(03-03-2018 01:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 07:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Wow ...

1) What makes you think college football isn't a healthy sport? It brings in far more money than college basketball, even though hoops is run by the 'rational' system you prefer.

E.g., compare NBA to NFL. Top NFL franchise is worth $4.2B, top NBA team is worth $3B. College? Top college football program is worth $1.5B, top college hoops program is worth $346m, a much larger disparity.

There's zero evidence that college football is an unhealthy sport, it is making more money than ever.

2) As explained, there's no rational reason to give (for example) the Sun Belt champion an auto-bid in the playoffs when we know that on average, most years, there will be several P5 teams that didn't win their conference that are clearly better. It would be irrational, in the sense of having a system that is best able to determine who is truly best, to have a system that guarantees G5 conference champ bids but leaves P5 non-champs out.

That's not the case in the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. where yes, in a given year, the NFC East might be better than the AFC West, but over time, it clearly is all even.

And that's because of the nature of the 'leagues'. The NFL is a true league, in that the members themselves tightly control who can be in the league and the standards they have to meet. No city can throw together a football team and then declare to the NFL "Here we are! We got a football team, so you have to let us play with you and compete for the Super Bowl just like the Cowboys"!

But that's FBS. In FBS, a school can self-select to join that "league" by meeting very low attendance and scholarship standards set by the NCAA. That is irrational, no professional league would do that. FBS isn't a 'league' in any rational sense of the term. It's always been just an NCAA category to distinguish schools that want to play bowl games rather than participate in NCAA organized playoffs.

So there's nothing "unsporting" about the current system. It fits the financial and rational realities of college football, and the vast majority of college football fans know this.

There may not be a rational reason to give the Sunbelt Champ a slot, but there is an absolutely rational reason to give the top G5 champ a slot (whoever that may be). My feeling is the best solution is an 8-team playoff with all P5 champs being AQ, the top G5 champ being AQ, and two wild cards chosen by .the Selection Committee, Every team will have a path to the playoff when the season starts. That’s certainly part of a healthy sport.

First, the G5 teams won't have a path to the playoffs when the season starts. You just push the problem of subjective selection down to the G5 level. Who or how will it be determined who the top G5 is? Some kind of committee using RPI, SOS, BCS computers, etc. And the four conference champs that get left out will all gnash their teeths about the unsporting nature of it all.

Second, whether college football is 'unhealthy' depends on point of view. It isn't unhealthy from a P perspective, because the P have the cash and the access. It is from a G perspective, for the same reason.

So if G wants P to change things such that G will be better off in terms of access, money, exposure, etc. there has to be a good reason for P to do so. So far, nobody has shown that reason.