Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Other Games 11/22 - 11/26

Alfred91 said:
OTOH, I'm sick of non-division winners getting a shot at the playoff.

Say what you want about UGA, Michigan, TCU, and USC, and how they would match up head-to-head with Alabama, Ohio State or Tennessee, the fact is the above 4 have to play another game this weekend, against probably a top ten team for TCU and a top 12 team for USC.

It is absolutely unfair that a team can benefit from not being good enough to be in their own conference championship game.
Click to expand...
This is part of why I have never liked the idea of a playoff, especially an expanded playoff in college football.

It was far from a perfect system but I always liked the idea that the champion and the major bowl champions were there because they were the best over the entire season.

A playoff, and the larger the bracket the worse it gets, is simply a measure of be good enough to get in they get hot/lucky and win the title.

This means we get teams that didn't win their divisions, teams that lost 2 games (soon to be 3 or more games when they expand) that just have to win their way through the bracket for a title while a team that was best over the entire year goes home because they got an unfavorable seeding, lost a couple top players to injury, lost a game on turnovers and or bad calls, etc.
 
gotta be uga, tcu, usc, and michigan if everyone wins out, right? or am i missing something...
 
Alfred91 said:
Interesting stat:

SEC - 14 teams, 5 ranked in the CFP top 25.
ACC - 14 teams. 4 ranked
Big 12 - 10 teams, 3 ranked
Big Ten - 14 teams, 3 ranked(!)

Pac-12 ‐ 12 teams, 6 ranked
Click to expand...
That’s because our Buffs did their job and gave every ranked team a free win. Good job, CU!
 
MtnBuff said:
This is part of why I have never liked the idea of a playoff, especially an expanded playoff in college football.

It was far from a perfect system but I always liked the idea that the champion and the major bowl champions were there because they were the best over the entire season.

A playoff, and the larger the bracket the worse it gets, is simply a measure of be good enough to get in they get hot/lucky and win the title.

This means we get teams that didn't win their divisions, teams that lost 2 games (soon to be 3 or more games when they expand) that just have to win their way through the bracket for a title while a team that was best over the entire year goes home because they got an unfavorable seeding, lost a couple top players to injury, lost a game on turnovers and or bad calls, etc.
Click to expand...
The best part of the old format was that every game mattered.

You could literally lose the MNC in September (and we did once).

Every single team had zero margin for error, and it made September and October games even better.

Even if you weren't in the picture, you could ruin the other team's entire season with an upset.

Now... an upset loss is something that can be overcome.
 
skibum said:
The best part of the old format was that every game mattered.

You could literally lose the MNC in September (and we did once).

Every single team had zero margin for error, and it made September and October games even better.

Even if you weren't in the picture, you could ruin the other team's entire season with an upset.

Now... an upset loss is something that can be overcome.
Click to expand...
All of this. If a team lost early, even to a quality opponent they spent the rest of the season knowing that one more loss puts them out and knowing that they would need some help to have a chance.

At the same time the National Championship was the most important but winning the major bowls also meant something. It was a successful season, no questions asked to be the Orange Bowl Champ, the Rose Bowl, the Cotton or the Sugar. Those were the goal with teams hoping that their season would be good enough to also win the NC.
 
White_Rabbit said:


ESPN apparently not a fan of USC
Click to expand...


WTAF?

If UGA, UM, TCU, and USC all win this weekend, and Ohio State gets in over USC, burn the mother****er down.

1 loss, which they would have presumably avenged, on the road, to the conference runners-up by one point, against getting absolutely housed at home. Granted, it was to the presumptive conference champion and #2 team in the nation, but they got curbstomped. Why tf would they get a do-over?
 
skibum said:
The best part of the old format was that every game mattered.

You could literally lose the MNC in September (and we did once).

Every single team had zero margin for error, and it made September and October games even better.

Even if you weren't in the picture, you could ruin the other team's entire season with an upset.

Now... an upset loss is something that can be overcome.
Click to expand...
Agree with everything but the first sentence.

To me, the best part of "the old format " was that if a team did disqualify from the MNC early, they still had a meaningful conference championship to play for.
 
hokiehead said:
Agree with everything but the first sentence.

To me, the best part of "the old format " was that if a team did disqualify from the MNC early, they still had a meaningful conference championship to play for.
Click to expand...
Yep. For Big 8 teams, fans throwing oranges on the field when the conference title was clinched. It mattered. A lot. We gained some things with the changes, but we also lost some things. I liked the idea of a playoff, but now think I was wrong.

What makes college sports different (and better, imo) is the pageantry. All these moves the past 30 years have reduced rivalry matchups and the importance of conference. Also reduced the relevance of bowl games as they got diluted to the point where some years they even have to take teams with losing records to fill all the slots.

Playoffs are great tv and I love watching. But we gave up a lot. I think a big problem was trying to be half pregnant to protect the bowl system. A 4-team playoff was really bad.
 
Buffnik said:
Yep. For Big 8 teams, fans throwing oranges on the field when the conference title was clinched. It mattered. A lot. We gained some things with the changes, but we also lost some things. I liked the idea of a playoff, but now think I was wrong.

What makes college sports different (and better, imo) is the pageantry. All these moves the past 30 years have reduced rivalry matchups and the importance of conference. Also reduced the relevance of bowl games as they got diluted to the point where some years they even have to take teams with losing records to fill all the slots.

Playoffs are great tv and I love watching. But we gave up a lot. I think a big problem was trying to be half pregnant to protect the bowl system. A 4-team playoff was really bad.
Click to expand...
Tremendous respect for accountability and the ability to admit one may have been wrong.
 
hokiehead said:
Agree with everything but the first sentence.

To me, the best part of "the old format " was that if a team did disqualify from the MNC early, they still had a meaningful conference championship to play for.
Click to expand...
Which meant that every game mattered, even after you were out of the MNC. ;)
 
skibum said:
Which meant that every game mattered, even after you were out of the MNC. ;)
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying. I guess my take is that in the "old system", I'd argue non-conf games weren't as meaningful as they are today. they could be used for warmup for conference season and I perceive that teams were more likely to schedule tough matchups.
 
hokiehead said:
I see what you're saying. I guess my take is that in the "old system", I'd argue non-conf games weren't as meaningful as they are today. they could be used for warmup for conference season and I perceive that teams were more likely to schedule tough matchups.
Click to expand...
I would agree that the OOC games weren't as meaningful, *unless* you (or the opposing team) were aiming at an MNC. Then they all mattered, bigly.

The wiscy/CU and Michigan/CU games back in the day were off the charts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top