What's your best argument against expanding the CFP to eight teams? (Poll!)

[soflagator]

18 points? We beat FSU by 32 points to win the 1996 National Championship. Did FSU have no business being in the National Championship discussion that year? I recall people arguing that we were the ones who didn't deserve a shot at it.

The noles at least managed to score points. Clemson couldn't. But remember, I've said several times that I'm ok with 4, because there will occasionally be a 3rd team that was left out in the BCS. So I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the one or more bloodbaths we've seen at times because it comes with that benefit. Now, if we go back to '96, that game would've been a semi-final, and OhSt v AzSt the other. We advance and beat the buckeyes to claim our first NC. The question is though, who was left out?

It really doesn't matter the year. The main point that some of us have made repeatedly in this thread is there simply aren't more than 4 teams that should realistically be in contention for a title. Once you start letting the Ucf's, the 3 loss teams, the non-conf-winner teams in, where does it stop? It may sound easy to say 8 and that's it. But much more complicated in implementation.

For instance, this year look at the difference between #3 Clemson and #5uga and #6Oregon. It'smuch greater than the difference between #7 Baylor/ #8 Wisconsin and #9UF /#10 PennSt, all four of which have nearly identical records. So it becomes totally subjective on the tail end, with no rhyme or reason. The result is that we will see an annual meltdown for those #9/#10 teams because they will ultimately have the same type of resume as the last two teams in but be left out. Next stop....12!!!

 

[SeabeeGator]

That bolded part is an interesting suggestion, but can't you foresee a lot of strength-of-schedule complaints if you eliminate divisional play and just go by the two teams with the best records? Because in that scenario the top two teams could've had very divergent schedules.

With divisions, it's more objective. The winner of each division is fairly decided because everybody played everybody.

9 games conference schedule would have a lot of cross over. Could also put incentives in to schedule P5 opponents to bolster tie breakers. Lots of options, especially if we went back to 12 teams where a 9 game schedule guarantees every team shares multiple common opponents.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Do you think that going to an eight team playoff will not make any difference, and the ESDs after that will look the same as they do now?

Difference? Not at all. Look the same? obviously you mean in the future, no of course not things will change staffs and they're recruiting fortunes will change with the staffs.

 

[soflagator]

It’s happening now. Guys sitting out bowls to protect pro future. Not a valid argument. I’d also posit that additional rules could be placed - only 2 teams per conference max, etc. I’m not suggesting I’ve got all the answers, just a starting point.

Bowl games have always been different. The mantra you'll hear when an expanded playoff is discussed is that "protect the regular season". Watching a Michigan player skip the Citrus Bowl is not the same as seeing him skip the Ohio State game. Imagine Fl/ga, Fl/fsu, Iron Bowl, etc. being meaningless. Again, I'm out.

 

[G. Gordon Gator]

Difference? Not at all. Look the same? obviously you mean in the future, no of course not things will change staffs and they're recruiting fortunes will change with the staffs.

Okay. So if you don't think it'll make a difference then I guess there's no harm in giving it a try, right? I'm changing your vote in the poll to "expand to 8 teams." That'll make 15, I'm practically lapping the field!

 

[ThreatMatrix]

Go to eight teams, and you will inevitably see the top talent distributed among more teams.

Why?
Because you say so?
Top recruits are going where they can win NC's not get knocked off in the playoffs. The SEC doesn't have any trouble recruiting (6 teams in the top 10) because they know if they win the SEC they can win the NC.
An 8 team playoff doesn't change that.

 

[Woodroe]

Managing 2 FGs, spending 85% of the game being down double digits, and ultimately losing by 18 means you had no business being in the national championship discussion. Maybe it doesn't fit your description of "bloodbath", but in the context of a playoff, it does to me.

I agree. But that was the manufactured 4 seed giving the blood bath genius.

 

[G. Gordon Gator]

The noles at least managed to score points. Clemson couldn't. But remember, I've said several times that I'm ok with 4, because there will occasionally be a 3rd team that was left out in the BCS. So I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the one or more bloodbaths we've seen at times because it comes with that benefit. Now, if we go back to '96, that game would've been a semi-final, and OhSt v AzSt the other. We advance and beat the buckeyes to claim our first NC. The question is though, who was left out?

