OTish: I don't think Booger and Paul get it regarding the CFP potential expansion
Watching this makes me crazy. You don't know why they would do this Booger/Paul? Of course its for more revenue, oh and how bout we add:
- Ratings have been dropping off a cliff because people are tired of seeing the same damn movie every year
- The top 4/5 teams will never change as most of the 5 stars will only want to be play at those schools
- Will help(ish) level out recruiting
- Its gives each power 5 champ a spot
- It provides at-large bids for the likes of UCF, Cincinnati, Boise State, etc
- Who doesn't love a Cinderella team?
- March Madness does pretty well with a tourney
- so on, and so on
But of course they don't like it, both SEC guys/lap dogs who want SEC to win at all costs.
I know this has been beaten to death on this board, but the push back on expanding is infuriating to me.
Anyway, off the soap box. Have a good week all
Of course they don't get it.
In before the delete! The official MGoBlog position is that Paul is a troll with a radio/TV show, and I am not going to argue.
You mean Pete???
While we're at it, can we get Mark May's take too?
do we have to?
Together with a rousing round of slamming our fingers in a car door and stepping on Legos
While we're at it, can we get Mark May's take too?
Fuck it.
Let's go for the Superfecta and see what Rob Parker thinks too?!
I had been against the expansion too, until it became apparent just how utterly meaningless the rest of postseason had become.
-1
If you think the bowl system is meaningless, wait until the CFP expands and none of those additional teams have a shot of beating OSU, Bama, or Clemson.
D-1 ball is not like March madness where there are 15-2 upsets (and one 16-1). Seeds 5-8 have no fucking chance presently.
So your solution is.........?
Start by stop saying the bowls are meaningless.
They're not.
Most of us watch them.
Implement the same tried and true playoff system as in D-1A, 2, and 3 using the bowls as sites.
It's not rocket science.
I pretty stopped watching. Check in on marquee and Michigan games, and if they happen to be competitive, watch a little more. My family loves it, and I'm doing more with my life. People go out of their way to say that 'money' is the driver, but I think it's probably better to say capital, vested capital interests just following the dictates of the system to the degree they can control them. As Polanyi, a capitalist, admitted, either you apply brakes to that system at regular intervals or it swallows you, your little experiment in democracy, possibly a whole planet.
The reality is at this juncture, the finals are going to be what they're going to be. The playoff needs to expand so the post season can have some fun games, even if the finals end up being chiseled in stone. In the old days, you knew the national champion was going to be Alabama, Oklahoma or Ohio State, but you had fun bowl game matchups between top programs that gave you something to remember. Now, you just see the same 3 teams playing in different configurations every year and who could possibly give a shit? Create that old bowl feeling with a larger playoff, and if you give each conf champion an auto bid, there's no reason for schools to be scared of playing marquee out of conference games, because those won't cost them their seat in the playoff.
Right now, the biggest issue is that schools on the west coast and in the Texas orbit can't even keep their 5 stars at home. Ohio State, Clemson and Alabama come pluck the top guys from Texas and LA and the Pac 12/Big 12 have been turned into glorified mid majors having to live off 3 stars and the occasional 4 star guy. Expanding the post season so we don't get 5 months of "has the Pac 12/Big 12 been eliminated from the playoff" discussion is vital.
Some of this is also the lack of parity in CFB--which has been heightened, not reduced by the current CFP format. There is no normalizing mechanism in CFB at all, like there is in the NFL (I'd argue that the draft is an inefficient normalizing mechanism, but it does exist). Right now we have:
- Alabama/Saban dominating the SEC - (Although, Alabama is a historically elite program)
- Clemson/Dabo dominating the ACC, and performing at levels out of step with their history (0.899 win pct since 2014, 0.617 all-time win pct [120 seasons])
- OSU dominating the B1G (there's no Big 2-little 8 dynamic anymore...)
And these three teams account for 27/42 = 64% of the CFP games...and 11/14 = 79% of the CFP championship game slots. So if I'm a 5 star who wants to play for a (no longer mythical) national championship, I've got 3 schools to choose from...
So if they want to change that, I agree that conference champs need to get in. If there are at large teams in the field, let's not stack the deck like they do in the NCAA Baseball tournament (Did you realize that 6/8 of the super-regional host sites are in the SEC?...5/8 if you don't want to count South Carolina since they aren't playing.) If there are some games at host sites, mandate that they be played at a conference champ's home field.
Also, while we are at it, let's not make all of the games at warm places. Can we get a NC game at Ford Field? (lord knows the Lions season will be done by then...) Or Yankee Stadium? Let the bowl games be about tourism (and football), but let's actually have some neutral sites...Wembley Stadium anyone?
The calculus is incredibly easy. When you can provide a better product that appeals to a broader audience, you can charge more for that product and become more profitable. In sports, parity breeds competition, which increases viewership and results in an increase in advertising dollars among other revenue streams.
There isn't much more to it than that. Paul and Booger are more than capable of wrapping their minds around this concept, they just don't like it because it disrupts the status quo for the Bama train.
Calculus?
Great post but I wouldn't give Booger et al that much credit.
They say loud stupid things for clicks. Not because they are (or are not) capable of insight and nuance.
Don't actually get it, or have a vested interest in not getting it?
Or both?
Booger and Paul are both SEC homers through and through. They are basically the SEC’s mouthpiece on ESPN’s CFB coverage - especially Paul.
Add to that, Paul Finebaum would suck off Alabama players and Nick Saban if he could, so of course he wants the SEC (specifically the tide) to have an easier road to the championship.
Add to that, Paul Finebaum would suck off [...] Nick Saban if he could
I want to see a Finebaum v Danielson throw down to see who gets to be in line first for that.
Meh.
The amount of money that is going to flow into the NCAA with a 12 to 16 team playoff is so great that the feeble howls of SEC apologists will be duly ignored.
I didn't listen to the clip, but I don't understand this belief that expanding the playoff is going to make everything more competitive. It was more competitive during the 80s when there was no playoff. Bama won 3 of 7 national titles in the BCS era (since Saban arrived) and 3 of 7 in the 4 team playoff era. And the 3 teams constantly cited as dominating and getting all the best recruits (Bama, Clemson and Ohio State) isn't exactly true. Clemson doesn't recruit at the level of Bama and Ohio State. Georgia does and they haven't broken through (small sample size, I know).
I think a lot of the issues are that some traditional powers of the last 30 years have had some down times all at once: USC, Texas, Florida, Michigan, ND (up until recently), Nebraska, FSU (other than 2011-2014). This has coincided with Saban ramping up the "process" into an art form and Urbz recruiting his ass off until he literally gets so ill he has to resign.
The new era of college football isn't the playoff, it's the serious money that flows into these Power 5 programs and their ability to use their new riches to maximize recruiting, coaching, etc. Most of these bigtime schools have similar resources, but aren't using them effectively (cough, Michigan, cough). That isn't fixed by getting into the playoffs at 8-4.
Playoff expansion is a simple excuse for a competition problem that goes much deeper.
Lol. Urbz getting so sick he has to resign. More like Urbz' immorality final catches up to him to the point thst he has to feign illness so he can leave gracefully.
I hear you DoubleB, I was totally against expansion, hated the thought of its impact on regular season games. Unfortunately, the playoff has cast a pall over the rest of the postseason. Now the best players are skipping the bowls and more and more teams are just going through the motions. More teams in the playoff = more meaningful games. That's how I now look at it. And yes, I realize the impact it has on big conference matchups in November. No perfect solution here.
“Clemson DIDNT recruit at the level of Bama and Ohio State.”
FIFY, btw OSU didnt recruit like OSU until college football became a 3 team round robin with the best of BAMA OR clemson getting a first round bye.
Three theories:
- Football really is a "any given Sunday" thing, right? The more games you play, the greater your chances of losing, even if you're really good. (More chances for injuries, too) -> Increased odds of new national champions.
- Increases discontent at higher-end programs (greater expectations -- doesn't feel great if you make and lose the playoff every year) and more content at lower-end ones (great that you made the playoff once!) = more turnover at the high end and more time for low-end to develop. Also gives low-end more "momentum."
- Appealing recruiting pitch to the not-top majors.
Agree re: new era of CFB being sort of "corporate" in that efficient use of massive resources leads to success now.
Worth noting how remarkable Saban is, right? He totally transformed his scheme and kept it working. That's rare as hell. (OSU also sort of did this in the Urban -> Day switch.)
SEC will be one of the biggest beneficiaries. Specifically Georgia and Florida. They are looking at the top 3 SEC teams making it every year.
Expecting nuance from a couple of ESPN radio heads is always going to lead to disappointment.
Playoff expansion would introduce some uncertainty to the playoffs and the chance for more teams to be engaged. I know some people say "what are the odds the #7 team has against Alabama" but we've already seen what 2 thru 4 do against them so why not give someone else a shot. And honestly, I'd have been more interested to see how Cincy looked against OSU than Clemson basically getting a bye into the playoffs because they split a season series with ND.
It's quite simple, I don't watch... The current system is stale.
Playoffs .... don’t watch. Same story every season.
Expansion will help the sec. More of their teams, just like baseball.
...and OPEC thinks that electric automobiles are the tool of the Devil...
As a general rule, I don't listen to anyone whose name is Booger (nickname or not) or people who look like penises. I just don't.
I mostly agree, although people don't really love a cinderella. They like to see big schools lose more than they like to see little schools win. Ratings for cinderella teams in the NCAA tourney show that those teams don't really move the needle.
Of course Paul doesn't see the point. The SEC is paying his salary and adding more games dilutes the chance for them to take home the hardware.
You think guys like Saban or Dabo are going to be advocating for a playoff expansion, either? Hell no. They're already shoe-ins every year for the foreseeable future, so why do they want to play in an expanded field and have to play more games? The only people who are going to want this are the teams that can't already get in.
Booger and Paul
That's disrespectful to Harry and Lloyd. They are much smarter and tactful than the people you mentioned. They could probably teach many college classes across the SEC footprint.
Sure, they aren't great.
But it's bizarre to claim that it's always going to be the same few teams.
- Clemson was ... not good! for a long time before Dabo.
- Alabama, pre-Saban, was a joke.
- Georgia, until Smart, was not a serious contender.
Similarly, a lot of historically excellent programs haven't been that way in a while.
- Us, obviously.
- Texas.
- USC .
- Miami.
There seem to be a handful of programs on the "rung below" that could reasonably move up into tip-top contention.
- Florida
- ND
- Oregon
- Texas A&M
IMO ratings falls have more to do with it being a regional sport than anything else. If you aren't in the Midwest, greater Texas, or the South, it's not a thing. That's a problem!
I don't give a booger what they think.
I know full well that there's nothing good about watching that video so I'm not going to. It's ridiculous how many people think that they should argue with the viewpoints of Paul Finebaum, Skip Bayless, Stephen A Smith, etc.
They're professional sports trolls, guys. Saying shit to get you fired up is what they do. It's how they get paid and you're falling for it... again.
give everyone the same level of bagmen & access to used cars and then we'll see who's truly competitive.
My favorite part is when Booger picks his nose on live TV...name fits.
I figured it would get expanded.
Maybe it's better for Michigan -- if we can get into the playoffs and not get trounced there.
I'm not sure if this is better or worse for football overall. There will probably be a lot of blowouts, and it increases the annoying meme of "other bowls don't matter." But I'm interested to see how it goes. I didn't have much interest in the previous playoff system.