We win our next three games and we're national champions. Good deal, right? You could sign me up for that deal at the beginning of this year or any year. We are essentially in an 8 team playoff right now. It beats going undefeated and not having a chance like might have happened in 2009.
College Football playoff is a Joke
- Thread starter deanvogs
- Start date
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Who cares if a team can rest starters if they want? I doubt very much anyone would do that, as these ain't paid professionals that can turn it on and off at will.
Either way, I would take any issues that might arise with teams playing it out on the field. The schedules are just too different. It is garbage to have a committee split hairs over "eye test" and whom their bias thinks is the best, when they could just settle it on the field. We all have bias, so does the committee. Why not just let the top 8 settle it on the field, and we will find out if UNC is good enough (if they were to beat Clemson). Why should they get punished because their division is down? Why not let Stanford in if they win the Pac12, they only had 1 conference loss in 10 conference games played, and they played a tough non con opponent and lost early in the year?
I know we will never agree on this Spider....but it makes for a good debate waiting for Saturday's game!
Won't hear me complaining about too many college football games. As was the case last year, the Big 12 suffered the consequences of not having a championship game and were vaulted over by a conference that did. So I don't think we should be crying that a team gets in this year and I think most everyone would agree Oklahoma belongs in the top 4. Don't care that they lost to Texas. That was long enough ago and they have won good games since then. If everyone has to be undefeated then it should just be Clemson and Iowa suiting up for a title game. There will come a day when we are sitting trying to argue for a 1 or 2 loss Iowa team to get in. The Big 12 will add a couple teams within the next few years and have a title game. Too much money being passed on without doing that and money drives everything eventually.
It's all about the $$ and the good old boy network. Funny how most of life is the same thing no matter what or where you look.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
There will never be a time that a 1 loss Iowa (or similar team like lets say UNC) will ever jump a one loss Oklahoma, Ohio St., Texas, USC, etc. Look at it all year long, OSU should have never spent 1 single week ranked ahead of Iowa with the two teams resume. But all we heard was "eye test", Iowa hasn't played anyone (never mind that OSU played even weaker competition). If UNC beats Clemson, this will prove the point, as it will let OSU in, NOT UNC.
bcl20
Well-Known Member
If North Carolina didn't lose to terrible South Carolina or play two FCS teams they'd probably be in. Ohio State gets a bump because they won last year, which is stupid but that's an issue that there's always been with rankings. Teams getting rewarded for playing less games than others is also annoying especially when there is punishment for making your conference title game in a way (on a national landscape, we still have a trophy and Ohio State doesn't), so yes, the playoff system has flaws.
But FBS football is an 128 team league. Every system is flawed. I'm not sure a system that gives auto births an automatic playoff birth is the correct answer. College football is the one american sport that actually tries to have the best team be champion (we can argue over it does it successfully) so giving an 8-4, 9-3 conference champion a championship shot seems iffy.
That said, I'm up for an expanded playoff because it'd be fun as hell.
But FBS football is an 128 team league. Every system is flawed. I'm not sure a system that gives auto births an automatic playoff birth is the correct answer. College football is the one american sport that actually tries to have the best team be champion (we can argue over it does it successfully) so giving an 8-4, 9-3 conference champion a championship shot seems iffy.
That said, I'm up for an expanded playoff because it'd be fun as hell.
bcl20
Well-Known Member
Except it sucked
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Here is the the thing though, non blue bloods will be punished for playing 1 less game, but not Blue Blood (see TCU last year and Oklahoma this year).
Plus how is letting some 1 loss teams in and not others letting the best team be champion? It was a razor thin call letting OSU in last year over a TCU/Baylor.
If this were baseball where you play your opponents so many times I could understand what you are saying. Yet we are talking football, and the SOS are so different, but does that mean a team isn't as good? I mean take Oklahoma for instance, they lost to a HORRIBLE Texas team, but beat a few other good teams. Does this AUTOMATICALLY make them better than North Carolina or a 1 loss Iowa for instance, or a 1 loss MSU and OSU?
