(03-03-2018 01:51 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

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

If that's the case, why even have National Champions at all? How can there be if it's not a 'league'. If that's the case shouldn't the only 'champions' be conference champions? Shouldn't we not have ONE champion over all of FBS but rather 10?

People are not dumb. They know its an absurd system. But a lot of people want to hold on to advantages, to maintain a pecking order that they think advantages them. Others have just been convinced that in college football you need to keep a weird system that has subjectivity injected into it where none is required...because its always been done that way.

Those in the middle could stomach a compromise where the G5 counts as 3/5ths of a conference. Which I guess is better, but still not a rational straightforward sports playoff.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(03-03-2018 01:51 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

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

If that's the case, why even have National Champions at all? How can there be if it's not a 'league'. If that's the case shouldn't the only 'champions' be conference champions? Shouldn't we not have ONE champion over all of FBS but rather 10?

Why have national champions at all? Indeed. Which is why we do not have a national championship at the FBS level, and never have had. The fact remains, however, as it has since at least 1936 or so, that there is nothing the NCAA can do to stop fans or sportswriters (or even UCF fans) from declaring somebody as a mythical national champion. So if you have a beef with anyone, those are the folks you should take your beef to - not the NCAA or the so-called "P5".

I think the p5 should stay as they are and the g5 conferences should stop playing football altogether
Bulldoze all the new stadiums, will make some open space on campus

(03-03-2018 09:20 AM)ark30inf 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.

You go right to the cash. In terms of making money for the cartel schools its a fantastic system. Gold-plated toilet seats abound. No better sustem.

I was referring to healthy in terms of growing interest, attendance, viewership, parity, player satisfaction, etc., and legitimacy of outcomes in the subdivision as a whole. As opposed to Ice Dancing or WWE or Harlem Globetrotters which can also make money but are a joke in terms of sports.

What do you think that "interest and attendance and viewership" add up to? They add up to cash.

"Player satisfaction"? What are players unhappy with except that they aren't getting paid, and that's not an issue here.

"Parity"? That's a socialistic concept. That helps true leagues like the NFL, because the NFL is the actual business entity, not the individual teams. E.g. the Cowboys and Patriots would suffer if small-market franchises ceased to have the basic tools to be competitive. Patriots fans want their team to play and beat credible NFL teams, if they were playing semi-pro teams, their stadiums would empty out quickly.

But that's not true of FBS. Sure, Alabama fans want their team to play SEC rivals, but they will also gladly show up to see them beat up on G5 or FCS teams. Doesn't hurt Alabama attendance at all to have 2-3 teams on the schedule that are obviously non-competitive due to huge resource disparities. And that's because Alabama fans rightly don't consider those teams part of their league.

(03-03-2018 12:55 PM)_C2_ 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.

#2

No rational reason except all division/conference champions should be given a playoff spot before all wild cards. Using your logic, the AFC South has been a terrible divisions for years now. Take away it's automatic bid to the NFL playoffs because it's clearly inferior to the AFC North and NFC West. Same for the western conference versus the eastern conference of the NBA.

You see how ridiculous that is? I'm assuming not because the same automated response is coming I presume. Again, in college basketball, the same inequality you speak of exists, yet they find a way to make sure each conference champion gets a bid, even if some are eliminated before the second full round.

College hoops is different, for two reasons. First, the culture of hoops has always been based on an expansive, inclusive tournament. The culture of college football never has been.

Second, by the nature of the sport, hoops can have a huge, 68-team tournament that lets everyone in. They don't have to face the either/or of a Sun Belt champ vs a B1G runner-up, because there is space for both.

Football can't have that, so choices have to be made. And since the ACC runner-up is almost always better than the Sun Belt champ, it is irrational to give the Sun Belt champ an auto-bid and leave the ACC runner-up out. That would *hurt* our ability to derive the best team, not help.

And your NFL example to support your claim is bad, because even if the AFC South is worse than the AFC North for 10 straight years, that's still just by chance, it's not structurally true, and we know the day will come when the AFC South is better. It's like the Patriots have been better than the Dolphins for 17 years now. Still, we know that when Brady and Belichik finally retire, the Fins may very well be better than the Patriots again, as they have in the past. Fundamentally, despite 17 years of Patriots dominance, they are equal.

That's not true of the Sun Belt vs the ACC. The ACC is structurally better than the Sun Belt, it ALWAYS is, without exception. They are categorically unequal, and a system that pretends they are equal is irrational.

