Thoughts?
*Ohio State is a national championship contender.According to the Colley Matrix, they are #1. The SEC is #4.
*Iowa and Wisconsin are undefeated and both can win the Big Ten West.
*Penn State and to a lesser extent Minnesota are both undefeated and can make some noise this season.
*Michigan and Michigan State both have only one loss and can make a New Year's Six Bowl.
*Indiana and Maryland can still make some noise by season's end.
The Big 12 overall and PAC 12 for example can make claim to being the 2nd best conference but that is debatable.
Thoughts?
https://saturdayblitz.com/2019/09/30/big-ten-football-burning-questions-september-2019/ (https://saturdayblitz.com/2019/09/30/big-ten-football-burning-questions-september-2019/)
According to the Colley Matrix, they are #1. The SEC is #4.Hi, I'm entastella. ACC baby!!
Colley Conference Rankings (http://www.colleyrankings.com/foot2019/rankings/conf05.html)
Man, that B1G bottom is like MAC bottom.
I have zero faith in Illinois or _____ right now. We'll see about Purdue.
Hi, I'm entastella. ACC baby!!Oh god no.
With the playoff, conference strength isn't that much of an issue anymore. However, it was ridiculous to have the B1G left out of the last two playoffs.That really is an Ohio State thing and even as an Ohio State fan it doesn't really bother me very much. Both years the Buckeyes took horrendous losses to mediocre teams and you just don't have much of a complaint when you do that. If they had lost on last second FG's to better teams it would have been different but that isn't what happened.
Last year, if it wasn't Ohio State left out it would have been Oklahoma. Some argued UGA should have been fourth (not me) and they were close (fifth).I have a sneaking suspicion that the committee sometimes organizes their final rankings so as to minimize controversy. In 2018 the top-3 were abundantly obvious to anyone:
OSU was sixth.
There will always be 1-2-3 teams "left out" no matter what, but when ND is 12-0 that goes up one.
When a year happens like last year with 3 undefeated P5s and ND, there won't be a good solution that pleases most. Fortunately, that is rare.in 2017-2018 the B1G was unquestionably the best conference in CFB. They went 8-1* in their bowl games, had the best out of conference record at 39-11, and also had the toughest non-conference schedule.
Any year where ND is 12-0 is going to be more difficult than usual as it means two P5 conference champs get left out. The year before when Bama was put in over 11-2 OSU was more of a weird thing, to me. Bama ended up somewhat "redeeming" their selection, unfortunately.
*The national champions also lost to that Pitt team.
The committee seems to seriously frown on really bad losses. In 2018 Ohio State had a blowout loss to a mediocre Purdue team. In 2016 Penn State had a close loss to a bad Pitt team* and a blowout loss to Michigan.
*The national champions also lost to that Pitt team.They did, but they didn't also get run out of the stadium by Michigan.
How does one evaluate a team with say two ugly losses to bad teams and three really impressive wins versus good teams?
They did, but they didn't also get run out of the stadium by Michigan.Just to clarify, I'm not picking on PSU here and I'm not anti-PSU generally. The same analysis applies to tOSU the last two years with their ugly losses to Iowa and PU. It is what it is.
How does one evaluate a team with say two ugly losses to bad teams and three really impressive wins versus good teams?Their 'spread' is wider than normal, which means they're less consistent and when it comes to valuing sports teams or even individual performers - think fantasy sports drafting here - the less consistent they are, the further down they fall. Consistency is rewarded - be predictable. Run from uncertainty. You might be drafting (or ranking) the lesser player (or team), but it's a safer pick (rank).
Just to clarify, I'm not picking on PSU here and I'm not anti-PSU generally. The same analysis applies to tOSU the last two years with their ugly losses to Iowa and PU. It is what it is.I’m actually not complaining about PSU in 2016. I’m complaining about the B1G champion being left out when they were the best conference, by far. A conference champ should get in before two teams get in from the same conference.
I feel like fans of teams that have those kinds of losses just don't have much to complain about when their team misses the CFP. My answer to PSU fans who complain about missing the CFP in 2016 is simple: Don't lose two games, don't lose to a mediocre Pitt team, and don't get run out of the stadium by Michigan.
My answer to tOSU fans who complain about missing the CFP in 2017 is similar: Don't get blown out by a mediocre Iowa team.
My answer to tOSU fans who complain about missing the CFP in 2018 is similar: Don't get blown out by a mediocre Purdue team.
My point is that once your team has any blemish but particularly a REALLY ugly blemish (like tOSU the past two years) or two moderately ugly blemishes (like PSU in 2016) then your team has put themselves in a position where they might get passed over.
Because....reasons?Because that year the SEC had a grand total of two good teams, Georgia and Alabama. UGA and Bama did not play each other in the regular season. They did not play each other in the conference championship.
