Coming soon... 8 team playoffs

[tante]

apples and oranges

1. college football didn't have a "national championship" back in 1984. there were several organizations that selected and named their own MNC back then, but the organizing body of the sport wasn't one of them.
2. the 1984 Cougars went undefeated in their 'championship' year. OSU lost a home game to a really bad team in their most recent championship year.
3. I don't think many besides you would refer to the 1984 Holiday Bowl as a "championship game", as Michigan wouldn't have been anyone's MNC if they had they won. BYU went to that bowl because of conference tie-ins, not because it was to determine the MNC.

1. Bummer. I thought Colorado had a championship.

2. So what. Lots of mediocre teams went undefeated and didn't win a championship and more teams lost a game on the way to winning one.

3. But that is what it was. Did it not determine the champion? That is why playoffs are better.

 

[hokiehead]

1. Bummer. I thought Colorado had a championship.

2. So what. Lots of mediocre teams went undefeated and didn't win a championship and more teams lost a game on the way to winning one.

3. But that is what it was. Did it not determine the champion? That is why playoffs are better.

let's rewind the conversation:
Sackman points out that if a few games over the course of the season had gone the other way, that we'd end up with a different four teams in the playoffs. he comments that this would've sucked.
hokiehead remarks that had Sackman's situation born out, then we would've ended up with a NC lacking a home loss to a mediocre team. his use of "at least" implies he has an opinion on the subject.
Tante asks about BYU's 1984 team.
hokiehead fails to see the relevance in Tante's comparison and points out why the two situations aren't comparable at all.
Tante replies with snarky remarks to hokiehead's points #1 and #2 that are irrelevant to either (a) the original point of whether or not the NC in any given year had a "bad loss" (b) the side point of whether or not OSU 2014 and BYU 1984 are comparable situations in this respect.

that takes us up to now.

w/r/t #1, hokiehead fully supports Tante continuing to think that. hokiehead even encourages it. hokiehead does, however, suspect that both he and Tante are well aware said championship is not an NCAA Championship, but rather an AP Championship (and a few others). hokiehead has no issues with anyone calling it a "National Championship", with or without the 'M'.

w/r/t #2, this speaks directly to why BYU 1984 and OSU 2015 aren't comparable: they won their respective 'championships' under two completely different criteria for selecting the champ. hokiehead's earlier point was that a team with that bad of a home loss wouldn't have been a contender for anyone's notion of a national champ before last year. Tante's comment does nothing towards refuting hokiehead's point.

w/r/t #3, that bowl for BYU determined their MNC approximately as much as every other game they played that season (see #2 above). it wasn't any more important to their AP championship that year than their season opener against #3 ranked Pitt. .

hokiehead considers the second part of Tante's point #3 and declines to engage in a further tangential debate of whether or not a playoffs are better. hokiehead chastises himself for the "at least" remark in his post ITT -- a factual message w/out the implied commentary would've had a better impact.

 

[tante]

This is what I hate about allbuffs. It is not about what you say but about how you say it.

I don't even know what hokie is saying anymore much less care.

 

[4DemBuffs]

This is what I hate about allbuffs. It is not about what you say but about how you say it.

I don't even know what hokie is saying anymore much less care.

Huh?

 

[Deleted member 807]

This is what I hate about allbuffs. It is not about what you say but about how you say it.

I don't even know what hokie is saying anymore much less care.

Funny pondering tante caring about anything but tante...and beer.

 

[tante]

Funny pondering tante caring about anything but tante...and beer.

Fair enough. Sorry hokie that came out wrong.

 

[hokiehead]

Fair enough. Sorry hokie that came out wrong.

Dudw. No issue.bmessage board bs talk -- never personal.

 

[Gary Indiana]

Keep it at 4. If you move to 8 you are making the regular season a lot less important and watering down the playoff field you could end up with a fluky champion.

And the #1 reason to keep it at 4...this last bowl season was one of the greatest I have seen. I didn't even have a rooting interest but was still glued to the TV. If you added more teams to the playoff, I don't think I would care as much until the championship game.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Keep it at 4. If you move to 8 you are making the regular season a lot less important and watering down the playoff field you could end up with a fluky champion.

And the #1 reason to keep it at 4...this last bowl season was one of the greatest I have seen. I didn't even have a rooting interest but was still glued to the TV. If you added more teams to the playoff, I don't think I would care as much until the championship game.

See, I don't mind the parity. I know some want the best team to win it every year, but I love upsets and underdogs. I would love to see a format in which a "lesser" team has a chance to be a National Champion. Also, we're not talking about a team like CSU potentially being that fluky NC. It'd be a team like Michigan State or TCU (both top 5 teams at one point last year) that would potentially be that team to make a run. And honestly, if an 8th ranked team is able to beat 3 top 10 teams in 3 consecutive weeks, wouldn't make a strong case for them being the best team in the country?

 

[J.R. Ewing]

I'm still in favor of 6. P5 conf champs +1.

 

[Gary Indiana]

See, I don't mind the parity. I know some want the best team to win it every year, but I love upsets and underdogs. I would love to see a format in which a "lesser" team has a chance to be a National Champion. Also, we're not talking about a team like CSU potentially being that fluky NC. It'd be a team like Michigan State or TCU (both top 5 teams at one point last year) that would potentially be that team to make a run. And honestly, if an 8th ranked team is able to beat 3 top 10 teams in 3 consecutive weeks, wouldn't make a strong case for them being the best team in the country?

I can see what you're saying about an underdog and that might have some appeal, but to me I lose you when you mention the beating 3 teams in 3 weeks. That is too much playoff and completely diminishes the regular season.


http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/4/10/8371281/final-four-college-football-playoff

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I can see what you're saying about an underdog and that might have some appeal, but to me I lose you when you mention the beating 3 teams in 3 weeks. That is too much playoff and completely diminishes the regular season.

I don't think it diminishes the regular season at all. Any team to make the playoffs would still have to win 10+ games (plus their conference championship game most likely) and rank in the final 8. Maybe go with 6 teams and have the top 2 get byes to reward the truly elite teams.

All I know is that the NFL has 3-4 more regular season games than college teams and 4 rounds of playoffs and it's become the most successful sports league in our country by a wide margin. I think making the college playoffs similar to the NFL playoffs is eventually going to happen and will make the college game all the more popular.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/4/10/8371281/final-four-college-football-playoff

Where I lose this article is comparing college basketball to college football. It's not uncommon to see a 6 or 7 seed make a run to the final four in college basketball because it's easier to get hot and go on those runs. That just doesn't happen in college football, but you're telling me if Michigan State was able to do it and beat Alabama, Ohio State and then Oregon, in 3 consecutive weeks, it'd be some sort of sham because they weren't the best team in college football?

 

[sackman]

With something like 125 D-1 schools, and 65 P5 schools, getting into the final 8 means you had a great regular season. The only exception to that rule would be if a weak team manages to win its division and pull an upset in the CCG. That doesn't happen very often though.

 

[Gary Indiana]

I don't think it diminishes the regular season at all. Any team to make the playoffs would still have to win 10+ games (plus their conference championship game most likely) and rank in the final 8. Maybe go with 6 teams and have the top 2 get byes to reward the truly elite teams.

All I know is that the NFL has 3-4 more regular season games than college teams and 4 rounds of playoffs and it's become the most successful sports league in our country by a wide margin. I think making the college playoffs similar to the NFL playoffs is eventually going to happen and will make the college game all the more popular.

I am becoming less and less of an NFL fan every year and believe I am not alone in that. The reason why- over saturation. I don't want to see college football become NFLjr and maybe that is where our differing opinions are coming from. I want to see the OOC schedules improve nationwide, 9 conference games across the board, and championship games for all P5 conferences. The last 4 standing battle it out on New Year's Day for the right to play in the 'ship.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I am becoming less and less of an NFL fan every year and believe I am not alone in that. The reason why- over saturation. I don't want to see college football become NFLjr and maybe that is where our differing opinions are coming from. I want to see the OOC schedules improve nationwide, 9 conference games across the board, and championship games for all P5 conferences. The last 4 standing battle it out on New Year's Day for the right to play in the 'ship.

You may not be alone in your feelings toward the NFL, but I think you're still overwhelmingly in the minority. To each his own (pet peeve phrase, I know), though, and I think we can at least agree that the college game definitely needs some changes to the post season format.

 

[Gary Indiana]

You may not be alone in your feelings toward the NFL, but I think you're still overwhelmingly in the minority. To each his own (pet peeve phrase, I know), though, and I think we can at least agree that the college game definitely needs some changes to the post season format.

The only change I would make to the current post season format is to eliminate half of the ridiculous bowl games. I hate the idea of a team that could only get to .500 being celebrated and believing they had a successful season.

