FalcFans Forums

we continuie our discussion for a playoff system with this article.Pudge will not be happy but we certainly are headed towards a playoff system.




http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... 55819572/1

Look, I've always been in favor of the "Plus-One" model which is only marginally different than what they have officially adopted.

And I still stand by my earlier statements, that the overwhelming majority of the people calling for a playoff (such as 8 or 16 teams) are not true fans of college football. They are looking to make college football more like other sports (such as pro football and/or college basketball) rather than appreciating what is intrinsically awesome about college football.

And that intrinsic awesomeness rests in their regular season, where games matter. In other sports, the games don't really matter. Sure, their results do. How many wins and losses you accumulate. But it doesn't matter who you beat or lose to. As long as you get the W. But that is not the case in college football, and thus the marquee matchups have so much more resonance. In the NFL, the difference between the Falcons beating the Ravens vs. beating the Seahawks has minimal impact. But in college football, the difference between Texas beating Louisiana Tech and beating Oklahoma has huge resounding impact.

An expansive playoff system that goes beyond 4 teams is far too disruptive of this, as well as disruptive of the collegiate landscape as far as academics go.

Pudge, it's too disruptive academically? Every other college sport does it along with lower levels of college football with no issue. That's a shallow argument.

Oh, it's an issue in FCS but you don't hear about it. Playing 16 or 17 game seasons is definitely an issue at the end of the semester when finals are going on, and schools are letting out for the holidays. But you don't hear about it because A) They're FCS schools and thus people don't care and B) People don't really pay attention to logistics, all they care about is whether football is played.

And why oh why are people comparing football to college basketball. You can accomplish the same # of games in 1 week in basketball what it takes a month to do in football. Not to metion, the NCAA tourney comes in the middle of the semester. And the NCAA Tourney completely overshadows the regular season. That is not their goal in college football. And there are a ton of people that simply can't appreciate that (i.e. non-fans).

There are a ton of non fans because the winners are picked subjectively not on the field! Sure the fans of the big schools that buy titles will always show up to the regular season games to watch their bought all star teams every week, knowing that come the end of the year they will always get the benefit of the doubt.

The funny thing is that nothing has changed. Just now, instead of two teams, they are picking four teams. The idea that this is a vast departure from the other system is laughable. It's just people as you put it subjectively picking the four best teams, and telling them to win 2 games to "prove" that they are the best team, instead of two teams trying to win one game. Why is that more intrinsically, "settling it on the field" than the other way. Because you still have 116 teams that didn't get that opportunity, oh wait, they did because all they had to do during the regular season is win their games. Winning one postseason game didn't prove anything, but winning two postseason games proves everything!

Most of the people banging the table for a playoff are non-fans. And the excuse I've heard over and over again is that the reason why they aren't fans is because there isn't a playoff and therefore there is no clear-cut champion. And the argument I've used in the past is that it doesn't really matter who the champ is, not in college sports. No one cares or remembers who wins the College World Series, just the fact that you're school made it there is what matters. In basketball, the thing that people remember far longer than who wins the championship is how many overall Tourney appearances you have and/or Final Four appearances. That's the credit coaches get for their programs, not how many championships they win. Football is no different with the bowl appearances and conference titles.

But people think to themselves, i like pro football and the "finality" of the Super Bowl winner, that I can say with confidence that is the best team in the world. And I can't say that about college football, therefore it is inferior. But what those people don't quite grasp is that their complaints of college football essentially boil down to: "It's not like pro football and therefore I don't like it. And it needs to be more like pro football so that I can like it." Thus my point.

But what those people fail to grasp is that it'll never be like pro football because you have something like 250 teams playing Division I football. The only way that happens is you have a further fragmentation of collegiate football into 3 subdivisions, which includes a 3rd "FPS" that plays playoffs that consists of 50-60 power programs. But why anybody would be in favor of that eventuality when that subdivision will be reaping BILLIONS of dollars, and all of the other college institutions will be frozen out of that, and this is supposed to be amateur sports.