Because that year the SEC had a grand total of two good teams, Georgia and Alabama. UGA and Bama did not play each other in the regular season. They did not play each other in the conference championship.So it's all SOS and ignore any eye test. Got it.
Auburn was probably the third best team, but lost to UCF and Clemson out of conference, so it isn't like they were a world beater. They did beat Bama and Georgia.
The SEC, outside of those two programs, was poop. The conference went 1-3 against the B1G, 7-5 against the ACC, 2-2 against the Big 12, and 0-2 against the PAC.
The SEC was weak that year. Bama and Georgia had a cakewalk.
And, yes, I do think OSU would have beaten Bama if they had been given the opportunity.
Hi, I'm entastella. ACC baby!!Isn't that a cooking show?
I think the Committee gives an SEC team in the running credit for being about a half-game better than their record shows.And that is ridiculous. I am pretty confident that there were at least 10 teams in CFB that year that would have ended with 1 loss or less, playing the same schedule that Bama had. I hate when people just assume the SEC is the best conference. Sometimes, it isn't. Look at the data.
So, for example, a 12-1 Georgia SEC CCG runner-up is presumed to be a bit better than a 12-1 conference champ from one of the other (read "lesser") conferences. The burden of proof rests on the supporters of that 12-1 non-SEC champ to demonstrate that it is more worthy than the SEC's 12-1 second-place team.
Another example would be an 11-1 LSU or Auburn team this year, having only lost to Bama. The burden of proof would lie on an 11-1 or 12-1 non-champ from any other conference.
So it's all SOS and ignore any eye test. Got it.That's not what I said, but I'll defend it anyway.
Beware of going strictly resume, though - most years, you'll still end up with more SEC teams than you want. Just like expanding from 2 to 4 as an overreaction to 2011...be careful what you wish for. Now we'll have more all-SEC NCGs.
I don't agree that should be a rule, but I personally would give more "credit" to conference champions that they appear to do.For me I am stubborn about only allowing one team in per conference. Primarily because a conference could be totally weak. Let's take Alabama 2017 as an example.
We have had champions in the past who were 10-3 or 9-4. I would not choose them over an 11-1 P5 team that had a narrow loss. I'd look for the four best teams for the playoff. I'd lean to an 11-2 champ over an 11-1 at large unless the 11-1 team had run a real gauntlet.
I don't agree that should be a rule, but I personally would give more "credit" to conference champions that they appear to do.i'd agree with this, but add that the 11-2 can't have a completely inexcusable loss. like if au had beated uga in seccg, i don't think they should have been left out for a 1-loss non-conf team like bama was.
We have had champions in the past who were 10-3 or 9-4. I would not choose them over an 11-1 P5 team that had a narrow loss. I'd look for the four best teams for the playoff. I'd lean to an 11-2 champ over an 11-1 at large unless the 11-1 team had run a real gauntlet.
They did beat final ranked #18 and #19 during the season, and of course they did win the NC (after being selected).OSU also played a MUCH tougher schedule. They played #3 Oklahoma (Loss), #7 Wisconsin (win), #8 Penn State (win), and #15 Michigan State (win). OSU also played in a much tougher conference.
They did not have a markedly tough slate once FSU collapsed. I agree personally, but it's a done deal, I would have gone with OSU, but OSU had a couple ugly losses.
i'd agree with this, but add that the 11-2 can't have a completely inexcusable loss. like if au had beated uga in seccg, i don't think they should have been left out for a 1-loss non-conf team like bama was.I don't think I ever said Auburn wasn't a good team. I said the SEC was weak in 2017. I said that Auburn was the toughest team UGA and Alabama played in the regular season. I said that UGA and Bama had a cakewalk to a one loss season. I also said that there were probably 10 other teams that would have have finished with the same or better record given the same schedule.
and au and osu schedules were similar.
both lost a respectable game vs a top 5 team (osu at home vs oklahoma, au on road @ clemson)
both played other really good teams and won (au had bama and uga, osu had psu and msu)
both trounced most of the rest of their schedule, except...
au lost a close game to an ok lsu team by 1 point, osu got blownout vs an ok team in iowa by 31
if that osu loss was similar to that au loss, then i'd have no problem with them over any other 1-loss non-conf champ. but that type loss is just inexcusable to me.
also, bbts, how do you not have au as a good sec team? they played 3 cfp teams that year in reg season and went 2-1.
Because that year the SEC had a grand total of two good teams, Georgia and Alabama.
since there are 5 major conferences and 4 slots, I'm not opposed to a rule that would prohibit more than one team per conferencei hate that. still hate that year giants won it. i don't hate that ne lost it, don't care, but a team like the giants shouldn't have been in to begin with.
so what, a team with 3 losses gets in and runs the table...... this is what happens when you have a 4 or 6 or 8 team playoff. The best regular season team doesn't always win the playoff
since there are 5 major conferences and 4 slots, I'm not opposed to a rule that would prohibit more than one team per conferenceI've been saying it for years...
so what, a team with 3 losses gets in and runs the table...... this is what happens when you have a 4 or 6 or 8 team playoff. The best regular season team doesn't always win the playoff
i hate that. still hate that year giants won it. i don't hate that ne lost it, don't care, but a team like the giants shouldn't have been in to begin with.I'm fine with it. I don't think a 3-loss team is going to beat "the best team in the country" if it makes it into the CFP. And I'm about 99.9% sure that a 5-6 loss team won't beat "the best team in the country" in the CFP.
i don't want a mediocre team to get into the cfp just because they lucked up and won a conference.
and a 3 loss team wouldn't be good, and i wouldn't like it, but it's not the worst thing either. but we've come seriously close to having several 5-6 loss teams as p5 conf champs. do. not. want.
I've been saying it for years...I've been saying it for at least as many years "No".Don't like it don't lose or change conferences if you do if it means that much.More and more the Sunday bound studs will be sitting it out and protecting their investment.This will frustrate the Polls/Ratings even more.Less games/less injuries.And don't forget the vast majority of student athletes will still be going back to class
8 teams
5 P5 champs
Best G5 team
2 at-large selections
I'm fine with it. I don't think a 3-loss team is going to beat "the best team in the country" if it makes it into the CFP. And I'm about 99.9% sure that a 5-6 loss team won't beat "the best team in the country" in the CFP.at least now the bitching and moaning are for good, deserving teams with a strong argument. that's what makes the arguments fun.
And if it DOES happen, so what? People will bitch and moan about it.
How's that any different than the bitching and moaning we have now?
I'm all for a conference-champs-only requirement, but obviously that doesn't work too well with 5 P5 champs and only a 4-team playoff. And then there's ND that's not in a conference at all.
So bwar's suggestion is the one I've landed on for the past 4-5 years as well.
at least now the bitching and moaning are for good, deserving teams with a strong argument. that's what makes the arguments fun.
i agree it's not likely to happen. but it will at some point if we go to that model.
i just want to see the best teams competing for the title, i don't care where they come from. and i'm fine with adding more to get more conferences in, too. but if the sec or pac or b1g or whoever can't field a good enough team to have someone in the top 8-10, that's on them, not the cfp committee.
if there was a caveat that if you're in top 10, and won your conf, then you're in, or something similar, i'd be ok with that. that might allow a 3 loss team in, which i won't like, but could live with. cause at that point, that's a crazy cfb season and they're still one of the best teams that year. but it will also keep out 4-5-6 loss teams that have no business being in a conversation as best team in cfb.
no, 4 teams is too manyWell sure. 2 teams in the BCS was too many, too. I'd rather go ALL the way back to multiple bowl games that could potentially have an impact on the MNC.
Well sure. 2 teams in the BCS was too many, too. I'd rather go ALL the way back to multiple bowl games that could potentially have an impact on the MNC.this would be my preference as well, but .......... that was way too much fun apparently
But we're way past that now.
I've been saying it for years...I am not really in favor of this for a couple reasons, but I have long assumed that this will happen eventually.
8 teams
5 P5 champs
Best G5 team
2 at-large selections
First and foremost, it makes conference championships matter. So what if your team sneaks into the CCG with an 8-4 (6-2) record, by virtue of tiebreakers for your division, and then beats the 12-0 team from the other division? You won your conference. You're in.
That now 12-1 team that you narrowly edged in the CCG game? They didn't win their conference, but they're in decently good shape for an at-large berth at least.
It satisfies the G5 crowd. Sure, that team is a sacrificial lamb to most likely the 1 seed in the CFP. But at least they have a seat at the table.
And 2 at large berths allow for teams that truly ARE special, but didn't win their conference.
It makes too much sense, I know, so I'm not holding out hope it'll happen.
at least now the bitching and moaning are for good, deserving teams with a strong argument. that's what makes the arguments fun.I'm not going to say that you're arguing this from the perspective of an Alabama fan (will always get the benefit of the doubt), but I can state that I'm absolutely arguing this as a Purdue fan that will NEVER get the benefit of the doubt.
i agree it's not likely to happen. but it will at some point if we go to that model.
i just want to see the best teams competing for the title, i don't care where they come from. and i'm fine with adding more to get more conferences in, too. but if the sec or pac or b1g or whoever can't field a good enough team to have someone in the top 8-10, that's on them, not the cfp committee.
if there was a caveat that if you're in top 10, and won your conf, then you're in, or something similar, i'd be ok with that. that might allow a 3 loss team in, which i won't like, but could live with. cause at that point, that's a crazy cfb season and they're still one of the best teams that year. but it will also keep out 4-5-6 loss teams that have no business being in a conversation as best team in cfb.
