|
Replies: 51
| visibility 1273
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 46583
Joined: 2012
|
TNET: Almost 90 percent of FBS ADs support expanding Playoff
Apr 8, 2020, 1:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [86025]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 17934
Joined: 2017
|
Is that the same 90% that usually have no chance of getting
Apr 8, 2020, 1:57 PM
|
|
in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [45853]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 11412
Joined: 2017
|
Yes***
Apr 8, 2020, 2:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [69784]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 90824
Joined: 2001
|
The simplest solution is to expand the field to eight...
Apr 8, 2020, 2:00 PM
|
|
The five Power 5 champions are automatic qualifiers
The CFP committee selects three at-large teams and then seeds the eight playoff teams
In order to eliminate the media bias, no more than two teams from any one conference
Had that format been used last year, the eight teams would likely have been (in no particular order) Clemson, LSU, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Georgia, Wisconsin, Oregon and Baylor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5016]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: The simplest solution is to expand the field to eight...
Apr 8, 2020, 2:05 PM
|
|
I agree except for inclusion of the top group of 5 team. If you are considered part of D-1 football you should have some avenue to a championship. Right now that is impossible outside of a 3 year unbeaten run. Power 5 champions, Group of 5 top ranked team and two at large selections from separate conferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [716]
TigerPulse: 100%
22
|
That's the best approach of any posited expansion solutions
Apr 8, 2020, 2:07 PM
[ in reply to The simplest solution is to expand the field to eight... ] |
|
I just worry that games will lose value that way and you will have some teams with a mulligan. I have a hard time looking at the fight for the 4th spot in the CFP right now and saying anyone fighting for that spot has a legitimate gripe over not getting a NC shot (unless we find a perfect storm of undefeated teams, or of a wide field of one-loss). It's harsh, but I didn't think CFB was really about Cinderella stories or the underdog. Maybe I'm being a stick in the mud... curious what others think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [716]
TigerPulse: 100%
22
|
Re: That's the best approach of any posited expansion solutions
Apr 8, 2020, 2:08 PM
|
|
Self-reply since I've lost my R... I meant a G5 and 2 at-large as the scenario. I misread the original post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [69784]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 90824
Joined: 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
Did we not get a mulligan when we lost to Pitt and Cuse?***
Apr 8, 2020, 2:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [69784]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 90824
Joined: 2001
|
The Cuse loss was in mid-October...
Apr 8, 2020, 3:25 PM
|
|
so there was time for the team to play their way back into the mix.
The one point loss to Pitt, which was the absolute worst officiated game I have ever witnessed, was later in the year and I think had Clemson not been ranked No. 2 going into that game and managed to win-out, the team probably doesn't make the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
So is that a "yes" answer?
Apr 8, 2020, 3:40 PM
|
|
The point is, there have been plenty of teams outside the SEC who have lost a regular season game and still made the playoffs. We've done it twice. Ohio State has done it. Oklahoma did it last year.
We can make excuses about injuries or officiating, and I agree about the Pitt game...I'd even add that we got a lot of help from other teams losing that weekend. But we did get a mulligan both times, and it was warranted. In 2017 I'd say Bama's was warranted too. They were the best team in the country all year and lost the Iron Bowl on the road while being absolutely decimated by injuries IIRC. They proved their worth in the playoff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [69784]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 90824
Joined: 2001
|
Several one loss teams have made the playoffs...
Apr 8, 2020, 4:37 PM
|
|
Nothing really unusual about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [93]
TigerPulse: 25%
10
|
Re: Some teams already get a mulligan...
Apr 8, 2020, 5:09 PM
[ in reply to Some teams already get a mulligan... ] |
|
I won't mention any names but their initial are T h e S o u t h e a s t e r n C o n f e r e n c e.
I laugh whenever our fans try to bash the SEC.
Also when our fans make excuses for that Pitt game but tell LSU fans they can’t claim 2007 because they lost that year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [404]
TigerPulse: 40%
17
|
Re: No, the simplest solution is to keep it at 4
Apr 8, 2020, 3:13 PM
|
|
How can that even be proven?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2312]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4040]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: The simplest solution is to expand the field to eight...
Apr 8, 2020, 4:01 PM
[ in reply to The simplest solution is to expand the field to eight... ] |
|
The five Power 5 champions are automatic qualifiers
The CFP committee selects three at-large teams and then seeds the eight playoff teams
In order to eliminate the media bias, no more than two teams from any one conference
Had that format been used last year, the eight teams would likely have been (in no particular order) Clemson, LSU, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Georgia, Wisconsin, Oregon and Baylor.
I like this thought - however, I'm not big on just winning your conference gets you into the dance.
If we wanna go that route just go ahead and expand to about 16-24 teams so we get all the conference champs and give the fans a helluva watch party for 4 - 5 weeks.
I WOULD be in favor of using the conference championships to help with seeding and separating the pack.
Top seeds based on team record and whether they won their conference. Use whatever metrics to sort the undefeated teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7673]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: TNET: Almost 90 percent of FBS ADs support expanding Playoff
Apr 8, 2020, 2:12 PM
|
|
Of course they are. Ik sure it sucks to constantly finish in the top 15 but never have any real chance to make the top 4. That doesn't make it a good idea or make for better football though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [117416]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
Deer lowered, the fackitry in my life time is real.
Apr 8, 2020, 2:13 PM
|
|
We have the best system in the what is College Football, we get the best 4 to insure the best 2 & then juan.
I'd bury those 90% that marginalize this fantastic, nigh amazing format and continue to make excuses to their fans instead of doing the correct thing - JUST GET BETTER!
I stopped watching that chitshow NFL after 2007, I'll bend college football over soon & give it one last go if they continue down this path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [404]
TigerPulse: 40%
17
|
Re: Deer lowered, the fackitry in my life time is real.
Apr 8, 2020, 2:42 PM
|
|
First off, the NFL is way more popular than CFB.
Second, having 130 teams compete for ONE title is absurd considering the advantage in resources some schools have.
The playoff either needs to expand or the power 5 needs to break off and have a separate national title.
Common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [117416]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
Hi moran(s)...
Apr 8, 2020, 2:50 PM
|
|
Skeeter3
Jhop83
ChiliBean2016
TinCup14
You did not get banned all those times for being controversial, you got banned for being a ####### moron.
Why Carlsbad® finds you entertaining is in direct conflict with common sense, you are an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48079]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 49059
Joined: 2004
|
Re: Hi moran(s)...
Apr 8, 2020, 5:08 PM
|
|
He used to be funnier and more subtle. Now he seems mad and just trying to be a jerk. Been bugging me too slightly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [117416]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
Yeah, it's telling.
Apr 8, 2020, 7:50 PM
|
|
Be well Carlsbad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
Who cares about popularity, if you think that was the point
Apr 8, 2020, 2:52 PM
[ in reply to Re: Deer lowered, the fackitry in my life time is real. ] |
|
then your reading comprehension is off the charts bad, Jhop.
The regular season product for college football is superior. If we're trying to figure out who the best college football team in the country is, there's no reason to extend that beyond the 4 best teams. Last year for example, there were really only 3 teams in contention, if that playoff had been 8 teams it would have been a train wreck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [117416]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
Reading comprehension? That's credit undeserved...***
Apr 8, 2020, 2:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [404]
TigerPulse: 40%
17
|
Re: Who cares about popularity, if you think that was the point
Apr 8, 2020, 3:07 PM
[ in reply to Who cares about popularity, if you think that was the point ] |
|
It was a response to DSP claiming he stopped watching NFL like anybody gives a #### what he thinks.
Playoff expansion would actually enhance the regular season across the board because more games would have playoff implications. Right now only a handful of teams are worth paying attention to.
But I wouldn’t expect you simple minded dorks to understand that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
So it was a reading comprehension problem. Got it.***
Apr 8, 2020, 3:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [117416]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
Haha, that's juan stupid pos...
Apr 8, 2020, 3:14 PM
|
|
Carlsbad®, you want to help your brother out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [404]
TigerPulse: 40%
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
History is filled with the vast majority of people being
Apr 8, 2020, 3:23 PM
|
|
wrong. What's your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [404]
TigerPulse: 40%
17
|
Re: History is filled with the vast majority of people being
Apr 8, 2020, 3:24 PM
|
|
It’s amazing CFB is inching towards what every other sport has always done, yet nobody is thinking of implementing CFB’s system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
And yet college football has the best regular season
Apr 8, 2020, 3:29 PM
|
|
of any other sport. I wonder why that is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [404]
TigerPulse: 40%
17
|
Re: And yet college football has the best regular season
Apr 8, 2020, 3:47 PM
|
|
That’s your subjective opinion.
Most early season non conference matchups turn out to be meaningless.
If the playoffs were expanded you would have dozens of teams fighting to get in the last couple weeks of the season, thus enhancing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
You mean like last year when
Apr 8, 2020, 3:59 PM
|
|
Bama, Georgia, Oregon, Oklahoma, Baylor and Wisconsin were fighting to get in the last couple weeks of the season? With Clemson, LSU and OSU fighting to win out to hold their place in the playoffs? You mean like that? So the status quo is perfect, got it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5074]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: And yet college football has the best regular season
Apr 8, 2020, 6:19 PM
[ in reply to Re: And yet college football has the best regular season ] |
|
The amount of meaningful games you’d add late in the year would be outweighed by the amount of meaningful games you’d lose with expansion. If a conference winner gets an automatic berth into a playoff, then what reason would Clemson have for scheduling OOC games against teams like Georgia, LSU, etc...?
