CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

billybud wrote:If either Alabama or Clemson wins this year (#1 or #2 for the 4th time out 5 playoffs)...it will just reinforce that it is really about the top two...and the other two are just there for the show.

And let's juast add more for the3 show....

How do you.......... Uh..... on second thought, never mind.

I'd say nevermind too...

When the facts are stated...and are indisputable...there is no retort.

If the number one or two seed wins this year for the 4th time in five playoffs....I'd say that the 80% win rate of 1's and 2's over 3's and 4's shows a separation. And if the trend continues over time...what we have for all intents is a three ring circus with the side rings just window dressing building interest towards the coming center ring show.

But hey!

Since bumble bees aren't supposed to be able to fly, an eight seed could prevail.....it could happen, is in the realm of possibility....as is an asteroid hitting New York next year.

I’m just a little more black and white kind of guy and prefer on the field performance measured by a scoreboard as opposed to theoretical probability when determining a champion....... although a new bowl game called “The Probabilities and Statistics Bowl” would fit nicely into the mix with #2 versus #4.

Gotta go.....

But you ignore the black and white "on the field" performance history...if it doesn't suit you?

Heck...why not include #9 and #12...who says that they wouldn't beat #8?

It is never ending....

But...there are some logistics that will have to be taken care of...to go to 8.


"Based on the initial guidelines and recommendations of the College Football Playoff Board of Managers, made up of 11 university presidents and chancellors, when the four-team playoff was implemented in 2014, the presidents were against playing the week after the conference title games (because of conflicts with final exams) or the following week (holiday breaks/Christmas) and also did not want the season extended into the spring semester (past the second Monday in January when the title game is currently held every year).

To get around those issues, some have suggested starting the season a week early (which would impact several traditional Thanksgiving weekend rivalries), reducing the regular season by one game and/or getting rid of the conference championship games, which are played the first Friday or Saturday of December.

Unless the presidents have changed their viewpoint on these items from 2014, for now, those all appear to be unrealistic solutions.

An SEC athletic director recently....said there was “less than a zero percent” chance the SEC, which was the first FBS conference to hold a conference title game, would stop playing its championship game for the sake of an eight-team playoff.

Mountainman wrote:I’m just a little more black and white kind of guy and prefer on the field performance measured by a scoreboard as opposed to theoretical probability when determining a champion....... although a new bowl game called “The Probabilities and Statistics Bowl” would fit nicely into the mix with #2 versus #4.

Gotta go.....

Still haven't heard a real reason to go to eight in a CFP...other than..."wah! Somebody is being left with no chance to win a national championship.

And if UCF got in...then #9 Washiington, who played five top 30 teams to UCF's zero, would be saying that they are the one who should get a chance.

And LSU, who played seven Top 30 to UCF's zero...when they beat UCF in the bowl...will say..."Hey, we lost three on a tougher schedule than UCF...but we are a better team at #11 than they are at #8.

billybud wrote:Heck...why not include #9 and #12...who says that they wouldn't beat #8?

It is never ending....

But...there are some logistics that will have to be taken care of...to go to 8.


"Based on the initial guidelines and recommendations of the College Football Playoff Board of Managers, made up of 11 university presidents and chancellors, when the four-team playoff was implemented in 2014, the presidents were against playing the week after the conference title games (because of conflicts with final exams) or the following week (holiday breaks/Christmas) and also did not want the season extended into the spring semester (past the second Monday in January when the title game is currently held every year).

To get around those issues, some have suggested starting the season a week early (which would impact several traditional Thanksgiving weekend rivalries), reducing the regular season by one game and/or getting rid of the conference championship games, which are played the first Friday or Saturday of December.

Unless the presidents have changed their viewpoint on these items from 2014, for now, those all appear to be unrealistic solutions.

An SEC athletic director recently....said there was “less than a zero percent” chance the SEC, which was the first FBS conference to hold a conference title game, would stop playing its championship game for the sake of an eight-team playoff.

I see no reason to go to eight either. It serves no purpose. Unless they were to go to a true tournament of champions then it would still be a subjective parings and arguments about who deserves to be in and calls to expand again. The only reason for the CFP board of managers to even look at expansion of the current model is money. Which is what moves their meter, so if it is good, they will expand if the money isn't good enough they won't. It won't be for any other reason. TV is on board with expansion, but unless TV is willing to pony up a significant amount more I doubt it will happen.

I see the reasoning of players to not play in the exhibition bowl because they don't want to risk injury in a meaningless game as a valid reason not to play. I don't think that adding games because of "deserving" teams being left out as a valid reason to expand. Actually unless they were to take subjectivity out of it entirely, I see no reason to expand. It will only increase the amount of crying that teams were left out. It won't lessen the cries.