Too many games become almost completely irrelevant: For tOSU this year, they could lose all three OOC games and one of their three cross-over games and they would still control their own destiny to win the NC. I just don't like that.
I think we will ultimately go to that model and I'd suggest that the top-4 CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS get to host the first round. That would help address the complaints of those who thought it was ridiculous that tOSU and Bama got in without winning their conference because under this rule teams like that at least would be forced to play their opener in a hostile environment.
I think one thing delaying implementation of this model is that there isn't a good answer to the question of what to do with the first-round CFP losers during bowl week. I'm assuming here that the new on-campus first round games would be two weeks after the CCG's hosted by the top-4 conference champions.
That said, I don't think there is an issue with those other teams missing bowls. Essentially if you play them 2 weeks after the CCG, this year that puts you on Saturday Dec 21st. That is basically the start of bowl season anyway. Right now we have two bowls played on Fri Dec 20, and five on Sat Dec 21. Yes, they're not "premier" bowls, but I don't think it makes any sense to do anything additional for playoff losers.I kind-of agree and that is probably what they will do, but I still think it sucks that four of the best teams in the country get completely left out of the premier bowls.
I'm not going to say that you're arguing this from the perspective of an Alabama fan (will always get the benefit of the doubt), but I can state that I'm absolutely arguing this as a Purdue fan that will NEVER get the benefit of the doubt.Yep, win the Big Ten conference and get a bid to the Rose Bowl, to play the winner of the PAC.
The year that Purdue goes 12-1 (winning the CCG) to win the Big Ten will be the year that the ACC, SEC, B12, PAC will all have 1-loss conference champions and I know that Purdue will ALWAYS be the odd man out in that scenario, unless Boston College and Washington State are the teams winning the ACC/P12. And even then it's dicey.
So for me, part of it is that I want the conference championship to be the FIRST goal of every team. This makes that the first goal. Getting a conference championship, no matter HOW you get it, automatically puts you into the next step.
Conference championships would now be primarily relevant, where they really aren't any longer in the CFP. In the CFP a conference championship is an important data point, but going 11-1 and missing your CCG is potentially a better route to the CFP than going 12-1 with a CCG loss.
Yep, win the Big Ten conference and get a bid to the Rose Bowl, to play the winner of the PAC.Hey, I'm fine with that. I'm not the one saying we need some sort of "national champion". I'd be fine with going back to the pre-BCS days.
Sounds good to me.
you should have to win your conference to be cornsidered for the playoffThat would disappoint ND and UCF and BSU and a few others.
That would disappoint ND and UCF and BSU and a few others.tough titty
I'm not going to say that you're arguing this from the perspective of an Alabama fan (will always get the benefit of the doubt), but I can state that I'm absolutely arguing this as a Purdue fan that will NEVER get the benefit of the doubt.i can agree and understand that point of view. it's not beyond me that i'm a fan of a privileged team (mostly earned) and that they'll get benefits most others won't. i try to disregard that fandom and bias i inherently have, and feel i mostly do a good job at that, but i also know it's impossible for that to be completely removed.
The year that Purdue goes 12-1 (winning the CCG) to win the Big Ten will be the year that the ACC, SEC, B12, PAC will all have 1-loss conference champions and I know that Purdue will ALWAYS be the odd man out in that scenario, unless Boston College and Washington State are the teams winning the ACC/P12. And even then it's dicey.
So for me, part of it is that I want the conference championship to be the FIRST goal of every team. This makes that the first goal. Getting a conference championship, no matter HOW you get it, automatically puts you into the next step.
Conference championships would now be primarily relevant, where they really aren't any longer in the CFP. In the CFP a conference championship is an important data point, but going 11-1 and missing your CCG is potentially a better route to the CFP than going 12-1 with a CCG loss.
i can agree and understand that point of view. it's not beyond me that i'm a fan of a privileged team (mostly earned) and that they'll get benefits most others won't. i try to disregard that fandom and bias i inherently have, and feel i mostly do a good job at that, but i also know it's impossible for that to be completely removed.
i also like to reiterate that i proposed a plan (albeit not completely thought out, so could have flaws) that i think would give both of us what we wanted.
i'm also for the conference title being primary goal #1 for the season. it's 100% in your control for every team from day one, and should stay that way.
for the cfp, with the 4 team we currently have, i'm not sure how you can guarantee any team/conf anything. there aren't enough spots for guarantees. just a "do your best and see if it works out".
for the 6-8 we'll likely be going to soon, this could work.
you get an auto bid if you win your conference (p5 confs) and are in top 10. i'd feel pretty confident that any p5 conf team with an 12-1 record and conf champ would be top 10, including purdue.
you get an auto bid if you win your conference (p5 confs) and are in top 10. i'd feel pretty confident that any p5 conf team with an 12-1 record and conf champ would be top 10, including purdue.I personally don't necessarily LIKE qualifiers that are outside the team's control such as polls, but I could get behind it.
