Embrace it!

Donate To GopherHole
"Athletes are entitled to a percentage of the proceeds from the sales of their jerseys in the campus bookstore!" Said by idiot adults, believed by idiot adults, and now we have the current crap show. I believe in Capitalism as much as anyone , am a Conservative's Conservative...but the numbnutted people who support this current crap show are idiots.
 

NCAA football is turning into ncaa basketball in that tuning into the regular season is much less exciting, but the problem is that the ncaa football playoff will never have the excitement and drama of the ncaa basketball tournament. So the weekly excitement of the regular season where a championship was at stake every Saturday was traded for a boring post season experience that gets more boring as it expands. The Cinderella runs will be so far and few between.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Yeah....to score a big upset in football you usually need the more talented team to help by making mistakes (turnovers, key penalties). In basketball an upset can happen much easier just based on how guys are shooting on a given night.
Click to expand...
Even easier on soccer and hockey because of how few goals are scored.
 




Crosby said:
Yes, I agree that it's much easier for this to happen in basketball. But upsets happen in football all the time, including an occasional game with 20+ point spreads.
Click to expand...

But that Michigan team that beat tOSU when they were 23.5 pt underdogs wasn't a small G5 team. They were a B1G team with B1G athletes.

I guess if you go back to the 2006 season, you had Boise St beating Oklahoma. Ok fine, but it took a handful of miracle plays and overtime. For every game like that, you'll have 100+ Ole Miss/Tulane beat-downs before seeing the next one, if you ever do see another one.

Crosby said:
The only argument here is whether you are trying to get the true 12 best teams in CFB in the playoff . Or... is the objective to get the best field possible, while giving SOME consideration to conference affiliation? If it's the former, then we might as well just take the top 12 ranked teams. If it's the latter, then it seems to me that there has to be some consideration for Group of Five teams. Otherwise, why not break all of FBS apart limit the playoffs to Power 4 teams? Might be the direction we go anyway.
Click to expand...
Neither one is a good option. If you take the true 12 best teams, it'd be great to not have to watch G5 beat-downs, but then you're letting in P4 teams with 3 losses. If you do the other, you end up with yearly mismatches between P4 and G5 teams that hardly anyone will care for.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
But that Michigan team that beat tOSU when they were 23.5 pt underdogs wasn't a small G5 team. They were a B1G team with B1G athletes.

I guess if you go back to the 2006 season, you had Boise St beating Oklahoma. Ok fine, but it took a handful of miracle plays and overtime. For every game like that, you'll have 100+ Ole Miss/Tulane beat-downs before seeing the next one, if you ever do see another one.


Neither one is a good option. If you take the true 12 best teams, it'd be great to not have to watch G5 beat-downs, but then you're letting in P4 teams with 3 losses. If you do the other, you end up with yearly mismatches between P4 and G5 teams that hardly anyone will care for.
Click to expand...
That's right. Except I would rephrase it to "neither one is the perfect option." So what do you do? Just abandon the playoff? In my opinion, having a playoff is much better than the old bowl system, even if it has its flaws. It won't be perfect as no tournament/playoff ever is.
 

Crosby said:
That's right. Except I would rephrase it to "neither one is the perfect option." So what do you do? Just abandon the playoff?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would. You had a system lots of people loved. Half the teams and their fans got to end the season with a win. Not much arguing about where teams were placed.

Now, the one thing a lot of people seem to agree on is that the number of teams needs to change - but they can't even agree on the direction, expand or contract. That should tell you the state of flux that this mess is in.

Crosby said:
In my opinion, having a playoff is much better than the old bowl system, even if it has its flaws. It won't be perfect as no tournament/playoff ever is.
Click to expand...
Besides making sure Tulane got their shot, what would you say is better about it? Not trying to be argumentative, but I can't think of a single thing. I'm certainly done with college football by mid-January and I don't even bother to see which two teams are still "alive".

This is like giving the "new Coca Cola" to someone who absolutely LOVED the old flavor. (Not sure if you're old enough to get the reference.)
 

USAF said:
Who TF doesn't like baseball??

The most perfectly designed game ever devised by man.
Ground ball to deep short was a close play 150 years ago, still is. No clock. Bases can be earned, or stolen, or given away by error. Perfectly struck baseballs can be turned into outs by luck or good play, and vice versa.

Perfectly designed
Click to expand...
Not America's past time anymore. It's football and its literally not even close.
 



GopherTheJugular said:
Yeah, I would. You had a system lots of people loved. Half the teams and their fans got to end the season with a win. Not much arguing about where teams were placed.

Now, the one thing a lot of people seem to agree on is that the number of teams needs to change - but they can't even agree on the direction, expand or contract. That should tell you the state of flux that this mess is in.


Besides making sure Tulane got their shot, what would you say is better about it? Not trying to be argumentative, but I can't think of a single thing. I'm certainly done with college football by mid-January and I don't even bother to see which two teams are still "alive".

This is like giving the "new Coca Cola" to someone who absolutely LOVED the old flavor. (Not sure if you're old enough to get the reference.)
Click to expand...
I guess the obvious thing is that you actually play for a championship, and it requires you to win at least a few games, like every other sport on the planet. And yes, I personally do like it that teams from the Group of 5 have a shot. I find it way more intriguing than the old bowl system.
 


USAF said:
*pastime

Agreed, but baseball is the much, much better designed sport. There's no accounting for poor taste
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but that's all subjective. IMO, I would favor soccer. It is simple but has very complex strategies and is much more fluid than baseball. Has possibly the lowest barrier to entry and is the most popular sport in the world - and for good reason.

Football is all designed and tailored for TV. Comparing it to baseball from a design standpoint is apples to oranges. Cricket on the other hand is not. Curious what your thoughts are on that. Apologies for the pushback, I've just never given much weight to a sport being "well designed".

In retrospect, you originally said game and then changed to sport. The most beautifully designed game is chess - thousands of years old, infinite possibilities, impossible to solve, pure skill.
 

DrunkDons said:
Fair enough, but that's all subjective. IMO, I would favor soccer. It is simple but has very complex strategies and is much more fluid than baseball. Has possibly the lowest barrier to entry and is the most popular sport in the world - and for good reason.

Football is all designed and tailored for TV. Comparing it to baseball from a design standpoint is apples to oranges. Cricket on the other hand is not. Curious what your thoughts are on that. Apologies for the pushback, I've just never given much weight to a sport being "well designed".

In retrospect, you originally said game and then changed to sport. The most beautifully designed game is chess - thousands of years old, infinite possibilities, impossible to solve, pure skill.
Click to expand...
Good call on chess.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom