Guy Chamberlin

I'm pretty sure I'd like a 16 game playoff format, but it is worth considering how it will change the regular season. College football is one of those rare sports where every game has urgency, because there are only 12 or 13 a season. If teams know they only have to make the top 16, it can actually devalue late season games for the top contenders, as it sometimes does in pro sports where the stars sit out loseable games to avoid pre-playoff injuries. And get ready for the legitimate argument that the NCAA, TV networks, conferences and the gambling community will be making billions off the month long playoff, while student athletes playing more games, facing more injuries and abandoning the pretext of semester finals will remain uncompensated. Again, not sure how I feel about it. But a 16 game playoff does come with unintended consequences. And Alabama, Clemson, or Ohio State would still be likely to win.

In Abrams final trilogy, you could see them blatantly pandering to the fandom, trying to go note for note with everything beloved and nostalgic about the original trilogy. But it did look like they were just plugging s#!t in, knowing they'd be making billions regardless. It's remarkable to hear Abrams admit this. I suppose you could put the final narrative on paper and it might have sounded okay, but who knew it would be such a joyless exercise? I honestly went into The Force Awakens with an open mind, but halfway through I couldn't wait for it to be over. The final episode made me wonder if the entire franchise had been over-rated the whole time

We can talk about what the best and most equitable playoff format could be. I'm just talking about the playoff system we have. Four teams. Three games. Almost always a debate about the last team to squeeze in. Almost no debate about the top two or three. Subjectively and objectively, Alabama and Clemson have been on a roll. The SEC is pretty loaded, too. I don't think this would have changed much if lower ranked teams had been given a shot, but it will be fun and of course more profitable to the NCAA and ESPN when this happens.

That's literally the only thing we're talking about.

So you honestly think there were better teams than Alabama, Clemson, and LSU the past few seasons? I get tired of dynasties and I hate the SEC's arrogance, but I like football and based on what I've seen on the field, I can see no reason not to give these teams credit for playing the game extremely well.

I get that. Like I said, the imperfection is built in because the NCAA originally wanted to avoid a month long playoff because they honestly thought it looked bad for amateur athletics given the presumption that student athletes would need to be studying for finals in December. Seriously. But if the question is whether the recent CFP Champions have earned it on the field or not, I'd say they've earned it on the field. Given the format, I think the committee has done a decent job. JMHO.

No. It happened because teams that win their division automatically make the playoffs. Which means that clearly better teams sometimes don't make the playoffs at all. There is no committee to step in and ensure that the best teams make the playoffs. When a 7-9 Washington makes the playoffs it's an embarrassment to the NFC Central Division, but we move on with our lives. At the moment, the NCAA has a committee entrusted to putting the four best teams in a two round playoff. Given the imperfections built into the system, they've done a pretty good job, and nothing remotely close to putting a .500 team in over an 11-5 team, so I'm not sure why you introduced that question. The National Championship is a lot less mythical than it was when Bowl Games called the shots and two different polls often crowned two different winners using highly emotional criteria. It will end a lot of arguments when the playoffs get expanded to 8 teams, except for fans of the #9 through #16 teams.

The term "best" is always subjective. Your example is based on the presumption that your definition of best is better -- or more equal -- than somebody else's. Your example also has two teams with identical records, but you don't think past performance or conference strength should be a tie-breaker. Not sure your "equal terms" is anything more than "give somebody else a chance."

I have no idea where you're going with this. The NFL has a playoff. New England had to win all its playoff games to be crowned the GOATS. They lost and they weren't. Who is suggesting the NCAA team with the best record doesn't have to win its playoff games?

The target moves week to week because games are played and those games have consequences. You get an additional chance to win if you make it to your conference championship, I guess, but you earn that right. Right? You get more chances if you're one of the four teams invited to the CFP, and yeah that criteria can be subjective, but there's usually not much debate about 3 of the 4 teams. I think we're going around in circles here when the issue is really about the second place SEC team getting preference over a P5 champion with an identical record. That happens sometimes, but at the end of the day it's still hard to say the best team didn't win.