I personally don't necessarily LIKE qualifiers that are outside the team's control such as polls, but I could get behind it.Exactly. Which is why I want the human element eliminated completely.
However I'd pair that maybe with a sliding scale exclusion as an incentive to schedule tougher OOC. Top 10 if you play 9 P5 teams, top 15 in you play 10 P5 teams, and maybe top 25 if you play 11 or more P5 teams. Or something similar to that.
That makes it even more important to schedule up OOC, but also allows you wiggle room to lose high-profile OOC games without a huge penalty.
I.e. let's say Purdue wins the conference instead as 10-3, and sits at 18th. But their losses were two of their 9 conference games, and they scheduled Clemson and UCLA OOC, beating UCLA handily but losing to Clemson. I think in that case they shouldn't be excluded for losing tough OOC games.
If you make it "top 10", it makes it even more likely that teams will schedule patsies OOC so that they minimize total losses on the schedule, because voters are lazy and typically will rank a 1-loss team ahead of a 2-loss team, ahead of a 3-loss team, regardless of the quality of those losses.
I like humans.Eh. I could do without most of 'em.
we just disagree then.
i want the best teams in the cfp. with the limited data, there is a good bit of subjectivity to who that could be. but even with that limited data, there are clear delineations of who is not the best team, and i do not want them included in a tournament to decide the best team regardless of the hardware they ended up with.
Exactly. Which is why I want the human element eliminated completely.win your conference, you are eligible for the 4 team playoff
Win the conference, and you're in. Everyone knows the goal ahead of time, and no subjectivity is involved for inclusion.
win your conference, you are eligible for the 4 team playoff
then seeded 1-4 by strength of schedule
that's it, no whining if you are #5 or #6
4 isn't enough for 5 P5 conferences, why is someone getting left out and who is making that determination? Whoever it is, I don't trust them and don't want them involved.Georgia already took care of that and those T-Sips want nothing to do with Big Ten
Also, how are you handling Notre Dame?
We definitely disagree, and I don't think this is necessarily true. If that 9-4 Northwestern team actually knocks off 12-1 Clemson and 13-0 Alabama 2 weeks in a row, as you fear, then I don't think there's any "clear delineation" at all. I'd say your subjective view was completely wrong. Nothing personal, humans are fallible and prone to bias and agenda.I don’t fear that. I certainly don’t think any potential times we’ve come close to that that any of those teams stood a chance.
So eliminate them. Completely. One clear goal-- win your conference and you're in. Everyone knows exactly what it will take. Seems absolutely fair to me.
And that is ridiculous. I am pretty confident that there were at least 10 teams in CFB that year that would have ended with 1 loss or less, playing the same schedule that Bama had. I hate when people just assume the SEC is the best conference. Sometimes, it isn't. Look at the data.I'm not sure what you were saying is ridiculous.
All of this could have been avoided if we follow a basic premise. If you are only going to include 4 teams, it should max out at one team per conference in the playoff.
I've been saying it for years...I'd rather go back to 2 teams than go to 8.
8 teams
5 P5 champs
Best G5 team
2 at-large selections
First and foremost, it makes conference championships matter. So what if your team sneaks into the CCG with an 8-4 (6-2) record, by virtue of tiebreakers for your division, and then beats the 12-0 team from the other division? You won your conference. You're in.
That now 12-1 team that you narrowly edged in the CCG game? They didn't win their conference, but they're in decently good shape for an at-large berth at least.
It satisfies the G5 crowd. Sure, that team is a sacrificial lamb to most likely the 1 seed in the CFP. But at least they have a seat at the table.
And 2 at large berths allow for teams that truly ARE special, but didn't win their conference.
It makes too much sense, I know, so I'm not holding out hope it'll happen.
just as it is today, only worserYes.
This was guaranteed to be messy the moment an entity with 5 major conferences chose a playoff with 4 spots.maybe paying athletes in Cali will disband the PAC
This was guaranteed to be messy the moment an entity with 5 major conferences chose a playoff with 4 spots. F- Notre Dame...but all of you dismissing them with "they can join a conference", guess what? They're not going to. Nor will they ever be made to. That's a lazy reaction to the real issue of the Irish.
An 8-team playoff, however its constructed, will produce a 3-loss national champion (on a long-enough timeline). It's virtually guaranteed. Have fun with that.
Let's just give the trophy to a 9-7 team like the NFL!
This is for the title of best team in the country. Yes, let's make it exclusive (not inclusive).
I don’t fear that. I certainly don’t think any potential times we’ve come close to that that any of those teams stood a chance.
What I fear is those teams taking up space that another team that would have a chance and not getting it just because they had a single mishap but were in a more competitive conf/div.
I don’t fear that. I certainly don’t think any potential times we’ve come close to that that any of those teams stood a chance.But that's where the at large comes in. You give room for conference non-champions that are worthy teams.
What I fear is those teams taking up space that another team that would have a chance and not getting it just because they had a single mishap but were in a more competitive conf/div.
This is true of every playoff in every sport in every year, ever. The "best team in the country" isn't going to lose to a 9-4 scrub. If they do, they weren't the best. Win the playoff games, earn the title. Really simple stuff.2016 Clemson lost to an 8-5 scrub, but was found to be the "best team in the country" thanks to the playoff. The year before, champion Alabama lost to 10-3 Ole Miss. The year before that, OSU lost to 7-6 VA Tech.
| DATE | OPPONENT | TIME | TV | TICKETS |
| Sat, Oct 12 | vs (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/52.png&w=50&h=50) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/52/florida-state-seminoles) Florida State (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/52/florida-state-seminoles) | 3:30 PM (http://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401112479) | (https://www.espn.com/watch/) (https://www.espn.com/watch/) | Tickets as low as $72 (https://www.vividseats.com/ncaaf/clemson-tigers-tickets/clemson-10-12-2980606.html?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) |
| Sat, Oct 19 | @ (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/97.png&w=50&h=50) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/97/louisville-cardinals) Louisville (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/97/louisville-cardinals) | TBD (http://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401112485) | Tickets as low as $32 (https://www.vividseats.com/ncaaf/louisville-cardinals-tickets/louisville-vs-clemson-10-19-2980817.html?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) | |
| Sat, Oct 26 | vs (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/103.png&w=50&h=50) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/103/boston-college-eagles) Boston College (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/103/boston-college-eagles) | TBD (http://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401112490) | Tickets as low as $65 (https://www.vividseats.com/ncaaf/clemson-tigers-tickets/clemson-10-26-2980611.html?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) | |
| Sat, Nov 2 | vs (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/2747.png&w=50&h=50) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2747/wofford-terriers) Wofford (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2747/wofford-terriers) | TBD (http://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401112496) | Tickets as low as $23 (https://www.vividseats.com/ncaaf/clemson-tigers-tickets/clemson-11-2-2905801.html?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) | |
| Sat, Nov 9 | @ (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/152.png&w=50&h=50) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/152/nc-state-wolfpack) NC State (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/152/nc-state-wolfpack) | TBD (http://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401112503) | Tickets as low as $107 (https://www.vividseats.com/ncaaf/north-carolina-state-wolfpack-tickets/north-carolina-state-11-9-2980952.html?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) | |
| Sat, Nov 16 | vs (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/154.png&w=50&h=50) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/154/wake-forest-demon-deacons) 19 Wake Forest (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/154/wake-forest-demon-deacons) | TBD (http://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401112508) | Tickets as low as $46 (https://www.vividseats.com/ncaaf/clemson-tigers-tickets/clemson-11-16-2980614.html?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) | |
| Sat, Nov 30 | @ (https://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/teamlogos/ncaa/500/2579.png&w=50&h=50) (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2579/south-carolina-gamecocks) South Carolina (https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2579/south-carolina-gamecocks) | TBD (http://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401110870) | Tickets as low as $86 (https://www.vividseats.com/ncaaf/south-carolina-gamecocks-tickets/south-carolina-gamecocks-11-30-2849081.html?wsUser=717&wsVar=us~college-football~team-schedule,college-football,en) |
Sports as a whole are a sliding scale of competition (finding out who's best - ie...for the players/coaches/etc) vs entertainment (for the fans buying a ticket). Yes, the entertainment matters, as otherwise, football games with no one watching don't have rankings and playoffs and billions of dollars.If we are simply looking for the "best team" by your standards, why play any games at all? We just look at Alabama's roster every year and hand them the trophy.
But without the competition aspect, it doesn't work, either. It's only entertaining because of the competition (although some people might like football because of the pretty colors or tight pants). Akin to Herm Edwards' "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME" - the fans watch to "SEE WHO WINS THE GAME" and how.
As a sliding scale, it can move up and down - towards and away from either end (competition/entertainment), but it may not get too close to either end. At the expense of either end, the game loses meaning. If it's all about competition, you sort of get what baseball was this year (HR derby disguised as the game of baseball) and it's not as fun to watch. If it's all about entertainment, (like college basketball), it doesn't really matter who ends up winning...which saps the motivation of the competitors themselves.
I'm simply wary of the scale tipping too far towards the entertainment side of things. It's not about "SEC vs the world" or anything like that. I just want the best team to be deemed the champion as often as possible - with the best team being the best combination of roster and results. This does NOT include rewarding them fully for winning this set of games (conf) and ignoring losing this other set of games (OOC).
