oklahoma and Kansas are the only two that hold any interest to me. Nothing against Mizzou, but they've made their bed.
I like it at 12, but Oklahoma and Kansas are the only two that hold any interest to me. Nothing against Mizzou, but they've made their bed.
so, your metric for growth in college football is revenue then? I'll roll with that, provided it's normalized to inflation. I'll maintain that if fan attendance continues to drop that revenue is unsustainable though. let's pick this discussion up in 5 years and see where we are.
Edit: also, the NFL and NHL have showed increased attendance over the last five years, which implies the cultural shift may be less influential than you're suggesting.
Yep. And I am concerned. I think TV revenue deals were a bubble that is deflating. I believe in attendance. But it is hard to compete with the comfort, convenience and cost of entertainment in our living rooms. CU must figure out traffic & parking, provide better than bleachers & hotdogs, make every game feel like an EVENT... and do it for a price that is affordable for the average family in the market. Not easy.
I don't really understand your desire to make college football like the NFL.