SEC College Football Playoff - No Thanks

Submitted by maddogcody on January 2nd, 2018 at 7:09 AM

I for one will not be willing to dedicate any of my time to watching the CFP Championship game this year. Don't want to hear the S - E - C chants, and could care less who wins the game. Is anyone else with me?

They need to fix the playoffs immediately. IF the CFP Championship game gets poor ratings this year, it might help convince the commitee that they need to change it.

I don't care to see two teams from the same conference ever again. Just take the Power 5 conference winners, one Group of Five qualifier, and let them square off in a six team playoff. It keeps the conference championships an important piece of the season.

Comments

MEZman

January 2nd, 2018 at 8:59 AM ^

No, just one of the great disappointments of my adult life has been that "cheaters never prosper" is so very wrong. It should be changed to "cheaters that get caught sometimes don't prosper."

People can call it sour grapes but the rumors of UGA out paying everyone since Smart came on board are enough for me and I highly doubt Bama is a clean program. Haven't really watched most of the Championship games recently for this reason.

FLwolvfan22

January 2nd, 2018 at 1:46 PM ^

yes, do win a high percentage of the time from my experience. The ones who are good at it that I have seen after 15 years in the Corporate America cheat but then also augment that by bad mouthing and putting down their collegue/competitors every chance they get. So it's a two pronged approach, brown nose the boss and at the same time denigrate the competition.

bronxblue

January 2nd, 2018 at 7:20 AM ^

It's not that I care about the conference alignment as much as I already know the outcome. Alabama is going to just beat up UGa and win like 24 to 12 or something, and it's going to be ugly.

Meson

January 2nd, 2018 at 9:06 AM ^

All I've seen about it over the last few years on here was how awful it was. This year it's been particularly bad, and that started well before NN was repealed.

I bet the especially poor quality does have to do with their financial issues, but it's probably got more to do with watchespn's infrastructure than fast lanes from Comcast.

gruden

January 2nd, 2018 at 9:33 AM ^

Disagree.  I'm a Comcast customer and a Youtube TV subscriber and had almost no problems watching the games yesterday. 

ESPN isn't a technology company, they probably outsourced development of their streaming app, better to go with a company like Google or Hulu or whatever that has the ability to do it properly.

Steve in PA

January 2nd, 2018 at 10:56 AM ^

Streaming users have grown exponentially while people have cut the cord.  Net neutrality is just the bogey man at this point.

With traditional cable, they beamed a single signal up to a satellite and cable companies received it.  There were no issues of load because they were just transmitting.  Just like a radio station doesnt isn't affected by how many people listen.  Now, the communication between your box and their server is a 2-way communication and there is a limit to how many can be fed from a server.  Even with all the cloud stuff there is still a physical limit.

I am certain the ESPN is not planning to support the maximum server load at any given time.  Even your ISP doesn't do that, hence the fine print on your contract will have the words "up to" somewhere.

I work for a major Telecom/ISP and we aren't setup to serve 100% load all the time.  It would be insanely expensive and a waste of resources.  There will always be bottlenecks either on the user or provider end.

AeonBlue

January 2nd, 2018 at 1:44 PM ^

It would be incredibly stupid for an ISP to put ESPN in the slow lane. They would be competing with themselves. In order to stream ESPN you must be subscribed through a TV provider. 90% of the time that is also your ISP. Slowing down an ESPN stream would be the equivelent of having a free HBO/Cinemax promotional weekend but only in 360p resolution. You want people to buy that, shitty performance isn't the way to sell.

It's far more likely that the ESPN streaming service couldn't handle all of the demand. 

An Angelo's Addict

January 2nd, 2018 at 7:22 AM ^

Ya same, it reminds me of the last SEC National Championship game and will probably have very low viewership. Hopefully next year we can get a 6-8 team playoff, but I’ll likely only tune in for a few minutes of this game

814 East U

January 2nd, 2018 at 7:22 AM ^

I will definitely be watching. I love college football and this is the last game until September. The start time is annoying though.

The SEC thing does piss me off but how can anyone say UGA doesn’t deserve to be there? Do I believe OSU’s resume was better than Alabama’s? Yes. Am I upset OSU got left out of the CFP? Nope.

It was depressing watching both games and realizing how far away Michigan is from some of the playoff teams.

lilpenny1316

January 2nd, 2018 at 9:02 AM ^

Everyone who keeps saying that must be talking solely about our offense.  Our defense can hang with anybody.  UGA's offense looked worse than ours to start the season, then they improved.  It's not hard to believe that our offense can make a similar leap. 

Whether it's behind Peters or Patterson, our QB will be more experienced.  Our WRs will be better with a full offseason of work and our OL will hopefully be vastly improved.  Even if the scheme doesn't change, we should look better on offense.  Sadly, I think the scheme needs to improve if we want to make it to Indy.

gruden

January 2nd, 2018 at 9:46 AM ^

Talking about UCF is hindsight.  UCF hadn't beated Auburn when the selection committee made their choice. 

They really need to expand the playoffs to at least 6 teams, if not 8, then a team like UCF can be let in with the benefit of the doubt.

maddogcody

January 2nd, 2018 at 7:44 AM ^

Georgie belongs, because they won that conference. Alabama did not win their conference. Sure they went 12-1, but UCF just went 13-0 and actually beat Auburn. I don't want to see the day when there are three or four teams from the same conference in the 4 team CFP.

Leaving it ALL up to the commitee can result in too much bias. However, if they are forced to take the P5 Conference Champions and a +1 from the Group of Five... then the only thing they will control is the ranking of those six teams. They could use their ranking to decide the matchups: could be 1 & 2 get a bye, while 3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5 to determine who will match up against 1 and 2 the following week. I don't care how the matchups work out.

I just don't care for one conference being the favorite of the one station (ESPN) that has a lot of pull when it comes to College Football. If things keep going the way they are, there will be one power conference, a group of four mid majors, and then the group of five. Put the P5 conferences on level footing when it comes to the playoff, and it just might be enough to push back against ESPN's love for the SEC ensuring that conference's ever growing dominance.

maddogcody

January 2nd, 2018 at 8:18 AM ^

I will definitely be looking to see who won the game. I do care about College Football, especially one team in particular, and I'm interested in who will win this year's CFP matchup. I'm just not going to watch this upcoming game.

My point is that I don't want to see an SEC College Football Playoff. If Oklahoma and Clemson hadn't had the record they did this season, what would have kept Auburn out of the playoff if they were ranked #2 between Georgia and Alabama?

Is it possible that a commitee appointed to decide who gets into a four team playoff could take four teams all from one conference? Even if you and I agreed that those are probably the four best teams (on paper), does that make it good for College Football as a whole?

If the SEC always has the best teams, what does that mean for the future of Michigan football? That is a future I for one do not look forward to.