Slate article on the state of college football
SIAP.
Slate has an article that my brother sent me. For me it sums up alot of my current frustrations with CFB.
https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/college-football-fans-are-sad-all-the-time.html
At this point, I'd like to see the CFB Playoffs expanded to 8 (or 11!) teams or just go back to the old way. The way people get miserable over football just isn't fun.
November 8th, 2019 at 11:01 AM ^
I 100% agree about an 8 team playoff. There aren't generally 8 good teams any year, so that's more than enough. I'd also like much fewer bowl games. Shit teams shouldn't play in the post season.
November 8th, 2019 at 11:06 AM ^
Isn’t the fact that there aren’t generally 8 good teams any year an argument for a smaller playoff?
November 8th, 2019 at 11:09 AM ^
my sentiments...5th team in almost every year hasn't been good enough to be considered a threat anyways.
November 8th, 2019 at 11:17 AM ^
I think the difference between #1 and #4 is likely more vast than the difference between #4 and #8. For example, the last couple of years you could make the argument that a team like OSU (in 2018), Wisconsin or UCF (2017), or PSU (2016) were just as good as a team that got into the playoff, but were left out. Or at the very least, the difference between a team like ND and a team like Georgia or OSU is minimal. But the argument when you get to, say, #10 or #12 is more specious, so I get the desire to cut them out.
Honestly, if the playoffs wanted to include 6 teams and give the top 2 byes that would work for me as well. But especially given the disparity between conferences (the ACC currently has 2 teams in the top-25 playoffs rankings, and one of them is Wake Forest, while the Big 10 has 6), I'd rather expand the field than not.
November 8th, 2019 at 11:37 AM ^
How do you know since those teams often never play? Also, there have been teams that start season slow, get 1-2 losses, then build incredible momentum toward the end of the season and look like juggernauts.
see most college basketball playoffs for examples. Since teams can have a shot in that sport, it’s rarely that the most predicted #1 seed wins it all. Usually a 1-5 seed has a legit chance if they have momentum in their favor.
November 8th, 2019 at 11:12 AM ^
Nah. The end of season 8th best team is probably the 3rd hardest game that Alabama would have to play all year. They'd be the hardest game Clemson played to date.
In some sense, the larger playoff would help to bring SOS into a little better alignment.
November 8th, 2019 at 11:41 AM ^
Exactly. It also gives teams that have early season hiccups a chance to play when they're really hitting their stride. I can't count how many Michigan teams in my lifetime that dropped a game or two early that would have later made an 8 team playoff, most recently 2016 and 2018.
November 8th, 2019 at 3:17 PM ^
Playoff expansion also then changes what a "successful season" (and therefore "successful coach") is. E.g., if Harbaugh made the playoff twice, it would be a little harder for people to be angry that he "hasn't accomplished anything."
November 8th, 2019 at 3:33 PM ^
8 teams mean a lot more teams have something to play for deep into the season, which makes a lot more games meaningful. The fact that they are playing to be gang-raped by Alabama in the first round is immaterial. Every team in CFB would gladly accept that challenge, as opposed to playing in some crap bowl game for men in ugly sports jackets.
November 8th, 2019 at 1:51 PM ^
Isn’t the fact that there aren’t generally 8 good teams any year an argument for a smaller playoff?
Yes and no. Yes in the immediate competitiveness of the playoff games themselves. But, I think the larger point is giving more teams access will get more teams in the playoff conversation which may change the national narrative and help improve parity by allowing other teams to compete with Bama, Clemson, & OSU for recruits and perception of a chance to win a NC. An upset by a team out of the top 4 would go a long way to helping folks realize it's possible.
November 8th, 2019 at 12:09 PM ^
"Shit teams shouldn't play in the postseason" what is your definition of "shit teams"? 6-6? 7-5? 8-4? If there's someone willing to pay to host two .500 teams, I'm all for it. It's more football. If you don't like it, don't watch it.
I personally don't think a two-loss team should be worthy of competing for an NC and that's what you're going to be getting if you expand this to 8 teams. Maybe this is your only hope to see Michigan in the Playoffs, but 2 loss teams shouldn't be considered for the spot.
November 8th, 2019 at 12:13 PM ^
Yes, 6-6 is most definitely a "shit team"
November 8th, 2019 at 1:57 PM ^
Yes, 6-6 is most definitely a "shit team"
I agree that I don't have any interest in a non-B1G team that won less than 8 games. 5-plus loss teams usually have glaring weaknesses and are hard to watch unless you are personally vested in them, ie your favorite team or a team your favorite team often plays.
I'd like to see an 8-team playoff. Every P5 champ gets in, then 3 at-large bids. The first two rounds have home field advantage based on rank. The NC game is played at a neutral site. The rest of 8-4, 9-3, and10-2 teams play in bowls. The rest go home for Christmas. Add in player compensation for likeness and maybe I'd be happy with CFB again and UM would feel like they can still be relevant with our rival down south, while keeping our rival up north irrelevant.
November 8th, 2019 at 12:22 PM ^
I disagree. There is so much turnover (players and coaches), year to year, with college teams, that late November teams look way different than early September teams. I could easily see a scenario where a team installed a new offensive system, dropped a couple of early games, and then played like world beaters by the end of the season.
November 8th, 2019 at 3:21 PM ^
1997 UCLA comes to mind. Started 0-2 before vaporizing Texas, and they were on fire by the end of the year. But they likely would have been left out of a 4-team playoff because they lost to (worthless paper tiger) Tennessee early.
And 2003 Michigan and 2016 Penn State. Though both those teams did lose their bowl games.
November 8th, 2019 at 3:36 PM ^
I think though that the current playoff system means the bowl games don't mean a thing. Michigan had a bunch of players not play in their bowl last year, that would have if they were the 6th team in a playoff run.
I'm guessing '16 PSU players just didn't give as much of a care.
November 8th, 2019 at 12:15 PM ^
You mean you don't get hyped for 6-6 Nebraska vs 6-6 Miami Hurricanes in the Quick Lane Tire Bowl?
And here we though U-M had "fallen" on hard times...!
November 8th, 2019 at 1:05 PM ^
I recall some 5-7 teams playing. When you win two conference games you should probably just end after the regular season.
November 8th, 2019 at 1:40 PM ^
Unclear whether you're talking autobids or not.
An 8 team playoff with auto bids for the P5 conference champs and conference championship games is effectively a 13 team playoff with the conference championship games being play-in games. With this it is possible to lose a "play-in" game and still make the playoffs. Or it is possible that a team not even good enough to make the "play-in" game also makes the playoffs while a team good enough to make the conference championship game gets left home. Both of these seem like pretty weird outcomes. Even without auto bids, the structure (college football playoffs after conference "playoffs") can still result in some weirdness.
Dump the conference championship games, give each P5 conference two 2 slots teams in the playoff add a couple of at-large bids. The same number of post-season weeks as now, about same number of post-season games as now, but less prone to weird outcomes.
November 8th, 2019 at 1:47 PM ^
I'm talking about exactly what happens now, except with 8 teams. I can't imagine any semi-decent P5 champion not making it into the top 8.
November 8th, 2019 at 1:50 PM ^
To me, the fundamental problem with the current system is it has two levels of "playoffs". Conference championship games which are following by a different playoff, the cfp.
Yes I realize college basketball has a similar structure, but the number of teams that make it into the tourney nullifies most of the problems with a two tiered playoff system.
November 8th, 2019 at 2:02 PM ^
I agree. The minute CFB moved to a playoff the P5 conferences all should have been forced into equitable alignments. I'd recommend no divisions, rotating schedules, the top two teams play in the championship game, and all P5 conference play the same number of conference games. That's the only way to make it equitable. The problem is that means games like UM/OSU don't happen every year or could happen in consecutive weeks. I'm OK with that if the playoff is the system we're using. But, without conference realignment for all the P5s, I'd rather ditch the playoffs and go back to traditional bowls and no conference championship games. You can't have it both ways and still be equitable for teams like UM who will remain under the stranglehold of OSU and limited by the best team in the country being in their division, meanwhile a 3-loss team in the other division could win their division.
November 8th, 2019 at 2:09 PM ^
That's a good point. The more fundamental issue is that different teams play different numbers of games. Having a real playoff championship when conferences have a different number of conference games, and then on top of that you have an extra conference championship game for two teams in a few conferences.
We need standardization around scheduling as the gentleman above me says. It's the only way to really make this work - I'd be fine with shit canning conference championships.
November 8th, 2019 at 2:24 PM ^
The more fundamental issue is that different teams play different numbers of games.
Agreed, I said that in my post as well.
We need standardization around scheduling
Yes...
I'd be fine with shit canning conference championships.
And yes
November 8th, 2019 at 11:17 AM ^
Something needs to change. This season has been, by far, the least enjoyable season of college football I can remember for a lot of reasons. The schedule has been terrible. There has been precisely two Saturdays with good night games.
Conference alignments are a complete joke. The playoff is a debacle,with literally two out of four spots guaranteed to Bama and Clemson, a matchup that like a total of 9 people in the country want to see again.
Fans emailing players. Fire this guy. Fire that guy. Fienbaum and other media types really showing a lot of personal hate toward individuals, truly wishing ill on other people.
It's ugly right now.
I enjoyed high school football far more than I did college football this year, and I am elated that college basketball is starting.
November 8th, 2019 at 11:36 AM ^
In some ways I have come to view the state of college football as a barometer for the broader zeitgeist in our culture. We're not very happy, generally speaking, and we do not seem to get along well with our fellow citizens. Also, I know that this is nothing new, but more than ever college football fans have come to associate their own personal self-worth with the success or failure of their teams. To me, this is a compensation mechanism for a general sense of frustration with "real" life these days, particularly for men.
November 8th, 2019 at 11:40 AM ^
You are on to something there. College football is our Fight Club. Only we don't even really participate in it.
November 8th, 2019 at 12:29 PM ^
what happens in College football stays in College football.
November 8th, 2019 at 12:12 PM ^
I get frustrated because "the system" isn't fair. Call it "crony conference-ism". The system is set-up to allow the SEC to rule the roost. ESPN profits well from this. Consistently get 2 SEC teams into the playoff. Despite scheduling tomato cans out of conference (for most of the teams). And despite intentionally skimping on the BIG cross-over matchups! (Alabama vs Florida or Georgia in regular season... seen that lately?)
Then, look at Delany's crony conference... his fiefdom for OVER 30 YEARS!
The Big Ten has been against Michigan's success for years. Witness the scheduling... the back-to-back away games schedule when the conference scrapped the "Leaders and Legends" junk.
The Big Ten "East" and "West" divisions and scheduling there.
The Big Ten put those refs on the field in Ohio in 2016.
On and on it goes. There is a crony conference-ism that is maddening to anyone who values fair competition. The system is set up for a select few crony, corrupt programs and it is maddening.
November 8th, 2019 at 12:13 PM ^
Tin foil hat take: Check.
November 8th, 2019 at 12:38 PM ^
Blinders-on sheeple take: Check.
November 8th, 2019 at 12:44 PM ^
He does have a point about BS SEC crossovers.
November 8th, 2019 at 2:00 PM ^
One data point to consider, the refs that worked the 2016 OSU game were selected by the B1G to ref in the cfp that year.
November 8th, 2019 at 11:18 AM ^
Why can’t it be 16 like every other division in college football?
The NFL has 12/32 teams make the playoffs which is about 37.5% of the league. If you matched that percentage with college football, you’d have a 48 team playoff (which should never happen). I still think 16 is the right number, and I think you’d see enough upsets to make it interesting.
November 8th, 2019 at 11:21 AM ^
There's no way you can add 4 more games without doing some major changes to the regular season.
November 8th, 2019 at 2:05 PM ^
Not sure where you're getting 4 more games. Current playoff is 2 levels and 3 games, 16 team field would have 4 levels and 15 games.
You could start by dumping the conference championship games. That would mean that a 16 team field has 1 more level than the current system and would have 8 more games.
November 8th, 2019 at 2:13 PM ^
Four more than no CFP, not the current CFP. The current justification for the lame 4 team playoff is that two extra games was the absolute most they wanted to add.
November 8th, 2019 at 11:31 AM ^
Here's why for me: 1- it is actually not fair. The day a 10 or 15 seed wins a NC renders the excellence of a top four (or top six) team losing zero or just one game all season meaningless. To take your NFL example, when the Giants won the SB against an undefeated Patriots, that was not a fair outcome, because the Giants were definitively not one of the top 2-3 teams that season. 4 teams in college is beautiful because there is almost zero discussion or debate afterwords that the best team won the NC. 2- related to the above--every single game in the college football regular seasons is life or death, losing one game is potentially catastrophic to your teams hopes. That is awesome, and what makes regular season college football the best sport there is. Once you can lose 3 games and still have a chance to go to playoffs, the meaning of a regular season game is lessened, and that is bad.
November 8th, 2019 at 6:59 PM ^
I respect your opinion but I’ve never agreed with this take. Teams change over time and playoffs try to recognize that.
if the patriots were the better team, they would have won.
November 8th, 2019 at 2:16 PM ^
I don't know if I'm for 8 or 16 or whatever, but your argument is why I hate it when people act like it will ruin the sport to go to 8 or 16 teams like it's some unheardof experiment that will ruin the sport
FCS has 24 of 126 in the playoffs (19%)
DII has 28 of 167 (17%)
DIII has 32 of 250 (13%)
If you did a comparable for FBS and said maybe 18% make it then you'd have about 24 of 130 make it. I know you can argue that the #8 or #9 team usually isn't a team that really has a shot at the title, but widening the playoffs could / should help improve parity in recruiting as now a bunch of teams make it instead of just 4-6 football factories
November 8th, 2019 at 11:19 AM ^
NCAA Division FBS has 129 teams thus having a four team playoff not based on merit but selection is just stupid. Furthermore, add to the fact that we lack a single separated entity that designs schedules further compounds the problem.
Alabama setup a smartphone app that tracked student movement during a game. The incentive for students remaining the whole game was priority purchasing for playoff tickets. How does the university know that Alabama will make the playoffs? They know this because Alabama schedules a bunch of high school teams.
The system currently is a joke that fails to take into account not only scheduling but academic requirements and then attempts to pick a national champion? Alabama is the national champion of what?
November 8th, 2019 at 11:59 AM ^
You are spot-on in some respects. Academic success should absolutely be a part of the equation. Not a big or sizeable weight, but a part of it.
Strength of scheduling is definitely an issue, but the committee does look at this in making its rankings. The problem is the lack of consistency.
November 8th, 2019 at 11:47 AM ^
Fuck no to 11 but 8 would be perfect. In reality 6 is the ideal amount but choosing who gets the bye would be a headache
November 8th, 2019 at 12:02 PM ^
This article and your post are spot-on.
I would add to it: the creation of these backwards, #@^$% divisions! SEC West, Big Ten East hold very good teams, like Michigan, but the season is basically over after 1 loss in your conference.
That's the big issue. You don't win your division, you don't get to play for the "Conference Championship" (a lie). You don't win that, you get some second-tier bowl.
This playoff system HAS to expand and the divisions should be scrapped altogether.
November 8th, 2019 at 4:36 PM ^
One of the other things about conference divisions right now is that they are far from balanced, and I am not sure what you do in the Big Ten, for example, short of ditching "East / West" and going with some other manner of division.
November 8th, 2019 at 12:20 PM ^
I agree with you OP. If we win out and go to a NY6 game, that's a pretty good season. But I can't promise that I wouldn't have a lingering bittersweet feeling if we beat OSU and don't go to the CFP.
And I agree with the other poster about scrapping the divisions. Divisions in pro sports work because of profit sharing and a salary cap. We have imbalanced athletic departments in all of these conferences. B1G East schools have bigger budgets, therefore better facilities and better teams than the B1G West schools. So you're going to have imbalanced schedules that tilt one way or the other. Alabama doesn't have this dynasty if they were going to Athens or Gainesville every year. In fact, I don't remember the last time they've played UGA or UF in the regular season.
November 8th, 2019 at 12:30 PM ^
Maybe I'd care more about NY6 bowls if I wasn't watching a Michigan bowl game on December 28 or 30.
November 8th, 2019 at 1:36 PM ^
They're more like ≈ NY6 bowl games. I wish they could break up the ESPN/ABC monopoly on the NY6 and play all the games on New Years Day. That used to be my favorite day of the year with multiple good games on at the same time.
November 8th, 2019 at 12:40 PM ^
Divisions have crushed the Big Ten and made it the most predictable conference championship outside the SEC.
And yes - to your point - Alabama hasn't played Georgia or Florida in a long, long time and it is done on purpose to potentially keep 2 SEC schools in the playoff picture right up until the end. The SEC probably didn't want to have LSU play Florida this year but felt like something had to give.