forums

So, when is it going 16 teams

Advertisement
I’ve seen several sports media figures clamoring for the CFP committee to be done away with. If that happens, I take it there will be a structure-formula of some sort in its place, that everyone agrees on. But again, there will be teams left out as it will somehow depend on some human input in rankings leading up to the playoffs. Cronyism is vicious…
 
We need play in games to replace conference championships games. Not more teams

I’d take a rematch against ND or a game against Vandy to get in.
 
Silentobserver said:
Never understood why FBS didn't just adopt the FCS playoff model. It works there and has rarely been an issue.
Click to expand...
Bc that would require P4 only schedules. That would decimate FCS and G5 athletic budgets bc they wouldn’t get the $1-4 million from P4 schools to come play them.

The FCS might not exist in its current form if that happened. And a good amount of G5 teams would also drop football.
 
Advertisement
Brains said:
No matter what happens, we will get ****ed. Sideways.
Click to expand...

This all became a problem for us because we have an AD who is fanatically attached to the ACC and an incompetent ACC commissioner who kids also happen to attend Notre Dame. F#ck FSU but at least their AD had the balls to sue to leave the ACC.
 
tr1ck said:
Yayy !! More room for Sec teams and ND
Click to expand...
At least the B1G's proposal is a little reasonable.
3 SEC
3 B1G
2 ACC
2 B12
1 G5
3 at large

That at least minimizes the SEC to probably 5/16 teams at most.

Currently they're getting 5/12 and fighting for 6 or 7 (Texas and Vandy).

The SEC wants to give all the power to the committee because they can be corrupted.
 
YLCANE said:
Well
That would bring me to another issue
Pre season rankings
Get rid of them
No rankings until oct
That we we see who is playing legit football and you have computer rankings
NO AP
NO Coaches
Click to expand...
should have always been the case, Penn state worked this system to a tee, schedule 4 cakes, always in top 5 before they got beat by 1st real team they played every year
10-2 zero meaning wins, always ranked high
 
LMAO @ anyone on this forum being against playoff expansion & simultaneously calling themselves a MIA fan.

When has the implementation of parity increasing measures in CFB ever not benefited this program?

If the playoffs were 16 teams this yr would MIA be at risk of missing them like last yr?

Now compare that to what our situation would be currently, if the playoffs were stuck at 4 teams.

Parity increasing measures always end up benefiting the schools that don't already have an entrenched advantage in the sport; which MIA doesn't. It's not that difficult to understand.

The issue of including undeserving teams into the playoffs is much less of an issue currently because there are no longer any dominant teams in the sport; most teams in the top 20 are more or less evenly matched. Furthermore, a larger playoff field also means the committee would have to rely less on subjective criteria like eye test, & hypotheticals in order to rank teams. Teams wouldn't be penalized as much for scheduling tough opponents & losing close games because accruing quality wins would again be prioritized.
 
Last edited:
Trafficante said:
LMAO @ anyone on this forum being against playoff expansion & simultaneously calling themselves a MIA fan.

When has the implementation of parity increasing measures in CFB ever not benefited this program?

If the playoffs were 16 teams this yr would MIA be at risk of missing them like last yr?

Now compare that to what our situation would be currently, if the playoffs were stuck at 4 teams.

Parity increasing measures always end up benefiting the schools that don't already have an entrenched advantage in the sport; which MIA doesn't. It's not that difficult to understand.

The issue of including undeserving teams into the playoffs is much less of an issue currently because there are no longer any dominant teams in the sport; most teams in the top 20 are more or less evenly matched. Furthermore, a larger playoff field also means the committee would have to rely less on subjective criteria like eye test, & hypotheticals in order to rank teams. Teams wouldn't be penalized as much for scheduling tough opponents & losing close games & accruing quality wins would once again be prioritized.
Click to expand...
its not expanding them that's the issue, should have always been 16
its how they get picked, need a min per conference, not just a way for sec to pad more teams in
 
Advertisement
Tru C said:
We aren’t reinventing the wheel here. The NFL gets it right and the FCS gets it right. So, just get it right. I am not really interested in this victim narrative that Miami will always get the shaft or ****ed over. It’s kind of bull**** to be honest.
Click to expand...
Exactly we watch this corrupt and bias **** take place right in front of our eyes but want to further reduce our chances of getting in by going back to 4 or 8 teams ? **** is comical lol
 
Back
Top