“I’ve been following this show for about a month now, and the ongoing discussion about playoff expansion has been fun and thought-provoking. However, there’s one point that I haven’t heard Ari, Max or others make, but seems very relevant to whether the intensity of the regular season will be diminished. Hence my 5 star review question: why treat playoff expansion and regular season scheduling as totally distinct issues? (Ari did just that in the last week when dismissing a comment about Michigan’s schedule this year.) A more restrictive playoff format incentivizes weaker scheduling because the impact of an individual loss is greater. Assuming quality wins becomes a key selection criterion, the expanded playoff format should incentivize more competitive scheduling. Combine this with conference expansion, where the pool of playoff-contending opponents gets deeper, and it seems to me that the competitive intrigue (for everyone) of the regular season should go up, not down. For example, Ohio State will probably have to play at least 3 of Michigan, Oregon, Penn State, USC; plus a Washington, Wisconsin or UCLA; plus a conference championship foe that isn’t just a Big 10 West sacrifice. And that doesn’t factor in non-conference. So there should be at least 4-5 losable games in there, maybe more, and conferences will be motivated to schedule more big matchups so that the teams who do end with 2 losses have the chance for quality wins to get them into the playoff. Anyway, thank you for this show, and I’d be curious to hear your thoughts!”
pen_field via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
10/11/23