The first round of the playoffs was really boring

[Max]

Is it just me or was the first round of the playoffs really boring. Two of the games were blowouts and Clemson vs. Texas was kinda close and same with Notre Dame and Indiana.

[Daren Oddenino]

Kind of shows 8 team playoff might have been enough. 1-8 now in next four games.

[DataUte]

ND was up 27-3 late into the 4th, so it was not as close as the score indicated

[ALUF]

Totally agree was a snooze fest.

[Tony (admin)]

Also less interesting since we weren’t involved

[Roy Rangum]

This might sound dumb, but I was pretty ok with the blowouts. The whole point of a playoff is to prove on the field / court who is the actual best. A lot of those teams that got blown out were teams that a lot of people thought were pretty good. But now we know with a surety, those teams weren’t really all that close compared to the teams above them. And now we get a chance to do it again in the next round (and I won’t be surprised if ASU and Boise State similarly get whooped). With 12 teams, you eliminate the coulda woulda shoulda, and you get to prove who were the pretenders and who were the contenders.

[//r00t4Utes]

So the home teams and favored teams have so won?

Not exactly shocking. Home field is usually an advantage, especially for good teams.

I know the little I watched I’ve heard the media say how good it is to have these games at college stadiums, which is true. But then gloss over the advantage the Home teams have and instead say things like wins aren’t as important as who you play.

Again, there is some truth to that, but it’s lazy commentary and without context and small sample size, seeing as it’s the first time for this playoff format. And to me, it is just pushing the network agenda of keeping big names included to make the networks as much money as possible.

If they do that, then what’s the point of the regular season? Just automatically put every blue blood in the playoffs, and the new auto bid can give these blue bloods all Home games as a way to reinforce their confirmation bias and make more money.

[Utah]

Get used to it. With the money and the separation of the SEC/Big 10 from the rest of us…they are just better than us.

And the odds of a non-SEC/B1G team winning three games in a row…are pretty close to zero.

Kids don’t play anymore to compete or win or become a legend. They play to make money and go to the NFL. Having a kid wanting to go to a Utah or Oklahoma St or Boise St to prove the world wrong and show they can hang with anyone…maybe you find one or two…or ten. But that isn’t enough in football.

Why go show the world you are the best at Utah for $100,000 when you can get $500,000 from Alabama and win it all?

The SEC/B1G need to break off and do their own thing. The playoff just shows that.

[Uteanooga]

This version of playoff would be perfect for the old conferences. Put the old P12 and B12 back to gather and voila- perfect playoff.

[2008 National Champ]

The score of a single game is the silliest argument for “deserve to be there” and that it still exists after ~ 30 years of BCS and CFP means that people still don’t understand the difference between Best Team and National/Tournament Champion.

Blowouts happen in every sport, in every competition and are 10 times more common than exciting finishes. But top level College Football fan has been taught for over 100 years that their bias is more important than what actually happened and they will glom on to any and every innocuous factoid to prove their point. It doesn’t matter how many wild card NFL teams win the Super Bowl, there will still be people who know without a shadow of a doubt that if a wild card team gets blown out in the first round that they didn’t deserve to be there. It didn’t matter how many 4 seeds won the CFP, as soon as one got blown out it proved that 4 was too many and the playoff shouldn’t expand.

In a world where the more talented team at home wins ~ 75% of the time, the only thing more predictable is people with an axe to grind using the results as proof of something unproveable.

[Roy Rangum]

“proof of something unproveable”

So blowing another team out is not proof that you are a better team, because it was a home game?

[//r00t4Utes]

If that was directed at me? No, I didn’t mean it today way.

The better teams won, no doubt.

I was just pointing out that I thunk some media ate using these blowouts to push an agenda.

Too relate it to the NFL. Brady losing to Eli would’ve never happened using their “logic”.

[2008 National Champ]

It’s only proof that in those specific circumstances, one team scored more than the other. It’s a single data point and the outcome is no more predictive than if I flipped a quarter, it came up heads, and I proclaimed to the world that it was proof that every time a quarter was flipped heads would be the result.

Did the “better” teams win? Or did the teams who were given an inherent advantage by the committee win?

The ESPN invitational will determine a National Champion. But it won’t determine the “best” team of 2024. Because that can’t be determined unless all teams are subjected to the same variables. In skiing, everyone who has met the same basic qualifications during the regular season gets together and they all race down the same hill, in the same weather conditions and whoever has the best time is crowned. In every professional team sport besides football, the teams play multiple games trading off home/away because it is understood that one game at one venue is not sufficient to determine superiority.

At least March Madness does it’s best to provide a neutral surface for it’s one and done sweepstakes. And it includes more teams than are capable of winning the tournament because every school has the same path to the tournament. All the first round of the ESPN Invitational proved was that if you give talented teams an advantage, it is hard for the other team to overcome. And the margins of victory are irrelevant unless you are of the belief that it is proof that if the circumstances were reversed, you would get the exact same result. i.e. proof of the unproveable

[China Rider]

There’s the B1G, there’s the SEC and there is Notre Dame. Then you have the rest wishing on a star. Some will still make it into the big boy club but most will not. The days of yore are nearing the end for better or worse but the divide is clear to see. College sports brave new world.

ASU and Boise St. next week? I think not.

[RUUTES]

I’m still in favor of a 16-team playoff but I don’t expect the first round to be all barn burners. they are the chance for upsets and Cinderellas but they will always tilt toward the big teams. I think what we see this year also has to be filtered through the chaos and uncertainty of portal and NIL. I think the playoffs will stabilize and the round of 8 already looks like much better matchups. But having this first round did mean that teams like PSU went through a vetting process and weren’t just moving on based on eyeballs.

There will always be bad games..the bowl games have been bringing us joke matchups for years. I think this way this at least some enforced quality control because you have to win to move ahead.

Under the prior system teams like SMU and Indiana wouldn’t have even been given the chance to fail.

[Uteanooga]

Sending southern teams to play in 15-20 degree weather is a huge advantage for the home team.

[jshame17]

Well, Tennessee played in a game that matched their coldest ever at 25 degrees…. And it showed. Would the result have been different at a neutral site cold weather site? I don’t think so, but OSU clearly had home field advantage with the stadium and weather.

I didn’t watch it because I’m not watching any of them, but I did see the kickoff and they were showing all the lengths they were going to try to make them warm, and it was funny. They sowed fleece lined pockets onto the jerseys, hoods, heaters etc.

Then they showed Howard and he wasn’t even wearing sleeves or gloves.

The south is SOFT and will crumble if they ever had to compete in the cold.

[Author]

Posts