Honest question: why Clemson?IMHO, this is a very fair question. Clemson *MIGHT* be as good as most of us think they are, but I don't think that is proven yet. There are two ways to prove it, one is to play a really strong schedule. Neither Bama nor Clemson did that. The other is to thoroughly dominate your opposition. Bama did that but Clemson really didn't. Clemson had two one score wins:
Will the OP willing to eat crow if one of the other two teams wins the NC?IMHO, he shouldn't have to. If Oklahoma or Notre Dame wins that doesn't mean that they were better over the course of the whole season, it just means that they were better when it counted. IMHO, that would not prove that they should have been #1 all along or even that they should have been in the CFP. Conversely, if Bama and/or Clemson gets run off the field in the semi-final that will not "prove" that they shouldn't have been in the CFP.
IMHO, he shouldn't have to. If Oklahoma or Notre Dame wins that doesn't mean that they were better over the course of the whole season, it just means that they were better when it counted. IMHO, that would not prove that they should have been #1 all along or even that they should have been in the CFP. Conversely, if Bama and/or Clemson gets run off the field in the semi-final that will not "prove" that they shouldn't have been in the CFP.100%
IMHO, he shouldn't have to. If Oklahoma or Notre Dame wins that doesn't mean that they were better over the course of the whole season, it just means that they were better when it counted. IMHO, that would not prove that they should have been #1 all along or even that they should have been in the CFP. Conversely, if Bama and/or Clemson gets run off the field in the semi-final that will not "prove" that they shouldn't have been in the CFP.I get what you are saying. They wouldn't deserve to go under the previous 2-team format. The DO deserve to go under a four team format, however. If one of them wins it they will most likely have to get through Clemson AND Bama. If they can do that, then they certainly prove that they are as good as those two.
I get what you are saying. They wouldn't deserve to go under the previous 2-team format. The DO deserve to go under a four team format, however. If one of them wins it they will most likely have to get through Clemson AND Bama. If they can do that, then they certainly prove that they are as good as those two.In this regard the playoff has changed things a LOT. Pre-playoff even the BCSNCG teams only played ONE highly ranked opponent in the post-season. Thus, there was still the possibility of a split title (see LSU/USC in 2003). Now there really isn't. Whoever wins the CFP will do so by winning TWO games against teams ranked higher than any team that any of the teams outside of the CFP will play.
Notre Dame would be an undefeated team with a win over both of this year's "more deserving" teams. I mean c'mon.
I like uncertainty and mayhem, but then I'm retired.Like Georgia Tech under Paul Johnson?
Go back to the Olden Times and stop this forward pass silliness and play real man football.
Assuming that we had adopted an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the five P5 Champions and the highest ranked G5 Champion, here are the quarter-final match-ups that would have occurred from 2014-2018:This honestly seems fine. I like that most of the No. 9 teams were playing for a spot in the CCG or the last week of the regular season.
2014:2015:
- #1 SEC Champion Alabama vs #20 MWC Champion Boise State
- #2 PAC Champion Oregon vs #7 MissSt
- #3 ACC Champion Florida State vs #6 TCU
- #4 B1G Champion Ohio State vs B12 Champion Baylor
- Best teams left out is #8 Michigan State (10-2)
2016:
- #1 ACC Champion Clemson vs #18 AAC Champion Houston
- #2 SEC Champion Alabama vs #7 Ohio State
- #3 B1G Champion Michigan State vs #6 PAC Champion Stanford
- #4 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #5 Iowa
- Best team left out is #8 Notre Dame (10-2)
2017:
- #1 SEC Champion Alabama vs #15 MAC Champion Western Michigan
- #2 ACC Champion Clemson vs #7 B12 Champion Oklahoma
- #3 Ohio State vs #6 Michigan
- #4 PAC Champion Washington vs #5 B1G Champion PSU
- Best team left out is #8 Wisconsin (10-3)
2018:
- #1 ACC Champion Clemson vs #12 AAC Champion UCF
- #2 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #8 PAC Champion USC
- #3 SEC Champion Georgia vs #6 Wisconsin
- #4 Alabama vs #5 B1G Champion Ohio State
- Best team left out is #7 Auburn (10-3)
- #1 SEC Champion Alabama vs #9 PAC Champion Washington
- #2 ACC Champion Clemson vs #8 AAC Champion UCF
- #3 Notre Dame vs #6 B1G Champion Ohio State
- #4 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #5 Georgia
- Best teams left out is #7 Michigan (10-2)
Here's something to ponder. An expanded playoff would:It's rare anymore you see a decision that leaves money on the table. We all know which way this is going.
1. Generate more money.
2. Likely generate more fan interest.
3. Is desired by most CFB fans who think it's obvious.
And yet we don't have it, nor are the prospects for having it in say 5 years looking good at all.
It might contemplating the reasons it does not exist as they are barriers one has to traverse.
Of course it will take a long time. What has that got to do with whether or not we personally believe that it should be done?Not a thing about anyone's personal beliefs, nor did I suggest such a thing.
Apparently UCF's AD said Florida offered them a 2 for 1 and they turned it down, because no other school in their position, coming off consecutive top 10 finishes would agree to anything less than a home and home, and that given recent success, they should get the 2 home games.That and the fact that the chose to schedule an FCS team make their *NC a complete joke. I didn't like it when B1G teams played FCS opponents and I am not a fan of SEC teams doing it now but for them/us it balances off the schedule. For UCF it is a complete joke. They are 13-0 with ZERO wins over ranked teams. You can't schedule that complete crap and then cry that you didn't get into the playoff.
I'm sorry, but if that's your mentality, you don't deserve a shot at the playoff. Just getting a P5 team to play you at this point is tough, and one willing to do a 3 game series that includes one true home game for you? You take that deal every time. My guess is the 13-0 National Champions* is worth more to them than a home game, and winding up 12-1.
Assuming that we had adopted an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the five P5 Champions and the highest ranked G5 Champion, here are the quarter-final match-ups that would have occurred from 2014-2018:This seems much better to me than the 4 team CFP. Every team with a potential gripe gets in. 8 seems like the perfect number to me.
