Nov 6, 2019
1:10:19pm
1:10:19pm
You still want it to be a judgement on “how your year was”. And a “reward” based on that.
I don’t care about “rewarded”. If they’re not good, you should obviously be able to beat them in the first round. One extra game to make a champion black and white nationwide instead of arbitrary.
If the best team in the P5 can’t beat that G5 team, then guess what? Your assumptions about them were wrong and they’re much better than you thought.
If they not only beat that team, but run the tourney, they should be champions.
If the best team in the P5 can’t beat that G5 team, then guess what? Your assumptions about them were wrong and they’re much better than you thought.
If they not only beat that team, but run the tourney, they should be champions.
- Bio page
- mvtoro
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Last login
- May 18, 2024
- Total posts
- 11,673 (759 FO)
Messages
Time
11/6/19 9:02am
Top non-P5 should be included only if the playoff is this large. But giving them a top 5 seed is dumb
11/6/19 9:04am
I understand the argument. I just disagree. It sucks but G5 schedules are just horrible compared to P5
11/6/19 9:57am
11/6/19 10:15am
11/6/19 9:22am
11/6/19 9:20am
11/6/19 3:04pm
11/6/19 11:19am
11/6/19 11:55am
11/6/19 11:57am
If it’s fed by conference championships rather than rankings, then the regular season is just as important to the end.
11/6/19 12:13pm
More important: There should be no arbitrary benefit awarded by anything other than wins and losses.
11/6/19 12:46pm
11/6/19 12:52pm
11/6/19 1:05pm
11/6/19 12:49pm
It's not about only winning because schedules people play are so inherently unequal that it's impossible
11/6/19 1:02pm
11/6/19 1:10pm
11/6/19 1:12pm
11/6/19 9:05pm