Certainly a fair perspective, and I can elect to tune out until we're down to the obvious four. But, the most pleasant and total surprise here is our apparent agreement on the mistreatment and general lack of awareness of how good and more fair the BCS was. Its coverage in the mefia was pure defamation. Star chambers filled with biased pseudo-intellectuals and pop culture stars never work as advertised...or as well as agnostic computers...never.
Until the BCS is resurrected, your points here are strong ones. Always appreciate the perspective.
I'll play the devil's advocate here with an honest question.
What does adding more lesser teams to the mix really add to the Playoffs besides ratings? When I think of the CFP, I don't perceive a bell curve of the top 12 or 15 teams, I see a highly right skewed curve where 2-3 of those teams are significantly superior to the rest. As a result, most fans can predict which 2-3 teams are likely to comprise the Champion before the season even starts (Hint: Georgia, Ohio State, Texas or Oregon).
Were we really deprived because James Madison didn't get in last year? I think we all have an answer to that question.
What we are doing is progressively diluting the regular season and its historic rivalries in favor of an ever-expanding postseason that doesn't really depend on the regular season. Fans are increasingly disinterested in any regular season not called the NFL.
Take the NBA where the Players Union is asking for a reduced season of games because "we're letting everybody in the postseason already." Or take NCAA basketball where fans today no longer care until mid-February. The regular season across sports is becoming a vast wasteland of meaningless unimportant games.
Maybe I'm the old odd man out here, but I don't see NCAA basketball, baseball, the NBA or now NCAA football as being improved by getting every mediocre team past the velvet rope.
And speaking of those mediocre teams, I have several friends who are Penn State grads. To a person they want James Franklin out because he cannot win games against strong opponents as you suggest. Giving them a door prize in December I don't think will solve much for them.
Again, happy to be told I'm out of step here but I personally see this expanded format as a negative. Thanks again.
I can absolutely see that side of the argument, but I think a positive of it is that it's insurance against some of the bad decisions the committee has made over the years.
I understand that they have a very difficult job with a lot of competing (if not outright conflicting) criteria when making their picks. But they made some egregiously arbitrary decisions around who got into the playoff during the 4-team era, with a rubric that seemed to change on almost a yearly basis. I think the BCS did a better (or at least fairer) job of picking teams than the committee that was supposedly a long-awaited upgrade (remember "Death to the BCS"?).
So I feel like the 12-team playoff at least lets the teams settle it on the field, where they at least have a chance to make their case. Will a team like Penn State take advantage of that chance and win the title? Probably not. But it's better to have more things settled in actual games than via arbitrary decisions by a group of politically influenced individuals (who, granted, will still be making the picks, but in a more structured way -- 5 conference champs are guaranteed spots -- and with a lower-leverage cutoff point at No. 12 vs 13 rather than No. 4 vs 5).
Certainly a fair perspective, and I can elect to tune out until we're down to the obvious four. But, the most pleasant and total surprise here is our apparent agreement on the mistreatment and general lack of awareness of how good and more fair the BCS was. Its coverage in the mefia was pure defamation. Star chambers filled with biased pseudo-intellectuals and pop culture stars never work as advertised...or as well as agnostic computers...never.
Until the BCS is resurrected, your points here are strong ones. Always appreciate the perspective.
I'll play the devil's advocate here with an honest question.
What does adding more lesser teams to the mix really add to the Playoffs besides ratings? When I think of the CFP, I don't perceive a bell curve of the top 12 or 15 teams, I see a highly right skewed curve where 2-3 of those teams are significantly superior to the rest. As a result, most fans can predict which 2-3 teams are likely to comprise the Champion before the season even starts (Hint: Georgia, Ohio State, Texas or Oregon).
Were we really deprived because James Madison didn't get in last year? I think we all have an answer to that question.
What we are doing is progressively diluting the regular season and its historic rivalries in favor of an ever-expanding postseason that doesn't really depend on the regular season. Fans are increasingly disinterested in any regular season not called the NFL.
Take the NBA where the Players Union is asking for a reduced season of games because "we're letting everybody in the postseason already." Or take NCAA basketball where fans today no longer care until mid-February. The regular season across sports is becoming a vast wasteland of meaningless unimportant games.
Maybe I'm the old odd man out here, but I don't see NCAA basketball, baseball, the NBA or now NCAA football as being improved by getting every mediocre team past the velvet rope.
And speaking of those mediocre teams, I have several friends who are Penn State grads. To a person they want James Franklin out because he cannot win games against strong opponents as you suggest. Giving them a door prize in December I don't think will solve much for them.
Again, happy to be told I'm out of step here but I personally see this expanded format as a negative. Thanks again.
I can absolutely see that side of the argument, but I think a positive of it is that it's insurance against some of the bad decisions the committee has made over the years.
I understand that they have a very difficult job with a lot of competing (if not outright conflicting) criteria when making their picks. But they made some egregiously arbitrary decisions around who got into the playoff during the 4-team era, with a rubric that seemed to change on almost a yearly basis. I think the BCS did a better (or at least fairer) job of picking teams than the committee that was supposedly a long-awaited upgrade (remember "Death to the BCS"?).
So I feel like the 12-team playoff at least lets the teams settle it on the field, where they at least have a chance to make their case. Will a team like Penn State take advantage of that chance and win the title? Probably not. But it's better to have more things settled in actual games than via arbitrary decisions by a group of politically influenced individuals (who, granted, will still be making the picks, but in a more structured way -- 5 conference champs are guaranteed spots -- and with a lower-leverage cutoff point at No. 12 vs 13 rather than No. 4 vs 5).