 

[patebuff]

8 team playoff - Make it so

 

[skibum]

There were many games this past season that I watched because of their potential impact on at least one team's chances of making the playoff. On the one hand, if you increase the number of teams in said playoff, you increase the number of games that could affect various teams' chances. On the other hand, all you've really done is move the quality of teams that are playing those games down a notch.

In other words, with an 8 team playoff, unless they spectacularly crater, by the halfway point of the season whoever's ranked in the top 3 is probably in. So instead of the games with teams ranked 1-6 (or maybe 1-8) having the potential to determine who's in or who's out, it would be the games with teams ranked 4-16 determining who's in and out. More games, lower quality teams.

I'm a quality over quantity guy every time. But this is the land of golden corral, so I'm pretty confident that in time not just an 8 team, but a 12 or 16 team playoff is almost guaranteed.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

There were many games this past season that I watched because of their potential impact on at least one team's chances of making the playoff. On the one hand, if you increase the number of teams in said playoff, you increase the number of games that could affect various teams' chances. On the other hand, all you've really done is move the quality of teams that are playing those games down a notch.

In other words, with an 8 team playoff, unless they spectacularly crater, by the halfway point of the season whoever's ranked in the top 3 is probably in. So instead of the games with teams ranked 1-6 (or maybe 1-8) having the potential to determine who's in or who's out, it would be the games with teams ranked 4-16 determining who's in and out. More games, lower quality teams.

I'm a quality over quantity guy every time. But this is the land of golden corral, so I'm pretty confident that in time not just an 8 team, but a 12 or 16 team playoff is almost guaranteed.

Half way through the season, Ole Miss and Miss St were #1 and #2 in 2014. They both lost 3 & 2 from that point on, respectively, which is spectacularly cratering I guess, except that in the SEC, losing 2 games is not uncommon. I don't think the regular season would be diminished with an 8 team playoff, in fact, I think it would be so much better. Games for the entire top 15 would be huge all the way until the end of the year and through the CCG weekend.

 

[Darth Snow]

8 team playoffs mean that some games at the very top (and only at the end of the season) would mean a bit less as they would be "reduced" to seeding issues - but I have to mention these games would still matter as they would decide conference champs, etc.

More importantly, it means a LOT more games in the top 25 would mean a LOT more as teams scrambled for a spot. Overall meaningfulness of regular season win.

 

[hokiehead]

Scott and Condi Rice don't want to expand:

“I think we’re all lamenting regular-season college basketball not being more popular right now, at a time when March Madness has never been more popular,” Scott said. “To me, that’s a great example of the field being so big that the regular season doesn’t matter.”

but Scott says if it does happen, auto bids need to be part of it:

He said the only way the Power 5 conferences would even consider expanding the playoff is if they were guaranteed spots in it, which would detract from the drama and anticipation of the season.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Scott and Condi Rice don't want to expand:



but Scott says if it does happen, auto bids need to be part of it:

Oh my god, no it wouldn't. Teams still have to play their asses off all year long to go to and win their conference championship game to get that automatic bid. People need to stop comparing the importance of the regular seasons in a sport with 30+ regular season games and a conference tournament to a sport with 12 regular season games and 1 CCG. Football is king and expansion will only make the college game more popular.

 

[onealcd]

Oh my god, no it wouldn't. Teams still have to play their asses off all year long to go to and win their conference championship game to get that automatic bid. People need to stop comparing the importance of the regular seasons in a sport with 30+ regular season games and a conference tournament to a sport with 12 regular season games and 1 CCG. Football is king and expansion will only make the college game more popular.

Agree, BUT there is nothing better than the regular season in college football. Games are SOOOO intense from the very start and commissioners want to protect that.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Agree, BUT there is nothing better than the regular season in college football. Games are SOOOO intense from the very start and commissioners want to protect that.

That's my point. That intensity wouldn't really change and it would only make the regular season more important/intense for teams ranked 5th-8th.

 

[Gary Indiana]

That's my point. That intensity wouldn't really change and it would only make the regular season more important/intense for teams ranked 5th-8th.

I am still of the mind that 3 weeks of playoffs, plus the 40+ other random bowl games, is just too much. Keeping it condensed to NY day and the Championship is perfect to keep fan interest alive. If a team I root for isn't in it, I probably wouldn't watch all the games under an 8 team playoff. As it stands now, I tuned in for the entirety of all the games this year.

 

[tante]

On a somewhat related topic. Does anyone else thing the NBA and NHL playoffs are too long. To start the playoffs in early/mid April and not have a champion until late May or early June is kinda crazy. Maybe make the first round 3 games, second round 5 games and last two rounds 7 games or something. Or just cut them all to 5 games.

