CFP thread

Do you feel the same way about college basketball? Is 64 teams way too much and they should cut it down to 16 teams instead?
Upsets are more likely in college basketball. There is also a much bigger talent gap between upper level and mid majors in football than basketball.

There is no reason to go to 24 teams. It’s absurd. The fact the BIG is pushing this is not a surprise. They are consumed by money more so than other conferences. They were all in provide equity until Michigan and USC spoke up.
 
Lol. 12 teams is “too many”, yet 3 years ago the 13-16th ranked team won it all in Basketball.

I also know that in 1985, Villanova who was the 29th-32nd overall team won it.

So your criteria doesn’t hold water at all, and you would regularly exclude the true champions from the playoffs.
What doesn’t hold water is comparing college football to basketball. Less players, talent more spread out, in basketball one great player can carry a team for games, etc.

Going beyond 68 teams like some have suggested in basketball would also be dumb.
 
Joel Klatt pointed this out............. the BIG has no desire about fairness or opening up the playoff to more teams. It's about money.

Per him, the way the playoff contract is written, if the field opens up beyond 16 teams, it triggers a clause that requires the playoff TV contract to go back out for bid which means ESPN could lose the playoffs. The BIG is aligned with Fox and to a lesser extent NBC, and FOX has said they want another chance at the playoffs. So all this appears to be, per Klatt, the BIG pushing for expansion because of their partnership with FOX and their own self interests.

Makes sense why the SEC wants to stop at 16.
 
16 has always been the correct number for CFP:

Lose hurtful Byes
Land home games for top seeds.
Keep conf championship games
Meaningful conference seasons
Ensure you get 10 best teams even with poor team evaluations.

NCAA tourney is magical and 64 is proper number but they do not need to add more teams.

Both tourneys job is the same:
Make money
Entertain us.
Provide elite competition.
Crown a tested and true champion that beats all comers
 
Maybe. I think money talks and that's why Bama had 3 losses.
Well, Texas also had 3 losses. Nobody has more money to spend than they do. OSU spent the most and had the same end result as Bama. So money isn't everything.

I think a lot of this simply comes down to the play of the QB. In the playoff, the 2 best QBs have been Mendoza and Carson Beck. Thats your national title game.
 
Lol. 12 teams is “too many”, yet 3 years ago the 13-16th ranked team won it all in Basketball.

I also know that in 1985, Villanova who was the 29th-32nd overall team won it.

So your criteria doesn’t hold water at all, and you would regularly exclude the true champions from the playoffs.
I know you really never bother to think this through, but here it is

IF even in basketball where if you have five really good starters you could go very far, the lowest seed to win it all is at best for all time maybe 30th, what does that say about football when you need four times as many good to top players?

just how many schools could possibly at any one time have that many?

at BEST half of that, right?

you willing to think on this logically then roman circus fixation?
 
Well, Texas also had 3 losses. Nobody has more money to spend than they do. OSU spent the most and had the same end result as Bama. So money isn't everything.

I think a lot of this simply comes down to the play of the QB. In the playoff, the 2 best QBs have been Mendoza and Carson Beck. Thats your national title game.
coaching dude
that is way more often the difference then QB
 
Lol. 12 teams is “too many”, yet 3 years ago the 13-16th ranked team won it all in Basketball.

I also know that in 1985, Villanova who was the 29th-32nd overall team won it.

So your criteria doesn’t hold water at all, and you would regularly exclude the true champions from the playoffs.
And why shouldn't teams have their chaance? Did the Panthers deserve to be in the playoffs? I mean, they had zero shot at winning a super bowl, why let them in?

College football fans are a different breed. They crack me up w/ their little spiel of "well they can't win it anyway so they shouldn't be allowed in."

Why? This is the only sporting event where people say that, and they say it so much I think they start believing it.
 
I know you really never bother to think this through, but here it is

IF even in basketball where if you have five really good starters you could go very far, the lowest seed to win it all is at best for all time maybe 30th, what does that say about football when you need four times as many good to top players?

just how many schools could possibly at any one time have that many?

at BEST half of that, right?

you willing to think on this logically then roman circus fixation?
True, but why would that be a reason to limit who gets in? Why not let 16 in and let them have their shot?
 
coaching dude
that is way more often the difference then QB
Crystobal couldn't win in Miami until they purchased the services of Carson Beck. Thats the difference. Same with OSU. Sayin was not good enough this year. Same coaching staff and loaded roster. Different result. This is true in the NFL. Show me a HOF coach and i'll show you the hall of fame QB who got him there...... Brady settled this debate when he won in Tampa while Belechek imploded without him.


So, I disagree.
 
I think Miami has a very good chance to defeat Indiana tonight so we will see but I would not be surprised if Indiana wins tonight since Indiana has been the best team all year, I am hoping for a close hard fought game tonight!
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,017
Messages
14,506,910
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top