College Football is Ass Backwards

[wiseplayer]

There’s no guarantee any loser gets an At Large berth.
I don’t agree with your logic at all. You’re saying getting to a Conference championship is meaningless because of the loser getting a berth anyways? Winning a conference championship is meaningless? A better seed is also meaningless? All because it doesn’t eliminate a team in the regular season?
You’re placing no importance on getting to a conference championship because a team will get a playoff berth.
You’re also assuming these teams aren’t having bubble type seasons.
Going into the OSU-Michigan game this year there was talk of both getting in if it was a competitive game. Did that make it meaningless to you?

 

[s--k]

There’s no guarantee any loser gets an At Large berth.
I don’t agree with your logic at all. You’re saying getting to a Conference championship is meaningless because of the loser getting a berth anyways? Winning a conference championship is meaningless? A better seed is also meaningless? All because it doesn’t eliminate a team in the regular season?
You’re placing no importance on getting to a conference championship because a team will get a playoff berth.
You’re also assuming these teams aren’t having bubble type seasons.
Going into the OSU-Michigan game this year there was talk of both getting in if it was a competitive game. Did that make it meaningless to you?

You are wrong.

I am saying getting to and winning the conference championship should be all that matters in determining who the playoff teams are.

The results of actual games reveal who those teams are. The losers of those games should not be rewarded.

The Ohio State - Michigan game was meaningful because it would determine who would play for the Big Ten Title and who potentially would get a playoff spot. Respectfully all those people who think the loser of that game has any legitimate argument to be included in a national title shot should go take a hike.

I have asked you for details, you provide none. Just what I want is better. When you are trying to make points, persuade people, state a case, you have to provide details. You don't what to list teams because you know I can and will shoot holes into each and every single one of those teams. You don't list what games would be more meaningful because you know it is bullshit.

You are going to get what you want when the TV networks have their way. But go ahead and continue to post about it all over the forum.

 

[s--k]

so if lsu wins they are conf champions?

think cbb, season conf champ/conf tourney champs(gets the bid).
I'm not reading all this , just wondering where the conf champ is determined.

Maybe there is a bigger question here, but naturally if LSU wins they would be SEC Champions

 

[pressitup]

Maybe there is a bigger question here, but naturally if LSU wins they would be SEC Champions

so if a 13-0 team loses to a 3 loss team, I see conferences eliminating the championship game

 

[wiseplayer]

Sk, you couldn’t be more wrong. You’re assuming things. You’re assuming every year these 2 are playing for a Final Four appearance. What if both of these teams need a win just get a possible 12th seed?
If you can’t comprehend that it doesn’t make me wrong. You’re too stuck on every season having the same outcome. More teams will have more opportunities. You’re trying to lessen these rivalry games to suit your argument.
Michigan vs Ohio St will ALWAYS be big no matter what the record or rivalry week wouldn’t have the life span its had.
This discussion has been exhausted but you’re wrong for assuming what I just said.

 

[s--k]

so if a 13-0 team loses to a 3 loss team, I see conferences eliminating the championship game

See 2003 Big Xll Title game

Nobody eliminted the game because it is a money maker. But if that game was a prerequisite to earn a national title playoff spot and said 13-0 team lost, there would be a lot of unhappy people. But earn it.

 

[s--k]

Sk, you couldn’t be more wrong. You’re assuming things. You’re assuming every year these 2 are playing for a Final Four appearance. What if both of these teams need a win just get a possible 12th seed?
If you can’t comprehend that it doesn’t make me wrong. You’re too stuck on every season having the same outcome. More teams will have more opportunities. You’re trying to lessen these rivalry games to suit your argument.
Michigan vs Ohio St will ALWAYS be big no matter what the record or rivalry week wouldn’t have the life span its had.
This discussion has been exhausted but you’re wrong for assuming what I just said.

What I meant you were wrong about is that you completely misinterpreted what I was saying to the extend of being 180 degrees what I meant. So I clarified, winning one's conference, in my opinion should always be a criteria for advancement into the playoff. I don't want any committee picking teams. Win the game that matter. Lose the games that matter, too bad.