2014:2015:
- #1 SEC Champion Alabama vs #20 MWC Champion Boise State
- #2 PAC Champion Oregon vs #7 MissSt
- #3 ACC Champion Florida State vs #6 TCU
- #4 B1G Champion Ohio State vs B12 Champion Baylor
- Best teams left out is #8 Michigan State (10-2)
2016:
- #1 ACC Champion Clemson vs #18 AAC Champion Houston
- #2 SEC Champion Alabama vs #7 Ohio State
- #3 B1G Champion Michigan State vs #6 PAC Champion Stanford
- #4 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #5 Iowa
- Best team left out is #8 Notre Dame (10-2)
2017:
- #1 SEC Champion Alabama vs #15 MAC Champion Western Michigan
- #2 ACC Champion Clemson vs #7 B12 Champion Oklahoma
- #3 Ohio State vs #6 Michigan
- #4 PAC Champion Washington vs #5 B1G Champion PSU
- Best team left out is #8 Wisconsin (10-3)
2018:
- #1 ACC Champion Clemson vs #12 AAC Champion UCF
- #2 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #8 PAC Champion USC
- #3 SEC Champion Georgia vs #6 Wisconsin
- #4 Alabama vs #5 B1G Champion Ohio State
- Best team left out is #7 Auburn (10-3)
- #1 SEC Champion Alabama vs #9 PAC Champion Washington
- #2 ACC Champion Clemson vs #8 AAC Champion UCF
- #3 Notre Dame vs #6 B1G Champion Ohio State
- #4 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #5 Georgia
- Best teams left out is #7 Michigan (10-2)
btw, USF had no trouble scheduling a 2-for-1 with Floridawell, let's hope they win 2 of 3
2021 - Tampa
2022 - Gainesville
2025 - Gainesville
It's still chicken shit.I wouldn't call it chicken shit, but if you're pleading at the top of your lungs for respect......... that's your opportunity
The Bearcats once agreed to four games in Columbus in exchange for one game in Cincinnati.
This seems much better to me than the 4 team CFP. Every team with a potential gripe gets in. 8 seems like the perfect number to me.I'm not sure this should be the deciding factor: every team with a potential gripe gets in? Are we married and caving into the wife when she nags us enough? The phrasing is icky to me.
So the current 4 team playoff contract can be opted out in 2022. I think I would prefer that we go to 6 teams, see how that plays out before jumping straight to 8.6 is hard If you make it conference champs + at large, the G5 goes nuts.
Run it for 6 years, at 6 (Kinda like it seems we are going to do with the 4 teams playoff.) And see how hard the push back it to go to 8.
the G5 loses with 6The G5 has already lost.
bids should be earned by play on the field, not autoAll Conf title games should just be the top two teams regardless of division I think. If you are good enough to make the title game and then win it you have earned your place in the playoff over the course of a season I think.
Washington didn't earn a big this season
IF pitt or northwestern would have pulled the upset in the CCG, neither would have earned a bid
So is Northwestern the 2nd best team on the Big Ten or Michigan? Both 8-1 in conferenceI dont think you need to use anything other then normal conf rules. Michigan would go by virtue of the win they had over Northwestern. I cant speak to the other conf because I dont know who beat who. Im fine with rematches since it can happen anyway. This would at least you give better games on the whole. It would also keep the fringe 7-5 type teams out more often.
I don't like the idea of an 8-1 Michigan getting a rematch a week later after losing 62-39
Syracuse and Pitt both 6-2 in the ACC
Washington vs Washington St. rematch in the PAC?
I don't think it helps much
I like that it eliminates some fluky upsets, but I'd rather not have non-con games and rankings tell us who's 2nd best in the conference
well, let's hope they win 2 of 3
btw, USF had no trouble scheduling a 2-for-1 with FloridaThat's different. USF plays Raymond James Stadium. They might well force Pig Town into playing them home-and-home, as UF fans will help USF fill the place at a premium price. USF is almost on par with UF and FSU in terms of talent and performance. Bearcats are not on par or close to Ohio State. Bearcats may be the 2nd best team in Ohio, or in many years, they may not be the 2nd best team.
2021 - Tampa
2022 - Gainesville
2025 - Gainesville
That's different. USF plays Raymond James Stadium. They might well force Pig Town into playing them home-and-home, as UF fans will help USF fill the place at a premium price. USF is almost on par with UF and FSU in terms of talent and performance. Bearcats are not on par or close to Ohio State. Bearcats may be the 2nd best team in Ohio, or in many years, they may not be the 2nd best team.Huh?
-Incentivize more big non conference games. This system makes playing out of conference games worth while. You wont have your season end if you lose and these games can be huge factors in getting those top two spots for byes in the playoffs which I think every team would tell you is a huge benefit.Except how are teams going to treat these? They may be big name games, but they will be de facto exhibition games.
Huh?Assuming he might have meant UCF instead of SFU, The Knights have had five 10+ win seasons since 2000. The Bearcats have had six, with five of them during their time in the Big East. UCF also went winless twice over that stretch, once as a MAC team (you read that right) in 2004, and again in 2015.
Cincinnati and SFU have played 16 times since 2003, and the Bearcats lead the series 9-7.
This year the Bearcats beat the Bulls by 12.
I like 6 Teams. The 5 P5 champions and the top G5 Champ. Also change all conference title games so that top two teams from each Conf go to the title game regardless of division.Not a big fan and letting the rankings decide who plays. You are basically leaving it up to a group of people (voters) decide who is the better team even though about 90% of them never watched a complete game from either team.
+
-Every Con Title game is now a playoff game and worth more. You can even market these as the "Conference playoffs" maybe.
-Your season cant end in the first week of the season. A team in early Sept is often very different then the one in late Nov. College Football is the only sport were one loss in week one can end a season.
-Incentivize more big non conference games. This system makes playing out of conference games worth while. You wont have your season end if you lose and these games can be huge factors in getting those top two spots for byes in the playoffs which I think every team would tell you is a huge benefit.
-There is a clear path to winning a championship for every team.
-While only 6 teams officially make the playoffs with all your conference title games being playoffs you are really able to grow the field to 11-14 teams(depending on how many group of 5 teams are in contention on the last Saturday) without adding a bunch more games to the college football season.
6 is hard If you make it conference champs + at large, the G5 goes nuts.Not with the system I purposed; P5 Champs + At large, but if the Highest G5 team is ranked higher than the lowest P5 Champ, they replace them. Seems to check off all the bullet points.
If you make it conference champs + best G5, the SEC goes nuts because they can't have two teams.
If you make it "best 6 teams", the people who worry about diluting the championship AND the people who want conference championships to matter go nuts.
It's lose-lose-lose.
Not with the system I purposed; P5 Champs + At large, but if the Highest G5 team is ranked higher than the lowest P5 Champ, they replace them. Seems to check off all the bullet points.It reintroduces the subjectivity that the "conference-champs-only" folks desire to eliminate, so it doesn't actually check that box.
G5 has a clear path for inclusion. ✔️
SEC can get 2 teams. ✔️
Lessens the impact of a "non-deserving" Conference Champ making the playoff. ✔️
Fans of Conference Champs get their teams in unless one of them has numerous warts. ✔️
If you want the however many best teams in any playoff, there would have to be a human judgment involved (or you rely on algorithms).Yup, get the stupid idiot people out of it, as much as possible.
