The expanded College Football Playoff off to a rough start | Page 14 | The Boneyard

The expanded College Football Playoff off to a rough start

.-.
I don't feel bad for the SEC grueling schedule. They made it that way. Instead of gathering every major power school, maybe realize the impact that will have on your members' regular season results. The schedule is a problem of their own making.
 
The SEC sees the way it piled up the basketball bids and half the baseball super regionals and thinks why should we be limited to 4-5 teams in football
 
ScottVib said:
The SEC sees the way it piled up the basketball bids and half the baseball super regionals and thinks why should we be limited to 4-5 teams in football
Expand ...

They are also putting the Big 10 on the spot.
 
.-.
Big 10 and SEC should have no more than 2 teams each in the playoffs. Give other schools a chance and watch how their recruiting improves. Stronger programs. These conferences wanted big, now let them cannibalize themselves.
 
TouchdownHusky said:
Big 10 and SEC should have no more than 2 teams each in the playoffs. Give other schools a chance and watch how their recruiting improves. Stronger programs. These conferences wanted big, now let them cannibalize themselves.
Expand ...
Sadly, abandoning moderation and balance was a precondition for creating super-conferences. They didn't go through all the trouble of purging the sport's biggest brands and syphering them into two leagues just to let everyone else take 75% of the playoff bids. It's eventually going to be just like the NFL - two conferences of 16 or so teams competing for five or six playoff spots each, and everyone else just hoping they can catch lightning in a bottle for long enough to get called up to the majors.

While I'm sure it'll make for a nice cash influx in the short-term, it puts the wheels in motion to kill the sport over the long haul. And frankly, I'm not sure they care. Their job is to grow revenue for their leagues now and let someone else clean up the mess later. We've passed the point of no return here with the tail wagging the dog.
 
champs99and04 said:
Sadly, abandoning moderation and balance was a precondition for creating super-conferences. They didn't go through all the trouble of purging the sport's biggest brands and syphering them into two leagues just to let everyone else take 75% of the playoff bids. It's eventually going to be just like the NFL - two conferences of 16 or so teams competing for five or six playoff spots each, and everyone else just hoping they can catch lightning in a bottle for long enough to get called up to the majors.

While I'm sure it'll make for a nice cash influx in the short-term, it puts the wheels in motion to kill the sport over the long haul. And frankly, I'm not sure they care. Their job is to grow revenue for their leagues now and let someone else clean up the mess later. We've passed the point of no return here with the tail wagging the dog.
Expand ...
Id say this is why we need to counterpressure as long as possible
 
.-.
Stankey uses a metric to defend SEC's conference strength, creator of metric says, "Hold on there bud."

www.nytimes.com

Everyone has a problem with the CFP selection committee. Can all (or any) of them be solved?

Everything about the CFP debate is subject to change right now, but how to select the teams is the sticking point du jour.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

The irony of the SEC using average SP+ rating over the last 10 years to indirectly make the argument that its teams were given short shrift by the selection committee last season is that the rating’s creator disagrees with the conference’s premise.

“It was definitely conflicting hearing the SEC refer to me as the one of the reasons why it should get more Playoff teams when I say the opposite,” said Bill Connelly, who created SP+ 17 years ago and started working for ESPN in 2019.

Connelly has a derivative of SP+ that he says more accurately equates to selecting Playoff teams. His resume ranking includes raw results of games — i.e., wins and losses — which SP+ does not.

While the final SP+ ratings of 2024 placed Mississippi at No. 2 and Alabama at No. 4 — neither made the CFP field — the SP+ resume rankings on selection Sunday were not quite so bullish. Alabama was ninth, good enough to squeeze into the field over SMU using just those numbers; the committee chose the Mustangs over the Crimson Tide after SMU lost the ACC Championship Game to Clemson on a last-second field goal. But even using the resume ratings, Ole Miss would have missed the 12-team field at No. 11, squeezed out by conference champions Clemson and Arizona State of the Big 12.
Expand ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,154
Messages
4,554,975
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom