Man I was way off. 41-8 instead of my 42-7 prediction.
Also I posted back in like 5 Miami would win it all...
Also I posted back in like 5 Miami would win it all...
UCF?The one and only thing I want is for the undefeated teams to get into the playoff. If Bama, Wisconsin and Miami all win out, they better get in. I don't care if the fourth spot goes to Oklahoma (who would probably be my choice, assuming they win out) or Clemson or anyone else. I just want the undefeated teams to have a chance to win it all.
This guy gets it!Alabama
Oklahoma
Clemson
Miami
Wisconsin
Georgia
Auburn
Ohio State
Notre Dame
USC
If anyone on the East Coast bothered watching non-USC west coast games then Bryce Love would neck-and-neck with Mayfield.I’m pissed Barkley has absolutely disappeared to let Baker Mayfield take a commanding Heisman lead.
I think it's a three horse race now between Mayfield, Love and Taylor, and if Oklahoma and Wisconsin lose, it goes to Love. If Oklahoma and Wiscy win out, it goes to Mayfield, and if OK loses and Wiscy wins out, it goes to Taylor.If anyone on the East Coast bothered watching non-USC west coast games then Bryce Love would neck-and-neck with Mayfield.
LOL, no. It's a good story, and they certainly deserve a top tier Bowl game, but as long as the playoff is 4 teams, it can really only involve teams from the top conferences, unless you have a team that comes out of a smaller conference that absolutely lays the wood to everyone they play, etc. Then, maybe there would be an argument, but UCF isn't that team.UCF?
This is a perfect explanation of why the current college football playoff is still a joke. It's better than it once was, but until a team like UCF has a shot (which probably entails an 8 or 16 team playoff) it's not going to interest people who aren't totally into college football already.LOL, no. It's a good story, and they certainly deserve a top tier Bowl game, but as long as the playoff is 4 teams, it can really only involve teams from the top conferences, unless you have a team that comes out of a smaller conference that absolutely lays the wood to everyone they play, etc. Then, maybe there would be an argument, but UCF isn't that team.
This is a perfect explanation of why the current college football playoff is still a joke. It's better than it once was, but until a team like UCF has a shot (which probably entails an 8 or 16 team playoff) it's not going to interest people who aren't totally into college football already.
I don't get why this isn't obvious to the NCAA; March Madness is a template that is clear and easy to duplicate (and FCS and lower divisions manage it no problem in college football), and it obviously brings in non-college basketball fans regularly. Outside of people who are already CFB fans, clinging to nonsense bowls that are pure exhibitions instead of a real playoff makes no sense.
You're probably already a fan of college football though, right? They're not going to lose you.I don't agree. Every week of CFB being like a playoff game is much better to me than the March Madness system.
Barkley is still very much present. It's the offensive line's run blocking that has disappeared. It's also why the other elements of Penn State's offense (read Trace McSorley running/passing and receivers) have been able to pick up the slack, with defenses keying and birddogging Barkley on every play.I’m pissed Barkley has absolutely disappeared to let Baker Mayfield take a commanding Heisman lead.
I agree with some of this, and I'm prerty sure you are aware of this, but for others, the NCAA doesn't run the playoff, or the BCS before it. The conferences run it with a minimized input from the non-power 5 conferences. That said, it'll be 8 teams eventually although the soonest it could happen is 2020.This is a perfect explanation of why the current college football playoff is still a joke. It's better than it once was, but until a team like UCF has a shot (which probably entails an 8 or 16 team playoff) it's not going to interest people who aren't totally into college football already.
I don't get why this isn't obvious to the NCAA; March Madness is a template that is clear and easy to duplicate (and FCS and lower divisions manage it no problem in college football), and it obviously brings in non-college basketball fans regularly. Outside of people who are already CFB fans, clinging to nonsense bowls that are pure exhibitions instead of a real playoff makes no sense.
You're preaching to the choir here. I'm a diehard, watch every single game I can possibly watch in a weekend, college football fan (even though I have no real rooting interest as I went to PC, which doesn't have football, so I truly watch it because I love the game), and I probably made my first posts about having a playoff system in the FBS on this site almost 15 years ago. I still don't understand why they can't eliminate the Bowls entirely, and simply use the same locations as the venues for the playoff games. I guarantee whatever conferences are making whatever money on these Bowl games that nobody attends and nobody watches would make much, much more money on them if it were a true playoff with 16 or even 32 teams. Not only that, I think there is enough interest around the country that an NIT type of tournament for the teams that don't get into the playoff would also draw huge numbers, so you could end with even more schools playing longer than just the regular season.This is a perfect explanation of why the current college football playoff is still a joke. It's better than it once was, but until a team like UCF has a shot (which probably entails an 8 or 16 team playoff) it's not going to interest people who aren't totally into college football already.
I don't get why this isn't obvious to the NCAA; March Madness is a template that is clear and easy to duplicate (and FCS and lower divisions manage it no problem in college football), and it obviously brings in non-college basketball fans regularly. Outside of people who are already CFB fans, clinging to nonsense bowls that are pure exhibitions instead of a real playoff makes no sense.
So it would appear that there hasn't been all that much interest beyond the top 25.While the AP Poll currently lists the Top 25 teams in the nation, from 1936 to 1961 the wire service only ranked 20 teams. From 1962 to 1967 only 10 teams were recognized. From 1968 to 1988, the AP again resumed its Top 20 before expanding to the current 25 teams in 1989.
The Coaches Poll began selecting the "Top 20" teams on a weekly basis during the 1950-1951 college football and basketball seasons. For the 1990-1991 football and basketball seasons, the poll expanded to a "Top 25," and it has retained this format since.
An argument that can be made for what?And I'm not sure what the attraction to the top 32 teams would be. According to Wiki,
So it would appear that there hasn't been all that much interest beyond the top 25.
In my mind, the only real reason to expand the tournament (beyond generating more $$) is to reduce to some more acceptable level the elimination of teams that could argue a legitimate case to be included. You can only extend that argument so far. I don't think there are many that look at the AP and Coaches polls, and then the deciding FCS rankings and think an argument can be made much beyond the top 8, or perhaps 10. Beyond that, it's jilted skivvy wavers and alumni crying in spilled milk.
Sure, but even under your original assumption, what makes only 8 teams "deserving"? It's an arbitrary number, and will always be if it's set up this way. If you can have a situation where there's a consensus #1 team, from the consensus #1 conference, who's played the consensus #1 schedule and gone 12-0 and the other 3 teams have all lost 2 games, perhaps even to that #1 team, are those three other teams really "deserving" to play for a chance to be #1? They just get to do so because we've decided we want a playoff and we need 4 teams. It's really not any different with 8 or 16 or 32. And number 5 or 9 or 17 or 33 will always gripe because they got left out.Perhaps I am operating on a flawed assumption, one that I based on discussion that from my mind's eye has centered predominantly (not exclusively) on the "deservedness" factor, and teams that deserved to get in are being subjectively left out.
Oh, by all means, I recognize that the "top 8" comment is arbitrary. It was intended only to illustrate that if taking a position of "deserving", you really can't extend it much beyond that IF you also want to avoid teams having to play an 18-game, or relatively more expanded season. There's a balance in here somewhere. I'm just not sure where it is.Sure, but even under your original assumption, what makes only 8 teams "deserving"? It's an arbitrary number, and will always be if it's set up this way. If you can have a situation where there's a consensus #1 team, from the consensus #1 conference, who's played the consensus #1 schedule and gone 12-0 and the other 3 teams have all lost 2 games, perhaps even to that #1 team, are those three other teams really "deserving" to play for a chance to be #1? They just get to do so because we've decided we want a playoff and we need 4 teams. It's really not any different with 8 or 16 or 32. And number 5 or 9 or 17 or 33 will always gripe because they got left out.
I talked about that in the post right before yours, see below. Why keep the current number of games in the regular season? That's my response. Get rid of some of these useless non-conference regular season games. And allow profit sharing for the teams that don't make the tourney, so the money they lose by not having additional regular season games becomes revenue-neutral, if not positive (assuming they don't create a separate NIT type tournament for these teams, which I also advocate)A real concern here - at least to some - is that a tournament with as many as 32 teams means that the participants in the eventual championship game - on top of their 13 preceding games (to include a conference championship) will have played an extra 5 games. I don't think the system would be real keen on that idea.
The thing is the games are so much more than just the $ they make from the gate/tv rights, especially for some of the small town colleges. They bring in mucho bucks to hotels, restaurants, etc. The university uses them as additional alumni networking events for fund raising as things like that. Alumni love getting back to campus and meeting up with people. It's hard to explain how much of a social event the games are for them to someone who didn't go to college in that kind of environment.I talked about that in the post right before yours, see below. Why keep the current number of games in the regular season? That's my response. Get rid of some of these useless non-conference regular season games. And allow profit sharing for the teams that don't make the tourney, so the money they lose by not having additional regular season games becomes revenue-neutral, if not positive (assuming they don't create a separate NIT type tournament for these teams, which I also advocate)
The number of games is one that comes up a lot, but between the conference championship, and the the playoffs now, the national champ and runner up are playing like 15 games. If you reduce the regular season to 10 games across the board (ie. do away with a bunch of these useless out-of-conference beatdowns), then you'd have most teams playing 11-12 games, and only the top few playing more, just like it is now.