If you want to eliminate the human element, you have to rely on something like conference champs.
That would mean on occasion seeing a 10-3 kind of team get into the playoff and some 12-1 team not.
Do what FSU did 40 years ago.I'm glad you posted this because I've used this example many times myself. If UCF wants it then go earn it. Take UF's 2-for-1. Offer to go play in Ann Arbor, Columbus, or State College. Offer to go play at Clemson or Alabama. Offer to go play in Norman. Earn it. Don't sit back munching on conference cupcakes and the FCS team that you CHOSE to schedule OOC and then whine that you aren't taken seriously.
9/19/81 @ 17 Nebraska
10/3/81 @ 7 Ohio State
10/10/81 @ ND
10/17/81 @ 3 Pitt
10/24/81 @ LSU
I'm glad you posted this because I've used this example many times myself. If UCF wants it then go earn it. Take UF's 2-for-1. Offer to go play in Ann Arbor, Columbus, or State College. Offer to go play at Clemson or Alabama. Offer to go play in Norman. Earn it. Don't sit back munching on conference cupcakes and the FCS team that you CHOSE to schedule OOC and then whine that you aren't taken seriously.It would be fun to see the committee start releasing their rankings and omit any wins over FCS teams from the listed record.
I personally prefer human subjectivity. I know from long experience that algorithms can produce unexpected and unwanted outcomes. They work fine for a bit and then up comes something really weird, and folks start wanting human interference.Taking all 5 conference champs eliminates both human subjectivity plus the chance for a corner case to bork an algorithm.
A way to test your premise if to go back in time and see how it would have done in years past. Did you find fairly often a year when the outcome was less than what you'd want?
I'm not sure this should be the deciding factor: every team with a potential gripe gets in? Are we married and caving into the wife when she nags us enough? The phrasing is icky to me.The FSU comparison was my first thought. MSU signed a 2 for 1 with Boise State. UCF should be seeking those out, because I would bet you'd find very few schools with Florida's cache even willing to go that far.
This is cutthroat competition, no? Fair? Are we whining that it's not fair? Do what FSU did 40 years ago.
9/19/81 @ 17 Nebraska
10/3/81 @ 7 Ohio State
10/10/81 @ ND
10/17/81 @ 3 Pitt
10/24/81 @ LSU
Sure, they were an independent, but they didn't whine. They played whoever, wherever, even on the road, and earned their way to the top of the ladder. If UCF has hit a ceiling, then go independent and load up on 2-for-1 deals and get after it.
Here's UCF's record vs ranked teams since they won the Fiesta Bowl in 2013 (ranked at the time of the game):
@ 20 Missouri - L by 28
21 Houston - L by 49
@ 5 Michigan - L by 37
22 USF - W by 7
16 Memphis - W by 7
7 Auburn - W by 7
19 Cincinnati - W by 25
In five years, they've played 7 ranked teams (at the time). Four of those were fellow mid-majors. Three others were blowout losses.
To be honest, looking at everything, the 2017/18 UCF teams should get on their knees and kiss the feet of the 2013 squad. All they did was lose by three @ 12th ranked South Carolina, hand #8 Louisville it's only loss (led by Teddy Bridgewater), and beat #6 Baylor by 10. Oh, and they beat Penn State in Happy Valley. All in the same season. THAT team has a gripe, not last year's or this year's Knights. F- them.
I agree with the sentiment, but FSU was an independent, while UCF and Boise State both have conference schedules to worry about. Even without the conference schedule constraint, I also wonder if either one could find 5 major programs to schedule them in each season? Things are very different now, compared to 4 decades ago.FSU's 1981 schedule is obviously extreme but I don't need to see THAT from UCF. I'd be happy with a two or three games against teams that finished ranked. Even one would be an improvement.
FSU's 1981 schedule is obviously extreme but I don't need to see THAT from UCF. I'd be happy with a two or three games against teams that finished ranked. Even one would be an improvement.Most of the helmets won't even take their calls. Their best bet would be looking to schedule solid teams from major conferences that often end up ranked, but of course even that's a crapshoot. This year if they had scheduled, say, Wisconsin, they'd have been screwed. And that's not a jab at Wisconsin, the Badgers are a team that has been consistently good and just had an unusually down year.
I voted yes, unless you're one of the top tear helmet schools you have little or no chance of getting to play in the NC with a two or four team playoff. You can't convince me that the committee is making an unbiased decision of pick between two teams with the same record and comparable wins for the season. They will always take Alabama or another SEC team over a Wisconsin, Washington or Oklahoma St. because of their past winning history. I remember when Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl in 1994. I think they were tied with Ohio St but since they hadn't been their since 1963 they got to go to the Rose Bowl and play UCLA who just got knocked out of consideration for the NC with a last game lost. The Media was all over this saying that Wisconsin had no chance in hell beating the almighty UCLA. UCLA should be in the playoffs or matched with Ohio St. ( Badgers won 21 - 16 ) Now did Wisconsin have the better team in 1994? Probably not, but that day they did and I think they could have given Nebraska a competitive NC game.I hate to quibble, but it was the 1998 team that "had no business being in the Rose Bowl" game. But yes, your point stands. They could have given Lincoln a game.
1993-UCLA (Pac 10) | |||||||
9/4 | vs. | *California (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/California.htm#1993) (9-4) | L | 25 | 27 | ||
9/18 | vs. | Nebraska (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Nebraska.htm#1993) (11-1) | L | 13 | 14 | ||
9/25 | @ | *Stanford (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Stanford.htm#1993) (4-7) | W | 28 | 25 | ||
9/30 | @ | San Diego State (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/SanDiegoState.htm#1993) (6-6) | W | 52 | 13 | ||
10/9 | vs. | Brigham Young (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/BrighamYoung.htm#1993) (6-6) | W | 68 | 14 | ||
10/16 | vs. | *Washington (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Washington.htm#1993) (7-4) | W | 39 | 25 | ||
10/23 | @ | *Oregon State (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/OregonState.htm#1993) (4-7) | W | 20 | 17 | ||
10/30 | vs. | *Arizona (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Arizona.htm#1993) (10-2) | W | 37 | 17 | ||
11/6 | @ | *Washington State (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/WashingtonState.htm#1993) (5-6) | W | 40 | 27 | ||
11/13 | vs. | *Arizona State (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/ArizonaState.htm#1993) (6-5) | L | 3 | 9 | ||
11/20 | @ | *Southern California (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/SouthernCalifornia.htm#1993) (8-5) | W | 27 | 21 | ||
1/1 | vs. | Wisconsin (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Wisconsin.htm#1993) (10-1-1) | L | 16 | 21 | @ Pasadena, CA | Rose Bowl |
8-4-0 | 368 | 230 |
I think one of the things that bothers us is that the goal posts move from year to year. Compare Ohio State this year to Michigan State in 2015 for a great example:Yeah, I said all along, even leading into the OSU-UM game that 2015 MSU is who OSU most reminded me of. They were winning ugly, had one bad road loss (MSU's was a close loss to a bad team, OSU's was a blowout loss to a mediocre team), and ultimately wound up beating the team that probably was the best, and went on to win the conference title.
In 2015 MSU looked shaky in a number of wins (by 3 over 9-4 Oregon, by 3 over 2-10 Purdue, by 7 over 4-8 RU) and they had a REALLY bad loss (to a sub .500 Nebraska team). OTOH, they had a win over Ohio State and they were B1G Champions and they get into the CFP with almost no debate.
It is pretty hard to make a case that 2018 Ohio State was substantially worse than 2015 Michigan State. Ohio State's loss was worse but their signature win was better (MSU's win over tOSU in 2015 was by a FG at the buzzer, tOSU's win over M was much bigger). Both were B1G Champions with a group of alarming close-calls against mediocre and bad teams.
Some people, I think, are troubled that two very similar teams (2015 MSU and 2018 tOSU) get very different results. 2015 MSU got the #3 seed and there was almost no argument to leave them out in favor of any of the top teams left out:
- #5 Iowa was not a Champion and lost H2H to MSU
- #6 Stanford had two losses
- #7 Ohio State was not a Champion and lost H2H to MSU
2018 Ohio State was a very similar team but they finished ranked three spots lower at #6.
That bothers some people but frankly I think it is what makes the sport exciting. This year was unusual with three major undefeated teams. Since the advent of the BCS in 1998 that has only happened twice in 21 years.
Consider Ohio State's 2018 season over the five years of the CFP so far:
- In 2018 it wasn't enough, obviously.
- In 2017 it probably would have been enough. The 4th spot would have been between 11-1 non-Champion Bama and 12-1 B1G Champion Ohio State.
- In 2016 it clearly would have been enough
- In 2015 it clearly would have been enough
- In 2014 I'm not sure. The fourth spot would have been between tOSU, Baylor, and TCU just as it was and Ohio State's 2018 record might not have been enough.
So over the five years Ohio State's 2018 record would have:
- Gotten the Buckeyes in easily twice (2015, 2016)
- Probably gotten the Buckeyes in once (2017)
- Left the Buckeyes just outside twice (2014, 2018)
Well with old age I guess my memory fades a little. LOL I stand corrected.Me too pal, but your point is clear. UW could have hung with anyone that year. Damn Goofers.
Yeah, I said all along, even leading into the OSU-UM game that 2015 MSU is who OSU most reminded me of. They were winning ugly, had one bad road loss (MSU's was a close loss to a bad team, OSU's was a blowout loss to a mediocre team), and ultimately wound up beating the team that probably was the best, and went on to win the conference title.If OSU was playing the #4 team in the playoff ranking this year, I believe they do pass OU. But, we'll never know.
There were two differences though. #1, as you pointed out, there was no realistic alternative to MSU. But #2, is the MSU beat an undefeated #4 Iowa in the Big Ten Championship Game, while OSU beat a 4 loss Northwestern team. If OSU had played a better CCG opponent, there's a chance they could have leaped Oklahoma.
The other thing is that while MSU was #3, I think that was contrived to get an actual 1-4, 2-3 matchup. I think everyone thought Alabama was easily the best team, but Clemson was undefeated and Alabama had a loss. So it was tougher to justify putting Alabama #1 than putting MSU #3. So they moved MSU past Oklahoma to get what they felt were true 1-4 and 2-3 matchups, although the actual seedings were flipped.
Most of the helmets won't even take their calls. Their best bet would be looking to schedule solid teams from major conferences that often end up ranked, but of course even that's a crapshoot. This year if they had scheduled, say, Wisconsin, they'd have been screwed. And that's not a jab at Wisconsin, the Badgers are a team that has been consistently good and just had an unusually down year.Wasn't there a team just within the past few years that essentially did this?
But, had they scheduled Wisconsin, and the Badgers ended up having a tough season like this one, would they be given any credit in the post-season discussion? And, should they be given any credit? Ultimately we're still talking about resume' and not intent.
I voted yes, unless you're one of the top tear helmet schools you have little or no chance of getting to play in the NC with a two or four team playoff. You can't convince me that the committee is making an unbiased decision of pick between two teams with the same record and comparable wins for the season. They will always take Alabama or another SEC team over a Wisconsin, Washington or Oklahoma St. because of their past winning history.Agreed. And that's what I quibble with as a Purdue fan. Purdue's only sure-fire way to get in is as a 13-0 team.
But #2, is the MSU beat an undefeated #4 Iowa in the Big Ten Championship Game, while OSU beat a 4 loss Northwestern team. If OSU had played a better CCG opponent, there's a chance they could have leaped Oklahoma.The issue of playing a 4-loss B1G-W Champion as opposed to playing an undefeated B1G-W Champion is pretty close to my point. My point is that whether or not you make the playoffs often depends on things that are completely outside of the control of your team. How highly your CG opponent is ranked is just one of those things that you don't get to control. MSU got a highly ranked 12-0 Iowa team and that was a gift two ways. First, it gave the Spartans a highly ranked opponent and second that highly ranked opponent wasn't nearly as good as their record so the Spartans effectively got credit for playing one of the best teams in the Country without actually having to play one of the best teams in the country. I don't mean that to knock the 2015 Spartans (or even the 2015 Hawkeyes for that matter) it just is what it is. Sometimes you get a highly ranked CG opponent (like UW in 2014 or Iowa in 2015) and sometimes you don't (like NU or Pitt this year).
The other thing is that while MSU was #3, I think that was contrived to get an actual 1-4, 2-3 matchup. I think everyone thought Alabama was easily the best team, but Clemson was undefeated and Alabama had a loss. So it was tougher to justify putting Alabama #1 than putting MSU #3. So they moved MSU past Oklahoma to get what they felt were true 1-4 and 2-3 matchups, although the actual seedings were flipped.
Most of the helmets won't even take their calls.If they're not taking the call, and a 2-for-1 is on the board, they're idiots. It's a safe trip to fertile recruiting grounds.
If they're not taking the call, and a 2-for-1 is on the board, they're idiots. It's a safe trip to fertile recruiting grounds.It's an unnecessary risk. Won't get any credit for winning, and you're blasted for losing. Scheduling another helmet or even a reasonable P5 is a much better bet. And most of the helmets don't need a trip to Florida for recruiting, it's the next-tier teams that do.
