ESPN: Results are in: Expanded playoff wouldn't mean more competition

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,579
Reaction score
15,660
Points
113
per Ivan:

As one one-sided semifinal bled into another Saturday, as 12 months of anticipation, fueled by three months of regular season, fell apart like a sand castle at high tide, all I could think was this:

Thank goodness. Maybe this will quiet the talk of playoff expansion.

The playoff semifinals fit in nicely with the rest of this December. If you judge the December bowls the way we judge most football seasons these days, you would fire the coach. The games stank. Average winning margin: 20 points. Of 27 bowls played going into Monday, only 10 had a one-score margin at any time during the fourth quarter. Things got better over the past two days, when nine of 11 games were decided by one score (eight points or fewer).

As for the semifinals themselves, No. 3 Notre Dame, beset by injuries -- which can happen when a team plays an opponent with bigger/stronger/faster players -- fell apart in the final minute of the first half against No. 2 Clemson.

No. 4 Oklahoma came out against No. 1 Alabama and played the worst first quarter in a big game since, well, Oklahoma played the BCS final 14 years ago. Those Sooners took a 7-0 lead against USC and trailed 38-10 at the half. The Trojans won 55-19.

So it's crushing. We discovered that Alabama and Clemson, the consensus No. 1 and No. 2 to start the season, are every bit as good as predicted.

Being right is no fun, is it?

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...-football-playoff-simply-create-more-blowouts

Go Gophers!!
 

Maybe ND shouldn't have been 3 and Ohio St would have done better?
 

Part of the expansion talk is for the fans as well. It would be fun to watch meaningful football throughout December instead of a bowl that has no real meaning besides momentum into the off-season. Really, if we lost the Quick Lane Bowl it wouldn't change a single thing and our recruiting class was already signed and the players already got the extra practice time. It is nice having the momentum of a nice win go through the off-season, but even that is short lived. I doubt PJ will make mention after the first game next year that after playing so well in the Quick Lane Bowl our players were so motivated in the off-season, etc.
 

Part of the expansion talk is for the fans as well. It would be fun to watch meaningful football throughout December instead of a bowl that has no real meaning besides momentum into the off-season. Really, if we lost the Quick Lane Bowl it wouldn't change a single thing and our recruiting class was already signed and the players already got the extra practice time. It is nice having the momentum of a nice win go through the off-season, but even that is short lived. I doubt PJ will make mention after the first game next year that after playing so well in the Quick Lane Bowl our players were so motivated in the off-season, etc.

It would mean that we had one fewer win this season.
 

I nearly granulated my teeth reading that. Oklahoma, after a bad start was actually pretty good against Alabama - so this article focuses on how Oklahoma got blown out 14 years ago. They talk of "getting it right" this year with no mention of the first season of the four team playoff when the 3rd and 4th ranked teams advanced to the championship game. Nobody ever said the top two seeds would be wrong every year. In the part copied, it also doesn't mention Georgia was #5 and ended with 3 losses and a 2nd place conf finish while Ohio State was #6 as a one loss conference champion. There are bowl results every year and they are all over the board. Very irritating to see writers cherry pick results.

So frustrating, and so typical of anything ESPN-related when it comes to college football. I will say this eternally: They need to get as much "opinion" out of selecting the field for the playoff as possible. The more opinion and backroom politics are involved, the better the SEC looks. The worst was back during the BCS era when they picked two SEC teams to play in the "championship." It is now already getting that close to the same level of BS when they make half the four team field SEC teams.

Yes, I'd like to see a bigger playoff but if that doesn't happen I'd at least like to see the following minimum requirements:

1. Only conference champions, regardless of record, are eligible for the playoff
2. Notre Dame has to join a conference. If their independent tradition is that important to them, they can continue it and remove themselves from the playoff
3. Get as much opinion and regional bias out of the process as possible. That means let things play out on the field in the form of real conference races and conference championship games.

I get it football isn't basketball but some worthy teams fail to make the basketball tournament every year because they failed to get their conference's automatic bid. Some football conferences sandbag their non-con schedules and/or only play 8 conf games. All of this bs doesn't matter if only conf champions are eligible for playoffs.

In the end, I can admit that the SEC has been the best football conference and Alabama is currently on a historic run as a dynasty - but that doesn't mean the gap is so large they should get an auto bid or TWO to the four team playoff every year to eternity and that is what this will quickly devolve into, just like the 2 team BCS playoff did. Head to head conference results and bowls show again and again that the 5 major conferences are acually pretty close to each other in overall power even if they rise and fall slightly compared to one another over time.
 