Imagine if an 11-5-NFL team or a 96 game winning MLB team missed the playoff because they play in a tougher division, and had to watch a .500 team play in their place because they won a weak division. You don't really have to imagine that because that happens all the time. The Washington Football team made the playoffs at 7-9 last year. Adding wild card games a few years ago really helped, and that's essentially what will happen with an expanded NCAA format, but it hardly ended the arguments. Fwiw...the years the Yankees and Patriots didn't make the playoffs, they weren't good enough on paper either. No matter how much a league or a television network prefers a team, the team still needs to earn its way in. Also, it's getting kinda weird to suggest these Alabama and Clemson teams weren't among the "best" teams in the country at the time they were invited, or by the time they beat the other "best" teams.

actually you are. Subjectively, the four best teams have been invited to the playoffs, where they've generally proven themselves on the field. We could always speculate what would have happened if an undervalued UCF, Utah, or TCU had gotten in, or if a two-loss Big 10 or Pac 10 team was better than a two-loss SEC team, but after watching the actual games, it's really, really hard to say any of the recent National Champions didn't deserve it. Meaning the invite wasn't "automatic" but as close to a subjective ranking of the best teams as we're likely to get. Does anyone have a glaring example of a team with the talent and scheme to knock off an Alabama, Clemson, or LSU that didn't make the cut? A team you would put your own money on?

I think the 4 team playoff has generally given us the best teams, the national champion has earned the title, and the same teams keep coming back because they're dynasties at the moment. That could change when other teams get better, and dynasties break up as they always do. In a four team playoff the arguments are about the #5 and #6 teams that deserved a shot. In an 8 team playoff we'd be arguing about the #9 and #10 teams. No way around that. But an expanded playoff to ensure Big 5 representation and a seat for the hottest upstarts would be more fun. If I remember the debate, is was that an expanded college football playoff would drag on too long and take students away from studying and finals. Can you believe that? Since the NCAA has finally admitted it's in the professional football business, we can probably do away with that and have a Sweet 16 tournament every year.

I think I've found a definition of gaslighting we can all agree on:

Given that than every single poster fully acknowledged Cheney's voting history, this comes as a surprise to no one. Also, Liz is correct. No surprise there, either. State Republicans have been doing the gerrymandering and voter suppression on their own for a few years now, and are even changing the laws to allow Republican run state legislatures to over-ride election results they don't like. I don't recall anything thinking this was orchestrated by Trump, although he may have served as the inspiration. You must be so proud. Wait. We're you trying to gaslight us with this link?

It's funny. Biden has been in the public eye for 40 years, and in the spotlight for the last 15. He became notorious as a gaffe machine, nothing to do with the stuttering and everything to do with shooting from the hip in a way Obama studiously avoided. Take every gaffe Joe Biden has made in forty years, and Trump could top that in a week, minus any corrections or apologies.

Yeah, this actually isn't true. The Biden who occasionally stumbles over words in public still sits down in the Oval Office, consumes briefings, consults experts, strategizes political navigation, and crafts scripted responses that you may not agree with, but reveal far more cognitive function than the previous occupant. Was/Is Trump more mentally proficient, but didn't exercise those abilities out of laziness and narcissism? Maybe. But compare Trump's extemporaneous speeches lately to his off-the-cuff interviews from 10 years ago, and you'll see that dude is in a steep decline of his own.

It appears your definition of "gaslighting" is holding you responsible for things you've already posted. That's why everyone is doing it.

You mean the part where you and Liz Cheney agree on what would be best for the Republican Party moving forward, but you think she should shut up about it? And yes, she's out of leadership for one reason only: publicly stating that the GOP should stop promoting The Big Lie. Again, do either of those statements misrepresent you?

Rich people have done a much better job of staying out of jail in this and every country since the dawn of man. Interestingly enough, it's the serf's who are willing to fight for Donald Trump, not the elites. What a time to be alive indeed.

Saying it's more likely that Donald Trump is reelected than bound for prison isn't being complicit, complacent or justifying anything. It's simply noting the cold reality of a country split into civil war formation, with each side claiming the Founding Fathers as their own. The Muller Report and Impeachment Hearings created a false sense of impending justice. If anything, it's evidence that we will have to fight much harder and longer to regain our sanity. It took the right about 48 hours to reframe January 6, and that narrative is set in stone for millions of Americans, regardless of what a Congressional investigation turns up. We simply need better, smarter candidates at every local level.

I know. And he’s probably not going to get re-elected either, but that’s entirely more likely.

You have yet to list anything I've misrepresented.

May the ghost of Bob Devaney help us crush Northwestern with shillelagh and blarney stone!

Verifiable outrage followed by zero consequences.