Wasn't there a team just within the past few years that essentially did this?2016 houston was kinda like that. they played and beat oklahoma and louisville (both ranked #3 at time of games). both finished ranked, ou top 5 i think. problem with houston was they lost some other games. had they gone undefeated they'd have been in, no doubt, maybe even with 1-loss (prob not).
Tried to schedule hard OOC, but the OOC teams that normally would have been good all sucked that year, and ended up taking a reputational hit for playing weak teams?
(Note: it may not have been G5. It might have been someone like an Iowa or Wisconsin.)
I wonder if the voting breakdown has anything to do with being a fan of a helmet vs non-helmet.So if I understand you correctly, you are advocating for a 68 team playoff that emulates what we have in College Basketball, including the 4 play in games which you'd like to have held in Dayton?
I understand my viewing lifetime has coincided with by far the best run Florida has ever had, but that being said, I do not want an environment in which Florida loses and I shrug my shoulders, knowing we're still in it for the NC. If you're a fan of a helmet (or elite team in your lifetime), you know that feeling of dread and angst on the rare occasion your team loses. If your team peaks at 7-5, you don't know this feeling. It's what made the college football regular season mean something. You knew that once you lost, you'd need some conspiracy theory stuff to happen bam-bam-bam for you to have any way back to the NC...and sometimes it happened!!
But ever since OU got lambasted by KSU in the XIICG that one year and still made it into the BCSNCG, it's all felt wrong. Or I don't know, Nebraska getting pantsed and still playing Miami for the NC, whichever happened first. That was the beginning of this new college football regular season, in which no one loss is particularly damning. Now, you team loses, you shrug. Still in it, still able to achieve all our goals without angels parting the Red Sea.
When/if the playoff expands, we'll enter a third phase of the regular season - the irrelevant games. So many irrelevant games. And maybe that isn't scary to you, but it is to me. 90,000 seat stadiums aren't getting packed now, and with more meaningless games, or games in which the outcome isn't high-stakes, even against legit competition, those stadiums will have more and more empty seats. Fewer eyeballs on TVs.
Every game needs to matter. Every loss should be damning and feel like a stake through the heart. Not because I say so, but because that's how college football became great.
I wonder if the voting breakdown has anything to do with being a fan of a helmet vs non-helmet.There has been more of this than I thought.
So if I understand you correctly, you are advocating for a 68 team playoff that emulates what we have in College Basketball, including the 4 play in games which you'd like to have held in Dayton?Sure...<br />(https://i.ibb.co/VS5z48C/2010-02-10-wendywright.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VS5z48C)<br /><br />le pont mirabeau analyse (https://poetandpoem.com/analysis-le-pont-mirabeau-guillaume-apollinaire)<br />
Why do you think most traditional bowl games are held in the south? It wasn't the SEC or ESPN or anyone else to blame for that - it was plain old common sense. Should I apologize for it?The Big Ten has enough alumnus in Cali to pack the Rose Bowl. Some schools, like mine, could do it alone.
And let's not forget how your beloved Rose Bowl gets a pass for being in the PAC's back yard. For some reason, just the SEC-tie in bowls have to wear that dirt. Interesting.
WHY, OH WHY, ARE BOWLS IN THE SOUTH?!?
<br />(https://i.ibb.co/6gQ1mQQ/f4ee8e3ebbae411a81f636426b68891d.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6gQ1mQQ)<br /><br />a red red rose analysis line by line (https://poetandpoem.com/interpretation-of-a-red-red-rose)<br />
How should ESPN treat them? They have a vested obvious interest in hyping their product. They are not ever going to claim "Heh, you can watch, knowing this is no more relevant than your Spring Game.".
They are opposed to then ESPN not treating them like exhibitions.
I don't think people are opposed to playing exhibition games in locations that fans and players want to be in at this time of year.Bowl games have always been glorified exhibitions.
They are opposed to then ESPN not treating them like exhibitions.
How should ESPN treat them? They have a vested obvious interest in hyping their product. They are not ever going to claim "Heh, you can watch, knowing this is no more relevant than your Spring Game.It seems like the only response is, "well what should the SEC do, not take advantage," and "what should ESPN do, not hype their product?" No. But that's not a response to why not everyone likes it.
Well the bowls have "mattered" for 60+ years now, so I don't know why we're citing the era when the final poll was conducted pre-bowls. I'm not upset about anything, BB is just asking the same, age-old questions and getting cheeky.Considering your politics, that seems like a weird mentality. If the people in power have no incentive to change things, then they shouldn't, and nobody should complain about it. That's your take?
The SEC is the healthiest conference doing what they're doing in this time and place. To question why they don't do something differently - a something with no visible payoff - makes little sense to me. As does endlessly bitching about it.
Getting hypertension just reading this with the high levels of sodium chloride in this thread...This fellow is CLEARLY highly stressed and likely needs medical attention.
Considering your politics, that seems like a weird mentality. If the people in power have no incentive to change things, then they shouldn't, and nobody should complain about it. That's your take?The SEC isn't in power, merely a beneficiary.
The SEC isn't in power, merely a beneficiary.Im just basing it on the politics you've posted on here, your more nuanced beliefs, I can't speak to. But what you've posted here doesn't seem to be in line with your take here of "everyone should do what benefits them, and those who don't benefit from the system should shut up and never speak of trying to change it."
I'd love you to tell me about my poltiics, or what you think they are.
I wonder if the voting breakdown has anything to do with being a fan of a helmet vs non-helmet.I disagree with much of this, mostly on the grounds that a game outside the national title race leads to irrelevance.
I understand my viewing lifetime has coincided with by far the best run Florida has ever had, but that being said, I do not want an environment in which Florida loses and I shrug my shoulders, knowing we're still in it for the NC. If you're a fan of a helmet (or elite team in your lifetime), you know that feeling of dread and angst on the rare occasion your team loses. If your team peaks at 7-5, you don't know this feeling. It's what made the college football regular season mean something. You knew that once you lost, you'd need some conspiracy theory stuff to happen bam-bam-bam for you to have any way back to the NC...and sometimes it happened!!
But ever since OU got lambasted by KSU in the XIICG that one year and still made it into the BCSNCG, it's all felt wrong. Or I don't know, Nebraska getting pantsed and still playing Miami for the NC, whichever happened first. That was the beginning of this new college football regular season, in which no one loss is particularly damning. Now, you team loses, you shrug. Still in it, still able to achieve all our goals without angels parting the Red Sea.
When/if the playoff expands, we'll enter a third phase of the regular season - the irrelevant games. So many irrelevant games. And maybe that isn't scary to you, but it is to me. 90,000 seat stadiums aren't getting packed now, and with more meaningless games, or games in which the outcome isn't high-stakes, even against legit competition, those stadiums will have more and more empty seats. Fewer eyeballs on TVs.
