- Dec 31, 2018
- 14,888
- 28,135
It’s OK. I’ve been threatened with that before, tho not for a while.
What's your best argument against expanding the CFP to eight teams? (Poll!)
- Thread starter G. Gordon Gator
- Start date
gatorkev85
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 1,544
- 1,903
In 12 semifinal games there has been 8 blowouts. Why would there be a need to make that number worse?
What it all boils down to is yearly there is only 2-3 teams that have a legit chance to win it all. Here's the thing you will probably never see an 8 seed beat a one, you see a 4 beat a 1 sometimes but the teams are more even. If you went by this year alone a 3 loss team would have been in the playoffs. The regular season means nothing if you expand.
- Aug 25, 2014
- 6,340
- 7,068
But the matchup in 3 of the first 5 years of the playoffs had been #1 vs #2. This year is #1 vs #3 and quite frankly if this was the old BCS system of 1 vs 2, I think Clemson would have gotten in over OSU...so I think the playoff has matched the correct 2 teams in the finals 4 out of 6 years. Point being is there is no need for a playoff. Go back to #1 vs #2, one game for all the marbles.
- Jun 11, 2014
- 22,331
- 28,422
Founding Member
- Jun 10, 2014
- 16,578
- 20,016
Founding Member
- Jun 9, 2014
- 19,749
- 27,640
Founding Member
- Jun 9, 2014
- 78,413
- 110,737
Founding Member
Yes.
But three undefeated champs show why we did need 3 therefore 4. It would have been ridiculous for Corndogs, Crackumbus or Climpson to get left out. Also, given that the SEC champs are often 1 loss teams, we probably dont want that #4 slot going away.
- Aug 14, 2018
- 10,768
- 20,655
Haha! Nice. I love that Catch 22 bit you do.
So, you're saying the 8-team playoff idea should be disregarded because it's just "a couple of azzhats" arguing for it.
In other words, support for it is relatively minimal, and that has some bearing on the merit of it.
But, the thread has a poll. Support for expansion is not an outlier view. It's actually the leading choice. The truth is the direct opposite of what you said.
No bother. When reminded of the poll, you'll belittle the significance of it. Suddenly, the relative amount of support for an idea has no bearing at all on the merit of it. The same point you just argued becomes a laughable joke when turned against you. And without a trace of irony! I love it. It's provocative!
Predicable for sure, but it's entertaining if you can appreciate it for the art form it's intended to be. What I find funny is the predictability of the responses.
- Aug 14, 2018
- 10,768
- 20,655
There are a lot of people making variations on the same argument. That as it stands now, there are barely four legitimate "'NC caliber" teams, so there is no need to expand the playoffs to eight. That we do not need an 8-team playoff to determine the best team. I like the way @soflagator frames it here because he asks a question and then answers it with his very next comment.
Out of 130 FBS teams -- ONE HUNDRED THIRTY TEAMS -- there are only a small handful who are consistent contenders to make the 4-team CFP. Whether you favor expanding the playoffs depends on whether you see that as a problem or not.
If you are happy with that situation and don't want it to change, then the idea of expanding the CFP to eight teams is never going to have any appeal to you.
On the other hand, if you would like college football to be less stagnant and more dynamic, and you are tired of seeing the same 5-6 teams perpetuate the cycle by hoarding all the most elite, 5* recruits, then you should support expanding the CFP to eight teams, with each P5 champ getting an automatic bid plus three at-large bids.
The result of that will be a wider distribution of top HS talent, because the pool of teams considered to be legit CFP contenders will be bigger. The schools that will benefit most will be those with strong regional talent bases. In states like California, Texas and yes, Florida, it will become easier to convince the top recruits that they don't necessarily have to leave and go to states like Ohio, South Carolina or Alabama to get in the shine of that CFP limelight.
Bottom line, it will shake things up and make college football less predictable. Obviously it's not going to be welcomed by borderline Asperger's types who flip out at the thought of anything changing. They are a common presence on message boards, but their noisy nature belies their minority stature. Check the poll!
Yeah, that's true. That's the point!
Out of 130 FBS teams -- ONE HUNDRED THIRTY TEAMS -- there are only a small handful who are consistent contenders to make the 4-team CFP. Whether you favor expanding the playoffs depends on whether you see that as a problem or not.
If you are happy with that situation and don't want it to change, then the idea of expanding the CFP to eight teams is never going to have any appeal to you.
On the other hand, if you would like college football to be less stagnant and more dynamic, and you are tired of seeing the same 5-6 teams perpetuate the cycle by hoarding all the most elite, 5* recruits, then you should support expanding the CFP to eight teams, with each P5 champ getting an automatic bid plus three at-large bids.
The result of that will be a wider distribution of top HS talent, because the pool of teams considered to be legit CFP contenders will be bigger. The schools that will benefit most will be those with strong regional talent bases. In states like California, Texas and yes, Florida, it will become easier to convince the top recruits that they don't necessarily have to leave and go to states like Ohio, South Carolina or Alabama to get in the shine of that CFP limelight.
Bottom line, it will shake things up and make college football less predictable. Obviously it's not going to be welcomed by borderline Asperger's types who flip out at the thought of anything changing. They are a common presence on message boards, but their noisy nature belies their minority stature. Check the poll!
- Aug 14, 2018
- 10,768
- 20,655
It's up to 39 in favor of expansion. 34 for expanding to 8 teams and 5 more for expanding to 16. At 47.6% it's a solid plurality of the vote. But a lot of them don't want to come forward and post about it because they don't like getting attacked by angry autists who regard every suggestion of change as a personal attack and respond accordingly.
- Aug 28, 2014
- 16,541
- 26,096
Your entire argument is based on that statement which no matter how many times you repeat it won't make it true. The exact opposite is just as likely. The path to the NC becomes and endurance race where the deeper team survives. The haves will have to stockpile more talent to replace injured players and rest starters. Loading up with even more talent as they can promise more playing time.
- Aug 28, 2014
- 16,541
- 26,096
- Jun 10, 2014
- 16,578
- 20,016
Founding Member
- Aug 14, 2018
- 10,768
- 20,655
Wait, I thought the 8-team playoff would make the regular season meaningless? Now you're saying it becomes an endurance race and only the team with the most depth survives? Which is it?
The regular season will never be meaningless, OBVIOUSLY, when you've got 65 P5 teams plus all the Go5 teams fighting for eight playoff slots. And, adding ONE extra game to the playoffs is not going to change the amount of depth a team needs.
- Aug 14, 2018
- 10,768
- 20,655
- Aug 14, 2018
- 10,768
- 20,655
Nope. I know a retard when I see one. Hi!
- Jun 9, 2014
- 78,413
- 110,737
Founding Member
- Aug 14, 2018
- 10,768
- 20,655
lol. Clemson won by 6 points in a come-from-behind victory and needed a pick in the end zone to secure the win. To suggest that the best team was obvious before the game was played is ludicrous.
If we had played the top two ranked teams against each other, it would've been Ohio State vs. LSU. The team that earned the right to play LSU by beating Ohio State last night, #3 Clemson, would not have a shot at the title under the old way of doing things.
Instead of admitting that, you're claiming the old BCS system would've gotten it right by ranking Clemson #2 in the first place?
