Bob Bowlsby just made me puke!

[mopkins]

Its like when VCU made the Final Four back in 2011. Was VCU one of the 4 best basketball teams in the country? Not even close, they were an 11 seed. However, they won all of the games in front of them and got to the final four with a shot at winning a national title. Every D1 team in basketball has a legit shot at winning a title.

Not sure why football has to make it so much more complicated.

 

[hawkeyes87]

They could play tougher non-conference games (UCF played Austin Peay, seriously)

Exactly. Simple answer. You want a chance at the big prize? Prove you belong.

It's actually just bad timing for UCF this year. For like 5 or 6 years in a row, they've played at least 1 pretty good or better team non-con (OSU, PSU, Mich, Stanford). This year they didn't, and that cost them. Maryland, and even Ga Tech had they played, doesn't get it done.

I like the playoff system where it is. It nicely balances giving several deserving teams a chance at the title, while still encouraging tough non-con games. The more you open the playoff up, the less incentive there is to schedule anybody w/ a pulse.

 

[BryceC]

There are lots of college basketball teams that win their conference every year, and if they don't win their conference tournament they don't get in the NCAA's. This is life as a mid-major.

 

[kicker22]

Exactly. Simple answer. You want a chance at the big prize? Prove you belong.

It's actually just bad timing for UCF this year. For like 5 or 6 years in a row, they've played at least 1 pretty good or better team non-con (OSU, PSU, Mich, Stanford). This year they didn't, and that cost them. Maryland, and even Ga Tech had they played, doesn't get it done.

I like the playoff system where it is. It nicely balances giving several deserving teams a chance at the title, while still encouraging tough non-con games. The more you open the playoff up, the less incentive there is to schedule anybody w/ a pulse.

Careful with that. I know of a few programs that scheduled Mercer in November leading up to a showdown with Auburn that they lost and managed to play one less conference game than most Power 5 programs. But because they play in such an amazing conference they get the benefit of being in that conference despite the fact there schedule left out the best team in the other division. Who they very easily could have seen in the conference championship had they won their own division.

That tough "non-con" opponent also happened to be one of the last few games that persuaded the committee to move Bama into the 4th playoff spot so I'd say it definitely proved they belonged. Winning conference games for the power 5 programs has always been enough, the problem is that the system puts the bottom feeders in those conferences on pedestals like beating them is some astonishing feat and far outweights beating a decent non-power 5 foe.

 

[hawkeyes87]

and managed to play one less conference game than most Power 5 programs.

What are you talking about? Bama played the same number of conference games as any other SEC team. They also don't get enough credit for the FSU win. That was a really good team until their qb got hurt.

Winning conference games for the power 5 programs has always been enough,

Wrong again. The last few B1G champs are proof that winning conference games wasn't enough. As I said, that's what's good about the current setup- not all conference winners get in, so non-con matters

 

[kicker22]

What are you talking about? Bama played the same number of conference games as any other SEC team. They also don't get enough credit for the FSU win. That was a really good team until their qb got hurt.



Wrong again. The last few B1G champs are proof that winning conference games wasn't enough. As I said, that's what's good about the current setup- not all conference winners get in, so non-con matters

So lets talk about that SEC schedule where they play 8 games (like the ACC) and the other power 5 conferences play 9. Schedules are done years in advance so unfortunately when they scheduled Mercer into that November slot they had no idea that Mercer would not have turned into the juggernaut that they thought they would years ago. So rather than playing an opponent with a pulse to make up for not playing a third cross over conference game they schedule soft.

So in the end their 8 game conference schedule included their divisional games which included Arkansas (4-8), ATM (7-6), and Ole Miss (6-6) and then cross over games with Vandy (5-7) and Tennessee (4-8) and the respectable Miss. St. (9-4), LSU (9-4), and Auburn (10-4). Then you have the 4 OOC games highlighted by FSU (who had a rough year without starting QB), Fresno St. and Colorado St. and they mighty Mercer.

