Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
obviously they need to expand to 8 teams. if your not going to VALUE power 5 conference champions then don't tell us you do. I think OSU deserves to be in the top 4 and i don't think Michigan is any worse than OSU.. But what's the point of having a BIG10 Championship game??? Hell, Alabama could lose to FLorida and that don't even matter so the SEC Championship game is nothing more than a spring scrimmage.. because regardless of the outcome, Alabama is in and Florida is out.. DUMB!
They have totally devalued the Conference Championship games which is just DUMB IMO. I would prefer a system that includes all Power 5 Conference Champions above any one else.. then they can have some at large bids to include obvious teams like Ohio State and even Michigan..
This year, the Big Ten championship game is a consolation prize, perhaps with a trip to the Rose Bowl for the winner unless Michigan is left out of the play-offs and somehow can be awarded the Rose Bowl berth (this doesn't seem possible as predictions have Michigan in the Citrus or Orange Bowl if it doesn't make the play-offs).
Again, my belief is that the majority of football fans want to see only the best teams in the play-offs, regardless of the league championship games. This would remain true if the play-offs were expanded to six (with room for only one non-champion) or even eight teams.
By this logic, an American Athletic Conference or even MAC champion should get the nod over an Ohio State which played a bruising schedule and defeated the likes of Michigan, Wisconsin (road win), and Oklahoma (road win), all FBS top-ten teams, an even better resume than Alabama. Ohio State's only loss was to a top ten team in lousy weather on the road by three points.
Michigan, by all fairness, deserves the nod over Washington, and certainly over Colorado if it defeats Washington. Washington's strength of schedule is pathetic by comparison with Ohio State and Michigan.
Who wants to see championship games featuring only league champions with poor strength of schedules?
At least Alabama passes the eye test, something that can't be said of Washington either. The FBS committee certainly will note that USC lost to Alabama, 52-6, but defeated Washington at Husky Stadium, 26-13. Most football fans want to see if Ohio State can upend Alabama once again, rather than watch Alabama make a doormat out of another PAC 12 team in 2016. Ditto, Michigan versus Alabama. Alabama might defeat both Ohio State (one of the youngest FBS teams in the country) and Michigan easily, but it's not a likely certainty as it is with Washington.
Ohio State and Clemson fans likely would prefer that Alabama match up with Washington in the first round rather than Michigan. The ensuing rout might leave Alabama somewhat unprepared for a tougher opponent in the championship game.
If Washington wants to play in the FBS play-offs ever, it needs to schedule some strong non-PAC 12 opponents and/or go undefeated, overall and in the PAC 12. USC and even Colorado deserve credit for their scheduling, but Washington does not. Rutgers was Washington's Big Ten opponent, and the Huskies gave up 13 points at home to the hapless Scarlet Knights. Ohio State played its back-ups for most of the second half against Rutgers. Did Washington?
Like I said, Washington is not the best team in the country. They could very well go 12-1 and win the Pac 12 which is a Power 5 conference. Mentioning the AAC and MAC is useless - they're not Power 5 conferences. Maybe Bama will crush Washington, who knows? That possibility does not take away from what Washington has done and how they have a clear spot in the playoffs if they beat a good Colorado team for the Pac 12 title.
Also, did you happen to actually watch the Washington - Rutgers game? Rutgers scored 10 of their 13 points in the 4th quarter when Washington pulled a lot of their starters. Washington was up 48-3 heading into the 4th quarter.
USC is also a completely different team now than the one that got crushed by Alabama to start the year.
obviously they need to expand to 8 teams. if your not going to VALUE power 5 conference champions then don't tell us you do. I think OSU deserves to be in the top 4 and i don't think Michigan is any worse than OSU.. But what's the point of having a BIG10 Championship game??? Hell, Alabama could lose to FLorida and that don't even matter so the SEC Championship game is nothing more than a spring scrimmage.. because regardless of the outcome, Alabama is in and Florida is out.. DUMB!
They have totally devalued the Conference Championship games which is just DUMB IMO. I would prefer a system that includes all Power 5 Conference Champions above any one else.. then they can have some at large bids to include obvious teams like Ohio State and even Michigan..
I agree with everything you have said. We've heard from some pundits over and over how we don't need a playoff and things play out during the regular season when clearly they don't. We will have conference champions left out of the current playoffs in favor of teams that did not even play in the conference title game. 8 teams is a perfect number for the playoffs.
I don't disagree that an expansion to six teams (with two byes) or eight teams would be great fun, but the argument is that student athletes need some time to refocus on their academics. Some university athletes are very serious students, and some are very challenged academically and need time to survive their course loads.
Spoiler
Most football fans likely would want the best six or eight teams in the expanded play-offs, providing for some additional enticing inter-league match-ups. Note if each Power 5 champion was selected in a six-game format, there would be room for only one non-champion and likely no teams, such as Houston, from non-Power 5 conferences. A play-off expansion also might torpedo non-playoff bowl revenue, a worry for the NCAA.
An expansion of the play-offs likely will occur when the NCAA needs more money. This may be sooner rather than later, as leagues without their own cable networks such as the ACC and the Big 12 already are falling rapidly behind in the competitive mix, and cord cutting may threaten the windfalls from the existing broadcast rights contracts and from the league networks.
The Big Ten may have gained a competitive advantage by renegotiating its rights this year, assuming the rights are adjusted for inflation in subsequent years.
6 will not work because a bye is far too big of an advantage. Especially one determined by any ranking system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAM88
I agree with everything you have said. We've heard from some pundits over and over how we don't need a playoff and things play out during the regular season when clearly they don't. We will have conference champions left out of the current playoffs in favor of teams that did not even play in the conference title game. 8 teams is a perfect number for the playoffs.
Yeah I just read another article on ESPN about how 4 was perfect, (although he did concede the Group of 5getting to compete would be nice, but not worth allowing too many in).
He was saying "I feel like I'm shouting to an empty room, but these last two weeks ARE PLAYOFFS". He was arguing that with 8 teams Michigan would still be in, so THE GAME wouldn't have meant anything.
Which is a sorry argument when Penn State could likely get left out as B1G 10 champs in favor of a team they beat on the field.
Which is a sorry argument when Penn State could likely get left out as B1G 10 champs in favor of a team they beat on the field.
Playing in Beaver Stadium in lousy weather is a great equalizer for any opponents of Penn State.
Once again, just picking conference champions while ignoring their entire resume is a joke.
Hopefully, Colorado will beat Washington and end this absurdity. I don't think teams should be rewarded for scheduling powder-puff independent schedules.
Ohio State's victory over Oklahoma, the likely Big 12 champion, on the road should merit the inclusion of Ohio State in the play-offs. By comparison, Penn State lost to Pittsburgh in its toughest independent road game.
If we're going to keep a four-team championship format, the FBS committee must send a clear message to all teams that tough schedules will be rewarded, and not just championships.
Yet the committee has rewarded Washington even though it's strength of schedule is only 60th among FBS teams. Disgusting IMO.
Apparently, Michigan is being penalized heavily for its loss to Iowa on the road, but Washington isn't being punished for its loss to USC at home. Both Iowa and USC are not among the 25 ranked FBS teams.
Playing in Beaver Stadium in lousy weather is a great equalizer for any opponents of Penn State.
Once again, just picking conference champions while ignoring their entire resume is a joke.
Hopefully, Colorado will beat Washington and end this absurdity. I don't think teams should be rewarded for scheduling powder-puff independent schedules.
Ohio State's victory over Oklahoma, the likely Big 12 champion, on the road should merit the inclusion of Ohio State in the play-offs. By comparison, Penn State lost to Pittsburgh in its toughest independent road game.
If we're going to keep a four-team championship format, the FBS committee must send a clear message to all teams that tough schedules will be rewarded, and not just championships.
Yet the committee has rewarded Washington even though it's strength of schedule is only 60th among FBS teams. Disgusting IMO.
Apparently, Michigan is being penalized heavily for its loss to Iowa on the road, but Washington isn't being punished for its loss to USC at home. Both Iowa and USC are not among the 25 ranked FBS teams.
Playing in Beaver Stadium in lousy weather is a great equalizer for any opponents of Penn State.
Once again, just picking conference champions while ignoring their entire resume is a joke.
