Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

First playoff rankings released

The conference champ thing is just stupid. If you go to 8, Top 8. I hate rewarding team because they won a division or a conference. Just dumb.

It is watering it down. You want a 9-3 conference champ in because they're king of a poor conference? No thanks...that team hasn't earned the right to compete for a title.
 
hawg1 said:
I’d like to see Medford’s Top 10.
Click to expand...
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Notre Dame
4. Michigan

After this, its pretty much who is the least average team.

As for the UCF argument, there's only two teams in that top 4 I wouldn't give UCF a 50/50 chance against. Bama and Clemson. Bama is going to run away with the title as long as Tua is healthy.
 
Medford M. said:
The conference champ thing is just stupid. If you go to 8, Top 8. I hate rewarding team because they won a division or a conference. Just dumb.

It is watering it down. You want a 9-3 conference champ in because they're king of a poor conference? No thanks...that team hasn't earned the right to compete for a title.
Click to expand...
Correct. Keep system of earning a spot, not being entitled to a spot. Four is plenty for now. Playoff games this weekend.
 
Medford M. said:
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Notre Dame
4. Michigan

After this, its pretty much who is the least average team.

As for the UCF argument, there's only two teams in that top 4 I wouldn't give UCF a 50/50 chance against. Bama and Clemson. Bama is going to run away with the title as long as Tua is healthy.
Click to expand...
I think that will be the final four, likely in that order.

UCF is silly talk.

Agree on Bama.
 
TSchekler said:
Sure do. Plenty of threads on the subject, but 6 teams, P5 Champs and 1 at large is minimum (1 and 2 get byes). Probably prefer 8 teams, P5 Champs and 3 at large, no byes. And it's not watering it down. Lamest excuse out there.
Click to expand...

Medford M. said:
The conference champ thing is just stupid. If you go to 8, Top 8. I hate rewarding team because they won a division or a conference. Just dumb.

It is watering it down. You want a 9-3 conference champ in because they're king of a poor conference? No thanks...that team hasn't earned the right to compete for a title.
Click to expand...

How can you be the best team in football if you aren't even the best team in your conference (or division) ???

5 + 1. Want to be in the playoffs? Win your conference. Want to win your conference? Win your division.

2 rounds of playoffs already complete.

If you're so sure the 9-3 team is so bad - they won't make it. Maybe their conference is a whole lot tougher than the pansies the 12-0 and 11-1 teams played. Don't know if you exclude the 9-3 team. We already know the 12-0 team is better than the 11-1 team, THEY WON
 
TSchekler said:
ND is probably going to win out and make it so two P5 champs get left out. Stupid 4 team playoff is stupid.
Click to expand...

That Northwestern-Notre Dame game is going to be a tricky one for the Irish-wouldn't be shocked at all if Northwestern beat them.
 
I agree that expanding the playoffs is not watering down the playoffs, but it's quite obvious that it would water-down the regular season even further.

that being said, I suspect it happens.
 
Medford M. said:
The conference champ thing is just stupid. If you go to 8, Top 8. I hate rewarding team because they won a division or a conference. Just dumb.

It is watering it down. You want a 9-3 conference champ in because they're king of a poor conference? No thanks...that team hasn't earned the right to compete for a title.
Click to expand...

hawg1 said:
Correct. Keep system of earning a spot, not being entitled to a spot. Four is plenty for now. Playoff games this weekend.
Click to expand...
Then do away with conferences altogether. If you’re not going to be rewarded for winning the conference you’re in, then what’s the point of having them, especially when each conference plays by different rules.

Before the CFP, the reward for winning your conference was playing in a big time bowl game and it was a big deal to do so. With the playoff, nobody really cares if you win the Sugar/Rose/Fiesta/Orange/Peach bowl when they aren’t part of the CFP. Times change, and college football has been extremely slow to adapt.
 
TSchekler said:
Then do away with conferences altogether. If you’re not going to be rewarded for winning the conference you’re in, then what’s the point of having them, especially when each conference plays by different rules.

