|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 1, 2017 16:26:19 GMT
Doing this eliminates the manufactured divide. The DIVIDE is not manufactured. It is real. It can't be eliminated and it's not going to be ignored. It factors into the calculus in multiple ways. One being, that G5 teams simply don't face the same level of grueling competition, week after week. There is NOTHING FAIR about automatically elevating every G5 Conference Champ into a short-term, single elimination tournament to determine a single "FBS Champion". THAT, is NEVEppppppp00pbR going to happen. Fair, objective rules like your system are the best the G5 teams could ever hope for. I think it would be terrific. Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon. The last part is precisely my point. I think a rules system like my idea would do as much for G5 teams as an invitation to a P5 league. Rules are a great equalizer and they won't happen for that reason. The divide is maintained by a biased voting system to severely limit the ability of G5 teams to compete in all areas in order to protect P5 power and money monopoly. No one that wished to make the on field product as competitive as possible would favor this format.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Dec 1, 2017 20:34:12 GMT
True story there CJH
This whole made up P5 /G5 stuff is greed based. How come some of these suckers can't 'get' that ?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 1, 2017 20:41:26 GMT
True story there CJH This whole made up P5 /G5 stuff is greed based. How come some of these suckers can't 'get' that ? If ESPN could figure out a way of making lots of money with G5 teams, wouldn't their greed lead them to do it? Why stop with just the P5?
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 2, 2017 10:55:33 GMT
Looks like Bevo just got his comeuppance.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Dec 2, 2017 14:16:34 GMT
I had to look that word up
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 2, 2017 16:53:05 GMT
Looks like Bevo just got his comeuppance. ?? I must have missed it. I completely disagree with CJ's stated opinion. But, so what? It's a matter of "intent", so neither of use really know. We each just have our own opinions.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 2, 2017 23:04:02 GMT
Except that CJ is right...
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 3, 2017 1:52:13 GMT
The best take I have seen
Re the CFB: It's not about the four best teams at this moment. It's about which four teams are the most accomplished across the whole season.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 3, 2017 4:00:44 GMT
Except that CJ is right... in your misguided opinion, only .
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 3, 2017 5:34:41 GMT
Which part am I right about or not?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 3, 2017 16:24:30 GMT
Which part am I right about or not? First of all, I never said you were "right or wrong". Only Herd went there. I said, I disagree with your opinion. I don't know, with any certainty whether my opinion is 'right', or your is. The topic under discussion is: The INTENT of the cartel, or P5, or whatever you want to call them..... are they really trying to keep the G5 down, to monopolize their money? I don't think that is their intent. You think it is. Only They, and God know the real answer to that. I don't think the P5 conferences CARE enough to even think about the G5 conferences. We are NOT worried about them taking over. I truly believe, if a G5 conference were to start playing really good, competitive football.... drawing big full stadiums and large TV audiences, ESPN and the "cartel" would love nothing more than to have SIX "power" conferences. The division between the P5 and G5 is very real, very distinct... but, not chiseled in stone. It can be fluid, with various teams heading up, or down.. and, conferences going up or down. It's up to them to decide their fate. I don't think the Cartel keeps them down, I think it's their own ability to spend and compete. I do not believe CFP was NOT designed to keep everyone down. I believe it's been a genuine effort to give the public something we requested for decades: A way to make sure that, at the end of the season, the top teams... teams who have a credible, legitimate claim to being the National Champ, have a chance to play against each other to hammer out the winner of the field. The sport was not clamoring to change the entire season format to cede relevance to a huge season ending tournament. All we've wanted was a way to have the last couple of teams standing play against each other. Many moons ago, the top two rarely played against each other in a Bowl at all. So, the BCS came along, to make sure the Top 2 played. That ended up being unsatisfactory... so, they decided to expand it to 4. So far, this seems to be getting the primary goal accomplished. You may believe the entire system has been designed to keep the G5 teams down. I don't. Frankly, I don't think the people making these decisions are smart enough to be that nefarious. They haven't thought through the "unintended consequences" of the system, as designed. They're just trying to out together a show, and provide additional legitimacy to the eventual National Champion.
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Dec 3, 2017 18:07:21 GMT
The playoff needs structure
Dilly dilly
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 3, 2017 18:22:02 GMT
The playoff needs structure Dilly dilly lol you need a trip to pit of misery!
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 3, 2017 19:52:52 GMT
Based on three years, here are the schedule benchmarks for Playoff contention:
Finish with one or fewer losses (100 percent of Playoff teams have done this).
Beat at least three teams ranked in the committee’s Dec. 3 top 25 (100 percent).
Win a Power 5 conference (92 percent).
Beat at least six teams that have .500-plus records on Dec. 3 (100 percent).
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 3, 2017 20:06:41 GMT
Based on three years, here are the schedule benchmarks for Playoff contention: Finish with one or fewer losses (100 percent of Playoff teams have done this). Beat at least three teams ranked in the committee’s Dec. 3 top 25 (100 percent). Win a Power 5 conference (92 percent). Beat at least six teams that have .500-plus records on Dec. 3 (100 percent). You can add: Don't have a 31 point loss in November. (100 percent)
|
|