Here is one problem with this college playoff.

[i am herdman]

The two winners will play again in nearly two weeks. The NFL playoffs will be in full swing. The holidays are over and people are moving on.

Will anybody actually care? I think it is dragging on too long. I know I am losing interest right about now. I think going to bed my be better than watching the second half. And a Monday night championship game that will go until midnight? Forget that.
This post was edited on 1/1 10:49 PM by i am herdman

 

[Penn2moss]

Well this may be the dumbest post of the week.

I hope you didn't go to bed.

 

[i am herdman]

Sure did. I am up and ready to go to work. I was tired of watching shifty football. Does anyone play defense any more? Basketball on grass sucks. I am tired of the stupid rules.

Alabama was done. They gave up on their QB who is bad. 42 to 35 in a sugar bowl with ohio state and alabama? That is crap football.

Guess I will watch the vaginal football league this weekend nothing else to do. Football is terrible these days.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[SHAMMOND16]

Yeah, sadly, football is now more geared toward the fantasy freaks & former soccer players/cheerleaders who think as long as points are being scored, it's interesting. I realize the game had to be cleaned up because brains were being scrambled more than eggs, but they could have allowed DBs to be more physical with WRs (instead of erasing all DB-WR physicality) to keep from free releases by WRs and the only way to defend that being guys having to deliver a shot after the catch...because you can't touch them before the catch.


Herdman, there is still some defense being played in the NFL. Only 5 teams out of 32 scored more than 30pts last week. However, there's no chance for defense in college anymore. You might as well watch arena league when you watch football on Saturdays.

 

[huntersdl2007]

Playoff is far from perfect but in the first year proved better than the BCS. In the BCS era it would have been bama vs FSU for the national championship and this just proved a playoff is and has been needed. I think the next step would be 8 team.. some say 16 and while that is better is more unlikely.. I could see a conference champion based playoff with 2-3 wildcards for the "stronger" conferences or conferences with 2+ REALLY strong candidates based on certain metrics.

 

[angelo54]

with only 4 teams picked by panel of 12? how can you call that a playoff? It's a joke....

 

[imherdfan]

Its the "College Football Invitational Tournament", nothing more.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[oldeherd]

No, imherdfan, its more like the "Power 5 Invitational Tournament"!

 

[Penn2moss]

in regards to the "will anyone care?"

Last night's playoff games rank #1 and #2 for the most watched cable TV programs ever.

 

[dshoe123]

Originally posted by Penn2moss:
in regards to the "will anyone care?"

Last night's playoff games rank #1 and #2 for the most watched cable TV programs ever.

and the numbers were staggering for cable...... over 28,000,000 viewers a 15 national rating. WatchESPN app did over 800,000 viewers, staggering numbers. Even the other New Year's six Bowls were off the charts averaging around 15 million viewers.

for all the issues with CFB Playoffs, and there are many, the viewing public bought in for sure

 

[ToesMU]

Imagine what the WatchESPN viewership would've been if the app hadn't frozen up so early!
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[The Real SamC]

Originally posted by huntersdl2007:

In the BCS era it would have been bama vs FSU for the national championship and this just proved a playoff is and has been needed.

How did that "prove" that? It proved nothing at all. ESPN just hyped up two games, the participants of which were picked by a corrupt opinion committee and now will hype up a game between the winners. We will end the season with four teams all having one loss.

The playoffs have failed totally. No better, and in many ways far worse, than the previous ways of picking a "champion".

Because, of course, college football used to be about having a great season. Going to the Gator Bowl or the Peach Bowl was an accomplishment. You had a good year. You got rewarded. In a few years, one "champion" out of, eventually a 16 team "playoff" and if you don't make the playoffs, nothing. And there will still be just one G5 slot. At the SEC champion in round one.

No thanks.

 

[Thundergrad]

This topic proves people will bitch about anything. No way is the playoff worse than the prior system. This playoff isn't perfect, but is far less imperfect than the BCS,

How is this playoff a joke? The four teams in it deserved it, though at least a couple more also did. I think 8 teams would be best, but no more. But whatever. Any sport that doesn't have a legitimate way to determine a champion on the field shouldn't claim to have a champion. Either a playoff, or no champion. BCS was total bull crap...2 teams is not a playoff.

