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

[G. Gordon Gator]

I want things decided in the field. I just was never that “best 2 out of 3!” kid. You’re claiming I want strictly analytics when there’s proven on-field data that says UW isn’t good enough this year. Twice. This year, you could also see a similar situation with Baylor. But here are tons of possibilities of a team needing to show they can beat the same team 3 times.

As I said 12 pages ago, if you think it’ll stop at 8 you’re crazy. The claim will then be that 9-16 are being marginalized. On and on.

Your last extreme recommendation is funny because you’re making it seem as if we don’t have a working system, when we actually do. No more need to get rid of those things than there is to add more.

Putting aside any pro-Gator bias you would've had, if you were in charge of things in '96 we never would've gotten the Sugar Bowl matchup with FSU, right? Because they'd already beaten us.

 

[lizardbreath]

Didn't the HBC propose a 16 team format back in the day? On one hand, that would be kinda cool - like a totally apeshytt demolition derby with bodies strewn everywhere resulting in a general donnybrook for the ages. On the other hand, what little worth the current bowl system still possesses would be eradicated altogether - NTTAWWT at this point.

 

[soflagator]

Putting aside any pro-Gator bias you would've had, if you were in charge of things in '96 we never would've gotten the Sugar Bowl matchup with FSU, right? Because they'd already beaten us.

Yes. One loss in a competitive, controversial 1-score game is on par with 2 losses including a 31 point drubbing. Also, UF was #4 that season going into bowls. Our current format would’ve been fine.

I’m ok with a rematch in certain situations. I’m not ok with three chances. That’s absurd. Settle it on the field actually goes out the window in that case because you’re saying “settle it again...and then settle it again”. Sooner or later, someone could pull an upset. That’s why it shouldn’t be asked of anyone to face a team 3 times in one year. It’s taxing when it happens to professionals in the NFL.

I’m still waiting for this significant benefit that will come from all of this. It all but assures that the teams currently killing it in recruiting will get at least one more chance on the grand stage each season.

 

[G. Gordon Gator]

Yes. One loss in a competitive, controversial 1-score game is on par with 2 losses including a 31 point drubbing.

I’m ok with a rematch in certain situations. I’m not ok with three chances. That’s absurd. Settle it on the field actually goes out the window in that case because you’re saying “settle it again...and then settle it again”. Sooner or later, someone could pull an upset. That’s why it shouldn’t be asked of anyone to face a team 3 times in one year. It’s taxing when it happens to professionals in the NFL.

I’m still waiting for this significant benefit that will come from all of this. It all but assures that the teams currently killing it in recruiting will get at least one more chance on the grand stage each season.

I'll ask you one more time. Say there was an 8-team playoff this year.

Wisconsin, the #8 seed, upsets #1 LSU in the quarterfinal.

The next week Wisconsin upsets the winner of #4 Oklahoma v. #5 UGA in the semifinal.

So in that admittedly-unlikely scenario, despite those two upset wins, you would regard it as somehow "unfair" for Wisconsin to then advance to the final against the winner of the other bracket, which would be either Baylor, Oregon, Clemson or Ohio State?

 

[T REX]

Ham sammich. Self explanatory.

 

[GatorJB]

I'll ask you one more time. Say there was an 8-team playoff this year.

Wisconsin, the #8 seed, upsets #1 LSU in the quarterfinal.

The next week Wisconsin upsets the winner of #4 Oklahoma v. #5 UGA in the semifinal.

So in that admittedly-unlikely scenario, despite those two upset wins, you would regard it as somehow "unfair" for Wisconsin to then advance to the final against the winner of the other bracket, which would be either Baylor, Oregon, Clemson or Ohio State?

It's not unfair. It's unnecessary because it would never happen. You even said it's unlikely to happen. If number 8 (really 5-8) has a realistically small chance winning a championship, what's the point in playing those extra games? The champion 95% of the time will be ranked in the 1-4 range. Expanding to 8 teams weakens the regular season and bowls. That's it.

 

[G. Gordon Gator]

It's not unfair. It's unnecessary because it would never happen. You even said it's unlikely to happen. If number 8 (really 5-8) has a realistically small chance winning a championship, what's the point in playing those extra games? The champion 95% of the time will be ranked in the 1-4 range. Expanding to 8 teams weakens the regular season and bowls. That's it.

So are you in favor of reducing the NCAA basketball tournament to a 16-team field instead of 64? After all, how often does one of those Cinderella Stories make it to the ball? What's the point of playing a bunch of extra games when we all can see with our eyes who's going to end up winning?

 

[soflagator]

I'll ask you one more time. Say there was an 8-team playoff this year.

Wisconsin, the #8 seed, upsets #1 LSU in the quarterfinal.

The next week Wisconsin upsets the winner of #4 Oklahoma v. #5 UGA in the semifinal.

So in that admittedly-unlikely scenario, despite those two upset wins, you would regard it as somehow "unfair" for Wisconsin to then advance to the final against the winner of the other bracket, which would be either Baylor, Oregon, Clemson or Ohio State?

I don’t think I’ve used the word unfair to describe my objection. I say that loosely because we’ve been arguing since Wednesday I think and I can’t remember. But not sure that’s been my characterization. In any event, I just think that it’s unnecessary.

The two questions I’ve yet to see answered are:

How can you link this to tangible gains for UF? No because because because, real actual evidence that this helps us.

And, how do you justify putting in #8 but not numbers 9 and 10, considering the resumes are extremely comparable? In essence, why UW this year and not UF? Or the opposite?

 

[G. Gordon Gator]

It's sad that some of you are stuck on this small-minded notion that there's no need for an 8-team playoff because there's no way one of the 5-8 teams would ever win anyway.

The flaw in that thinking is that it is entirely premised on the present state of college football and the concentration of power in the small handful of teams who are perceived as perennial contenders for the 4-team playoff.

You guys need to do yourselves a big favor and do some reading about Plato's Allegory of the Cave. You are all stuck in it. I'm the guy who broke free of his chains and is outside running around.
Wheeeeeeeeeee!!

 

[G. Gordon Gator]

I don’t think I’ve used the word unfair to describe my objection.

And why should uga get yet another shot at Lsu when UF potentially lost their game by less. Shouldn’t the Gators get a second chance? Why is Psu, who was competitive in their one outing against OhSt, sitting idle as the Badgers get a third chance. So they’re punished for being in a tougher division? How is any of this fair?

 

[soflagator]

I’m using the word fair there because your entire premise is based on making things fair. We supposedly can’t land talent and the same teams are dominating every year so we need to expand the field to make it more...............fair. Your suggestion, not mine.

My response is to say how is that fair?

And two responses since, but no answer to my questions. Two posts up. Please give specific answers.

 

[GatorJB]

So are you in favor of reducing the NCAA basketball tournament to a 16-team field instead of 64? After all, how often does one of those Cinderella Stories make it to the ball? What's the point of playing a bunch of extra games when we all can see with our eyes who's going to end up winning?

Your comparing apples to vegetables, not even oranges. March madness is the basketball equivalent to the football bowl game. We know the teams outside of the top 20 in basketball aren't going to win it all, but we love college sports so let's have these guys have some sort of post season. It's tradition.

It's also tradition for all regular season college football games to have major implications on the championship. Every game means something and has high stakes. The more teams you add to the playoff, the more you take away from the regular season. You may want that. I personally do not.

 

[RocketCityGator]

Didn't the HBC propose a 16 team format back in the day? On one hand, that would be kinda cool - like a totally apeshytt demolition derby with bodies strewn everywhere resulting in a general donnybrook for the ages. On the other hand, what little worth the current bowl system still possesses would be eradicated altogether - NTTAWWT at this point.

I'm okay with getting rid of the bowl system. There are two many bowls and anybody with a pulse gets to go to one.

 

[RocketCityGator]

Expanding to 8 teams weakens the regular season and bowls. That's it.

I'm okay cancelling the bowls, there are too many and anyone with pulse can get in. And I don't see how an 8 team playoff weakens the regular season. It probably would reduce the regular season by 1 game, so we drop an D2 opponent, but you still have to play well enough in the regular season to get into the top 8.

 

[URGatorBait]

Play the game on the field.

/thread

 

[GatorJB]

I'm okay cancelling the bowls, there are too many and anyone with pulse can get in. And I don't see how an 8 team playoff weakens the regular season. It probably would reduce the regular season by 1 game, so we drop an D2 opponent, but you still have to play well enough in the regular season to get into the top 8.

Simple. The SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 championships had lesser stakes because those 6 teams were going to the playoffs this year win or lose. The conference championship games essentially serve as playoff games naturally. Why do people want to give all of these conference losers a second or third chance in an additional playoff?

For example,I liked that after uga lost to South Carolina that their playoff chances free falled and they needed an SEC championship to have a chance to go. With an 8 team playoff they are in. I don't get why people think they are deserving to play for a national championship. They laid a giant turd against a crap team and got blown out in Atlanta. The 8 team playoff waters down the regular season because a teams like uga get in every year. That's not good for college football.

On your other point, I don't want to get rid of the bowl games, but I agree that there are too many. They should make the minimum requirement seven games instead of six. I think that would make a huge difference.

 

[soflagator]

Play the game on the field.

/thread

We already do.

/triple-stamp-no-erasies

 

[URGatorBait]

We already do.

/triple-stamp-no-erasies

Except when we don't

/you can't triple stamp a double stamp

 

[soflagator]

Except when we don't

/you can't triple stamp a double stamp

Numbers 5, 7 & 8 all played and lost to team that earned the playoff, with the 7 & 8 teams getting two shots and failing both times, and 5 asking for a rape whistle in the 3rd quarter. Number 6 lost to Auburn and unranked USC. If anyone has a case it’s Oregon, but between their resume and the fact that their logo is the same as a popular Vegas Cirque du Soleil show, they’re out.

 

[URGatorBait]

Numbers 5, 7 & 8 all played and lost to team that earned the playoff, with the 7 & 8 teams getting two shots and failing both times, and 5 asking for a rape whistle in the 3rd quarter. Number 6 lost to Auburn and unranked USC. If anyone has a case it’s Oregon, but between their resume and the fact that their logo is the same as a popular Vegas Cirque du Soleil show, they’re out.

The rankings would likely look different under a different set of playoff rules.
That sort of thing would bake itself in somewhat.