re: Why not in favor of playoff.

Leave it alone! I can't afford to go to 3 playoff games. This is not basketball with 2000 fans traveling to the NCAA regionals with 2 games in one building. This is 30000 fans trying to go to Miami, then Dallas, then Atlanta. It will never work.

quote:

---

Isn't this the same problem now? 1-Loss Team A wants to be in over 1-Loss Team B?

---

Exactly. So why not let a few more deserving teams fight for a chance at the Nat'l Championship?

quote:

---

Exactly. So why not let a few more deserving teams fight for a chance at the Nat'l Championship?

---

If you open that window then it will be, as the other guy said "well we are more deserving than them" still. The argument for who is #2 is WAY more solid than who is #4, #5 etc. Much bigger gap

quote:

---

I posted this in the thread at SEC Rant...

College Football Playoff would be bad thing.

First of all, how do you decide which teams get in? Are we talking about the top 4 teams or the top 8 teams? What about the 5th and the 9th who might be .0001 points behind the 4th or 8th place teams? Computer formulas will still be used to calculate which teams get in; they have to be. Coaches poll is so damn stupid: coaches don't watch every damn game to determine who's the better teams. Sportswriters are biased. West Coast Press sucks West Coast Team Dicks. ESPN sucks USC dick.

Strength of schedule MUST be used as one of the parameters. If it's not, conferences would suffer. What would keep a strong team from leaving a conference and playing nothing but patsies? Just schedule North Texas, Tulane, Rice, UAB, etc. and go undefeated. Could a team with the weakest schedule of all go undefeated then claim they're the best?

Secondly, how much money do the fans have? Can you afford to take off of work and travel to see your team play in the playoffs for 3 games? If not, do you go to the first game only and not the others? Do you wait to see if your team wins the first round before traveling? What if they lose? How many people would make that decision? This does not bode well for teams with strong fan bases that follow the team, i.e. the SEC.

I MIGHT be in favor of a +1 format but that's about it.

No matter what, there will ALWAYS be controversy. Most of it contrived, but controversy nonetheless.

---

Pretty much none of what you said makes any sense. You're concerned about the 5th or 9th team in a playoff - how about the 3rd team in the current system? Your arguments against the playoff are the same ones that exist under the current system but are magnified as only two teams get in.

If USC has such a media advantage, please explain why they have not been in the championship game in spite of having the same number of losses as the eventual champion (two in 2007 and one last year)?

Lastly, how has the traveling issue worked out for the NCAA basketball tournament?

quote:

---

If there were a playoff then what on gods earth would we argue about.

---

Why certain teams got in and others didn't. How many starters Florida will rest against Florida State.

quote:

---

You can't say it is magnified at all. Generally you have what...3 teams, 4 tops arguing for the 2 spots. You open it up to 4 or 8 and you have more teams arguing. There are always more 1-loss teams than there are 2-loss teams (obviously). So instead of having 4 teams vying for 2 spots you will have 10-15 teams shooting for 8 and considering they will have at most 2 losses, the argument becomes harder to make.

---

Yes, you can because it is. I'm not saying there won't be some controversy (this even exists with the NCAA basketball tournament), but it's less of an issue when you're arguing about who should be 8 versus 9 as opposed to 2 versus 3. If you don't see that, then you're just being dense.

I believe there are some good arguments against a playoff, I just think that one is very weak.

Also, the money that would be passed down to the schools due to those extra games would more than cover the team traveling costs.

You only have a right to complain about no play-off if you go undefeated and are left out, I am for a plus one in this case.

quote:

---

Lastly, how has the traveling issue worked out for the NCAA basketball tournament?

---

That was already pointed out. 2000 traveling fans for basketball is very different from 30,000 traveling fans for football. One city can host multiple schools for basketball but not for football.

In basketball you can play two games in 3 days with no problem. In football you need a week between games and preferably two weeks (or more) to prepare for the championship game. It would be cost prohibitive for many of the fans to follow their teams to multiple cities across the country.

A +1 format would be *like* a playoff with only the two best teams advancing to the championship game. But again, which two are the best? There will ALWAYS be controversy.

Anyone who thinks a playoff will do away with controversy and settle the matter once and for all is living in never never land.

No, college football is fine how it fricking is right now.











+1

quote:

---

Why is it a weak argument? If your team makes it to the final four, that's three different locations (same as an eight team playoff).

---

3 football tickets cost wayyyyy more than 3 basketball tickets. With the economy headed south I doubt as many people would shell out the dough on 3 tickets with FACE of $125, which is nothing compared to what they will pay brokers.