2016 College Football Thread

[Maxx]

Why?  It needs to expand to at least 6, because it's current format continues to screw over teams, since they can't seem to stick to any one set of qualifications for getting in.

If they are going to keep it at 4, they need to finally decide what matters more; strength of schedule or winning your conference title.  Because it's going to be ridiculous if we get two Big 10 teams in the playoffs, when one of them didn't even qualify for the conference title game and has a loss to the team that won it.  You can't just screw over a team like Washington for that.  They did everything they needed to do, besides go undefeated, and now they may get bumped because another team did the same thing, and still another did less.  I know Ohio State has a great strength of schedule this year, but if they are going to weigh that so heavily, why even bother with conference title games?

8 teams gives you all your Power 5 conference champions, and then you can take your three highest ranked teams beyond that.  It's sensible.  At the very least it needs to go 6.

[Meacon Keaton]

Because that Michigan/Ohio State game is nowhere near as big and important if eight teams get in. College football is about those big games. This isn't the NFL. If you want a dozen teams to get a shot at the national championship then you're minimizing the impact of the regular season. You keep it four teams. You force teams to stop playing cupcakes. You start letting in eight teams then you're gonna have three loss teams in the playoff hunt and that's not how college football is suppose to be. It's why college is better than the pros, because every loss has a significant impact on your title hopes. You can go 9-7 in the NFL and still be a Super Bowl champion. To me, that's kind of lame. 

Even if you let in 32 teams, the 33rd and 34th place teams are gonna feel jipped. You are never going to please everyone regardless of how many teams you let in the playoffs.

Penn State won their conference, but lost to Michigan 41-10. Had they been competitive they'd have an argument, but a Top-4 team wouldn't have gotten beaten so bad.

[Maxx]

Then at least 6!  You get all your conference champions in, and the one team that has the best record based on strength of schedule.  Seems like its about as fair a compromise as they will get.

[Meacon Keaton]

But then you could run into instances of a 12-0 team losing to a 9-3 or 8-4 team in the conference championship. Say in this example, the 12-0 team even beat the 9-3 in the regular season. Should that 9-3 team make the playoffs over the now 12-1 team, just because they managed to win the rematch? 

I will agree six is better than eight, but I'm absolutely 100% ok with the way it is now.

[The Buscher]

Yes, Michigan/Ohio State would have had some shine taken off of it this particular year under an eight-team format because both teams looked safe no matter what.  But the season isn't always going to play out the same way.  Many years there won't be room for both teams in the playoffs, let alone three or four Big Ten teams as there would've been this year.  Those games are still going to feel important when only one spot is guaranteed per conference, not to mention those teams hate each other anyway so there will always be an element of pride to win them.

But I understand it's a matter of preference.  The playoffs are my favorite time of the year for most sports.  It's never bothered me that a team could get in with a record a shade over .500 and potentially get hot and win a Super Bowl, World Series, or Stanley Cup against a team that was more dominant in the regular season.  Any team in the tournament can win it all so the regular season battles to secure those final spots is still important.  If Alabama are as good as advertised, they should be able to beat down #8 Western Michigan at home in the first round just as the Patriots very often destroy whoever they play in the first round.

It's all going to come down to money anyway.  Do the schools and networks see money in adding a round to the playoffs?  If so, expansion will happen someday.

[MalaCloudy Black]

Let's not bury the lede.


Arkansas State won last night, meaning they're like, co-champions with Appalachia State.

[Lint]

https://www.twitter.com/CFBPlayoff/status/805464994821312514

 

 

[Meacon Keaton]

53 minutes ago, #BROKEN Busch said:

It's never bothered me that a team could get in with a record a shade over .500 and potentially get hot and win a Super Bowl, World Series, or Stanley Cup against a team that was more dominant in the regular season.  

And that's definitely where preference comes in, because I think it's fucking stupid that the NHL and NBA play eighty-two regular season games only for half the league to make the playoffs anyway. There's no logic to that at all and I'll never agree with it. Cut the regular season games in half or cut the amount of teams making the post season in half. There no reason any league should have sixteen of its thirty teams making the playoffs when they've had eighty-two games over the course of six months to prove whether they deserve a chance to be a champion.

The NFL is trickier, because the parity is stronger in that league than any other sport and you only have sixteen games to prove it. My example of a 9-7 Super Bowl championship team was less that they didn't deserve a chance at the post-season than I was stressing that those losses aren't anywhere near as devastating as a loss in college is.

With a four team college playoff, every single game matters. You start letting in more and two or three losses simply becomes just a part of the sport and that hurts college football more than helps.

[The Buscher]

I can't defend the NBA's playoff system, I purposely left them out of my initial post because they go overboard.  There are only 3 or 4 realistic title contenders going in to any given season and it's very rare for a mystery team to defy expectations and make a championship run.  The first round of the NBA playoffs is a formality, upsets rarely happen and it's just unnecessary.

But in the NHL, while they have the same amount of playoff teams as the NBA there normally isn't a massive disparity in talent between the #1 and #8 teams in a conference.  Sweeps rarely happen and even in a 4-0 or 4-1 series the games themselves tend to be close as opposed to the NBA.

[Alex.]

WVU gets Russell Athletic Bowl against Miami. Well 2 of my faves going at it.

[gunnar hendershow]

I think the biggest problem with the playoff format is that they make it a point to say "these 5 conferences are more important than the rest" but only 4 playoff spots to go around? That's bad math, when all 5 should ideally get their conference champion in. It's even worse math when there's an at-large team getting in over 2 conference champs. The regular season is extremely important, but if you take all the games from this season and have them battling for a 6-team playoff instead of a 4-team playoff you basically keep the same impact from all of them with only 1 at-large bid to go around. Plus, a 6-team playoff still gives some preference to an undefeated team or 1-loss team in that they likely get to skip round 1 and get more rest.

And maybe put in a rule against 3-loss teams? I don't know, but you're gonna have 6 teams that finish with 2 losses or less in just about every year.

[Meacon Keaton]

But you're assuming a six-team playoff means the five conference champs and one at-large. As I said in a previous post, what would you do if a 9-3 Florida beats a 12-0 Alabama in the SEC championship, when Alabama is quite clearly one of the best teams in the country. You could give them that #6 spot, but say Wisconsin was 12-0 before they lost to Penn State, and they're in the same situation. Should a two or three loss team that happened to get in a conference championship game because their division was weaker than the other side get in over a team that only had one loss all season? That's more flawed than the current system, if you ask me.

The way I see it is the four best choices made the playoffs this year. If Penn State was truly a Top-4 team, they never would have gotten destroyed the way they did to Michigan. Michigan had a chance straight up to prove they belonged in the playoffs over the Buckeyes, and they didn't pull it off. Ohio State lost one game, on the road, by a field goal. Not 31 points. Michigan had one more loss than Ohio State, and one of those losses was against OSU. 

Washington's out of conference isn't that great, but if you can sit here and tell me that a USC or Oregon or Stanford that goes 12-1 with the Pac-12 championship doesn't get into the playoffs then I'll say you're wrong. It's a playoff and we have one 13-0 team, two 12-1 teams, and an 11-1 team. This is how it should be.

[GhostMachine]

Well, I won't be watching the playoffs this year. No way Penn State belongs, and the only two teams I don't hate are Clemson and Washington. 

The only thing that would have made it worse would be if one of those two teams was replaced by Notre Dame.

Tennessee will be playing Nebraska in the Music City Bowl. Meh.

 

[james_ewing88]

I stated at the start of the season that if Alabama and Ohio State made it, I wasn't watching any of the playoff. Thanks, CFP, for helping me clear those days off my schedule. The main thing i'm pissed about (other than Penn State not making it over Ohio State) is that it's SO FUCKING OBVIOUS that the NCAA wants Alabama/Ohio State in the championship game. Ohio State should've been the 4 seed and played Alabama in the Semi-Final...at least I can continue watching the NFL with my Cowboys winning. I got that going for me.

[HailtotheYo]

On 12/4/2016 at 11:47, Meacon said:

Because that Michigan/Ohio State game is nowhere near as big and important if eight teams get in. College football is about those big games. This isn't the NFL. If you want a dozen teams to get a shot at the national championship then you're minimizing the impact of the regular season. You keep it four teams. You force teams to stop playing cupcakes. You start letting in eight teams then you're gonna have three loss teams in the playoff hunt and that's not how college football is suppose to be. It's why college is better than the pros, because every loss has a significant impact on your title hopes. You can go 9-7 in the NFL and still be a Super Bowl champion. To me, that's kind of lame. 

Even if you let in 32 teams, the 33rd and 34th place teams are gonna feel jipped. You are never going to please everyone regardless of how many teams you let in the playoffs.

Penn State won their conference, but lost to Michigan 41-10. Had they been competitive they'd have an argument, but a Top-4 team wouldn't have gotten beaten so bad.

1- Sure it is.  Conference titles matter ... and playoff seeding matters.  No, it isn't the NFL but the number of playoff teams doesn't make Dallas/Washington, Chicago/Green Bay, Baltimore/Pitt any less important, and in fact only ADDS to the significance of those match ups from time to time.  Division 1 college football is the ONLY PLACE where the "minimizing the impact of the regular season" argument lives and the only time people think it.  It's ridiculous, flat out absurd actually.  Ask the D3, D2, or FCS schools how "meaningless" the regular season is because they have playoff fields larger than 4 (and 8 even).  You have way too many schools in D1 NOT to have a larger playing field because any given year one of the power 5 conferences can shit the bed (Big 12 this year) but whatever team sits atop it gets the virtue of being a power 5 champion though and somewhere a Boise St, Houston, etc etc is being shit on.  College Football is about each season individually and it is IMPOSSIBLE to fairly evaluate it with this many schools.  The fairest measure is to give the teams a chance.  An 8 team playoff does that.  You so called "power 5" conferences all get their champions in and you've got 3 places to fill with your Boise State of the year and that one loss Ohio State that didn't win the power 5 conference.  I mean, you want to talk about minimizing things ... that Big 10 trophy Penn State lifted sure is dull as all shit right about now eh?  

There are 9 teams with 2 or less losses this year (hell there were 4 one loss teams last year and another 5 with two ..... or what about two years ago with an undefeated and SIX one loss teams?).  Even at 8 you're only scratching the surface of questionable in terms of "deserving" in a worst case scenario ... and no, you aren't forcing teams to stop the cupcakes, see: Washington, the SEC.  The playoffs have actually INCREASED the scheduling.  An 8 team playoff opens the door for this year's  

It isn't about the last teams in with an 8 team playoff, it's ensuring you catch ALL of the teams that SHOULD be there.  8 does that.  8 gets Western Michigan in this year and puts to rest the eternal "Boise St" bit (and I'm sorry but those school rightfully deserve a shot regardless of what conference they're in as they're ALL division 1 teams) while allowing for every team with a legit argument to be in.

They beat Ohio State AND won the conference.  

On 12/4/2016 at 12:46, Meacon said:

But then you could run into instances of a 12-0 team losing to a 9-3 or 8-4 team in the conference championship. Say in this example, the 12-0 team even beat the 9-3 in the regular season. Should that 9-3 team make the playoffs over the now 12-1 team, just because they managed to win the rematch? 

I will agree six is better than eight, but I'm absolutely 100% ok with the way it is now.

 BCS had that kind of issue as did the Bowl set up originally ... hell, UF beat FSU in one of the best games ever in the regular season but then had to turn around and play them in the Sugar Bowl (which was the defacto NT game in 97).  In 2011 Alabama lost to LSU 9-6 but got put into the national title game by the BCS computers and won the national title over LSU ....

