Have you kept up with our bball season this year more than years past? Have you kept up with bball in general more than in years past? I know I have. I've actually kind of gotten into WCC basketball. Just seems to me when you have something to play for at the end, it makes the regular season much more valuable. And more teams have something to play for. Just curious.
Question for the "expansion ruins the regular season" crowd
- Thread starter Deleted11512
- Start date
The two are just so very different. All of the college basketball regular season is played to either get into the NCAAT or get a higher seed in the NCAAT. In a very definite way, the NCAAT cheapens the regular season. What good was UVA's 31-2 regular season in 2017-2018 when they lost to the #16 seed? You could legitimately say their regular season was meaningless.
I've just never seen any correlation between the way the football champion and basketball champion are decided. Just very different sports.
I've just never seen any correlation between the way the football champion and basketball champion are decided. Just very different sports.
How meaningful is a 9-3 football season that culminates in a cheez-it bowl appearance? Or a UGA 12-0 regular season that ended with a meaningless bowl game? Based on your logic, any team that didn't win the championship has a meaningless season?
Should we simply stop watching football games when our team loses 2 games b/c they're essentially eliminated from playoff contention?
Last edited:
Again, the 2 are just very different. Nobody was questioning the meaning of this bowl game or that bowl game until the CFP came around. Suddenly, other bowl games were deemed "meaningless".
Entitlement culture and trophy generation at work.
A 9-3 record with a decent bowl game was considered a successful season 15 years ago, and one to be excited about for most teams. Fast forward to the CFP era and it's not even worth playing in the bowl game. It's a total failure of logic, but most stuff is these days.
Whatever anyone perceives about themselves in their minds is what we have to affirm they are. If a 9-3 team thinks they're a title contender, we have to go along with it.
Never in the history of college football has a 3-loss team been a title contender. Shoot, only 2 times in history has a 2-loss team won the title. But now 2 and 3 loss teams are "cheated" if they don't get a shot at the title? Moronic.
Last edited:
No, the deterioration of the bowl games started before the CFP. That actually started with the BCS system. I think most programs still view 9-3 with a decent bowl as success.
Take the bowl game out of the equation then. Are you going to stop watching USC games when we lose our 3rd game b/c the season is now meaningless bc we're most likely not making the playoff?
I think you're using the wrong term. A team's season can be a failure without being meaningless. Virginia's season was clearly a failure when they lost to UMBC. But what about Gonzaga's perfect season that ended in the championship game? Was that meaningless? Was that a failure? What about Kentucky's perfect season that ended in the Final Four?
The lower divisions of college football have had playoffs for years and it has worked well. If they can do it so can Division I.
No. Players opting out of bowls did not become a thing until the CFP. I believe Christian McCaffery and Leonard Fournette were the first to do so in 2016. I am not aware of any BCS-era opt-outs. If there were any, it was extremely rare. USA Today ran an article questioning if the advent of the CFP would diminish the importance of non-CFP bowl games, which is absurd, but it was more written to sow the seed in the minds of players and fans. People are so weak-minded that they took the bait without thinking about it.
Last question isn't really pertinent for a USC fan. It would be more pertinent to ask that of a team like UGA or Bama who defines a good season as one which includes the CFP.
Ah, you are correct. For some reason I was thinking they came several years before the CFP. But I don't think it's strictly related to the CFP. I think it's just a timing deal. Money has gotten so stupid in the NFL. Deebo didn't sit out b/c we didn't make the CFP. He sat out bc we weren't playing for a championship. Doesn't matter what the mechanism for that championship is.
It's pertinent for all CFB fans. The opinion is that expansion will ruin the regular season. I'm just asking for someone to explain it to me like I'm 5 how. In the current scenario 2 losses eliminates you. In the BCS format 2 losses eliminated you. So a whole group of teams will no longer be eliminated, thereby increasing the value of their regular season. But to your question, I'm 100% positive UGA fans would have valued that season as more of a success if they had been in an expanded playoff, even if they got bounced round one.
I keep up with the SEC but the rest of the college basketball teams are hard to keep up with. I think there are 353 teams that are eligible to compete for one of the 68 spots for the tournament.
True. Have you kept up with it more closely since we've been in contention for the tournament?
I think I have kept up with it just the same as last season. I am always looking at where South Carolina is at in the SEC standings and the teams that above and below them and think about where South Carolina will be placed at in the SEC tournament.
Far as NCAA Tournament bracketology I do not pay attention to it. I just focus on who South Carolina's plays next (tomorrow Tennessee).
I've been "pro-expansion" from the start because it benefits us.
Well, _of course_ I have greater interest in a sport that we are competitive in than I would have otherwise. I don't think that's the relevant analysis. Without a doubt, there will be at least 12 college football fanbases who "have something to play for" over the duration of the regular season next year. We will almost certainly be like the other 120-something teams. Most likely, we will be like the roughly 50% of the teams who have nothing to play for past the halfway mark of the season. The question is will college football be as compelling to me moving forward as it was in the past when I don't have a dog in the championship fight. I don't expect to ever again in my life see a regular season college football game as compelling as the 1988 "Convicts vs Catholics" ND/Miami game, or almost any of the FSU/Miami games of the 80s and early 90s,, or almost any of the Tennessee/Florida games during the Spurrier/Fulmer era.
I will say, however, that the 12-team playoff will be an improvement over the college football product we have now, which is significantly inferior to the product we had just a decade or so ago.
