College Football News, Rumor & Humor

[30Something]

I assume you mean next year when realignment happens? It’ll be interesting to see when the rules change from 6 autobids to 5 and how the CFP committee weights the B1G and SEC over ACC and Big 12.

It doesn't matter if there are 4 or 5 power conferences. I just find it dumb that any conference should have 3 teams in a 12 team football bracket. If you can't finish as one of the best 2 teams in your conference, I don't see any reason you should be getting a shot at a National Championship. IMO if Air Force runs the table, they should get a shot at it this year. I don't know how you exclude any undefeated G5 team from a NCAA championship bracket, even if we all agree that Penn State (or Old Miss) has the better squad.

To me, its similar to having 11 Big East teams making the 2011 NCAA basketball tourney. Were they all good teams? Yes. Are they better than some of the other teams that got in? Yeah, absolutely. But, were there teams from other conferences that should have made it over Big East 9-11? Of course. Did it make sense? **** no.

I don't know....there is absolutely no objectivity in the Football Playoff selection process. A committee of 13 dudes, mainly relying on media and coaching polls to help them set the field. Everyone gets a hard-on over the B1G and SEC every year. I get it...the champion will probably come from one of those conferences. But to me, it really isn't a championship if every D1 team doesn't have a chance to compete.

 

[BuffsNYC]

It doesn't matter if there are 4 or 5 power conferences. I just find it dumb that any conference should have 3 teams in a 12 team football bracket. If you can't finish as one of the best 2 teams in your conference, I don't see any reason you should be getting a shot at a National Championship. IMO if Air Force runs the table, they should get a shot at it this year. I don't know how you exclude any undefeated G5 team from a NCAA championship bracket, even if we all agree that Penn State (or Old Miss) has the better squad.

To me, its similar to having 11 Big East teams making the 2011 NCAA basketball tourney. Were they all good teams? Yes. Are they better than some of the other teams that got in? Yeah, absolutely. But, were there teams from other conferences that should have made it over Big East 9-11? Of course. Did it make sense? **** no.

I don't know....there is absolutely no objectivity in the Football Playoff selection process. A committee of 13 dudes, mainly relying on media and coaching polls to help them set the field. Everyone gets a hard-on over the B1G and SEC every year. I get it...the champion will probably come from one of those conferences. But to me, it really isn't a championship if every D1 team doesn't have a chance to compete.

What's dumb is a 12-team playoff. Why not 8 or 16? Because the SEC will not allow its teams to play on a level field. They insist that there be teams with a bye so they can game the rankings to get and advantage.

 

[MtnBuff]

What's dumb is a 12-team playoff. Why not 8 or 16? Because the SEC will not allow its teams to play on a level field. They insist that there be teams with a bye so they can game the rankings to get and advantage.

And it doesn't matter what the number is because eventually it will be expanded.

Will this happen because their are more teams that didn't get in that have a legitimate shot of winning a championship? No.

It will happen because more games mean more money. It will be justified not because team 13 can argue they deserve in more that team 1 but because they will argue they deserve it more than team 12, even if team 12 has no real chance to win it all.

 

[BuffsNYC]

And it doesn't matter what the number is because eventually it will be expanded.

Will this happen because their are more teams that didn't get in that have a legitimate shot of winning a championship? No.

It will happen because more games mean more money. It will be justified not because team 13 can argue they deserve in more that team 1 but because they will argue they deserve it more than team 12, even if team 12 has no real chance to win it all.

This makes my point. There's no reason to have a 12-team playoff rather than a 16-team playoff except to give the 4 top-seeded teams an advantage. Why not go straight to 16? The individual teams would still only play a maximum of 4 games and you'd get a few more games of content.

 

[BuffWarHog]

I find it weird that anyone who enjoys college football wouldn’t want to watch a survive and advance tournament format of the best teams in the sport.

So you don’t like these teams? OK? Would you rather watch their B squads (because their starters decide to sit out the bowl game) play in a meaningless bowl game with nothing on the line?

Expanded college playoff is a lot like answering why I don’t like CFP - it wears me out.

 

[hokiehead]

Anyone who doesn’t want to see this is ****ing stupid and that’s not hyperbole, 8 extra games between great teams that actually mean something

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719499249648287752

I agree those games look exciting. I also feel the CFP has done a lot of damage to the sport and expanding them is going to continue that damage and potentially accelerate it.

For me, it's short term vs long term. I'm not convinced the short term benefits of a few more games is worth further damage to the sport.

But, maybe CFB is FUBAR and the best option is to milk it dry before it dies.

I guess I'm ****ing stupid.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I agree those games look exciting. I also feel the CFP has done a lot of damage to the sport and expanding them is going to continue that damage and potentially accelerate it.

For me, it's short term vs long term. I'm not convinced the short term benefits of a few more games is worth further damage to the sport.

But, maybe CFB is FUBAR and the best option is to milk it dry before it dies.

I guess I'm ****ing stupid.

I think there’s an argument for the 4 team playoff causing damage to the sport, but what further damage do you anticipate?

 

[hokiehead]

I think there’s an argument for the 4 team playoff causing damage to the sport, but what further damage do you anticipate?

acceleration of the widening gap between 'haves' and 'have nots'

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

acceleration of the widening gap between 'haves' and 'have nots'

I agree that the 4 team playoff did that. I disagree that playoff expansion will further it, and I think there’s a strong argument that it will have the opposite effect

 

[MiamiBuffs]

I agree those games look exciting. I also feel the CFP has done a lot of damage to the sport and expanding them is going to continue that damage and potentially accelerate it.

For me, it's short term vs long term. I'm not convinced the short term benefits of a few more games is worth further damage to the sport.

But, maybe CFB is FUBAR and the best option is to milk it dry before it dies.

I guess I'm ****ing stupid.

A 12 or 16 team CFP makes the regular season meaningless. You can lose two maybe three games and still make the playoffs.

The real reason for this is the two super conferences want 80% of the seats at the table so they can get most of the revenue.

 

[PAHIBuff]

Is one of those supposed to be hotter than the others?

No, but I’m nominating pic #3 for “First Date at IHOP in Lakewood….”

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

A 12 or 16 team CFP makes the regular season meaningless. You can lose two maybe three games and still make the playoffs.

The real reason for this is the two super conferences want 80% of the seats at the table so they can get most of the revenue.

The 12 team playoff is the exact same as the old system but it allows the NY6 games to be meaningful and the winners advance to play the top 4 teams in the country. For people who love the old bowl system, I don't understand how that changes anything by making the regular season meaningless? If anything, it just adds 8 meaningful marquee matchups at the end of the year.

 

[Buffnik]

A 12 or 16 team CFP makes the regular season meaningless. You can lose two maybe three games and still make the playoffs.

The real reason for this is the two super conferences want 80% of the seats at the table so they can get most of the revenue.

How does that make it meaningless?

Sure, it changes CFB to be more like other sports where you don't have to win every game since it's about just having a good enough resume to be ranked in the top 12 (hopefully top 16 soon). So each individual regular season game doesn't matter quite as much. However, that also makes it more feasible to play a tough schedule - giving better game content to fans - since going 10-2 wouldn't eliminate you and you'd still have a shot at the tourney at 9-3. It also adds a ton of meaningful games in November since an unranked 5-3 team at the end of October still would have the potential of winning its last 4 games to make the playoffs.

I'm excited for it and think it's the best change to CFB scheduling format since the addition of conference championship games.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

How does that make it meaningless?

Sure, it changes CFB to be more like other sports where you don't have to win every game since it's about just having a good enough resume to be ranked in the top 12 (hopefully top 16 soon). So each individual regular season game doesn't matter quite as much. However, that also makes it more feasible to play a tough schedule - giving better game content to fans - since going 10-2 wouldn't eliminate you and you'd still have a shot at the tourney at 9-3. It also adds a ton of meaningful games in November since an unranked 5-3 team at the end of October still would have the potential of winning its last 4 games to make the playoffs.

I'm excited for it and think it's the best change to CFB scheduling format since the addition of conference championship games.

And let's be clear. Losing 1 game right now is perfectly fine and still positions any P5 team for the CFP.

Traditionalists love the NY6 bowls, but throw a fit when the outcomes of the NY6 Bowls actually mean something. It's a silly mindset

 

[hokiehead]

And let's be clear. Losing 1 game right now is perfectly fine and still positions any P5 team for the CFP.

...

I'd have to look at data, but I don't think most fans have this perception. I actually think the CFP has driven the opposite mindset of "once your team loses a game, they're pretty much finished". I do agree that expanding the CFP will change that -- for the 'haves'. For the 'have nots', I think it's going to make overcoming a single loss even harder.

regarding your "right now" comment, a quick look at one loss P5 teams -- I don't believe Penn State, Louisville or Missouri are positioned for the CFP

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I'd have to look at data, but I don't think most fans have this perception. I actually think the CFP has driven the opposite mindset of "once your team loses a game, they're pretty much finished". I do agree that expanding the CFP will change that -- for the 'haves'. For the 'have nots', I think it's going to make overcoming a single loss even harder.

regarding your "right now" comment, a quick look at one loss P5 teams -- I don't believe Penn State, Louisville or Missouri are positioned for the CFP

If Penn State, Louisville or Missouri all win out, which includes the B1G, SEC and ACC Championship Games, to finish 12-1, they would be in the playoff over Michigan/Ohio State, Florida State, and Georgia, respectively. There's also Oregon, Washington, Texas and OU with 1 loss and are all contenders for the playoff.

Also, if you look at the CFP semi final matchups over the last 9 years, of the 36 teams to play in it, 22 of them had 1 loss, and that doesn't mean that had an undefeated team lost at some point in their season, they wouldn't have made it, just that they didn't actually lose.

 

[MtnBuff]

A 12 or 16 team CFP makes the regular season meaningless. You can lose two maybe three games and still make the playoffs.

The real reason for this is the two super conferences want 80% of the seats at the table so they can get most of the revenue.

This is why I don't like the playoff system.

College football was always unique in sport in that the regular season is what determined the champion. For all it's flaws, and every system has flaws, it meant that every game mattered.

With the 12 game playoff we end up with teams that have lost 2 games, teams that didn't even win their own league.

Want to win a national championship, be good enough to get into the playoff then get hot at the end while facing a couple teams that get some late injuries or other issues and the trophy is yours.

I understand that some fans love the idea of watching playoffs. Some pro leagues put close to half of their teams in them, sometimes you get teams that didn't even win half of their games.

The NCAA basketball tourney is fun but honestly are their 68 teams that really deserve a shot at the trophy. We have multiple years when the championship ends up with a team that was a 3 seed or 4 seed, in other words a team that wasn't even in the top 8 or 12 teams in the regular season.

It isn't like they are going to ask us anyways, they are going to go with what makes the most money which is more games but I don't think bigger playoffs are better for the sport.

 

[hokiehead]

If Penn State, Louisville or Missouri all win out, which includes the B1G, SEC and ACC Championship Games, to finish 12-1, they would be in the playoff over Michigan/Ohio State, Florida State, and Georgia, respectively. There's also Oregon, Washington, Texas and OU with 1 loss and are all contenders for the playoff.

Also, if you look at the CFP semi final matchups over the last 9 years, of the 36 teams to play in it, 22 of them had 1 loss, and that doesn't mean that had an undefeated team lost at some point in their season, they wouldn't have made it, just that they didn't actually lose.

Respect your takes here, but I'm not seeing it. Even if Penn State beats UM, OSU needs to lose two of their last four games for PSU to make the B1GCCG.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Respect your takes here, but I'm not seeing it. Even if Penn State beats UM, OSU needs to lose two of their last four games for PSU to make the B1GCCG.

We saw last year that you don't even have to win your conference (Ohio State) to make the CFP.

These aren't really "takes" or opinions, hokie. They're facts based on 9 years of evidence that 1 loss is perfectly fine. Sometimes a team with 1 loss needs help due to who their 1 loss was to, but it in no way prohibits a team from making the CFP, which is what you are trying to argue.

 

[Buffnik]

Respect your takes here, but I'm not seeing it. Even if Penn State beats UM, OSU needs to lose two of their last four games for PSU to make the B1GCCG.

An 11-1 PSU will make the playoffs over any 2-loss team and over most 1-loss teams that aren't a P5 champion.