21 hours ago, Meacon said:

But you're assuming a six-team playoff means the five conference champs and one at-large. As I said in a previous post, what would you do if a 9-3 Florida beats a 12-0 Alabama in the SEC championship, when Alabama is quite clearly one of the best teams in the country. You could give them that #6 spot, but say Wisconsin was 12-0 before they lost to Penn State, and they're in the same situation. Should a two or three loss team that happened to get in a conference championship game because their division was weaker than the other side get in over a team that only had one loss all season? That's more flawed than the current system, if you ask me.

The way I see it is the four best choices made the playoffs this year. If Penn State was truly a Top-4 team, they never would have gotten destroyed the way they did to Michigan. Michigan had a chance straight up to prove they belonged in the playoffs over the Buckeyes, and they didn't pull it off. Ohio State lost one game, on the road, by a field goal. Not 31 points. Michigan had one more loss than Ohio State, and one of those losses was against OSU. 

Washington's out of conference isn't that great, but if you can sit here and tell me that a USC or Oregon or Stanford that goes 12-1 with the Pac-12 championship doesn't get into the playoffs then I'll say you're wrong. It's a playoff and we have one 13-0 team, two 12-1 teams, and an 11-1 team. This is how it should be.

And that is exactly why you need 8 ... you're making the argument against your opinion.

What's the point of conferences?  Divisions?  

Putting the Power 5 conf champions into the playoff eliminates the year to year debate and bias that exists about the conferences.  You've still got three slots for your examples AND your Boise St or W Michigan or whomever else that has a fantastic season.  

Also, let's not get carried away with attacking Penn State's loss to Michigan.  Nebraska got to the title game after being steamrolled 62-26, Oklahoma played for a national title after losing 35-7 ..... it happens.  With 8 teams though, that's accounted for.

 

[Meacon Keaton]

1 hour ago, HailtotheSickle said:

1- Sure it is.  Conference titles matter ...

Tell that to Oklahoma and Penn State

 No, it isn't the NFL but the number of playoff teams doesn't make Dallas/Washington, Chicago/Green Bay, Baltimore/Pitt any less important, and in fact only ADDS to the significance of those match ups from time to time.  

I strongly disagree. Because Dallas plays Washington twice. Chicago plays Green Bay twice. Baltimore plays Pittsburgh twice. You lose the first game, you still get another shot. Michigan doesn't get to host Ohio State to try to get that loss back. It's done. It's over.

Division 1 college football is the ONLY PLACE where the "minimizing the impact of the regular season" argument lives and the only time people think it.  It's ridiculous, flat out absurd actually.  Ask the D3, D2, or FCS schools how "meaningless" the regular season is because they have playoff fields larger than 4 (and 8 even).  

I never said FCS, D2, or D3 regular seasons are meaningless. But if Villanova or Sam Houston State loses two or three games, they know that they can get hot and still win the national championship. And rightfully so, because a lot of FCS schools play FBS teams and it'd be unfair to count those loses against them. 

You have way too many schools in D1 NOT to have a larger playing field because any given year one of the power 5 conferences can shit the bed (Big 12 this year) but whatever team sits atop it gets the virtue of being a power 5 champion though and somewhere a Boise St, Houston, etc etc is being shit on.

I can't really argue much against the Boise's, Houston's, Western Michigan's. Hell, had Houston gone undefeated this year, I'd be 100% on board with them going to the playoffs, because they would've had some quality wins against Oklahoma and Louisville. But with Western Michigan this year, there's nothing impressive on their schedule, other than the fact they didn't lose. 

 College Football is about each season individually and it is IMPOSSIBLE to fairly evaluate it with this many schools.  The fairest measure is to give the teams a chance.  An 8 team playoff does that.  You so called "power 5" conferences all get their champions in and you've got 3 places to fill with your Boise State of the year and that one loss Ohio State that didn't win the power 5 conference.  I mean, you want to talk about minimizing things ... that Big 10 trophy Penn State lifted sure is dull as all shit right about now eh?  

It sure is. But I'm not the one arguing conference champions should be in, just because they're conference champions.

