(03-02-2018 08:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 05:02 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It wasn’t really so much a bribe as it was a misrepresentation. The system itself allows the G5 to be in the playoff. The stacked selection committee makes it entirely impossible. It’s not so much the system as it is the implementation. If an undefeated G5 can’t even crack the Selection Committee top 10–it effectively becomes a closed P5 playoff system and the G5 CFP payment becomes a hush money bribe (but only after the fact).

My point, really, was that when one throws around words like "bribe" they should have no expectation of being taken seriously. Those words are prima facie evidence that the speaker is being emotional, and not rational.

The fact that UCF was only ranked #12 by the CFP selection committee in no way demonstrates that a deserving G5 team could never be selected for the playoff. The same is true about an unbeaten Western Michigan team. They weren't selected because one panel - the selection committee - agreed with everybody else about whether UCF should have been in that playoff.

And when I say everybody else, of course I am exaggerating. There are a few like yourself who disagree with that. But coaches of the G5 schools didn't disagree. I admit I haven't seen the individual coaches' ballots, like I did the AP voters' ballots. But zero AP voters placed UCF in their top four teams, and UCF's vote count in the Coaches' Poll was right in line with the AP. So I'm pretty sure they also overwhelmingly rejected the premise that UCF should have been invited because they were unbeaten.

So, let's just drop the "bribe" and "hush money" talk, and accept that both sides in those transactions acted honorably and in a rational, market driven way. Just not in a way that produced the outcome you would have preferred.

Market driven way? Lol. This is a cartel designed to preserve a status quo pecking order. It is nowhere near market driven. Just the opposite.

You are talking about polls! For a sports competition with scoring! That is absurd. And you can't even recognize how absurd that is.

If you tried to introduce polls into the NBA, or the NFL, or your kids soccer league, it would be seen as insane.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

In the NBA or the NFL or your kid's soccer league, it would be insane. But you can't even recognize how absurd it is to only use wins and losses when you have 130 teams and 10 conferences all playing wildly disparate schedules. Those 10 conferences and their champions are clearly not all equals, and there is no reason to treat them as if they were.

And you can LOL all you want, but it doesn't change the very obvious fact that in the competition for fan interest and support, the P5 conferences have won the battle in the marketplace by a very wide margin. You just don't like it, and you want to blame the market standing of your favorite team(s) on some evil conspiracy.

Is it fair that the Ohio States and Michigans of the football world have far greater resources than the Florida Internationals? Of course not. But what does fairness have to do with it? To say a market is "free" does not mean it's "fair". Those advantages were earned over a century or more. Why should they be ceded to new entries in the market, or to schools who have been at it longer but failed to develop them?

We have 10 FBS conference champions. Not hard to manage a playoff. 130 teams will not be going to a playoff.

Part of the reason there is disparity is because quality players know that they have to go to a certain few P5's in order to have a shot at a championship.

If all conferences had an equal shot at a playoff slot by their own performance, then some players who now sit on the bench at LSU would instead choose to play every down and be playoff-bound champions at Rice or Louisiana or Arkansas State.

This would improve the performance of G5 conferences and lessen your complaints of a quality difference.

If a quality difference remains it can be handled like all other sports with playoffs....by seeding them lower.

With the increased quality, P5 fans would have less complaint about meaningless home cupcake games that are not competitive or relevant.

With increased competitiveness and playoff spots on the line, all FBS conferences would see increased attendance and interest.

Over time more programs would rise and fall rather than the stagnant repetitive list of 15 or so schools that have a legit chance at a national championship.

What I've described is how a normal healthy sports league behaves.

The fact that there is a persistent disparity in your sports league is not an argument for continuing that disparity...or for creating more disparity.

College football fans are odd in their defense of such an unsporting system. Its like brainwashing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

That’s a good point. If only New England, Dallas, Seattle, and Miami were allowed to play in the Super Bowl—and there was no draft—eventually they would typically always have the best players.