Every game needs to matter. Every loss should be damning and feel like a stake through the heart. Not because I say so, but because that's how college football became great.
We are about to spend the entire off season sifting through countless Fro-Threads debating who would have won a four team playoff had the system been in place way back when, but spit balling changes we'd like to see to the future post season format is a complete and total waste of time?But yet even if something is a waste of time, you might enjoy it. Both can be true - it's a waste of time AND fun exploring. Have I suggested people stop posting in this thread?
Alrighty then....
We all know this college football (and any sport, really) monster exists on a sliding scale of competition vs entertainment. We need 2 earnest teams trying to win, which interests us enough to sit down and watch it.Your idea for a 68 team format is a little over the top, imo. For one thing there are a lot more College Basketball teams and Conferences than what we have in College Football. On top of that, you can't play two Football games in one weekend, so the tourney would just drag on forever.
Expanding the playoff, to me, seems like the scale is sliding further towards entertainment and away from competition, and my fear is that it's sliding too far that way. I may be completely wrong.
But there's corollaries with other sports - baseball is finding out that the best strategy to win games may come at the expense of entertainment - and so they're thinking up ways to "fix" it. College football, in a vast landscape of sports, was unique in that it lacked an expansive playoff. In baseball, perhaps more than any other sport, the worst team beats the best team a relatively high percentage of the time. This wasn't that big of a deal when each league had a champion and the only postseason was the World Series. But as leagues split first into 2 divisions each, and then 3, with extra rounds of playoffs, the World Series champion has become more or less random from that set of teams. The wild-card has only the extra task of overcoming home-field advantage to win the championship.
The NFL's playoff has allowed wild-card teams to win the Super Bowl. We had our first 9-7 team to win a SB. That team had a negative point differential during the regular season, btw. Ohhhh, OAM, who cares?!?! A team that was 9-7 BUT WAS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN THAT won the SB. A team who was still 8.5 games better than the SB champion had nothing to show for it. The team that wound up 12-7 wears the crown, but the one that went 17-1 wasn't good enough? WTF? Again, too far down the entertainment end, pulling away from the competition side.
I guess my argument is hey, let's NOT have a 3-loss NC. Let's not have G5 teams get stomped on the highest stage. This idea of 8 teams or 5+2+1 is akin to giving everyone a trophy. Everyone makes fun of that, but they're on board with expanding the playoff. Huh??
People make fun of that because it’s a dumb metaphor that started with appeasing dumb parents and has literally been stretched to the stupid limit.
I guess my argument is hey, let's NOT have a 3-loss NC. Let's not have G5 teams get stomped on the highest stage. This idea of 8 teams or 5+2+1 is akin to giving everyone a trophy. Everyone makes fun of that, but they're on board with expanding the playoff. Huh??
Who are the powers resisting an expanded playoff?I'm guessing the issue would be CCGs in jeopardy if we did, and the SEC at least, would likely lose money by giving up their CCG in favor of a shared additional round?
There would be more money, right? And yet we don't seem to be heading to one.
They do so when there are overriding objections, clearly, which is why I think my question is important.I know the UW chancellor is a foe of expanded playoffs. I also know the UW AD is now in favor of expanded playoffs.
SOMEONE is resisting this, successfully. Who and why are critical questions.
They do so when there are overriding objections, clearly, which is why I think my question is important.Aside from the SEC, fear of lawsuits? Adding an additional game.
SOMEONE is resisting this, successfully. Who and why are critical questions.
This is true, but the more teams you allow into a playoff, the less deserving each additional team is. Socially, as a culture, we should be inclusive. But when determining a champion of a sport, we should be exclusive. If you don't win the beauty contest, keep knocking at the door or kick it in and eventually make them see you by winning.
But with a playoff, you compete for a trophy, with the old system, some teams are handed chances to, or just given one.
I suggested some above:SEC commissioner will never be for expansion until an SEC misses the playoff. So, the SEC commissioner will never be for expansion. At least as long as ESecPN has the contract to broadcast, that is. I'm only partly tongue-in-cheek on this.
1. University presidents.
2. Bowl committees.
3. Some/many ADs.
4. Some conference commissioners. ( don't know how the SEC comish thinks about this.)
5. Maybe some PTBs in the NCAA.
CFB always moves at a snails pace. It took us 20 years just to get to this point, and half the people on this board still want to drag us back to the old poll n bowl system. It is what it is.Count me in for dragging us back. Thanks.
SEC commissioner will never be for expansion until an SEC misses the playoff. So, the SEC commissioner will never be for expansion. At least as long as ESecPN has the contract to broadcast, that is. I'm only partly tongue-in-cheek on this.Th secret is, as soon as they go to eight, he'll be for eight.
There will never be a playoff game in Chicago. It wouldn't be fair to make Nick's kids wear gloves.
To take your #2 a little further, it's not just the committee. It's the City, County and State in which the bowl is located too. There is money to be made there.
This is true, but the more teams you allow into a playoff, the less deserving each additional team is. Socially, as a culture, we should be inclusive. But when determining a champion of a sport, we should be exclusive. If you don't win the beauty contest, keep knocking at the door or kick it in and eventually make them see you by winning.To the first paragraph, that's fine. We want less competition, that's OK. We can just say it. The goal is making the season a pageant when number of losses rules the day, that's AOK.
Take UCF. We have learned that a UCF team with 13 straight wins isn't allowed in. We've learned a UCF team with 25 straight wins isn't allowed in. But at some point (whether it's 38 or 50 or 100), they will be let in. I guess it's not fair that a Notre Dame can get in after "only" 12 straight wins, but that's life. If those UCF players could've gotten a scholarship from ND, they'd be playing for ND. This is competition, dog-eat-dog, from recruiting to facilities to games on the field and to the rankings. What should UCF do? Keep winning. Win until you get in.
Why is 8 the right number? Why not 16? Why not 6? It's so arbitrary. It'd be random if cubed numbers didn't exist, which is hilarious, actually. And if 8/130 teams (6%) is the right number, then why does every single other sport have way more than that in their playoffs (NFL 37.5%, NBA 53%, MLB 31%)??? If the best answer to that is "because it's more than 4", then that's embarrassing.
The bowl locations aren't for the kids from the south, but for the butts in the seats. Please stop pretending otherwise.Nobody is. But then treat them accordingly
This is absurd. People would take into account their multiple seasons of being undefeated and let them in. You're not being realistic here.
To the second. In the current system, USC will never get in. Could win 100 and it won't be let in because each batch of 12 will be found wanting. Maybe the stars align once, but for the most part, they'll be out.
