4 is good. The season is the playoff. If you don’t want to be on the outside looking in, win all your games. If increased, go 6 teams with 1st round buy to top 2 seeds.
I seriously don't understand the outcry for an 8-team playoff
- Thread starter MeetTheFerentz
- Start date
I stopped reading after “completely ruin the BEST REGULAR SEASON”.
Not sure how it would ruin anything other than the guessing game we play now trying to figure out who the best four teams are. I remember the same weak argument when the discussions were going on about going to a four team playoff. That still hasn’t happened.
Odd how the regular season isn’t ruined for: NFL, MLB, NCAA bball, NBA, every other division of college football, high school football.... that is strange. Can you explain how those seasons aren’t ruined or what makes the FBS the best regular season?
Weak attempt at best.
Thanks. No need go congratulate me. It really wasn’t too difficult.
UCF did and they weren’t invited. Now what?
Play a tougher schedule? What if your tougher teams don’t want to risk playing UCF?
One could argue that, by definition, your not the best team in the country if you can't even win your division.
Actually, quite the opposite is happening now. Most regular season games are meaningless under the current format. As an example, nobody nationally really cares about Iowa/Northwestern, but if that game had huge Big Ten West implications, like it often does, that divisional race translates directly into the National Championship picture. Division - Conference - National Championship. With a 6 or 8 team playoff and conference autobids more games actually have more meaning.
Some of us don't give a crap about a national champion. It's a farce any way you look at it. Select in a poll...it's a popularity contest. BCS...it's still skewed by human polls and limited to two teams. Playoff...it's either a popularity contest followed by a couple games or, with more teams, it's just a tourney champ, not a champion of the season as a whole.
The quest for the holy grail of a "true national champion" has ruined the college football post season IMO.
You won't know that even if they expand the number of teams. Is Iowa better than tOSU? Any given saturday a lessor team can beat a better team. That's the inherent flaw in this quest for a "true national champion". People seem to want to find a universal way to find the "best team". The reality is that the only way to do that is with series style playoffs like the NBA and baseball. As long as you're only playing one game against a foe, you're not necessarily gonna get the "best team".
Best case is a tourney champ which is not the same thing. Strange that people have such a hard time figuring this out.
Use this analogy.
The NCAA BB tourney has 4 #1 seeds each year that people agree are the best, so they should win it every year right?
Well, they actually only win it about 50% of the time. THAT leads me to believe that we should allow more teams to actually compete on the court, field, ect...to get a more just champion.
The NCAA BB tourney has 4 #1 seeds each year that people agree are the best, so they should win it every year right?
Well, they actually only win it about 50% of the time. THAT leads me to believe that we should allow more teams to actually compete on the court, field, ect...to get a more just champion.
Very few would hit them all. But who cares? They would be on tv. All that matters
IF the high seed hosted it would be just like any other road game. We would get around 5k in tickets; probably sell all of those to every game if we were still in it. I know I would go.
Do you think the team that wins the NCAA tourney is the best team that year, every year?
You cant argue that they arent. They won the actual games, on the court. Right now it is subjective with the media playing a huge portion on deciding how gets in.
If you win the college national championship you’re considered the best team in the land by everyone. Strange that some people have a hard time figuring that out.
Does that mean the champion will 100% it’s games, 100% of the time? Obviously not. I didn’t think that stupidity needed to be pointed out. Clearly I was wrong.
Good then don’t watch it.
The more teams in a playoff the less it becomes a popularity contest. The more teams in, the more the eye test is removed.
Yet somehow you’re against expanding the playoffs. Makes sense.
A reasonable, somewhat intelligent, fan would understand that not all schedules are balanced and created equal. Therefore, not all division winners are the best teams coming out of that division. They could be the beneficiary of having an easier schedule when it comes to home/away or cross over games.
What? Are you dumb enough to think the better team always wins? How do you explain A beats B, B beats C and C beats A? It happens...a lot. The better team doesn't always win any one game. The corollary to that then is that the best team doesn't always win a tournament. In fact, it's pretty common that the best team doesn't win it.
I would disagree...strongly. If that were true, why do we still have debates about it? In NCAA BB, it's not uncommon at all for the winner to be a team that most would acknowledge isn't the best in the land. They just got on a roll at the right time, or got lucky with a bracket where the best teams got upset, etc. In football, we can't even agree that the right 4 got into the playoff. I think any team in the top 10 would have a chance of winning a 4 team playoff with any random selection of the other 9 top ten teams. It's one and done....virtually any outcome is possible knowing that any team can be upset and knocked out.
So again, why limit the pool of teams that are subjective "best". Wouldnt that mean you would want more teams?
I cant remember one single debate after the NCAA BB tourney by anyone. It is played out on the court. Do you work for the chamber of commerce in Orlando or something?
What does winning a conference championship have to do with being one of the best 4 teams? No need to water down the competition by going to 8, 4 teams is enough.
Last edited:
Being a conference champ should never be guarenteed. Why let a better team sit out when someone else wins a weak conference?
You're missing my point. You said the that it can't be argued that the team that won the NC isn't the best because they proved it on the field. My point is that the best team doesn't always win any given game and, as a result, the best team doesn't always win the NC. I thought everyone understood this. With a tourney, you get a tourney champ, nothing else. Certainly no guarantee that they're the best team in the country. As an extreme example, I'm pretty sure nobody (probably not even NC State) thought they were the best team in the country the year they won the NCAA tourney.
The NCAA tourney is't heavily debated because it's well understood that it's a tourney champ and not necessarily the best team in the country.
I vote for 8 team playoff. Plus keep the bowls, just eliminate bowls from the tournament though. Once everyone is done and eliminated, they can play in a bowl. Those not picked in the playoff, pick a bowl destination. Makes everyone happy for the most part. 5 conference champs and the next best 3 teams. 2 consecutive weeks for first two rounds and then a championship like it is now a week after bowls. This truly defines a champion and everyone competitive gets a shot to show they are worthy or not.
The only issue I have this year is that a team that finished 3rd in their conference, and lost the week before got in. A third place team that played 1 top 10 team and lost to them vs another team that played 3 top 10 teams and went 2 and 1 against them (I hate Ohio State) and won their championship doesn't seem to be more deserving at all.
Typical response from someone that doesn't want to address the rest of a post ("I quit reading after xxx") ... nice cop out.
No one was complaining about the regular season being ruined with 4 teams in the playoff ... you made that up.
16 teams? That shows you have no idea what the differences are between D1 and smaller division college football. Crappy games and a bunch of injuries is what you would get with 16 and probably 8 teams ... Clemson vs OSU and Bama vs Washington last year were both blowouts, now you want to see Bama vs a #16 seed??? There is a big difference between the athletes that play major D1 football and 1AA teams (FCS) ... Teams like Bama (deep, can take injury hits) will win every year even more than they do now with 4 teams. You think you are giving MORE teams a chance when you are just making it easier for the top dogs to outlast everyone else ...
If you don't understand why FBS is the best regular season, I cannot help you.
You youngsters just want to change everything for the sake of change ... it's not broke ... we are arguing about it right now which is a good thing ;-)
No I understand the point you are trying to make, it is just wrong.
The tourney champ is the champ. Period.
The wider the field, the MORE that rings true.
NC State might not have had the best resume going into the tournament that year, but nobody could beat them...ie they were champions and the best team. Other teams that had better regular seasons benefited from a higher seed and possibly closer tournament games to their school.
Thats wrong. Actually the smaller divisions have LESS SCHOLARSHIPS to work with than D1.
The size and speed of the top tier D1 athletes destroying each other for potentially 4 more games (16 team playoff) is going to take a greater toll than anything the FCS division games will muster. That is why coaches would be very tempted to rest his first stringers if the divisional title is wrapped up ... does that sound good to you guys?
I'm just saying there are ramifications that some of you aren't thinking about ... what we have is great ... a bit of controversy is good.