If we are simply looking for the "best team" by your standards, why play any games at all? We just look at Alabama's roster every year and hand them the trophy.The problem is that if you have 130 teams, or more accurately about 65ish P5 + credible independent, how do you determine the "best team"? Especially when they only play 12 regular season games, mostly missing out on direct comparisons due to most of those teams playing in disparate conferences.
The issue I see is that people are saying that the playoff is about deciding the best team, but no one is saying what "best team" really means. It is all subjective.
I think the B1G and Big 12 and SEC are pretty comparable this year. They seem like a clear step above the other conferences and it's hard to make a meaningful distinction at this point. SEC used to be a deep conference, but now once you get past a couple of elite (probably?) teams it's pretty bad. It's the middle that fell out....there's always scrubs any given year but you could count on some tough middle-of-pack teams. Really the possibility of 3 or 4 standout teams is what keeps the SEC afloat in my mind.that's a bunch of probably
Maybe only two elite (probably?) teams in the B1G, but who is the gimme in that conference? I see a lot of teams Ohio State and Wisconsin have to wake up and take seriously, teams I might be inclined to favor against similar SEC competition.
Kinda the same thing in the Big 12. One elite (probably?) team, one good team getting better by the minute (probably?), and then a handful of other teams they better take seriously. I'd rather play through Arkansas, A&M, and Clanga right now than K-State, Baylor, and WVU.
that's a bunch of probably
The problem is that if you have 130 teams, or more accurately about 65ish P5 + credible independent, how do you determine the "best team"? Especially when they only play 12 regular season games, mostly missing out on direct comparisons due to most of those teams playing in disparate conferences.I may not have been clear, but I completely agree with you. I was replaying to OrangeAfroMan. I was just stating that when someone throws out the term "best team", what are they talking about?
In 2018, I think Ohio State had a credible qualification to be within the group of "best teams". They had one really bad loss when a lesser team was absolutely playing out of their minds. They had a couple close victories (PSU/UNL/Maryland), but they also had some big convincing wins (OrSU, MSU, NU).
Now, I'm not saying they should have gotten into the current iteration of the CFP over the teams that were selected. Bama/Clemson/ND were all undefeated, and Oklahoma's loss was not as bad as OSU's loss (although Oklahoma also had some squeaker wins against lesser competition).
What I'm saying is that if you TRULY want to settle "who is the best team" on the field, it's hard to claim that the current CFP is inclusive enough to do so. After all, the #1 seed has never won the CFP, and the #4 seed has won it twice in five years. If the #4 seed has won it twice, how do we know that the #5 or #6 seeds might not have been better than the #4 in those years? How do we know that Ohio State wouldn't have won an 8-team playoff last year?
As I said before, I wouldn't mind just doing away with all of it and returning to the days when the mythical national champion was just that. But I just don't think you can have an "objective" champ with a two-team BCS or a 4-team CFP that excludes some conference champions that can credibly be at least "in the discussion" for the best team in the land.
The NCAA basketball tournament is too big, at least as it stands for crowning a champion. Beyond the 4 seed line, only 3 champions have been produced in 35 years. Beyond the 8 seed line, no team has EVER even made the national championship game. So a 68-team field is more about entertainment than crowning a champion.
But the CFP is conversely too small. If the lowest seed has won 40% of the time, it tells you that the next team down has a better shot than you might think. And going to 8 teams, actually HELPS ensure that it's more likely that the best team wins the whole thing. Variance is reduced with larger sample sizes, and 3 games is a larger sample size for a playoff than 2 games.
I kind-of agree and that is probably what they will do, but I still think it sucks that four of the best teams in the country get completely left out of the premier bowls.I thought of something else that is problematic to me about leaving the quarter-final losers out of the premier bowls altogether. Most of those losers are going to be teams that had to play a road game in the quarter-final. Some will be teams that got a home quarter-final. Either way, that fanbase doesn't get an opportunity for a neutral site game to travel to. They either get a road game that will be nearly impossible to get tickets for or a home game.
If we are simply looking for the "best team" by your standards, why play any games at all? We just look at Alabama's roster every year and hand them the trophy.How in the holy hell can you get this from my post? Do you not know what a SLIDING SCALE means?!?!?!? Honestly. :smiley_confused1:
I like the old bowl silliness.I do--or did--too.
How in the holy hell can you get this from my post? Do you not know what a SLIDING SCALE means?!?!?!? Honestly. :smiley_confused1:My point is that best roster may be a component of best team, but should have absolutely nothing to do with determining a champion. Right off the bat, you eliminate all but a handful of teams every year. Also best roster is subjective at best, based on opinions of sports writers. Sure, they have a pretty good idea, but if the hand full of teams with the best rosters are all that good, it should show on the field and most likely will.
It's not an either/or proposition: it's not just the best team on paper, AND it's not just the best resume...IT'S BOTH!