Before the CFP, the reward for winning your conference was playing in a big time bowl game and it was a big deal to do so. With the playoff, nobody really cares if you win the Sugar/Rose/Fiesta/Orange/Peach bowl when they aren’t part of the CFP. Times change, and college football has been extremely slow to adapt.
Click to expand...
Exactly... times change. Bowl games aren't a big deal anymore. They're basically a "reward" to teams that weren't good enough to get in the playoff. I'd prefer to go back to the BCS. Don't you think bowl games still felt like they meant something when it was just the top 2 getting a shot?
 
Medford M. said:
Exactly... times change. Bowl games aren't a big deal anymore. They're basically a "reward" to teams that weren't good enough to get in the playoff. I'd prefer to go back to the BCS. Don't you think bowl games still felt like they meant something when it was just the top 2 getting a shot?
Click to expand...
They meant more than they do now, but it was still a stupid system. For some reason, we think college basketball having 60+ teams make a postseason tournament is amazing, but we’re good with only 4/129 football programs having a shot, when non of them play by the same set of rules? It’s stupid.

If you’re going to have “Power Conferences” they should each have a representative in the playoff IMO. The seeding can still be based on “best teams”, but Conference Champs should be autobids.
 
TSchekler said:
They meant more than they do now, but it was still a stupid system. For some reason, we think college basketball having 60+ teams make a postseason tournament is amazing, but we’re good with only 4/129 football programs having a shot, when non of them play by the same set of rules? It’s stupid.

If you’re going to have “Power Conferences” they should each have a representative in the playoff IMO. The seeding can still be based on “best teams”, but Conference Champs should be autobids.
Click to expand...
I like watching the NCAA tournament, but the format is dumb. Your champion is supposed to be representative of the best team. There's been way too many years where a team that shouldn't have had the opportunity got hot and/or lucky at the right time and made a run to the Final Four and sometimes even won a title. Makes a mockery of the system IMO.

Keep it small, so only the best teams have a chance.
 
Medford M. said:
I like watching the NCAA tournament, but the format is dumb. Your champion is supposed to be representative of the best team. There's been way too many years where a team that shouldn't have had the opportunity got hot and/or lucky at the right time and made a run to the Final Four and sometimes even won a title. Makes a mockery of the system IMO.

Keep it small, so only the best teams have a chance.
Click to expand...
6-8 teams still gets you the “best teams” competing for the Natty.
 
ZandiBuff said:
How can you be the best team in football if you aren't even the best team in your conference (or division) ???

5 + 1. Want to be in the playoffs? Win your conference. Want to win your conference? Win your division.

2 rounds of playoffs already complete.

If you're so sure the 9-3 team is so bad - they won't make it. Maybe their conference is a whole lot tougher than the pansies the 12-0 and 11-1 teams played. Don't know if you exclude the 9-3 team. We already know the 12-0 team is better than the 11-1 team, THEY WON
Click to expand...
Easy. You lost. At Auburn. Close.

You want a model of entitlement. I want the best four. Period. Analytics and reasoned experts can determine best four.
 
TSchekler said:
Then do away with conferences altogether. If you’re not going to be rewarded for winning the conference you’re in, then what’s the point of having them, especially when each conference plays by different rules.

Before the CFP, the reward for winning your conference was playing in a big time bowl game and it was a big deal to do so. With the playoff, nobody really cares if you win the Sugar/Rose/Fiesta/Orange/Peach bowl when they aren’t part of the CFP. Times change, and college football has been extremely slow to adapt.
Click to expand...
Conferences serve s purpose bigger than athletics. For sure, blow up divisions (now!) and CCGs (if expanded to 8)
 
TSchekler said:
They meant more than they do now, but it was still a stupid system. For some reason, we think college basketball having 60+ teams make a postseason tournament is amazing, but we’re good with only 4/129 football programs having a shot, when non of them play by the same set of rules? It’s stupid.

If you’re going to have “Power Conferences” they should each have a representative in the playoff IMO. The seeding can still be based on “best teams”, but Conference Champs should be autobids.
Click to expand...
Yes!! Great idea (not).

