With players opting out of Bowl games, is it time for an expanded playoff?

[NOLAGATOR]

To all you Football Gurus who want BCS 1vs2...What if you have several undefeated teams? Like Auburn one year?

What if you have a 1 loss SEC Team BUT an undefeated ACC, Big 10, and Big 12?

Come on, all you back to the way it was?

You are the same Arse wipes who say I'm wacked for making UF the way it was and expanding enrolment...No you want an "Elite Education" because YOUR kid was lucky enough to get in...Things change is what you said.

If you need to spend million$ on facilities and staff to compete...Make it 6 power Conferences only...70-90 Total Teams...and no lesser league games in the season. Only Power Conference Games.

The lesser teams can create a lesser league.

 

[Back Alley Gator]

I agree with most of what you say except for the highlighted portion. I can't stand this selection committee stuff. Give me objective criteria any day over the "eye test".

Good point...I would prefer objective criteria too.

 

[Back Alley Gator]

To all you Football Gurus who want BCS 1vs2...What if you have several undefeated teams? Like Auburn one year?

What if you have a 1 loss SEC Team BUT an undefeated ACC, Big 10, and Big 12?

Come on, all you back to the way it was?

You are the same Arse wipes who say I'm wacked for making UF the way it was and expanding enrolment...No you want an "Elite Education" because YOUR kid was lucky enough to get...Things change is what you said.

If you need to spend million$ on facilities and staff to compete...Make it 6 power Conferences only...70-90 Total Teams...and no lesser league games in the season. Only Power Conference Games.

The lesser teams can create a lesser league.

Im not a huge proponent of the BCS because of what you state above. I think what we have is working perfectly well when it comes to determining who the best team in the nation is. I see no reason to muddy the waters by allowing more teams in. If any change needs to be made, its in the area of discouraging opt outs and removing the committee and replacing it with objective, measurable criteria.

FWIW, I absolutely detest the public ivy that UF has become. Hate it with a passion. Would much rather they go back to how things were in the 80s. Expand that enrollment and stop trying to be the Harvard of the south.

 

[MJMGator]

Let’s let everyone in, give participation ribbons and platinum trophies for 1-50. Life Champions!

 

[ThreatMatrix]

GREAT THREAD by a great OP, @NOLAGATOR!

Three pages so far and no one has come up with a convincing argument against expanding the playoffs. (Sorry but, "I suffer from a touch of the Asperger's and don't like anything to change," is not a convincing argument.) Went 16 pages about a year ago and nobody had one then, either!

Going to an 8-team playoff is the only thing that will break the stranglehold that Bama and Clemson have on 5-star recruits. Aside from that, nothing short of the literal deaths or off-field disgraces of Saban & Swinney will stop those two programs from hogging most of the top recruits for the foreseeable near future. Go to an 8-team playoff and it dramatically expands the number of schools able to persuade recruits that they will have a chance to play in prime time for national audiences, and possibly national championships.

For the criteria for the eight teams I still favor the Power 5 Champs, the highest-ranked team from the Group of Five and then two at-large bids who are the highest-ranked teams not otherwise included. Seedings based on a normal 8-team tournament, i.e. 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc.

You're an idiot then.

 

[NavetG8r]

Honestly, I think they should just cancel college football completely. Transfers and opt outs have shined the light on how soft players are these days. It's hardly even football anymore.

 

[t-gator]

GREAT THREAD by a great OP, @NOLAGATOR!

Three pages so far and no one has come up with a convincing argument against expanding the playoffs. (Sorry but, "I suffer from a touch of the Asperger's and don't like anything to change," is not a convincing argument.) Went 16 pages about a year ago and nobody had one then, either!

Going to an 8-team playoff is the only thing that will break the stranglehold that Bama and Clemson have on 5-star recruits. Aside from that, nothing short of the literal deaths or off-field disgraces of Saban & Swinney will stop those two programs from hogging most of the top recruits for the foreseeable near future. Go to an 8-team playoff and it dramatically expands the number of schools able to persuade recruits that they will have a chance to play in prime time for national audiences, and possibly national championships.

For the criteria for the eight teams I still favor the Power 5 Champs, the highest-ranked team from the Group of Five and then two at-large bids who are the highest-ranked teams not otherwise included. Seedings based on a normal 8-team tournament, i.e. 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc.

You remind me of 6 year old when we're playing candy land. He always likes to change the rules so he wins

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

I have an issue with the idea of number 1 versus number 2. Example, 2004 Auburn Tigers, undefeated SEC Champs and deserving to play. The voters picked USC and Oklahoma, both conference champs and also deserving to play. Yes, USC won the game but they were handed the opportunity to play by the voters. Auburn was denied. I have not liked this approach since then.

None of this changes the fact that USC won it on the field. Prior to the season, each team knew what the rules & criteria were (rules & criteria set by humans). Auburn didn’t make the cut. It’s as simple as that. With the benefit of hindsight, I would agree that Auburn probably would have been a better choice to play USC than Oklahoma was but the truth is Auburn may have gotten steamrolled as bad or worse than OK...or maybe Auburn would lost in a close game or maybe who knows, maybe they would have won it...we don’t know.

What you’re really arguing for is one set of rules/criteria set by humans (the #1 vs. #2 method & the current 4 team playoff) to be replaced by a new set of rules/criteria set by humans but because your new set of rules included 8 teams and it’s called a “playoff” that it’s somehow better than the old way and that the champ under your new way is determined to have “won it on the field” whereas previous champions didn’t “win it on the field”. That makes no sense.

