http://www.espn.com/college-football...ate-most-chaos
I hope it happens, I love chaos in college football. I love seeing the committee and pollsters squirm!
Given the mediocre-ness of almost everyone thus far, I don’t think many people would lose their mind over a 1 loss sec cg loser getting in the CFP. Especially if the sec cg is a barn burner. The pac 12 and acc need a lot of help already imo. The big 12 is always wacky, tcu will lose to Texas Tech in a 77-74 2OT game or something, putting a 1 L big 12 champ likely behind a 1 L pac 12 or 1 L acc champ. And that’s assuming things don’t really get wacky. The CFP has had it pretty easy thus far, they were due a crazy season with multiple loss conf champs, 2 undefeateds playing in a conf cg, ND in the discussion, a potential undefeated divisional champ with a really really weak SOS. Lots of weirdness already and we are only halfway through October. But I think right now most people would agree bama and uga have been the most dominant teams, followed by Penn State (needed a last min TD to win @ Iowa), and so if both bama and uga keep playing this way and face off in the sec cg, then I don’t think there will be much crying about 2 sec teams. At least not any crying with actual facts or logic behind it.
This is where I never understood why they moved away from the BCS formula. It wasn't perfect, but it at least took some of the subjective selection issues out of the final paring. If you took the 2 polls and the ESPN FPI (because, face it, ESPN would have found the way to include it) and ranked every team accordingly, there would be no question about where those 1 loss teams stood in relation to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
I wish 2 SEC teams would get in and no ACC team just to see Danny Kannell's head explode.
This is why there needs to be a legit playoff for the top 16 teams in the country. Don?t give me any of list of excuses:
- ?there?s risk for injury
- Would interfere with exams
- Not enough talent
- Too much for college athletes
- Not enough funding for some teams to offset costs
Every other level of football has a full playoff. No reason why not - except for the money made by bowl reps and their sponsors.
But you cannot imagine the money that would be generated by a legitimate full playoff.
I agree or at the very least make it the Power 5 conference champs and 3 "wild cards". I know like you mentioned people have all kinds of arguments against it but they had all kinds of arguments against any kind of playoff and yet we now have one. You nailed it on the reason too. Bowl reps, bowl sponsors, bowl money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westdawg
Not so sure about that. A few ago Georgia Tech won the ACC but had something like 5 losses (lost all the OOC games) and still went to the Sugar Bowl (or maybe it was the Orange).Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
It's not a perfect setup or perfect world. You would have to structure it similar to the NFL(and keep the P5,revenue generating) folks happy. Some division winners don't have great records, just the way it is. It would make those conference championships meaningful IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketDawg
I’m all for a playoff and I think it’s proven to be a better method of finding the best team and takes away a lot of the subjectivity. I don’t think there’s a lot of teams out there (teams with a loss, an undefeated P5 champ has no worries unless we have 5 undefeated P5 champs or 4-5 undefeated P5 champs + undefeated ND) making a case that they should get in over a 12-1 bama or 12-1 uga who lost a close sec cg. And I think fans from around the country know that. I know most of my pac 12 friends out here would be fine with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg
Now if we still had the BCS, I’d argue the sec cg loser shouldn’t make it, because that’s a 1 off championship game and we just watched those 2 teams play on a neutral field, so give a 1 L usc or ohio st or Oklahoma or whoever their chance. But in a playoff, you have to make the argument that 3 other teams should be ahead of a 12-1 sec cg loser who dominated the regular season. You can make the argument for 1, but you wouldn’t be able to make the argument for 3.
Imagine what would happen if Notre Dame wins out (I know) and Georgia goes undefeated but loses to Bama in the SEC championship.
No way they could leave out ND, on a 10 game win streak with a good schedule to go along with their media darling status. But there's no way they can justify letting in 11-1 ND and leaving out 12-1 UGA who beat ND head to head. And the "you have to win your conference championship" excuse went out the door last year with Ohio State.
Two SEC teams in the playoffs could be VERY good for us. Especially if we can find a way to beat Texas A&M and Auburn falls apart.
No one ever said there was a hardline stance on winning conf championships. Uga would have the best non-conf win in the country (@ND) and only a bama W over uga in the sec cg would be a better W in or out of conference. Imo if uga loses the sec cg and it’s a close game, then they’ll be in.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeWonItAll(Most)
The pac 12 has no undefeated teams left, so they’ll need help to get in. I don’t think anyone expects tcu or Miami to run the table, so that means at least a 1 L team comes out of those conferences, so they’d need help. Imo uga goes over 1 L champs for all 3 of those conference without much question so long as they don’t get boat raced by bama.
The "you have to win the conference championship" criteria, even if it wasn't official, was there to stop 2 SEC teams from getting in. I think that if they didn't throw it out the window for OSU last year, they would invoke that excuse to justify leaving UGA out this year outside of if there just aren't 3 other one loss teams in the country. Assuming Notre Dame ends up with 2 or 3 lossesQuote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
In my scenario, UGA and Notre Dame would obviously be 2 of the top 4 teams in the country. But the bitching from the Big 10, Big 12, ACC and PAC 12 (minus which ever conference's team gets the 4th spot) would be incredible. Which is why I brought it up.
Sweet Baby Jesus... let this happen....Quote:
Originally Posted by WeWonItAll(Most)
Sec champ
Big 10 champ
Oklahoma/TCU winner
Clemson/Miami/winner of usc/ND this weekend
I think you are paranoid for no reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeWonItAll(Most)
Not that paranoid***Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
I thought it was a fun scenario to play with. Maybe not though.
They could do the first round a week after Army/Navy, the second round on Christmas, the third round on New Year's Day, and then the finals on January 8-10.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westdawg
It is simple actually. Don't do anything that takes significance away from the regular season. College Football has the most meaningful regular season in all of sports worldwide. One could argue it is the only sport that the regular season is meaningful at all. Eight team playoff with the first round disguised as bowl games might be okay. Sixteen just kills it. Then you have 8-4 teams competing for the championship. Honestly that's crap, especially because some might win it. What we really don't wanna see is any of the NFL crap where teams turtle up and lose the last two games of the season because they are "safely in." Four is fine. Go back 25 years and find where there were really more than four schools really being legitimately argued about. Occasionally there are five schools, sometimes only three. Four is the right number and was the right compromise between bowls and playoffs. You can argue about a school being left out until you're playing a full 130 team playoff. Someone will always be the last one out. When you get a playoff sometimes people lose focus on the goal. It becomes about including that last position instead of deciding a champion. With sixteen or more you're going to find the last few in and out haven't really had "championship" type seasons and have no business being there. Hell, you probably will even run into that with 8 sometimes.
If certain schools feel their season is over after two losses then that is a different issue and it's mental. Same thing goes for the 5th wheel in the CFP. If you can't play for school pride, state pride, or your teammates honor then there's a deeper issue.
My opinion is that a large playoff creates bad football not better football. Four is the right number.
By the way I do love the bowls but we need about 10-12 less of them. 6-6 mid majors don't need to be in bowls. And although we benefited, losing teams don't need to be in bowls either.
I agree. With all its critics, the BCS for the most part got it right. For years the sportswriters, etc. said that a loss in week eight shouldn't hurt you more than a loss in week one. The BCS formula took this into consideration, but when the results didn't turn out like the writers liked, it was a "terrible system".Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg
Anytime you have that many 1 L teams competing for 1 or 2 spots in the natty, there’s lots of arguments for different 1 L teams. Going to 4 teams largely eliminates the best of those arguments because the teams with the best arguments are in and those that may end up outside the playoff have clearly weaker arguments than most of the 1 L teams that have made it. A lot of years there’s not even a 1 L team on the outside looking in with a reasonable argument. I used to want 8, but seeing 4 in practice, I feel like 4 is the right number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianlander