Disagree. Look at what non P5 Navy did to P5 UVA yesterday. UVA wasn't remotely competitive. Yeah I know it's just one game but I'd take a lot of non P5 teams over many mid level P5 teams.
Conference Champs and Playoff
- Thread starter thochhausler
- Start date
Disagree. Look at what non P5 Navy did to P5 UVA yesterday. UVA wasn't remotely competitive. Yeah I know it's just one game but I'd take a lot of non P5 teams over many mid level P5 teams.
Not really arguing your point. But I'd take Navy over that awful UVA team any day of the week and twice on Sunday. They were terrible.
How about in week 9 after playing P5 teams 8 weeks in a row? Or how about after years of being in a conference where the other teams have seen your brand of football more than once in a couple years (see Ga Tech)?
Now that we have a playoff, the only thing that DOESN'T matter is the conference championship. Let's get rid of it (at least the extra game). We never had conference championships until a few years ago. It really accomplishes nothing, and if anything only hinders the playoff system.
Get rid of divisions, play a round robin schedule that includes more out of conference games. Limit it to one FSC game per year max. The committee picks/ranks the teams and the top 8 get in the playoff. Maybe you still argue over 8 vs 9 but who cares.
Otherwise, if you require a conference championship in order to qualify, you need to realign divisions, look at out of conference scheduling, etc.
Interesting arguments all around, but I'm noticing a few contradictions. Some are arguing that winning your conference automatically qualifies you to make the playoffs, unless you're playing in a minor conference, in which case - sorry, you're not worthy.
Which is odd. You could be Boise State or UCF and go 12-0 and win your conference and lose out on a chance in the playoffs against a team like USC who wins their conference but went 9-3 or 8-4 because the Pac12 was just particularly mediocre (or possible extremely well balanced.) Or maybe they actually went 7-1 in their conference but 0-3 in out of conference schedule...or started slow due to injuries.
The problem with all of these "rules" with 4 or 8 teams is that a team could get an automatic bid because they won one of the Power 5 conference title games, but be a REALLY mediocre team that really doesn't deserve to be there over a team that has a really strong season, went 12-0 and just played against sub-par teams.
If Wisconsin had won the Big 10 championship game and then squeaked by Ohio State and went 13-0, you could still argue that they weren't the best team in the conference, probably not even worthy of being Top 5 - but heck, they won their conference so they get in, no questions asked. What's that, UCF? You also went 12-0? Sorry...your schedule may have been really good and you played some tough out of conference teams and won - but you're not worthy of getting in.
4 teams will cause a problem because #5 has a legit shot at winning it all. Solution - expand to 8 teams, because we all know there is no possible way that a #9 team could upset a #1 seed and win it all, right? Oh, well if they were only ranked #9 they just didn't serve to get in. Right? So - sorry UCF that #10 ranking and 12-0 was very impressive! Just stay home this year and keep collecting those checks for playing teams from the Power 5 conferences.
Maybe a better rule - if we're going to exclude all teams that aren't in the Power 5 conferences, then we shouldn't count any wins against ANY team that isn't in the Power 5 conferences. Forget about not counting "wins" against Division II or Division 1-A, if you went 12-0 but you went 3-0 against teams outside of the Power 5...then your schedule should be 9-0 and that's it.
Which is odd. You could be Boise State or UCF and go 12-0 and win your conference and lose out on a chance in the playoffs against a team like USC who wins their conference but went 9-3 or 8-4 because the Pac12 was just particularly mediocre (or possible extremely well balanced.) Or maybe they actually went 7-1 in their conference but 0-3 in out of conference schedule...or started slow due to injuries.
The problem with all of these "rules" with 4 or 8 teams is that a team could get an automatic bid because they won one of the Power 5 conference title games, but be a REALLY mediocre team that really doesn't deserve to be there over a team that has a really strong season, went 12-0 and just played against sub-par teams.
If Wisconsin had won the Big 10 championship game and then squeaked by Ohio State and went 13-0, you could still argue that they weren't the best team in the conference, probably not even worthy of being Top 5 - but heck, they won their conference so they get in, no questions asked. What's that, UCF? You also went 12-0? Sorry...your schedule may have been really good and you played some tough out of conference teams and won - but you're not worthy of getting in.