 

[no1g8r]

None of this changes the fact that USC won it on the field. Prior to the season, each team knew what the rules & criteria were (rules & criteria set by humans). Auburn didn’t make the cut. It’s as simple as that. With the benefit of hindsight, I would agree that Auburn probably would have been a better choice to play USC than Oklahoma was but the truth is Auburn may have gotten steamrolled as bad or worse than OK...or maybe Auburn would lost in a close game or maybe who knows, maybe they would have won it...we don’t know.

What you’re really arguing for is one set of rules/criteria set by humans (the #1 vs. #2 method & the current 4 team playoff) to be replaced by a new set of rules/criteria set by humans but because your new set of rules included 8 teams and it’s called a “playoff” that it’s somehow better than the old way and that the champ under your new way is determined to have “won it on the field” whereas previous champions didn’t “win it on the field”. That makes no sense.

The point that I think you’re missing isn’t about who won it on the field, but who didn’t have an opportunity to win it on the field, but should have, but were subjectively weeded out by a glorified opinion poll.

I’d rather see some teams get invited that shouldn’t be - they will be weeded out - than have teams that should be in the mix, but aren’t given the chance because of media/regional bias.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

I think most of you are thinking about this as fans, and who has the "best" team at the end of the season. We need to realize that we have no direct power in how these things will go. You need to think about it as a network executive and how can I put the best product out there to maximize my return on the massive $$$ I am paying for this. Thinking about it from this standpoint, it is definitely time to expand the playoffs. Two driving factors. The first is obvious, more playoff games = more opportunities to market and drive interest in the product. The second is the track record that we currently have after 7 years of running this thing. When we have the same pool of 4-6 teams making the playoff every year, it is bad for the product. One only has to look at the NFL to see how they handle things. While they want marquee teams like the Giants and Cowboys to be relevant, they also want medium and small market teams to also be relevant so they have taken measures to ensure the playoffs are expanded and more parity exists. Coming at it from this point of view and I don't see how you argue against expanding the playoffs.

If you go to 8 teams you’ll see the same 8-10 teams make it every year. You want variety...go back to #1 vs. #2, where every game matters & if you stub your toe during the season then there is a pretty good chance you’re out of the hunt.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

The Ohio State University...2020/21

OSU 2020/21 is the perfect example as to why we should scrap the playoffs. They have no business playing for it all. There aren’t 4 worthy teams this year (a screwed up year with COVID cancellations admittedly) and there really aren’t 4 worthy teams in any given year. There damn sure won’t be 8 worthy teams if it’s expanded. Go back to #1 vs #2. It worked well in most years.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

Yours? But i was asking Donk but he can't even give us a acceptable coach.

Justification for going to a bowl game from my perspective as a fan? Um, I like watching bowl games better than watching Dancing With The Stars sobI need the football teams to show up and play so I can watch.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

The point that I think you’re missing isn’t about who won it on the field, but who didn’t have an opportunity to win it on the field, but should have, but were subjectively weeded out by a glorified opinion poll.

I’d rather see some teams get invited that shouldn’t be - they will be weeded out - than have teams that should be in the mix, but aren’t given the chance because of media/regional bias.

But that’s just it...IMO, everybody did have the opportunity to win it on the field and didn’t for one reason or another.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

...and so then the football season is essentially over for every team as soon as they lose a game. No chance for redemption, just "wait til next year," even if you lose in the opening weeks of the season. That's how you like it?

I said the chances of winning it all if you lose a game decrease a pretty good bit...and that’s the way it should be.

 

[rogdochar]

...and you remind me of someone who gets pissed when a 6 year old beats him at Candy Land, candy ass!

As a kid, I liked that game where you shoots the latter.

 

[no1g8r]

But that’s just it...IMO, everybody did have the opportunity to win it on the field and didn’t for one reason or another.

Auburn 2004 (13-0), won SEC championship, were not selected by the BCS for the 1 vs 2 National Championship game. They won everything on the field. Their only loss was a popularity contest.

 

[rogdochar]

I walked into a huge "open-bar" party with a girl who was a bombshell. I left her talking with friends and walked across the huge dancefloor to get us drinks. The usual buddies accosted me. "Man, a young single dentist, own office, drives a Pantera -- You must be a player." ... Off guard I said, " Player hell, she won't even let me take the tarp off the infield."

 

[RocketCityGator]

What you’re really arguing for is one set of rules/criteria set by humans (the #1 vs. #2 method & the current 4 team playoff) to be replaced by a new set of rules/criteria set by humans but because your new set of rules included 8 teams and it’s called a “playoff” that it’s somehow better than the old way and that the champ under your new way is determined to have “won it on the field” whereas previous champions didn’t “win it on the field”. That makes no sense.

What I'm arguing is that USC and OU won the eye test over Auburn for the opportunity to play for the championship. So no, USC did not win it entirely on the field.

But that’s just it...IMO, everybody did have the opportunity to win it on the field and didn’t for one reason or another.

I don't believe that the "eye test" should have any place in sports championships.

 

[RocketCityGator]

Auburn 2004 (13-0), won SEC championship, were not selected by the BCS for the 1 vs 2 National Championship game. They won everything on the field. Their only loss was a popularity contest.

Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN?

 

[RocketCityGator]

I said the chances of winning it all if you lose a game decrease a pretty good bit...and that’s the way it should be.

Why should it be that way? All three of our titles were with 1 loss.