CFP Thread

[utee94]

To me, the bigger issue is that bowls used to be, on the whole, much more fun for fans, regardless of the layoffs and the difference in how coaches approached them.  And now the rampant opt-outs and the utter irrelevance of "finishing the season on a high note" or the absence of the idea of "a good bowl" materially changes the perspective of the fan.  At least this fan. 

In the "old days," I'd rather be in the BCS title game or a BCS bowl game, sure, but, for example, getting the Capital One (Citrus) bowl against Penn St. was fun, something to look forward to, and, still kinda heart-breaking to lose.  Now, I'd just assume all our players--and PSU'--who can opt out, will opt out, and I wouldn't particularly care about the outcome, since, as @betarhoalphadelta  puts it, the CFP sucks all the air out of the room. 

Yeah for sure.  Like I said, they've always been meaningless, but it doesn't mean you can't enjoy them.

I went to the (second) 1995 Sugar Bowl when Texas played Virginia Tech.  It was a meaningless exhibition but we still had a great time going to the game.  Horns lost that one pretty badly but it was irrelevant.

[MikeDeTiger]

I went to the 2001 (season) Sugar Bowl w/ LSU vs. Illinois.  Had a great time.  Outside of learning that LSU fans in New Orleans, in the 'Dome are a much different breed of asshole than the fans at Death Valley home games.  

[Temp430]

Notre Dame signed up with the ACC and dropped some of its Big Ten opponents in order to be more relevant.

[FearlessF]

Yeah for sure.  Like I said, they've always been meaningless, but it doesn't mean you can't enjoy them.

I went to the (second) 1995 Sugar Bowl when Texas played Virginia Tech.  It was a meaningless exhibition but we still had a great time going to the game.  Horns lost that one pretty badly but it was irrelevant.

The Coaches Poll officially moved to releasing its final rankings after the bowl games starting with the 1974 season (results announced in January 1975). This change came after several controversial split championships, including in 1970 and 1973, where the UPI Coaches Poll champion lost its bowl game, prompting the coaches to align with the Associated Press (AP) in voting post-bowl to acknowledge bowl outcomes.

[utee94]

The Coaches Poll officially moved to releasing its final rankings after the bowl games starting with the 1974 season (results announced in January 1975). This change came after several controversial split championships, including in 1970 and 1973, where the UPI Coaches Poll champion lost its bowl game, prompting the coaches to align with the Associated Press (AP) in voting post-bowl to acknowledge bowl outcomes.

Yup, and aside from bowls with MNC implications, they were still just meaningless exhibitions.

[utee94]

Here's how the BCS formula would rank and seed a top 16 playoff.



(I assume it's using the AP poll instead of the no-longer-existent "Harris Poll.")

[Wildcat4E]

Here's how the BCS formula would rank and seed a top 16 playoff.

(I assume it's using the AP poll instead of the no-longer-existent "Harris Poll.")

I wonder if this is the last iteration.  

It changed every year as well.  For example, in 1998, a team lost a heartbreaker in double overtime in their CCG, and fell not only out of the BCS Championship game, but to the 4th tier bowl game for their conference.

5 years later, when that school defeated the #1 team 35-7 in the CCG, the loser remained in the top 2 and played for the MNC.  

But anyway, I like the matchups better in this deal.  Especially the 3 Big XII teams getting in over the paltry 1 that ESPN has presently allowed.

[FearlessF]

Yup, and aside from bowls with MNC implications, they were still just meaningless exhibitions.

yup, unless your name is Medina and you're worried about top 10 and/or top 5 finishes in the polls

[Wildcat4E]

Robert Griffin III

There is no way the CFP committee can justify putting Alabama in the Playoff with 3 loses and 1 coming against a 5-7 Florida State team.


He left out the part about getting embarrassed in the last game they played, so out-physically played that they had MINUS 3 yards rushing.

He's simply not aware of the special rule.  It's Alabama.

</out>

[MikeDeTiger]

Although Alabama might have kept some other more deserving team out, I'm 50% okay with their inclusion.  Watching them crap the bed again against a legit team somewhere in the playoffs will make me happier than watching them win some scrub bowl game.  

The 50% of me that's not okay with it would be happy with watching their meltdown over not being in the playoff.  

I view this all as a win/win.

[ELA]

Yeah for sure.  Like I said, they've always been meaningless, but it doesn't mean you can't enjoy them.

I went to the (second) 1995 Sugar Bowl when Texas played Virginia Tech.  It was a meaningless exhibition but we still had a great time going to the game.  Horns lost that one pretty badly but it was irrelevant.

I think there's a difference between having no impact on the NC and being irrelevent.

They never used to feel irrelevent.

I think that changed with two things.  Players opting out, and the conferences redoing their contracts to avoid repeat trips.

I know the OBC made fun of the fact that you can't spell Citrus without UT, but making a NYD bowl game meant something.  I believe if MSU hadn't blown a 3 score lead against Indiana in 2022, they would have gone to the Citrus Bowl based on the Big Ten's contract of not repeating in 6 years or some such.  That the best MD team that didn't reach a BCS bowl, the 10-2 team in 2017, went to the Holiday Bowl, because they hadn't been there in the prior 6 years, and a 6-6 team in 2022 would have been in a NYD bowl.  There was no tiering to the bowl games anymore, and IMO that made them sort of whatever

[847badgerfan]

Looking at the bracket made it clear that the Badgers had a very tough schedule. They played 4 teams out of those 12.

[utee94]

I think there's a difference between having no impact on the NC and being irrelevent.

They never used to feel irrelevent.

I think that changed with two things.  Players opting out, and the conferences redoing their contracts to avoid repeat trips.

I know the OBC made fun of the fact that you can't spell Citrus without UT, but making a NYD bowl game meant something.  I believe if MSU hadn't blown a 3 score lead against Indiana in 2022, they would have gone to the Citrus Bowl based on the Big Ten's contract of not repeating in 6 years or some such.  That the best MD team that didn't reach a BCS bowl, the 10-2 team in 2017, went to the Holiday Bowl, because they hadn't been there in the prior 6 years, and a 6-6 team in 2022 would have been in a NYD bowl.  There was no tiering to the bowl games anymore, and IMO that made them sort of whatever

I've never assigned them any relevance.  If you did, that's fine, but that sentiment is not, and has never been, universal.

[bayareabadger]

Yup, and aside from bowls with MNC implications, they were still just meaningless exhibitions.

I always find the phrase “meaningless exhibitions“ kind of weird. Meaninglessness is in the eye of the beholder, and all of sports are basically an exhibition of some point or another.

They were meaningless in trying to determine a national champion. And I suppose it rests, again, in the eye of the beholder how broadly that meaninglessness is held.