Valvano expressly made the point that he would support all P5 champs getting in even if they had 3-4 losses. Talk to him about his position before you cry about bashing and being inaccurate.
Bob Valvano - Shut up!
- Thread starter Beatle Bum
- Start date
Valvano expressly made the point that he would support all P5 champs getting in even if they had 3-4 losses. Talk to him about his position before you cry about bashing and being inaccurate.
Yawn.
He is a basketball fan, he wants the football playoff to resemble the NCAA tournament. SMH
What's wrong with that premise? Conference champs getting a chance with multiple losses isn't a bad thing. How often would the conference champ have several losses? Not often would be your answer.
Why is giving teams a glimmer of hope a bad thing? It doesn't devalue the regular season. It does give a team like us a slight chance when a down year has a 3 loss division winner. That punchers chance is fun.
I would imagine there wouldn't be many of us complaining if we finished 5-3 in the SEC east and held the right tie breakers to make the SEC title game. There wouldn't be many complaining if we made the play-off after finishing the season at 10-3 by winning that game either.
Having the 3 at large would ensure the worthy contenders aren't left out.
Last edited:
I'd rather have 4. It's better to have 4 teams worthy of a NC and settling it on the field equally with the possibility there might be 1 or 2 that have an argument they were left out than have 8 teams and 2 or 3 completely over matched getting in to fill the slots. Sounds like how we wound up with about 90 bowl games. Everyone gets a trophy for showing up.
And, again, how often does that actually happen that a P5 champ has "3-4 losses"? Very rarely. I just did a quick SEC google out of curiosity, and I believe it's only happened twice in our conf in the quarter century since we went to the modern format (10-3 LSU in 01 and 10-3 Georgia in 05). And would I have been offended if those 10-3 teams had been allowed in a tournament? Hell, NO, they earned it by winning the SEC championship.
So what exactly are you worried about here? Valvano's not arguing for a massive expansion like the basketball tourney. An 8 team format will not give us an epidemic of dubious teams making the field. You'd still need a great regular season to get in.
And if occasionally that might mean someone with 3 losses getting in? So what? They still earned their way in by winning a P5 championship. And it might be nice if college football occasionally allowed for the possibility of a post-season Cinderella the way virtually every other sport/league (including the NFL) does.
Last edited:
LOL, yeah I never listen to him. He comes across as preaching to the listeners. We are all wrong and he is right. At least there are plenty of other options on the air at the same time.
What is wrong? Look at the Big 12 as an example. While Baylor is currently undefeated, looking at their schedule it appears they will lose about 3 games this year. OU already has 2 losses and it is probably the best team in the Big 12. It probably loses again. So, "the not often" is likely THIS year.
We have the P5 because we call them the P5. It is more a name than anything else. If Houston was in the Big 12, they would be the best team in that conference this year. Calling the Big 12 P5 is meaningless.
The Big 12 likely will not deserve to have any team worthy of an NC.
That is what is wrong with that premise.
(1) This causes me no worries. I respect the other position, regardless of the baseless comments of some in this thread. In fact, my problem with Valvano is the ridiculous exaggerated outrage he expresses when saying my position has no merit and it is insulting to his intelligence. But, I am not worried.
(2) see post above about Big 12
(3) To me the football championship tournament starts with game one for every team each year. Every team is invited, theoretically (sorry WMU). When we have a four team playoff, we emphasize that fact. When we add 3-4 unworthy teams, we carve away at that fact.
(4) the idea that P5 champs get in is crap. In 2013, a great year to argue for an 8 team playoff, by BCS standings, the SEC would have had 3 teams (Mizzou, Auburn, Bama) and the B1G would have 2 teams (OSU, MSU) in an 8 team playoff. Granted, that would happen with each P5 represented, that year. This year? Even in an 8 team playoff there is a good chance that a Big 12 team should not be in. Any playoff should be premised on a ranking or rankings, not on a conference affiliation.
As soon as we go to 8 there would be people making the case for 16. You can see from basketball that no matter how large the field, the ones that get left out always whine.
My take is be similar to the basketball side of things.
Go to 8, then each conference champ of the P5 get an automatic bid, the next 3 highest rated teams with no more than 2 from 1 conference.
If you do this, then you can have some great OOC games that do not affect the opportunity to get in the playoffs.
Wouldn't you like to see Ohio State vs Alabama regular season game. Or Michigan vs Tennessee. Texas vs LSU. You could have big time games that do not knock a team out of the race.
One of the best things about basketball is you get a Kentucky vs North Carolina in the regular season. Kansas vs Duke. If losing a game like that knocked you out of the NCAA tournament, those games would not be played.
Why was the UL/Clemson game so huge so early? Why is TAMU/Bama so important? Why do the Huskies know they cannot afford a loss? OSU/UM is lining up as one of the biggest in the history of the rivalry. Why?
The 4 game playoff is part of the discussion right now. An 8 game playoff would make these discussions far less interesting.
The 4 game playoff is part of the discussion right now. An 8 game playoff would make these discussions far less interesting.
I think an 8 team makes it more interesting. Will the 9th team complain and whine. Sure they will, some things never change. But in an 8 team format every team that has showed they can play at that level would get in and MAYBE a team or two thats a cut below but if we got the top 6 teams who are a cut above does it matter of two second tier temas got in? The real issue is making sure teams with a legit shot at winning a title play for a title. Most years in my life this wasnt the case. We held a 12 week beauty competition and awarded our participants based on the eye test in many cases. Four teams opened this up a bit but there are still teams being left out that could compete. Why not give them a chance too? As it stands in that format Bama, Clemson and Washington are safe bets and we are all watching Louisville, aTm, Michigan etc very closely. The same meaning and excitement is still there but we are just looking deeper at teams all of which have shown they can compete and all of which could win it were this years format 8 teams.
Im telling yall its gonna happen. I dont wager nowadays but Id bet my bottom dollar on it were I a gambler. IMO the only question is when not if. Prime example being what if this were the season that Auburn went undefeated and got left out (of a playoff). You folks think there wouldnt be an emergency meeting and we go to 8 with a bullet next year?
Im telling yall its gonna happen. I dont wager nowadays but Id bet my bottom dollar on it were I a gambler. IMO the only question is when not if. Prime example being what if this were the season that Auburn went undefeated and got left out (of a playoff). You folks think there wouldnt be an emergency meeting and we go to 8 with a bullet next year?
IMO the NCAA BB tournament ruined the tournament and the season play by expanding the field. When you had to win your conference to go to the tourney every game was exciting, now you can come in 6th in conference and still go, sucks
I like a four team playoff, but 8 wouldn't bother me. Right now, Ohio State/Michigan, Alabama, Washington, and Clemson get in over Louisville. I think Alabama loses a game. Washington could lose in the Apple Cup, while Clemson could choke at F$U. I think Louisville gets in the playoffs, and if they do...yikes.
No.
Auburn beat 8 teams that year with a 6-6 record or worse, including Bama. They scheduled easy on purpose b/c they'd seen USC do it and it bit them in the ***.
LaMonroe- 5-6
MSU- 3-8
Citadel- 3-7
LaTech- 6-6
Ark- 5-6
UK- 2-9
MIss- 4-7
Bama- 6-6
I can see where that schedule could be considered "pathetic."
Still, hey had Cadillac Williams and Ronnie Brown, a stellar college QB, a stingy defense, and an excellent receiver core. They would have probably won that title.
In all honesty we're getting closer to seeing the P4 with 20 team conferences. The you have 4 5 team divisions. Then winner of each division plays in a 4 team con tourney then 4 conf champ play in 4 team championship!
Valano is worse than a message board troll.
"Don't insult my intelligence" is code for "If you oppose my opinion, you are an idiot."
The worst of his arguments is "no other sport does it this way." And, it is evidently more compelling if you say that over and over and over.
Ugh! Shut up or, at least, give your opponent a microphone.
"Don't insult my intelligence" is code for "If you oppose my opinion, you are an idiot."
The worst of his arguments is "no other sport does it this way." And, it is evidently more compelling if you say that over and over and over.
Ugh! Shut up or, at least, give your opponent a microphone.
Violent game. How many games could these guys asking for more make it? I personally think 12 games is plenty and 13 is borderline insane for 18 to 22 yo men.
Yes, if Valvano has any expertise? it lies with BB not FB!!!
15 Games under the current system is really pushing it...what the NFL did to my Cowboys 3 games in 11 days/4 in 18 days should never happen again.
Then make it simpler for everyone. Cut the season games to11. A winning record gets you a bowl game, not 6-6.
Well it sounds like you have a strong opinion about your opinion...just as he does about his.
I too love college football but the criteria for "who is the best" changes every year. One year the committee claims that head-to-head matters, the next year they are dismissive of head-to-head and move on to some other criteria. They claim conference champions matter... oops!, they mattered last year but not this year.
A system where conference champions made it into the playoff would give a consistent, known pathway to the NC. No whining about how A should be in over B because A won the head-to-head match-up.
Good enough.
It all comes down to what you consider as "The National Champion" or what it should be. It either has concrete (or semi-concrete as room could be made for a limited number of at-large teams) pathway or it is predicated on opinion. To me championships and the opportunity to win championships should be won on the field and not behind closed doors.
I'm reminded of a conversation I heard once that claimed that any "sport" that was judged wasn't really a sport. It was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment aimed at sports like figure skating, diving, etc but I think it rings a little true in this instance too.
We can say closed doors, but I have not heard one person say they do not understand how the panel picked the four we have. Also, the "closed doors" permit considerations of schedules. Something games on the field alone do not.
The playoff begins way before the 4 are chosen. "Regular season" matters.
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...easily-swapped-place-college-football-playoff
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...easily-swapped-place-college-football-playoff