At least my friend Mr. Billybud is alive and well.

The is why Mr. Billybud is correct; there will be no change, but not for the reasons he flaunts.

Football is not about football. It is not about the NCAA, University Presidents, Bowl Games, Students, Athletes, Parents, or Hot Dog Vendors. Football is not about sports any more than the now almost defunct Florida Jai Alai is. Multiple football bowls do not exist because they make money, most lose money. Empty stands and times when no one would want to go. Even TV is often on ESPN27 UHF. Football is not run by any visible organization such as the NCAA, the Committee or a search for fairness.

A few years back we had a great discussion on rankings and predictive methods. Mr. Congrove was kind enough to be very enlightening. Computers, the internet, the accessibility to information has made those models very accurate. For what purpose?

"In the pungent lingo from the "shylock" business—a "shylock" being a loan shark, after the character Shylock in Shakespeare’s "The Merchant of Venice." The fee that the bookies would charge on a bet is the "vig" (short for "vigorish," probably from Russian via Yiddish) or the "juice." To share the risk on big bets, a bookie may "lay off" some of the action by making a side wager with another bookie. And if a bookie low in the pecking order comes up short, then higher-up bookies like Katz and O’Brien would provide "makeup" to cover the loss. Not paying back the "makeup" could get you hurt, they testified."

The largest betting event in the United States is College Football Bowl Games!

College Football is run by Vegas. Always, follow the money.

Now back to our fantasy world of why we will never go back to regional football or have a playoff system. Will football ever end? Don't remember the Alamo, remember Florida Greyhound racing and Miami Jai Alai.

The bowls themselves may no make money, but TV makes money off the bowls and so do the schools..... and like Donovan says Vegas. Vegas would make money better whether or not they will have a bowl. They are a money machine. It is how they are set up.

Sure Vegas makes money on betting....

But you have to be a mainline conspiracy nut to think that Vegas has bloody horseheads appearing in the beds of the 11 CFP Committee members....or influences these decisions.

I don't think that folks like the Oklahoma AD, the Florida AD, the Robert Morris President, the Chair, the Oregon AD...and other members give two toots what Vegas makes money on.

That's just more hand wringing....

They do care about the FBS...and may eventually spread the playoff just to appease those programs further down the power curve.

Just like no team not in a current power basketball conference (counting the Big East as a equivalent in basketball to a P5)...except UConn coming out of the BE, has won a National Championship..... except UNLV over 40 seasons ago. But we all are thrilled that a couple of games may be won by the Cinderellas, thus blinding the masses to the fact that sitting at the table isn't partaking of the meal.

billybud wrote:But you ignore the black and white "on the field" performance history...if it doesn't suit you?

The only black and white ‘on the field’ performance history I’m interested in are two things. First is who won, and next, who did you play???

billybud wrote:

Mountainman wrote:I’m just a little more black and white kind of guy and prefer on the field performance measured by a scoreboard as opposed to theoretical probability when determining a champion....... although a new bowl game called “The Probabilities and Statistics Bowl” would fit nicely into the mix with #2 versus #4.

Gotta go.....

Still haven't heard a real reason to go to eight in a CFP...other than..."wah! Somebody is being left with no chance to win a national championship.

And if UCF got in...then #9 Washiington, who played five top 30 teams to UCF's zero, would be saying that they are the one who should get a chance.

And LSU, who played seven Top 30 to UCF's zero...when they beat UCF in the bowl...will say..."Hey, we lost three on a tougher schedule than UCF...but we are a better team at #11 than they are at #8.

Unless the selection/qualifying methods are changed, to where a team can win its way to a title, there is absolutely, from a championship perspective, no ‘real’ reason to go to eight in a CFP.

Mountainman wrote:

billybud wrote:But you ignore the black and white "on the field" performance history...if it doesn't suit you?

The only black and white ‘on the field’ performance history I’m interested in are two things. First is who won, and next, who did you play???

There you have it..."who did you play?"

There is no way a team "can win its way to the title" in football if they play a weak, weak schedule. Nor should there be IMHO>

Football's playoff includes the 12-13 games of the regular season...

It gets even more "iffy" when you move down the lists and try to distinguish between #7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

The same problems with picking the top four will be there, only magnified.

Me?...Hell..let North Dakota State,14-0, play...

After being FCS National Champion 6 of the last seven seasons...why not? It would tell us if one man's ceiling is really another man's floor....pit Clemson and SD State...let the winner play Bama.