I’m cheering for Northwestern, Wazzu, Virginia, WVU and Bama. Won’t that be fun.
 
Problem with expanding a playoff is that you never reach a point a which people are satisfied.

If you have a four team, a six, an eight, or a twenty four you will always have people arguing that it should be just a little bit bigger to include them.

The last teams out never make the argument about how they compare to the top team or teams qualifying. Instead the argument is that if the last team in deserves to be in then so do they because they are "as good as" or in "some way better" than the last team that gets in.

Every time you expand you make the regular season worth less. You get to a point where games don't matter because a team knows they are going to be in win or lose. You also end up with a team that has lost already to another team getting second shots.

In the end the champion becomes not the team that was best that season but instead the team that is best at the end, the one that gets hot.
 
MtnBuff said:
Problem with expanding a playoff is that you never reach a point a which people are satisfied.

If you have a four team, a six, an eight, or a twenty four you will always have people arguing that it should be just a little bit bigger to include them.

The last teams out never make the argument about how they compare to the top team or teams qualifying. Instead the argument is that if the last team in deserves to be in then so do they because they are "as good as" or in "some way better" than the last team that gets in.

Every time you expand you make the regular season worth less. You get to a point where games don't matter because a team knows they are going to be in win or lose. You also end up with a team that has lost already to another team getting second shots.

In the end the champion becomes not the team that was best that season but instead the team that is best at the end, the one that gets hot.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing to expand in order to appease 4 & 5 loss teams, I’m talking about expanding to ensure that the elite teams in every conference get a shot, as well as 1-3 other teams that have one or two losses at the most and have a legitimate argument. Most years, there is serious controversy about 4-6 teams vying for the last 2 spots, when they are all equally deserving.
 
TSchekler said:
I’m not arguing to expand in order to appease 4 & 5 loss teams, I’m talking about expanding to ensure that the elite teams in every conference get a shot, as well as 1-3 other teams that have one or two losses at the most and have a legitimate argument. Most years, there is serious controversy about 4-6 teams vying for the last 2 spots, when they are all equally deserving.
Click to expand...
The elite teams in conferences get their shot. It’s called the regular season. Several playoff games this weekend. Enjoy them.
 
hawg1 said:
Computer? Which computer? Why that computer? Their biases were revealed in BCS era. Why go backwards?
Click to expand...
The mistake in the BCS era was including the writers and coaches polls in the calculations. It went to hell when they were forced to greatly discount strength of schedule.
 
hawg1 said:
Easy. You lost. At Auburn. Close.

You want a model of entitlement. I want the best four. Period. Analytics and reasoned experts can determine best four.
Click to expand...

hawg1 said:
Computer? Which computer? Why that computer? Their biases were revealed in BCS era. Why go backwards?
Click to expand...

"reasoned experts" are unbiased, but computers are biased????

Get a programmer who doesn't give 3 ****s about football (trust me, they exist) and use your "analytics" as input. Take the people out, period.

Remember, the "reasoned experts" said we were 24 pt favorites this past weekend.
 
WSU is the only PAC12 team that has a chance. If they keep playing the way they do, I think they will make it.
 
ZandiBuff said:
"reasoned experts" are unbiased, but computers are biased????

Get a programmer who doesn't give 3 ****s about football (trust me, they exist) and use your "analytics" as input. Take the people out, period.

Remember, the "reasoned experts" said we were 24 pt favorites this past weekend.
Click to expand...
Committe members are not pundits.
 
ZandiBuff said:
"reasoned experts" are unbiased, but computers are biased????

Get a programmer who doesn't give 3 ****s about football (trust me, they exist) and use your "analytics" as input. Take the people out, period.

Remember, the "reasoned experts" said we were 24 pt favorites this past weekend.
Click to expand...
Does no one understand probability? The computers had us as 20 point favorites.
 
Darth Snow said:
Does no one understand probability? The computers had us as 20 point favorites.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s funny that Zandi thinks there’s like a committee of people sitting around a table in Vegas going through every game and setting odds based on their personal opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top