You guys are pretty ridiculous, BTW.


Trav's 15 conference winners, plus one, system completely contradicts tbgh's 4 and 6 team systems. Tbgh's 4 and 6 teams systems completely contradicts Josh's 16 team system. Josh's 16 team system completely contradicts Trav's and tbgh's system.


None of you voice out against each other. Yet you are quick to triple team my system, which splits the difference between Tbgh's and Josh's.



So much for staying consistent.....

---

You guys are pretty ridiculous, BTW.


Trav's 15 conference winners, plus one, system completely contradicts tbgh's 4 and 6 team systems. Tbgh's 4 and 6 teams systems completely contradicts Josh's 16 team system. Josh's 16 team system completely contradicts Trav's and tbgh's system.


None of you voice out against each other. Yet you are quick to triple team my system, which splits the difference between Tbgh's and Josh's.



So much for staying consistent.....

 

What are you talking about?  You are the one that likes to fight back on everything anyone says.  I've gotten to the point where I said the 6 team system makes the most sense and now you want to argue it just to argue.

 

You are the one back tracking now.  You talk about having the most deserving teams only being in the playoff, but when it comes to the most deserving of those teams, they shouldnt have a single advantage?  That's going against the NFL system which seems to work and everyone agrees with.

---

Josh, I already touched on that. 6 or 8 teams is much better to me than 4 or 16. I think 6 teams is enough to make sure you include all legitimate contenders, but if you want an even playing field for those contenders you need to extend it to 8.


And yes, the advantage of a bye may be warranted for the 1 and 2 seeds. I've already stated that. A bye AND home field advantage is stacking the deck, though. Many times the difference between regular seasons (ie. 12-1 SEC champ Alabama and 12-0 Ohio St.) is minimal at best. Seasons that comparable in "impressiveness" shouldn't give Ohio St. a 3x greater chance to with the NC as Alabama.

---

What are you talking about? You are the one that likes to fight back on everything anyone says. I've gotten to the point where I said the 6 team system makes the most sense and now you want to argue it just to argue.


You are the one back tracking now. You talk about having the most deserving teams only being in the playoff, but when it comes to the most deserving of those teams, they shouldnt have a single advantage? That's going against the NFL system which seems to work and everyone agrees with.

I've actually been consistent with the stance that I want to avoid excluding or screwing over teams with legitimate cases for best team in the country.


A single advantage for teams with obvious better seasons wouldn't upset me at all. My point is that a lot of times the difference between team 2 and team 3 is miniscule. I've also stated that a single slight advantage, like a bye, may be warranted. Giving a bye and home field advantage to Ohio St. while making Alabama play two games and play on the road is far from a "single" or "slight" advantage.

---

Haven't you figured it out yet? It's all a conspiracy to waste your time so our buddy can take your job.

 

:yes:

---

You guys are pretty ridiculous, BTW.


Trav's 15 conference winners, plus one, system completely contradicts tbgh's 4 and 6 team systems. Tbgh's 4 and 6 teams systems completely contradicts Josh's 16 team system. Josh's 16 team system completely contradicts Trav's and tbgh's system.


None of you voice out against each other. Yet you are quick to triple team my system, which splits the difference between Tbgh's and Josh's.



So much for staying consistent.....

Im realistic. My system is a system that takes place in a perfect world. Ain't happenin.


The NCAA and greedy bowls wouldn't allow it. I can support other, more realistic systems. You try to run a dictatorship. It's your way or the high way. You start a thread to discuss this but everything anyone says is wrong...in your eyes only.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Josh, I already touched on that. 6 or 8 teams is much better to me than 4 or 16. I think 6 teams is enough to make sure you include all legitimate contenders, but if you want an even playing field for those contenders you need to extend it to 8.


And yes, the advantage of a bye may be warranted for the 1 and 2 seeds. I've already stated that. A bye AND home field advantage is stacking the deck, though. Many times the difference between regular seasons (ie. 12-1 SEC champ Alabama and 12-0 Ohio St.) is minimal at best. Seasons that comparable in "impressiveness" shouldn't give Ohio St. a 3x greater chance to with the NC as Alabama.

