I Like The Way This Guy Thinks…….

[Mountainman]

………. I don’t like auto-bids and I don’t like byes, even though the Conference Championship Game teams play an additional game. I would think that would be better addressed during the selection and seeding process.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... expansion/





.

[Cane from the Bend]

………. I don’t like auto-bids and I don’t like byes, even though the Conference Championship Game teams play an additional game. I would think that would be better addressed during the selection and seeding process.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... expansion/


.

On the other end of the argument, the SEC also has made statements [with the complying espn talking head muppets affirming it to be so] about the SEC should have more teams in, due to the talent gap, with the majority of future nfl prospects playing in their conference. And wanting to see the best talent in the tournament ...

To which I say.

All that talent, and you still need special treatment, because those players aren't good enough to make it to either the Conference Title game, or win their way into the Playoff on their own merit. They need premium privileges and assurances, which waters down the importance of the regular season.

As well, and I have stated this before, this is a roadblock they're attempting to build for other conferences, in order to protect their stronghold on recruiting.

If the playing field is balanced, with every school having the same opportunities to Pay Players, along with access to the Playoff, then the perceived strength of certain conferences will become diluted. Teams outside of the traditional powers will begin their rise, and that recruiting talent once consolidated will become spread out across a larger pool of teams, making the whole of College Football entertaining. A true Level Playing Field with actual Parity ------------> how novel.

.
.
.

[Mountainman]

………. I don’t like auto-bids and I don’t like byes, even though the Conference Championship Game teams play an additional game. I would think that would be better addressed during the selection and seeding process.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... expansion/


.

On the other end of the argument, the SEC also has made statements [with the complying espn talking head muppets affirming it to be so] about the SEC should have more teams in, due to the talent gap, with the majority of future nfl prospects playing in their conference. And wanting to see the best talent in the tournament ...

To which I say.

All that talent, and you still need special treatment, because those players aren't good enough to make it to either the Conference Title game, or win their way into the Playoff on their own merit. They need premium privileges and assurances, which waters down the importance of the regular season.

As well, and I have stated this before, this is a roadblock they're attempting to build for other conferences, in order to protect their stronghold on recruiting.

If the playing field is balanced, with every school having the same opportunities to Pay Players, along with access to the Playoff, then the perceived strength of certain conferences will become diluted. Teams outside of the traditional powers will begin their rise, and that recruiting talent once consolidated will become spread out across a larger pool of teams, making the whole of College Football entertaining. A true Level Playing Field with actual Parity ------------> how novel.

.
.
.

………. to your point about “A true Level Playing Field with actual Parity”. All one has to do to see where this ‘Expanded Playoff’ is heading is to look at the conferences, and ask yourself, ‘How many teams in the conference have the wherewithal to win the Conference Title?’

……. and then ask yourself, ‘How many of the teams in an Expanded College Football Playoff have the wherewithal to win the National Title’

This expanded playoff is all about TV Dollars……… which begs the question, ‘Is there actual parity in the distribution of those dollars?????’




.

[Mountainman]

……. and then of course, there are those who want to keep the playing field tilted.



https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... o-athletes


.

[Mountainman]

Dellenger lays in out with a little more clarity……..

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footba ... 02722.html


.

[Spence]

I think now, and have always thought, that you take all the conference winners and play them off. If you don't win your conference, you don't go. And I know that Ohio State wouldn't have made it last year and I am ok with that fact. I know some conferences are better than others. That still means the best team from the best conference should be battle tested and still have an advantage over the top teams from lesser conferences. But no matter who has the best conference, if you take 5 teams from two conferences and 1 team from 2 other conferences, you are tilting the field to make your belief about who has the best conference a self fulfilling prophesy. Next they will take an even number of teams from both the SEC and Big Ten and seed them with a bye and playoff the teams outside those conferences to the right to make the playoff.

This is all about making sure the teams that draw the best make the playoffs, sprinkle in a couple feel good cinderellas and add Notre Dame for add ratings points. You don't have to look any farther than that to find out why what happens, happens.

[Derek]

This is all about making sure the teams that draw the best make the playoffs, sprinkle in a couple feel good cinderellas and add Notre Dame for add ratings points. You don't have to look any farther than that to find out why what happens, happens.

I couldn't agree with this more. It's why teams like Bama and other "legacy" (oklahoma, Notre Lame, Michigan) teams always seem to get the benefit of the doubt. This process HAS to start pre-season and those polls are nothing more than early attempts to shape public opinion. No different than political polls.

I've just always felt that preseason polls have way too much historical bias to them, and I don't always mean "what they did last year".

[Cane from the Bend]

This is all about making sure the teams that draw the best make the playoffs, sprinkle in a couple feel good cinderellas and add Notre Dame for add ratings points. You don't have to look any farther than that to find out why what happens, happens.

I couldn't agree with this more. It's why teams like Bama and other "legacy" (oklahoma, Notre Lame, Michigan) teams always seem to get the benefit of the doubt. This process HAS to start pre-season and those polls are nothing more than early attempts to shape public opinion. No different than political polls.

I've just always felt that preseason polls have way too much historical bias to them, and I don't always mean "what they did last year".

Derek, you and I have been on the same page for a long time ...

Goes back to the old site, especially with this one.

I have talked about ridding ourselves of preseason polls since around 2004/2005.

There tends to be too much vested interest by the media to preclude who the teams to watch will be, before the football year begins.

Some is the; "Keep an eye out for these guys."

The rest is, favored sons syndrome. "We want `em, by God, we're'a gonna have `em!"

With the BCS, if you lost, you needed someone in front of you to lose, from outside the conference, in order to keep your dream alive.

And that wasn't even just for the National Title game. It was to be eligible for a BCS game bid to one of the 4 Biggest venues.

Even then, you could see the manipulation in the polls, both pre and inter season.

Now, you are given a second and 3rd opportunity, even in Conference losses.

Again I point to this last "Playoff Invitational" we had.

There was a design where we would have seen Texas play Georgia for a 3rd time, for the National Title.

That should not happen.

And yet, here we are.

.
.
.

[Cane from the Bend]

This is all about making sure the teams that draw the best make the playoffs, sprinkle in a couple feel good cinderellas and add Notre Dame for add ratings points. You don't have to look any farther than that to find out why what happens, happens.

I couldn't agree with this more. It's why teams like Bama and other "legacy" (oklahoma, Notre Lame, Michigan) teams always seem to get the benefit of the doubt. This process HAS to start pre-season and those polls are nothing more than early attempts to shape public opinion. No different than political polls.

I've just always felt that preseason polls have way too much historical bias to them, and I don't always mean "what they did last year".

Derek, you and I have been on the same page for a long time ...

Goes back to the old site, especially with this one.

I have talked about ridding ourselves of preseason polls since around 2003/2004.

There tends to be too much vested interest by the media to preclude who the teams to watch will be, before the football year begins.

Some is the; "Keep an eye out for these guys."

The rest is, favored sons syndrome. "We want `em, by God, we're'a gonna have `em!"

With the BCS, if you lost, you needed someone in front of you to lose, from outside the conference, in order to keep your dream alive.

And that wasn't even just for the National Title game. It was to be eligible for a BCS game bid to one of the 4 Biggest venues.

Even then, you could see the manipulation in the polls, both pre and inter season.

Now, you are given a second and 3rd opportunity, even in Conference losses.

Again I point to this last "Playoff Invitational" we had.

There was a design where we would have seen Texas play Georgia for a 3rd time, for the National Title.

That should not happen.

And yet, here we are.

.
.
.