CFP Thread

[ELA]

I'm just still very confused that anyone who wants a smaller playoff is upset about this. It seems like it is essentially a 10-team playoff. isn't that what you want?  You made a couple games more interesting, to still essentially get a 10-team playoff.

[Brutus Buckeye]

I get wanting a seat at the table.  But an annual ass-kicking with the world watching maybe isn't such a great plan. 
And for these programs to get 2 in - NOT BASED ON ANYTHING REMARKABLE THEY'VE DONE (NEITHER IS UNDEFEATED OR BEAT A BIG-BOY TEAM) - but solely because the ACC is a dumpster fire, is a broken system.

. 

Come on now. 

Tulane knocked off the ACC champion. 

JMU's mascot is the ACC champion. 

[OrangeAfroMan]

Idk guys, we went from having an undefeated G5 team maybe get a shot in a BCS bowl to now having a 2-loss G5 team in the playoff to determine the national champion.

That doesn't seem odd to anyone?

[847badgerfan]

"College" football sucks.

I want my Rose Bowl back.

[FearlessF]

I get wanting a seat at the table.  But an annual ass-kicking with the world watching maybe isn't such a great plan. 
And for these programs to get 2 in - NOT BASED ON ANYTHING REMARKABLE THEY'VE DONE (NEITHER IS UNDEFEATED OR BEAT A BIG-BOY TEAM)

so, they each get a chance to beat a big boy team.  So what?
and if either of them get lucky, .. does anyone care if the 5 or 6 seed is knocked off?  Hell no.
no more meaningless than the bowl game any of those 4 teams would be playing in.

[FearlessF]

Division III uses a metric called the NCAA Power Index (NPI) as the sole criterion for selection and seeding. Here's how the CFP bracket might look using NPI:



better???

[847badgerfan]

fND.

[MaximumSam]

Idk guys, we went from having an undefeated G5 team maybe get a shot in a BCS bowl to now having a 2-loss G5 team in the playoff to determine the national champion.

That doesn't seem odd to anyone?

Not weirder than excluding 70 percent of the teams from the postseason before the season starts

[medinabuckeye1]

LoL

[betarhoalphadelta]

That's sad.

How many times have I heard that the rationale for having eleventy-umpteen bowls is that teams get those priceless pre-bowl practice sessions?

It was the rationale.

But now any players who can, opt out.

I know, that means "we can give the young guys more practice!"

Nah. Any of them who show out in the bowl become outgoing transfers for more $$$, and any who don't show out in the bowl will be buried next year on the depth chart behind incoming transfers.

[847badgerfan]

Lots of people used to say bowls were meaningless.

Now, they really are.

A big thank you to all the pencil neck "pay the players" and "we want playoffs" people.

Not.

[utee94]

Lots of people used to say bowls were meaningless.

Now, they really are.

A big thank you to all the pencil neck "pay the players" and "we want playoffs" people.

Not.

I've always said the bowls were meaningless, outside of the select few that might involve a MNC matchup, and then the Bowl Alliance, and then the BCS.

It doesn't mean they weren't still fun to watch, but they were  meaningless.

Too many variables change from the regular season to the bowls.  The long layoffs, the awards banquet circuit and holidays interrupting proper nutrition and training, the opt-outs (which have increased recently but have been an issue for decades).  And then there are plenty of coaches who've always treated it like practice for next year's squad, with very little actual game prep for the bowl opponent.  

Mack Brown was famous for not giving a shit about the bowls and spending all of his time working on next year's team, outside of the Rose Bowls with MNC implications of course.  It's pretty funny that he actually had a pretty good bowl record, because he did not care at all about the bowl games.  It was always all about getting the younger players work for next season.

[847badgerfan]

Also, ranking the teams AND having the playoff seedings is stupid.  Don't do that.  Don't tell everyone the 20th and 24th-ranked teams are in the 12-team playoff.

Wouldn't we all prefer a playoff with Bama, Miami, and ND, and BYU in?  You know, teams that might actually win some games?
We're admittedly putting in special Olympians in the actual Olympics here.  I know that's a crass metaphor, but it fits.

DEI!

[MikeDeTiger]

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.