If you want to play the argument that they played the schedule they were given so be it, but I see no high profile wins generated in conference play. I also see it being fair to say that while most the other conferences are playing conference games late in the season they through in a game against Mercer (again noting that they avoided playing the top 5 teams in the SEC east. I think its impossible to give FSU the benefit of the doubt when they lost their QB early in the year and every team in America has to deal with injuries. Which then makes me present the argument how the committee could put enough emphasis on wins against Fresno St. and Colorado St. (neither Power 5 schools) being enough to move them from the outside looking in to a spot in the playoffs while watching their conference championship from the comforts of their couch.

So does non-conference really matter? I think the only thing the committee has confirmed is that there is absolutely no consistency in what their criteria and that it continues to be nothing more than a popularity contest. Again I'm not saying that Bama isn't one of the 4 best teams in America and I think they win, but with that said I stand by the fact that I don't think they belong. So I totally agree with you that not all conference winners get in, but I look down upon a system in which a program who failed to win their conference (or division for that matter) and dodges a conference opponent like Georgia with an average out of conference schedule gets in over an undefeated program whether Power 5 or not. Winning has to matter.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Exactly. Simple answer. You want a chance at the big prize? Prove you belong.

It's actually just bad timing for UCF this year. For like 5 or 6 years in a row, they've played at least 1 pretty good or better team non-con (OSU, PSU, Mich, Stanford). This year they didn't, and that cost them. Maryland, and even Ga Tech had they played, doesn't get it done.

I like the playoff system where it is. It nicely balances giving several deserving teams a chance at the title, while still encouraging tough non-con games. The more you open the playoff up, the less incentive there is to schedule anybody w/ a pulse.

Taken out of context, though. The WHOLE post points out that they "lost" two games (Maine, GaTech) due to hurricane stuff. Austin Peay was pretty much all they could get.

There needs to be an 8-team playoff for two reasons:
1) Get the conference champs in
2) Allow for first round games at "host" sites of top 4 teams, REGARDLESS of location. So if 8-seed UCF or Bama or whoever thinks it isn't "fair" or they have to "lobby" to get in, so be it. But an undefeated team from a northern climate shouldn't have to play a U$C in the Rose Bowl or an $EC team in the Sugar Bowl "just because". Alternatively, IF they are going to use "traditional" NY/NY6 bowls, allow NO team to play in its home state, much less home stadium. Miami/FL has played more bowl games in the Orange Bowl than I care to remember. $EC teams always seem to play in the Sugar Bowl regardless of who is playing elsewhere, i.e., they never get "displaced" as other teams do.

 

[kicker22]

There are lots of college basketball teams that win their conference every year, and if they don't win their conference tournament they don't get in the NCAA's. This is life as a mid-major.

But in the UCF scenario the difference is no one beat them in their conference tournament because the loss column is unblemished.

 

[hawkeyes87]

If you want to play the argument that they played the schedule they were given so be it, but I see no high profile wins generated in conference play.

So basically you're saying that Bama should have done more to toughen their schedule, but UCF should get into the playoff despite the weakness of theirs. Great argument!

There was only 1 good team in the SEC East this year, and SEC teams only have 2 crossovers. So yeah odds were good Bama's crossovers would be light. "Dodge" Georgia?? I'd say UGA dodged Bama, if anything.

And I don't know why you're so hung up on the Mercer game, or when it was played. News flash- most (maybe all?) SEC teams play late season non-cons. And the UGA team you seem to be so high on played both App St and Samford this year. Clemson played The Citadel on the same day as Bama / Mercer. Both pale in comparison to UCF's in-conference clash with perennial power Temple that day, of course.

 

[kicker22]

My

So basically you're saying that Bama should have done more to toughen their schedule, but UCF should get into the playoff despite the weakness of theirs. Great argument!

There was only 1 good team in the SEC East this year, and SEC teams only have 2 crossovers. So yeah odds were good Bama's crossovers would be light. "Dodge" Georgia?? I'd say UGA dodged Bama, if anything.

