You’re helping my argument here. Playoffs should be about most deserving, not who the country cares about the most
Playoffs need to e expanded
- Thread starter RUfinal4
- Start date
You’re helping my argument here. Playoffs should be about most deserving, not who the country cares about the most
Right. And the rest of the post destroys the idea that Clemson's schedule included a "big win" and that your opinion makes it impossible for a G5 team to make the current playoff.
The P5 and G5 are labels created by college football reporters to distinguish between conferences they believe are worthy and conferences they believe are unworthy. ESPN started this distinction during the BCS era by calling non-BCS conference teams as "mid-majors" in order to create an artificial layer between BCS conference teams and 1AA teams. They ARE in the same league. The NCAA Divisions are defined largely by how many scholarships a program can offer. Division IA (FBS) football is 85 while Division 1AA (FCS) is 63 and Division II is 36. There is NO "official" P5 or G5 subdivision. This is why you will sometimes read stories that make the case (or ask) should "P5 break away from G5". This wouldn't be something worth investigating if there was an OFFICIAL difference.
Here is a story talking about how the P5 and G5 is the same league.
BEGIN QUOTE FROM STORY
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey urged advocates for a Group of Five college football playoff to "be careful" about an idea that could dramatically change NCAA divisions.
ESPN reported last week that a "growing number" of Group of Five officials favor adding a playoff specifically for those non-Power Five teams. Northern Illinois athletic director Sean Frazier told ESPN he believes a Group of Five playoff could be financially rewarding to those schools, and the article said NBC, CBS and ESPN have interest in such a playoff.
"There's been no one that has talked to me about that idea," Sankey said Saturday from the College Football Playoff Semifinal at the Peach Bowl. "I don't want to overreact and say this is a hardened concept. That's not something that would be adopted in a vacuum. There would be a full conversation among all 10 [FBS] conferences. I would urge caution before people just run down that road. I'm not one who thinks we just add this on and life goes on as it is."
END QUOTE FROM STORY
See that? Even the SEC Commissioner knows that they are in the same league as the MAC and Sun Belt.
are you really going to compare beating the ACC to the AAC...results over the weekend make all of this discussion moot anyway
accept the fact, its not about the G5, it never has been. If UCF wants in, go out and schedule a bunch of top 15 non conference schools to make up for the dregs in the AAC they beat up on
Huh? There’s a championship in minor league hockey (AHL etc), minor league baseball, nba d-league.
It’s the SAME league...FBS.
If they don’t want to be in the same league, those 5 conferences should break off. Until then they deserve s shod. Like every other league, sport in the world.
is that your argument, the SEC commish acknowledging it in public...lol of course he would...if the P5 ever really wanted to, they could jettison the G5 and no one would blink
dude everyone knows that Troy and Old Dominion are not playing in the same league as Alabama or even Rutgers. Once you accept that you will be fine.
They should get rid of the playoffs all together and go back to the polling to determine a champion. What I want is lots of meaningless exhibition bowl games where the best players sit out because of the NFL draft.
That snarkiness aside, follow the money...... like it or not......the playoffs will expand
That snarkiness aside, follow the money...... like it or not......the playoffs will expand
They are in the same league though.
That’s like saying the NBA eastern conference is a different league than the NBA western conference. (If you don’t follow nba, WEST had been much more dominant and tougher schedule for the last 5 yrs)
Both have equal representation in a playoff.
To play devils advocate - should it though?
Does anyone really think 2014 UConn basketball was the best team in the country in when they won the tournament as a #7 seed?
CFB is unique in that it attempts to crown "the best team". So only teams that "deserve to win" get included.
Every other sports attempts to crown "the team that won the playoffs/post season tournament". The "champion" is not always the "best team".
Again your first statement is 100% wrong. It is not a media creation. It was the creation of the 10 conferences of the FBS to differentiate who goes to the major bowl games. Prior to that it was the P6 during the BCS era.
To be fair, there had been alot of talk about changing the playoff format because of this.
Such as straight 1-16 seeding instead of separate East/West.
If not by winning, how do you suppose best teams should be determined? Sports are about winning, not performing well on an eye test.
Should players just compete in drills for one weekend? Which ever team performed best wins?
It should be 100% about winning games. Not being the best team.
This is what I was trying to say earlier.
Another example, when the 9-7 NY Giants won the Super Bowl after the 2011 season, no one thought they were the best team in professional football. They lost 5 of 6 games from mid-Nov to mid-Dec. But they won 4 playoff games in a row, starting with the Wildcard game and finishing with the Super Bowl. So even though they might not have been the best team that season, they are still Super Bowl Champs.
So if people don't think you're the best, you shouldn't play?
That's not what sports is about...
Being a champion isn't always about being the best. It's about defeating your rivals. Its about finding a way to win.
That all makes sense and I agree - I just want more playoff games of any kind.
However, for whatever reason, college football has historically never been about that.
It's only been about deciding who the best team in the country is.
Thats why there are all these weird unwritten rules (no 2 losses, no blowout losses to Purdue, conference champ, etc.).
The college football championship game was developed to name the "best team" of the season.
Prior to the development of the championship game, the best team was determined by polls. But polling proved to be too controversial, especially when one team led one pool and another team led a different poll, leading to co-champions. There were various attempts at having a Championship Game (Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and Bowl Championship Series) all of which had a single championship game between the top-2 teams. When the BCS was disbanded and replaced by the College Football Playoff, the number of teams involved was increased from 2 to 4.
Maybe the field will be increased beyond 4 in the future. But if so, the purpose of increasing the field will be to help ensure the 2 best teams play in the championship game, not to ensure that everyone gets a fair shot.
If you want to advocate a championship system that isn't about "being the best" but is about deserving teams getting a shot to defeat rivals in a tournament, that is fine. But that isn't compatible with the current system of naming the best.
You are not advocating tweaking the existing system. You are advocating taking the existing system and throwing it out and replacing it with a new system that serves a different purpose. You are certainly allowed to advocate it. But at least recognize that you are advocating a system that serves a different purpose.
I’m with you in this debate. And to add to this point, I like watching athletes rise to the occasion when the lights are brightest. Showing up in big games when the pressure is at its peak has always been a differentiator in identifying championship teams and championship players.
I know this isn’t what CFB is trying to do...I just hate it.
If the committee’s objective and objective of the CFP was to crown the best team as Champ, Alabama..who they named the best team in December (by their own rankings)...should be crowned already, no?
Why play the playoffs if the best team isn’t necessarily going to win? The 2nd best team (Clemson) might win. That’s the purpose of a playoff.
If their objective is to crown the best team, they shouldn’t have any playoff. And just award the title to the best team (Alabama).
You either have a playoff that gives everyone a fair shot..or you don’t have a playoff at all like English Premiere League and just crown the champ after the season.
How do you think a CFP will go with the following:
Akron
Fresno
Tulsa
Alabama
What if that was the Final Four in basketball?
UCF had a fair shot. They chose not to upgrade their schedule and played SC State, Florida Atlantic and Austin Pray as their OOC teams. If your a G5 and want to be taken serious you can't dodge good competition and schedule teams most people never heard of. They decided to take the easy route.
They rather go undefeated against cupcakes than to play anyone with a pulse before a bowl game.
Maybe we are all following your lead and want more disruptive leaders tearing things down in every aspect of life.
The system didn't work last year. Alabama was the best team (#1 ranking, undefeated, wasn't crowned champ). System didn't work two years ago. Clemson was #1 team, lost to Alabama. System certainly didn't work 3 years ago when the #4 team was crowned champion...Ohio State. #1 team didn't even play in championship.
System did excatly what other playoff systems do. Gives those who qualify a chance. Unfortunately in CFP not everybody has a chance to qualify.
That's my problem in a nutshell. Its about WHO a team plays in college football..not about HOW they play or the results of when they play. The results mean ZERO.
The results mean zero because they are ducking real competition. Play real teams and the results will matter.
If ND played all G5 schools and a FCS team would they have made the playoffs? He'll no.
It's football, it's a hard game. You have to prove yourself. Stop your crying about UCF. They had their shot and blew it.
If results mattered for UCF, they’d would be playing for a shot. Plain and simple.
The results of UCF’s games did not matter.
You can make the argument that the potential #8 team in an expanded playoff has about the same chance as a #68 team in the NCAA. But yet the basketball tournament has been expanded over the years from 16 to 20 to 32 to 64 then 68. Why? Why shouldn't that happen for football?
In a separate argument about scheduling, football schedules are set years in advance. UCF was winless a few years ago. Did they really think in 2013 or 2014 that they were going to be in the top 15 in 2018 and better schedule an SEC or Big 12 team? It's probably the other way around. In 2013 there were probably SEC or Big 12 teams looking to do 2 for 1 deals with UCF.
In a separate argument about scheduling, football schedules are set years in advance. UCF was winless a few years ago. Did they really think in 2013 or 2014 that they were going to be in the top 15 in 2018 and better schedule an SEC or Big 12 team? It's probably the other way around. In 2013 there were probably SEC or Big 12 teams looking to do 2 for 1 deals with UCF.
They blew it by going 13-0. Again, that’s an issue. It’s about WHO a team plays. Nutty.
EPL is the best of all worlds. All teams play each other home/home. No need for playoffs. Literally every regular season game is a playoff game.
Of course, they also have the FA Cup to scratch the playoff itch. Hundreds of clubs compete.