IMHO, a true playoff final wouldn't pit 2 teams in the same conf
- Thread starter bayrooster
- Start date
It's about the two best teams. Period. UGA didn't play Bama. I think it's the right teams.Erence,
thread makes no sense...its the 2 best teams
That doesn't lie...end of conversation.
This system is MUCH BETTER than the old system.
If they extend it (CFP) out to 8 teams, that would be better. Every year, there is a team in the 5-8 that thinks they could have won it all if given a chance...and with #1 and #2 going down today, they may have a point.
If they extend it (CFP) out to 8 teams, that would be better. Every year, there is a team in the 5-8 that thinks they could have won it all if given a chance...and with #1 and #2 going down today, they may have a point.
the best 4 teams were in the playoff...the best 2 teams are in the final...that's the way playoffs should work
A
anon_n4c0cp5zhdxn7
Guest
8 team playoff wouldn't eliminate it. What if 4 of the top 8 teams are all in the same conference?
I would've rather seen Oklahoma, but the only way to avoid having two teams from the same conference is to not allow more than one team from one conference - and I don't like that.
Remember when Bama played Georgia in the SEC championship about 5 years ago?
Went down to the wire. With the winner a lock for the title game. And a month later Bama destroyed Notre Dame.
Sometimes the best two are in the same conference.
Went down to the wire. With the winner a lock for the title game. And a month later Bama destroyed Notre Dame.
Sometimes the best two are in the same conference.
The best two teams this season are in the same conference and they didn't play each other at all. Maybe we should question the value of a conference championship since it doesn't truly measure the best team since teams don't play balanced schedules.
Why should Bama have been eliminated from national championship contention for losing to Auburn and not Clemson for losing to Syracuse? Bama proved last night they are a better team than Clemson. Why does conference championship matter at all?
To the playoffs ,they dont matter, pac 12 champion this year and big 10 champion last year and this year attest to that
The last time a drop back quarterback beat Nick saban was Stephen Garcia. Good luck Fromm.
And the 2011 College World Series was?? UF vs The University of South Carolina!!Nope. Florida vs LSU.
A legit question. I'll opine later (I'm driving right now), but I'll bet King Ward will clarify it for you. Seriously. Not picking on him at all.
The only way to avoid it would be to not allow two from same conference play. I don't think adding 8 teams would change anything. You would add OSU, maybe TCU, ND, and USC. All teams that have already lost to those other 4. No way to prevent possible same conference finals! Otherwise you are just adding teams who have already lost to teams in the final 4. 8teams are too many, people need to remember that the system dictates that the entire season is a playoff and the conference championships are the quarter finals.
To veer off of your balanced schedules line.
I think the most fair way to determine the east and west champion is to go by that record only. THEN if needed, use overall conference record for any tiebreakers. I despise Tennessee but do you think it’s fair they have a guaranteed loss every third Saturday in October (Bama)? While Kentucky gets an Ole Miss type team.
I would agree except UT FOUGHT TO KEEP THAT GAME! They are the reason we have permanent cross division opponents in the first place. Well, Auburn/UGA as well. I have no sympathies for those 4 teams. But I understand your point.
My thoughts are that at least 2 teams were left out that could have made a difference! Ask Albarn
About UCF!!
Good point. I hadn't thought about that. A loss to Auburn is not as bad as a loss to Syracuse. It proves pollsters were wrong by voting Clemson No. 1. We SECers can thank OSU for an all SEC final.
If the point of having a playoff is to have the best teams in it,theres nothing wrong with more than 1 team from a conderence being in it if they deserve to be. If the goal is to have only 1 team from a conference in it just to represent a conderence , then that is conference welfare.
I enjoy college football and would love to have 8 in the playoffs to extend the season. But that is just me.
GOCOCKS!
GOCOCKS!
They could’ve seeded it so that Bama played UGA in the semifinals but then people would bitch that it guaranteed an SEC team in the finals.
Maybe the committee was hoping for a no-SEC championship game?
2 teams played better than their opponents on Monday. They’ll play each other next Monday.
Maybe the committee was hoping for a no-SEC championship game?
2 teams played better than their opponents on Monday. They’ll play each other next Monday.
This is all nonsense. Simply put, the 2 best teams are in. You could argue that OSU should be in since they won their conference.
My response would be this. Bama lost 1 game to Auburn(a top 5 team at the time). OSU lost 2 games, one was to OU which was not a bad loss since OU became the rank 2 team, and then one to the Hawkeyes, and by lost I mean got drug and beaten like an old mule.
The argument that makes me laugh the hardest is this one though, "They had more time to rest and prepare". They had one more week....1.... They didn't even know if they would be in or not at that point.
So what about So Cal(refuse to call them USC unless I had a w out behind it).
Well, I am glad you asked. Again, two losses and one was to a 7-6 Utah team. The other was a respectable loss to Washington State (9-4 team). They got smacked hard in their last two games though.41/14 and 42/17.
The only other potential argument would be the undefeated Knights at 13-0. I have no argument against them except SOS. This isn't their fault, it's just the division they are in. I personally think they are the only team that might have deserved to be in the playoffs other than Bama.
In short, the committee got it right for 4 teams in my opinion. OSU didn't get hosed like Penn State did last year. The committee stayed consistent in it's way of choosing teams.
My response would be this. Bama lost 1 game to Auburn(a top 5 team at the time). OSU lost 2 games, one was to OU which was not a bad loss since OU became the rank 2 team, and then one to the Hawkeyes, and by lost I mean got drug and beaten like an old mule.
The argument that makes me laugh the hardest is this one though, "They had more time to rest and prepare". They had one more week....1.... They didn't even know if they would be in or not at that point.
So what about So Cal(refuse to call them USC unless I had a w out behind it).
Well, I am glad you asked. Again, two losses and one was to a 7-6 Utah team. The other was a respectable loss to Washington State (9-4 team). They got smacked hard in their last two games though.41/14 and 42/17.
The only other potential argument would be the undefeated Knights at 13-0. I have no argument against them except SOS. This isn't their fault, it's just the division they are in. I personally think they are the only team that might have deserved to be in the playoffs other than Bama.
In short, the committee got it right for 4 teams in my opinion. OSU didn't get hosed like Penn State did last year. The committee stayed consistent in it's way of choosing teams.
Last edited:
if you got to 8 teams the #( and #10 teams are pissed. hell Basketball has what 68 teams and still have teams pissed they didnt get in..
