• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
The ncaa basketball tournament is entertaining. It doesn't elicit the best team in college basketball

In any given cfb season there are 2 and maybe 3 teams that are deserving of a shot at being named the best team.

For all the flack the bcs got, it was pretty good at finding 2 teams with a legitimate claim to an opportunity to prove it. But in no season has the number 7 team been in a position to argue it "deserved" a shot

Playoffs/tournaments are not designed to find the best team.
There is a reason the super bowl champion is called the super bowl champion and not called the “number 1” team or champion of the nfl or best team in the nfl. Because we know the best team doesn’t always win. College hasn’t figured this out.
 
Upvote 0
Seems like an argument for simply naming a national champion at the end of the season without any playoff/championship games. I'm okay with that, but then what will be the process for identifying the champion? Point being, no matter what the process is, someone will say it's unfair. But that doesn't mean it really is unfair.
Good point. If you apply the argument of Regular Season hawks to the fullest, there is no need for any postseason whatsoever. The idea is teams shouldn't have to prove themselves on the field after they complete the regular season, which is bunk. Nevermind the NFL has a fraction of the teams of CFB, has always had a larger playoff, and yet typically until the last week seemingly all the regular season games matter.
 
Upvote 0
Nevermind the NFL has a fraction of the teams of CFB, has always had a larger playoff, and yet typically until the last week seemingly all the regular season games matter.

I respectfully disagree that "all regular season games matter". The Browns beat the Bengals this year. Twice. (okay - the second one was the last week of the season, and you conceded that one.) I'd say that's on par with Ohio State losing to Purdue. Or Sparty. Guess what happens when Ohio State loses to those teams? They don't make the playoffs.
 
Upvote 0
There is a reason the super bowl champion is called the super bowl champion and not called the “number 1” team or champion of the nfl or best team in the nfl. Because we know the best team doesn’t always win. College hasn’t figured this out.

Just sayin': Yeah, some other team in the NFL might be the #1 team based on seeding and/or some "sports channel's (worthless) power ranking", etc.; however, I'd rather be the SuperBowl winner. I was the best team on the field the day the game was played, I got the hardware, and the other guy(s) didn't:

RS25471_GettyImages-466653875.jpeg
 
Upvote 0
I guess I'm in the minority. For me, the body of work over the course of a season means a hell of a lot more than putting together a 3 game run.

Villanova 1985 went 1 - 2 against Georgetown. Yet somehow Villanova ended up "better"
I'd venture that this happens a good deal because conferences mean you know your enemy better. In the case of B-ball, conference means having to play at the other guy's home once a year. However in B-ball you seldom get to play at home, especially once the first round is over. In the case of CFP football, midwest teams are almost always playing the last 2 games away.
 
Upvote 0
I respectfully disagree that "all regular season games matter". The Browns beat the Bengals this year. Twice. (okay - the second one was the last week of the season, and you conceded that one.) I'd say that's on par with Ohio State losing to Purdue. Or Sparty. Guess what happens when Ohio State loses to those teams? They don't make the playoffs.
A game in which BOTH teams played without their QB starter.
Or the SEC, right? Their best teams regularly get the privilege of being able to lose a game and be in, I don't see a lot of complaints about their teams being undeserving. Losing one game isn't some kind of end-all argument against a team being included, and it never has been.
Then this would have been the year to prove the point. UC didn't, and no, I don't think the bucks could have either.
 
Upvote 0
Seems like an argument for simply naming a national champion at the end of the season without any playoff/championship games. I'm okay with that, but then what will be the process for identifying the champion? Point being, no matter what the process is, someone will say it's unfair. But that doesn't mean it really is unfair.
I remember the years when Ohio State ended the season against Michigan and couldn't go anywhere even though they would have been "bowl eligible" today's standards. Talk about a long "off-season."
 
Upvote 0
I remember the years when Ohio State ended the season against Michigan and couldn't go anywhere even though they would have been "bowl eligible" today's standards. Talk about a long "off-season."

I remember the year when Ohio State ended it's season beating Michigan and could have gone to the Rose Bowl; but the Ohio State Faculty Council voted to not go. That was a long "off-season".
 
Upvote 0
College football’s biggest threat is the continued regionalization of success and interest in the sport

Is the south's dominance of college football becoming problematic for the sport?

Image-from-iOS-1-832x447.jpg


A little over a year ago, I published my second installment of The Electoral Map Of Football, an attempt by me to figure out the national electoral preference of football between the NFL and college football. By flipping North Carolina and Virginia to college football states, the result was closer than you’d imagine and you’d think indicate that college football is perhaps narrowing the gap with the NFL in terms of interest.

But of late, the ratings have presented a bit of different picture and particularly the ratings for the College Football Playoff, which has largely been dominated by the SEC and to a much greatest extent to the SEC’s footprint (states with SEC teams in them). Looking at how things have gone in the playoff era you begin to see a concerning trend.
.
.
continued
.
.
You can actually feel and see college football slipping in terms of national relevance. Daytime ESPN has pushed college football further away from the constantly discussed NFL and the NBA and more towards the afterthoughts of MLB and the NHL. ESPN has largely grown comfortable ceding the majority of news-breaking of the sport to other outlets. They’ve crunched the numbers and know that for large parts of the country, college football is much more of an afterthought than what it used to be and the NBA and the NFL are surer bets more worthy of airtime. Simply put, ESPN would rather talk NBA and NFL all day because that’s the preference of viewers in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, DC, Phoenix, Denver, the Bay Area, and Boston. If college football fans don’t want the NFL and NBA jammed down their throat, most of them can just flip over to the conference network of their choosing with ESPN well-positioned by owning the networks servicing fans in the south with the SEC Network and ACC Network.

Meanwhile, the three power conferences with TV deals coming up and unsure of their future prospects are the Big Ten, Big 12, and the Pac 12, soon to be representing those remaining 3 of the last 24 championships. While the Big Ten is in a good position for a new deal, the Big 12 and Pac 12 are seemingly precarious positions between not much recent championship or playoff success and at a severe rating disadvantage. It’s very plausible one or both of the conferences may soon find themselves playing a majority of their games on a streaming service like Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, or ESPN+, something that will certainly not do any favors with fans or recruits.

Does playoff expansion help or hurt this trend? The BCS seemingly did away with whatever balance college football had settled into. Realignment and the playoff only accelerated the trend of southern regionalization of the sport. Seeing more teams from around the country in the playoff certainly seems like a good thing but it also opens up the door for more final fours with all southern teams, something we already saw in 2018 with Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Clemson making the playoff (Oklahoma, then in the Big 12).

Between another round of realignment, the transfer portal, NIL, and playoff expansion, we’re entering a new very different chapter of college football. These added variables have the ability to further tilt success towards the near southern monopoly over the sport. Perhaps we’ll see the opposite play out and these change agents will revert back some of the parity the sport enjoyed before the BCS.

Ultimately, college football’s growing regional imbalance of interest and success doesn’t register that much to stakeholders within the sport because it has yet to affect the bottom line. Playoff expansion actually will probably push back any real concern over this for another decade given the amount of money it will inject into the sport. That said, it’s not hard to envision a world in the not so distant future where there are no more games to add to the playoff, conferences are too fat to expand any further, there are no more conference networks to launch, and nobody tunes in to find the stream of a lowly regular-season matchup played in a half-empty stadium between two teams that haven’t finished in the top five in 50 years. For many pockets of the country, this is already a reality and one that’s coming to many states and schools in the not-so-distant future.

Entire article: https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/co...rt.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
Upvote 0


"The membership of the ACC is very much aligned in its position that now is not the time to expand the college football playoff," Phillips said, via Yahoo! Sports' Pete Thamel. Phillips also called for "a 365-day holistic review of college football" before any playoff expansion should occur and that all coaches were "unanimous" that now is not the time for expansion, according to reporters on the call.

"The ACC prefers to immediately focus and collaborate with our colleagues to reinvent the NCAA," Phillips added, according to ESPN's Andrea Adelson. "Collectively, we have much larger issues facing us than whether to expand the CFP early by two years."

Phillips said the league was originally open to expansion of the playoff to eight teams, but that sentiment changed due to the recent evolution of the NCAA landscape. Phillips also told reporters that the stance against expansion is in no way to leverage Notre Dame into becoming a member of the ACC in football.
 
Upvote 0
Not sure why Missouri and Kentucky (or a most of the other red states) are part of the red zone. Since 2006, 7 of 16 champions have been from the state of Alabama alone. Add contiguous states South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida to Alabama, and you’re up to 13 of 16. Add nearly contiguous Louisiana and you have all but one.

On January 4, 2007, Saban was officially introduced as the head football coach of Alabama. Coincidence? My hypothesis is that Saban’s contract with Satan has had some spillover into the surrounding region.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Back
Top