Get Off My Lawn!!!
I quit reading because what you wrote was pure nonsense.
“No one was complaining about the regular season being ruined with 4 teams in the playoff ... you made that up.”
Really? No one has ever said that a four team playoff has ruined the regular season? There’s people in this thread that have said it.
Hexum has already pointed out how the regular season would be more important, not ruined. No sense in me repeating him. He’s already nailed it.
16 team playoff may be on the extreme end, but I’d much rather see that than a four team playoff. 8-12 teams would be ideal, but I’d even be okay with anywhere from 6-16 teams. It’s better than what’s going on now. A 4 team playoff is a good start, but it could be expanded.
If that’s what a coach feels gives them the best chance to win it all, I’m all for it. Do you get pissed now when the coach puts the back ups in for mop up duty? I don’t think a coach would rest his players until the game was in hand. With seedings for bye and home field advantage, wins are going to be extremely important. Making the regular season very important.
A 12 team playoff (like the old B1G tournament) would allow for the top four teams to get a bye. Teams 5-8 would host 9-12. Winners advance on to play at 1-4.
There was never any public outcry about the 4 team play-off as you were insinuating ... everyone in my experience was very happy with it. Now there are plenty of complainers like yourself.
I would compromise with a 6 team playoff so there is only 1 at large team. The conference championships would basically be your extended 5 game play-in tournament.
No, I don't get pissed when coaches put in the back-ups ... however, if they would rest starters the whole game and don't really care about the outcome (ala the NFL at the end of the season), then I would be pissed if I paid to go to that game.
What is the best regular season in sports in your opinion iahawk10?
I would compromise with a 6 team playoff so there is only 1 at large team. The conference championships would basically be your extended 5 game play-in tournament.
No, I don't get pissed when coaches put in the back-ups ... however, if they would rest starters the whole game and don't really care about the outcome (ala the NFL at the end of the season), then I would be pissed if I paid to go to that game.
What is the best regular season in sports in your opinion iahawk10?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/85357-how-playoffs-ruin-the-regular-season
https://247sports.com/college/houst...s-ruined-college-football-example984-72240576
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/12/playoffs-will-ruin-college-football-but-not-yet/
That really wasn’t even that difficult. A quick google search revealed that. I’m sure there’s thousands more to be found with more time and effort. To say there wasn’t public outcry over going to a four game playoff is just absurd.
The best regular season? I don’t know, MLB. The MLB has the best probability that the best teams are in the playoffs. I prefer NCAA basketball, so I’d say that was the best to watch.
Tell me how is college football the best regular season when Iowa plays the 6th strongest SOS and Wisconsin plays the 50th? They’re in the same division.
Edit: I don’t see resting players in college like you do in the NFL. For one, NFL is locked in their seeds by records, not by polls /voters. Every college game would be meaningful, whether it be a 1st round bye or home field advantage (or both). An undefeated #1 team is not going to risk their top four seed just to sit their QB a week. I don’t see that happening. The only teams resting their players are the ones who have home field and byes locked up.
https://247sports.com/college/houst...s-ruined-college-football-example984-72240576
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/12/playoffs-will-ruin-college-football-but-not-yet/
That really wasn’t even that difficult. A quick google search revealed that. I’m sure there’s thousands more to be found with more time and effort. To say there wasn’t public outcry over going to a four game playoff is just absurd.
The best regular season? I don’t know, MLB. The MLB has the best probability that the best teams are in the playoffs. I prefer NCAA basketball, so I’d say that was the best to watch.
Tell me how is college football the best regular season when Iowa plays the 6th strongest SOS and Wisconsin plays the 50th? They’re in the same division.
Edit: I don’t see resting players in college like you do in the NFL. For one, NFL is locked in their seeds by records, not by polls /voters. Every college game would be meaningful, whether it be a 1st round bye or home field advantage (or both). An undefeated #1 team is not going to risk their top four seed just to sit their QB a week. I don’t see that happening. The only teams resting their players are the ones who have home field and byes locked up.
Last edited:
