Football Home Game
Sat, August 31, 2024
Sat, August 31, 2024
Basketball Home Game
Fri, November 1, 2024
Fri, November 1, 2024
CFP to 8 discussion
-
- Posts: 14098
- Joined: December 15th, 2010, 6:29 pm
- Has thanked: 4383 times
- Been thanked: 4018 times
CFP to 8 discussion
Looks like this is a possibility in the next 5 years. It would be a big deal to at least get a foot in the door for g5 conferences. I think it would also add a lot of money and intrigue.
-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 19233
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 23202 times
- Been thanked: 14831 times
- Contact:
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
I think this is absolutely something that MUST happen. College basketball has a much more diverse top-end talent pool and because of that it has more open doors to the championship but there are more than just four top tier teams in college football and adding at LEAST four more deserving teams to the equation needs to happen. I wouldn't mind seeing 12 to 16 possibly?
On another note, I HATE the selection committee process. In my opinion, the BCS did what it was supposed to do for the most part. It took the biased human element out of the process and paired the top teams. I'm sure there could be a few tweaks to fine-tune the system and create something similar to what college basketball used this season to weigh the gravity of teams wins and losses. Bring something like that back!
On another note, I HATE the selection committee process. In my opinion, the BCS did what it was supposed to do for the most part. It took the biased human element out of the process and paired the top teams. I'm sure there could be a few tweaks to fine-tune the system and create something similar to what college basketball used this season to weigh the gravity of teams wins and losses. Bring something like that back!
-
- Posts: 3384
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 9:11 am
- Has thanked: 180 times
- Been thanked: 1221 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
This is your reminder that college football does not have a playoff, it has an invitational. When there is no clear criteria for making it into the four-team tournament, how can you call it anything other than an invitational?
This of course serves the purposes of the NCAA, who don't want to establish criteria that instantly rule out about half of its FBS membership, leaving the door open for anti-trust litigation.
This of course serves the purposes of the NCAA, who don't want to establish criteria that instantly rule out about half of its FBS membership, leaving the door open for anti-trust litigation.
- These users thanked the author YoungBloodAggie for the post (total 2):
- aggies22 • Aglicious
Jordan Nathan’s ACTUAL #1 Fan
-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 19233
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 23202 times
- Been thanked: 14831 times
- Contact:
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
I like that. I've never thought of it that way. I don't think it's the way it should be done but what you are saying is true. Well done!YoungBloodAggie wrote: ↑July 17th, 2019, 7:09 amThis is your reminder that college football does not have a playoff, it has an invitational. When there is no clear criteria for making it into the four-team tournament, how can you call it anything other than an invitational?
This of course serves the purposes of the NCAA, who don't want to establish criteria that instantly rule out about half of its FBS membership, leaving the door open for anti-trust litigation.
-
- RIP
- Posts: 1861
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:34 pm
- Has thanked: 922 times
- Been thanked: 355 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
I agree that the invitational would be much better with 8. it would be a good thing for the G-5 members.
I do wonder how USU fans would support the school if we had gone to a playoff when G.A. had the season where if we had scored 7 or 8 more points and gone unbeaten. Could we bring 30-40,000 fans and a large T.V. audience to a game like the Fiesta Bowl ? How would a sunbelt or Mac team do in this new playoff system ?
I do wonder how USU fans would support the school if we had gone to a playoff when G.A. had the season where if we had scored 7 or 8 more points and gone unbeaten. Could we bring 30-40,000 fans and a large T.V. audience to a game like the Fiesta Bowl ? How would a sunbelt or Mac team do in this new playoff system ?
-
- Posts: 14098
- Joined: December 15th, 2010, 6:29 pm
- Has thanked: 4383 times
- Been thanked: 4018 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
Good question. I think we might get closer to 20k? But have no idea.oleblu111 wrote: ↑July 17th, 2019, 9:07 amI agree that the invitational would be much better with 8. it would be a good thing for the G-5 members.
I do wonder how USU fans would support the school if we had gone to a playoff when G.A. had the season where if we had scored 7 or 8 more points and gone unbeaten. Could we bring 30-40,000 fans and a large T.V. audience to a game like the Fiesta Bowl ? How would a sunbelt or Mac team do in this new playoff system ?
If it were 8, would it be beneficial to do the first round at the higher ranked school? There was discussion this year for the national championship that because you have to travel the week before it makes it hard to make the championship etc.
- Naked Bull Rider
- Posts: 609
- Joined: July 10th, 2015, 11:15 am
- Has thanked: 87 times
- Been thanked: 215 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
I agree, but hated the BCS bowls having the AQ tie-ins. Pitt went 8-3 to win the Big East and face Utah in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl. There were more deserving teams that should've been squaring off with the Utes that day.aggies22 wrote: ↑July 17th, 2019, 6:43 amOn another note, I HATE the selection committee process. In my opinion, the BCS did what it was supposed to do for the most part. It took the biased human element out of the process and paired the top teams. I'm sure there could be a few tweaks to fine-tune the system and create something similar to what college basketball used this season to weigh the gravity of teams wins and losses. Bring something like that back!
-
- Posts: 949
- Joined: January 31st, 2015, 4:31 pm
- Has thanked: 128 times
- Been thanked: 375 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
Beautifully said.YoungBloodAggie wrote: ↑July 17th, 2019, 7:09 amThis is your reminder that college football does not have a playoff, it has an invitational. When there is no clear criteria for making it into the four-team tournament, how can you call it anything other than an invitational?
-
- Posts: 949
- Joined: January 31st, 2015, 4:31 pm
- Has thanked: 128 times
- Been thanked: 375 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
I agree. The whole point of the playoffs is to have teams settle it on the field to see who is the best team in the country. The selection committee process completely mitigates that.aggies22 wrote: ↑July 17th, 2019, 6:43 am
On another note, I HATE the selection committee process. In my opinion, the BCS did what it was supposed to do for the most part. It took the biased human element out of the process and paired the top teams. I'm sure there could be a few tweaks to fine-tune the system and create something similar to what college basketball used this season to weigh the gravity of teams wins and losses. Bring something like that back!
The fact the UCF went undefeated for 2 season with and impressive bowl win against Auburn last year, and they weren't even CONSIDERED for a playoff spot shows how flawed the system is. Granted I know they lost to LSU, but the fact still remains that they at least earned a chance to play for the title, but weren't even given a shot.
It's time to expand the playoffs.
- flying_scotsman2.0
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 12:29 pm
- Location: The Mighty City-State of Roy, Utah
- Has thanked: 5637 times
- Been thanked: 2182 times
- BigBlueDart
- Pick'em Champ - '17 FB Predict the Score
- Posts: 9093
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 7:57 am
- Location: Syracuse, UT
- Has thanked: 252 times
- Been thanked: 1029 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
Anything more than 16 is a logistical nightmare. I'd really like an 8 team playoff, but I think 12 might be the sweet spot for me.
-
- Posts: 3384
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 9:11 am
- Has thanked: 180 times
- Been thanked: 1221 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
We've got the numbers to put on a 128-team playoff and I'm not sure why we aren't taking advantage.
- These users thanked the author YoungBloodAggie for the post:
- flying_scotsman2.0
Jordan Nathan’s ACTUAL #1 Fan
CFP to 8 discussion
Nothing is going to change for at least 5 more years, I personally like 4, as it does not water down regular season. Regardless if it is 4 or 8, the G5 are staying home.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 3384
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 9:11 am
- Has thanked: 180 times
- Been thanked: 1221 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
Water down the regular season? Alabama played The Citadel last year.
Jordan Nathan’s ACTUAL #1 Fan
- JSHarvey
- Posts: 2242
- Joined: April 2nd, 2013, 12:45 pm
- Location: Sandy, UT
- Has thanked: 3496 times
- Been thanked: 350 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
Guarantee the following: one spot to the highest rated G5 conference champion, spots for the P5 conference champions, and spots for the two remaining highest ranked teams (preferably ranked by computers) that are still left out. Use a standard ranked seeding tournament format.
I don't think the above will happen though - the P5 conferences will still cook the books regardless of the number of teams allowed.
I don't think the above will happen though - the P5 conferences will still cook the books regardless of the number of teams allowed.
"The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it." Lawrence Krauss
"Thinking is the hardest work there is, that's why so few people do it!" Henry Ford
"Thinking is the hardest work there is, that's why so few people do it!" Henry Ford
- GeoAg
- Moderator
- Posts: 8566
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:09 am
- Has thanked: 292 times
- Been thanked: 1691 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
8 with 5 AQ P5 champs, highest ranked G5 champ, and 2 at-large. Book it.
"You guys have sacrificed in ways you've never sacrificed before. You've given more. You expect more...Tonight is our opportunity to write the story of who this family, who this program, who this team will be" -Coach Blake Anderson
- AggieFBObsession
- Posts: 3162
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 12:15 pm
- Has thanked: 6572 times
- Been thanked: 1212 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
I could be interested in that. It'd be an upgrade from anything seen before. However I still like the 16 team with all champs being rewarded with a real chance and at-larges. Just make sure that the big bowls get the best games.
- thegreendalegelf
- Posts: 993
- Joined: August 18th, 2017, 3:26 pm
- Has thanked: 969 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
My issue with 16 is similar to my issue with 8 but much much worse. Every year, at least one of the two semifinals is a blowout and not entertaining. Expanding to 8 or 16 would mean that there are likely to be more blowouts. I do think 8 is the way to go. But including the CUSA champ that last year would have been UAB who lost 41-20 to A&M and whose best win was...beating North Texas by 8? Is not going to make for an entertaining series of games. Most of the early round will be blowouts and not worth it. With 8, most of the match ups will be pretty even and the teams will have to "earn" it.AggieFBObsession wrote: ↑July 19th, 2019, 9:58 amI could be interested in that. It'd be an upgrade from anything seen before. However I still like the 16 team with all champs being rewarded with a real chance and at-larges. Just make sure that the big bowls get the best games.
I am cool with the idea that the top 2 G5 teams play a play-in game. So last year UCF vs Fresno State. It is tough logistically, but boy would that be a fun game.
But last years 9 team playoff (7 + 2 in playin) would have been
Fresno State at UCF for the 8 seed <- Really Good
8 UCF at 1 Bama <- Probably Ugly but great story
7 Michigan at 2 Clemson <- Ugly
6 Ohio State at 3 Notre Dame <- Good
5 Georgia at 4 Oklahoma <- Great
which would be a pretty good setup. But for 16 it would have looked like
16. App State 10-2(Sun Belt) at 1. Bama (SEC) <- Ugly
15. N. Illinois 8-5 (MAC) at 2. Clemson (ACC) <- Ugly
14. UAB 10-3 (CUSA) at 3. Notre Dame 12-0 <- Ugly
13. Fresno State 11-2(MW) at 4. Oklahoma (Big 12) <- could be good
12. Penn State 9-3 at 5. Georgia 11-2 <- Good
11. LSU 9-3 at 6. Ohio State (Big 10) <- Good
10. Florida 9-3 at 7. Michigan 10-2 <- They played it was 41-15 Florida
9. Washington (PAC12) at 8. UCF (AAC) <- Really Good
then its
8. UCF at 1. Bama
10. Florida at 2. Clemson
6. Ohio State at 3. Notre Dame
5. Georgia at 4. Oklahoma
So instead of having 4 extra bad games for nearly the same results, especially considering who is likely to go to the final, have it be 8 where everyone gets a real shot but it isn't watered down. Also expanding to 16 removes the value of a team winning their conference championship even more. In this years 16 it would have had 4 teams from the SEC in the top 16. If you don't have the g5 qualifiers, it would have been Wazzu, Kentucky, Texas, and West Viriginia sneaking in with Utah just outside the line with 2 more SEC teams. The value of top team matchups loses so much value. Keep it at the 5 P5 champs, top G5/play in, and 2 at larges.
- AggieFBObsession
- Posts: 3162
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 12:15 pm
- Has thanked: 6572 times
- Been thanked: 1212 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
"My issue with 16 is similar to my issue with 8 but much much worse. Every year, at least one of the two semifinals is a blowout and not entertaining. "
There should be blowouts when seeding teams. That's part of the refiners fire. However until the game is played we don't know that it will be a blowout, especially if the teams have never faced each other that year. There's always upsets in every tournament since the beginning of tournaments. That's why it needs to be decided on the field.
And pick 8 teams and I'm sure we'll be able to make an argument for why more teams should've been invited. You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere and I've always believed in inviting all conference champs because that's the nearest to letting it be decided on the field to any other format.
There should be blowouts when seeding teams. That's part of the refiners fire. However until the game is played we don't know that it will be a blowout, especially if the teams have never faced each other that year. There's always upsets in every tournament since the beginning of tournaments. That's why it needs to be decided on the field.
And pick 8 teams and I'm sure we'll be able to make an argument for why more teams should've been invited. You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere and I've always believed in inviting all conference champs because that's the nearest to letting it be decided on the field to any other format.
-
- Posts: 949
- Joined: January 31st, 2015, 4:31 pm
- Has thanked: 128 times
- Been thanked: 375 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
I agree. You have to let them play it out on the field. Give the opportunity for an upset. That's what makes March Maddness so much fun.AggieFBObsession wrote: ↑July 19th, 2019, 11:17 am"My issue with 16 is similar to my issue with 8 but much much worse. Every year, at least one of the two semifinals is a blowout and not entertaining. "
There should be blowouts when seeding teams. That's part of the refiners fire. However until the game is played we don't know that it will be a blowout, especially if the teams have never faced each other that year. There's always upsets in every tournament since the beginning of tournaments. That's why it needs to be decided on the field.
And pick 8 teams and I'm sure we'll be able to make an argument for why more teams should've been invited. You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere and I've always believed in inviting all conference champs because that's the nearest to letting it be decided on the field to any other format.
- BigBlueDart
- Pick'em Champ - '17 FB Predict the Score
- Posts: 9093
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 7:57 am
- Location: Syracuse, UT
- Has thanked: 252 times
- Been thanked: 1029 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
12 teams. Auto-berth for all P5 conference champions. Top-ranked G5 team gets in. In addition any G5 conference champion ranked higher than, say, 16? gets in. Remaining slots go to teams based on ranking. Seeding based on ranking. Top 4 seeds get 1st round bye.
In addition, all playoff games will be at bowl game locations. Locations for each game will be bid out to bowls in advance (a year?).
In addition, all playoff games will be at bowl game locations. Locations for each game will be bid out to bowls in advance (a year?).
-
- Posts: 3384
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 9:11 am
- Has thanked: 180 times
- Been thanked: 1221 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
If you are going to four rounds of playoffs, you should have higher seeds host for the first two weeks.BigBlueDart wrote: ↑July 19th, 2019, 3:01 pm12 teams. Auto-berth for all P5 conference champions. Top-ranked G5 team gets in. In addition any G5 conference champion ranked higher than, say, 16? gets in. Remaining slots go to teams based on ranking. Seeding based on ranking. Top 4 seeds get 1st round bye.
In addition, all playoff games will be at bowl game locations. Locations for each game will be bid out to bowls in advance (a year?).
Jordan Nathan’s ACTUAL #1 Fan
- BigBlueDart
- Pick'em Champ - '17 FB Predict the Score
- Posts: 9093
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 7:57 am
- Location: Syracuse, UT
- Has thanked: 252 times
- Been thanked: 1029 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
I definitely thought about that, but then that's not how they do it in the basketball tournament. They use pre-designated venues for all rounds.YoungBloodAggie wrote: ↑July 19th, 2019, 3:11 pmIf you are going to four rounds of playoffs, you should have higher seeds host for the first two weeks.BigBlueDart wrote: ↑July 19th, 2019, 3:01 pm12 teams. Auto-berth for all P5 conference champions. Top-ranked G5 team gets in. In addition any G5 conference champion ranked higher than, say, 16? gets in. Remaining slots go to teams based on ranking. Seeding based on ranking. Top 4 seeds get 1st round bye.
In addition, all playoff games will be at bowl game locations. Locations for each game will be bid out to bowls in advance (a year?).
-
- Posts: 3384
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 9:11 am
- Has thanked: 180 times
- Been thanked: 1221 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
They are also able to provide fans two rounds of competition in the same weekend. And early rounds aren’t in 80,000 seat stadiums.BigBlueDart wrote: ↑July 19th, 2019, 3:19 pmI definitely thought about that, but then that's not how they do it in the basketball tournament. They use pre-designated venues for all rounds.YoungBloodAggie wrote: ↑July 19th, 2019, 3:11 pmIf you are going to four rounds of playoffs, you should have higher seeds host for the first two weeks.BigBlueDart wrote: ↑July 19th, 2019, 3:01 pm12 teams. Auto-berth for all P5 conference champions. Top-ranked G5 team gets in. In addition any G5 conference champion ranked higher than, say, 16? gets in. Remaining slots go to teams based on ranking. Seeding based on ranking. Top 4 seeds get 1st round bye.
In addition, all playoff games will be at bowl game locations. Locations for each game will be bid out to bowls in advance (a year?).
Jordan Nathan’s ACTUAL #1 Fan
-
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: March 11th, 2011, 9:12 pm
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1884 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
I like 8. P-5 auto bids, best G5 champ, 2 at-larges.
The only real benefit I see of 16 teams is to make the post season more interesting. Right now bowls that we’d dream about do not matter. It’s just not that interesting to see 6-6 B1G team play a 7-5 SEC team. But those are big money bowls.
If those bowls had consequences through playoffs then the bowls would be better to watch as opposed to the gimmicky bowls we have now.
The biggest issue I have is the committee.
It wasn’t the BCS computer rankings that were the big issue back in the day- it was that there were only 2 teams that could possibly compete.
The NCAA is probably in my view more so now than ever in violation of anti-trust law.
They have a committee made up of P5 blue blood school ADs, deciding that their institutions should be in, while keeping others out. Computers are at least an objective algorithm.
The only real benefit I see of 16 teams is to make the post season more interesting. Right now bowls that we’d dream about do not matter. It’s just not that interesting to see 6-6 B1G team play a 7-5 SEC team. But those are big money bowls.
If those bowls had consequences through playoffs then the bowls would be better to watch as opposed to the gimmicky bowls we have now.
The biggest issue I have is the committee.
It wasn’t the BCS computer rankings that were the big issue back in the day- it was that there were only 2 teams that could possibly compete.
The NCAA is probably in my view more so now than ever in violation of anti-trust law.
They have a committee made up of P5 blue blood school ADs, deciding that their institutions should be in, while keeping others out. Computers are at least an objective algorithm.
- brownjeans
- Flatulent
- Posts: 18612
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
- Has thanked: 951 times
- Been thanked: 1739 times
Re: CFP to 8 discussion
Bowls with highest purses get to host the playoff games - tradition be damned. Let them compete for the privilege. Don't like that Mr. Big-shot bowl? Then make sure you keep your purse high.
Capitalism, it's what's for dinner.
Capitalism, it's what's for dinner.