I want to and am very ready and willing to talk about specifics and real world situations, not hypotheticals. I am not assuming, I am using and will use actual results of games to substantiate any points I wish to make.

A win to get a 12th seed? Why are they only competing for a 12th seed? Because they lost games that mattered. Go back. I want you to give me teams. Everyone likes to just say "a 12 team playoff will be so much better" but nobody considers the integrity of the results that happened. You said you don't think anybody wants Ohio or Tulane play for a title "if they are not deserving" Those are your own words. Why isn't Ohio or Tulane deserving? I can apply the exact same criteria to a 12th seed at-large team, they are not deserving.

I am not saying the games won't be big or popular or draw a ton of ratings. I am saying losers of those games should not be rewarded. It is very very simple.

Make your case. That is all I asked and you failed to build or prove your case. No examples, no teams. Who is in and why? If this is what you believe why can you not try and persuade people, if not me, others reading the thread?

 

[KJ]

If Georgia/Michigan/TCU aren't champs this year the season will be meaningless except for injuries and firings

 

[VirginiaCavs]

The worry about incentivizing scheduling only cupcake opponents should prompt a worry about saying winning your conference should get you a playoff berth, because then you can have teams with vastly easier paths than others, which will often create blowouts when said team with easy path faces a real challenge. We need a strength of schedule metric to determine who is most deserving. This also incentivizes more high-profile matchups (see ncaa basketball)

 

[s--k]

The worry about incentivizing scheduling only cupcake opponents should prompt a worry about saying winning your conference should get you a playoff berth, because then you can have teams with vastly easier paths than others, which will often create blowouts when said team with easy path faces a real challenge. We need a strength of schedule metric to determine who is most deserving. This also incentivizes more high-profile matchups (see ncaa basketball)

So, there have always been very large out of conference games for many decades. It didn't start because of the BCS and it isn't continuing because of the playoff. These out of conference games because they generate a lot of revenue and interest.

The genie is out of the bottle here. The SEC is going to, I'm not even sure, is it 16 teams? The Big Ten is going to 16 teams right? It is all one big pile of mess. They are never going to agree to one team per conference. It is all about money and the more teams a conference places into the playoff the larger the share of money the conference will receive and in turn the larger share of money the schools will receive. That is all it is, how much money can they make. I would change A LOT of things about this sport. But the one thing that is still pretty damn good is the September - November regular season and I am going to argue against anything that I think de-legitimizes it. One of the members here does not like the September - November regular season, it is not good enough for him. Such different perspectives are hard to reconcile.

 

[VirginiaCavs]

The worry about incentivizing scheduling only cupcake opponents should prompt a worry about saying winning your conference should get you a playoff berth, because then you can have teams with vastly easier paths than others, which will often create blowouts when said team with easy path faces a real challenge. We need a strength of schedule metric to determine who is most deserving. This also incentivizes more high-profile matchups (see ncaa basketball)

My conception also happens to punish conferences in down years like recent ACC and Pac-12 conferences — who cares if Wake beats Pitt or whatever. Also the whole Power 5 focus is insidious artificial gatekeeping. Screw this glorification of winning your confidence imo. That is a prideful accomplishment to be sure but not one that should automatically guarantee a playoff berth. A conference championship game should be treated like any other game — as something that influences one‘s success rate vs strength of schedule

 

[s--k]

My conception also happens to punish conferences in down years like recent ACC and Pac-12 conferences — who cares if Wake beats Pitt or whatever. Also the whole Power 5 focus is insidious artificial gatekeeping. Screw this glorification of winning your confidence imo. That is a prideful accomplishment to be sure but not one that should automatically guarantee a playoff berth. A conference championship game should be treated like any other game — as something that influences one‘s success rate vs strength of schedule

I support winning the conference as a method of entry to the playoff because I want to eliminate as many outside factors for selecting teams as possible while putting as much control as possible on the teams themselves. I have lots of varied opinions and compromises with others on different scenarios. One of my favorites is taking the 131 teams (more next year) and making two subdivisions and having them each have their own smaller scale playoff. But money will have it's way and we will just have to take it or leave it.