I think it goes beyond that. The numbers prove that the playoff is a massive success. I think there would be more general interest in those late Oct/November games as the final rankings start shaking out. You'll have football "bracketology" going on with people wanting to watch those bubble teams to see if they're going to get in or eliminated. I think it's going to be awesome.
It would be good to see Miami and ND get their acts back together again.
Maybe it's been said, bit I think the "ruining" of the regular season really boils down to games lile mich/osu, or the sec title game, where the game is usually for a shot at the playoffs.
The "ruining" will be when Bama plays uga,, like this year, and uga rests some players, or folds early because they know they're in the playoffs anyway.
On the flip side, more games will suddenly become important as rivalry week sets up the teams that are 5-15, and not in conference title games.
The "ruining" will be when Bama plays uga,, like this year, and uga rests some players, or folds early because they know they're in the playoffs anyway.
On the flip side, more games will suddenly become important as rivalry week sets up the teams that are 5-15, and not in conference title games.
I don't understand why people think that will happen. Doesn't happen in basketball. You're still playing for seeding, which is extremely important.
To be clear, I don't care if Miami and ND ever get their acts together. lol. That game was big because everybody knew it was a de facto "playoff" game and every college football fan in the country was pulling for one or the other for a variety of reasons. But I'd be perfectly content with both of those teams on the outside looking in every year.
Playing for seeding will never come close to the importance of playing to remain undefeated - which, traditionally, was the only way to control your own destiny to a college football championship.
But none of this matters now. It's happening. 12 teams next year, probably 14 a year or two after that, and then 16 teams before we know it. Arguing about it won't change anything. Some fans will think it's the best thing ever and some will not like it. It will be a matter of personal preference and there's no point arguing about personal preferences. It'd be like trying to convince a soccer fan that he really doesn't love soccer.
9-3 might get you in an expanded playoff system. WE would probably have to go 10-2 at the very least.
Jacque,
We were 8-4 two seasons ago. And neither I nor you have confidence in Beamer's coaching abilities. I hope we are wrong. If we are, then Beamer could get us to 10-2 seasons. If we are not wrong, hopefully a better job will be done next time in the hiring process.
If I could see any reason for hope I would grasp it. I definitely have more hope for Paris and his program. But any real AD would know that HC in the SEC is not an entry level position and that making such a hire would have to have a failure rate of over 90%. It's hard to take our administration seriously when they continually show me that they are not.
If we go 1-11 for the rest of my life but beat Clemson every year for the rest of my life I concede that I would have a sense of smug satisfaction.
I just read something that poster "Gradstudent" wrote on the thread "Dawn.....SEC Coach of the Year" about Dawn Staley. He quoted former AD Eric Hyman when he hired Dawn Staley:
"One of the greatest predictors of future success is demonstrated past success."
Hyman's statement should be drilled on the wall of the Athletic Director's Office at the University Of South Carolina. I remember when we first were accepted into the SEC. I recall sports radio personality Don Williams saying that, other than men's basketball, the SEC is the toughest conference in the nation in every sport (TODAY, I believe the SEC is the best in men's basketball, too). The SEC is NOT a training ground for Head Coaches. I hope Shane Beamer proves that wrong.
"But any real AD would know that HC in the SEC is not an entry-level position and that making such a hire would have to have a failure rate of over 90%" (NOTE; 90% is less than 100%).
----Gamecock Jacque ----
Regarding Kirby Smart and Georgia: there is a reason why Lou Holtz was hoping to re-enter as a Head Coach at Georgia rather than South Carolina.
So, you guys think UGA fired a guy that was 145-51 to hire a guy with no experience knowing they only had a 10% chance of getting it right?
If you disagree with me that's fine. If you want to compare Smarts' career to Shane's that's fine. If you want to compare what Georgia was expecting from Smart to what I'm expecting from Beamer that's fine. If you want to compare the outcomes to this point that's more than fine with me as well.
I don't really disagree. I just don't think it's that black and white. We all laughed like hell when Clem hired Dabo. If you can coach, you can coach. Regardless of your background.
Good. As long as we admit they're worlds apart in experience, we don't have to pretend Kirby's hiring resembles Beamer's.
Now you know that comparing Dabo's situation with Shane's is like comparing the colors blue and purple. There might be some resemblance. But they are not alike. Dabo is coaching a SEC -type program in a primarily basketball-first league. Shane is coaching in the "big league" of college football. Going week-to-week in the SEC is way different than going week-to-week in the ACC. Both Dabo and Shane are coaching football teams. The resemblance stops there. Does that mean Dabo cannot beat SEC teams? No because again he is coaching a SEC-type program. But his situation over the course of an entire season is way, way different than Shane's, to Dabo's huge advantage.
Last edited:
Goood thing his experience dwarfed Beamers then.
Look, I get it. He was a highly successful coordinator before he got the UGA job as a first time head coach.
Beamer was not before he got his first time HC job here. It's cute to say they each started as Head Coach in the East for their first HC job.
The differences in their experience make that point a chuckle worthy, interesting side point. Ultimately true, but only important to people who want to argue semantics.
Last edited:
By the way, Smart's record after 3 years was 32-10 (76% winning %). Shane's is 20-18 (53% winning %). Kirby certainly was proving after his 3rd year to be among the 10% who would not fail.
I have shown in the thread "Should USC Follow the Kentucky Sports Model?", clearly that SC football has had much more success with Head Coaches who had prior successful FBS Head Coaching experience than those who did not. It's not even debatable. There is not one Head Coach without that experience who was not fired. Those with such experience either retired, died, were forced out for a private affair and disobedience towards the University's President or quit after being denied the Athletic Directors position.