And I don't know why you're so hung up on the Mercer game, or when it was played. News flash- most (maybe all?) SEC teams play late season non-cons. And the UGA team you seem to be so high on played both App St and Samford this year. Clemson played The Citadel on the same day as Bama / Mercer. Both pale in comparison to UCF's in-conference clash with perennial power Temple that day, of course.

I'm saying that if an undefeated team is essentially being punished for not scheduling a tougher out of conference season then I'm not convinced how Bama's murders row of a schedule was strong enough to give them the benefit of the doubt.

What I'm saying is UCF won a conference Championship and went undefeated. Georgia, who in all honesty I'm not that big on, won their division and won their conference championship. OSU, who I don't like either, played a much tougher schedule, lost an OOC game to a playoff team, won their conference championship and their division, but had 2 losses. But if UCF and OSU don't belong then what did Bama do the day of conference championships, while sitting on their couch, that suddenly made them worthy of getting that last playoff spot?

So maybe UGA dodged Bama or maybe Bama would have lost to UGA in the same fashion that Auburn did for the SEC Championship, but the reason that scenario doesn't exist is that it didn't happen because they didn't play in the regular season and Bama couldn't win their division to play them in the Championship game.

If my argument is such a "great argument" than let me ask you this. Please be kind enough to name one thing that Bama did on the field to move from the outside looking in to locking up the final spot that final week. Furthermore, I completely agree with you about Georgia so if winning a conference championship shouldn't mean anything, conference scheduling and who plays/doesn't play each other during the regular season doesn't meant anything than why did the committee take a second SEC team when they could simply have just taken Bama over UGA anyway and invited 3 other teams to play.

What I'm saying is its a 4 team tournament with absolutely no criteria to get in decided by a committee that meets behind closed doors. It's nothing more than a popularity contest and a money draw. The committees arguments simply don't make sense and there is no consistency from year to year.

OSU plays 9 conference games and schedules OU noncon, but because they lost the OU game while playing an arguably tougher schedule they get punished despite winning their conference.

UCF doesn't play a tough enough schedule but wins conference championship and go undefeated punished.

Bama loses division, doesn't play in conference championship and dodges toughest opponent in conference...rewarded.

Please do explain how this remotely makes any sense...

 

[hawkeyes87]

OSU plays 9 conference games and schedules OU noncon, but because they lost the OU game while playing an arguably tougher schedule they get punished despite winning their conference.

Good one. We all know OSU was eliminated because if you give up 55 points to this Iowa offense you are dq'd, even if you beat 11 top-25 teams by 50 points each in your other games!

As for the rest, you argue like my wife. Keep repeating yourself, with longer and longer rants, until I get bored / tired of debating.

My final word on this is simply this: I prefer the playoff be made up of only those teams most worthy of consideration as champions. This year there was clearly a "resume" dropoff after the 1st 3 teams. But, short of a round-robin, you can't do a playoff w/ 3. Bama, to me, was the most deserving of the required 4th spot. Debatable, sure. But I don't want to fix the debate by adding more teams whose resume is not as strong as those 1st 3.

 

[kicker22]

Good one. We all know OSU was eliminated because if you give up 55 points to this Iowa offense you are dq'd, even if you beat 11 top-25 teams by 50 points each in your other games!

As for the rest, you argue like my wife. Keep repeating yourself, with longer and longer rants, until I get bored / tired of debating.

My final word on this is simply this: I prefer the playoff be made up of only those teams most worthy of consideration as champions. This year there was clearly a "resume" dropoff after the 1st 3 teams. But, short of a round-robin, you can't do a playoff w/ 3. Bama, to me, was the most deserving of the required 4th spot. Debatable, sure. But I don't want to fix the debate by adding more teams whose resume is not as strong as those 1st 3.

So to summarize... Me and your wife have a lot in common and we can agree that the system needs to be fixed. Sounds good to me.