Recent Comments
🌏MAN OF MYSTERY🕵
|
12 years 7 months
# | My Case for a 16 Team Playoff Using 2013's Potential Matchups. it makes winning the conference mean something again.
agreed. But then I am surprised you favor a 16 team bracket tourney. It devalues the regular season and conference Championships much more.
FSU you just won your Conference Championship and ranked #1... now go play a Cinderella story, then play Missouri who didn't win theirs for the right to play another team who may not have won their conference either... and... then you get the "right" to play for the Championship...
Nah, just top 4 teams for me. If you want to say they must have won there conference then I am all for it. then in my above scenario Stanford would replace Bama. I am cool with that. haha... Actually I just remembered Saban lobbying very hard against the conference champions rule for just this reason. This season would have seen Bama out of the tourney.
No conference championship game, so they would go. Same for AZ St...they had a better reg season conference record than Stanford.
Good point, however Hundley is a much better quarterback than Denard. Denard was a much better athlete though.
But in a sport that has already bifurcated the teams, why not slide Louisiana Lafayette down to compete with JMU and Ga Southern instead of Alabama?
I have no interest in the Big East conference "playing for a championship," so I certainly don't value the MAC and Sun Belt getting their shot.
Surely you made a mistake saying Ohio State gets the automatic bid considering they didn't win the championship. So then the question becomes, does Ohio State get the at large or does Northern Illinois get it for being undefeated while a 2 loss Stanford still gets in?
I did a write on my blog for this last year. I don't get how the NCAA doesn't see dollar signs all over this opportunity. Plus give the folks an extra home game or two for the higher ranked seed. Gotta think fan bases would eat this up as well
16 team playoff or die
🌏MAN OF MYSTERY🕵
|
12 years 7 months
# | My Case for a 16 Team Playoff Using 2013's Potential Matchups. Agree with rankings and with non-bowl eligible teams criticism. Don't need them. But I think this is precisely why you can't really go bigger than 4 teams. It invites too much subjective analysis of this team over that team. I mean can you tell me if the 8th team or the 9th team is the better team? It's French's Missouri vs South Carolina match-up. No I couldn't say that either one of them is better than the other. But look at 1 through 4. FSU, Auburn, Bama, Mich St.
The only one I could say really gets screwed here is Ohio St who like Bama lost their conference championship game and Stanford who won their conference. That's the bias issue. But if you expand to 8 I would say South Carolina, Oregon and Oklahoma all have a bone to pick, UCF as well.
There is a difference between best team and champion.
8 teams. 5 conference champs. 3 at large.
Skip the FCS games...save them for the spring game.
Play 11 game reg season, make them ALL count.
Take this year for example...
F$U, Auburn, Ohio St, Baylor, Arizona St get the autos. Bama, Stanford, Northern Ill (by way of being undefeated) get the at larges. Conference winners get first 5 seedings.
1.F$U - 8.Northern Ill
4.Baylor - 5.Arizona St
2.OSU - 7.Stanford
3.Auburn - 6.Bama (Yes, again with the seeding. And for the record, I have no problem with this.)
Play the first rounds at the major bowls. As it lines up this year, Orange=F$U, Fiesta=Baylor, Rose=OSU, Sugar=Auburn. After that, pick the Cotton Bowl Stadium, Cowboys Stadium (they won't be using it in January), Super Dome, Raymond James, where ever to play the next 2. Then, play the NC game the week before the Super Bowl in the same stadium.
Just some thoughts...
Oh, I didn't see your question asked what a legit aubRUN fan is. I don't know. I've never talked to one.
Bud's unit shut down Denard Robinson when they had a month to prepare. Curious to see what he puts together for this one.
Being about 50 years old, FROM the state of Alabama, and rocking their colors on a scarf - rather than a 25 year old Cam Newton fan from Virginia.
You win your conference, you get a seat at the table. Period. That is the model for every other team sport, including every other level of football. Let the kids decide on the field about their ability to compete instead of deciding for them and not giving them a chance. And, it makes winning the conference mean something again. Imagine the excitement of the Hokie fan base if they won the ACC in this system. They would get a punchers chance. Compare that to the apathy that followed the VT ACC title wins in the late 2000's where a good portion of the fan base declared seasons a disappointment because they were not in the national title hunt. Win and you are in. It is not only fair, but it is also exciting, and for the most part it takes power and influence out of the equation.