There are series now that are scheduled for 15 days if they go all 7 games. Way too long IMO.

 

[hokiehead]

That's my point. That intensity wouldn't really change and it would only make the regular season more important/intense for teams ranked 5th-8th.

I'm not sure I agree, but this is a question best answered by sociologists and marketing professionals and I claim no expertise in these areas (I suspect the P5s and the TV networks are investing big $$$ studying the question though).

my ingornance of this field notwithstanding, this seems plausible to me:

1. the bigger the playoffs get, the less important the bowls become (we haven't seen this impact yet, but I believe we will)
2. at some point, fans stop caring about whether their team makes it to a bowl, because of the diminished importance I speculate above
3. once bowl bids are no longer important to fans, the regular season will only be of interest to (a) die-hard fans like the ones reading this thread (b) fans of teams competing for playoff bids (c) fans of teams competing for conference championships
4. once the regular season is only of interest to groups a,b,c -- it follows that the attendance, TV ratings, etc... will decline
5. and once fans, alumni, boosters lose interest, the "intensity" will almost certainly decline

clearly the playoffs aren't going away, and they're most likely to expand. so I hope I'm wrong.

 

[tante]

I'm not sure I agree, but this is a question best answered by sociologists and marketing professionals and I claim no expertise in these areas (I suspect the P5s and the TV networks are investing big $$$ studying the question though).

my ingornance of this field notwithstanding, this seems plausible to me:

1. the bigger the playoffs get, the less important the bowls become (we haven't seen this impact yet, but I believe we will)
2. at some point, fans stop caring about whether their team makes it to a bowl, because of the diminished importance I speculate above
3. once bowl bids are no longer important to fans, the regular season will only be of interest to (a) die-hard fans like the ones reading this thread (b) fans of teams competing for playoff bids (c) fans of teams competing for conference championships
4. once the regular season is only of interest to groups a,b,c -- it follows that the attendance, TV ratings, etc... will decline
5. and once fans, alumni, boosters lose interest, the "intensity" will almost certainly decline

clearly the playoffs aren't going away, and they're most likely to expand. so I hope I'm wrong.

Look at the tv ratings for the playoffs and every other bowl:

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/

I didn't do the math but it looks like the 3 game playoffs beat the other 25ish other bowls combined. So yes people love the playoffs and love watching them. and I'm not saying that is does this for all the bowls or will continue to do so, but look at what it did for a random bowl I selected last year:

I know that we have a single data point of comparison, but right now the playoffs seem to be helping the other bowls, or at least it helped the holiday bowl.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I'm not sure I agree, but this is a question best answered by sociologists and marketing professionals and I claim no expertise in these areas (I suspect the P5s and the TV networks are investing big $$$ studying the question though).

my ingornance of this field notwithstanding, this seems plausible to me:

1. the bigger the playoffs get, the less important the bowls become (we haven't seen this impact yet, but I believe we will)
2. at some point, fans stop caring about whether their team makes it to a bowl, because of the diminished importance I speculate above
3. once bowl bids are no longer important to fans, the regular season will only be of interest to (a) die-hard fans like the ones reading this thread (b) fans of teams competing for playoff bids (c) fans of teams competing for conference championships
4. once the regular season is only of interest to groups a,b,c -- it follows that the attendance, TV ratings, etc... will decline
5. and once fans, alumni, boosters lose interest, the "intensity" will almost certainly decline

clearly the playoffs aren't going away, and they're most likely to expand. so I hope I'm wrong.

Other than die hard college football fans, a lot of people don't really like the bowl season anyways. Unless your team is playing in it, do most people care about the Boca Raton Bowl featuring Marshall and Northern Illinois? What about the Poinsettia Bowl featuring Navy and San Diego State? Point is, the lesser bowls are already irrelevant to the vast majority of the country and should we really be in the business of rewarding teams that go 6-6, anyways? I know that we, as CU fans, can only hope we go 7-6 this season and make a bowl game, but once CU gets to regularly winning 8+ games/year, are we really going to care about CU being in the Hyundai Sun Bowl playing Duke or some other ACC team, when there's a playoff going on?

My point is that the bowls are already meaningless and insignificant, outside of the die hard fan and fans of the specific teams. Expanding the playoffs to 8+ teams (which is going to happen at some point) would give all P5 teams hope of at least having the a shot at the postseason.

I know some on here don't like the NFL model, but that model is more popular than ever right now, so why would we think getting closer to that formula would kill ratings?