College Football Off Topic

[Tovarich]

Quote: Originally Posted by Caulfield

I dont think the Buckeyes were screwed but there should be a system in place for them to continue playing meaningful football.

The Rose Bowl is plenty meaningful.

[fugazi]

Quote: Originally Posted by saintrules

I also guarantee Nick Saban is jumping for JOY having to play Oklahoma and not Georgia or even Ohio State, I mean, he's probably ecstatic.

You might be right...

...but you never see him schedule Big12 teams...and he is not a fan of the way they play.

I don't think he's the type to get overly up or down about any opponent, but I bet he remembers the Cotton Bowl from a few years ago.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by saintrules

I think Georgia and Ohio State are better overall teams than Oklahoma, and if all three teams played each other in a best of five, Oklahoma would lose to both. Now, that doesn't mean I think Oklahoma is not deserving, they are. Eleven win Regular Season, Big 12 Champions, three wins over ranked opponents, and a Heisman hopeful...yeah, they definitely deserve it. However, back to my original point, put them in a Bo5 vs. Georgia and Ohio State and I bet you they lose. I also guarantee Nick Saban is jumping for JOY having to play Oklahoma and not Georgia or even Ohio State, I mean, he's probably ecstatic. The CFP Committee doesn't consistently understand whether it wants to be "Best Four" or "Most Deserving" and this year is a prime example of them blending the two.

See why this gets confusing????

Quote: Originally Posted by saintrules

The format of the College Football Playoff is simple: the four best teams It is not: the most deserving it is not: the conference champions it is not: undefeated teams it is not: only one team from each conference and it is definitely not: a popularity contest.

Post one: Rules are simple, it's the best four teams, period.

Post two: They're probably one of the best four teams but aren't deserving.

[saintrules]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

See why this gets confusing???? Post one: Rules are simple, it's the best four teams, period. Post two: They're probably one of the best four teams but aren't deserving.

I'm confused...

I'm not agreeing the committee got it right and my post about the rules is stating what the rules are, I don't believe the committee follows their own rules.

I'm trying not to make my reply's come off rude or harsh, just so that's also clear.

The CFP Committee sometimes puts in the best four teams, but also, they sometimes do not. They have stated their rules are to put the best four teams in, but this year, I feel like they put up three of the best and then Oklahoma who is the most deserving over Georgia and Ohio State, just so they didn't have to sit there and justify why Georgia gets to play Bama a third time or Ohio State, who was trounced by Purdue, gets to get in.

Oklahoma was the easy way out in my opinion, they don't have to justify it, and most people think it's still about who deserves, not who the best teams are, which again goes back to my original point that they flip flop on what they do.

[canes21]

Should it not be who deserves it? If we're just going by who we think is the best 4 and not who earned it then why even play games?

[TheShizNo1]

See: if we have the P5 CCs get a bid, the weak highest P5 get a bid, then 2 at large bids; there isn't any question on who should've gotten in.

And if a team isn't worthy, they'll get stomped like they should.

I don't get it. This makes all conference championship games matter. And it also makes scheduling matter because it'll be a factor if you're one of the two wild card teams. This brings so many good ideas together. Right now, with 4, there are no clear cut rules unless you're Bama and Clemson and you go undefeated. At least with this idea, 5/8 of the teams know what they need to do.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

[canes21]

Going to that method would have made UGA-Bama practically pointless. It was such an entertaining game because you knew it was an elimination game, practically a playoff game already. OSU-Michigan would have not mattered at all in the end when it was already near playoff game status as an elimination game for Michigan and a chance for OSU to potentially get back in the race.



I really don't understand why you'd want expansion when there is no real controversy right now outside of the laughable UCF situation.

[WaitTilNextYear]

I could get behind a 6-team playoff with byes for the top 2 teams. But, I'd rather stick at 4 teams instead of going to 8.

I'm not sure auto-conference champion bids are the way to go simply because what if 5-loss Northwestern upsets 1-loss Ohio State? That one fluke game would affect other teams (what if 2-loss OSU is now in the running for an "at large" bid?). And I doubt anyone would take the ccg result as having more weight than the 12-game regular season. At the very least, an auto-conference champion bid would require the abolition of divisions within conferences so it is always the clear 2 best teams in the ccg.

I am also very much in favor of keeping a lot of emphasis on regular season results. If more and more playoff creep sets in, then more and more questionable teams sneak in. Do we really want a 3-loss Washington team in there to either (a) get stomped by Bama or (b) cause a team like Bama to have to play an extra single-elimination game thus placing less emphasis on the historic regular season they had? I can't get there on this point.

For those just trying to come up with the "fairest system," you can probably stop trying because the playing field is not level to begin with. Certain schools have built-in advantages and disadvantages so even in an 8-team system, we'll be complaining about 8 vs 9 vs 10 and how so and so's conference is weaker etc. Never gonna have an ideal system, but I think the current one is pretty decent.