Th secret is, as soon as they go to eight, he'll be for eight.Perhaps, because then he will get 3/8 of the playoooof. SEC SEC SEC, as an Arky or A&M or Old Mrs. fan might boast.
Worry not. I didn't exclude you from that half, chief.:72:
Perhaps, because then he will get 3/8 of the playoooof. SEC SEC SEC, as an Arky or A&M or Old Mrs. fan might boast.It'll happen. And people will bitch. And if it expands to 16, the SEC will get 5 teams in. And people will bitch.
It'll happen. And people will bitch. And if it expands to 16, the SEC will get 5 teams in. And people will bitch.I just want an SEC team (a good one) to do a home/away with my school. I know. Too much to ask.
Not a lot of elite athletes coming out of Wisconsin....LSU came up there, didn't they?LSU came up, yes, in Green Bay. Elite athletes? There's been a few. Some 4* ones this cycles and a couple of 5* for 2020.
We ain't going back to 2, and if they simply expand and still take the "8 best" I'd hate that, but assuming it's 5-1-2, I'd prefer that over the current model, which has IMO created a scenario with the least possible number of meaningful games. I'll sacrifice a little significance in losses to create more significant games....And this is my biggest reason for trying to 6 instead of 8. We CAN'T/WON'T go back.
This is absurd. People would take into account their multiple seasons of being undefeated and let them in. You're not being realistic here.OAM, I agree with you for the most part in this thread, but I disagree with you here. I DO NOT think that UCF needs more consecutive wins, I think that they need better wins. I've pointed out repeatedly that they managed to go 13-0 this season with exactly ZERO wins over teams ranked in the final CFP rankings. I think that makes it obvious that their problem is quality not quantity.
But yet even if something is a waste of time, you might enjoy it. Both can be true - it's a waste of time AND fun exploring. Have I suggested people stop posting in this thread?Hey, he's starting to get it.
All I've said is the decision-making stakeholders aren't likely to want to change, that's all. Pffft. I'm such an ass.
OAM, I agree with you for the most part in this thread, but I disagree with you here. I DO NOT think that UCF needs more consecutive wins, I think that they need better wins. I've pointed out repeatedly that they managed to go 13-0 this season with exactly ZERO wins over teams ranked in the final CFP rankings. I think that makes it obvious that their problem is quality not quantity.The issue remains the same. They need better non-conference wins. And they need at least two very good ones. And they need the good programs they play to go on to good seasons. And they need a very weak No. 4 seed. And they need a team that good. And even then, we’ll hear about how they haven’t played anyone in months.
I just want an SEC team (a good one) to do a home/away with my school. I know. Too much to ask.Do think Georgia would turn down a H&A series with Wisconsin? Why? The only reason would be scheduling issues. UGA agreed to a series with Ohio State (since cancelled) and ND. I don't know of a reason they would turn down Wisconsin prima facia if the scheduling worked.
Hell, I would bet a paycheck (it's a good one) that a good SEC team would turn down a 2 for 1 with my school.
Do think Georgia would turn down a H&A series with Wisconsin? Why? The only reason would be scheduling issues. UGA agreed to a series with Ohio State (since cancelled) and ND. I don't know of a reason they would turn down Wisconsin prima facia if the scheduling worked.Ohio State
They have scheduled teams all over the place.
They also have games with Virginia, UCLA, and Oregon, not to mention Texas and Clemson.It's been bantered about before. It's viewed as a no-win deal for a lot of schools. UW is not a helmet school, so losing to them is not acceptable and beating them is expected. That, and as has been mentioned here, Wisconsin is not perceived as a fertile recruiting state like California.
If they schedule UCLA H&A, why not Wisconsin?
Why is 8 the right number? Why not 16? Why not 6? It's so arbitrary. It'd be random if cubed numbers didn't exist, which is hilarious, actually. And if 8/130 teams (6%) is the right number, then why does every single other sport have way more than that in their playoffs (NFL 37.5%, NBA 53%, MLB 31%)??? If the best answer to that is "because it's more than 4", then that's embarrassing.It is always arbitrary but I'll tell you that I prefer a smaller percentage to a larger percentage in general.
Instead we've settled at some awkward place in the middle, where a single loss doesn't feel as monumental, but we still end the season with these awkward conference championship games where one team is just a spoiler.As an Ohio State fan, I have plenty of experience to refute this:
We ain't going back to 2, and if they simply expand and still take the "8 best" I'd hate that, but assuming it's 5-1-2, I'd prefer that over the current model, which has IMO created a scenario with the least possible number of meaningful games. I'll sacrifice a little significance in losses to create more significant games.
But ever since OU got lambasted by KSU in the XIICG that one year and still made it into the BCSNCG, it's all felt wrong. Or I don't know, Nebraska getting pantsed and still playing Miami for the NC, whichever happened first. That was the beginning of this new college football regular season, in which no one loss is particularly damning. Now, you team loses, you shrug. Still in it, still able to achieve all our goals without angels parting the Red Sea.Nebraska was the first BCS-era team to get smoked in their last game and make the CG anyway, Oklahoma was a few years later:
I wonder if the voting breakdown has anything to do with being a fan of a helmet vs non-helmet.This is an interesting thought. I think my experience is similar to yours. I'm an Ohio State fan and alum who started at Ohio State in the fall of 1993. Prior to that I was a fan, but not anywhere near at this level. Part of that is because I hadn't gone there yet and part of it is because Ohio State wasn't all that good when I was in HS:
I understand my viewing lifetime has coincided with by far the best run Florida has ever had, but that being said, I do not want an environment in which Florida loses and I shrug my shoulders, knowing we're still in it for the NC. If you're a fan of a helmet (or elite team in your lifetime), you know that feeling of dread and angst on the rare occasion your team loses. If your team peaks at 7-5, you don't know this feeling. It's what made the college football regular season mean something. You knew that once you lost, you'd need some conspiracy theory stuff to happen bam-bam-bam for you to have any way back to the NC...and sometimes it happened!!
What was the last SEC power to be "out of the race" after a singular loss?2013 alabama (kick 6 game), though it was replaced by the victor in that game, another sec team (au)
UGA played this year on the west coast, and played Arizona State fairly recently, which is close.
Still, congrats to Georgia for heading to the West Coast for the first time since JFK was walking on Earth.
:96:
What was the last SEC power to be "out of the race" after a singular loss?Probably sometime before the 7 consecutive NCs? I know in '94, Alabama's only loss was by 1 point to Florida in the SECCG. Florida's loss @ FSU in '96 was damning at the time. The Gators needed 3 unlikely things to happen to get the rematch (which they did, and won). In 2001, two SEC teams headed for a showdown vs Miami lost out (Florida vs Tennessee, then Tennessee vs LSU in Atlanta). In 2002, Georgia suffered its only loss to Florida in late October, and almost certainly would have been ranked above OSU, with all their unimpressive, close wins.
