Well, to be completely honest, any system that doesn't determine a champion by having every single team play against each other is going to be flawed in one way or another.

 

My wish is to eliminate as much of the flukiness as possible from the system. In the case of college football, I think that means expanding the playoff to at least eight teams. I'd personally like it to be more so that we can be sure we're not placing too much emphasis on one game from the regular season possibly defining an entire season. When we eliminate one loss teams out of hand from title contention, we're allowing WAY too much for random chance to interfere with crowning a winner.

 

Notre Dame, for example, was unbeaten in 2012 and so was allowed to play for a title at the expense of teams like Oregon. The Ducks played two teams all season that were even within 20 points of them, they happened to lose one... to Stanford... by three... in overtime. Notre Dame made the title game because the system favored being unbeaten. The Irish had nearly lost a couple times and had at least five games decided by a touchdown or less... some of which were not to to quality teams. But because they won, and the computers and voters like wins, they played in the title game despite the fact that other teams were likely better than them but didn't catch the same breaks. I want those breaks to not affect the crowning of a champion to the greatest degree possible.

 

You mean Oregon lost to the same Stanford team that Notre Dame beat ? I'm following some of your points in this thread but you pick a very bad example here.

You mean Oregon lost to the same Stanford team that Notre Dame beat ? I'm following some of your points in this thread but you pick a very bad example here.

 

By one score. In overtime. At South Bend.

 

Move that game to Stanford. Do the Irish win? Move that game to a neutral site? Does Stanford win? Play it in a torrential downpour. Play it in crushing heat.

 

One data point. It's the difficulty of football. That Stanford team also lost to a 7-5 Washington team that nobody would suggest was any good. So what business did they have beating Oregon?

 

The current system heavily rewards things that sometimes come down to chance. I want to eliminate that to the greatest degree possible given a 128-team league. The difference between 12-0 and 11-1 is sometimes something as up to chance as a burst of rain during the third quarter. There's not a lot of difference between unbeaten and one loss.

 

We've sort of wandered along a little bit here. Can somebody get me back on track?

The bigger you make the playoff the more you invite that random chance to happen in the playoff instead of the regular season.

 

To focus more on this first line, I absolutely agree with you, but that is always going to be an issue with single-elimination postseasons. It's the issue now with a regular season in which we're chopping down teams the second they lose. At least we can try to control for chance by getting as many of these top-caliber teams onto the same fields and play each other.

What's in it for ESPN to have SEC teams dominate the final 4? Are there a bunch of fans in Los Angeles and New York and Chicago that will want to watch MissSt or Ole Miss play in the championship game instead of an Oregon or Michigan State or Notre Dame?

 

What's in it for ESPN to have 47 people on payroll investigating Jameis Winston?

What's in it for ESPN to have 47 people on payroll investigating Jameis Winston?

 

IT'S SO SCANDALOUS.

 

What's in it for ESPN is that viewers eat that stuff up with a spoon. It's so lascivious and enticing and OH MAN DON'T YOU JUST WANT TO CLICK ON THAT LINK!?!?!?!

What's in it for ESPN to have 47 people on payroll investigating Jameis Winston?

 

 

Not only does that not answer the question you actually point out WHY ESPN isn't biased towards the SEC. They want eyeballs.

 

Who would give more eyeballs than Notre Dame? Surely not the two teams from the Magnolia state.

 

Hell if MichSt was in you would have some big Big 10 markets with more interest. SEC fans are watching no matter who plays. They only need 1 team to get REALLY interested.

 

ESPN isn't biased towards the SEC.

Not only does that not answer the question you actually point out WHY ESPN isn't biased towards the SEC. They want eyeballs.

 

Who would give more eyeballs than Notre Dame? Surely not the two teams from the Magnolia state.

 

Hell if MichSt was in you would have some big Big 10 markets with more interest. SEC fans are watching no matter who plays. They only need 1 team to get REALLY interested.

 

ESPN isn't biased towards the SEC.

 

Disagree.

IT'S SO SCANDALOUS.

 

What's in it for ESPN is that viewers eat that stuff up with a spoon. It's so lascivious and enticing and OH MAN DON'T YOU JUST WANT TO CLICK ON THAT LINK!?!?!?!

 

:lol2: :lol2:

Disagree.

 

As you know from years of history on here it's not that you disagree that interests me but ,rather, the evidence you use.

 

Why would ESPN want teams with no national following from a state that is not heavily populated to be the potential NC game instead of a team like ND or a team from a big conference with a big market following?

As you know from years of history on here it's not that you disagree that interests me but ,rather, the evidence you use.

 

Why would ESPN want teams with no national following from a state that is not heavily populated to be the potential NC game instead of a team like ND or a team from a big conference with a big market following?

 

I don't have any more evidence than you do saying that ESPN isn't biased. It's all speculation. ESPN is going to make money regardless. There is no way of knowing if they are right about the SEC without an 8-16 team playoff with 10 SEC teams in it.

I don't have any more evidence than you do saying that ESPN isn't biased. It's all speculation. ESPN is going to make money regardless. There is no way of knowing if they are right about the SEC without an 8-16 team playoff with 10 SEC teams in it.

 

What I do have is logic that most people would agree with. ESPN is first and foremost a business. They paid BILLIONS to get the TV contracts. Are you saying their first priority is something OTHER than making the MOST money they can? Come on. I don't have to be in Bristol and hear that with my own ears to know that's true.

 

Heck, I be there are execs there WORRIED that a team from Mississippi is going to make the final 4.

What I do have is logic that most people would agree with. ESPN is first and foremost a business. They paid BILLIONS to get the TV contracts. Are you saying their first priority is something OTHER than making the MOST money they can? Come on. I don't have to be in Bristol and hear that with my own ears to know that's true.

 

Heck, I be there are execs there WORRIED that a team from Mississippi is going to make the final 4.

 

This is my thinking. Sponsors who will be dropping money to place their products at the game and on TV most likely want 4 different, large market regions to show their products to.

 

It feels more like the argument is based around people growing tired of hearing about how great the SEC is. I can understand that, SEC die hards do get tiresome. Considering SEC BCS title game track record, they've been hearing it for a while. Mix in Winston fans tired of seeing ESPN cover/go after him, they already made up their mind about ESPN. It's all about the number of hits on an article and eyeballs on the TV, not bias.

What I do have is logic that most people would agree with. ESPN is first and foremost a business. They paid BILLIONS to get the TV contracts. Are you saying their first priority is something OTHER than making the MOST money they can? Come on. I don't have to be in Bristol and hear that with my own ears to know that's true.

 

Heck, I be there are execs there WORRIED that a team from Mississippi is going to make the final 4.

 

I'm not buying the logic that the SEC isn't making them money. Probably making them money hand over fist. Doesn't ESPN have television contracts with the SEC?

The funny part about the bias comment is the main college football show on ESPN, College GameDay does not have a former SEC player or graduate in the main four people who speak. David Pollack is the only person on the show who frequently speaks who went to an SEC school. Why would a former Ohio St or Michigan player be biased toward the SEC. I believe Fowler graduated from Colorado and Corso played or coached at FSU.

I'm not buying the logic that the SEC isn't making them money. Probably making them money hand over fist. Doesn't ESPN have television contracts with the SEC?

 

ESPN makes a ton of money off the SEC. But they actually have more rights to the ACC than they do to the SEC. They also have exclusive rights to BYU I believe.