NCAA College Football 2018-19: Official Thread

Jayhawker wrote:

I’d be okay with a 10 team playoff as long as it was just the 10 conference champions. Top 2 highest ranked schools get a bye.

I'd love to see 16. Conference champs. Runners-up. A few wild cards. Then we'd bicker over seeds a la basketball. December would rock, and we could finally ignore Army-Navy.

MAKE IT HAPPEN JAY.

Yeah, 16 is the sweet spot. But you would be surprised how many folks still want to leave the Group of Five champs out.

For me, they provide that excitement that mid-majors provide in basketball. In college basketball, on day one, every single team has a shot at the championship. No matter what, if they win the games needed to win their conference, and can then go on a six game winning streak in March, they can win.

And a single loss does not wipe out a season. It’s not just the Power 5 powerhouses that get the benefit of losing a game, but still maintain a spot.

Stele wrote:

Yeah Maryland had to be publicly shamed into doing the right thing and firing their coach this week. Not sure anyone wants them right now.

What I really don't understand is why they would have wanted to keep him after all of this. I _suppose_ he's done okay, but boy, it's not like he lit the world on fire at Maryland. Maybe they didn't want the cost of the buy out? Did anyone understand this?

Enix wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I’d be okay with a 10 team playoff as long as it was just the 10 conference champions. Top 2 highest ranked schools get a bye.

I'd love to see 16. Conference champs. Runners-up. A few wild cards. Then we'd bicker over seeds a la basketball.

It's so crazy it just might work... like it does in every other division of college football.

Well OK except Division II doesn't have the automatic conference champ bids because they have the "super region" thing grouping conferences together into mini-polls, but with a 28 team bracket, there's less getting left out.

WolverineJon wrote:

Are you claiming that UCF didn't win a part of the split national championship last year?

(Yes, I'm being a little silly here. But I think the fan debates that go on around this stuff are all part of the fun! Would 1997 Nebraska have beaten 1997 Michigan? Maybe! Who knows!)

97 FSU would have smoked either one of them, but lost their last game of the year (to a top 5 rival, by 3 points, on the road). In today's situation, we would have gotten at least one of those games. Instead, FSU beat tOSU in the Sugar.

Fight me!

firesloth wrote:
Stele wrote:

Yeah Maryland had to be publicly shamed into doing the right thing and firing their coach this week. Not sure anyone wants them right now.

What I really don't understand is why they would have wanted to keep him after all of this. I _suppose_ he's done okay, but boy, it's not like he lit the world on fire at Maryland. Maybe they didn't want the cost of the buy out? Did anyone understand this?

I doubt that, since I think I read the buyout would have been around $5 million, plus I would think they have a pretty good argument for termination with cause. Who knows?

Abu5217 wrote:

I doubt that, since I think I read the buyout would have been around $5 million, plus I would think they have a pretty good argument for termination with cause. Who knows?

I would have thought that, too, about termination with cause. However, if there's one thing that rich folks are good at, it's getting paid even when they get fired for heinous stuff.

Jayhawker wrote:

And a single loss does not wipe out a season. It’s not just the Power 5 powerhouses that get the benefit of losing a game, but still maintain a spot.

If there's no playoff, then losing a game disqualifies you from the national title for everyone. (Unless you get really lucky and every other team in the country also loses a game. Suddenly watching the games of those few remaining undefeateds and rooting for them to lose becomes very interesting!)

Abu5217 wrote:

97 FSU would have smoked either one of them, but lost their last game of the year (to a top 5 rival, by 3 points, on the road).

Know what was neat about that game? It mattered! It took away FSU's chance at the title that year.

If that were to have happened this year, that very meaningful and impactful loss would instead be meaningless, because that FSU team makes the playoff anyway.

Contrast that with, say, Ohio State's recent drubbing by Purdue. It barely mattered, because, let's be real, if OSU wins out, they're going to the playoff.

In the mid-90s, such an Ohio State loss would have been very interesting and impactful nationally because it would have taken Ohio State out of the national title race -- unless all other undefeated teams also were to lose (suddenly making all of those games super interesting for OSU fans).

WolverineJon wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

And a single loss does not wipe out a season. It’s not just the Power 5 powerhouses that get the benefit of losing a game, but still maintain a spot.

If there's no playoff, then losing a game disqualifies you from the national title for everyone. (Unless you get really lucky and every other team in the country also loses a game. Suddenly watching the games of those few remaining undefeateds and rooting for them to lose becomes very interesting!)

This paragraph proves that the Rose Bowl has broken the brains of Big 10 and PAC-12 fans. If you think every college football season should be a glorified Elimination Pool, you just signed in to the worst sports season experience I can imagine.

Take a gander at all the pointless games this weekend.

Jayhawker wrote:

This paragraph proves that the Rose Bowl has broken the brains of Big 10 and PAC-12 fans. If you think every college football season should be a glorified Elimination Pool, you just signed in to the worst sports season experience I can imagine.

How much do I need to donate to GWJ to change my forum tag to "Broken Brained Cal Fan"

Jayhawker wrote:

Take a gander at all the pointless games this weekend.

Every game other than Cal-WSU is pointless. I expect the same for your [insert alma mater here] game.

Jayhawker wrote:

This paragraph proves that the Rose Bowl has broken the brains of Big 10 and PAC-12 fans. If you think every college football season should be a glorified Elimination Pool, you just signed in to the worst sports season experience I can imagine.

Wow, ok! [Insert fire emoji here]

For me, living in a College Football world where a undefeated Bama team (hypothetical) loss this weekend would mean they're likely out, versus the world we live in now where recent experience has demonstrated that such a loss is meh / not impactful / they'll likely just dodge their conference championship game and make the playoff anyway, would be a pretty fun experience. But YMMV!

Bama could lose twice and still be in the playoffs. The playoffs aren't about crowning a champion. They're a made-for-TV event, like the bowls themselves, and Bama is very good TV.

Enix wrote:

Bama could lose twice and still be in the playoffs. The playoffs aren't about crowning a champion. They're a made-for-TV event, like the bowls themselves, and Bama is very good TV.

People did this complaint last year, and does anybody seriously not think Alabama deserved to be in the playoffs after what they did to Clemson?

MannishBoy wrote:
Enix wrote:

Bama could lose twice and still be in the playoffs. The playoffs aren't about crowning a champion. They're a made-for-TV event, like the bowls themselves, and Bama is very good TV.

People did this complaint last year, and does anybody seriously not think Alabama deserved to be in the playoffs after what they did to Clemson?

Are you really responding to a conspiracy theory with a logical argument about who the better team was?

So nice I posted twice!

Enix wrote:

Bama could lose twice and still be in the playoffs. The playoffs aren't about crowning a champion. They're a made-for-TV event, like the bowls themselves, and Bama is very good TV.

Probably. I doubt they fall from the top 4 if they lose this weekend. Maybe not out of the top 2.

If they lose twice, no matter how good we think they are, they should be out. The regular season should count for something. (And if they lose twice with all the cupcakes on their schedule... They won't.)

Fedaykin98 wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:
Enix wrote:

Bama could lose twice and still be in the playoffs. The playoffs aren't about crowning a champion. They're a made-for-TV event, like the bowls themselves, and Bama is very good TV.

People did this complaint last year, and does anybody seriously not think Alabama deserved to be in the playoffs after what they did to Clemson?

Are you really responding to a conspiracy theory with a logical argument about who the better team was?

What's logical about it? No, I don't think a team that failed to win its conference deserved to play in the playoffs. Period. It's giving a team a second chance while denying others. Last year, UCF really should have gotten a shot over them. It's like giving the Patriots an extra chance to make the playoffs, because they are obviously better than the other teams.

I mean, why have the playoffs or bowl games if fans are going to to trot out the eye test enough to qualify a team for the playoffs.

You are looking for one champion. If you can't win your conference, then you are eliminated from being the the one champion.

Jayhawker wrote:

You are looking for one champion. If you can't win your conference, then you are eliminated from being the the one champion.

So if you don't win your regular season division in the NFL, you don't deserve a shot at the Super Bowl?

And what about Notre Dame?

Or all the NCAA basketball teams that don't win their championships?

Just don't get the thinking, but everybody's got the right to their own opinions.

Listen, I'm a TN fan, I was bred to hate AL. But there was no better team last year, even if they did have one bad week.

Tell me which one of the leagues hand selects the teams that make the playoffs. They have the audacity to have a set of rules that every team knows in advance that regulate who gets into the playoffs. And they all have more teams.

I'm in favor of a 16 team playoffs, with 10 champions and 6 wildcards. But I will never support a system that allows in a wildcard over a champion. And if all you got are four teams, champions ought to be the logical place to start.

When you don't have rules, then you get stupid stuff like, "Alabama just had one bad week," carrying more weight than the one bad week of others. Why are humans still voting for who gets into the playoffs? Why is winning the games on your schedule not automatically a path to the playoffs?

To me, it's money and obnoxious SEC fans that live vicariously though the few great teams in the SEC, as though that makes their teams good.

firesloth wrote:
Enix wrote:

Bama could lose twice and still be in the playoffs. The playoffs aren't about crowning a champion. They're a made-for-TV event, like the bowls themselves, and Bama is very good TV.

Probably. I doubt they fall from the top 4 if they lose this weekend. Maybe not out of the top 2.

If they lose twice, no matter how good we think they are, they should be out. The regular season should count for something. (And if they lose twice with all the cupcakes on their schedule... They won't.)

Sloth...SLOTH! Come on man. The whole "cupcakes" argument is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if you play one true cupcake or three; what matters is how many good teams you play - teams that actually stand a chance of beating a national contender. Hell, take our schedule, reported by many outlets to be the hardest in the country. Why, when we play three alleged cupcakes? Because we play lots of really good teams (three of the current top four, for starters).

The whole "so many cupcakes" thing is just sour grapes looking for any chink in Bama's armor.

If you were facing a firing squad where each of twelve shooters fired just one shot, would you really like your chances better if you had three people who'd never shot a rifle before but also three Olympic shooters compared with a squad of all average shooters?

MannishBoy wrote:
Enix wrote:

Bama could lose twice and still be in the playoffs. The playoffs aren't about crowning a champion. They're a made-for-TV event, like the bowls themselves, and Bama is very good TV.

People did this complaint last year, and does anybody seriously not think Alabama deserved to be in the playoffs after what they did to Clemson?

Yes. UCF earned that spot.

Same argument happens in March Madness every year. Just because some team on the bubble makes it to the sweet 16 or some other team gets bounced doesn't mean they did or didn't deserve to get in the tournament.

Tournament inclusion is based on regular season performance. That grants you a chance to win the postseason. If you aren't good enough in the regular season you get left out. Alabama should have been home watching UCF win it all last year.

If there were 16 teams then an Alabama that was #1 all year BUT lost the its conf champ game would still have a chance as a wild card pick. That is the fairest way to do it.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
firesloth wrote:

The regular season should count for something. (And if they lose twice with all the cupcakes on their schedule... They won't.)

Sloth...SLOTH! Come on man. The whole "cupcakes" argument is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if you play one true cupcake or three; what matters is how many good teams you play - teams that actually stand a chance of beating a national contender. Hell, take our schedule, reported by many outlets to be the hardest in the country. Why, when we play three alleged cupcakes? Because we play lots of really good teams (three of the current top four, for starters).

The whole "so many cupcakes" thing is just sour grapes looking for any chink in Bama's armor.

This part wasn't meant to be part of my argument. Every year I am just frustrated that Alabama plays the number of FCS-level teams they do, as you've seen me gripe about around this time most every year.

I am not saying the fact they play cupcakes should keep them from the playoff (necessarily...though I would love it if it did!). I just can't get over the fact that the most dominant team over the last decade schedules 3 or 4 home gimmes every year. This year: Arkansas St., LA-Lafayette, Citadel, Louisville (hahahaha...sorry Stele).

Yes, not losing to "The Big Boys" is ultimately going to decide which teams go to the playoffs, and they've absolutely looked the part. I didn't (mean to) make the argument that some have made that their schedule tells us nothing given the presence of the cupcakes (I was trying to make a snide side comment).

That doesn't mean I can't find it laughable that they do this every year. If nothing else, their competitors should be pissed, as it puts less wear and tear on their personnel than a team that plays a more Power 5-heavy schedule. Except I suspect the result is actually that more teams go to a Bama-like schedule.

True. And UCF would have had an opportunity to lose the championship in the field and not in the polls. When SEC fans tout the championships of their conference, it is littered with questionable poll results, “quality losses,” and an avoidance in playing the Boise States.

But giving Group of 5 schools a shot at knocking off Power 5 schools might help their recruiting and bring a more level playing field to college football, and that is something the SEC fights every year.

firesloth wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:
firesloth wrote:

The regular season should count for something. (And if they lose twice with all the cupcakes on their schedule... They won't.)

Sloth...SLOTH! Come on man. The whole "cupcakes" argument is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if you play one true cupcake or three; what matters is how many good teams you play - teams that actually stand a chance of beating a national contender. Hell, take our schedule, reported by many outlets to be the hardest in the country. Why, when we play three alleged cupcakes? Because we play lots of really good teams (three of the current top four, for starters).

The whole "so many cupcakes" thing is just sour grapes looking for any chink in Bama's armor.

This part wasn't meant to be part of my argument. Every year I am just frustrated that Alabama plays the number of FCS-level teams they do, as you've seen me gripe about around this time most every year.

I am not saying the fact they play cupcakes should keep them from the playoff (necessarily...though I would love it if it did!). I just can't get over the fact that the most dominant team over the last decade schedules 3 or 4 home gimmes every year. This year: Arkansas St., LA-Lafayette, Citadel, Louisville (hahahaha...sorry Stele).

Yes, not losing to "The Big Boys" is ultimately going to decide which teams go to the playoffs, and they've absolutely looked the part. I didn't (mean to) make the argument that some have made that their schedule tells us nothing given the presence of the cupcakes (I was trying to make a snide side comment).

That doesn't mean I can't find it laughable that they do this every year. If nothing else, their competitors should be pissed, as it puts less wear and tear on their personnel than a team that plays a more Power 5-heavy schedule. Except I suspect the result is actually that more teams go to a Bama-like schedule.

Well, the real answer is eliminating schools doing their own schedules. Let the NCAA handle it, and have predetermined cycle of which conferences play each other in non-conference games, and cycle which schools play which.

You know, like the SEC does each year either own scheduling.

Go to a 10 game schedule and let schools have actual preseason games against cupcakes, but stop counting them in the standings.

I'll never tire of rage being directed at NCAAF's shoddy postseason.

*Legion* wrote:

I'll never tire of rage being directed at NCAAF's shoddy postseason.

I have. I'm the one who started this little sh!tshow, and I just skimmed most of the comments here.

Enix wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I'll never tire of rage being directed at NCAAF's shoddy postseason.

I have. I'm the one who started this little sh!tshow, and I just skimmed most of the comments here. :D

Come now Winston, it's time for the 2 Minute Hate.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/HgDfOKS.gif)

Stele wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:
Enix wrote:

Bama could lose twice and still be in the playoffs. The playoffs aren't about crowning a champion. They're a made-for-TV event, like the bowls themselves, and Bama is very good TV.

People did this complaint last year, and does anybody seriously not think Alabama deserved to be in the playoffs after what they did to Clemson?

Yes. UCF earned that spot.

UCF had a schedule strength last year somewhere in the 100's. Alabama, while not great, was at 20-30's IIRC.

And yes, the basketball tourney does hand select half of the teams in the 64. That whole selection committee process. It's much bigger field, so much less chance to completely miss a team that deserves to be in and actually has a shot at winning the whole thing, but still some committee review, like the football playoffs.

Until you have some kind of similar level of competition across conferences, and everybody's in a conference, just requiring conference championships and/or undefeated status is less likely to end up with the best team as overall champion than picking your teams out of the conference champions. The American does not equal the ACC. The Sunbelt is not the same level as the SEC. So their conference wins mean much different things on a typical year.

We're not going to convince each other, so I'll let it drop on my side. The current system is still horrible, but I don't think most people think that the best team in FBS football didn't win the championship last year.

Then don’t have a play-off. Let’s just have SEC fans decide who the best team in the country is. You know, because it is so obvious to them.