ACC in playoff?

[FightWinDrink]

Anyone remember how long we are locked into only 4 teams ?

I think the contract is 10 years

 

[TechPreacher]

I think they should have a Top Eight, force every Power 5 conference to have a Championship game, give each Power 5 Chanp an automatic bid and have three at large bids. That way pretty much everyone has a shot. Imagine that, if you're still mathematically alive for your conference, you're sill mathematically alive for a national championship. That would be pretty fun.

With the current alignment of 5 power conferences, I would like to see a 6-team playoff. 5 P5 champs plus the highest ranked G5 champ. CFP committee ranks the 6 teams. Top 2 get byes. 3 plays 6. 4 plays 5. Winners play top-2.

This setup fixes a few things with the current system:
1. It removes selection politics from the P5 conferences. (Just win, baby!)
2. It throws a bone to the G5 conferences to prevent anti-trust suits.
3. It forces ND to join the ACC.
4. It provides an extra round of playoffs.

Essentially, it becomes a 20-team playoff, considering championship games in all 10 conferences.

 

[tech_wreck47]

The fundamental problem with your point of view is that there is no end to it. Assume for a moment we agree that Louisville "looks" better than Clemson right now. If you think the best looking teams should go into the CFP, then why not do the same for the ACCCG? Why shouldn't the ACC select Louisville instead of Clemson to be the Atlantic Div rep in the ACCCG? If you answer that by saying Clemson should go since they won on the field, then we agree and the reason behind that decision explains why the same should apply for the CFP. If you answer that by saying the ACC *should* pick Louisville, then we simply totally disagree about the fundamental point of college football....
PS. I can't stand the "at this point in the season" kind of talk. Let's just call the first – what? – 6 or 8 games "pre-season" games and not count them; then the teams would know which games were going to be held against them and which weren't. Either the games are real games or they aren't. Can't have it both ways.

First no one says they aren't real games, but are you going to dissagree that teams get better as the season goes on and some get worse?

Second you have one major flaw in your assessment between the acc and the cfp, every team plays every team in each side of the acc, that's not the case in all of cfb as a whole. So when it says top 4 it means who they feel are the top 4 no matter if it's two teams from the same conference or not, so how do you do that? Easy brake down film and decided who you feel is the better team, maybe this is flawed but if so your way is just as flawed because how can you say a pen state if they were to win their conference is better than a Louisville if they have not played? So would it not be fair to both teams to put the film on and see who has the most impressive wins or who has the worse losses to determine the better team? Like I said what's it matter if Clemson beat Louisville? That doesn't neglect the fact that Louisville could still be a top 4 team and that's what they are trying to determine. I'm not saying this is the case but it's the top 4 not the top team from each conference for a reason, they want the best game possible, and obviously the committee agrees with me considering they have 2 big ten teams in the cfb for right now, that means only 3 out of 5 confrences. Turn on ESPN or a major sports talk show, and you will hear this debate of who is better and almost every analyst will tell you based on the eye test and not by conference championships. Like I said acc teams play each other so there is a set standard to who makes it to the championship game, CFP doesn't have every team play each other, and if they want the top 4 teams to create the best games possible they can't just throw a team in there over another based on a conference championship if there is another team with the same record but they have not played each other especially when one might play in a way tougher conference. so once again how do you determine the better team? film/ eye test, that's what the experts are paid for. I'm sorry I just don't see anyway to determine the true top 4 besides the eye test if every team doesn't play each other, but I still realize this method is flawed and you can't have it perfect but it's just my opinion this is the best way.

 

[tech_wreck47]

With the current alignment of 5 power conferences, I would like to see a 6-team playoff. 5 P5 champs plus the highest ranked G5 champ. CFP committee ranks the 6 teams. Top 2 get byes. 3 plays 6. 4 plays 5. Winners play top-2.

This setup fixes a few things with the current system:
1. It removes selection politics from the P5 conferences. (Just win, baby!)
2. It throws a bone to the G5 conferences to prevent anti-trust suits.
3. It forces ND to join the ACC.
4. It provides an extra round of playoffs.

Essentially, it becomes a 20-team playoff, considering championship games in all 10 conferences.

if you did 6 a team playoff a team would have to get a bye in the second round because only 3 teams would be left after round one. I would like to see an 8 team playoff, you could end up at the end of this year having a 1 loss Michigan or Ohio state team, a 1 loss pen state, 1 loss Washington, 1 loss Clemson, and a 1 loss Louisville plus teams like Wisconsin with 2 losses but that would give either Ohio state Michigan or pen state a 2nd loss in there championship game. I think all 7 of these teams plus Bama could have an argument to be in the playoffs depending on how things turn out.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

if you did 6 a team playoff a team would have to get a bye in the second round because only 3 teams would be left after round one. .

Not following you. He said bye in first round for top two. It would work.

 

[OldJacketFan]

I've said since the whole playoff at the D1 level came to be that it should have been 8 teams and haven't changed my mind The 5 P5 conference winners, the top G5 team and 2 wild cards.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Not following you. He said bye in first round for top two. It would work.

I totally missed that, thank you.

 

[jeffgt14]

I've said the whole time I like the 6 team model with top 2 getting a bye however I'm not a proponent of the automatic conference champions or automatic G5. I like the selection committee process itself but can't stand the selection committees hypocritic thought process of who they put in.

The heaviest weight should be put on a conference champion but it should not be the end all be all otherwise you'd get constant crappy out of conference schedules and you'd see us rolling out walk-ons against uga every year. If USC wins the Pac-12 it shouldn't get in over a 1 loss Louisville who's only loss was to Clemson but on that same note, a 1-loss OSU should not get in over a 2-loss conference champ Penn St who beat OSU head to head (which is a real scenario that will most likely happen). The Big 12 should forever be screwed over for not having a conference championship game.

The problem everyone had with the BCS is it was too objective and only had 2 teams but I think something like that can work for getting to the top 6. Perhaps apply a certain percentage increase in the computer for being a conference champion.

 

[RonJohn]

I've said the whole time I like the 6 team model with top 2 getting a bye however I'm not a proponent of the automatic conference champions or automatic G5. I like the selection committee process itself but can't stand the selection committees hypocritic thought process of who they put in.

It absolutely should be conference champions, plus a couple of at large. The committee should not determine who "qualifies" to get in or who is left out. The committee should ONLY determine what teams that were not able to qualify get a second chance. In every other NCAA sport, and in every other NCAA football division/subdivision, teams know exactly what they have to do to get in the tournament/playoffs. IF a team wins a conference championship, they cannot be denied an opportunity to play for a national championship. IF the NCAA is about STUDENT-ATHLETICS and not about entertainment money, then the system should absolutely be set up so that a student-athlete who gains a conference championship cannot be overlooked for entertainment and dollars. If entertainment and dollars are more important to the NCAA and to the P5 conferences, then it is not possible to keep the "amateur academic" stance up. The NCAA needs to decide if it is about amateur athletics, or if it is about entertainment dollars and act accordingly.

 

[jeffgt14]

It absolutely should be conference champions, plus a couple of at large. The committee should not determine who "qualifies" to get in or who is left out. The committee should ONLY determine what teams that were not able to qualify get a second chance. In every other NCAA sport, and in every other NCAA football division/subdivision, teams know exactly what they have to do to get in the tournament/playoffs. IF a team wins a conference championship, they cannot be denied an opportunity to play for a national championship. IF the NCAA is about STUDENT-ATHLETICS and not about entertainment money, then the system should absolutely be set up so that a student-athlete who gains a conference championship cannot be overlooked for entertainment and dollars. If entertainment and dollars are more important to the NCAA and to the P5 conferences, then it is not possible to keep the "amateur academic" stance up. The NCAA needs to decide if it is about amateur athletics, or if it is about entertainment dollars and act accordingly.

That's all fine and dandy until a 6-6 team wins their conference and gets in the playoffs over an 11-1 team who has destroyed everyone they've played except for a close loss on the road to an undefeated team who just so happens to be in their same division.

 

[RonJohn]

That's all fine and dandy until a 6-6 team wins their conference and gets in the playoffs over an 11-1 team who has destroyed everyone they've played except for a close loss on the road to an undefeated team who just so happens to be in their same division.

How many 6-6 teams have made it to their conference championship game? I think there were two(with GT being one of them). Both of those were caused by teams that were either on probation or self penalizing in anticipation of penalties from the NCAA in their division. Neither won.

And in response to the sentiment, it would still be fine and dandy even after a 7-6 conference champion got into the playoff. The 7-6 conference champion knew ahead of time what they had to do in order to make the playoffs. in 2014 TCU and Baylor didn't know ahead of time what it would take to get in. Even after shredding highly ranked opponents in bowl games, they didn't know what they could/should have done to get in. In your example, a team at 11-1 knew ahead of time what it would take and did not accomplish the path set forward, so does not deserve to get in. However, unless there were two or three other teams with similar "resumes", that team would be one of the two or three teams that the committee would extend the opportunity of a second chance.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

That's all fine and dandy until a 6-6 team wins their conference and gets in the playoffs over an 11-1 team who has destroyed everyone they've played except for a close loss on the road to an undefeated team who just so happens to be in their same division.

2011 NY Giants reached the playoffs at a 9-7 record. No one discounts their superbowl that year. Also the Broncos went to the playoffs too that year at 8-8 whereas the Titans missed the playoffs at 9-7.

 

[jeffgt14]

How many 6-6 teams have made it to their conference championship game? I think there were two(with GT being one of them). Both of those were caused by teams that were either on probation or self penalizing in anticipation of penalties from the NCAA in their division. Neither won.

And in response to the sentiment, it would still be fine and dandy even after a 7-6 conference champion got into the playoff. The 7-6 conference champion knew ahead of time what they had to do in order to make the playoffs. in 2014 TCU and Baylor didn't know ahead of time what it would take to get in. Even after shredding highly ranked opponents in bowl games, they didn't know what they could/should have done to get in. In your example, a team at 11-1 knew ahead of time what it would take and did not accomplish the path set forward, so does not deserve to get in. However, unless there were two or three other teams with similar "resumes", that team would be one of the two or three teams that the committee would extend the opportunity of a second chance.

So what every team needs to do is play their 3rd string for out of conference games so their starters are rested for conference games (games that actually count). The only way around that, which is also a response to jacketfromuga, is to go the NFL route and use overall record instead of conference record. The NFL can use overall record because all teams are on an even playing field. In college, teams would just play 3 terrible FCS teams to make sure they have 3 surefire wins. You can sure as **** guarantee we'd no longer have a series with UGA anymore if conferences used overall record for their championship games.

 

[RonJohn]

So what every team needs to do is play their 3rd string for out of conference games so their starters are rested for conference games (games that actually count). The only way around that, which is also a response to jacketfromuga, is to go the NFL route and use overall record instead of conference record. The NFL can use overall record because all teams are on an even playing field. In college, teams would just play 3 terrible FCS teams to make sure they have 3 surefire wins. You can sure as **** guarantee we'd no longer have a series with UGA anymore if conferences used overall record for their championship games.

I'm not sure the I agree with you about GT dropping the mutts game, even if we thought it hurt our post season chances. We play Clemson every year while this year VT plays Syracuse and Boston College. The conferences decide who their conference schedule and who their champion is. In BBall, most conferences use the conference tournament. The regular season ACC champion is most likely going to get then the NCAA tournament, but there have been mid-majors in the last few years that only lost 2-3-4 games including a loss in the conference championship game that didn't make the NCAA tournament. If those teams want the regular season games to determine the champion, they have to take it up with the conference, not the NCAA.

If you pay attention to high school football, some teams do the kinds of things you listed. In high school, only region games matter. Some teams schedule cupcake opponents, while some schedule really tough opponents out of region. Some coaches think that easy to win games get the team ramped up, while other coaches believe that playing top opponents gets their team ready for the playoffs. If a conference has a 7-6 champion, they will probably be seeded low, and will probably lose the first game. But, if a team won their conference at 7-6 and then beat say: Michigan in the first round, Alabama in the second round, and Louisville in the championship game, would you still say that they didn't deserve to be there?

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

Too much to read here - but whatever system we have if it can screw n.d. then I am for it.

Not sure what else was said, but if we ever try to drop ugag, I hope the state steps in and forces us to man up.

 

[jeffgt14]

I'm not sure the I agree with you about GT dropping the mutts game, even if we thought it hurt our post season chances. We play Clemson every year while this year VT plays Syracuse and Boston College. The conferences decide who their conference schedule and who their champion is. In BBall, most conferences use the conference tournament. The regular season ACC champion is most likely going to get then the NCAA tournament, but there have been mid-majors in the last few years that only lost 2-3-4 games including a loss in the conference championship game that didn't make the NCAA tournament. If those teams want the regular season games to determine the champion, they have to take it up with the conference, not the NCAA.

