Playoffs robbed BIG West

[gossamorharpy]

27 minutes ago, MichiganDad3 said:

Someone in the BIG or PAC was robbed. There is no excuse for two SEC teams, while excluding two P% conference champions. Wisconsin's wins were just as impressive as alabumers

I agree that it sucks having 2 teams from the same conference but if Wisconsin was truly a top 4 team they should have gone out and won on Saturday.  This was a rather down year in football in regards to dominant teams as none of the playoff teams had that great of a season.  Ohio state's only claim would be Big 10 champ but they had an even worse resume than bama when you look at the total season.

[MichiganDad3]

21 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

I agree that it sucks having 2 teams from the same conference but if Wisconsin was truly a top 4 team they should have gone out and won on Saturday.  This was a rather down year in football in regards to dominant teams as none of the playoff teams had that great of a season.  Ohio state's only claim would be Big 10 champ but they had an even worse resume than bama when you look at the total season.

If alabummer was truly a top 4 team, then they should have won the SEC

[HuskerPowerVA]

I was pulling for Wisconsin hard, but they just fell short.  Call it the eye ball test or whatever else, but I thought the committee made the correct call this year.  I thought PSU was robbed last year when OSU got in and perhaps there needs to be less subjective criteria moving forward.  As for the year, in my eyes, if you have two loses and one of the them is letting Iowa put up a double nickel on you, you are not one of the four best teams in the nation. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by HuskerPowerVA

[Red_Payne]

58 minutes ago, MichiganDad3 said:

If alabummer was truly a top 4 team, then they should have won the SEC

Is it not possible that 1 conference has 2, maybe even 3, of the top 4 teams in CFB.

'Bama lost one close game to a very good Auburn team.

Wisc. lost a close game to OSU.

is OSU head-and-shoulders better than Auburn... I don't think anyone would argue they are. It's questionable if they are better, at all.

 

More importantly; Would you put money on Wisc. over 'Bama if forced to bet? I'm sure a few would; but the majority of people, imho at least, would put their money on 'Bama over OSU or Wisc... heck, Vegas has them as the odds on fav. to win it all.

[shyndy]

I think OSU should have been in over Alabama.  But Wisconsin being in when they lost the CCG? No thanks.  Honestly UCF probably got robbed more than wiscy.

[gossamorharpy]

1 hour ago, MichiganDad3 said:

If alabummer was truly a top 4 team, then they should have won the SEC

There's always going to be an odd man out with the current format.  I have yet to hear a logical argument against a 8 team playoff.  Conf winners and next 3 best teams- eliminates the whole conference being left out issue and sets up an additional week of football that matters with 3 legit games.  Who isn't a fan of that?

[Hayseed]

Wisconsin sucks, I'm glad they're out. UCF isn't in ,so I'm not watching that pro wrestling tournament. Dilly Dilly!

[MichiganDad3]

10 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

There's always going to be an odd man out with the current format.  I have yet to hear a logical argument against a 8 team playoff.  Conf winners and next 3 best teams- eliminates the whole conference being left out issue and sets up an additional week of football that matters with 3 legit games.  Who isn't a fan of that?

I'm with you

[MichiganDad3]

14 minutes ago, Red_Payne said:

Is it not possible that 1 conference has 2, maybe even 3, of the top 4 teams in CFB.

'Bama lost one close game to a very good Auburn team.

Wisc. lost a close game to OSU.

is OSU head-and-shoulders better than Auburn... I don't think anyone would argue they are. It's questionable if they are better, at all.

 

More importantly; Would you put money on Wisc. over 'Bama if forced to bet? I'm sure a few would; but the majority of people, imho at least, would put their money on 'Bama over OSU or Wisc... heck, Vegas has them as the odds on fav. to win it all.

If alabama doesn't win it all this year, next year a double elimination will be implemented so alabama can get in without winning their conference, then lose in the playoffs, and still win the MNC

[84HuskerLaw]

The eight team format is much better than only  4.  The major conferences (Big 12, Big Ten, Pac 12, SEC and ACC) have 5 champions so you are already leaving a champion out by definition.

On the other hand, if you were to create 4 sixteen team major conferences and then simply match up the 4 champions, that is fine and of course, to participate, you would then subject all the four conference teams to a randomly drawn, rotating slate of interconference games of 3 non-conference games (one from each of the other three), and a 4th non con game vs any other non Power 4, school (the little darlings if you will).  all teams would get a home and away with each conference opponent and with each non-conference opponet.  The conferences would have 9 conference games and a championship game.

 

All conference games would count equally within the division and out of division would be the tie breaker. The divisional breakdowns would also rotate every 4 years with half the teams switching divisions.   In this way, all teams are matched up fairly, home and away, and there is no issue of 'who played who or where' in the long term.  Everybody gets an nearly equal shot, but for the mere luck of the drawn presumably.

 

Of course, no team outside the Power 4 would be even eligible for the playoffs as they are second tier by definition, cinderella or not. If a school or schools want to be in the big league, you need to join the big league.   If they want to somehow create another league of their own, fine. 

 

From 64, you pick 4 and there can be only ONE.   It is decided on the field.   Add a few more referees and manage instant replay much better and play all the championship games in a dome on neutral site if possible.  Rotate the playoffs around to the cities of the prior year's champions.        

 

    

Edited December 5, 2017 by 84HuskerLaw

[Red_Payne]

12 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

There's always going to be an odd man out with the current format.  I have yet to hear a logical argument against a 8 team playoff.  Conf winners and next 3 best teams- eliminates the whole conference being left out issue and sets up an additional week of football that matters with 3 legit games.  Who isn't a fan of that?

 

These are 'amateur' players. You can't expect these 'kids' to potentially play a ccg and potentially THREE post-season games... it's too much abuse on their poor little bodies.

that's like, potentially 16 games... totally unheard of... oh, wait.

 

seriously though, the only 'sorta' legit argument i heard was that it could potentially make early season games less meaningful, since a 3-loss team could get in, and surely, a few two loss teams will get in... less incentive to go undefeated... I don't think that argument holds a lot of weight though; especially if you make the quarters a 'best-team-hosts' game... then the incentive to win is in the home-field advantage.

[gossamorharpy]

12 minutes ago, Red_Payne said:

 

These are 'amateur' players. You can't expect these 'kids' to potentially play a ccg and potentially THREE post-season games... it's too much abuse on their poor little bodies.

that's like, potentially 16 games... totally unheard of... oh, wait.

 

seriously though, the only 'sorta' legit argument i heard was that it could potentially make early season games less meaningful, since a 3-loss team could get in, and surely, a few two loss teams will get in... less incentive to go undefeated... I don't think that argument holds a lot of weight though; especially if you make the quarters a 'best-team-hosts' game... then the incentive to win is in the home-field advantage.

 

I kinda see the early season games but, if anything, I would hope it would encourage more big time match ups knowing you can still make the playoffs with 1 or 2 losses if you take care of your conference.  It adds an added incentive to the teams ranked 8-15 that have no shot in November at playoffs but can still do work in conference and get in.

 

Having 5 major conferences considered "equal" but only 4 playoff spots is inherently unfair.

[Landlord]

27 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

There's always going to be an odd man out with the current format.  I have yet to hear a logical argument against a 8 team playoff. 

 

Here's the argument I have against the 8 team playoff. One of the absolute best things about college football is how every single week can potentially be an elimination game. All three months have huge stakes and huge, impactful games because of it. With an 8 team playoff, you're inviting teams with 3 losses to have a chance at winning the national championship, which seems lame as hell to me. The only time we've ever even a two loss team in the championship game was the most chaotic season in modern history, now we want to make the barrier for entry that loose? I don't really like it.

 

The only two ways I would be cool with an 8 team playoff are as follows:

 

1. P5 conference championship games are the first round, with the conference that has the lowest aggregate ranking of the participating teams (so this year it would be the Pac-12) being excluded for the year (this is a bad version, obviously)

 

2. All 5 P5 conference champions are automatically in, with 3 at large teams, but any undefeated and/or top 15 ranked G5 teams are automatically in, and and nobody with more than 2 losses can qualify unless there aren't any other teams to pick from.

[URSS]

Wisconsin should won to show dominance and they would have been in the top 4.

Ohio State lost two and had trouble some.  They don’t belong in the top 4 this year.

Alabama has a multiple year reputation, Saban and the press pushing for them.  Wisconsin and Ohio State were rated as #5 & 6. Therefore, in my view, no other team should have been jumped over them to the big 4.

 

I would prefer to play the bowl games and then pick the best four teams for the playoffs- semi finals in mid January and the championship game on the Day before the Super Bowl.  Four teams would have a longer season but the TV monies would offset the pain.

[gossamorharpy]

22 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

Here's the argument I have against the 8 team playoff. One of the absolute best things about college football is how every single week can potentially be an elimination game. All three months have huge stakes and huge, impactful games because of it. With an 8 team playoff, you're inviting teams with 3 losses to have a chance at winning the national championship, which seems lame as hell to me. The only time we've ever even a two loss team in the championship game was the most chaotic season in modern history, now we want to make the barrier for entry that loose? I don't really like it.

 

The only two ways I would be cool with an 8 team playoff are as follows:

 

1. P5 conference championship games are the first round, with the conference that has the lowest aggregate ranking of the participating teams (so this year it would be the Pac-12) being excluded for the year (this is a bad version, obviously)

 

2. All 5 P5 conference champions are automatically in, with 3 at large teams, but any undefeated and/or top 15 ranked G5 teams are automatically in, and and nobody with more than 2 losses can qualify unless there aren't any other teams to pick from.

I 100% agree with this statement and don't feel that an 8 team playoff would change this, but rather enhance it.  Take this past weekend for example, no one cared about the pac 12 game given neither team had a shot- imagine if a playoff birth was on the line... guaranteed that game gets a massive spike in ratings.