 

[wiseplayer]

My format of 12 teams will eliminate top players in America on top teams from opting out of playing. There is no arguing that and there is NOTHING WORSE than when teams like OSU have top players who dont want to play in a Bowl game.

 

[twinkie13]

so if a 13-0 team loses to a 3 loss team, I see conferences eliminating the championship game

This is the problem. Hasn’t been YET really( could be wrong)

Let’s say Purdue beats Michigan and LSU beats UGA….

 

[s--k]

This is the problem. Hasn’t been YET really( could be wrong)

Let’s say Purdue beats Michigan and LSU beats UGA….

If you ask me, the problem is that Oklahoma was allowed to play for the BCS title vs your Tigers in 2003 when a 3 loss Kansas St team beat them. The exact scenario pressitup inquired about. This problem of not being good enough to win your conference but somehow being considered good enough to be a national champion. If Georgia loses they should not advance. These games should be treated like the championship games they are

 

[s--k]

My format of 12 teams will eliminate top players in America on top teams from opting out of playing. There is no arguing that and there is NOTHING WORSE than when teams like OSU have top players who dont want to play in a Bowl game.

I'll give you that. It will for 8 additional teams most of the time. But there will still be opt outs. Bosa opted out of returning to play for Ohio Stste when he was cleared. It was more important for him to prepare for the draft. So it will not eliminate it, but for those additional teams it could help address that problem. Not sure how yo fix that for the other 60 bowl teams.

 

[twinkie13]

If you ask me, the problem is that Oklahoma was allowed to play for the BCS title vs your Tigers in 2003 when a 3 loss Kansas St team beat them. The exact scenario pressitup inquired about. This problem of not being good enough to win your conference but somehow being considered good enough to be a national champion. If Georgia loses they should not advance. These games should be treated like the championship games they are

Shoulda been USC losing in the Dome I agree

 

[twinkie13]

Shoulda been USC losing in the Dome I agree

Might be getting my Natty’s wrong here, but point taken

 

[s--k]

Might be getting my Natty’s wrong here, but point taken

No I believe you are right. That was the year USC was voted AP national champion while OU stayed #2 in the BCS despite losing the 03 Big Xll Title game. Split titles were supposed to be a thing of the past.

 

[cubsker]

See 2003 Big Xll Title game

Nobody eliminted the game because it is a money maker. But if that game was a prerequisite to earn a national title playoff spot and said 13-0 team lost, there would be a lot of unhappy people. But earn it.

Definitely cost nebraska a chance to play for the title in 96, the first year of the big 12. Half of the team was puking in buckets on the sideline with the flu and we lost to a 4 loss Texas team.

 

[s--k]

Definitely cost nebraska a chance to play for the title in 96, the first year of the big 12. Half of the team was puking in buckets on the sideline with the flu and we lost to a 4 loss Texas team.

You can correct me if I'm off on this, but I believe I read direct or attributed comments from Tom Osborne opposing both Big 8 expansion forming the Big Xll and also the title game. He finally had Nebraska at the very top of the food chain and now more hurdles and competition, the path got significantly harder. Was prophetic

Do you think a majority of Nebraska fans wish things had stayed Big 8 with the regional ties or do you think many wish they had stayed in Big Xll? Money aside, fans don't necessarily or directly benefit from any additional money the school gets.

 

[dg84]

Just my opinion of course, but I don't understand why anyone would want to limit the playoff to 4, 6 or even 8 teams. Every other division of college football has anywhere from 24 to 32 teams in their playoffs. Sure, there would be a number of blowouts in any given year, but it would allow EVERY conference champion to get in, plus any other teams that have a legitimate claim at a title shot. I would much rather watch a first-round playoff game between Alabama & Troy, or Clemson & Coastal Carolina than see a bunch of 6-6 teams battle for the bigger gift bag at a meaningless bowl game the week before Christmas. I think the possibility of seeing a college football version of St. Peters occur once every decade or so, would be pretty compelling. Another possible option I'd be in favor of instead of a 24-32 team field, and one which I believe is likely to occur at some point during the next decade, is a split of the D-1 conferences into two divisions, along the same lines as the break that created FCS. The Power 5 (4 if things continue the way they have been), would compete for their title & the Sunbelt, Mid-American, AAC, USA, Mountain West & the military academies would vie for their own championship.

