Gotta get a glimpse of these warlocks
***2021-22 Bowl Games Discussion Thread***
- Thread starter ScottyP
- Start date
Gotta get a glimpse of these warlocks
What is expansion going to do? I agree that seeing Cincinnati & Michigan in was refreshing. But the result is the same as seemingly every other year: blowouts in the semis.
Is an expanded playoffs just going to get us more exciting lead in games before the top 2 of that particular year inevitably meet?
Exactly the cream rises to the top whether it's 4, 8, 16, etc.
The cream will rise on average more than other teams. There is no way around that.
But more rounds add more chances for upsets/flukes. If college basketball were just 4 teams, the hit rate on the overall #1 team making the NC game is much higher.
Football is harder, but the more games played, the more likely an A&M game happens
They created this monster. ESPN is the host network for the SEC and ACC. They get the most airtime, get talked about ad nauseam. The recruits pay attention. In a sport of 130 teams, only Ohio State has been good enough to take them down. Ohio State has won one title in the CFP era and the other seven (including this year’s) belong to the ACC and SEC. So yes I think ESPN is at least at some fault for cultivating what looks like an unstoppable monopoly.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
Considering that the playoff committee literally just selected Cincinnati as one of the four “best” teams this year completely undermines your argument. Yes, I understand you seem to think the committee just needs to take a different approach - your approach, apparently - but there’s nothing saying a future committee might pick, say, a 10-3 Iowa squad or an 11-2 Wake Forest just because they think they’re “better.”
Your method of “best” seems to be biased in favor of the blue bloods. Thats fine, I guess - every human method of picking teams is going to end up biased in some way. Which is why my method of establishing a clearly defined selection criteria prior to the season would be better than letting any group of people simply pick who they think is “playing better at the end of the season.”
If ”some loss in the middle of the season” or an “upset” doesn’t matter, why the hell are we playing the games? Just pick the four teams you think are the bee’s knees in August and let them play for the championship, since apparently the actual results on the field don’t even matter.
Part of the problem is we can’t decide what we want the playoff to be. Is it a winner-take-all of the teams we think are playing better? Is it a two-round playoff of the best program resumes? Why can’t we just make it a Tournament of Champions, where you have to earn your way in by winning your conference? That’s not necessarily going to find us the “best” team in a given year, but let’s face it - Ohio State was not the “best” team in 2014, they got gifted a playoff spot and managed to win two games.
With NIL, scholarship limits, transfer portal, "eye test," etc., championship-level football is largely unattainable outside of a handful of teams.
This will be another year where I don't watch the playoffs or championship but will enjoy the bowl games.
This will be another year where I don't watch the playoffs or championship but will enjoy the bowl games.
Last edited:
Hmm, have you noticed where those recruits are located? And the SEC has long cared more about college football, going back to when there were few pro teams in the south.
ESPN did not create the monster. The saw they could make money off it.
LMAO. Are you serious? No it doesn't- I am contending the committee change what they look at, or look at it differently. That is basically the point.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
What I’m saying is any human committee choice is going to suffer from bias of some kind. I happen to think putting Cincy in this year was a good thing overall; you disagree. You think the committee should change their criteria to pick who’s playing better at the end of the season and ignore upsets/mid season losses; I disagree. That doesn’t make your approach “better” - it makes it your approach, which of course you want to see put in place because it fits your biases.
We’re all biased, lol. That’s why we‘re humans. There’s no perfect system, so we ought to just decide what it is we want out of the playoff and go from there. Maybe it’s to crown Alabama as champion emeritus and let everyone else play for a “except for Alabama championship.”
And they had their chance against one of the current CFP teams in Michigan and got their asses handed to them. That same Michigan team that just got done getting railroaded by Georgia. All we know is Ohio State got handled by the two best teams they played (Michigan State I may put in front of Oregon, but Oregon beat the Buckeyes in the Shoe). Cincinnati did play and beat, on the road, what ended up being a top-5 team. They never lost, so they should have got in over Ohio State on every measure that actually matters. Who cares about metrics? Win the games in front of you. Metrics really did well for us this year and our 7-6 record.
Wait, how does scholarship limits hurt parity?
What we have now is the best it has ever been in college football in terms of a free market. Cincy had a chance to play its way to a title. This is way better than the decades of when it was based on the media and coaches polls. That was disgusting. Imagine the title being determined in any manner by the hawk fanboys in the Iowa media. If settling it on the field leads to the same teams competing, so be it.
Also, I don't think we're giving Saban his due. The SEC will likely have as good of chance as any conference, but the field is getting shutout because of his anomalous greatness. If not Saban, you'd have more upsets and diversity. LSU can win one year and be 6-6. UF can win and then have a decade in which they are up and down.
Yeah, I don't think ESPN is the reason why Alabama has been so dominant. If you left the argument that they're the reason why the rest of the SEC is so overrated I'd hear you. But at this point you're just stealing credit from Saban.
Yes, and that bias should be towards the teams best able to compete with Bama, for lack of better definition. Which is also what something like Sagarin is for.
I am not anti-G5 making it, although I do think they have an advantage when they are less likely to be upset- so i have no issue with a 2 loss P5 team being viewed as better. I am certainly not saying because Cincy got smoked by bama that means G5 can't be in. If somehow this UGa roster were in the G5, they'd be in, even though they had less upset risk.
I am saying I did not think Cincy's represented the 4th best team or the team best able to compete in the playoffs with Bama or UGa. Perhaps you think Cincy did have the best chance out of all other teams.
Why would you worry about the regular season if it is a more legitimate way to find the best team at the end? And it is a false to say if a team that has one more loss gets in over Cincy, the regular season lost value.
The guy you are responding to is right about everything, just ask him. He is God on here, and don't even try to disagree with him. He contradicts himself all of the time. This is a gem right here on the post you are responding to:
"Way too much emphasis on record in college football. In the NFL, teams like GB's 2011 super bowl team or Tampa's team last year wouldn't even make the playoffs. Yes, that adds value to the season, but it makes for a bad postseason."
He argues that the "four best" teams should be how you determine the CFP teams by some subjective manner. Then uses a couple of NFL teams (countless others like the last two Giants Super Bowl wins) who if the NFL used some subjective reasoning to decide who makes the playoffs wouldn't have made those playoffs and thus, not won those Super Bowls. Very confusing to what his point is. The NFL season is the popular thing going, and it isn't close. They have a defined criteria how to make the postseason in their league. Until college football expands and/or figures that out, this is what we get.