There are 9 teams with 2 or less losses this year (hell there were 4 one loss teams last year and another 5 with two ..... or what about two years ago with an undefeated and SIX one loss teams?).  Even at 8 you're only scratching the surface of questionable in terms of "deserving" in a worst case scenario ... and no, you aren't forcing teams to stop the cupcakes, see: Washington, the SEC.  The playoffs have actually INCREASED the scheduling.  An 8 team playoff opens the door for this year's  

It isn't about the last teams in with an 8 team playoff, it's ensuring you catch ALL of the teams that SHOULD be there.  8 does that.  8 gets Western Michigan in this year and puts to rest the eternal "Boise St" bit (and I'm sorry but those school rightfully deserve a shot regardless of what conference they're in as they're ALL division 1 teams) while allowing for every team with a legit argument to be in.

This year it would have been ensuring ALL of the teams that should be in would have been in. Depending on what you consider by "should be in". I'd argue more often than not we'd be looking at four or five, at most, very good teams, and three or four teams that don't belong. I'll even throw in the fact that Notre Dame would've been in an eight team playoff last year, and they got bent over and penetrated by Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. Had that happened you'd have people crying that too many teams made the playoffs, or you'd have people crying that the wrong teams got in because it was so lopsided. You take the absolute best of the best, no fluff just for fluff's sake.

---

They beat Ohio State AND won the conference.  

Yeah, I know what Penn State did. What about Oklahoma? They lost to Ohio State, but they only had two loses (and one was not 41-10) and they won their conference. But like Penn State, they aren't one of the four best teams in the country. 

 BCS had that kind of issue as did the Bowl set up originally ... hell, UF beat FSU in one of the best games ever in the regular season but then had to turn around and play them in the Sugar Bowl (which was the defacto NT game in 97).  In 2011 Alabama lost to LSU 9-6 but got put into the national title game by the BCS computers and won the national title over LSU ....

Yeah, but when UF beat FSU it was 12-1 vs. 12-0. And when Alabama and their one loss beat LSU, they were undefeated. It wasn't a rematch of 12-0 vs. 9-3. That's my argument. If Florida, at 9-3, had beaten Alabama, at 12-0, that one win should not have negated what Alabama had done all season, in my opinion. Florida got to the conference championship by being in a weaker division, and still showing up with a worse record. If you're suggesting that that is how it should be, then you're essentially making the conference championship games the opening round of the playoffs and you basically get what you want anyway.

And that is exactly why you need 8 ... you're making the argument against your opinion.

I'm not making the argument against my opinion, because I don't think the 9-3 conference champions should make the playoffs just because they won their conference. I'm arguing the opposite.

What's the point of conferences?  Divisions?  

$$$ $$$ $$$

Putting the Power 5 conf champions into the playoff eliminates the year to year debate and bias that exists about the conferences.  You've still got three slots for your examples AND your Boise St or W Michigan or whomever else that has a fantastic season.  

Ok, so let's say we have 8-teams this year: 1. Alabama 2. Clemson 3. Ohio State 4. Washington 5. Penn State 6. Michigan 7. Oklahoma 8. Western Michigan? Now, since we're putting such a huge emphasis on winning the conference championship, I'm assuming we're giving Ohio State and Michigan two of the three At-Large bids? Why not Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, or Colorado? Why are we rewarding teams that didn't even win their divisions? Shouldn't the conference runner-ups be given precedence over Ohio State, who finished second in their division, and Michigan, who finished third? This is what I'm talking about when I say you're never going to satisfy everyone and you can't just make things as simple as "Conference Champs In and some at-larges". Not unless you're going full-out balls to the wall 16 or 32 team tournaments. Because even if you expand to eight, you're going to have arguments of who and why certain teams should get in, and in most years, you're going to have teams that really have no business going for a national title in there too. 

Also, let's not get carried away with attacking Penn State's loss to Michigan.  Nebraska got to the title game after being steamrolled 62-26, Oklahoma played for a national title after losing 35-7 ..... it happens.  With 8 teams though, that's accounted for.

This proves my point though. Nebraska got destroyed by Colorado, got in the National Championship and got butt-plugged by Miami. And Oklahoma got spanked by K-State, got in the National Championship and lost to LSU. I'm well aware it happens, but those two are perfect examples of why it should not happen. Go back and find me a team that won the National Championship the same year they got beat by 30+ points. I'm going out on a limb and saying that it very, very rarely ever happens. 

Look, at the end of the day I'm not hoping to convince anyone that this is the best way possible. I can argue until the cow's come home, and I know of you could as well, but there is absolutely nothing that can convince me that any more than four teams is the way to go with this thing, and I'm sure there's nothing I can say to sway any of you either. But at the end of the day this is what we have and it's ten times better than what we've had in the past. It's not perfect, but it could absolutely be a lot worse, and I think expansion would be a step in the wrong direction.

 

[HailtotheYo]

Tell that to Oklahoma and Penn State

I was speaking merely to the point of OhioSt/Mich being downgraded because they might meat again in a playoff. 

I strongly disagree. Because Dallas plays Washington twice. Chicago plays Green Bay twice. Baltimore plays Pittsburgh twice. You lose the first game, you still get another shot. Michigan doesn't get to host Ohio State to try to get that loss back. It's done. It's over.

But the playoffs don't do anything to diminish those meetings (which is what you're debating on with the college match ups).  1993 Season saw Dallas go to play the Giants in the last game of the season with the NFC East on the line.  Both teams were in the playoffs already as the loser would be the wildcard and there was a potential rematch.  That game was quite the opposite of what you're saying would happen with an OhioSt/Michigan match up.  Same thing just last year with Minn/GB last week of the season ... absolutely nothing taken away from that game.

I never said FCS, D2, or D3 regular seasons are meaningless. But if Villanova or Sam Houston State loses two or three games, they know that they can get hot and still win the national championship. And rightfully so, because a lot of FCS schools play FBS teams and it'd be unfair to count those loses against them. 

Exactly ... for some reason it's only Division 1 football where this matters.  It doesn't make sense.  Even if you take away 1 loss for every team in FCS due to playing an FBS team, you'd STILL have 3 loss teams in the playoffs ... but there's not a problem there.  Nobody has an issue with it.  The regular season is still meaningful.  Why is that?  Why is it an issue for Division 1 only?  That just doesn't make sense.

 

I can't really argue much against the Boise's, Houston's, Western Michigan's. Hell, had Houston gone undefeated this year, I'd be 100% on board with them going to the playoffs, because they would've had some quality wins against Oklahoma and Louisville. But with Western Michigan this year, there's nothing impressive on their schedule, other than the fact they didn't lose

and 4 teams only still all but out right excludes them.  If Houston had only lost 1 game this year they'd have been tossed out even though their resume was as good as a few of the other teams in contention for one of the slots.  I completely understand and agree that playing for the National Title is and should be exclusive ... but not so exclusive that you miss the point and lose the plot.

It sure is. But I'm not the one arguing conference champions should be in, just because they're conference champions.

My conference champion argument is two fold in reality.  As the system is right now, I feel that Penn State should have been #4 over OST by virtue of winning the conference title AND beating OST.  It's the counter argument to you pointing out the blowout loss to MICH.  What about the fact that OST was lucky to get out of the Mich St (3 win team) game alive while the closest win that PSU had was against 8 win Minn? 

In an 8 team playoff yes, the Power 5 conference champions should be in ... especially since you (D1 college football) has officially divided the field with this designation.  You've still got three slots for things just like this Penn St/OST bit ... or the TxTech/Ok/OKST 1 loss bit a few years ago.  

This year it would have been ensuring ALL of the teams that should be in would have been in. Depending on what you consider by "should be in". I'd argue more often than not we'd be looking at four or five, at most, very good teams, and three or four teams that don't belong. I'll even throw in the fact that Notre Dame would've been in an eight team playoff last year, and they got bent over and penetrated by Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. Had that happened you'd have people crying that too many teams made the playoffs, or you'd have people crying that the wrong teams got in because it was so lopsided. You take the absolute best of the best, no fluff just for fluff's sake.

Taking a look at the last several years and I can easily see 6-8 teams that "should" be in an 8 team playoff.  I certainly see more than 4 that should have had the shot.  You're going to get lopsided match ups regardless of how they're set up.  Bowls system of old, Bowl coalition, BCS, even the playoffs now .... there's no escaping that. 

Yeah, I know what Penn State did. What about Oklahoma? They lost to Ohio State, but they only had two loses (and one was not 41-10) and they won their conference. But like Penn State, they aren't one of the four best teams in the country. 

They're the "worst" Power 5 champion this year.  While the score wasn't as bad, Houston ran them off the field (their own field that is) to start the season off.  Houston didn't turn out as planned.  That loss knocked them out of contention in conjunction with the Big 12 just not being good this year.  In a 4 team system they don't have the chops AND they have a common opponent that takes them down a peg. 

Yeah, but when UF beat FSU it was 12-1 vs. 12-0. And when Alabama and their one loss beat LSU, they were undefeated. It wasn't a rematch of 12-0 vs. 9-3. That's my argument. If Florida, at 9-3, had beaten Alabama, at 12-0, that one win should not have negated what Alabama had done all season, in my opinion. Florida got to the conference championship by being in a weaker division, and still showing up with a worse record. If you're suggesting that that is how it should be, then you're essentially making the conference championship games the opening round of the playoffs and you basically get what you want anyway.

Fact is though, they already had a head to head and then had a rematch.  Why should LSU have been punished for losing the 2nd game rather than the first?  Why should Alabama have been given that 2nd shot?  Why play the conference title game if the result isn't going to matter for one of the teams anyway?

 

Ok, so let's say we have 8-teams this year: 1. Alabama 2. Clemson 3. Ohio State 4. Washington 5. Penn State 6. Michigan 7. Oklahoma 8. Western Michigan? Now, since we're putting such a huge emphasis on winning the conference championship, I'm assuming we're giving Ohio State and Michigan two of the three At-Large bids? Why not Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, or Colorado? Why are we rewarding teams that didn't even win their divisions? Shouldn't the conference runner-ups be given precedence over Ohio State, who finished second in their division, and Michigan, who finished third? This is what I'm talking about when I say you're never going to satisfy everyone and you can't just make things as simple as "Conference Champs In and some at-larges". Not unless you're going full-out balls to the wall 16 or 32 team tournaments. Because even if you expand to eight, you're going to have arguments of who and why certain teams should get in, and in most years, you're going to have teams that really have no business going for a national title in there too. 

Why not Wisconsin?  Because they lost to MICH, OST, AND PSU ... they have no argument.  Florida isn't even in the conversation.  Neither is VaTech.  Colorado lost to Michigan.  Also, you partly addressed this already.  Sometimes one side of a conference is obviously weaker than the other.  The 2nd best team in the conference might be sitting at home on conference title weekend. 

 

 

I'm debating only because I advocate for a system that ensures all teams that should have a shot, get a shot.  If that includes a "fluff" as you said, team or two .... I'll take that all day over a system that leaves out 2 or 3 teams that you can easily and legitimately make the case for.  You're right, there is no perfect system and I certainly don't intend to present that there is one.  I will say though, that we have a universally applied system throughout the entirety of our sports make up in this country from youth all the way up to professional levels that is pretty much set in the same parameters.  However, for an inexplicable reason Division 1 college football lives in a bubble where it is viewed and thought of differently.  In the instance of D1 CFB is the only time the majority of these debates happen, do these thought processes apply, or do certain things make a difference.  I simply do not understand that. 

 

And yes, it is easily the best thing we've had ...

     

 

 

 

 

 

[Meacon Keaton]

I'm kinda sad this morning. Matt Rhule is the new head coach for Baylor which makes the odds of him taking over for Brian Kelly when he leaves South Bend a far less likely possibility.

[HailtotheYo]

Very underrated guy ... I think Baylor got a steal there. 

[gunnar hendershow]

He's a great coach walking into, what I think, is a no-win situation. He might be like Bill O'Brien was at PSU.

I'm shocked he wasn't gone after the season Temple had last year.