4 teams will cause a problem because #5 has a legit shot at winning it all. Solution - expand to 8 teams, because we all know there is no possible way that a #9 team could upset a #1 seed and win it all, right? Oh, well if they were only ranked #9 they just didn't serve to get in. Right? So - sorry UCF that #10 ranking and 12-0 was very impressive! Just stay home this year and keep collecting those checks for playing teams from the Power 5 conferences.
Maybe a better rule - if we're going to exclude all teams that aren't in the Power 5 conferences, then we shouldn't count any wins against ANY team that isn't in the Power 5 conferences. Forget about not counting "wins" against Division II or Division 1-A, if you went 12-0 but you went 3-0 against teams outside of the Power 5...then your schedule should be 9-0 and that's it.
Yeah it seems pretty obvious:
5 P5 auto-bids for conference winners
2 at-large P5
1 at-large G5
This would be a really fun and dramatic system. Home-field advantage in first round based on rankings. The importance of the regular season would not be diminished at all with only 2 at-large entries available.
This maintains some of the ridiculous subjective aspects of CFB that make it the most entertaining sport. Nothing in any other sport can compare to the endless whining and what-ifs that fans gripe about decades later. (This sounds facetious, but I mean it sincerely.)
Also just get rid of all these other stupid bowl games.
That said I actually love the current system. Perfectly absurd. Very entertaining and dramatic. This stuff doesn't have to be fair people. It's unpaid amateurs!
5 P5 auto-bids for conference winners
2 at-large P5
1 at-large G5
This would be a really fun and dramatic system. Home-field advantage in first round based on rankings. The importance of the regular season would not be diminished at all with only 2 at-large entries available.
This maintains some of the ridiculous subjective aspects of CFB that make it the most entertaining sport. Nothing in any other sport can compare to the endless whining and what-ifs that fans gripe about decades later. (This sounds facetious, but I mean it sincerely.)
Also just get rid of all these other stupid bowl games.
That said I actually love the current system. Perfectly absurd. Very entertaining and dramatic. This stuff doesn't have to be fair people. It's unpaid amateurs!
Last edited:
If we do away with the bowls (not sure why anyone would be against that idea) then the playoffs should expand to 24. I know people complain that the regular season won't be as meaningful if there's 14 at large bids (with all 10 conf champions getting in) but if anything it would be better. Teams fighting for seeding and just getting into the playoffs. Penn State didn't play a meaningful game after they lost to Michigan State which is absurd for a clear cut top 10 team. That second loss ended their season. That should never happen. The days where perfection is required are dead. FBS needs to adapt to the times
Oh good lord....I said with the way it's set up now (with only four teams, do you follow or should I slow down?) teams should have to earn their way in by winning a conference championship. I also said that I would like to see more teams (that's the change I think should happen....again, checking to see if you're following).
With only four teams it makes even less sense to require a conference title as I keep telling you. And you've stated repeatedly you don't want a large playoff. Pretty sure you want 8 which doesn't solve anything.
8 solves a lot....I would much rather see the top 8 teams have a shot...beyond that then teams don't really deserve a shot. But with four teams it does make sense to require a championship because then teams know what they have to do to get in (unlike now where it's a beauty contest).
We disagree on 8 solving a lot...which is fine...different opinion on how many teams could actually win a title if given the chance. Less than 16 is a joke to me but I can at least agree to disagree on that one.
With only 4 teams there can't be a requirement of a conference title because 2 of the top 4 can absolutely come from the same conference and some years, like this one, Georgia and Bama didn't even play. Last year two Big Ten teams should have been included. This year two SEC should have been included.
Even with 4 conference champions it's still a beauty pageant. 6 conferences are still left out including a P5
no, there are not becaus they didn't win. OSU should be in this year, we should have been in last year.
Also, I would be encouraged to schedule better ooc opponents because ooc loses would mean less.
An non-conference win against an elite team would also mean less.
Winning a conference title doesn't make you better than someone that didn't win. We're not comparing apples here. Ohio State and Penn State tied for the division title last year...we need to stop acting like we were far superior. When you then add a loss to Pitt and compare that to a win against Oklahoma for them of course they were ahead of us. It's called logic.
Ohio State winning the Big Ten this year despite getting blown out by Iowa doesn't trump an 11-1 Bama that only lost to Auburn
Everyone that's in favor of a small playoff wants every game to matter--of course, unless it doesn't help their argument.
OOC would mean nothing. Schedule all cupcakes, just win your conference.
I Agree!!!!!!! Keep it at 4 and you only get in if you at least have proven to be the best in your conference.
You're so hung up on the G5 conferences. Why change the entire system for teams that won't win any way? Seems like you're making it more complicated than it needs to be for something that wouldn't happen which is a non P5 team winning it all.
Or schedule all tough games to get ready for your conference (like many basketball teams do).
Is the NCAA men's basketball final four the best 4 teams in the country every year? I don't care if 2 of the 4 best (perceived) teams are left out because they didn't wwin because they didn't wanna come their conference. They have been eliminated. Technically they can not be the best team in the country if they are not the best team in their conference. That's what champion means. That way, the cons championships are like the first round of the playoffs. If you only lost one game but didn't make the game, so be it. The Pats were 11-5 one year and didn't make it while the 7-9 Seahawks did. The Giants missed the playoffs one year at 10-6 and won the Super Bowl the next at 9-7. That's how sports work.
Or schedule good teams for bigger paydays. Team schedule cupcakes now because a loss is so detrimental...
8 would solve the conference champion dilemma. If you win your conference you advance like every other sport there is...
Because, like every other collegiate sport, all teams matter. You saying they won't win doesn't make it true. And it isn't about them winning it all--it's about them making a run which is why March Madness is so successful--the first weekend of March Madness is the part most people care the most about
How is it a bigger pay day? That doesn't even make sense. They'll schedule all home games to make money because fans are dumb enough to pay to see them play anyone
No it wouldn't...there's 10 conferences. I agree that all conference winner should earn auto bids but ONLY if all are included. It's a simple concept--like every other sport
This post is incorrect.
1. All conferences need not be included. This championship is called national, but it is the power 5 national championship.
The argument that all conferences must or should be included is as accurate as arguing the NFL should or must include semi-professional League champions.
If there was any forward thinking among the non power-5 conferences is they would put together their own championship playoff.
2. Since winning a conference championship would be a prerequisite there is no downside to playing and possibly losing to a strong nonconference team. As long as there are 5 conference champions looking to squeeze into 4 spots, there will always be incentive to play a stronger OOC schedule.
3. As far as ND goes, there could easily be a provision that allows a highly ranked Notre Dame to be considered instead of the ACC champion.
4. At no point can you objectively argue a 2nd place team from any conference is more deserving of another member's champion. The eye test is bullshyt. The eye test simply allows a bunch of clowns to argue that their opinion is more important than objective data.
Another consideration. Alabama wasn't even the second bedt SEC team this year. They were the 3rd best team, behind Auburn and conference champion Georgia.
Last season Ohio State at best was the second best team in the Big10, and possibly the 3rd best behind Wisconsin. When given the opportunity to prove otherwise Ohio State showed themselves to be what they were. A Big10 also ran.
The eye test allows people to interject their personal bias.
And in the end, March Madness is pretty much always crowning one of the traditional basketball powerhouses, and football would be worse. If the goal is to win a NC, then the NCAA basketball tournament is a huge waste of time. And whether I say they will win or not makes no difference just like in the basketball tournament, history takes care of that....guess what, I'm saying no 16 seed will win this year and a basketball powerhouse will win it all again...bet I'm right.
1. LOL-unless FBS is split into two level they must be included
2. Teams will rack up home games for money not schedule strong teams.
3. ND won't sign off on that
4. You absolutely can argue that a second place team is more deserving. Ohio State was absolutely the best team in the Big Ten last year and proved that throughout the schedule. Losing 1 game by three points doesn't alter that. That's why playoffs at every level include non-conference/division champions. Even MLB after 162 games
Penn State 11-2 with losses to Pitt & Michigan and wins over Ohio State and Wisconsin does not trump an 11-1 Ohio State with a 3 point road loss at Penn State and a win on the road against Oklahoma. We all know that. That's reality--not an eye test. That's dealing with facts.
Even is a traditional power does win at least deserving teams were given the opportunity to compete on the court unlike the joke we have now.
The bowl system is laughable. Beyond laughable. People can do whatever they want with their money but spending it on a bowl game is just....it is what it is
We could give St. Mary's Parochial Scool for Wayward Boys a chance too but that doesn't mean it's time or resources spent wisely. Why clutter up the post season with a bunch of extra meaningless games? That takes away from the games that mean something, hurts fan participation, and costs a butt ton of money. You have yet to convince anyone that I can see that all conferences absolutely have to be included.
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Levenson's Takeaways: Star power on display at Rivals Camp Series in Dallas- Latest: Marshall Levenson
-
-
-