Or when a game between two unbeaten teams late in the year like LSU and Bama is played. Yeah, they’d both want to win to ensure they win the conference and get a higher seed, but you’d pretty much know the losing team would still get in anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Icon [152666]
TigerPulse: 100%
68
Posts: 35644
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5074]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: So it was a reading comprehension problem. Got it.***
Apr 8, 2020, 6:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: So it was a reading comprehension problem. Got it.*** ] |
|
AD’s want to expand for the same reason that it’ll eventually happen...money. That’s more tickets to be sold, more advertising revenue, and more television money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Icon [152666]
TigerPulse: 100%
68
Posts: 35644
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [45853]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 11412
Joined: 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12620]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
Posts: 10344
Joined: 2006
|
Re: TNET: Almost 90 percent of FBS ADs support expanding Playoff
Apr 8, 2020, 2:29 PM
|
|
The object of the CFP is to determine the best team in college football NOT THE TOP EIGHT! As long as the #1 and #2 teams are in the four team playoff it really doesn't matter who #3 and #4 are. Yes it would be nice if we were certain if #4 is better than #5 but who cares (except #5). Out of teams #2,#3, and #4, you are usually pretty sure one of them is the second best team going into the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3824]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: TNET: Almost 90 percent of FBS ADs support expanding Playoff
Apr 8, 2020, 3:39 PM
|
|
This year we may have a shortened season anyway so how about a 128 team tournament. Only need 6-8 weeks. Play first 4 rounds then skip aweek for semis and championship game. Or play 7 conf division games plus 1 OOC and take 10 division champs plus 6 NP/others and have 2 rounds at top seed home sites and semis and championship. Only a 12 game season but last 4 weeks would be wild!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4040]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: TNET: Almost 90 percent of FBS ADs support expanding Playoff
Apr 8, 2020, 4:04 PM
|
|
This would be pretty rad.
A seat of your pants College Football March Madness
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22350]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
Is this for the Virtual
Apr 8, 2020, 4:08 PM
|
|
Playoff?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14752]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Here is how I would do it...
Apr 8, 2020, 4:22 PM
|
|
Power 5 Conference Champ = automatic bid
Last 3 slots determined by the CFP committee ranking/selection
Allow all FBS teams to schedule one pre-season scrimmage against an FCS team. This "pre-season" game can be attended by the public (i.e Colleges can sell tickets or include this as part of the season ticket package) and the games may be aired on TV. These games have no affect on future CFP rankings and do not count in any way towards the regular season.
Reduce the FBS regular season to 11 games by eliminating at least one FCS game. Rivalry week (currently week 12) would then be played in week 11 with the Conference Championship games being played on week 12 (currently week 13) of the season. Upon conclusion of the Conference Championship games, the CFP will announce the top 8 teams.
The first round of the 8 team playoff will occur in week 13 (currently the Conference Championship week) - the week following the Conference Championships. Games will be played at the higher ranked teams stadium (i.e teams ranked 1 to 4 are all home teams, teams 5 - 8 are all visiting teams).
Matchups will be as follows:
1 (home team) vs 8 (away team)
2 (home team) vs 7 (away team)
3 (home team) vs 6 (away team)
4 (home team) vs 5 (away team)
Upon conclusion of round 1 of the 8 team playoff, the CFP does a final ranking of the top 4 teams from the winners in round 1. From this point forward the current CFP model is used (i.e. 2 designated bowl games for the two playoff games and then a final Championship Game in mid January).
With this scheme there is no change to the length of the college football season (remains the same - the conference champ games just happen a week earlier than currently scheduled), no team will play more than a max of 15 games (regular season + playoff) with no changes required to the current bowl structure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20860]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 14648
Joined: 2009
|
Start by eliminating CCG's (8 - 10 teams now in postseason
Apr 8, 2020, 5:14 PM
|
|
as a hodgepodge of meaningful/meaningless games) and replace that with regular season Power 5 champs plus 3 at-large. Clear a path for an undefeated G5 team to take an at-large spot, and leave the rest of at-larges up to committee ranking as they do today.
Move this weekend back a week from current CCG scheduling and that is Round 1 at top 4 home sites two weeks after Rivalry weekend (huge incentive for 1-4 rankings and time for local prep for additional game).
Losers are lopped in with "first 4 out" from initial selection and these 8 are assigned non CFP NY6 bowls like now. This is roughly 3 weeks after Round 1 give or take.
Rest of bowl season and CFP plays out like normal, except it would be great if all semis were played on New Years Day.
The waste today is in the CCG's. Forces divisions which hurt regular season variety within these big conferences. Eliminate that - go with top regular season records for auto berths. Plenty of tie-breaker scenarios that all conferences sign off on for the auto.
