But the NCAA does not force a conference to hold a championship game / tournament.
Believe that is still true, but you and I know the only reason conferences do it......to have content to put on TV and as a result $$$$$.
Yet I found a way to get all conference champions in with an 8 team playoff in my first post. So yeah it can be done. Key word with "trying to get the best teams in" is "trying". I'll ask again, did the committee get the best 4 teams in? Its subjective when it doesnt have to be. Why don't they call it what it really is... a national championship invitational. That label may cheapen it tho so I wont hold my breath.
TV wasn't an issue in the very early days of the ACC. However the net profit from ticket sales essentially paid for the annual expenses the ACC incurred.
No, you didn't answer a single one. You just repeated your same points that don't make sense. What better team should have replaced Georgia as a playoff spot? There are 2 P5 conferences represented now. That leaves 3 others. Under your scenario of conference champions here are your choices:
I think it’s a matter of examining P5 conference championships. If they can be ignored, then what are they worth in regard to the CFP? Is the goal to construct a pathway for teams to legitimately earn their way in? Or to subjectively plug in the 4 ‘best’ teams? If so, why worry about conference championships?
Who has legitimately earned their way in? And why all the infatuation with conference championships in relation to the national playoffs? Why did we worry about conference championships for 100 years before there ever was a playoff? The two have nothing to with each other.
There is no infatuation with conference championships on my end. I’m just wondering what they are worth to the CFP.
That would not have been because they lost the SEC championship. It would have been because they had TWO LOSSES. If UGA had a loss before the SECCG they would not be in the playoffs now either, but they didn't. Both teams have one loss just like everyone else even considered for the playoffs except for a lower level team in Cincinnati, which we now know had no business being in the playoff to begin with. In the BCS system we saw an SEC champion and undefeated Auburn left out of the championship altogether. This has not happened and will never happen in the playoff system as there will never be more than 4 undefeated teams at the end of the year. So YES the current system is a vast improvement over the BCS. The BCS was really no different from the previous system which involved no competition among the best teams but rather was a popularity contest among sportswriters. How do you think clemsux was NC in 1981? They played a weak schedule with only one quality team in UGA and they won a close game at home. For that they win a NC? How pathetic is that? We finally have a REAL way to determine a champion. It may not be perfect but is vastly better than anything we've had in the past.
It’s flawed because it’s subjective. People pick who they “think” are the top 4 teams. I don’t think they have always gotten that right. Secondly the playoff as it sits right now makes conference championship totally useless. It needs to be a set route with no subjectivity like the nfl and multiple other sports in my opinion. No committee picking who “deserves” to be in. Win and meet certain criteria and you are in. You play your way in and not hope the committee thinks you are one of the 4 best teams. Of you lose your conference championship and you were in contention to make the playoffs your done. Conference championships should be eliminations games as they are played in the post season and not the regular season.
You are not even describing a playoff. What you are saying is that what we have now is no different than what we had before this playoff system. You are saying the best four teams did not get in but out of that we somehow get (in your words) a "true" champion. Your idea of a playoff and mine are vastly different.
Again. By winning the SECCG, Bama set the CFP. You can’t say that the 2 have nothing to do with each other. You have 2 teams from the same conference that are fighting it out for a reason. That result matters. It determined the CFP. If Iowa would have taken out Michigan, it would have taken Michigan out of the playoff. Your problem is that you obviously have no consideration for the ACC, Big12 and PAC10. Those conferences are down this year, but that attitude creates bias going forward.
No, I'm saying you are completely wrong. In Playoff you have to have at least a 4 team bracket. Cincinnati was not a good choice, but neither were any of the others who could have been considered. In other words, the 4th team is irrelevant in this case. There is no way possible in college football to have a legitimate objective playoff system similar to what the NFL does. It can't be done. It is not set up that way. All conferences are not equal and saying you have to be a conference champion to be in the playoffs is bogus as you would have ended up with a 2 or 3 loss team in the playoff vs a one loss team that everyone knows is clearly better. It HAS to be subjective in order to get the best teams in. And you HAVE to have the best teams in order to have a true legitimate NC. So far under the current system no legitimate NC contender has been excluded from the playoffs, unlike both previous systems.
Still you nor anyone else has answered the question - If this system is wrong, then who should have gotten into the playoffs that is better over Georgia?
How dare us for trying to eliminate some if not all the decisions made by committee.
Heres the deal, to be perfectly clear, NO ONE knows who the top 4 teams are. And the truth is it doesn't matter whether you or I know. What matters is whether or not the committee knows. Obviously based on your own posts they dont. The end result is a flawed playoff system. Some people are good with a flawed product because they believe the end justifies the means, some are not.
Strength of schedule.
Same could be said for all of them. At least the NFL awards byes to teams that win their conferences.
Imho a system that starts the year with all and ends with one due to a process of elimination on the field is not flawed. To the best of my knowledge, the NFL has such a system.
No. They didn’t get it right. It’s awful convenient. They got what they wanted.Strength of schedule.
And after UGA's loss to 'Bama, did they deserve to be ahead of Blue?
They got it right.
College football team ratings 2021 - Jeff Sagarin Ratings
sagarin.usatoday.com
Of course we do. And the committee got it right. And now we have absolute proof. After one game we are down to what everybody knew were the 2 best teams in the country and it wasn't even close. The system is not perfect and never will be, but no such system is. This is the best system so far that anyone has come up with and is vastly better than what we had before.
That would be a great but it's hard to believe the powers that be would ever go beyond 8 teams. I'd be absolutely shocked if the did. Now if they did go to 8 and only used Power 5 conference champs with the remaining spots at-large and call it the Power 5 national championship, that would good. Now the G5 can have theirs.
That would work. And there would be a TV market for G5 playoffs.
Additionally I would use this transformation to tell ND to join a conference or be left out. If they join say the ACC, that would open a door for someone like Cinci to join as well if they want to continue with the big boys.
Cincinnati is joining the Big XII in the next couple of years.
I'd forgotten about Cinci joining the Big12. They've been pretty good the past several years so have slowly been building right. UCF also has a bright future there. They both could be a force to reckon with early.
Back to ND for a second. I don't think the NCAA can/should force any school to join a conference, and not joining one eliminating the school from playoff competition.
I hear ya. I honestly dont think ND would put up much of a fight if they were cohersed in to joining a league. They seemed to have softened quite a bit on the subject. What we do know is they will do what's in their best interest and we saw in 2020 what they are willing to do. I dont think it would be like them kicking and screaming in to a league, but yeah, forcing them may not be the right move... but I sure would strongly suggest it may be in their best interest. Or go ahead and play a ACC heavy schedule without the benifit of a conference championship and see how far that gets you.
The “nobody else would have beaten Bama” argument doesn’t support Cincy being in the playoffs.
I’m just going to say it.......I think OSU would have given Bama or Georgia a hell of a game. They slipped against Oregon and I think the weather at Michigan played a role in that loss. The idea that nobody can compete with Bama and Georgia is just not true. Georgia got hammered by Bama and a team like OSU has an elite QB and elite WRs that could do the same thing. Let’s not forget that Bama lost to aTm and almost lost to Auburn. They’re capable of losing a game. Michigan and Cincy didn’t provide a strong challenge for Georgia and Bama, but there are a couple teams that could.
You can say it but that doesn't make it true. So you think OSU could give Bama a game because Bama lost to aTm who has the second best defense in the nation, while OSU struggled mightily against the mighty 10-3 Utah Utes? Surely you are joking. They gave up 45 points against the Utes and have the 39th defense in the country. Utah's defense is their second string offense. They have none. Both Bama or Georgia would destroy OSU. It wouldn't even be close. It would be Georgia / Michigan all over again.
aTm’s defense? Bama put up 522 yds on the 2nd best defense in the country. They won because they managed the game better and had the ball last. In no way did aTm’s defense shut them down.
Transitive property does not work in football. It's all about matchups....that is why you see results of games where you scratch your head.