Yes its a P5 show, but G5 teams will need to beef up out of conference schedules if they really want a shot. Can't play in a soft league and play soft out of conference. And yes, I'm sorry, outside of the top few teams, the rest of the G5 conferences are soft. As a Marshall grad and fan, I have no real expectations that the Herd will be invited to the party in the near future. Conference and or dramatic schedule changes will be required. That doesn't mean I think the playoff system is not legitimate.

You don't have to like it, but at least acknowledge this is better than the BS BCS.

 

[Herd Fever]

Can't play in a soft league??

So please explain to me how can we get into a better league??

 

[i am herdman]

In the old days, prior to the BCS, we would have ended up where we are at now in a roundabout way.

Ohio State would have played Oregon in the Rose Bowl.

Alabama would have played Florida State in the Sugar Bowl.

 

[i am herdman]

Originally posted by The Real SamC:

Originally posted by huntersdl2007:

In the BCS era it would have been bama vs FSU for the national championship and this just proved a playoff is and has been needed.

How did that "prove" that? It proved nothing at all. ESPN just hyped up two games, the participants of which were picked by a corrupt opinion committee and now will hype up a game between the winners. We will end the season with four teams all having one loss.

The playoffs have failed totally. No better, and in many ways far worse, than the previous ways of picking a "champion".

Because, of course, college football used to be about having a great season. Going to the Gator Bowl or the Peach Bowl was an accomplishment. You had a good year. You got rewarded. In a few years, one "champion" out of, eventually a 16 team "playoff" and if you don't make the playoffs, nothing. And there will still be just one G5 slot. At the SEC champion in round one.

No thanks.

I agree with you. These are not really even a playoff. But, they are not going to let a g5 champion ever have more than one slot and they will be the shark bait or sacrificial lamb of the playoff.

Actually the playoff is going to send G5 teams to a lower division is what is going to happen.

 

[i am herdman]

Originally posted by Herd Fever:
Can't play in a soft league??

So please explain to me how can we get into a better league??

I think he is saying with the new fangled system and what will come up you can do both. You can't play in a soft league and play a soft OOC schedule. It will force teams, like Marshall or any G5 team, to play a much harder OOC schedule because all the G5 teams will be fighting for one slot.

If they went to a 16 team playoff it will be 15 teams from the p5 conferences and one bone thrown to the G5 teams. Oh guess what G5 you are number 16. You go play #1 in the first round.

 

[Thundergrad]

Originally posted by i am herdman:

Originally posted by Herd Fever:
Can't play in a soft league??

So please explain to me how can we get into a better league??

I think he is saying with the new fangled system and what will come up you can do both. You can't play in a soft league and play a soft OOC schedule. It will force teams, like Marshall or any G5 team, to play a much harder OOC schedule because all the G5 teams will be fighting for one slot.

If they went to a 16 team playoff it will be 15 teams from the p5 conferences and one bone thrown to the G5 teams. Oh guess what G5 you are number 16. You go play #1 in the first round.

Yes, actually that is what I was saying.

I don't think we will see a 16 team playoff but it would be nice to see one include G5 conference champions. Sure, they wiould undoubtedly be the lower seeds, but a tough draw is better than no draw. All the pundits want to limit the playoff teams so "the regular season matters". Tell that to any non P5 team. 10 champions, 6 at large. Sounds too fair to work.

The bowl system is what makes a legit playoff improbable. A very watered down bowl system in empty stadiums.

 

[andy4theherd]

the problem with the current playoff other than needing at least 8 teams is the "committee". there is absolutely no reason to have a group of biased (all humans are) people choosing these teams based on some made up criteria that they change each week. the terms they came up with to justify some of their choices were ridiculous. there is no reason why the BCS formula could not have been used to select and rank the teams. the formula was in use for 15 years. in that time it was "tweaked" many times. it allowed human and computer polls to provide hard tangible data resulting in the rankings. people didn't bitch for years about the BCS because of the formulas. people bitched because they wanted a playoff. every season the question emerged weather or not the #3 or #4 team in the BCS could be the winner of #1/2. all we needed was the extra game. not some bullsh!t committee with an enormous agenda "choosing" their 4 teams...

go to an 8 team playoff and use the BCS rankings (tweaked as needed) to pick those 8 teams. this would allow really good G5 teams the opportunity to make the playoff. in the "BCS era" the following would have been in: '04 Utah, '06 Boise, '08 Utah, '09 TCU, '09 Boise, '10 TCU, '11 Boise. you wouldn't get in just because you had a soft schedule only to get obliterated by the other teams ('07 Hawaii, '12 NIU).