Replaces current 10 teams with 8, no extra games, better regular seasons, helps game overall as all regions of country participate, plus stellar home environment match-ups in Round 1.
Also, if a G5 isn't already seeded higher, place them at a 6-seed at worse. Top 2 shouldn't have to play wild card G5 in first round.
Boom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5074]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: Start by eliminating CCG's (8 - 10 teams now in postseason
Apr 8, 2020, 6:34 PM
|
|
I don’t see any fair way to have a conference with 16 teams without divisions while playing only 8 games, or even with 9 games. Say for instance in the SEC you had a season where Georgia didn’t play against Bama or LSU. Then say that Georgia goes 8-0 in conference and the winner of the Bama/LSU game does also. For starters, how do you determine the conference winner between those 2 teams?
Or say the winner of that game ends up with a loss to another highly ranked team that Georgia also didn’t have to play. The imbalance of the schedules would be too much IMO. Sure, you get some of that even with divisions, but at least you play everyone in your division.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3824]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Start by eliminating CCG's (8 - 10 teams now in postseason
Apr 8, 2020, 6:52 PM
|
|
11 regular season games, loose 1 FCS game or schedule as a scrimage (add a spring scrimage too, helps FCS maje up $ wise ).
Take 10 Divisional champs and 6 NonP5/best of the rest to play round 1 week 12 at 8 home sites. Play round 2 week 13 and could be at host sites for conf champs or home of the top 4. Incentive to be ranked 1-4. Then semis and NCG same as now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20860]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 14648
Joined: 2009
|
The SEC used to only play 7 league games with 10
Apr 8, 2020, 8:39 PM
[ in reply to Re: Start by eliminating CCG's (8 - 10 teams now in postseason ] |
|
teams, as recently as the 1980's. Big 10 with PSU played 8 games over 11 teams until the recent CCG expansion. Not a lot of turmoil in deciding those leagues over those spans.
Concerning your SEC tiebreaker scenario, with no divisions it's likely UGA would be playing either Bama or LSU during every regular season (3 permanent rivals and rotate all the rest). Say 2 were undefeated in league play - it falls to committee rankings. If one had lost a regular season OOC game it's pretty simple. If both are undefeated then it's a ranking thing, but only for seeding - either way 2 undefeated P5 teams are getting in from the same conference, so that wouldn't factor either. The SEC could award each a shared title, but only one would qualify for the auto CFP bid. They're each likely to host as a 1-4 if undefeated also.
Divisions today are too stratified for too long as it is - it's just the nature of college programs vs the way pro leagues are set up.
Take a look at the first 6 CFP seasons and who all of the regular season league champs would have been prior to CCG weekends, and who would likely be in as an at-large. You're not gonna find anything out of line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [455]
TigerPulse: 100%
18
|
You know some version of this has to be a part of the
Apr 8, 2020, 5:26 PM
|
|
contingency plans for this year to recoup revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1722]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: TNET: Almost 90 percent of FBS ADs support expanding Playoff
Apr 8, 2020, 5:59 PM
|
|
NO
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50699]
TigerPulse: 79%
58
Posts: 36991
Joined: 2003
|
College football is going in a direction I don’t like.
Apr 8, 2020, 9:05 PM
|
|
Increasing the number of playoff teams, only to lessen the importance of the regular season, increase potential for player injury, and make many fans feel obligated to attend yet another neutral site game, is not appealing at all. Doing this with the idea that players will likely soon be paid. Not appealing at all.
I’ll still support Clemson, of course, and will watch the games. But I don’t see myself enjoying the sport as much as I could. I’d prefer to leave things as they are now.
P.S. Get off my lawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17928]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
|
At 48, I re-enrolled in a pre-med capacity
Apr 10, 2020, 10:44 PM
|
|
The changes have been crazy in having to participate in biology and chemistry labs via computer from home. The work load is at least three times as much online. You’re responsible for most of your lecture, homework, lab reports, and must keep a solid schedule. My grades in chemistry have increased a few points. My grades in biology are tracking about the same. The difference is I am spending 20 more hours involved in self motivated learning. I am set to start my Master of Medical Sciences program on the way to MD soon. I wonder where I will keep my cadaver?! My point is, if these athletes are enrolled in classes of substance, how are they finding time to put in the training needed to compete at the highest level. At least it is a level playing field as all schools are online now. But, based off of the amount of work and time that it has taken me to keep my 4.0 intact, these guys have to be overwhelmed. Unprecedented times for sure. I know Clemson sports will be back stronger than ever soon. I hope we see the 2020-21 season played. We might lose out on a year of Lawrence and Etienne. That would be the worst.
All that said, Go Tigers!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 51
| visibility 1273
|
|
|
50