 

[cubsker]

You can correct me if I'm off on this, but I believe I read direct or attributed comments from Tom Osborne opposing both Big 8 expansion forming the Big Xll and also the title game. He finally had Nebraska at the very top of the food chain and now more hurdles and competition, the path got significantly harder. Was prophetic

Do you think a majority of Nebraska fans wish things had stayed Big 8 with the regional ties or do you think many wish they had stayed in Big Xll? Money aside, fans don't necessarily or directly benefit from any additional money the school gets.

Osborne wasn't against the big 12, he was against the big 8 being taken over by Texas. Usually when you absorb other schools, they adopt to what the current schools are doing. This didn't happen in the Big 12. OU and Okie Lite preferred having Southern control. I'm not sure if it was finances or just getting tired of Nebraska kicking the ever loving shit out of them for decades, but the other original big 8 schools tended to vote with Texas and against us. Thus, conf headquarters were in Texas (imagine the big 10 having a revote on HQ when USC and Ucla join), the first and most conf title games were in Texas, no prop 48 recruits which was something we had always done, and then our cherished rival didn't want to play us every year.

Nebraska fans were done with the Big 12 after a Texas grad, the head of big 12 officiating, demanded a second get put back on the clock to allow Texas to win the conference title game in 09. Knowing the history of the Big 12 and how regularly the votes were 11-1, it was time to go. Osborne actually offered to commit to the Big 12 if everyone (Texas) would sign off on staying for the next 10 years. Texas said no, so we left.

Money aside, I think our fans much preferred playing our Big 12 sched over a Big 10 schedule. Close road trips to Missouri, Iowa St, Kansas, and Kansas St plus driveable games vs Colorado, OU, and Okie St. As is, basically only Minny and Iowa are easy road trips. Most opponents are seen as boring. Illinois, NW, Purdue....boooo. Rutgers, MD, Indiana.....even worse. I think culturally, we don't quite fit in the big 10 but we wouldn't ever want to go back to the big 12 either.

 

[guaranteeed]

Michigan should be ranked 1

Crushed two top 10 teams

 

[wiseplayer]

Sk, your idea would have made Alabama vs Auburn yesterday meaningless. My format would have made it meaningful. I would love to see Ohio St, Tennessee, and Alabama still have meaningful games going into December. Your format has very good teams like them eliminated in November.

 

[majent]

rewarding Purdue and/or LSU for getting a fluke win on Sat and giving them a playoff berth would make no sense to me.

they benefitted from being in divisions of their conference that had down years and/or have weaker schools in there and to reward them for limping into the conf championship games and then fluking a win makes no sense to me.

purdue had no impressive wins and LSU had some decent ones then some really ugly ones (lost by 30 on home field to Tenn and just lost to 4-7 texas a&m by DD).

 

[s--k]

rewarding Purdue and/or LSU for getting a fluke win on Sat and giving them a playoff berth would make no sense to me.

they benefitted from being in divisions of their conference that had down years and/or have weaker schools in there and to reward them for limping into the conf championship games and then fluking a win makes no sense to me.

purdue had no impressive wins and LSU had some decent ones then some really ugly ones (lost by 30 on home field to Tenn and just lost to 4-7 texas a&m by DD).

But the results of games have to matter don't they? I don't care if it is a fluke or not, who are we to say? It's sport. The best team doesn't always win, that doesn't mean the result gets ignored. Two teams play a game, the top in the east vs the top in the west, the top in the north vs the top in the south, or the or two teams atop some conference standings after tie-breakers are applied ... and they play and one team wins. I don't care if it is the team we all think is great or the team we all think got lucky. They are the winner and to the victor go the spoils. But no, we think that we should be able to disregard outcomes of games because we want something else. That is patently absurd, yet that is exactly what some people want to do.

There must be process. There must be guidelines. Or we have no process and no guidelines and let some number of people whom may or may not have a conflict of interest with outside influence to put on TV what is going to make the most money. Doesn't matter what we want really because we are getting something shoved in front of us whether any of us think it is a good idea or not. I want to push back, because so few people do and people who don't even stop to think about it just parrot the idea that a 12 team playoff will be so great. And I talk to them and they are like "I never thought of it like that" - well, think!

 

[s--k]

Sk, your idea would have made Alabama vs Auburn yesterday meaningless. My format would have made it meaningful. I would love to see Ohio St, Tennessee, and Alabama still have meaningful games going into December. Your format has very good teams like them eliminated in November.

It is very clear that this is something you and I will just never agree upon. You don't find enough games meaninful to fit whatever expectations you have for watching and enjoying college football. I on the other hand find every single damn one of them meaningful. And it is meaningful to those players, those coaches, those students, that alumni and on down the line. Who am I or who are you to tell anyone what should or should not be meaningful to them.

My "idea" of not rewarding teams that lose important games makes Alabama and Auburn meaningless? This is what you think. @gps_3 if Alabama is left out of a playoff this year, was the Iron Bowl meaningless, or do you, do the Alabama Crimson Tide players and coaching staff and everyone at the university past and present, did they need a playoff shot to make that game matter?

 

[cubsker]

It's easy to make every game meaningful - place a bet on it.

 

[VirginiaCavs]

It's easy to make every game meaningful - place a bet on it.

I agree, Calvin

 

[bookieassassin]

4 conferences / 2 division's each - division winners play > conf winners play >> FBS I winner
* remaining 64 teams or whatever- same thing >> winner FBS II

VOTING, when you can decide on the field, is ridiculous - it ain't figure skating, or a f'in chili cook-off.

 

[wiseplayer]

How many more ways can I validate 12 is better than 4 and pick apart why 4 keeps college football less entertaining during the regular season?
College football regular season is shorter than any sport and has an opportunity to extend more teams into December by actually making the Top 25 list meaningful throughout the season.
I live in Nor Cal. Ask anyone here if Cal vs Stanford is still a HUGE game despite both teams being the shits. It certainly would be an even bigger game if both football programs were outstanding and we’re playing for a conference championship and an automatic berth despite the other team getting an At Large berth.
This isnt an MLB 162 game schedule or an 82 game NBA schedule or a college hoops type season. College football stands alone regarding the shortness of the season and the opportunity to amplify it. The meaning of Rivalry games will only change unless they start splitting up conferences and these teams not scheduling each other. The NCAA is very capable of destroying CFB as they’re already starting to display.
I can already tell you UCLA has lost a 5 Star player from my area because of them moving to the Big 10.
Keep the conferences the same, Power 5 Champ gets a berth and add 7 At Large is the best way to balance a great regular season and postseason throughout December and part of January.
Otherwise how dead is the month of December after the conference Championships to the next meaningful set of games? Onward and upward.

 

[gps_3]

It is very clear that this is something you and I will just never agree upon. You don't find enough games meaninful to fit whatever expectations you have for watching and enjoying college football. I on the other hand find every single damn one of them meaningful. And it is meaningful to those players, those coaches, those students, that alumni and on down the line. Who am I or who are you to tell anyone what should or should not be meaningful to them.

My "idea" of not rewarding teams that lose important games makes Alabama and Auburn meaningless? This is what you think. @gps_3 if Alabama is left out of a playoff this year, was the Iron Bowl meaningless, or do you, do the Alabama Crimson Tide players and coaching staff and everyone at the university past and present, did they need a playoff shot to make that game matter?

Yes, that game Saturday means a lot to everyone, whether we are 11-0 or 5-6 going into it

I think what is hard to differentiate, is that expanded makes SOME game less meaningful or impactful, but it does produce OTHER meaningful games down the line. So it's true that say Tennessee's upset of Alabama would be less meaningful, it does produce MORE games late in the season that have playoff implications, like Michigan St v Penn St or Oregon vs Oregon St, etc. I don't know if one is better than the other, probably depends on individual preferences. I do think it will create fewer opt outs and transfer portaling mid-season, which is a good thing. My preference is that if they are going to have expanded playoffs, eliminate divisions at minimum, and probably take away conference championship games, especially if we're going to have auto-bids. While I agree that we are losing a lot what makes college football great and unique, I think more good games is a net positive, even if it doesn't really change to final result. Like, I get that this year there aren't really 5 worthy teams, but I don't see why that means we won't have good games when #12 plays #5 or whatever. That will still be a good game IMO, and 12 has a decent shot at winning. And in a year like this one, I could absolutely see #5 (or even #12) beating #1, especially on neutral field

 

[majent]

the bowl system would be relegated as nonexistent basically if there is a 12 team playoff.

it was hard enough getting the BCS from 1998 through 2013.

it was hard enough getting the CFP from 2014 through now.

i do not see how they expand past 6 teams next time, maybe maybe maybe 8 teams but i see more like 6 teams.

they are doing everything they can to preserve the who-gives-a-shit bowls because, well, people give a shit about those and they are money makers at the gate, in ad revenue, TV, etc etc etc

 

[s--k]

My perspective is that Michigan State - Penn State or Oregon - Oregon State were already big games. Hell, Oregon - Oregon State had PAC12 conference implications plus the rivalry aspect and Oregon still shit the bed. Would that have been somehow different if they knew they could play in a 12-team playoff? I doubt it. And Penn State has been beating down all comers the last few weeks, and they mostly did so vs MSU as well. Would Clemson not have fumbled and got their pass defense shredded, would DJ have played better if they knew they had a 12 team playoff birth shot? I don't think so. Would it make people care more about that game? Hundreds of thousands already cared about it.

For me, I don't see how a playoff makes those games any more interesting, any more meaningful or makes the teams play any different. I see people that are trying to make something that doesn't need to be created. But we all have opinions. I would like to find a way to take opinions out or restrict the impact of them for the process in determining a national champion however. Ain't happening. People love control and they love doing what they want with these teams and maximizing revenue no matter what.

It is rare that we have upsets in the league title games. I could go back through and look, there have been a few in some leagues and fewer in others leagues. More times than not the team who is supposed to win does and after the season is over, when I look at the rankings and these 12 teams, the 8 additional teams who are going to get picked to participate at some point in the future, they have all already lost to the teams ranked ahead of them. I literally shake my head in disgust that these proven unworthy teams will be given a seat at the biggest table there is after already failing to win games they needed to the first time. Are more games better? At a certain point I don't know really. Some people want it and they will get it. I've shared a different view for all to consider. At the end of the day we all have our take.

 

[wiseplayer]

Another example of how ass backwards CFB is. Head to head is ignored.
Alabama is 6, Tennessee is 8. Same record, Tenn won head to head.
LSU is 13, FSU is 14. Same record, FSU won head to head.
Oregon is 15, Oregon St is 16. Same record, Oregon St won head to head.
Utah is 12, UCLA is 17. Same record, UCLA won head to head.

 

[gps_3]

Another example of how ass backwards CFB is. Head to head is ignored.
Alabama is 6, Tennessee is 8. Same record, Tenn won head to head.
LSU is 13, FSU is 14. Same record, FSU won head to head.
Oregon is 15, Oregon St is 16. Same record, Oregon St won head to head.
Utah is 12, UCLA is 17. Same record, UCLA won head to head.

There's still a little too much "AP Poll" to the CFP rankings, especially after we get past the top 4. I think as long as we're comparing like vs like, head to head should be the ultimate tie-breaker. I do think Alabama is likely better than Tenn, but that shouldn't matter as long as we have the same number of losses to them, including the head to head. If we're projecting a bit and the Hooker injury is why you'd rank them lower, sure that makes sense. Then it's a matter of best vs deserving, and we've obviously seen the committees flip flop depending on what result they want. But they've been pretty consistent on penalizing bad losses over the years. Don't lose is number 1 goal, but if you do, don't get blown out

 

[wiseplayer]

CFB in December could be the conference championships this weekend. We then get Army-Navy to kickoff the following weekend, followed that day by the 1st round of the 2 Play-Ins games. The weekend after that we have the Final 8. Then the start of the Bowl season for 2 more weeks with the Final 4 on New Years Eve or Day. Thats how December should be for CFB with the Natty in January.

 

[Gandolf]

College football needs to go FULL all schools playoff. There's 131 teams in FBS, get it to an even number, and give every team 6 weeks to play 5 games. Power 5 schools need to play at least 4 Power 5 teams. Mid-majors need to play at least 1 Power 5.

Starting in mid-October, after the 5 games, rank/seed the teams using a combination of computer and vote polls. Those 5 games have meaning....winning matters but soft schedules also get hurt in the seeding. Then the top 128 play a 6-week tournament to get to the final two. Call it THE GAUNTLET.

Losing teams are eliminated from the gauntlet but then get to play other knocked out schools to complete full schedules and work towards end of year bowls. Nobody cares about these games but the schools but that's true for 80% of games now anyway.

Every school is provided one RIVAL that they are required to play if both teams are knocked out of the Gauntlet. The rival needs to be within 3.5 hours driving distance or can meet at a neutral site within 3 hours, with a few exceptions.

Teams can make agreements to play in a conference like setting for the post Gauntlet games, although you'll never know exactly who the other teams are from year to year.

So you get fresh matchups from year to year, you get a buildup in tension from start to finish, you get rival games. In the end the champion has successfully run the gauntlet on the field, with no politics.

 

[RetroVK]

My solution.

8 conferences. Force 8 conferences. That would be about 16-17 teams per conference. Two divisions would be about 8 teams each. This gives you a few weeks to schedule non-conference opponents (Rivalry Games) and then the conference season of 7 games vs your division, then the Conference Championship.

The 8 champions advance to playoffs.

The remainder then have time for bowl scheduling (Can even use locked in systems)

Seems easy to me.

Every team then has an opportunity to win the title and no excuses as the rules to determine what teams win their division (there will have to be tiebreakers for that) are already in place before the season starts. Everyone knows the rules before a down is played. There is no subjectivity to it at all. It is all decided on the field of play (the definition of sports).

Again, seems kind of easy and only the advancing teams will have to play one or two extra games (I am sure they don't mind).

* Rivalry Games Would Be Played With Winning the Rivalry Game the only goal of those games (EXCITING to ME)
* All teams have an opportunity
* The System is 100% Objective
* The System decides the champion on the field not a committee room.

 

[twinkie13]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1597642613473017857

 

[twinkie13]

Not sure how much the Rose Bowl can continue to dig in here…

 

[Instant Hole]

LSU beats Georgia, LSU doesn’t get in, Dawgs still in.
Clemson-UNC winner doesn’t get in.
Utah beats USC, Utah doesn’t get in.
Purdue beats Michigan, Purdue doesn’t get in, Michigan still gets in. If OSU had lost by 3, it’s possible both OSU & Michigan get in with a Purdue win.
Kansas St wins, they dont get in.
Tell me we don’t need a 12 team playoff again? Next week’s conference championships are meaningless from a National Championship aspect for LSU, Clemson, UNC, Utah, Purdue and Kansas St.
When conference $ is involved for Final Four participants, why wouldn’t we feel officiating wouldn’t favor those eligible to advance to the playoffs?
Show me a sport that is more ass backwards than College Football?

The point of a season is not to have playoffs. They would all get destroyed. Four is actually too many.

 

[s--k]

Not sure how much the Rose Bowl can continue to dig in here…

Just yet another problem with one network controlling everything. Imagine if only CBS had the NFL playoffs, it is totally their show. The NFL has multiple TV partners for their post season. I'm not necessarily a fan of Fox, but somebody needs to get ESPN off their fucking high horse There needs to be more competition instead of essentially one network calling the shots. Rose Bowl should go to Fox. In a non-12 playoff year they could get Big Ten #2 and PAC 12 winner assuming PAC 12 winner wasn't in the playoff.

 

[twinkie13]

Just yet another problem with one network controlling everything. Imagine if only CBS had the NFL playoffs, it is totally their show. The NFL has multiple TV partners for their post season. I'm not necessarily a fan of Fox, but somebody needs to get ESPN off their fucking high horse There needs to be more competition instead of essentially one network calling the shots. Rose Bowl should go to Fox. In a non-12 playoff year they could get Big Ten #2 and PAC 12 winner assuming PAC 12 winner wasn't in the playoff.

All fair, but the Rose Bowl has been a “problem” for years now

 

[RetroVK]

If LSU beats UGA they are the most deserving team from the SEC to make a playoff in my opinion. The goal is to win the SEC and as the winner of the self-declared best conference in college football, earn your way to the playoffs. They will have done what they set out to do. When you have wrapped up your division already and are locked into the championship game the TAMU game should be meaningless to them. (In the NFL they sit all their players)

Conference Divisions: If you line up the teams under LSU and under UGA, LSU won vs the tougher competition (clearly I might add). They had it wrapped up with a game to spare.

How do you win the conference championship, after being in the toughest division, within the toughest conference in football (so-called) and not deserve the playoffs? What kind of bologna is that?

They are going to get beaten badly in the championship game in my estimation. I am not as sure about that as I was about Texas beating Kansas last year, though. Oh wait. Nevermind.

 

[wiseplayer]

If TCU & USC lose we’re going to see Georgia vs Alabama & Michigan vs Ohio St.
That is the absolute best case scenario but some will say they dont want to see a rematch with OSU-Michigan. I’d love a 2nd game between these 2. We DO NOT want to see USC vs Gorga unless you want to see Gorga put up 50+ on the Trojans in a blowout.

 

[RetroVK]

Why should Ohio State jump TCU if TCU loses?

Ohio State failed to make their championship game. TCU is playing the extra game and per sagarin has the 21st most difficult SOS compared to TOSU 44th. In fact, at least when using Sagarin SOS as the metric, TCU has the toughest schedule of anyone in the top ten of the current CFB rankings.

Shouldn't TCU be able to absorb a loss to a really good K Sate team?

Of course, I know you are correct wiseplayer, just as you are about the sports system being ass backwards .... TCU would fall right out of the top four because that kind of special treatment is not only reserved for specific conferences but specific programs as well ... and TCU is not one of those programs.

 

[s--k]

Why should Ohio State jump TCU if TCU loses?

Ohio State failed to make their championship game. TCU is playing the extra game and per sagarin has the 21st most difficult SOS compared to TOSU 44th. In fact, at least when using Sagarin SOS as the metric, TCU has the toughest schedule of anyone in the top ten of the current CFB rankings.

Shouldn't TCU be able to absorb a loss to a really good K Sate team?

Of course, I know you are correct wiseplayer, just as you are about the sports system being ass backwards .... TCU would fall right out of the top four because that kind of special treatment is not only reserved for specific conferences but specific programs as well ... and TCU is not one of those programs.

Yeah...TCU lose = out, but Georgia lose = in. Eff'n stupid!

 

[majent]

Yeah...TCU lose = out, but Georgia lose = in. Eff'n stupid!

says who?
if TCU loses a competitive game to 10th ranked K-State and I can pretty much guaranteed you they will not slip out of the Top 4.

If TCU, Georgia, or Michigan get Blown Out by 20 pts + (any of them) then they should worry about getting moved out of the Top 4 and Ohio State moving up into the Top 4.

if USC loses to Utah they are 1,000% out of the Top 4.

no one is saying if TCU loses they are out.

it really depends on the flow and they style of the game.

but if GA or MICH or TCU get blown out, then Yes I think they can get moved out and Ohio State can get moved right back in.

why?

they got blown out by #3 Mich while GA and MICH and TCU would be getting blown out by LSU or Purdue or K-State.

looks different.

but truthfully the committee should look at the entire season and 12-1 records of GA, TCU and MICH and weigh them against the 11-1 record of OH State