Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

CFP-With Right HC and 8 teams, this is not unrealistic

Isn’t selection still some sort of voter based beauty pageant? Sprinkle in picks influenced by pageantry, legacy, but really tv ratings, and voila; A **** show. How about you win the ****ing conference, you get in. You lose the conference, and you go to the weed eater bowl. I mean, ****, isn’t that what the conference champion is? The best ****ing team from that conference?
 
I’m all in favor of 8 unless the committee is willing to make tough choices and include one loss teams over an unbeaten marquis name.
 
I think OOC schedules become a joke with a 8 team playoff, but how can you not love these playoffs games, even if they are blowouts? More college football is good
 
I was a sucker for the perennial Bird v Magic NBA championships back in the day, but this rinse repeat Alabama v Clemson thing for the CFB NC sucks. Can’t explain it. Just not into it.
 
TV Ratings are better than ever. Revenue is greater than ever. The P5 Blue Bloods don't have to give access to G5 teams (even undefeated ones).

What motivation do they have to make changes? Why on earth would any of them agree to revenue sharing?

Who says the NCAA even wants "parity"; it never has. It is a paper-tiger compliance figurehead that is controlled by its member schools; not a seperate independent regulatory agency. Just as the CFP committee is not "independent".

Dynasties rise and fall. Coaching changes, scandals, and just straight-up competition all chip away at teams' success. Look at USC and Texas over the last 10 years.
Bama's run at success is unprecedented in college football history. 20 years from now we will all loook back at this and say: "yeah but you should have seen those Bama teams under Saban".

I am in favor of an 8 team playoff with P5 champions being AQ and having 3 at-large bids. Who is to say that a Pac-12 champion Washington doesn't have the perfect answer to topple either Bama or Clemson if given the chance? Or a cinderella story like Boise State, UCF, comes along and surprises everyone.

But that isn't the motivation of the P5 commissioners, the blue-blood programs, or even the NCAA as they have little to no say so in big-time college football.

Expecting the rich and powerful to just give up their advantages because it's "fair" is foolish and naive. Until the NCAA has an actual spine of their own, there is no authority with enough power to force any major changes unless the motivation is greed (ABC/ESPN offering to double or triple the CFP payout if they go to an 8 team model for example).
 
I am for just giving the championship to Bama every year as an emeritus type status and the rest of the teams playing an 8 team playoff. Lol.
 
buffedup said:
With 8, it removes the stranglehold the top schools have on recruiting with easier access to the the playoffs, especially with auto bids to P5 conferences.
Click to expand...
And with expansion players who would otherwise bail on playing in their meaningless bowl game in favor of NFL draft readiness, would stay onboard, making the games potentially more competitive.
 
buffedup said:
With 8, it removes the stranglehold the top schools have on recruiting with easier access to the the playoffs, especially with auto bids to P5 conferences.
Click to expand...
You really wanted to see Clemson play Michigan yesterday? And Bama vs UCF?

Why?

I would have watched UGA vs OU. Three of the four games would have been double digit games. Two in the mid to high 20s.

Yay, more football. I guess.
 
hawg1 said:
You really wanted to see Clemson play Michigan yesterday? And Bama vs UCF?

Why?

I would have watched UGA vs OU. Three of the four games would have been double digit games. Two in the mid to high 20s.

Yay, more football. I guess.
Click to expand...
If we'd had 8 teams with the P5 champs and highest ranked G5 champ, we would have gotten:

1 Alabama vs 9 Washington
2 Clemson vs 8 UCF
3 Note Dame vs 6 Ohio State
4 Oklahoma vs 5 Georgia

I would watch every one of those games with extremely high interest.
 
Buffnik said:
If we'd had 8 teams with the P5 champs and highest ranked G5 champ, we would have gotten:

1 Alabama vs 9 Washington
2 Clemson vs 8 UCF
3 Note Dame vs 6 Ohio State
4 Oklahoma vs 5 Georgia

I would watch every one of those games with extremely high interest.
Click to expand...
So many impediments to e pension. AQ and CCGs at the top of the list.
 
hawg1 said:
So many impediments to e pension. AQ and CCGs at the top of the list.
Click to expand...
Biggest one being that the bowl season is so ingrained in the fabric of college football with so much money and so many agreements in place. But there are 2 things here that will drive change toward an expanded playoff that are inexorable:

1) Playoff will make more money for the universities and media partners than bowls
2) Bowls are becoming increasingly irrelevant to fans (consumers) with each passing year

It's a matter of "when" not "if".
 
Buffnik said:
Biggest one being that the bowl season is so ingrained in the fabric of college football with so much money and so many agreements in place. But there are 2 things here that will drive change toward an expanded playoff that are inexorable:

1) Playoff will make more money for the universities and media partners than bowls
2) Bowls are becoming increasingly irrelevant to fans (consumers) with each passing year

It's a matter of "when" not "if".
Click to expand...
SEC CCG had better ratings than either playoff game.
 
hawg1 said:
SEC CCG had better ratings than either playoff game.
Click to expand...
Part of that is because the CCG was on free over the air TV where big games belong. Having the college football playoffs on pay TV is bad for the sport.
 
hawg1 said:
You really wanted to see Clemson play Michigan yesterday? And Bama vs UCF?

Why?

I would have watched UGA vs OU. Three of the four games would have been double digit games. Two in the mid to high 20s.

Yay, more football. I guess.
Click to expand...

While I would absolutely watch those games, especially with a Pac 12 team also in with auto bids, I am not arguing for expansion for my viewing pleasure. I am arguing for expansion to make college football actually equitable.
 
I'd go with 6 or 8. If it gets watered down, go back to whatever. All I know is, I wanna see these teams play instead of some country club mother****er voting on it, good games or not.
 
Uncle Luko said:
I'd go with 6 or 8. If it gets watered down, go back to whatever. All I know is, I wanna see these teams play instead of some country club mother****er voting on it, good games or not.
Click to expand...

Thats why I said conference champions only (so they actually mean something) a few posts back. Let it be decided on the field. Every game matters. None of this losing, not even playing in the CCG, then backing into a championship. Take 6 teams (5 P5 champs, 1 at large) and have 3 play 5, 4 play 6 for the right to play number 1 and number 2.
 
hawg1 said:
It is additional evidence. Again. Like previous years. The competitive frame for CFB does not run 8 deep for a NC. Data say it may not be four deep.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. We’ve had the same two teams in the finals three years in a row. That doesn’t mean we should reduce the field to two, though.
 
Not Sure said:
Well, yeah. We’ve had the same two teams in the finals three years in a row. That doesn’t mean we should reduce the field to two, though.
Click to expand...
No reason to add meaningless games to this event that brings intense complexity on many topics.

Four is fine.
 
Not Sure said:
Well, yeah. We’ve had the same two teams in the finals three years in a row. That doesn’t mean we should reduce the field to two, though.
Click to expand...

Something I think the NCAA should consider vis a vis creating more parity is a reduction of scholarships based on success. Sort of like the NFL makes the SB winner draft last. Im not sure how you do it. Maybe something like conference champion loses X number of scholarships, playoff birth teams lose X+1, NC game teams lose X+2, NC winner loses X+3. Like the Patriots they'll still win. But it'll be harder and itll give others a better chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top