I get that some teams will be left out, there is always the outrage over the cut off point. Yet you are keeping out P5 Conference champs. If you are going to do that, go back to the pre BCS days, and just select a "national champ". Otherwise let the top teams across the country play it out on the field. That means that all Conference Champs get in, I mean you did say that the point is to get the best team as Champion, and isn't the best determining factor playing 9 games vs fellow P5 competitions that is in your conference?
Seth53
Well-Known Member
In an eight team playoff, a conf champ, way more often than not, is going to be very very good and worthy of showing their mettle on the field.
In an 8 team playoff, I say reward the conference champs for a season of good works with an invite to the dance. And reward a runner-up who maybe only lost one game with an at-large. Seems fair and logical.
But, again, seed them. First round at the higher seeds' home turf.
In an 8 team playoff, I say reward the conference champs for a season of good works with an invite to the dance. And reward a runner-up who maybe only lost one game with an at-large. Seems fair and logical.
But, again, seed them. First round at the higher seeds' home turf.
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
As much as it goes against my anti-Big 12, I think it's more than fair. If they were divided into divisions, they could actually avoid one of the teams in their conference. It wouldn't be that much different than if Iowa would have played MSU in the regular season (instead of, say, Purdue, etc.) to decide the conference champion and not played the CCG.
The only differences are the 13th game and the fact that Iowa and MSU eliminated certain teams so the other didn't have to play them. Would we be in the same position if we would have played Mich and OSU? I, for one, am more than happy to let MSU do our dirty work and get them out of our way.
BILLBUCKNER
Well-Known Member
Goto a 6 team playoff. Top 2 seeds get a bye. This way all P5 champs get in. Then you have an at large team Notre Dame and everyone is happy
It is what is for now. There are contracts. They will expire and the playoff will expand because of the $$$. All about the $$$. We will get there. Turn on a re-run of Gilligans Island. Let your worries go away.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I probably should. It is just such a rigged system right now that it bothers the sh!t out of me (nothing to do with Iowa). As a matter of fact, a system like this over time will have the NFL effect on me. Over the last 20 years, I have gotten more and more sick of the NFL media, NFL show, NFL brand, and especially the hypocrisy of Godell that I rarely watch a game......I hope that this BS system doesn't have the same affect on me with the college football playoffs.
MileHighHawkeye
Well-Known Member
It is exciting to see where we are ranked each week. Just win baby and take the drama out of where the Hawks play.
HawkeyeMike23
Banned
The NCAA needs to go to just the top 32 teams, two conferences, four team divisions by geography. Six teams from each conference make the playoffs, four division winners, two wild cards, top two seeds in each conference get a first round bye and home field, the final bowl game is played at a neutral site. Done.
eyekwah
Well-Known Member
Got to agree with Dean.... I wasn't for the playoff and I'm against any expansion. For Iowa and MSU it is a minimum 13 game season, possibly stretching to 15. This is supposedly "COLLEGE" football played by "STUDENT-athletes". If some colleges or junior colleges want to form a minor league football system to train young men to be professional players please do. Let's not pretend that some programs are little more than an arm of the NFL and the sports media.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
This year it's working out for OK and the Big 12. Last year it didn't. There is a risk both ways. I think every P5 conference should have a championship game. The playoff should include 8 teams which would include a champion from all P5 conferences then have the last 3 be included using a very defined matrix measuring SOS and results. This would give the independents a fair chance to float to the top of the last three in. It is quite simple to do and would be fair to ALL and still keep every game important in the regular season.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
In addition, the team might be coming from a really good conference that specific year where they all beat up on each other.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Here's the problem with Oklahoma: a week or two after losing to a horrific Texas team, they were almost IMMEDIATELY back in the mix. Why? For scoring lots of points, of course!
And let's look at their more recent wins. Baylor? Check. Injuries to key Baylor players? Check. TCU? Check. Injuries to key TCU players? Check. Oklahoma State? Check. Paper Tiger that feasted on a weak-ish schedule? Double-freaking check. Just looking at the also-rans of that conference pretty much says that Oklahoma was the one-eyed in the kingdom of the blind.
Oklahoma was pretty much never OUT of the picture. They were getting props a week later for "dominating" opponents. In other words, lose early, fine. Just make sure to score a SH&T-load of points thereafter.
