How about a team that starts 0-3 or 0-4 and then their QB comes back from injury and they win 7-8 in a row? Should that team be eliminated early?
This G5 Commissioner is Correct About Automatic P5 Bids to the CFP
- Thread starter king ward
- Start date
You can't trot out three and four-loss teams to play for the national championship. Have you an example otherwise?
The current system hasn't allowed for it. But in the presence of a 12-team playoff, I'm not ready to blindly exclude all 3 or 4 loss teams.
I just feel that if a team navigates the season to make it to say the SEC CG, whether they have 3 losses or just 1/2 and they win it, then go on to win another playoff game vs a top tier team.. they deserve to be in playing for the championship as much as any other. If they do not, they will lose in the SEC CG or in the first round of the playoffs.. They would have proven it on the field at that point. That is what we should want from a champion, right? Not to have the best team excluded due to a biased system knocking them out of contention for losing an extra game or two early in the season as in the case Silver mentioned. Obviously there would not be instances of 6-6 teams who are not very good making it under the criteria set forth… We are talking about good teams who proved on the field of play they deserve a shot. I see nothing wrong with that personally.
if a team drops 3-4 losses without their QB and then win the final 8 when he returns, that means they were a one man team and not deserving to be invited to a tournament where the best TEAMS play for a championship. A great team may slip up and drop one with our their best player (see taters vs ND last year), but no “top tier team” is going to drop 3-4. If so, they’re no top tier.
Do you think the Bucs win the Super Bowl without Tom Brady?
Probably not. But the Bucs DO have a ton of talent even without Brady. Their WR corp is at worst the 2nd best in the NFL, their rushing game is good, and their D is solid. They were a QB short of being a SB winner. Jameis Winston was atrocious. They got Brady, who is really a game/talent manager at this point in his career, and they won. But they are definitely not an 0-4 team without Brady and then 12-0 with Brady…there are a lot of serviceable QBs in the NFL who would’ve been successful with the Bucs.
Not sure how you can say that, because started 3-2 with Tom Brady. There's a million examples of this, though. Would Clemson make the playoffs without Trevor Lawrence? Would Carolina have gone 11-2 without Connor Shaw? Would we have made the final four without Sindarius Thornwell? Probably not, but it doesnt mean those are 1 man teams.
That designation is not official, FTR. Those are just widely accepted terms fans and sports media have dubbed them. According to the NCAA, they are all considered D-1/FBS schools.
I agree in general with what you are saying. But I also agree with the old saying, “That’s why we suit up and play the game.” Who knows whether or not Coastal might have pulled off an upset, like App State did in the Big House.
Yep, it's a different sport and all that, but you have to look to the 64 in Basketball to appreciate all the qualities that make it wildly popular and profitable.
Half the field qualifies by winning their conference championship per conference rules. The rest are chosen. The mix keeps interest alive throughout the season across a large part of the entire base of teams. The entry of conference champions by smaller schools feeds the upset possibilities, the component beyond bracket madness that makes this super successful.
So the committee is there by half with this proposal. But, given the differences in sports, and relative lack of competitive lower level teams, the only value in including them is "being there."
So, I would prefer five conference Champions, five at large, and two smaller teams, however chosen. This awards conference play-something I think is very important-provides room to get those now "fringe" teams, and expands revenue sharing bit.
Just think, a lower level team could knock off one of those "undeserving""automatic" champions. How much fun would that be? January madness, anybody?
Half the field qualifies by winning their conference championship per conference rules. The rest are chosen. The mix keeps interest alive throughout the season across a large part of the entire base of teams. The entry of conference champions by smaller schools feeds the upset possibilities, the component beyond bracket madness that makes this super successful.
So the committee is there by half with this proposal. But, given the differences in sports, and relative lack of competitive lower level teams, the only value in including them is "being there."
So, I would prefer five conference Champions, five at large, and two smaller teams, however chosen. This awards conference play-something I think is very important-provides room to get those now "fringe" teams, and expands revenue sharing bit.
Just think, a lower level team could knock off one of those "undeserving""automatic" champions. How much fun would that be? January madness, anybody?
instead of the asshole response, maybe write out your idea in an intelligent manner that actually makes sense. “Contains the best teams” implies that it will contain the 8 best teams, not the 4-6 best teams and 2-4 completely undeserving teams. Cincinnati, who lost to the one decent team they played all year, clearly should not be included amongst the 8 beat. The fact you tried to justify a one loss USC that only played 6 games highlights how stupid your point actually was.
The B1G is better than the ACC top to bottom, the ACC has it's prescription skewed by Clemson being there. THE University of Non-Compliance may give them 2 this year and Free Shoes University may be on a come up but ACC hasn't really had anything other than 1 good team at a time in over a decade.
Counterpoint, if OSU wasn't in the way Wisconsin and Penn State would've made it in recent years, whereas if you elliminate Clemson or FSU before them there would be no other school with a good enough record or talent to make the playoffs. Bowl records, man. ACC was the worst conference in bowls lasts year
a 5-1 team who plays in a conference with 2 decent teams is “more deserving” than a 7-4 teams that plays in a conference with 2 great teams and 4-5 other decent teams? What other kind of illogical nuggets can you come up with?
My only contribution to this frey is that they playoffs should be conducted outside of the bowl system. Seed the teams 1-x (6, 8, 12, 16, whatever). Higher seed hosts at home for each round. Only the championship game is held at a neutral side. Whether it's held permanently in Pasadena or rotated/bidded among several cities is irrelevant to me (although if held up north, it should be in an indoor facility).
Whatever bowls survive, they survive. And the survivors are free to invite a team which lost in an early playoff round if they wish.
If the bowls are included in the playoff structure, I question how many fans would be able to travel week after week to watch their team advance.
Whatever bowls survive, they survive. And the survivors are free to invite a team which lost in an early playoff round if they wish.
If the bowls are included in the playoff structure, I question how many fans would be able to travel week after week to watch their team advance.
The NFL does and it sucks. Nobody from the NFC East should have been anywhere near the playoffs last season.
Even if those designations were informally developed, the reason they came about is steeped in reality.
No doubt. Just pointing out that there is no official move by the NCAA to be made.
Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if the Power 5 will eventually (finally?) break away and form their own league.
The possibility certainly exists, now more than ever.
Correction: power five name change to "Highly Paid" five. Then we have the "Premium Series" and the "Market Value" series. The remaining levels are the "NIL if you can get it" conferences.
All that will really matter is the compensation level in each conference, so let's name them for what a player can make. That is what will really matter.
Carry on...
All that will really matter is the compensation level in each conference, so let's name them for what a player can make. That is what will really matter.
Carry on...
Glad you asked the question, king ward.
It would be a concern for fewer people than it would be if teams played week after week at neutral sites.
I'm assuming that the host team would allot a "standard" 10k seats for visitors, similar to what USC does for regular season games.
And how many of these institutions might upgrade their club teams to compete in NCAA D-III or some such? You know, hold tryouts, etc.
That's because they don't have access.
If Coastal Carolina, Boise, etc. were to capitalize on a standout year and gets in as the #12 spot and proceeds to beat 4 of the top teams in the country in the playoffs, they deserve to be National Champion.
Finding the "best team" every year is an inexact science. It's part about talent, and it's part about how they matchup. Do you really believe Clemson was 30pts better than Alabama a few years ago? That was game plan and execution on that given night. If they had played 10 times, we would have more to work with in deciding who is better.
The expansion, however it shakes out, makes College Football far more interesting on the back end. And if you don't believe the current system doesn't create imbalances (monopolies), take a look at the deep-dive WSJ article on the subject or simply look at the raw data over the past 7 years versus any stretch prior.
I'm envisioning a scenario in which a P5 school can have an "A" team where the players are being paid and are functionally in the minor leagues of their given sport. The school can also sponsor a "B" team of true amateurs who are in it for the love of the sport, and will be turning pro in something else.
