“We just can’t have that in college football. We won’t have it.”

It’s not that I’m surprised Bill Hancock keeps uttering total bullshit about the CFB postseason.

It’s just that I can’t believe people in the media are still willing to take his utterances at face value.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, It's All Just Made Up And Flagellant

14 responses to ““We just can’t have that in college football. We won’t have it.”

  1. Dog in Fla

    5 is the loneliest number that they’ll ever do.

  2. uglydawg

    “We’re not the decision makers or influence what goes on in that room”.
    I believe the “in that room” part, but it’s what goes on in the media before they go into that room that will probably disgust us. I don’t really believe the usual buffons on ESPN can stay neutral, and I wonder how much they will influence the panel with their bloviation. The “pure bracket” concept is a nice talking point but it’s bullsheet. The four best teams will not make up the brackets. Who THEY say are the four best teams will. Keep the vasoline handy….And the clamor for an expanded playoff will drown his claims out soon enough.

  3. Bob

    Actually I hope he is right. Four is more than enough. Eight is a joke. But I think he is bullshitting. Once on the slippery slope, it will be impossible to stop it. Americans just love playoffs even if the regular season becomes as uninteresting as the College Basketball’s has become.

    • uglydawg

      Bob..four is enough unless you’re 5…and someone will be 5. If that someone is…say..Georgia, we’ll all be dissapointed and some angry..Especially when # 3 and #4 are straw-teams. But it will be dismissed as “understandable but too bad”. However- when Notre Dame is # 5 someday, or Alabama, or Ohio State…there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth and it will be expanded.
      One things I’m expecting…Lot’s of “style points” scored against the cupacakes from now on. This will mean less playing time for the kids deepest on the bench because it’s going to take every point you can muster to impress the panel.

    • Macallanlover

      Bob, the joke is four. It is a half assed solution and does not address the issue that brought it about. The idea that the regular season is denigrated by an eight team playoff is preposterous, it will actually enhance the value of the regular season at that point. If it expands to sixteen or more, your devaluing point would be valid, imo. The idea of it getting to 16, 32, or more in D1 is just scare tactic propaganda. Should they ever get to a good balance of inclusiveness/exclusiveness there will be no reason, or support, to expand further. Unfortunately, we will not get to eight for many years so all you alarmists can relax with the “sky is falling” over reactions.

      • Hackerdog

        So 8 is the perfect number for “enhancing” the regular season? I’m not sure that word actually means what you think it means. How did you arrive at that mathematically precise answer? I mean, the powers that be are just shooting in the dark by expanding from 2 teams to 4 teams for 12 years (yeah, right😉 ). But you’ve actually done the hard work to prove that 8 is the one and only perfect number? Lucky the number wasn’t something difficult like 5.723.

        I’m certainly curious about how you arrived at the answer. Using last year’s week 16 AP/USA rankings as a template for how the playoff committee might pick teams, we would have had FSU, Mich St, Auburn, and Alabama as our playoff. You actually believe that excluding Stanford, Baylor, Ohio State, and South Carolina from a shot at a national championship is such a travesty that it must be immediately resolved, lest the regular season be devalued? But, that including other teams like Missouri, Oregon, Oklahoma, and Clemson would take the regular season past the “8-team playoff” sweet spot of maximum value? What, exactly, was the difference between Oregon and South Carolina where South Carolina clearly deserved to be included in the title picture, but Oregon clearly didn’t?

        Personally, I think South Carolina’s loss to Tennessee, that cost them a shot at the conference title, and thus the national title, has much more value in a 2-team playoff like last year than an 8-team playoff where they still get in. It seems silly to argue that including teams with multiple losses in the national title race actually makes regular season games more important.

        • Macallanlover

          Won’t spend all the bandwidth to reply to all of that but it is pretty simple about why 8 is the number. (You and the Techies can argue about all the other mathematical possibilities like 5.723.) Four isn’t enough because it doesn’t include the 5 power conference representatives, or any outsider to those conferences that can make a case. Six would require 2 byes which is not only unacceptable from a fairness standpoint but is impossible to settle who should get them.

          Eight is the minimum number to satisfy the above, and the max number to allow for three rounds with adequate time in between games (mid December, Jan 1, and mid January. It doesn’t have to get more complicated than that, eight is the perfect number. Allows inclusion of every deserving teams but exclusive enough to limit the teams to 5% of the total pool. You can try to tear it down but it is fair to all, and still makes every game critical. (I would give home games in the first round to the Top 4 so that every game is critical to all teams who aspire to win the title.)

          • Hackerdog

            So, the shorter reply is that 8 games is perfect because it just is. Can’t argue with that logic. Thanks.

            • Macallanlover

              There actually was some logic thrown in there but yes, it simply is. We have had this discussion before and we both feel differently about it, and that’s OK. You have your way now, mine will come one day but I doubt I will get to enjoy what I want for as long as I would like. I am confident you will remember me though when it is proved to be the better system🙂. In the meantime I will just be glad we aren’t locked into the old bowl system where top teams were prohibited from playing in the post season.

              • Hackerdog

                I will remember you. Although, as you acknowledge, your idea of perfection for the post season is that moment when Wile E. Coyote runs off the cliff, but hasn’t looked down yet.

    • Dog in Fla

      Bob, it’s a generally accepted proposition that Bagman Bill has been known to bullshit every now and then.

  4. Reipar

    We cannot go to eight fast enough. I just hope UGA does not get left out before the change is made.

    • Dawgaholic

      I actually think 6 is the best number. There have been a few years where 5 teams or so had a legitimate claim. I’ve never seen a year where 7 teams had a claim. It also gives byes to 1 and 2 so those spots are worth more.

      Of course, in an ideal world, there would be at least 2 required non- conference, non-rivalry intersectional BCS games for every team with match ups based on the prior year’s ranking. With this system it would be easier to compare teams from across the country and you probably would not need a playoff at all.