(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.

(03-03-2018 01:51 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

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

If that's the case, why even have National Champions at all? How can there be if it's not a 'league'. If that's the case shouldn't the only 'champions' be conference champions? Shouldn't we not have ONE champion over all of FBS but rather 10?

We do have a valid national champion. In practice, the P5 and G5 are essentially different leagues, and the CFP champ is the valid champ of the P5 conferences, as those are peer conferences who have the same access to the CFP.

The G5 conferences have no champ, unless you want to call the team that gets the Access bid the G5 national champ, which is fine with me.

UCF was the G5 national champ this year.

(03-04-2018 02:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 12:55 PM)_C2_ 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:  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.

#2

No rational reason except all division/conference champions should be given a playoff spot before all wild cards. Using your logic, the AFC South has been a terrible divisions for years now. Take away it's automatic bid to the NFL playoffs because it's clearly inferior to the AFC North and NFC West. Same for the western conference versus the eastern conference of the NBA.

You see how ridiculous that is? I'm assuming not because the same automated response is coming I presume. Again, in college basketball, the same inequality you speak of exists, yet they find a way to make sure each conference champion gets a bid, even if some are eliminated before the second full round.

College hoops is different, for two reasons. First, the culture of hoops has always been based on an expansive, inclusive tournament. The culture of college football never has been.

Second, by the nature of the sport, hoops can have a huge, 68-team tournament that lets everyone in. They don't have to face the either/or of a Sun Belt champ vs a B1G runner-up, because there is space for both.

Football can't have that, so choices have to be made. And since the ACC runner-up is almost always better than the Sun Belt champ, it is irrational to give the Sun Belt champ an auto-bid and leave the ACC runner-up out. That would *hurt* our ability to derive the best team, not help.

And your NFL example to support your claim is bad, because even if the AFC South is worse than the AFC North for 10 straight years, that's still just by chance, it's not structurally true, and we know the day will come when the AFC South is better. It's like the Patriots have been better than the Dolphins for 17 years now. Still, we know that when Brady and Belichik finally retire, the Fins may very well be better than the Patriots again, as they have in the past. Fundamentally, despite 17 years of Patriots dominance, they are equal.

That's not true of the Sun Belt vs the ACC. The ACC is structurally better than the Sun Belt, it ALWAYS is, without exception. They are categorically unequal, and a system that pretends they are equal is irrational.

Umm, why can't football have that? Why is it irrational? The ACC runner-up had their shot. Make sure you have enough at-large space for the ACC runner up if they're good enough. Problem solved.

And why do we just assume they're better?

(03-04-2018 02:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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:  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.

A cartel will never have a good reason to choose not to be a cartel.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(03-04-2018 02:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 12:55 PM)_C2_ 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:  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.

#2

No rational reason except all division/conference champions should be given a playoff spot before all wild cards. Using your logic, the AFC South has been a terrible divisions for years now. Take away it's automatic bid to the NFL playoffs because it's clearly inferior to the AFC North and NFC West. Same for the western conference versus the eastern conference of the NBA.

You see how ridiculous that is? I'm assuming not because the same automated response is coming I presume. Again, in college basketball, the same inequality you speak of exists, yet they find a way to make sure each conference champion gets a bid, even if some are eliminated before the second full round.

College hoops is different, for two reasons. First, the culture of hoops has always been based on an expansive, inclusive tournament. The culture of college football never has been.

Second, by the nature of the sport, hoops can have a huge, 68-team tournament that lets everyone in. They don't have to face the either/or of a Sun Belt champ vs a B1G runner-up, because there is space for both.

Football can't have that, so choices have to be made. And since the ACC runner-up is almost always better than the Sun Belt champ, it is irrational to give the Sun Belt champ an auto-bid and leave the ACC runner-up out. That would *hurt* our ability to derive the best team, not help.

And your NFL example to support your claim is bad, because even if the AFC South is worse than the AFC North for 10 straight years, that's still just by chance, it's not structurally true, and we know the day will come when the AFC South is better. It's like the Patriots have been better than the Dolphins for 17 years now. Still, we know that when Brady and Belichik finally retire, the Fins may very well be better than the Patriots again, as they have in the past. Fundamentally, despite 17 years of Patriots dominance, they are equal.

That's not true of the Sun Belt vs the ACC. The ACC is structurally better than the Sun Belt, it ALWAYS is, without exception. They are categorically unequal, and a system that pretends they are equal is irrational.

The Sun Belt will always be unequal in a sports league when they have no access to its playoffs.

You are unemployed so you cannot be hired. You are uneducated so you can't go to school.

The cartel is DESIGNED to maintain the status quo and erect barriers to prevent the G5 conferences from advancing.

Using the inequality the cartel maintains as an excuse to maintain the inequality is a fallacious argument.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Well c2, we can assume that if Quo and ken had their way the g5 should never be allowed to grow and should just state publicly that as g5 programs will never assume g5 teams might be almost as good in public or in private, or in g5 groups no larger than 5 fans, because you know that’s all the g5 fans that there are (5) and you can assume that quo and ken will tell you that that’s all the g5 fans and that it will always be only 5 fans because that’s the way it’s always been and can’t change because p5 fans are smarter than g5 fans, assuming you believe quo and ken and all the p5 posters on these boards that when they talk to g5 fans it’s always in the same belittling tone, it’s like they all watch cnn and drink the coolaid and they want the g5ers to drink the Jones town coolaid
I think the g5 should look around for their own broadcasting deal, yeah I know, you p5ers think !, that their is no way a tv broadcaster will ever invest money in the g5 as a stand alone league as stated above, but y’all just keep on drinking that coolaid, the longer you drink it the better

(03-04-2018 09:24 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Well c2, we can assume that if Quo and ken had their way the g5 should never be allowed to grow and should just state publicly that as g5 programs will never assume g5 teams might be almost as good in public or in private, or in g5 groups no larger than 5 fans, because you know that’s all the g5 fans that there are (5) and you can assume that quo and ken will tell you that that’s all the g5 fans and that it will always be only 5 fans because that’s the way it’s always been and can’t change because p5 fans are smarter than g5 fans, assuming you believe quo and ken and all the p5 posters on these boards that when they talk to g5 fans it’s always in the same belittling tone, it’s like they all watch cnn and drink the coolaid and they want the g5ers to drink the Jones town coolaid
I think the g5 should look around for their own broadcasting deal, yeah I know, you p5ers think !, that their is no way a tv broadcaster will ever invest money in the g5 as a stand alone league as stated above, but y’all just keep on drinking that coolaid, that longer you drink it the better

That is what they hear from the commentators on TV and the dipstick sports journalist who combine arrogance with sports.

So I don't know if you can blame them. But its definitely a tiresome POV. A POV that doesn't make sense when college football is constantly evolving from rules, realignment and post season.

(03-04-2018 09:24 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Well c2, we can assume that if Quo and ken had their way the g5 should never be allowed to grow and should just state publicly that as g5 programs will never assume g5 teams might be almost as good in public or in private, or in g5 groups no larger than 5 fans, because you know that’s all the g5 fans that there are (5) and you can assume that quo and ken will tell you that that’s all the g5 fans and that it will always be only 5 fans because that’s the way it’s always been and can’t change because p5 fans are smarter than g5 fans, assuming you believe quo and ken and all the p5 posters on these boards that when they talk to g5 fans it’s always in the same belittling tone, it’s like they all watch cnn and drink the coolaid and they want the g5ers to drink the Jones town coolaid
I think the g5 should look around for their own broadcasting deal, yeah I know, you p5ers think !, that their is no way a tv broadcaster will ever invest money in the g5 as a stand alone league as stated above, but y’all just keep on drinking that coolaid, that longer you drink it the better

P5 needs to decide if they want to be a semi-pro league and go their own way, or if they want an actual rational FBS subdivision. One or the other. This mutant cartel version stinks.

If they decide semi-pro then G5 needs to split in all sports and governance. G5 can't go on letting a semi-pro cartel continue to make rules for them in that case. G5 would need to start competing for a market niche on its own. No FBS/FCS type split under the same banner this time.

If they decide for FBS then G5 needs to insist on equal playoff access for all conferences.

I think equal playoff access alone will do wonders in solving the parity problems over time. P5 schools would continue to have a huge advantage. But G5 quality and revenues would improve. Interest amongst G5 fans would increase because the enforced irrelevance would be over. A healthier sport overall.

G5 fans shouldn't expect an equal outcome, but they should expect an equal opportunity on the field...and insist on it.







Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(03-04-2018 02:33 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 12:55 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

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

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

#2

No rational reason except all division/conference champions should be given a playoff spot before all wild cards. Using your logic, the AFC South has been a terrible divisions for years now. Take away it's automatic bid to the NFL playoffs because it's clearly inferior to the AFC North and NFC West. Same for the western conference versus the eastern conference of the NBA.

You see how ridiculous that is? I'm assuming not because the same automated response is coming I presume. Again, in college basketball, the same inequality you speak of exists, yet they find a way to make sure each conference champion gets a bid, even if some are eliminated before the second full round.

College hoops is different, for two reasons. First, the culture of hoops has always been based on an expansive, inclusive tournament. The culture of college football never has been.

Second, by the nature of the sport, hoops can have a huge, 68-team tournament that lets everyone in. They don't have to face the either/or of a Sun Belt champ vs a B1G runner-up, because there is space for both.

Football can't have that, so choices have to be made. And since the ACC runner-up is almost always better than the Sun Belt champ, it is irrational to give the Sun Belt champ an auto-bid and leave the ACC runner-up out. That would *hurt* our ability to derive the best team, not help.

And your NFL example to support your claim is bad, because even if the AFC South is worse than the AFC North for 10 straight years, that's still just by chance, it's not structurally true, and we know the day will come when the AFC South is better. It's like the Patriots have been better than the Dolphins for 17 years now. Still, we know that when Brady and Belichik finally retire, the Fins may very well be better than the Patriots again, as they have in the past. Fundamentally, despite 17 years of Patriots dominance, they are equal.

That's not true of the Sun Belt vs the ACC. The ACC is structurally better than the Sun Belt, it ALWAYS is, without exception. They are categorically unequal, and a system that pretends they are equal is irrational.

Umm, why can't football have that? Why is it irrational? The ACC runner-up had their shot. Make sure you have enough at-large space for the ACC runner up if they're good enough. Problem solved.

And why do we just assume they're better?

We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

You know kittenhead I almost feel sorry for p5ers like ken and quo who talk themselves blue in the face about the differences between the p5 and the g5 and how historically horrible g5 sports programs have always been and continue to be horrible and they will gleefully point out that the tv networks pay more money to the p5 because more college football fans watch p5 football which is true but quo and ken will try to stear you away from the truth that ESPN and p5 conferences and NCAA collude to degrade the g5 sports programs so as to further their p5 business model , but kittenhead you and I both know that ken d and quo try as they might can’t save this p5 business model from savage legal action that will result in a 10 FBS playoff and little misled foot soldiers like quo and ken d will be left standing alone with empty coolaid cups of failed propaganda

(03-04-2018 09:16 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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:  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.

A cartel will never have a good reason to choose not to be a cartel.

You seem to have a strange notion of what a 'cartel' is. Bizarro, actually. Cartel usually implies restraint of trade. But there is nothing about the CFP that restrains trade for G5 members. G5 conferences like the Sun Belt are free to sign their own deals with bowls, TV networks, etc. and there isn't a damn thing the P5 can do about it. If FOX wants to give the Sun Belt $50m per school per year, zero the SEC can do about it. Nothing.

In fact, the only time a court has ever ruled that the college football system was characterized by restraint of trade was when the SCOTUS struck down the NCAA's "we're all one big league!" TV deal structure and freed up each conference to sign its own deal.

You seem to think that high-value conferences should just voluntarily give away some of their money and prestige to low-value conferences because ... why? The goodness of their hearts?

I guess if I start my own burger joint, rather than trying to put me out of business, McDonald's should start giving me money and promote me on their web site to help me grow my business?

You are a weird bird.

Arc30, your making some really good points and it’s all true

(03-04-2018 09:23 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 12:55 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

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

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

#2

No rational reason except all division/conference champions should be given a playoff spot before all wild cards. Using your logic, the AFC South has been a terrible divisions for years now. Take away it's automatic bid to the NFL playoffs because it's clearly inferior to the AFC North and NFC West. Same for the western conference versus the eastern conference of the NBA.

You see how ridiculous that is? I'm assuming not because the same automated response is coming I presume. Again, in college basketball, the same inequality you speak of exists, yet they find a way to make sure each conference champion gets a bid, even if some are eliminated before the second full round.

College hoops is different, for two reasons. First, the culture of hoops has always been based on an expansive, inclusive tournament. The culture of college football never has been.

Second, by the nature of the sport, hoops can have a huge, 68-team tournament that lets everyone in. They don't have to face the either/or of a Sun Belt champ vs a B1G runner-up, because there is space for both.

Football can't have that, so choices have to be made. And since the ACC runner-up is almost always better than the Sun Belt champ, it is irrational to give the Sun Belt champ an auto-bid and leave the ACC runner-up out. That would *hurt* our ability to derive the best team, not help.

And your NFL example to support your claim is bad, because even if the AFC South is worse than the AFC North for 10 straight years, that's still just by chance, it's not structurally true, and we know the day will come when the AFC South is better. It's like the Patriots have been better than the Dolphins for 17 years now. Still, we know that when Brady and Belichik finally retire, the Fins may very well be better than the Patriots again, as they have in the past. Fundamentally, despite 17 years of Patriots dominance, they are equal.

That's not true of the Sun Belt vs the ACC. The ACC is structurally better than the Sun Belt, it ALWAYS is, without exception. They are categorically unequal, and a system that pretends they are equal is irrational.

The Sun Belt will always be unequal in a sports league when they have no access to its playoffs.

You are unemployed so you cannot be hired. You are uneducated so you can't go to school.

The cartel is DESIGNED to maintain the status quo and erect barriers to prevent the G5 conferences from advancing.

Using the inequality the cartel maintains as an excuse to maintain the inequality is a fallacious argument.

First, the Sun Belt has the same formal access to the playoffs as does the SEC. The SEC doesn't have any formal advantage, it just produces better teams so they get selected.

Second, and most important, the ACC was always better than the Sun Belt not only now, but under the BCS, and under the old anything-goes poll and bowl system. Under all systems, so no system can be blamed for creating and maintaining Sun Belt inferiority.

What you seem to want is a welfare system that gives the Sun Belt team something it hasn't earned - auto-entry to a playoff - even though it would harm our ability to derive the best team.

And why? So that the Sun Belt can grow? That's a terrible reason, unless you are in the Sun Belt, but nobody else is obligated to give you and handout.

(03-04-2018 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:33 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 12:55 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

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

#2

No rational reason except all division/conference champions should be given a playoff spot before all wild cards. Using your logic, the AFC South has been a terrible divisions for years now. Take away it's automatic bid to the NFL playoffs because it's clearly inferior to the AFC North and NFC West. Same for the western conference versus the eastern conference of the NBA.

You see how ridiculous that is? I'm assuming not because the same automated response is coming I presume. Again, in college basketball, the same inequality you speak of exists, yet they find a way to make sure each conference champion gets a bid, even if some are eliminated before the second full round.

College hoops is different, for two reasons. First, the culture of hoops has always been based on an expansive, inclusive tournament. The culture of college football never has been.

Second, by the nature of the sport, hoops can have a huge, 68-team tournament that lets everyone in. They don't have to face the either/or of a Sun Belt champ vs a B1G runner-up, because there is space for both.

Football can't have that, so choices have to be made. And since the ACC runner-up is almost always better than the Sun Belt champ, it is irrational to give the Sun Belt champ an auto-bid and leave the ACC runner-up out. That would *hurt* our ability to derive the best team, not help.

And your NFL example to support your claim is bad, because even if the AFC South is worse than the AFC North for 10 straight years, that's still just by chance, it's not structurally true, and we know the day will come when the AFC South is better. It's like the Patriots have been better than the Dolphins for 17 years now. Still, we know that when Brady and Belichik finally retire, the Fins may very well be better than the Patriots again, as they have in the past. Fundamentally, despite 17 years of Patriots dominance, they are equal.

That's not true of the Sun Belt vs the ACC. The ACC is structurally better than the Sun Belt, it ALWAYS is, without exception. They are categorically unequal, and a system that pretends they are equal is irrational.

Umm, why can't football have that? Why is it irrational? The ACC runner-up had their shot. Make sure you have enough at-large space for the ACC runner up if they're good enough. Problem solved.

And why do we just assume they're better?

We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

You want to be part of the high-powered hyper-competitive super conference that makes all of the money, but you can't accept that you came in second in it and want an East German ice dancing judge or Condoleeza Rice to subjectively say you are better than another conference's champion and give you their slot.

And that makes self-serving sense from the perspective of fans of 2nd place P5 teams.

I personally favor a 12 team playoff with all conference champions and 2-wildcards. That way Condoleeza can still subjectively select that 2nd place team if she subjectively thinks it is better than other 2nd place teams.

And she would probably always hold up her scorecard for the P5 wildcard. So P5 would get 7 slots, and G5 champs would get 5. Condoleeza would even get to seed your 2nd place P5 higher than the Sun Belt champ if she subjectively thought they were prettier.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

LOL