Where it would get really weird would be if Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State all finish with 1 loss. Conference champ would be a lock but almost no way the other 2 both get in and it could be that a team doesn't get in which won head-to-head against another 1-loss team that made it.

 

[Duff Man]

"Every game mattered" sounds better than "it was easier to go undefeated."

 

[CarolinaBuff]

Yea, if PSU beats Michigan they will be in the B1G CG assuming they win all their other games.

 

[hokiehead]

Yea, if PSU beats Michigan they will be in the B1G CG assuming they win all their other games.

how do they get past OSU?

 

[CarolinaBuff]

how do they get past OSU?

My bad, I was thinking divisions had gone away in the B1G but they're still in effect this year.

They could still make the CCG if there's a 3-way tie and it comes down to records of their respective B1G West opponents although it's unlikely PSU would win that tiebreaker.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

how that changes anything by making the regular season meaningless?

How does that make it meaningless?

I dont know how old you guys are but in the 80s and 90s you played 11 games. If you went 11-0 you made an important NYD bowl. Even 10-1 could make it. If you demonstrated every week you were the best by winning game after game you probably get mentioned for or awarded an NC. If you were great in your NYD bowl that mattered. It wasnt perfect but it was exciting for me to watch Schnellenburger, Johnson, and McCartney put together magical seasons. Some of them serious nail biter big games.

The moment you had two losses you were toast. So every game mattered.

Thats all.

 

[Buffnik]

I dont know how old you guys are but in the 80s and 90s you played 11 games. If you went 11-0 you made an important NYD bowl. Even 10-1 could make it. If you demonstrated every week you were the best by winning game after game you probably get mentioned for or awarded an NC. If you were great in your NYD bowl that mattered. It wasnt perfect but it was exciting for me to watch Schnellenburger, Johnson, and McCartney put together magical seasons. Some of them serious nail biter big games.

The moment you had two losses you were toast. So every game mattered.

Thats all.

The other side of that was that as soon as you had those losses the rest of the season lost meaning. Especially since we had a lot fewer bowl games back then.

What the playoffs does is push the meaning of the season so it's weighted toward Nov-Jan instead of Sep-Oct.

 

[BuffWarHog]

I agree those games look exciting. I also feel the CFP has done a lot of damage to the sport and expanding them is going to continue that damage and potentially accelerate it.

For me, it's short term vs long term. I'm not convinced the short term benefits of a few more games is worth further damage to the sport.

But, maybe CFB is FUBAR and the best option is to milk it dry before it dies.

I guess I'm ****ing stupid.

 

[BuffWarHog]

The 12 team playoff is the exact same as the old system but it allows the NY6 games to be meaningful and the winners advance to play the top 4 teams in the country. For people who love the old bowl system, I don't understand how that changes anything by making the regular season meaningless? If anything, it just adds 8 meaningful marquee matchups at the end of the year.

Not even the same. You would want 90 CU to play TWO more games after that Orange bowl instead of just claiming the natty after game? I sure as hell don’t. But I also love the fact we’re still talking about that season 30 years later because there wasn’t a clear, cut and dry NC game. As a college football purist, that’s what I love - the #1 goes off to play in the Rose Bowl, #2 plays in the Orange. 1 loses, 2 wins, there’s your champion…or is it?

 

[Buffnik]

Not even the same. You would want 90 CU to play TWO more games after that Orange bowl instead of just claiming the natty after game? I sure as hell don’t. But I also love the fact we’re still talking about that season 30 years later because there wasn’t a clear, cut and dry NC game. As a college football purist, that’s what I love - the #1 goes off to play in the Rose Bowl, #2 plays in the Orange. 1 loses, 2 wins, there’s your champion…or is it?

I'd absolutely be down with that trade of 90 & 91 if it put our 92, 94, 95, 96, 01 and 16 teams into a playoff.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Not even the same. You would want 90 CU to play TWO more games after that Orange bowl instead of just claiming the natty after game? I sure as hell don’t. But I also love the fact we’re still talking about that season 30 years later because there wasn’t a clear, cut and dry NC game. As a college football purist, that’s what I love - the #1 goes off to play in the Rose Bowl, #2 plays in the Orange. 1 loses, 2 wins, there’s your champion…or is it?

I guess I don’t understand why the ambiguity of a National CFB Champion is appealing.