Why should a team that "peak at the end" win a championship? Is that a good thing? Doesn't it make more sense to reward teams that have had an overall better season as a champion as opposed to a team that has a couple of good games/weeks?
How exactly did the CFP get to 12?
- Thread starter RCS-PSU70
- Start date
Why should a team that "peak at the end" win a championship? Is that a good thing? Doesn't it make more sense to reward teams that have had an overall better season as a champion as opposed to a team that has a couple of good games/weeks?
Exactly. The best team. not the team who plays well in a relatively few games at the end of the season.
Then we disagree. FSU without Jordan isn't a top 15 team. They weren't top 10 with him. Talking about Miss State indicates you aren't aware of how they've improved. Saying they couldn't stop Iowa's defense is nonsense. You just don't want to be honest.
If they didn't win there conference and lost head to head they have already shown that they are NOT the best team. The season should matter for something.
I’m being honest. They are a decent team but thinking they should be in over Florida state is absurd even for you. Plus if Florida state wins this weekend that’s three win over ranked teams. And if read my post correctly I said Usc couldn’t stop iowas offense
You're discussing resume not who wins if they played tomorrow with FSU not having Jordan.
Louisville lost to Pitt and Kentucky. Are they a quality ranked win?
What determines who the best team is?
This just an odd take because the objective should be to be the beat at the end or the year. Not start strong and fade or stay stagnant.
We can go away from Arizona too.
Are Penn State Ole Miss Missouri and Oklahoma likely to beat FSU?
Are Ohio State Oregon Texas and Alabama likely to beat FSU?
I'd take 7 of the 8, not OU, against Florida State if they played this weekend.
Are Penn State Ole Miss Missouri and Oklahoma likely to beat FSU?
Are Ohio State Oregon Texas and Alabama likely to beat FSU?
I'd take 7 of the 8, not OU, against Florida State if they played this weekend.
The team that performs the best collectively over all the games in the season. There's zero reason why a game at the end of the end of the season should be "more important" than one at the beginning.
Um, that is the odd take. Why should being better at the end of the year be more important than at the beginning and middle? Why devalue some games in favor of others. All games played should be important.
Most sports leagues around the world have this right - crown your champion based on the total performance over the course of the regular season. Here is North America is where we are the oddballs. Playoffs exist just to make extra money, not to prove a particular team is the "best".
As has already been pointed out in this thread, the original setup of the World Series made sense, as it pitted the champions - the teams that won the regular season - of two completely separate leagues that didn't play each other. The same goes for the original Super Bowls between the AFL and NFL. Playoffs as they exist in USA leagues now are stupid and a money grab and have nothing to do with determine who is "best".
If all games played should be important dont we need to make that true for all teams not a handful?
There are 11 FBS conferences, soon to be 10. I'd like to see them merge into 8 but until then 10 conference winners feed the true playoff. I don't like giving buys but until we get to 8 that will have to happen.
I mean, in my perfect world. The top division of college football would be the SEC and Big Ten expanding to 20 (for sake of discussion SEC adds UNC FSU Clemson and Virginia Tech...Big Ten adds ND and Miami/Arizona/Utah) creating 3 divisions of 10. Top 3 in each division make the playoff (set no eye test) with playoff matchups avoiding division rematch until the semis.
I don't like the eye test or committee but unless all conferences are equal, which will never happen, you have to be creative. Otherwise ND could join the MAC.
I don't like the eye test or committee but unless all conferences are equal, which will never happen, you have to be creative. Otherwise ND could join the MAC.
While I understand your stance and agree about the pre-division MLB true champion part, you lose me when you make the “lucky loser” comment about a 2nd place (or theoretically a tied for first place team who loses a tiebreaker) team, but are completely willing to accept true “lucky”multi time losers who happen to play in mediocre to bad conferences.
If you truly want the regular season to matter, OOC games must matter, and including only conference champs completely ignores 25-33% of the results of teams’ games.
Okie State getting blown out by SOUTH Alabama in addition to their multiple in-conference losses should mean something.
