Expanding the playoffs to 12 would result in an entire year of ESPN pimping for 5 or 6 SEC teams to be included.
That would make the pimping worse.
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter BB73
- Start date
That would make the pimping worse.
Clemson’s loss might seem to provide a path for an undefeated Cincy, since the rest of the Clemson schedule is weak.
But Cincy’s opponents had a poor week 1 overall:
Indiana got drilled at Iowa, 34-6
ND squeaked by FSU in OT, 41-38
Temple got blasted by Rutgers, 61-14
Navy lost to Marshall, 49-7
USF lost to NC St, 45-0
Tulsa lost to UC-Davis, 19-17
East Carolina lost to App. St, 33-19
They did have good things in future opponents UCF beating Boise State and Tulane giving Oklahoma a scare, but Cincy won’t get much of a boost from most of their potential victories.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Onebuckfan
classof76
Plenty of lip service too them will be given but $$ talks. Plus ESPN shills will be preaching the narrative that Clemson has improved more than any other team.
Upvote
0
CincyInterloper
Hall of Fame
I would scrap the whole playoff/bowl system, and let the six major bowls extend invitations to whichever pair of teams they want after the season is over. The order invitations are offered would rotate from year to year, and there could then be a post-bowl playoff between the four highest ranked winning teams to emerge from the NY6 bowls. The networks would be free to bid whatever they want to televise these games.
This would probably result in the bowls becoming a made for television beauty pageant. But, I don't see that really being less fair than the current situation other than maybe some tough seeding for the top four teams in the NY bowls. The seeding problem could be fixed by not allowing a bowl to pick two teams from the top four. The goal is to have more interesting match-ups on New Years.
This would probably result in the bowls becoming a made for television beauty pageant. But, I don't see that really being less fair than the current situation other than maybe some tough seeding for the top four teams in the NY bowls. The seeding problem could be fixed by not allowing a bowl to pick two teams from the top four. The goal is to have more interesting match-ups on New Years.
Upvote
0
Zurp
I have misplaced my pants.
Maybe seed the 12 teams going to the NY6 bowls, so 1 plays 12, 2 plays 11, 3 plays 10, and so on. Then, after those games are done, re-vote on the top 4. Even if the top 6 teams win, who knows? Maybe the the #5 team flushed #8 down the toilet before halftime, while #4 needed an injury to #9, a controversial call (or non-call) by a referee, a blocked field goal attempt, and still barely beat #9. In that case, maybe #5 will jump #4 in the rankings. Or maybe #1 was Alabama, and even though they lost to #12 Florida, they'll still be in the 4-team play-off because Bama, SEC, ESPN, and all the other things. Florida, of course, would also have to be put in the playoffs, because Bama, SEC, ESPN, and all the other things.
It'd never happen, of course, because the Rose Bowl will want to hold onto the conference tie-ins for as long as they can. And I admit that I dig that tradition, but it's maybe already been tarnished since the 2001 season (when Miami and Nebraska played for the national championship there).
Upvote
0
CincyInterloper
Hall of Fame
I dig the traditions too, but the CFP has kind of screwed up all the traditional bowl matchups. Since the tie-ins often mean a New Years bowl is left with one or two second place teams from their traditional conference affiliations, I'm ready to flush all the bowl tie-ins and start over. When you look at any conference not named the B1G or SEC, the second place team might not even be in the top 25.
Upvote
0
BigJim
Hall of Fame
I think the end result is still expansion but just with a limit on teams per conference now being a much bigger sticking point. Non-SEC will be pushing for 3, SEC will be pushing for no limit, and it’ll land at either 3 or 4 depending on how much hard ball the non-SEC group is willing to play. Prior to the OU/Texas shenanigans and the shady role the SEC played in it the limit would have been higher if it even existed.
Upvote
0
Zurp
I have misplaced my pants.
There won't be a limit. The Big Ten and other conferences will bend over and take it without saying a word. Remember how Delaney had a chance to require that the 4 teams be conference champions? We all know how that ended up. And he had a chance to have a way to play some playoff games closer to the Big Ten. Guess what? None of the games are close to the Big Ten footprint. We'll take it and complain and still watch the games.
Upvote
0
The Championship Game is actually in Indianapolis on Jan. 10th this season.
It’s not nearly enough, but it’s something.
Upvote
0
ORD_Buckeye
Wrong glass, Sir.
Delaney was a rank sentimentalist who was more than willing to sell out the Big Ten to protect the Rose Bowl. He had enough clout by the end that I think he could impose his will. Things have changed. Warren (and who knows what he believes, but there's no reason to think he's enraptured by the mystique of the Rose Bowl) doesn't have that clout, so I'm hoping the Presidents will give us a little more backbone. The wild card are the AD's. Remember that these guys have been greased their entire careers by the bowls, taken on cruises flown to Winter "meetings" in the Bahamas. They are utterly and totally corrupted by the bowls. Are the Presidents going to care enough to say "not this time" and reign them in, or are they just going to let them do what they think is best?
Upvote
0
ORD_Buckeye
Wrong glass, Sir.
Right about A. Wrong about B. The 12-team playoff as negotiated was the baby of the SEC! and Notre Dame. Putting a pause on it while the alliance solidifies itself and whips its votes into line hurts the SEC/ND who wanted nothing more than to have this written in stone as soon as possible.
Upvote
0
ScriptOhio
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
Let’s think back to the case with Ohio State in 2014. Obviously Ohio State barely made the Playoff field, much to the chagrin of Baylor and TCU. But there was little doubt that, especially after a 59-0 trouncing of Wisconsin in the Big Ten Championship, that the Buckeyes deserved a spot. The fact Ohio State beat Alabama and Oregon in succession solidified their position.
Why? How did the team that lost to Virginia Tech in week two of the season end up beating Bama?
It’s because they grew. JT Barrett got better and smarter as a quarterback. The offensive line synced up. They changed the things that had cost them three of four consecutive games dating back to 2013. It was a loss, but it was also a wakeup call, and one which the current structure of college football barely allows for.
There’s a reason there have been so few undefeated seasons in the NFL (read: one. Two if you count that time the Patriots went 16-0 and lost the Super Bowl). The team that has the hot hand to start the season has no more of a claim over the Super Bowl than the team that gets hot at the last possible moment. The Pittsburgh Steelers were the last undefeated team in the 2020 NFL season. We all know how that turned out when the Cleveland Browns, who had improved immensely over the course of the season, met the Steelers in the first round of the playoffs.
Growth is a good thing. Yes, teams have to win games (we’re not giving participation awards for going 0-12), but when we’re evaluating perfection, we actually end up far from it, and far from an optimal scenario. When teams are under pressure to win at all costs, they will not try new things when they’re on top or even near the top. The trouble is, the same teams have been on top for years. We’ll end up with the same brand of football we’ve seen from Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma, and every other team will work to refine its comparative advantage which does not always translate into a competitive one.
Upvote
0