If you pay attention to high school football, some teams do the kinds of things you listed. In high school, only region games matter. Some teams schedule cupcake opponents, while some schedule really tough opponents out of region. Some coaches think that easy to win games get the team ramped up, while other coaches believe that playing top opponents gets their team ready for the playoffs. If a conference has a 7-6 champion, they will probably be seeded low, and will probably lose the first game. But, if a team won their conference at 7-6 and then beat say: Michigan in the first round, Alabama in the second round, and Louisville in the championship game, would you still say that they didn't deserve to be there?

We may not drop UGA but UGA sure as hell would drop us. Both NCAA BBall and high school football have a much larger post season so those examples don't even come close to comparing against a 6 team playoff.

If a conference has a 7-6 champion, they will probably be seeded low, and will probably lose the first game. But, if a team won their conference at 7-6 and then beat say: Michigan in the first round, Alabama in the second round, and Louisville in the championship game, would you still say that they didn't deserve to be there?

In a 6 team playoff, yes.

 

[Boomergump]

All sports should have championships decided on the field of play, not the voting booth, no matter how much film you watch to justify your position, or how you value team's records across conferences. Every conference gets their champ in the dance. ONLY conference champs get the ticket. We can call "power 5" the best all we want. Even the Sun Belt deserves a shot. AP rankings and the like should only be used to seed the brackets and award byes. To do anything else just cheapens the regular season game results along the way. If Clemmons wins the ACC, then there should be no way L'ville gets in, no matter how much we "think" that they are better. That game was already played this year and Clemson won. Done.

 

[18in32]

First no one says they aren't real games, but are you going to dissagree that teams get better as the season goes on and some get worse?

Second you have one major flaw in your assessment between the acc and the cfp, every team plays every team in each side of the acc, that's not the case in all of cfb as a whole. So when it says top 4 it means who they feel are the top 4 no matter if it's two teams from the same conference or not, so how do you do that? Easy brake down film and decided who you feel is the better team, maybe this is flawed but if so your way is just as flawed because how can you say a pen state if they were to win their conference is better than a Louisville if they have not played? So would it not be fair to both teams to put the film on and see who has the most impressive wins or who has the worse losses to determine the better team? Like I said what's it matter if Clemson beat Louisville? That doesn't neglect the fact that Louisville could still be a top 4 team and that's what they are trying to determine. I'm not saying this is the case but it's the top 4 not the top team from each conference for a reason, they want the best game possible, and obviously the committee agrees with me considering they have 2 big ten teams in the cfb for right now, that means only 3 out of 5 confrences. Turn on ESPN or a major sports talk show, and you will hear this debate of who is better and almost every analyst will tell you based on the eye test and not by conference championships. Like I said acc teams play each other so there is a set standard to who makes it to the championship game, CFP doesn't have every team play each other, and if they want the top 4 teams to create the best games possible they can't just throw a team in there over another based on a conference championship if there is another team with the same record but they have not played each other especially when one might play in a way tougher conference. so once again how do you determine the better team? film/ eye test, that's what the experts are paid for. I'm sorry I just don't see anyway to determine the true top 4 besides the eye test if every team doesn't play each other, but I still realize this method is flawed and you can't have it perfect but it's just my opinion this is the best way.

The uneven scheduling of cross-division games means that teams within each division do not play comparable schedules, and therefore pure conference record (which currently determines the division champ) does not equally test each team. We play Clemson every year; Duke plays Wake every year. In most years those victories don't mean the same thing. Hence the 'eye' test does not line up with the conf. record, and hence my analogy between the ACCCG and the CFP does hold.

Anyhow, thanks for your response. I think we've taken this conversation about as far as it can go. No worries –

 

[18in32]

I've said since the whole playoff at the D1 level came to be that it should have been 8 teams and haven't changed my mind The 5 P5 conference winners, the top G5 team and 2 wild cards.

I like this model, too. The only caveat I would add is that I think they should start the quarterfinals in mid December, so that the semifinals are played on New Year's Day and the final a week later (like now). If they played the quarterfinals on New Year's Day, it would push the whole thing back too far. Shouldn't be playing college football in mid January.

 

[UgaBlows]

I dont think ug would ever drop our game