 

[SquireJack]

I think before we all start agitating for an 8-team playoff with a spot(s) for G-5 champion(s), we as small-school fans need to be careful what we wish for, lest we get it. The current set-up is not designed to ie ever include a G-5 team in the 4-team playoff. But it does give the G-5's an Access slot - a chance, a la Boise, to put together one great game against a legitimate P-5 opponent in a game that matters, perception-wise. No way Boise wins against any of the 4 playoff selections; and even if they did, that would just mean a loss in the next game. Same thing in an 8-team setup. Best G-5 team is always guaranteed to end their season win a defeat. There isn't a G-5 team in the country -- Boise included -- that could win the whole thing; a one-game upset is possible, but not two in a row (or three, in an 8-team format).

And no way on a 16 team playoff, at least not anytime soon. That works in FCS because, really, it's just the fans of the participating teams that care. That's how it was when Marshall won it's I-AA championships. Mattered a lot to Marshall; didn't really matter at all to the general fan whose TV watching habits of big-time college football drive the ratings and the advertising revenue. The top-division of CFB just isn't going to create a longer playoff process that is competing simultaneously with the NFL playoffs and the most significant portion of their basketball regular season (the conference games that really matter for post-season positioning. Doing that just dilutes overall NCAA viewership, reducing the ESPN payout money for the schools in the leagues whose conferences won't ever be participating in the football playoff revenue stream because their teams won't ever be involved. The conferences supplying the teams that are involved won't what to split the money with the conferences who aren't.

What honestly would be best for schools like Marshall would be to go back to FCS (call it something else, to avoid the implication of "dropping back"). Form up with other G-5 programs and the better FCS schools. Decide on a number of scholarships that makes sense, with a rule preventing payments to players. In other words, remain more or less amatuer collegiate football; a sharp distinction from the P-5 conferences which are moving in a direction where most college programs just can't compete, either financially or on the field. In effect, a system that -- while it won't be the very best NFL-lite players -- will at least have a wide viewership of fans who prefer the "college" game. And there are plenty of them.

 

[FlyHawk98]

Originally posted by SquireJack:
I think before we all start agitating for an 8-team playoff with a spot(s) for G-5 champion(s), we as small-school fans need to be careful what we wish for, lest we get it. The current set-up is not designed to ie ever include a G-5 team in the 4-team playoff. But it does give the G-5's an Access slot - a chance, a la Boise, to put together one great game against a legitimate P-5 opponent in a game that matters, perception-wise. No way Boise wins against any of the 4 playoff selections; and even if they did, that would just mean a loss in the next game. Same thing in an 8-team setup. Best G-5 team is always guaranteed to end their season win a defeat. There isn't a G-5 team in the country -- Boise included -- that could win the whole thing; a one-game upset is possible, but not two in a row (or three, in an 8-team format).

And no way on a 16 team playoff, at least not anytime soon. That works in FCS because, really, it's just the fans of the participating teams that care. That's how it was when Marshall won it's I-AA championships. Mattered a lot to Marshall; didn't really matter at all to the general fan whose TV watching habits of big-time college football drive the ratings and the advertising revenue. The top-division of CFB just isn't going to create a longer playoff process that is competing simultaneously with the NFL playoffs and the most significant portion of their basketball regular season (the conference games that really matter for post-season positioning. Doing that just dilutes overall NCAA viewership, reducing the ESPN payout money for the schools in the leagues whose conferences won't ever be participating in the football playoff revenue stream because their teams won't ever be involved. The conferences supplying the teams that are involved won't what to split the money with the conferences who aren't.

What honestly would be best for schools like Marshall would be to go back to FCS (call it something else, to avoid the implication of "dropping back"). Form up with other G-5 programs and the better FCS schools. Decide on a number of scholarships that makes sense, with a rule preventing payments to players. In other words, remain more or less amatuer collegiate football; a sharp distinction from the P-5 conferences which are moving in a direction where most college programs just can't compete, either financially or on the field. In effect, a system that -- while it won't be the very best NFL-lite players -- will at least have a wide viewership of fans who prefer the "college" game. And there are plenty of them.

I totally disagree. Getting a spot in the playoff would do absolute wonders for the small schools. That would actually open the door and give our school the opportunity to compete for a NC. That would in turn lead to more recruiting and such.


We didn't improve all these facilities and make the moves we have just to go back to the FCS.

 

[herdalicious]

Originally posted by SHAMMOND16:
Yeah, sadly, football is now more geared toward the fantasy freaks & former soccer players/cheerleaders who think as long as points are being scored, it's interesting.

I don't get this insult. Does this mean former soccer players love scoring, or that people who play soccer are analogous to cheerleaders?

I always thought the knock on soccer was that it was boring because it wasn't high-scoring. And while both are criticized as non-athletes by people who lettered in Being Fat and Watching Other People Play Football, I seem to recall it involving a little bit of running and some leg lifts, every now and again.

Oh wait, I think I get it: former soccer players love scoring with cheerleaders, and you mad.

 

[Gavdaddy1980]

I get it. Vaginal Football League.

Because who cares that science says that concussions are permanently damaging and we keep seeing guys kill themselves because they've suffered multiple TBI's for the benefit of a fan base that won't remember their names 2 seasons after they retire?

We live in an area where people sue and manipulate the workers comp system if they're asked to lift more than 15 lbs. but people gripe about trying to protect the brains/lives of people they do nothing but scream at and hate on because they didn't get enough fantasy points.

So cool. So edgy. "Real man."

 

[SquireJack]

Respect your viewpoint, Flyhawk. That said, the kind of "new G-5" league I envision would encompass schools that have "new & improved" facilities that are on par with (and in many cases, better than) Marshall's. It's not just about an IPC or a nice, if small, football stadium. The "big boys" have all of that already, bigger and better, and in multiple sports. When "pay for play" comes, schools like Marshall (and about 100 others similarly situated) won't be able to compete, financially or on the court / field. My point is just that, instead of A futile attempt to do the virtually impossible -- get a G-5 into the playoffs and actually manage to win more than an occasional first-round "upset" game, why not form a division that plays decent football without paying players (because if you pay your football team, you'll have to pay your women's golf team, gymnastics, etc.). You get the picture. No way can Marshall-type schools do that and still raise and spend the kind of money on football that can put out anything approaching a competitive program. Better, in my view, to 'drop back' (if the fans insist on thinking of it that way) to become the "top-tier" truly amateur status division. JMO.

 

[i am herdman]

Originally posted by Gavdaddy1980:
I get it. Vaginal Football League.

Because who cares that science says that concussions are permanently damaging and we keep seeing guys kill themselves because they've suffered multiple TBI's for the benefit of a fan base that won't remember their names 2 seasons after they retire?

We live in an area where people sue and manipulate the workers comp system if they're asked to lift more than 15 lbs. but people gripe about trying to protect the brains/lives of people they do nothing but scream at and hate on because they didn't get enough fantasy points.

So cool. So edgy. "Real man."

Well, would those guys rather be flipping burgers or digging ditches? Or being a paralegal? They get paid a lot of money to play a rough and sometimes violent sport.

If they want to stop this stuff take away the helmets and big shoulder pads. That would stop a lot of it. Then, they would use the bodies as bettering rams as much.

You can't breathe on a qb anymore. D backs can't effectively cover receivers. Horse collar rules. Tackling is terrible at every level of football. The rules favor offensive track meets. Tacklers are now faced with nano secon decisions if they can hit a guy.

These men can choose to do something else. I doubt any of them would at the end of the day.




This post was edited on 1/4 5:33 PM by i am herdman

 

[Gavdaddy1980]

Not the point.

Every job on the planet has safety rules in place, many of them that employees find unnecessary and restrictive.

Football is a job at that level. Things that are proven to cause injuries on a regular basis - many with lasting effects - like helmet to helmet contact, running the wedge, and horse collar tackles are and should be ruled out.

It also makes for a better product because it makes it exponentially more likely that the best players remain on the field. I don't need to see Calvin Johnson take a shot to the skull from third rate defender that's tired of being torched. I don't need to see a repeat of Dennis Byrd because guys lead with their head. Many of football's iconic plays could still legally happen today even with rule changes.

Montana getting annihilated by Leonard Marshall? Legal. Elway helicoptering through the air? Legal. LT on Theisman? Legal.

What you're saying is akin to screaming "if ya don't want hair in your food then shave your head and cook yourself but them kids shouldn't have to wear hair nets!"

It's silly and comes across like a heartless, uninformed Neanderthal.

 

[i am herdman]

Originally posted by Gavdaddy1980:
Not the point.

Every job on the planet has safety rules in place, many of them that employees find unnecessary and restrictive.

Football is a job at that level. Things that are proven to cause injuries on a regular basis - many with lasting effects - like helmet to helmet contact, running the wedge, and horse collar tackles are and should be ruled out.

It also makes for a better product because it makes it exponentially more likely that the best players remain on the field. I don't need to see Calvin Johnson take a shot to the skull from third rate defender that's tired of being torched. I don't need to see a repeat of Dennis Byrd because guys lead with their head. Many of football's iconic plays could still legally happen today even with rule changes.

Montana getting annihilated by Leonard Marshall? Legal. Elway helicoptering through the air? Legal. LT on Theisman? Legal.

What you're saying is akin to screaming "if ya don't want hair in your food then shave your head and cook yourself but them kids shouldn't have to wear hair nets!"

It's silly and comes across like a heartless, uninformed Neanderthal.

Vaginification of America.

Football is meant to be rough. People get hurt. Don't play it if you don't want those things to happen. Don't watch if you don't want to see that.

Why not just make it two hand touch? Flag football.

This country was built on being tough. Kids should play dodge ball in school. We played tackle football in the backyard and we all made it. Didn't need bicycle helmets.

Screw this stuff.

 

[sistersville]

Anything but a playoff is stupid. Need more teams included

 

[connsinfonia]

Originally posted by i am herdman:

Originally posted by Gavdaddy1980:
Not the point.

Every job on the planet has safety rules in place, many of them that employees find unnecessary and restrictive.

Football is a job at that level. Things that are proven to cause injuries on a regular basis - many with lasting effects - like helmet to helmet contact, running the wedge, and horse collar tackles are and should be ruled out.

It also makes for a better product because it makes it exponentially more likely that the best players remain on the field. I don't need to see Calvin Johnson take a shot to the skull from third rate defender that's tired of being torched. I don't need to see a repeat of Dennis Byrd because guys lead with their head. Many of football's iconic plays could still legally happen today even with rule changes.

Montana getting annihilated by Leonard Marshall? Legal. Elway helicoptering through the air? Legal. LT on Theisman? Legal.

What you're saying is akin to screaming "if ya don't want hair in your food then shave your head and cook yourself but them kids shouldn't have to wear hair nets!"

It's silly and comes across like a heartless, uninformed Neanderthal.

Vaginification of America.

Football is meant to be rough. People get hurt. Don't play it if you don't want those things to happen. Don't watch if you don't want to see that.

Why not just make it two hand touch? Flag football.

This country was built on being tough. Kids should play dodge ball in school. We played tackle football in the backyard and we all made it. Didn't need bicycle helmets.

Screw this stuff.

Oh yes, by all means, let's have a bunch of kids - who don't even get paid at the amateur level - risk concussions and worse and ruin their chances of a pro career. Sometimes ruin their way of life. It still happens, but less than before.

When you played tackle football in the backyard, did you face down a 300 lb D-Lineman coming at you full steam?

 

[Gavdaddy1980]

Rough is one thing. Potentially deadly is something else. It's still perfectly legal to blow people up on the field. It's not legal to put them (or yourself) at risk for a traumatic brain injury. I work at a place that has several TBI patients. If you saw how their quality of life changed, you'd understand why protecting these athletes isn't "vagification" or anything but smart,

I agree that dodgeball should be played. Participation trophies should be outlawed. Neither of those have anything to do with medical science and decreasing the likelihood of middle aged men killing themselves just so you can feel tough by watching other people suffer.