It really doesn't matter the year. The main point that some of us have made repeatedly in this thread is there simply aren't more than 4 teams that should realistically be in contention for a title. Once you start letting the Ucf's, the 3 loss teams, the non-conf-winner teams in, where does it stop? It may sound easy to say 8 and that's it. But much more complicated in implementation.

For instance, this year look at the difference between #3 Clemson and #5uga and #6Oregon. It'smuch greater than the difference between #7 Baylor/ #8 Wisconsin and #9UF /#10 PennSt, all four of which have nearly identical records. So it becomes totally subjective on the tail end, with no rhyme or reason. The result is that we will see an annual meltdown for those #9/#10 teams because they will ultimately have the same type of resume as the last two teams in but be left out. Next stop....12!!!

Nice try, but no. Your outlook comes from your personal faith in numbers and the belief that they always tell the story.

You were playing the result when you said that Alabama's 18 point win over Clemson in the '17 CFP was proof positive that Clemson, "had no business being in the national championship discussion." I challenged your "logic" by saying it would lead us to believe that FSU had no business being in the '96 championship game, even though they were undefeated and the undisputed #1 team. Your response to that challenge was not too compelling, friend. I'm awarding myself a point. ;)

Speaking of points, mine is that statistics and comparative analysis are a sh*tty way to decide who gets to play for the national championship. They should be part of the equation, used to determine which P5 teams who didn't win their conference should get the two at-large playoff berths. Stats can also be used to fill one berth with the highest-ranked non-P5 conference champ. The other five berths should be earned fair and square on the field, the way God intended it before nerds invented statistics.

 

[ThreatMatrix]

As a Gator fan, give me one good reason why after finishing the season beating FSU and winning the SEC that we would want to play two more games to get into the National Championship game.

 

[MJMGator]

No, when we only had two teams and the BCS, that meant a small handful of teams had a lock on the talent. Not just two, but not many more than that. Now we have a four team playoff, and there is still a handful of teams hoarding all the talent, but at least the group of teams in the handful is a little more fluid from one year to the next. Go to eight teams, and you will inevitably see the top talent distributed among more teams.

Do you think that going to an eight team playoff will not make any difference, and the ESDs after that will look the same as they do now?

We’ve answered this several times. Recruiters recruit.
Are you one of those wealth redistribution folks?

 

[G. Gordon Gator]

Why?
Because you say so?
Top recruits are going where they can win NC's not get knocked off in the playoffs. The SEC doesn't have any trouble recruiting (6 teams in the top 10) because they know if they win the SEC they can win the NC.
An 8 team playoff doesn't change that.

Well yes, because I say so. But also because you say so. You made my argument by explaining that the SEC, "doesn't have any trouble recruiting...because they know if they win the SEC they can win the NC."

I wouldn't go so far as to say every SEC team, "doesn't have any trouble recruiting," but compared to schools in other conferences, you're right. The SEC generally gets better players because we offer a better chance to compete for the NC. That is a motivating factor to recruits. That's my point.

Right now there's a limited handful of schools at the very top who get the best-of-the-best players, because they offer the best chance to win the NC. That's the part that needs to open up more, and be more fluid.

As a coach, if you can convince a recruit that your team can make the 8-team field, you can convince him that you can win it all. Great players believe all they need is an opportunity to play, and they will succeed.

We need more coaches at more teams being able to convince more great players that "they can win the NC," like you said. Then the 5*'s will start expanding their choices beyond Clemson and Alabama.

 

[soflagator]

I agree. But that was the manufactured 4 seed giving the blood bath genius.

Was Clemson a national championship team that season? The answer is no. We've already discussed that teams can get hot and win it all. That’s one of the primary things people who share my opinion point to. Alabama hadn’t even won their division, much less conference. In the BCS, they are likely out, possibly along with Clemson after their loss to Syracuse. But I’ll repeat, I’m ok with 4 because there will be years like this year where you need an extra spot. Four makes sense. Beyond that doesn't. The amount of blowouts show that. If you want to hang your theory in 2017, fine. It is one year out of 5, soon to be 6.

 

[MJMGator]

Well yes, because I say so. But also because you say so. You made my argument by explaining that the SEC, "doesn't have any trouble recruiting...because they know if they win the SEC they can win the NC."

I wouldn't go so far as to say every SEC team, "doesn't have any trouble recruiting," but compared to schools in other conferences, you're right. The SEC generally gets better players because we offer a better chance to compete for the NC. That is a motivating factor to recruits. That's my point.

Right now there's a limited handful of schools at the very top who get the best-of-the-best players, because they offer the best chance to win the NC. That's the part that needs to open up more, and be more fluid.

As a coach, if you can convince a recruit that your team can make the 8-team field, you can convince him that you can win it all. Great players believe all they need is an opportunity to play, and they will succeed.

We need more coaches at more teams being able to convince more great players that "they can win the NC," like you said. Then the 5*'s will start expanding their choices beyond Clemson and Alabama.

The SEC hires betters coaches, has better facilities, has more fans, larger stadiums, etc..
In short, the SEC gets better recruits because they spend the money to do it. Opening up the playoff field to 64 teams won’t change that.

 

[G. Gordon Gator]

We’ve answered this several times. Recruiters recruit.
Are you one of those wealth redistribution folks?

Haha, normally I definitely am not, but when it comes to college football I guess I sort of am. I like college football. I'd like the whole sport to be more dynamic, vibrant and unpredictable than it has become. I'm in favor of trying as-yet-untried ideas that might lead to that.

 

[G. Gordon Gator]

Was Clemson a national championship team that season? The answer is no. We've already discussed that teams can get hot and win it all. That’s one of the primary things people who share my opinion point to. Alabama hadn’t even won their division, much less conference. In the BCS, they are likely out, possibly along with Clemson after their loss to Syracuse. But I’ll repeat, I’m ok with 4 because there will be years like this year where you need an extra spot. Four makes sense. Beyond that doesn't. The amount of blowouts show that. If you want to hang your theory in 2017, fine. It is one year out of 5, soon to be 6.

Do you think teams that "get hot and win it all" don't truly deserve their trophies? Were you upset in 2007 when the 18-0 New England Patriots got knocked off in the Super Bowl by the 13-6 Giants, those lowly wildcards who hadn't even won their division? What an outrage! That should not have been allowed to happen, right? The more deserving team should've won!

lol. I'm sorry for messing with you. We just have different ideas about what is the appeal of watching sports.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

4 teams is two too many. 8 team playoff is six too many.

Go back to #1 vs. #2. Every week is your playoff game. Most of the time, the BCS got it right.

 

[ThreatMatrix]

Well yes, because I say so. But also because you say so. You made my argument by explaining that the SEC, "doesn't have any trouble recruiting...because they know if they win the SEC they can win the NC."

I wouldn't go so far as to say every SEC team, "doesn't have any trouble recruiting," but compared to schools in other conferences, you're right. The SEC generally gets better players because we offer a better chance to compete for the NC. That is a motivating factor to recruits. That's my point.

Right now there's a limited handful of schools at the very top who get the best-of-the-best players, because they offer the best chance to win the NC. That's the part that needs to open up more, and be more fluid.

As a coach, if you can convince a recruit that your team can make the 8-team field, you can convince him that you can win it all. Great players believe all they need is an opportunity to play, and they will succeed.

We need more coaches at more teams being able to convince more great players that "they can win the NC," like you said. Then the 5*'s will start expanding their choices beyond Clemson and Alabama.

I don’t want more teams to get more 5*s. I want all the 5*s.
Look. Either your a Gator fan or ur not. Which is it?

 

[G. Gordon Gator]

Just remember everybody, "nobody watches college basketball until March," per the unassailable wisdom of The Donkster.

That's why, whenever you tune in to watch a regular-season NCAA hoops game, you don't see any commercials. The networks can't sell the time to advertisers. There are no viewers! It's a wonder they even broadcast those games. But for some reason they do. On multiple channels. Every night of the week. All season long. Weird.

Anyways, then March comes along, and everyone tunes in to watch the Tournament. Because people love watching playoffs. Go figure! I think it might be because it's the best way to determine a champion, and anyone with any sense knows it. Emphasis on the, "with any sense" part.

 

[G. Gordon Gator]

I don’t want more teams to get more 5*s. I want all the 5*s.
Look. Either your a Gator fan or ur not. Which is it?

I'm not a Gator "fan," I'm an actual Gator, which is an irrevocable status. Two times over, no less. I think I said that earlier in the thread already? Or maybe it was a different thread. Apologies if so.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Ox in 3...2....1.....