If you are going to keep it at 4 you need to disqualify all teams that don't win their conference.

You can't have only 4 spots and ignore 2-3 major conferences.

There is no way to know OSU doesn't beat Clemson or Alabama.
 

I disagree with this article.

Notre Dame was only #3 because they were unbeaten, there is no way they would be ranked ahead of Georgia head to head. The odds makers in Vegas would not have had ND as the favorite in a straight matchup. and, as the writer admits, several players saving themselves for the draft would have suited up to play in the playoff.

Let's look at the mythical playoff of 8:

#1 Alabama vs. #8 UCF: I'd imagine Alabama would be 3 td favorites here. Just more $$$ for the NCAA

#4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia: I think this would be a pick-em game even at Oklahoma. I'd go with Georgia here and more $$$.

#3 Notre Dame vs. #6 Ohio State: Give me OSU by 3. Notre Dame just doesn't have the depth. OSU advances and more $$$.

#2 Clemson vs. #7 Michigan: Clemson at home by 7. Clemson most likely still wins due to Michigan's offense. More $$$.

Re-rankings:

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Georgia
4. Ohio State

I think Vegas would agree with these outcomes. Then we have:

#1 Alabama vs. #4 Ohio State at neutral site: Alabama most likely favored by 10-12. Similar outcome to Oklahoma game but hey, more $$$$.

#2 Clemson vs. #3 Georgia at neutral site: Let's go with Clemson by 4. Clemson wins in single possession game by 3. More $$$

And there you are, with the same result because this is an academic exercise. Would Tua be less effective with 1 less week to heal and would he be available? Who gets hurt? Who goes crazy and plays out of their minds?

Who knows and who cares? We get more games and College Football make tons more $$$$.

There will be an 8 game tournament, it's just a matter of time. (and $$$$)
 

If you are going to keep it at 4 you need to disqualify all teams that don't win their conference.

You can't have only 4 spots and ignore 2-3 major conferences.

There is no way to know OSU doesn't beat Clemson or Alabama.

+1

The problem with the current system is we never get to find out if OSU is as good or not.
 

Well if the predictions were right, why bother with a playoff at all?

So stupid...
 



After this years Semis, I am more in favor of going back to 2 teams instead of increasing to 8.
 

Part of the expansion talk is for the fans as well. It would be fun to watch meaningful football throughout December instead of a bowl that has no real meaning besides momentum into the off-season. Really, if we lost the Quick Lane Bowl it wouldn't change a single thing and our recruiting class was already signed and the players already got the extra practice time. It is nice having the momentum of a nice win go through the off-season, but even that is short lived. I doubt PJ will make mention after the first game next year that after playing so well in the Quick Lane Bowl our players were so motivated in the off-season, etc.

I think a bowl game has a lot of meaning and I look forward to that as a goal every year.
 

Well if the predictions were right, why bother with a playoff at all?

So stupid...

I heard a post game interview from Mike Leach a while back where he made a great point. In every other level of NCAA Football they have a playoff. NCAA Division III, Division II and FCS all have playoffs of 24-32 teams. Why shouldn't they have the same setup in the FBS? Use 11 Bowls for the Playoff (12 teams....with top 4 teams getting a bye) and you would still have Bowl games for other teams in which they could qualify. It makes the Bowl games meaningful for all teams and those top teams probably wouldn't have players skipping the Bowl game to get ready for the draft.
 

I disagree with this article.

Notre Dame was only #3 because they were unbeaten, there is no way they would be ranked ahead of Georgia head to head. The odds makers in Vegas would not have had ND as the favorite in a straight matchup. and, as the writer admits, several players saving themselves for the draft would have suited up to play in the playoff.

Let's look at the mythical playoff of 8:

#1 Alabama vs. #8 UCF: I'd imagine Alabama would be 3 td favorites here. Just more $$$ for the NCAA

#4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia: I think this would be a pick-em game even at Oklahoma. I'd go with Georgia here and more $$$.

#3 Notre Dame vs. #6 Ohio State: Give me OSU by 3. Notre Dame just doesn't have the depth. OSU advances and more $$$.

#2 Clemson vs. #7 Michigan: Clemson at home by 7. Clemson most likely still wins due to Michigan's offense. More $$$.

Re-rankings:

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Georgia
4. Ohio State

I think Vegas would agree with these outcomes. Then we have:

#1 Alabama vs. #4 Ohio State at neutral site: Alabama most likely favored by 10-12. Similar outcome to Oklahoma game but hey, more $$$$.