If we have to improve one win at a time to get to 14 wins, I'll be fine with that. #VT4NATIONALCHAMPS2019
I hate the idea that conference champions are guaranteed a spot in the tournament. We've had 6-6 teams (UCLA and GT) in conference championship games. What if they pull the upset? "Eh, those six losses you have? No big deal. If you get hot, you can still make the title." One of the reasons I HAVE to tune in to watch every game of college football every week is because those losses and upsets matter so drastically. Fans live and die by a single game because that's all it takes to derail a season. This year, would the Auburn miracle really matter? You know both of those teams are playoff bound, so who really cares? Likewise, non-con games are rendered practically worthless. Lose to an FCS opponent? No big deal, just win your conference. Lose every non-con game? No big deal. Just win your conference. Ugh. I want those losses to be a big deal. I want to feel like dying after VT losses. I want to celebrate like crazy with relief when we win. I want them to matter.
I don't totally disagree with you, but I'll leave you with my rationale:
Clemson lost their division in the only big divisional game they played. Clemson lost last game against their in-state rival. Clemson is heading into a big bowl game. Clemson is playing a near-undefeated team. Clemson is Clemsoning, but it's happening later in the season than we normally see. Clemson will probably lose by 4 TD.
Sam Rogers doesn't need the weight room.
The weight room needs Sam Rogers.
Kinda disagree. UCLA was highly competitive in a quality major conference. Cincy was the best of the rest, and we still only barely beat them. Big question: who will be the Barquell Rivers, stopping Hundley at the goal line?
8 teams. Bring on the undefeated major conference champions and three at large selections.
Would 8 teams be too many still? Also, as a sidenote, I like your rankings idea. My idea on that may be even more extreme, in that I hate that a team who is not bowl eligible (Florida) could ever be in the top 10 of a season. If it were up to me, they wouldn't release rankings at all until there were 25 bowl eligible teams, and you absolutely had to be bowl eligible to be ranked. It may take a while to get to the rankings with this method, but you'd have pretty good sample sizes of how the teams played by the time this point rolled around.
A few weeks ago they put all of their Tennessee gear back in the closet and bought an Auburn hat on ebay.
Question: what exactly qualifies as a "legit Aubrun fan?"
🌏MAN OF MYSTERY🕵
|
12 years 7 months
# | My Case for a 16 Team Playoff Using 2013's Potential Matchups. No, you have me wrong. I absolutely think the best teams will win out. And that's my point. I think those extra games are more of a penalty to those teams exactly because 99% of the time I expect they will win out. If you have 4 best teams who let's say are undefeated or with 1 loss playing a strong schedule of opponents and winning conference championships, then I don't need to see them play four other teams ranked below them to prove to me they are the best. They already finished the best.
Let me qualify this by saying I also think that rankings shouldn't come out until end of Sept and there should be no conference tie-ins. Just the 4 top teams. I should have said that before. i know this isn't the system coming next and it's not perfect. Likewise I don't think 16 team playoff is either. It works on DII and DIII because teams are more close in skill level. Not DI though.
Don't get me wrong I think a tournament would be a killer money wise and crazy fun for fans. But the burden I mean is that the 4 teams ranked 1 through 4 after regular season would then have to play 4 more games, where by sheer chance they may suck one week and lose.
Let's take French's example for instance. Let's say for some reason Winston goes down with the flu, or some chance occurrence happens, and can't play against Louisiana Lafayette and they pull of the world's most shocking upset, then go down like a chump against Missouri. Does that mean FSU is worse than Louisiana Lafayette or Missouri? No way. They killed all season. Finished it like a Boss and clearly the top team in the nation. But they lost in the tourney that put 4 more games in front of them for some dumb reason. If the clusterfuck that is the BCS taught anything is that chance things can happen where this is a real possibility.
I feel 100% confident that FSU is a better team than Louisiana Lafayette. I love college football and watch as much as I can of any game, but I don't need to see that game to know they are better.
The other burden is just on the wear and tear on college athletes trying to go pro. let's take QB-X as an example. He just finished a huge regular season but is worn down, needs the rest between end of regular season to post-season, but in tourney that needs 4 additional games that's not much time at all. In the 3rd game of the tourney he blows out his knee and never recovers. Goodbye NFL. I don't need to see the extra 4 games to beat these kids up for my pleasure no matter how much I love the game.
Give me the 4 best teams in the country, ranked 1 through 4. Winner takes all.
I'd say it's most similar to the CFA Bowl vs. UGA or the Gator Bowl vs. FSU....both years where we had up and down seasons and were none-to-impressive for many of our games....and drew a solid bowl opponent with a talent advantage. We hung in both games for a while, but in the end, didn't have the horses to finish it out.
It's also similar to the 1998 Music City game against Bama. That team had an underperforming senior QB, a strong defense and lost a handful of close games (3 loses by a total of 10 points). But Bama wasn't as strong as UCLA is. They had lost 4 games going in, 3 to ranked teams (#8 UF, #3UT, #23 MSU) and an early blowout loss @ Arkansas. It would be like us playing Washington or Iowa this year.