National Championship Game

[Moiraine]

56 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

So, an 8 team playoff with 2 first round byes for #1 and #2?

 

 

Sure. Then whoever picks the seeds can still feel important.

[Glendower]

On 1/5/2018 at 9:48 AM, commando said:

why have a regular season if they just pick and choose who the best teams are rather than have them earn it on the field?   not going to watch it for 2 reasons....

1.   the teams that earned the chance to be there are not there

2.  i have 0 interest in the teams that are there

 

This. Just have the committee watch the teams' scrimmage games and decide who the best four *seem* to be and have them play. 

[Mavric]

 

[Vern]

It seems like everyone thinks an 8-team playoff is the answer.  But UCF would not have even made an 8-team playoff this year.  They were ranked #12 at the end of the season.  We need a 16-game playoff!

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Vern said:

It seems like everyone thinks an 8-team playoff is the answer.  But UCF would not have even made an 8-team playoff this year.  They were ranked #12 at the end of the season.  We need a 16-game playoff!

 

 

No, we don't need a 16 team playoff.  We just need to formulate the 8 team playoff correctly.

[Vern]

So if the 8-team playoff happened this year, and we use p5 champions plus 3 at-large (which seems to be the popular opinion).  The eight teams would be:

 

conference champs:

1. USC (pac12 champ)

2. Georgia (SEC champ)

3. Ohio State (Big10 champ)

4. Oklahoma (Big12 champ)

5. Clemson (ACC champ)

 

Now if we disqualify any of the losing conference championship teams (Stanford, Auburn, Wisconsin, TCU, Miami) and you go by the CFP rankings (http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/21/week/15/year/2017/seasontype/2)

 

The 3 at-large bids would go to:

6. Alabama

7. Penn State

8. Washington

 

UCF would have been next in line after Washington bud sadly would have missed out even with this system.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Vern said:

So if the 8-team playoff happened this year, and we use p5 champions plus 3 at-large (which seems to be the popular opinion).  The eight teams would be:

 

conference champs:

1. USC (pac12 champ)

2. Georgia (SEC champ)

3. Ohio State (Big10 champ)

4. Oklahoma (Big12 champ)

5. Clemson (ACC champ)

 

Now if we disqualify any of the losing conference championship teams (Stanford, Auburn, Wisconsin, TCU, Miami) and you go by the CFP rankings (http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/21/week/15/year/2017/seasontype/2)

 

The 3 at-large bids would go to:

6. Alabama

7. Penn State

8. Washington

 

UCF would have been next in line after Washington bud sadly would have missed out even with this system.

 

 

 

It doesn't have to be that way.  I've stated that anyone who doesn't even win their division to be in the CCG shouldn't be in the playoffs.  So, Alabama and PSU are automatically out in my book.

[Vern]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

It doesn't have to be that way.  I've stated that anyone who doesn't even win their division to be in the CCG shouldn't be in the playoffs.  So, Alabama and PSU are automatically out in my book.

Okay, so if you go that way and disqualify teams that don't make their conference championship instead of disqualifying the losers of the conference championship games.  Then the 3 at-large teams would have been:

 

Auburn

Wisconsin

Miami

 

UCF would still miss out.

 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Vern said:

Okay, so if you go that way and disqualify teams that don't make their conference championship instead of disqualifying the losers of the conference championship games.  Then the 3 at-large teams would have been:

 

Auburn

Wisconsin

Miami

 

UCF would still miss out.

 

Boy....you are really trying hard on this aren't you?

 

No, those wouldn't be my preferences either.  Just because I said you had to win your division to get into the playoffs, doesn't automatically mean you go directly to the three losers of CCGs.

[Vern]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

Boy....you are really trying hard on this aren't you?

 

No, those wouldn't be my preferences either.  Just because I said you had to win your division to get into the playoffs, doesn't automatically mean you go directly to the three losers of CCGs.

I'm going by CFP rankings:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/21/week/15/year/2017/seasontype/2

 

Those teams were all ranked higher than UCF even after losing their conference championship game.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Vern said:

I'm going by CFP rankings:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/21/week/15/year/2017/seasontype/2

 

Those teams were all ranked higher than UCF even after losing their conference championship game.

And, I agree with Frost that the committee purposely held UCF down in the rankings leading up to the end of the season.

 

There's way more to this than what you are fixated on.

[GBRFAN]

If they go to 8 the first 5 would probably be obvious and very structured (5 P5 champs)  the next 3 are wildcards and could be less structured.  A G5 would probably have to be undefeated.  The runner up in one of the top conferences with NO bad losses would get in and maybe the team that was the hottest over the 2nd half of the season.  The point being that they are wildcards and there doesn't have to be any set standards - year by year situation.  The top 5 not so much. 

 

Based on this season you would probably see 2 SEC 2 BigTen and UCF (undefeated) 

 

 

[Vern]

My point is that as long as the CFP committee are making the rankings I really don't think an 8-team playoff is big enough to get an undefeated g5 team in.  16-team playoff would be big enough but then you're getting into too many games territory.

[JKinney]

16 minutes ago, Vern said:

My point is that as long as the CFP committee are making the rankings I really don't think an 8-team playoff is big enough to get an undefeated g5 team in.  16-team playoff would be big enough but then you're getting into too many games territory.

 

I can not speak for everyone, but I think what you are not acknowledging is that the "wildcards" could be reserved for at least one G5 team.  So 5 spots would go to each of the Power Five conference championship winners, 1 to a G5 conference championship winner (still some subjectivity), and 2 true wildcards.  I would like at least one of the 3 "wildcard" spots in a 8 team playoff to be specifically reserved for a G5 conference championship winner.  The hope is (as other posters have pointed out) to get rid of as much subjectivity as possible.

Edited January 8, 2018 by JKinney
clarification

[Vern]

6 minutes ago, JKinney said:

 

I can not speak for everyone, but I think what you are not acknowledging is that the "wildcards" could be reserved for at least one G5 team.  The rest could all be P5 conference championship winners and other true wildcards.  I would like at least one of the 3 "wildcard" spots in a 8 team playoff to be specifically reserved for a G5 conference championship winner.  The hope is (as other posters have pointed out) to get rid of as much subjectivity as possible.

 

Sounds reasonable to me.  I would be for that.