#2 Clemson vs. #3 Georgia at neutral site: Let's go with Clemson by 4. Clemson wins in single possession game by 3. More $$$

And there you are, with the same result because this is an academic exercise. Would Tua be less effective with 1 less week to heal and would he be available? Who gets hurt? Who goes crazy and plays out of their minds?

Who knows and who cares? We get more games and College Football make tons more $$$$.

There will be an 8 game tournament, it's just a matter of time. (and $$$$)

Georgia was just trounced by Texas. Stating they’d be big betting favorites over Notre Dame is both unknowable and irrelevant. I couldn’t care less what Vegas and their computer models suggest. There are a lot of factors at play.

College football desperately needs an expanded playoff.
 



I disagree with this article.

Notre Dame was only #3 because they were unbeaten, there is no way they would be ranked ahead of Georgia head to head. The odds makers in Vegas would not have had ND as the favorite in a straight matchup. and, as the writer admits, several players saving themselves for the draft would have suited up to play in the playoff.

Let's look at the mythical playoff of 8:

#1 Alabama vs. #8 UCF: I'd imagine Alabama would be 3 td favorites here. Just more $$$ for the NCAA

#4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia: I think this would be a pick-em game even at Oklahoma. I'd go with Georgia here and more $$$.

#3 Notre Dame vs. #6 Ohio State: Give me OSU by 3. Notre Dame just doesn't have the depth. OSU advances and more $$$.

#2 Clemson vs. #7 Michigan: Clemson at home by 7. Clemson most likely still wins due to Michigan's offense. More $$$.

Re-rankings:

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Georgia
4. Ohio State

I think Vegas would agree with these outcomes. Then we have:

#1 Alabama vs. #4 Ohio State at neutral site: Alabama most likely favored by 10-12. Similar outcome to Oklahoma game but hey, more $$$$.

#2 Clemson vs. #3 Georgia at neutral site: Let's go with Clemson by 4. Clemson wins in single possession game by 3. More $$$

And there you are, with the same result because this is an academic exercise. Would Tua be less effective with 1 less week to heal and would he be available? Who gets hurt? Who goes crazy and plays out of their minds?

Who knows and who cares? We get more games and College Football make tons more $$$$.

There will be an 8 game tournament, it's just a matter of time. (and $$$$)

Oh man I'd love to see tOSU and ND.

I wish Texas has played tOSU last night too...
 

After this years Semis, I am more in favor of going back to 2 teams instead of increasing to 8.

If Alabama blows out Clemson, why even have a playoff at all? We could just give them the title after the regular season. The reason for having a playoff of more than 4 teams is because at every level of football...professional, college and high school there is a playoff to crown the champion. Why is the FBS the only one different? It's especially disappointing when you probably only had two of the top four teams in the playoff this year.
 

If Alabama blows out Clemson, why even have a playoff at all? We could just give them the title after the regular season. The reason for having a playoff of more than 4 teams is because at every level of football...professional, college and high school there is a playoff to crown the champion. Why is the FBS the only one different? It's especially disappointing when you probably only had two of the top four teams in the playoff this year.

Agreed, it would have been nice to see Texas and Ohio State.
 


Washington deserved a shot too. As others have said, as soon as a #1 ranked team wins a tournament, I guess all future tournaments should be cancelled and the trophy awarded to the future top ranked team. Every other sport (including football at every other level) has a tournament. The simple eternal problem for D1 football is the bowls and the way they grew up within the sport.
 

Georgia was just trounced by Texas. Stating they’d be big betting favorites over Notre Dame is both unknowable and irrelevant. I couldn’t care less what Vegas and their computer models suggest. There are a lot of factors at play.

College football desperately needs an expanded playoff.

You don't honestly think Georgia was playing at full motivation.
 


You don't honestly think Georgia was playing at full motivation.

They seemed kinda down to me actually.... but I think it can be hard in bowl games to get a team who had a long break and now is in an odd place after the holidays to get going.

I think that happens a lot.
 

If Alabama blows out Clemson, why even have a playoff at all? We could just give them the title after the regular season. The reason for having a playoff of more than 4 teams is because at every level of football...professional, college and high school there is a playoff to crown the champion. Why is the FBS the only one different? It's especially disappointing when you probably only had two of the top four teams in the playoff this year.

I'd be totally fine going back to the they way it was prior to BCS with conferences tied into NYD Bowls and then having the AP and whomever else vote on their champion. It was unique and I liked it. New Year's Day always meant something.
 


You don't honestly think Georgia was playing at full motivation.

Why wouldn’t they be? They had plenty of time to cry it out after getting smoked in the game vs Alabama. Texas clearly had equal talent and played better. End of story. They lost by 20 points to LSU after all. It’s not like they were undefeated. What was the argument to put them on the CFP?
 

You expand the playoff to . . .

1) Give more teams an opportunity to compete for the title. (I did not say win)
2) Give more conferences an opportunity to compete for the title (I did not say win)
3) provide some form of benefit to all teams and conferences to better balance national recruiting
4) Make it so the top recruits can goto multiple teams and conference to seek a national title, not just Alabama and Clemson
5) Lift all conferences, including G5 conferences.

Whoever is suggesting that the data is in and not expanding the playoff is best for college football? Well, that guy is an idiot.
 
Last edited:

I'd be totally fine going back to the they way it was prior to BCS with conferences tied into NYD Bowls and then having the AP and whomever else vote on their champion. It was unique and I liked it. New Year's Day always meant something.

How did it mean anything more than it does now? Especially more than the Semi-final Saturday? The Ohio State-Washington game would have had the same meaning. Same thing with the Texas-Georgia, or any of the other Bowl games. If you happened to match up the top two teams in the Sugar Bowl, what would have happened if Notre Dame beat Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl. What about Central Florida? I think the old way we decided a champion is even worse than the 4 team playoff.
 
Last edited:

per Ivan:

As one one-sided semifinal bled into another Saturday, as 12 months of anticipation, fueled by three months of regular season, fell apart like a sand castle at high tide, all I could think was this:

Thank goodness. Maybe this will quiet the talk of playoff expansion.

The playoff semifinals fit in nicely with the rest of this December. If you judge the December bowls the way we judge most football seasons these days, you would fire the coach. The games stank. Average winning margin: 20 points. Of 27 bowls played going into Monday, only 10 had a one-score margin at any time during the fourth quarter. Things got better over the past two days, when nine of 11 games were decided by one score (eight points or fewer).

As for the semifinals themselves, No. 3 Notre Dame, beset by injuries -- which can happen when a team plays an opponent with bigger/stronger/faster players -- fell apart in the final minute of the first half against No. 2 Clemson.

No. 4 Oklahoma came out against No. 1 Alabama and played the worst first quarter in a big game since, well, Oklahoma played the BCS final 14 years ago. Those Sooners took a 7-0 lead against USC and trailed 38-10 at the half. The Trojans won 55-19.

So it's crushing. We discovered that Alabama and Clemson, the consensus No. 1 and No. 2 to start the season, are every bit as good as predicted.

Being right is no fun, is it?

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...-football-playoff-simply-create-more-blowouts

Go Gophers!!

Concur as to expanding playoff, but there were some really good bowl games: Northwestern/Utah, Wash St/Iowa St, LSU/UCF, Ohio St/Wash, Georgia/TX among the best, plus Stanford/Pitt, Oregon/MSU,Kentucky/PSU, GA Southern/E Michigan, Okla St/MO, and both the Minnesota and Wisconsin runaways. Enjoyed all of them. We shouldn't want the playoff to be second season, or for a #8 team to get hot and win it all, despite its season performance. Eight teams would require four additional games, which would mean using up six bowls in all, killing the traditional regional ties. Save the bowls, keep playoff at four (actually the BCS got it right every year with its two and used the historic polls instead of a 13-person committee no better than the polls). Better yet, don't put the playoff games in bowls, either. Showcase them as nighttime separate events.
 

Maybe they’re right this year. Previous years look to be different though.
 

You don't honestly think Georgia was playing at full motivation.

This is a problem. If this is true, then that means that not making the playoff dramatically diminished the rest of the bowl games (even the previously top tier bowl games). Expanding the playoff would further diminish any remaining bowl games and the regular season. So, we'd have 8 or 12 teams in the playoff, taking up all the good bowl games, while everyone else does what? Our favorite team, the Gophers, would be doing what? College football would look very different than it does today, and even today the Rose Bowl is looked at as a consolation prize. It doesn't feel right to me. Maybe the concept will grow on me.
 

Of all the teams who should want an expanded playoff, Alabama is number one.

If they are actually far and away better than everyone like the talking heads say, then an expanded playoff would require an even larger fluke to keep them out.

Alabama has 2 national titles without Conference titles in the past few years here.
 




Top Bottom