I like the old bowl silliness.
I do--or did--too.
Joni Mitchell wrote a great song about the situation such as we are in.
those guys were smarter than everyone thoughtExcept there were a lot of guys, and they didn't all agree...
I liked split championships.They don't bother me at all. That adds one more to all the little idiosyncrasies that make college football so unique.
That's cool. I proclaim Texas won it in 2008. Put it on the wall! :)Colt McCoy likes this
That's cool. I proclaim Texas won it in 2008. Put it on the wall! :)Penn State won it in 1969. Consensus, IIRC.
Penn State won it in 1969. Consensus, IIRC.Lulz no.
Oh, a TV graphic had Auburn being the '83 NCs during the Florida game. I had nowhere to place my furor.Place it in the Stream!! That's what it's for.
Lulz no.Damn straight. Wisconsin won the first two Big Ten (Western Conference) championships. MNC's, baby!
But according to badgerfan we're proclaiming whatever we like these days, so feel free to do so!
This could describe what the committee does now...
If we are talking about staying at 4 teams. I would emphasis conference championships. Start by taking the 5 champs, weed out the weakest. Take a look at the 4th place champ and see if there is a non-champ that is clearly more deserving. Repeat as needed.
This could describe what the committee does now......but it doesn't.
Damn straight. Wisconsin won the first two Big Ten (Western Conference) championships. MNC's, baby!I always razz my wife about this (Lake Forest alum). What could have been. I don't think she knows they were a part of all of this. All those tennis matches she played in, she could've been a B1G champion.
Lulz no.
But according to badgerfan we're proclaiming whatever we like these days, so feel free to do so!
What is the status of the U. of Chicago vis a vis the B1G now? A nonathletic member?i don't know of non-athletic members, but alabama is an affiliate member of the bigxii for rowing, as are many other non-bigxii regulars for various sports. i don't think the sec does this, but not sure. it's not listed clearly on the websites, anyway.
Do other conferences have a member of this ilk?
The ND status in the ACC is entertaining also.
Lulz no.is that not what we've always done?
But according to badgerfan we're proclaiming whatever we like these days, so feel free to do so!
is that not what we've always done?Well it's certainly what Alabama has always done, so I can see why you might be confused. :)
you just caught Nebraska
I always razz my wife about this (Lake Forest alum). What could have been. I don't think she knows they were a part of all of this. All those tennis matches she played in, she could've been a B1G champion.The most impactful decision made in the early days of this league was the replacement of Lake Forest with Michigan in between the first discussion meeting and the charter meeting.
Most of youse Bastages claiming unrecognized MNC'c prolly have a few Fulmer Cups to go with them :cool2:
If the conference had been chartered with Lake Forest instead of Michigan it would have had a very different balance. Nearly half of the members would have been private Chicago-area schools and all but one would have been within 150 miles of downtown Chicago. In that case I think it is likely that the conference would have developed as mostly a local, Chicago-area conference instead of the regional conference that it became. Instead of adding Indiana and Iowa in 1899 and Ohio State in 1912 it seems more likely to me that a more Chicago-centric conference with Lake Forest instead of Michigan would have been more likely to add other Chicago-area private schools.Marquette probably would have been considered, and Notre Dame too.
Marquette probably would have been considered, and Notre Dame too.
I'm sure the other six in the room were wondering what LF could have brought to the table. You had 6 schools, all with AAU in their future (UW and UC were founding members* of that, in 1900). PhD powerhouses, versus a small liberal arts school with no research goals. There was zero fit.
* This invitation is extended to the University of California, The University of Chicago, Clark University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, Leland Stanford Junior University, University of Wisconsin, and Yale University.
That ship has probably sailed, unless UT and OU would leave their other 8 partners in the dust. I suppose there might be room for Kansas, if another certain member were kicked out (or voluntarily left - please!!).
But, Kansas has a lot of dirt under its fingernails right now, in their only athletic program of value.
I just want 11 school conferences with 10 conference games and no Dr. Pepper nonsense. Is this too much to ask?I dunno, some of those Dr Pepper commercials are pretty funny.
My opinion on claimed NCs has always been, if the NC was awarded to the team immediately after the season (or after the bowls once the wire services began doing that in the late 60s/early 70s), then you claim it. If it's from some retroactive system that just began mathematical analysis and decided to recognize various different national champion teams from years long past, then you don't. In an effort to "fit in" with the SEC, the Aggies just recently decided to recognize such retroactive titles from 1927 and 1919. Not a single player from either of those two teams was alive when these national championships were "awarded" to them. In my opinion, they are not legitimate.
However, arguing about stupid stuff like that is part of the unique, wacky craziness that is College Football.
I still think college football back in 1908 was pretty much the same as it is today, just with smaller TVs.and gigantic radios (though not quite that early).