Nick Saban says this is the reason that he tries to play a power 5 opponent on opening day. He has the total focus of the team during summer workouts as well as fall practices for the upcoming game. When they played a group of 5 team to open the season, he says the practices during the summer and fall were non productive.

 

The reality of the situation is if you give UCF's schedule to Michigan State, Kentucky, Miami, USC, South Carolina etc they would probably go undefeated. Would you consider them to be a playoff team?

I agree with Saban 100% and I think other coaches are starting to catch on to this as well. That extra energy you have during fall camp knowing you are preparing to play a huge game week 1 vs the lack of motivation knowing you are playing directional state university is completely different. These past couple of years we are getting a ton of great matchups week 1 and it’s awesome for us as fans.

Which of those games intrigue you? Notre Dame/ Penn State and Oklahoma/ Washington are the only games that I think would be good games. UK/ Clemson is intriguing to us regionally, but nationally that doesn’t move the needle.

 

All of them except Alabama/Wisconsin and Georgia/Michigan, those would be beatdowns.

All of them except Alabama/Wisconsin and Georgia/Michigan, those would be beatdowns.

Wouldn’t the point of 16 teams be that all 16 teams have a legit chance at winning? By saying Wisconsin and Michigan have zero chance you are saying a 16 team playoff is too many. Do you not see the big divide between the top 7-8 teams and the rest of the top 25? All the talk from the people who get paid to research and discuss college football for a living are telling us over and over how big the gap is from the top teams to the next tier down. Why do you view it differently?

Wouldn’t the point of 16 teams be that all 16 teams have a legit chance at winning? By saying Wisconsin and Michigan have zero chance you are saying a 16 team playoff is too many. Do you not see the big divide between the top 7-8 teams and the rest of the top 25? All the talk from the people who get paid to research and discuss college football for a living are telling us over and over how big the gap is from the top teams to the next tier down. Why do you view it differently?

 

Because over the years there were times they got it wrong. Plus, as we know, on any given day a team can upset another team. I'd much rather see a 16 team playoff than what we have, an invitational.

Because over the years there were times they got it wrong. Plus, as we know, on any given day a team can upset another team. I'd much rather see a 16 team playoff than what we have, an invitational.

You want it to be the NCAA Tournament. I want to find out who the best team is. I’m not interested in upsets. Our objectives are different you want a tournament, I want to see the best team get rewarded with a title.

You want it to be the NCAA Tournament. I want to find out who the best team is. I’m not interested in upsets. Our objectives are different you want a tournament, I want to see the best team get rewarded with a title.

 

Won’t the best team get rewarded with a title in an expanded playoff format?

You want it to be the NCAA Tournament. I want to find out who the best team is. I’m not interested in upsets. Our objectives are different you want a tournament, I want to see the best team get rewarded with a title.

 

Wait, so there aren't upsets now that determines who gets to play for it? Add to that how some teams leapfrog others or only slip a little when others slip father. Like it or not, the best team doesn't always win it, been that way all along. I'd rather an 8 or 16 team playoff than an invitational.

Won’t the best team get rewarded with a title in an expanded playoff format?

 

Too logical, Deuce.

Won’t the best team get rewarded with a title in an expanded playoff format?

I would argue no in the mind set of "any given day". UCF somehow beating Bama in round one of 16 team playoff to only get waxed in round two does not do anything help crown the best team. That's why I'd would actually prefer to keep it at 4. I don't what a basketball tourny where it's a feel good story for a low seed to make the tourny and get an upset.

I would argue no in the mind set of "any given day". UCF somehow beating Bama in round one of 16 team playoff to only get waxed in round two does not do anything help crown the best team. That's why I'd would actually prefer to keep it at 4. I don't what a basketball tourny where it's a feel good story for a low seed to make the tourny and get an upset.

 

How often do you think the best team wouldn't win in a hypothetical 16 team playoff?

 

Just like with the NCAA tournament, if the top seed loses to the worst seed, they shouldn't have been the top seed to begin with.

Won’t the best team get rewarded with a title in an expanded playoff format?

Does the best team win the NCAA tournament every year?

Wait, so there aren't upsets now that determines who gets to play for it? Add to that how some teams leapfrog others or only slip a little when others slip father. Like it or not, the best team doesn't always win it, been that way all along. I'd rather an 8 or 16 team playoff than an invitational.

The whole regular season is the tournament you seek. Those upsets happen in the regular season that kick teams out of the playoff. The best team has won the title every single year of the playoff and I don’t see how that’s even debatable. That’s my goal. The more teams you add the more it devalues the regular season. Also “slipping” doesn’t exist in the playoff system. They have to rerank every single team week to week which is why teams despite winning games move in the playoff polls so much. Florida State was the only undefeated team the first year of the playoff and they were the 3 seed. There is no such thing as slipping. It’s a blank sheet every single week.

How often do you think the best team wouldn't win in a hypothetical 16 team playoff?

 

Just like with the NCAA tournament, if the top seed loses to the worst seed, they shouldn't have been the top seed to begin with.

Virginia was one of 2 best teams in college basketball all year. Since they lost in the first round that somehow makes that not true when we we 34 games to prove otherwise? I just don’t agree with that. Upsets are cute, but when it gets down to it, I want to see the best teams square off.

The whole regular season is the tournament you seek. Those upsets happen in the regular season that kick teams out of the playoff. The best team has won the title every single year of the playoff and I don’t see how that’s even debatable. That’s my goal. The more teams you add the more it devalues the regular season. Also “slipping” doesn’t exist in the playoff system. They have to rerank every single team week to week which is why teams despite winning games move in the playoff polls so much. Florida State was the only undefeated team the first year of the playoff and they were the 3 seed. There is no such thing as slipping. It’s a blank sheet every single week.

 

Then why did even you say 6 teams would be good?

Then why did even you say 6 teams would be good?

I think 3 out of the 4 years there were 6 teams who could have been in the playoff. Never more. 6 teams keeps the regular season meaningful and it keeps us from second guessing if team the first or second team out could have been the best team.