Perfect example.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

I've actually been consistent with the stance that I want to avoid excluding or screwing over teams with legitimate cases for best team in the country.


A single advantage for teams with obvious better seasons wouldn't upset me at all. My point is that a lot of times the difference between team 2 and team 3 is miniscule. I've also stated that a single slight advantage, like a bye, may be warranted. Giving a bye and home field advantage to Ohio St. while making Alabama play two games and play on the road is far from a "single" or "slight" advantage.

 

I've also said there is no way these games would be home field.

---

Perfect example.

 

We're talking about the season where that 12-0 team was ineligible to play in postseason play? 

---

While I'd welcome an 8 team playoff, the fact that these games are basically elimination games this week is pretty cool.

---

While I'd welcome an 8 team playoff, the fact that these games are basically elimination games this week is pretty cool.

 

Yeah, and I think its going to get better as time goes on.  Teams are going to realize they have to play meaningful games to get in.  I'm hoping for more interconference match ups.

---

Lol, Josh. First you want a 16 team playoff and then once someone else proposed a plan, you hopped on their bandwagon despite it going against what you were trying to accomplish.

 

Heck, you even ADMITTED to playing Devil's Advocate, and just disagreeing with me to provoke a debate. Don't cry to me about parameters changing when that's all you've been doing this entire thread.

---

Im realistic. My system is a system that takes place in a perfect world. Ain't happenin.


The NCAA and greedy bowls wouldn't allow it. I can support other, more realistic systems. You try to run a dictatorship. It's your way or the high way. You start a thread to discuss this but everything anyone says is wrong...in your eyes only.

 

Not everything everyone says is wrong. TBGH and I see eye to eye on it, for the most part. We are both trying to accomplish the same thing but are civilly discussing which system would better accomplish then. On the other hand, Josh is flip flopping all over the place just to be an antagonist. He originally stressed that it needed to be 16 teams because more teams should have a shot. Now, he's saying 6 >>> 8. Try to wrap your head around that logic. 

 

And I'm the one that changes parameters??

---

You have basketball allowing 64 teams in and its become the most exciting tournament around.  Allowing other teams in only increases the competitiveness.

 

 

How do you know I would never list it?  In my view, you take the top 16 teams and throw them into the playoff.  They are the most deserving at the end of the year.

 

 

UCF had one loss last year to South Carolina and then beat Baylor in the Fiesta.  They didn't crack the top 10 until after beating Baylor.  Who is to say they didn't have a contender with Bortles and Storm Johnson on their team?  Those mid majors are at a competitive disadvantage in the rankings.

 

 

I posted this scenario earlier.  6 teams would be better than 8.  Teams 7 and 8 are "undeserving" (and in most cases 5 and 6) as much as any team from 9-16.

 

 

So 16 >>> 8, so you can allow more teams in..... but 6 >>> 8, because 8 allows too many teams in?

 

---

So 16 >>> 8, so you can allow more teams in..... but 6 >>> 8, because 8 allows too many teams in?

 

 

 

Lol, you're such a joke.  I dont feel like wasting my time, but you've backed off 8 being in as well.  You've changed your mind too.

 

16 is still the best approach, in my opinion (am I allowed to have one of those in a discussion with you?)....but you only want deserving teams, so I did say I would rather have 6 than 8 if those are the parameters. (which I've personally admitted to in this thread, but thank you for pointing it out.)  I would rather 6 or 16.....

 

Did I clear that up for you?  I'm still waiting a yes or no answer to trav's question.  You wont because it doesn't suit your arguement.  It's typical twisting from you.

---

Lol, you're such a joke.  I dont feel like wasting my time, but you've backed off 8 being in as well.  You've changed your mind too.

 

16 is still the best approach, in my opinion (am I allowed to have one of those in a discussion with you?)....but you only want deserving teams, so I did say I would rather have 6 than 8 if those are the parameters. (which I've personally admitted to in this thread, but thank you for pointing it out.)  I would rather 6 or 16.....

 

Did I clear that up for you?  I'm still waiting a yes or no answer to trav's question.  You wont because it doesn't suit your arguement.  It's typical twisting from you.

 

I haven't backed off 8 or changed my mind. I think that 6 and 8 both accomplish what I think needs to happen. I support 6 for the same reason I support 8, it's just the issue of giving teams byes and home-field advantage I'm weary about. Just to be clear:

 

We agree that the more watered down it gets, the worse it becomes. This is why I think 16 teams is too many.


I think 6 would be good as it accomplishes the same thing as 8 does IMO. I think I'd rather see 2 additional teams than see two teams get byes, though. I'd have to think about that.

 

 

On the other hand, you're changing your parameters. You think 16 is best because you want to allow more teams, but also think 6 > 8 because 8 allows too many teams. That as bass-ackwards logic.

---

I haven't backed off 8 or changed my mind. I think that 6 and 8 both accomplish what I think needs to happen. I support 6 for the same reason I support 8, it's just the issue of giving teams byes and home-field advantage I'm weary about. Just to be clear:

 

 

 

On the other hand, you're changing your parameters. You think 16 is best because you want to allow more teams, but also think 6 > 8 because 8 allows too many teams. That as bass-ackwards logic.

 

No, I'm satisfying both sides of the parameters.  If you are going for people that are legit national title contenders, 6 is the max.  If you want a legit tournament where a dark horse team (most likely with a max of 2 losses, rarely 3) playing well at the end of the year has a shot, its 16.

 

I never considered 6 until tbgh mentioned it......you're 8 team model was debunked because of what you said.  If a team deserves a national title at the end of the year, its probably not if they are ranked 7 or 8.

---

No, I'm satisfying both sides of the parameters.  If you are going for people that are legit national title contenders, 6 is the max.  If you want a legit tournament where a dark horse team (most likely with a max of 2 losses, rarely 3) playing well at the end of the year has a shot, its 16.

 

I never considered 6 until tbgh mentioned it......you're 8 team model was debunked because of what you said.  If a team deserves a national title at the end of the year, its probably not if they are ranked 7 or 8.

 

Right, but which one do YOU like? If you are supporting 6 teams, you are going against all of the reasons you supported 16 teams. If you still support 16 teams, you are going against the reasoning behind 6 teams. You support both, even though they contradict eachother.

 

I've said time and time again that 6 teams is probably a large enough cut off to include all deserving teams. I've even said I could support a 6 team system because of that. It just because an issue of is giving two teams byes better or allowing two extra great-but-not-elite teams in? I'd probably side with the 6 team with 2 by system, as long as home field advantage wasn't given, too.

 

I think 6 would be good as it accomplishes the same thing as 8 does IMO. I think I'd rather see 2 additional teams than see two teams get byes, though. I'd have to think about that.

 

Not sure how you fail to grasp this concept.

---

Right, but which one do YOU like? If you are supporting 6 teams, you are going against all of the reasons you supported 16 teams. If you still support 16 teams, you are going against the reasoning behind 6 teams. You support both, even though they contradict eachother.

 

I've said time and time again that 6 teams is probably a large enough cut off to include all deserving teams. I've even said I could support a 6 team system because of that. It just because an issue of is giving two teams byes better or allowing two extra great-but-not-elite teams in? I'd probably side with the 6 team with 2 by system, as long as home field advantage wasn't given, too.

 

 

Not sure how you fail to grasp this concept.

 

Lol, so you are allowed to change your mind, but you will call people out for changing their opinion?

 

You're worse than a politician.  

 

With that said, I'm done with you on both topics.  You are unwilling to concede anything in a discussion while belittling people to no end if you disagree.  It's old, it's your schtick, and I'm over it.

---

Lol, so you are allowed to change your mind, but you will call people out for changing their opinion?

 

You're worse than a politician.  

 

With that said, I'm done with you on both topics.  You are unwilling to concede anything in a discussion while belittling people to no end if you disagree.  It's old, it's your schtick, and I'm over it.

 

If you changed your opinion that's, fine. If you now think it's better to have 6 teams and only let in the most deserving teams, then fine. If your opinion is still that you should allow 16 teams in, that's fine. Supporting both for reasons that contradict each other is just talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

"You're unwilling to concede anything in a discussion" is very rich coming from you.

---