You are getting plenty of credit.
Basically you have no proposed solution, just putdowns of other solutions. Adamantly opposed to everything. Someone said that once about me. Untrue, but I never forgot it.Cougs hold steady
- Thread starter kougkurt
- Start date
You are getting plenty of credit.
Basically you have no proposed solution, just putdowns of other solutions. Adamantly opposed to everything. Someone said that once about me. Untrue, but I never forgot it.
You are getting plenty of credit.
That's usually my forte -- lots of critique but no actual solutions.
How is it whining? How am I putting anyone down? The solution IS a 32 team playoff. The outline for the 16 team that I posted above shows how the bowls will continue to have their pageantry. For the time being, 16 teams will have extra practice time and at least 1 more game. As people whine, they will move to 32 and then more lower tier teams will have the coveted practice time and extra game(s). Simple.You are getting plenty of credit.
EDIT: And I might add, the fact that other bowls will still exist but be fairly worthless in the grand scheme of "whom is better than whom", will also financially incentivize the idea of having those bowls expand with the expansion of the playoff system.
I would love a 16 team playoff but it isn't really feasible anytime soon. The graphic looks fun, but as I said previously, you aren't going to get fans to travel three weeks in a row, so you are going to end up with a round of games with terrible attendance. 8 games with a first round at bowl games, 2nd round at higher seeded teams and a final round at a neutral site is workable.
There's no widespread appetite for 16 anytime soon. That may change in 10-15 years, but I'm guessing we go to 8 teams in the next few years in some fashion and then it's going to take a while for any other changes.
I can't stand the "there's too many bowls" hot taek. I mean, who gives a crap if a couple 6-6 teams get together to play one last game? It's great for the seniors, it's apparently ok for the Bowls, teams get extra practices, fans get another game to watch. I certainly didn't mind the opportunity for us to go to the New Mexico Bowl, and, despite the final outcome, that was a heck of a fun game to watch.
Remember when Idaho went to that bowl game with Akey? That was great. Great game, great for that program and their fans.
At some point, how many times does Alabama need to prove they're the best team in college football? So, they run their regular season schedule, they win the SEC championship game, then they have to beat Iowa St, WSU or WVU, then Michigan, then Clemson?
I get the argument for 8 teams, but I don't think Iowa St, Texas & Penn St need the opportunity to prove they're not the best team in the country. They proved that by losing 3 times.
I think this is the one silver bullet to any playoff system beyond 16. The punishment for the top teams to continually play would be murder. I think you've pointed out a VERY compelling argument.
And to counter that, maybe have it like the Wild Card in Baseball. The 4 lowest teams play while the Top 12 or 8 (or however you wanted to arrange it) could sit out... ? Meh. I don't know. I'll have to mull that one over for a while.
Yeah, same. I remember the dark days when I would have given just about anything to be in any bowl game. I also really like having all the bowls on TV, even if they are just a decent MAC team playing a MWC team or something like that. I don't watch every game or anything, but I love watching college football, and it's fun watching some teams/players you normally don't see, or playing unusual matchups, with it much better than the alternative of NBA basketball, the Food Network, the aforementioned Golden Girls re-runs, or whatever.
You could, or you could just not HAVE to include 16 teams. I mean, why? Iowa St is 6-3 right now. Why do they need to be included?
I'm certain I'm in the minority, but honestly, I'll probably be more interested in watching Oregon or Cal or ASU in a bowl than I will be watching Alabama destroy Notre Dame.
While I get the Iowa State argument, I'd probably go along with the reason you like to sit and watch bowl games of teams you don't normally watch.
I truly do believe that as the playoff system expands, it will bring in other bowls. They won't create MORE games, they'll just organize and rearrange existing bowls.
Certainly understandable position and I respect your opinion. I've always thought expanding post season opportunities...while good for a greater number of teams...diminishes the whole of a regular season. Again, if you can't win more than half of your games, why should there be a reward at the end of the season? I feel the same way when an under .500 NBA team makes the playoffs. I don't feel they really earned it. But when you get right down to it....I shouldn't care and I really don't enough to argue very strongly about it.
Glad Cougar
I suppose at some point money will talk and these bowl games against a .500 Sisters of the Poor Vs. Southeast Northwestern Southern Carolina Dakota will either swim or sink. Myself, I don't see any value in them as they have zero bearing on the outcome of the top 25 or have any national relevance. To Fab5's point, I get that the games are great for the players and their fanbase, but that being the case, how about a bowl game for every team? Why stop at the roughly 2/3s of the D1 teams getting to participate in bowls? So yeah, I agree that a football game against some nobodies is better than Sally Jesse Raphael reruns, but is that really saying much?