2013 alabama (kick 6 game), though it was replaced by the victor in that game, another sec team (au)
Probably sometime before the 7 consecutive NCs? I know in '94, Alabama's only loss was by 1 point to Florida in the SECCG. Florida's loss @ FSU in '96 was damning at the time. The Gators needed 3 unlikely things to happen to get the rematch (which they did, and won). In 2001, two SEC teams headed for a showdown vs Miami lost out (Florida vs Tennessee, then Tennessee vs LSU in Atlanta). In 2002, Georgia suffered its only loss to Florida in late October, and almost certainly would have been ranked above OSU, with all their unimpressive, close wins.FYI, I think the question was in the current CFP era, when a singular loss would have immediately excluded an SEC team. Which isn't the most fair question, because obviously it hasn't kept them out.
The issue remains the same. They need better non-conference wins. And they need at least two very good ones. And they need the good programs they play to go on to good seasons. And they need a very weak No. 4 seed. And they need a team that good. And even then, we’ll hear about how they haven’t played anyone in months.It does require some help but part of my objection to all the whining from UCF supporters is that they didn't even try.
The system will not allow for this without a particularly odd set of circumstances.
having said that, bama is probably still the right answer for last 1-loss sec team left out in a probable cfp. just in 2008, not 1994. 2008 bama lone loss is to uf in seccg. uf is in at 1-loss sec champ, you also had 1 loss bigten champ psu, 1 loss pac champs usc, plus the 1-loss trifecta of co-champs from the bigxii (texas, ou and tt). that doesn't even include the undefeated utah (beat mich, ore st, tcu and byu) and undefeated boise (beat top 10 oregon in eugene and the epic 06 bowl win over ou was still pretty fresh).Are you sure, though?
Are you sure, though?actually, i'd say slam dunk is a great analogy. almost 100%, but there's an off chance they clang it off the back iron and put bama in. it's so low and remote it's hardly worth mentioning, but it's a possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_rankings
After the CCGs that year, Texas was still 3rd and Bama was still 4th in the AP, Coaches, and BCS ranks. So fully two of the top 4 teams were 1-loss conference non-champions. By BCS ranks, USC was 5th, Utah 6th, PSU 8th, and Boise 9th.
Now, I think the committee might have tried to avoid having two SEC and two B12 teams in the CFP, so perhaps you're right that they'd have found ways to make sure that other teams, such as 1-loss conference champions, got in. But I think it's hardly a slam dunk of a case.
This was my point about Georgia this year. The committee wasn't going to include them because they were an SEC team, but because they were a Georgia team with Georgia's resume and Georgia's talent.
if this were a 15-20+ year sample and sec was getting every benefit of the doubt over other confs, there'd be an argument. but the sample size is way to small and the context in which it happened leaves it at most inconclusive if not outright false.
Some claimed ND played a weak slate, so I noted that Clemson played a rather similar slate, perhaps not even as tough.I rarely have any problems w/ NDs schedule. They play road games all over the country which isn't really easy.
Just about everyone's schedule can be criticized in most years. And obviously a lot depends on how you hammer the mediocre teams.
because they're sheepIf they’re sheep, you have a better selection?
I don't know what I was thinking of.
Georgia may be the 3rd best team, but they already had their crack at Alabama, and they had a loss to LSU.
Maybe the better question is whether they should be contracted back to two.If an undefeated Notre Dame was left out, the universe would implode.
I fear no matter where you set the line for G5 teams, it will become a glass ceiling. Voters, knowing where the line is, would have ranked UCF 9th this year and last year. But that's just my opinion and I'm probably wrong. Perhaps that wouldn't happen until they let a G5 team get in the way of a big-boy team and the NC trophy first....Possibly. I heard some talk of something like the old G5 rule for BCS. You'd get a spot, unless you were below the worst P5 champ.
So I was thinking about this, the coming expansion, and what OAM talked about the regular season as a gauntlet, both for those in the mix (the vast minority) and those watching from the outside.Very well stated.
And I think what killed that was this: At some point, our opinions started to harden, and we really stopped caring about the beautiful latticework that was a season.
By this I mean, if you look back to the early BCS, the main things that popped were the controversies and the near misses. As in, people talk about some UCLA game in ... 1998 I think, that knocked them out. We talk about the K-State team that slipped up. Nebraska losing to Colorado and going over Oregon. Ohio State surviving and surviving as talking heads said "Iowa and USC are probably better." The title game was very much the product of a journey.
But somewhere along the way it became more ... ordained for lack of a better word. What happened in the title game was just the way it was supposed to be. It was and always will be unfortunately tied in with the SEC vs. the world dynamic that resulted. It wasn't exactly that we knew how it would end, but that when it was ended, it was quickly wrapped up into something that was supposed to happen. Some team would make a run, some SEC team would back in, that SEC team would win, and we'd talk about the fraud that made it to face them and how a team (2008 Oklahoma, 2010 Oregon, 2006 OSU, 2012 Notre Dame) was always a bit of a paper Tiger.
When we look back at 2006 Florida, what's considered most interesting tends to be that defense that came alive, that group that made a great OSU offense look lost and wanting, the idea their excellence had been obscured by the gauntlet they came through. And when that's the case, it's little wonder we want more big stage games.
What could be interesting about 2006 Florida is Karl Dorrell and Eric McNeal swung a national title. It's Jarvis Moss, it's a secret important USC-ND game the week before the UCLA upset.
We became a people so focused on point making that we (we being the wider populace) forgot how to appreciate the breadth of a season, or maybe we never did. And when every season gets reduced in such a way to the concentrated part at the end, people want more of that, even if it dilutes what they took for granted.
Meh.Point well taken, indeed.
#firstworldproblems
Spend two decades as a fan of a non-helmet team, and you'll realize all this BCS, all this CFP, all this other stuff is really other people's concern. For a Purdue fan, every goddamn win is precious.
the answer to the ooc matchups within a p5 conf champ guaranteed scenario is... dun dun dunnn... money! surpriseMoney for sure. The TV media partners encourage the schools within the conferences they sponsor, to schedule good OOC opponents, because it's good for their inventory.
i dont remember which way i voted, but at this time i think i'd vote no. or at least, "lets let this contract play out for more than 4 seasons before making any more drastic changes". didn't see that option in the poll, though.
Expand that. I live out here in Phoenix and I wouldn't drive there even if Florida was playing. Why? The distance from Phx to Santa Clara is longer than the trip from Atlanta to Cleveland. It's stupid far, no one there cares about college football, and it's stupid far!!!! :96:The flight might’ve been, maybe not reasonable, but also not four figures.
P.S. It's stupid far!