Which is essentially proving his point that the playoff needs to be expanded, right?

I agree the playoff needs to be expanded. 16 teams is just too many. Also the point that one of the 4 teams in the playoff got blown out is actually more of a reason that the old BCS system was better with just 2 teams. I disagree with that take, but I see the argument. But you’ve said it yourself, there are very few “good” teams. I don’t think anyone outside of the top 8 teams could in any scenario, ever win the playoff. I’m just not interested in wasted games. Alabama/ Miami is a waste of everyone’s time. I’d even be fine with 6 teams with the top 2 seeds getting a bye. I just don’t like anymore than 8.

The committee knows what teams bring money. Come on, everything is about money.

Lets have a real playoff, lets expand to 16 teams.

 

Bring what money? Alabama paying to play in the game?

 

Those games are going to sell their tickets whoever plays.

 

Statements saying it's all about money or these teams bring money still doesn't explain what money or who's getting this supposed money.

Bring what money? Alabama paying to play in the game?

 

Those games are going to sell their tickets whoever plays.

 

Statements saying it's all about money or these teams bring money still doesn't explain what money or who's getting this supposed money.

 

It's all about rating....Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Clemson, etc...They bring the eyeballs.

I’m not saying they got it right. I’m saying with the information they had to make their decision they didn’t have much of a choice.

 

But they did get it right, the teams that got killed still had the best resume' at the time the teams were selected.

 

Would anyone on this site have disagreed that Villanova deserved a #1seed in basketball last year...no, they wouldn't. Yet they went out and lost right off the bat...according to the thinking of some here they didn't even belong in the tourney since they lost to a 16. Yet no one thought that before the game.

 

Regardless of what happens when the games are played, the teams were selected correctly based on resume coming into the playoffs.

 

8 teams is probably the most it ever needs to be expanded to, but 4 has in my opinion got the best teams in every year do far.

It's all about rating....Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Clemson, etc...They bring the eyeballs.

 

Heck look what those teams do for the site.

It's all about rating....Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Clemson, etc...They bring the eyeballs.

 

Those games will get eyes whomever plays. Next contract will be based on average ratings over the course of this contract, so if Kentucky, Purdue, Arizona St and VA Tech made the playoffs one year it won't move the ratings needle enough to cost them money when the next contract comes up.

It's all about rating....Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Clemson, etc...They bring the eyeballs.

 

Until 3 years ago half the country didn't even know Clemson had a team...:lol2:

Those games will get eyes whomever plays. Next contract will be based on average ratings over the course of this contract, so if Kentucky, Purdue, Arizona St and VA Tech made the playoffs one year it won't move the ratings needle enough to cost them money when the next contract comes up.

 

Disagree. There's only a handful of teams I'd even consider flipping the TV on to watch.

Disagree. There's only a handful of teams I'd even consider flipping the TV on to watch.

 

That's you, I'll watch who ever is playing in the playoffs.

It's all about rating....Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Clemson, etc...They bring the eyeballs.

The first 3 yes. Clemson is still Clemson as far as revenue goes. They aren’t even top 25 in the country in revenue generation from football.

That's you, I'll watch who ever is playing in the playoffs.

 

There's significantly more casual fans than diehards.

The first 3 yes. Clemson is still Clemson as far as revenue goes. They aren’t even top 25 in the country in revenue generation from football.

 

Maybe so, but they're a big name now.

 

I'd watch games with those 4, Michigan, Georgia, and Kentucky (hey, never say never). Outside of those 7 teams, I have zero interest in it.

 

Other teams that'd draw huge would be Miami, FSU, Texas, LSU, Auburn, Florida, USC and Notre Dame.

 

That's probably it. If at all possible, the committee is going to have the 4 come from that group (with the exception of my inclusion of Kentucky).

There's significantly more casual fans than diehards.

 

True, but again one season with no names will have no impact on the next contract. There will be a "Name" team or two in the playoffs every year, because those teams are the best. So casual fans will always have a reason to watch.

True, but again one season with no names will no impact on the next contract. There will be a "Name" team or two in the playoffs every year, because those teams are the best. So casual fans will always have a reason to watch.

 

I think we're looking at it differently. You're looking at it from the NCAA's perspective (I think).

 

I'm looking at it from the networks that are bidding on the contract and showing the games. They want the huge ratings generators. And if you don't think they have influence on the committee's decision, well...

Maybe so, but they're a big name now.

 

I'd watch games with those 4, Michigan, Georgia, and Kentucky (hey, never say never). Outside of those 7 teams, I have zero interest in it.

 

Other teams that'd draw huge would be Miami, FSU, Texas, LSU, Auburn, Florida, USC and Notre Dame.

 

That's probably it. If at all possible, the committee is going to have the 4 come from that group (with the exception of my inclusion of Kentucky).

 

Easy to predict those teams will be chosen when historically they are the best teams in the country. It's not a conspiracy by the committee, those teams are just better historically.