Discussion in 'RayGator's Swamp Gas' started by thom1507, Dec 23, 2020.
see post #43
I think I've found 3 ways to interpret this statement. But would you mind elaborating?
This is just a restatement of the original argument. Describe its meaning.
The empty seats I mentioned are much stronger evidence to the counter.
Which G5 teams have a chance to beat Alabama or Clemson?
I like post #45 better
If we played defense like we did against Alabama, then we would have won the TAM game. Just one more empty possession by TAM would have made that a win.
But the LSU game was inexcusable. No excuse for letting a freshman qb play that well.
Well, it’s supposed to be the four best teams period. Not records.
yes it is. You can certainly make your own list if you want. Doesnt matter to me.
Good point. I'll add LSU to the list of teams that would have gone undefeated with OSUs schedule.
Meaningful in that teams are playing for something that had been heretofore out of reach. If Georgia was playing Cincinnati for a chance at the playoffs would they have had as many opt-outs? No, of course not.
Not really. That's just a symptom of our middling regular seasons 2011-2017.
Clemson plays a 1-2 game season, just like Cincinnati, Coastal Carolina, BYU, San Jose State, etc. Sure, they have better recruiting, but shouldn't they prove it on the field rather than in the 247 rankings?
Again, the SEC is heads and tails above the rest. Why even bother with a playoff if there's an SEC champ?
But if they have no chance, or very little chance, of winning, then what is the meaning?
Funny enough, I didn't mean UF. Check out the stadiums of teams that are not winners, and are not playing some top 10 team, on game days. They are empty.
These are two different things, but both fair questions.
First, I agree they should prove it on the field. I just prefer they play in the regular season. Schedule better competition: Looking at you ACC, Pac-12 and Big 10. This, I think, is key. I want to see every game matter with a lot on the line in the season. Consider the pro leagues. They are arduous and tedious. The NFL, MLB and NBA all suffer from this. Note the dramatic rise in viewership for the playoffs. That's the only part that really matters. I don't want to see CFB fall into that same trap. While the BCS and earlier eras were far from perfect, you must concede that the regular seasons were a blast. Filled with tensions and parody.
Second, while the SEC is overall a better conference, this does not necessarily mean the best SEC team is the best in the nation. We could settle that easily on the field with a national championship.
Stupid !!!! They will never get to 16, and probably not 8.... It may make 6 which actually makes more sense
The lesser named bowls would be left in the dust.....
A lot is going to change anyway once the sec and espn networks merge their football programming
Ask any losing team in a playoff game if it was meaningless. The answer will be "no" unless they were a perennial power.
TV has a play in that. As do rising costs for season tickets and amenities. Every game is available to watch somewhere online, and people will still be able to watch even if they can't afford to come to town and tailgate.
Pro teams play their rivals at least twice in a season, as do NCAA basketball teams in conference play. I don't see how looking at viewership numbers for playoffs in other sports hurts my argument--in fact it bolsters it. Bowl viewership isn't great when teams don't have a lot to play for, even in a year like this which has fewer bowls. UCF had about 2 million more viewers for their GT game earlier in the year than they just did against BYU in a bowl game with a name nobody but the company who sponsors it cares about. The previous BCS bowl games were only meaningful if there was a team on the bubble that might earn a split title. You don't see coaches leave for better jobs (like Kelly did before we played Cincy after the 2009 season) or players opting out (like several dozen have done so far) if there is something actually on the line. It creates inspired play. It also creates better schedules for the regular seasons because athletic directors are willing to schedule tougher teams.
I mean, these arguments for protecting the sanctity of the regular season, maintaining the integrity of the bowl season, and creating a highly exclusive championship system all seem fraught with contradiction. One can't have all three, so I would err on the side of getting rid of the notion that the championship game is the one in need of the most protection. Whatever two teams make it to the final in a playoff system are going to have earned it. Sure, maybe the "real" top team will have an untimely series of unfortunate events befall them during the playoffs, but that happens all the time during the regular season as well.
Ultimately, all the arguments regarding expansion or status quo need to be taken in the context of what is best for the sport--not some high-minded concept of purity. There are so many factors chipping away at the sport right now and they all relate to money. College football has been falling behind the NFL in cultural relevance since the 1960s (coincidentally or not when an expanded playoff and Super Bowl was first scheduled), and it's about finding new streams of revenue when traditional sources are dwindling. People are so quick to defend stupid bowl sponsorships that change the traditional names of beloved bowl games, but are oh so quick to latch onto the integrity of a "true championship" that has existed for far less time. The money to keep the sport afloat and even relevant now comes from the top down rather than the bottom up. The most prudent choice is to include more teams even if they don't "deserve" it. So what if they haven't earned it? If you think that teams will feel insulted by getting an invite when they've had three losses then you are living in a fantasy reality. You said:
...Do you realize how absurd a proposition this is? Especially when talking about adding a measly four teams to the discussion? Do you think Northern Colorado felt worse when they knew they were going to have to play Florida in an early game September or when the game was cancelled due to a hurricane? Do you think Penn State was relieved that they didn't have to play in the playoffs one year even though they won the conference championship?
It's not insulting for a team to get the invite even when they don't look like the best team of the year. It is a little insulting to make assumptions that the team that looks like the best actually is "the best", like when Oklahoma was allowed to walk through its 2003 conference championship game because it knew it would still make the BCS championship game--that should never happen when a one game final is on the line (this is the exact argument for maintaining the "integrity" of the regular season, and even with the BCS it didn't happen). Cincinnati and Coastal Carolina would much rather be in the playoffs right now, and they both have better resumes than OSU. It wouldn't be insulting if they got the invite and then lost by 50. They wouldn't feel like they had been pandered to. They would have felt vindicated and recognized for their efforts. Would they "belong"? Who cares? The top team is going to rise to the top anyway. I don't care that they have to work one game extra to get there. They will have earned it on the field.