College Football Playoffs

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by zico20

Okay, now we have someone with an 8 team playoff. Do I hear 16? Do you really believe that the conference champ should get a spot. That would render the whole season meaningless in some instances. A few years ago UCLA played for the conference championship with a 6-6 record. If they had won you would have put them in the playoff with six losses? What if they beat the number one team who was 12-0 on a bad call. That is not fair. I bet most people would disagree with you.

Lets have a 64 team playoff, teams can play 2 or 3 games a week like the NCAABB does, lets separate the men from the boys.

[elysiantraveller]

Its a very good year if you aren't a fan of the playoffs.

As a homer I can't say Michigan got screwed. We beat Iowa and we are likely in the Playoffs. I do think they are the best team in the country to have a hope of beating 'Bama though.

A few teams got jobbed fairly hard.

Hopefully they expand this to 8.

[Zydeco]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

No sweat.......🤓👍

lol By the way...Welcome back!

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by zico20

Okay, now we have someone with an 8 team playoff. Do I hear 16? Do you really believe that the conference champ should get a spot. That would render the whole season meaningless in some instances. A few years ago UCLA played for the conference championship with a 6-6 record. If they had won you would have put them in the playoff with six losses? What if they beat the number one team who was 12-0 on a bad call. That is not fair. I bet most people would disagree with you.

I know a lot of people would disagree. But that's why I'm not a big fan of college football. Its a convoluted bunch of crap IMO. People yelling over each other to (hype) and debate something that can be logically done right.

Funny, the NFL does it the way you say it should not be done and its tons better football and a better measurement of a champ. The 9-7 team even wins sometimes........over all comers! The season is the survival of the fittest. Many teams improve, others fall apart.....the 4 team system with all of these conference champs is a complete farce. Not that I really care all that much because I don't pay much attention for the fact I think the way they do it does not count for much because it is not even "football reality".

The other part I disagree with is your "bad call theory". If a team is 12-0 and they need a call to win a game vs. a 6-6.....they probably are getting beat straight up or playing poorly. So counting on a "call" has nothing to do with fairness at all. That's the problem with this whole affair. Football is proven on the grid iron at the end of the season.......the qualifying teams are 0-0 once the post season starts. I know I'm probably in the minority but I just think this whole deal sucks ass for football. I never cared for their other BS (BCS) crap either....its like the Sumo Wrestler skating in that commercial and the judges give him 10's. Just put the best 8 to 10 teams in there and duke it out. I'm willing to bet there will be more fans, more interested and it will get even bigger than it is. I may be the minority but there's many an NFL fan that laugh at this crap besides me.

I've heard the same umpteen arguments from umpteen talking heads on the shows where they basically say the same crap over and over and over again. Let the freaking teams decide. I guarantee the results will be more legitimate. Its just clear they want it to be a "political" F2ck fest!

[kingfin66]

Originally Posted by EasyGoer89

Lets have a 64 team playoff, teams can play 2 or 3 games a week like the NCAABB does, lets separate the men from the boys.

I will assume that you are not just being silly, but that you are trying to make a bigger point, and your point is well taken (I think): No matter how many teams there are, there will always be a next team or teams out who think that they deserve to be in. This will be true regardless of what multiple of teams are in a playoff.

[kingfin66]

Originally Posted by zico20

Okay, now we have someone with an 8 team playoff. Do I hear 16? Do you really believe that the conference champ should get a spot. That would render the whole season meaningless in some instances. A few years ago UCLA played for the conference championship with a 6-6 record. If they had won you would have put them in the playoff with six losses? What if they beat the number one team who was 12-0 on a bad call. That is not fair. I bet most people would disagree with you.

There actually is precedent for a 16-team playoff. It happens yearly in the FCS. I am definitely not advocating for it as (1) I do not think it is necessary to go that deep and (2) the regular season would need to be shortened to accommodate the extra games. This is not feasible give the size of the major conferences and the need to play 8 or 9 conference games.

I think you are putting too much focus on the issue of meaningful vs. meaningless. The playoff and bowl systems are designed to make money. Besides, situation like the one that you are referencing with UCLA are going to be more the exception than the rule, but certainly are possible given the divisional structure that we are now seeing in football conferences.

I'll bet that most would agree with me that more than four teams are needed for a national playoff. The composition of those teams would certainly be a source of much debate. I firmly believe that eight is the sweet spot and expect to see it within the next three years.

[rastajenk]

The more teams you have in the playoffs, the less meaning the big regular season games have. If Michigan was one of a Final Eight after losing to OSU, then it becomes less of a big deal.

If Alabama had lost to Florida for some reason, I know it was practically inconceivable but just suppose: would Alabama still get one of the spots?

These conference championship games ARE the first round of the playoffs; losers shouldn't advance. We don't need them AND a quarterfinal round.

But I'm so old-fashioned I still think the old bowl alignments provided more than enough excitement with more better match-ups.

[Marshall Bennett]

May call me old fashioned too because i never had an issue with coaches and sports writers voting for a champion. Occasionally there will be conflict of interest. The public will always find bias one way or another. The playoff system was suppose to eliminate hard feelings. It hasn't.
Had Alabama lost to Florida in a close game, chances are they would have been national champions anyway with or without playoffs. In the past coaches and sports writers would decide a champion. They are better educated on the sport than the public in general. Strength of schedules and performance to me is everything anyway.

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

These conference championship games ARE the first round of the playoffs; losers shouldn't advance. We don't need them AND a quarterfinal round.

But I'm so old-fashioned I still think the old bowl alignments provided more than enough excitement with more better match-ups.

Ditto all that...

I was just fine with the old way as well...

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Its a very good year if you aren't a fan of the playoffs.

As a homer I can't say Michigan got screwed. We beat Iowa and we are likely in the Playoffs. I do think they are the best team in the country to have a hope of beating 'Bama though.

A few teams got jobbed fairly hard.

Hopefully they expand this to 8.

Mich should have won that game vs Ohio State, the guy didn't get the first down late in the game, you lost twice, once on the bad original spot and once on the non-overturn. Tough loss.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by EasyGoer89

Mich should have won that game vs Ohio State, the guy didn't get the first down late in the game, you lost twice, once on the bad original spot and once on the non-overturn. Tough loss.

The spot wasn't even my main issue with that game. There were a lot of in-game fouls that OSU got away with and the game tying drive was extended with a bogus Defensive PI call on a uncatchable ball. I can see the flag coming out in that case if a tight game was being called but after watching a lot of the replays later there was A LOT OSU got away with and we got marginal calls on. Not calling foul... just a sucky way for that game to go.

[cj]

Originally Posted by EasyGoer89

Mich should have won that game vs Ohio State, the guy didn't get the first down late in the game, you lost twice, once on the bad original spot and once on the non-overturn. Tough loss.

I watched that game and was rooting against Ohio State and I actually think they got the spot right. Certainly didn't see anything on replay that looked like it should be overturned.

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by cj

I watched that game and was rooting against Ohio State and I actually think they got the spot right. Certainly didn't see anything on replay that looked like it should be overturned.

I felt the same way. The spot was at least very close to being correct. I was rooting for Michigan.

[MutuelClerk]

Huge Michigan fan. We lost because Harbaugh started managing the clock late in the third quarter and playing not to lose. When you're on the road and don't make a first down in the fourth quarter don't blame the refs. Love Harbaugh, just think he mismanaged this game at the end.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by cj

I watched that game and was rooting against Ohio State and I actually think they got the spot right. Certainly didn't see anything on replay that looked like it should be overturned.

I saw the same.