“I’m a fan of [an eight-team playoff] but I’m just one guy in the middle of America.”

Nice string of rationalizing from Kansas’ athletic director, topped by this:  “Then we’ll argue about who’s No. 9, but you’d rather argue about whose No. 9 than who’s No. 5.”

Unless it’s your school or conference getting screwed at No. 9, pal.

The whining will never stop.  Only postseason expansion will… eventually, when the money runs out.  But guys like Zengor will worry about that when the time comes and not a minute before.

27 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

27 responses to ““I’m a fan of [an eight-team playoff] but I’m just one guy in the middle of America.”

  1. ASEF

    Its.much easier to imagine your team is top 8 than top 2. That’s why the whining gets worse, not better. Not difficult to understand.

    Like

    • Macallanlover

      There is some truth to that, and that is why there would never be a perfect solution that satisfies all. Taking that as a given, the number of folks who care passionately about who is 8 or 9 falls to basically one fan base. The fact that a conference champ got hosed by a subjective vote can rally support from many quarters. When CC’s get a ticket to the dance, the sympathy factor for those not making falls off substantially. You just give them a chance to control their destiny and then let them stand on their own, can’t so much better than that. Get past that, then explain that no system will give us a “best team” and CFB will become even more exciting.

      Like

    • Hackerdog

      The whining will intensify because an 8-team playoff will include 5 conference champs, wherever they are ranked, and 3 wild card teams. In most years, some teams left out will be clearly superior to some of the conference champs that are in.

      At that point, they may as well just blow it up and start over. Some kind of English soccer model might be interesting. But whatever system exists, I’ll be surprised if it includes UGA playing Auburn, Tech, and Florida every year.

      Like

      • Macallanlover

        Don’t agree with this assessment, there is something indisputable about the conference champs. You hear people say we are better but no one ever feels they were ribbed, or short changed. The system is always about a champ, being best for a season is always subjective, not solvable by any process

        Like

        • ASEF

          I think the b12 2014 begs to differ. 2008, too, for that matter. SEC 2011 also proves that “champ” doesn’t mean “best.”

          The notion that an 8 team system with 5 CCs is less subjective an assessment than others is an exercise in rhetoric, not logic or indisputable premises. I understand the appeal of 8. I think it costs more than it gains.

          Like

          • Macallanlover

            But I never said “champ” means “best”, and I don’t think anyone should ever think that way whether it is a conference champ, or a national champ. I said no one ever feels like they were robbed about not winning a conference champ because there are rules and processes in place to identify one. If you didn’t win it, it wasn’t stolen for some subjective reason. The Big 12 had a chance to name a conference champ, even had a rule for tiebreakers (so I have heard), but chose to try the “co champ” way to get two teams in the playoff. In doing so, they may have lost one the opportunity.

            Like

            • Hackerdog

              Since champ isn’t about best, then why all the machinations on exactly how much subjectivity should be in play? Even in your optimum scenario, some kind of vote will decide the wild cards. A vote on 4 teams is awful, but a vote on 3 teams, with 5 other guaranteed slots is the perfect amount of subjectivity? Please. Why not go with a random lottery to determine the playoff teams? That’s completely objective.

              Also, Steve Spurrier will disagree that nobody whines about the process for selecting conference champs. When he’s left out, it seems his cross-divisional schedule is much harder than Georgia’s, or Missouri’s.

              Like

            • Hackerdog

              Also, the college football playoff is supposed to be about identifying the best team. The website even states “the best four teams” play to determine the champ.

              That’s the interesting thing about college football. The champion is supposed to be the best team. I understand you want to change that. I just think it would be a terrible thing to lose.

              Like

  2. nashvegasdawg

    Im more in the keep it at 4 camp, butf wishes were horses, and UGA didn’t have 1 of the 3 losses and was ranked 8th, (1) would we want a shot at the title (2) would we be competitive? More generally, are the top 8 competitive, or is there a drop off? On the other hand, what % of the top 16 are competitive. MO and AZ don’t seem to be, and have doubts TCU and Baylor would be, either. I’d argue UGA can be, depending on how the players sleep the night before. /snark. Again, not arguing for expansion, just wondering out loud.

    Like

    • AusDawg85

      Using this year’s rankings, Mich St. would possibly get a crack at the 2 teams they lost to in the regular season. Not sure how I’d feel about that…interesting story line, but does it cheapen the regular season and/or selection process? Would the committee rank them differently in that light?

      Like

  3. Irwin R. Fletcher

    You could make it an 8 team playoff next year by taking the winners of the conference championship games. I imagine he’d have a problem with that.

    Like

  4. Ubiquitous GA Alum

    The KS AD would need a 108 team playoff before any of this would impact him …

    Like

    • Ho, ho … I wondered why in Gawd’s Green Earth is his temperature being taken on this issue? Likely because his is just such a school that lends itself to this thinking. As are the vast majority of football Universities, which is why the expansionist cry will only grow more insistent.

      Like

  5. Granthams replacement

    You are dead on. There’s 68 teams selected for basketball because the 65th team whined . ESPN loves the process and is able to fill the Tuesday night spot for 2 months with a ratings generator. I’d guess within 2 years the change to 8 will be planned if not implemented

    Like

  6. you’d rather argue about whose No. 5 than who’s No. 3.

    Like

  7. Rick

    Hey, as long as we get something other than the senator’s ‘ideal’ playoff, I’m OK with it. I would really rather not see the field go higher than 8, but if the alternative is the 16-team megaconference champions-only solution, I’ll take a 32 team field. As long as it’s possible, nay probable, for the best two teams to occasionally be in the same division of the same conference, we need some form of at-large selection.

    Like

    • Dawgoholic

      If the argument is whether you are 4, 5, or 6, then you either lost a game or played a crap schedule. Everyone controls their own destiny now. Schedule OOC games in accordance with your own conference’s strength and win all your games – you will be in. Don’t do both of those, you may get left out but you can’t say you did not control your own destiny.
      4 is just right. No more Auburn 04 scenarios.

      Like

      • Hackerdog

        FSU almost had an Auburn 04 scenario. They played a P5 schedule in the weakest conference and scheduled teams they expected to be good. Unfortunately, those quality teams turned out to be mediocre (Okie St at 6-6 and Fla at 6-5). And, they struggled to win several of their games. Given that Vegas thinks both TCU and Baylor are superior to FSU, it would be reasonable to leave FSU out of the top 4.

        Like

  8. Austin

    I say you make four super conferences with 24 teams each. Each super conference has two divisions of twelve teams. Each division plays 12 games. The first game of the season has to be against anyone of your choosing, but does not count against your conference standing or for playoff contention (more to come on this) let us call it a practice game. But it has to be your first game of the season. Then you play everyone in your division. Your division leader then has to play the other side of the conference’s division leader to become the Super Conference Champion. Then the four champions are seeded according to body of work, wins, strength of schedule, and the one non conference game. The top for then play a four team playoff. The conference championships would serve as the first true round of the playoffs, so really an eight team playoff. All other teams can still go bowling. Make this happen, make it happen now.

    Like

    • First of all, there aren’t 96 teams worth including in the mix.

      Second, if you think a conference like the SEC is about to go from sharing its revenue between 14 schools to sharing it between 24 schools, you are dreaming.

      Don’t see why you can’t get to the same place with four 16-school conferences.

      Like

      • Dawgoholic

        Just leave the system like it is now. Don’t mess with a pretty good thing.

        Like

      • Austin

        True there are not 96 teams worth it, but that is the dream to have the equal shot. Besides, there are teams in each conference now that have no shot (Vandy, Iowa, Iowa State, Colorado, Wake). But if you have all the tv rights from say a combination of the old 12 SEC and the old Big 12. That is some tv money! Also, with that much product, ESPN would have to play ball and pay whatever they asked. It would be even more money for the SSC (South Super Conference). Think about it Senator, equality for all, well 96 teams anyway.

        Like

        • Also, with that much product, ESPN would have to play ball and pay whatever they asked.

          ESPN didn’t when asked to pay for a 96-team men’s BB tourney.

          Like

          • Austin

            BB is not football though, but you are correct they did not. But then again there was no SEC network, ACC network, BIG Ten Network or Longhorn Network…. you get my drift, to contend with. With their powers combined, they could be CAPTAIN PLANET…er…I mean… a force to be reckoned with.

            Like

            • Macallanlover

              Why wouldn’t you stay with the more workable four 16 team conference model with two eight team divisions? Play those seven division teams every year, rotate 2-3 from the other division, then fill in with one cupcake and games against other conferences. Those 8 division winners would play for the conferenced title, and winners go into a Final 4 like we have today. There are 64 decent teams for this to work. My favorite format but getting past the egos to make it happen would be all but impossible.

              Like

              • Austin

                16 is a good model too. I just want to see us actually play SEC teams. Like I am still waiting for us to play A&M in 2019 or whatever it is. I know in a 24 team conference you would never see really the other division unless you made it to the championship game, but you would at least get to play everyone in your division. I would love to see us play LSU, Bama, Arky every year. Yeah it would be tough, but aren’t all things that are worth it?

                Like