Hopefully, Colorado will beat Washington and end this absurdity. I don't think teams should be rewarded for scheduling powder-puff independent schedules.
Ohio State's victory over Oklahoma, the likely Big 12 champion, on the road should merit the inclusion of Ohio State in the play-offs. By comparison, Penn State lost to Pittsburgh in its toughest independent road game.
If we're going to keep a four-team championship format, the FBS committee must send a clear message to all teams that tough schedules will be rewarded, and not just championships.
Yet the committee has rewarded Washington even though it's strength of schedule is only 60th among FBS teams. Disgusting IMO.
Apparently, Michigan is being penalized heavily for its loss to Iowa on the road, but Washington isn't being punished for its loss to USC at home. Both Iowa and USC are not among the 25 ranked FBS teams.
Obviously, there is a bias among the committee, when at all possible, to limit the play-off participants to one team per conference.
Not saying you are wrong, but name one other sport where winning your division/conference does not earn a playoff berth.
Move to 8 and this absurdity is done away with.
As far as Michigan being "penalized heavily" they dropped to #5. They didn't drop at all after their loss to Iowa, and dropped two spots after losing to OSU. That is a total of 2 spots for two losses. How you can interpret that as "heavily penalized" is pretty amazing.
As I've stated already on this board before if you want a "fair" playoff system (and that's really what us as fans want is a fair system):
-You make it an 8 team playoff (with a top 4 with 5 "Power" conferences, 1 conference is going to get screwed regardless. This has always been a failure since it's inception)
-The champions of the P5 conferences get 5 "automatic" spots. The other 3 spots are wildcards
-IF there is an unbeaten team from a non P5 conference than that team gets an AUTOMATIC spot in the playoffs.
What happens if there are more than 3 undefeated outside the 5 eligible for spots 6-7-8?
What happens if a school from one of the 5 top conferences is eligible for the 6-7-8 spots? Example two teams same conference are both undefeated until they meet in the conference championship game and the game is decided by 1 point. The loser has X wins and one loss by one point to maybe the top team in the country. Do they sit there at #9 and be out of luck?
Last edited by howard555; 11-30-2016 at 07:49 AM..
What happens if there are more than 3 undefeated outside the 5 eligible for sports 6-7-8?
What happens if a school from one of the 5 top conferences is eligible for the 6-7-8 spots? Example two teams same conference are both undefeated until they meet in the conference championship game and the game is decided by 1 point. The loser has X wins and one loss by one point to maybe the top team in the country. Do they sit there at #9 and be out of luck?
IMO, although I am in the minority, I would put any and all undefeated teams in the playoffs.
The scenario you described has NEVER happened in all of CFB history. The closest would be 2009, when 2 Go5 teams, Boise and TCU, both finished the regular season unbeaten and then faced each other in the Fiesta. I'd put both in. Perhaps there should be a "minimum SOS" component so that weak conferences don't schedule powder puff non cons to simply finish unbeaten.
As to your second question, I would put them both in. I think if you go back even several years you would be hard pressed to find an example of more than a few teams finishing with 1 loss or less. The most that comes to mind offhand is 6.
I had posted earlier last season about an 8 team playoff and how the seeding would have looked going back 5 seasons. In none of those seasons was a 1 loss team left out.
IMO, although I am in the minority, I would put any and all undefeated teams in the playoffs.
The scenario you described has NEVER happened in all of CFB history. The closest would be 2009, when 2 Go5 teams, Boise and TCU, both finished the regular season unbeaten and then faced each other in the Fiesta. I'd put both in. Perhaps there should be a "minimum SOS" component so that weak conferences don't schedule powder puff non cons to simply finish unbeaten.
As to your second question, I would put them both in. I think if you go back even several years you would be hard pressed to find an example of more than a few teams finishing with 1 loss or less. The most that comes to mind offhand is 6.
I had posted earlier last season about an 8 team playoff and how the seeding would have looked going back 5 seasons. In none of those seasons was a 1 loss team left out.
I will look for it and bump it.
if wishes were horses, beggars would ride
The ...2016 playoff only has 4 teams.
Saying, "if we had 8 teams, team X would be in the 2016 playoffs" is ridiculous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