This year might be a great example of the 4 team format working by avoiding what happened in ‘04 when there were more than 2 unbeatens. The younger posters would probably be shocked to find out the unbeaten SEC team that year got the PSU treatment in the polls.
Pre-determined equal reward regardless of performance is a horrible example of a quota.
Nobody gets in after ‘a couple good games/weeks”. A loss or two because of key injuries, a couple bad referine calls, or horrendous weather shouldn’t destroy a season. We have had such losses that cost us biggly. The heel/toe call and a couple added seconds cost is an Undefeated team in ‘05. Same with the bizarre Suckeye game with at least four major.y terrible calls/no calls.
You keep on about lucky losers. What about lucky winners? Like Suckeyes after at least four bizarre calls/no calls against us? Of the heel toe extra seconds Mich game of ‘05? This league has been rigged for the Big Two forever.
Some Lucky Winners have gotten in because of terrible weather. Others because of injuries to opponents’ key players.
Best teams don’t always win. And you could play two top teams against each other every week all year and end up with a 6-6 or 7-5 outcome. So who is best?
I’m not talking about college football specifically but the idea of playoffs in sports in general. The “champion” should be a team that performs best over the full (regular) season, not a team that has a hot streak in a comparable small number of games in a playoff.
If I ran sports, I’d abolish playoffs entirely. Unless they were between teams in different leagues who otherwise don’t play (and then would just be the champions of each league, a la the original World Series setup).
Again, it won’t be a hot streak in a small number of games. No one with more then two losses should get in. But losing one game early because of injuries, a couple bad calls, terrible weather shouldn’t wipe out a good season.
I agree that the Big is corrupt and always has been. I'd leave it to conferences to determine their champion so long as the rules are predefined and specific. If the NCAA actually was a worthwhile organization they could set the tie break rules for all conferences. I wont hold my breath. No committees. No eye tests and essentially no opinions. "Best" teams don't always win. It happens. Too bad. Sometimes life isn't fair. Get over it.
If every team in a conference is "great" and they all beat each other. It doesn't matter if the conference winner is 7-5. They won the conference as determined by the rules so they get in. The 6-6 guy didn't make it. Better luck next year. In the current system they don't make it.
Of course I recognize that what I'd like to see is a pipe dream and will never happen because they have to keep as many teams as possible in the "mix" for money reasons. I'll enjoy the end of season tournament but don't try to convince me it's more than the tournament champion.
Do you know how bad attendance figures would drop if that was how it was run? If we're talking pro sports
The entire reason the NHL, for example, doesn't do 3 wins for a regulation win and keeps the "loser point" for OT and SOs is so that the standings are tight
Going to college football--how many more Penn State fans are going to be watching ESPN to see the rankings at 7pm on Tuesday next year if we have two losses. How stressful and impactful to us would Texas-OK State and Iowa-Michigan and Louisville-FSU be next year knowing if there's an upset we're likely out of the playoffs instead of in as the 11 seed?
While I understand the sentiment this also hopefully creates better non-conference games. We talk about winning but then pretend wins against Delaware, UMass, etc are meaningful when they're not.
The ceiling of a 2 loss team is #9 right now regardless of who we could have beaten OOC. Texas can't even jump OSU nor Oregon with the Bama win. It's "that was week 2", "Bama has played better since then", "Oregon looks great since Washington", "OSU shouldn't be penalized for losing to Michigan", etc.
The entire system is based on the least amount of losses. Then it's eye test. Then if things are close, resume gets deciphered. You can throw out whatever criteria one wishes to rank anyone anywhere.
The point to my rambling is that there is really no need to schedule a tough OOC game outside. The reward for it seems minimal. We might have the weakest OOC of any of the 2 loss teams and here we are, 2nd among them. And arguably could be 1st now that KState lost again.
I think Bama jumps Texas if they beat Georgia--they just haven't done it yet because they haven't needed to since it's a 4 team playoff
I think we'll see the non-conference games become much more important moving forward which will hurt us--then of course people will dismiss as anti-Penn State bias. But it's a theory--time will tell
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting 2025 LB target scheduled for Penn State OV in June
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-