The FCS has it right...
- Thread starter 78SweetRevenge
- Start date
You'd rather attend an exhibition game, than a playoff game that has real implications?
If you are a #12 seed, doomed to face #1 in the 2nd round, probably.
But even more practically, neutral site games woruld start in 3rd round (with 8 teams). How many people travel for a quarterfinal? With one week notice (scrambing for hotels & expensive last minute airfare)?
PSU and a few other team's fans travel in droves to one big end-season game a year. Most teams struggle with one a year.
Almost every team would struggle for those middle rounds. And people that do bite the bullet & travel are either disappointed because:
1) they just saw their team lose - end of season
2) they saw their team win, but they can't afford to follow them on to the next round
You can't compare to basketball -- the arenas are far smaller & the Tournament of 64 has appeal to many even when their teams aren't in.
Doesn't even factor in the regular season, let alone Conference Championship games. This year neither Wisc or OSU would have to play starters in the championship game (it barely helps with seeding except maybe to get a bye/homefield 1st 2 rounds). They may have clinched that already. Same goes for Miami vs Clemson, Alabama vs Georgia, TSU vs Oklahoma, perhaps PAC also.)
24 teams is at least 16 too many.
Not to mention, certain special players (like Barkey) -- we mostly agree it would be wise to sit out a bowl, but applaud him (& hope he has insurance & avoids injury anyway).
Suppose these (all but) guaranteed top 5, 10 draft picks face a possible 6 game playoff stretch? How many would play? What happens to the "integrity" of a 24-team, playoff if many of the best players sit out?
Suppose these (all but) guaranteed top 5, 10 draft picks face a possible 6 game playoff stretch? How many would play? What happens to the "integrity" of a 24-team, playoff if many of the best players sit out?
Go to that format and college football will go the way of college basketball. College basketball regular season is basically meaningless and has become a one month of year sport in March. Same would happen to college football as nobody would pay attention to the regular season and just focus on the playoffs for one month. Also, if you go to 24 team playoff you would have to shorten the regular season.
If they had every round except for the final at the higher seed's home field, there wouldn't be any attendance problems. Also, No player expecting to get taken early in the draft is going to want to sit out the playoffs. Every players goal is to win championships. That argument is just silly. Finally, teams want to be conference champions. They aren't going to rest guys during the conference championship games.
Except all of the teams that don't make the playoffs will lose a home game ($). The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Basically, it would end up being the same teams in the playoffs every year.
And you would still complain if PSU was ranked #25. The current system is fine. The only way it would be better is there was ONE More round and it was 8 teams. Conference winners would be automatic with 3 at large bids.
Once a format is agreed upon the rest is negotiation. No reason for the poor to loose revenue. Splits/shares can fix that.
I love how people claim this would make the regular season meaningless. If that's the case why are we watching Penn State after they lost to Michigan State?
8 teams does not include all conference winners which means it's still a joke. 16 is the least that should be acceptable. 24 is perfect.
8 teams does not include all conference winners which means it's still a joke. 16 is the least that should be acceptable. 24 is perfect.
Silly analogy. Do you actually think that the playoff committee for FCS has any qualifications or that the teams involved have any kind of comps that even the FBS has?
Like tOSU played Oklahoma in FBS -- that's a measure of the top of the Big Ten vs Big 12.
Notre Dame (as much as I hate them) also crosses conferences and provides a benchmark.
FCS teams aren't even generally on TV - there's no realalistic way that they could be ranked 1-25 except by computer.
Simply ridiculous -- if a 7 seed in FCS won multiple times it's because the seeding was idiotic, not because the format was right.
A 7 seed could absolutely win a playoff in BCS. Look at Penn State and USC last year--USC was ranked 9th because of early losses and could have beat anyone in the country at the end.
I imagine several years ago Utah might have been a 7 seed. Maybe Boise too. Lol. It’s rsther silly to think anyone in the top Ten cant beat a higher seed.
Funny....MSU almost beat Bama last week...and with a bit smarter late play might have.
Sure they could.
By the way there is no more BCS and hasn't been for years.
USC would have had little chance (very little) against Clemson & Alabama last year.
Recall: We beat tOSU barely, at home. We lost to USC barely, on a neutral field. tOSU got absolutely destroyed in round 1 of playoffs.
It's fair to argue that USC, PSU, and tOSU were all pretty close, and that any one of them could have had the 4th spot.
But in reality if they were all pretty close to equal, which was proven on the field -- none of them would have a chance to beat BOTH of the the top 2 teams .
It's still quite true that the top 2 teams are not always as good as last year's top 2 were.
BCS was supposed to be FBS--my mistake but that should have been clear
USC absolutely could have beat Bama or Clemson. That doesn't mean they WOULD have but they could have
This year a ton of teams could win if given the chance. Even Bama isn't elite this year...probably their worst team in in 5 years. Yes, that's still better than pretty much everyone but they aren't unbeatable. See A&M and Miss State. These games are also very different when coaches don't get multiple weeks to prep.
Sure the top 2-4 seeds should win but that's why people like the playoffs because some years they don't and a mid-level seed can win. Meaningful games vs exhibitions is the real discussion. I just hope star players skip their last game so the bowl collapse. Hopefully Saquon follows Fournette & McCaffrey.
USC absolutely could have beat Bama or Clemson. That doesn't mean they WOULD have but they could have
This year a ton of teams could win if given the chance. Even Bama isn't elite this year...probably their worst team in in 5 years. Yes, that's still better than pretty much everyone but they aren't unbeatable. See A&M and Miss State. These games are also very different when coaches don't get multiple weeks to prep.
Sure the top 2-4 seeds should win but that's why people like the playoffs because some years they don't and a mid-level seed can win. Meaningful games vs exhibitions is the real discussion. I just hope star players skip their last game so the bowl collapse. Hopefully Saquon follows Fournette & McCaffrey.
Similar threads
