CFP Discussion

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Conference championships mean about as much as winning the Pinstripe Bowl, ie. they mean nothing. Seriously now, does anyone care who wins a conference? It’s all about the playoff system. I know many will clutch their pearls at that, but the reality is no one cares. Was I glad we won the ACC tourney in hoops last season? Sure because it’s better than not winning it. But was I at the same level of passion as when we won it 30 years ago? Heck no. Why? Because it didn’t mean anything of substance. The real tourney started 4 days later and we got bounced by a nobody on day 1.

This year the back room committee will once again pick 4 teams who represent the power brokers while others get left out. We’ll all watch and argue about it and then it will be over and the bagmen will reload their rosters. Meanwhile, all these bowl games will take place in empty stadiums at the discretion of TV time slots where the players won’t care and the good ones will sit out. Give it another decade and we’ll be at over 20 teams in the playoffs as it should be.

And for those asking about the number of games being played - are you serious? The NCAA or schools have zero care about the players. They make baseball players bus or fly all over the place on school days and play every weekend. The players are replaceable cogs in the system so whether they play 11, 12, 14, or 16 games no one cares. And when you hear someone bring this up, please remember they are virtue signaling as they are the same people who added the conference championship games and playoffs. It’s all about the money today and the money tomorrow.

 

[TampaBuzz]

I’m completely on board with the idea of including the champions if it increased to around 12. But there’s still issues with this that I raised earlier. and I’m not asking you to solve them, I’m just asking if the headache of the new 12 or whatever team playoff is going to be easier than the four we have now.

1- scheduling: are we going to shorten the regular season? Because that’s going to be a more games, and we already see players skipping postseason games. And while they may start, once they see they are falling behind, are they going to sit out?
2- is the argument for those last at large bids going to be any different than now? It’s still going to be subjective at that point, and that seems to be what is bothering everybody.
2b- is that going to stop the money people from just getting more ESPN/SEC teams in?
3- what’s going to happen to the bowl games? Yes, this is kind of an after thought but I am somebody who loves all the bowl games

As you know, this is all just a big hypothetical pipe dream. I am kinda making this up as I go along.....chaos would ensue! This rabbit hole is getting deep.

1. I dunno. Each league/conference sets the rules for their league.
2. I guess I haven't been clear; there are zero "at large" teams in my idealistic fantasy playoff world. If you don't win a league title, you don't play in The Tournament of Champions. The only deal would be that each league has to have a minimum number of teams so we don't end up with 30 leagues with 4 teams each. Maybe a max of 8 leagues with a minimum of 16 teams per league (that would be 128 team)?
3. Again; the rule is only ONE (1) team from each league/conference. ESPN/Media companies have no say in who makes the tournament; teams earn their spot on the field of play within their conference/league. Maybe some SEC teams would change to another conference so they have a better chance to get in the tourney? Can you imagine Texas, A&M, Missouri, and OU back to the Big 12?
4. I dunno. If the bowl games want to match up 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place finishers from the various conferences, then they can still do so. I imagine some of the bowls would want to host the Tournament games.

 

[YoungSting]

As you know, this is all just a big hypothetical pipe dream. I am kinda making this up as I go along.....chaos would ensue! This rabbit hole is getting deep.

1. I dunno. Each league/conference sets the rules for their league.
2. I guess I haven't been clear; there are zero "at large" teams in my idealistic fantasy playoff world. If you don't win a league title, you don't play in The Tournament of Champions. The only deal would be that each league has to have a minimum number of teams so we don't end up with 30 leagues with 4 teams each. Maybe a max of 8 leagues with a minimum of 16 teams per league (that would be 128 team)?
3. Again; the rule is only ONE (1) team from each league/conference. ESPN/Media companies have no say in who makes the tournament; teams earn their spot on the field of play within their conference/league. Maybe some SEC teams would change to another conference so they have a better chance to get in the tourney? Can you imagine Texas, A&M, Missouri, and OU back to the Big 12?
4. I dunno. If the bowl games want to match up 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place finishers from the various conferences, then they can still do so. I imagine some of the bowls would want to host the Tournament games.

I think if I were to switch up my brain and me view how the “playoffs” are viewed and go to the idea your tournament of champions, I would be all over this. So if we had a perfect world, this idea is something that could work

 

[TampaBuzz]

I think if I were to switch up my brain and me view how the “playoffs” are viewed and go to the idea your tournament of champions, I would be all over this. So if we had a perfect world, this idea is something that could work

I hear ya! You totally have to pretend that the current system doesn't exist. But it does and all the behind the curtain shenanigans will get worse in the future when 4 SEC teams play 2 Big 10 Teams, 1 ACC team (maybe) and 1 team (not SEC) from west of the Mississippi each year.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

I hear ya! You totally have to pretend that the current system doesn't exist. But it does and all the behind the curtain shenanigans will get worse in the future when 4 SEC teams play 2 Big 10 Teams, 1 ACC team (maybe) and 1 team (not SEC) from west of the Mississippi each year.

So what’s wrong with 4 SEC teams if they are strong? What would be wrong if Miami, GT, FSU, and Clemson all recruited in the top 20 and all had legit QB’s and all ranked in the top 10 for a stretch of time? What would be wrong if Ohio St., Michigan, Penn State, and Iowa were all top ten good in a given year. This jealousy of the SEC is just crazy and warps opinions. I hate them too. But when it comes to college sports I acknowledge they are smarter and better at fielding better teams and at media relations. It’s no different than when the ACC would have 3 of 4 Final Four teams. The SEC has been showing everyone the path to success. The problem is the other conferences are yet to get the attention of high end 14-18 year old males like the SEC has.

 

[WreckinGT]

So what’s wrong with 4 SEC teams if they are strong? What would be wrong if Miami, GT, FSU, and Clemson all recruited in the top 20 and all had legit QB’s and all ranked in the top 10 for a stretch of time? What would be wrong if Ohio St., Michigan, Penn State, and Iowa were all top ten good in a given year. This jealousy of the SEC is just crazy and warps opinions. I hate them too. But when it comes to college sports I acknowledge they are smarter and better at fielding better teams and at media relations. It’s no different than when the ACC would have 3 of 4 Final Four teams. The SEC has been showing everyone the path to success. The problem is the other conferences are yet to get the attention of high end 14-18 year old males like the SEC has.

The ACC has never had 3 teams in the final four. Since the tournament expanded three teams from the same conference has only happened once. There haven't even been two teams from the same conference since 2016. That combined with your other post insinuating Loyola Chicago is a nobody leads me to believe that you should watch a little more college basketball.

As for the SEC, they have their regular season and they have their conference championship. Nobody wants to see their 4th best team with probably two losses to two of the other three teams get another chance to lose again to the same teams. It's pointless. If they are that great then just pull out of the CFP and host your own tournament. Have the 4 best SEC teams duke it out every year for the second or third time of the season. Crown your own national champion and see if people care.

 

[orientalnc]

As much as we hate the idea, I bet everyone of us would bet on uga if we were placing money on the championship game today. If not, you probably should not be betting. That said, I think there is a fair chance uga will not be in the CFP.

The best chance for that to happen is for OU, Cincy, and one of the B1G teams to win out. And for Bama to win the SEC championship game. That's a lot to have happen, so what else might keep the dawgs in Athens in January?

There are four B1G teams in the top ten and another at #11. Whoever wins the B1G will have survived a brutal gauntlet. But, the chances of them being undefeated is probably very low. Would a once defeated B1G champion be picked over a one loss SEC runner up?

Cincinnati has only one regular season game left where the line might be less than 28 points. If they beat SMU they will play either SMU or Houston for the AAC championship. There is nothing there that resembles a gauntlet, but Cincinnati has been impressive. They need Notre Dame to win out and be shouting about their CFP credentials as well. Will an undefeated G5 team be picked over a one loss SEC runner-up? We have seen that question answered in the negative before.

Oklahoma still has Oklahoma State and Baylor to play, plus, probably, one of them in the Big-12 championship game. Baylor could be the spoiler here, but OU looks like the best Big-12 team right now. An undefeated Big-12 team is in the CFP. A one loss team? Probably not.

Can Bama beat uga? That is also a big question.

So, as GT fans we need to have Cincy, OU, Michigan and Bama in our "pull for" list the rest of the season. My son says even that won't be enough to keep uga out of the CFP, but it's our best chance.

 

[JG3]

Are we going to shorten the number of regular season games? Because now you’re asking college teams to play possibly 2-3 extra games? In a time where guys are already sitting out so they don’t get hurt for the draft. Yeah, we don’t see it in playoffs right now, but if a game is starting to get one sided, why would a high draft pick even risk an injury?
I just don’t believe there 12 good enough teams in most years that are deserving of going to the playoffs. And then all you are doing is kicking the arguement from who got snubbed at 5 to who got snubbed at 13. Then we will have the “let’s expand it to x”. Where does it stop?

I think they would have to if the ncaa cares to show any pretenses that they give a flip about the health of the student athletes they over see.

 

[forensicbuzz]

So what’s wrong with 4 SEC teams if they are strong? What would be wrong if Miami, GT, FSU, and Clemson all recruited in the top 20 and all had legit QB’s and all ranked in the top 10 for a stretch of time? What would be wrong if Ohio St., Michigan, Penn State, and Iowa were all top ten good in a given year. This jealousy of the SEC is just crazy and warps opinions. I hate them too. But when it comes to college sports I acknowledge they are smarter and better at fielding better teams and at media relations. It’s no different than when the ACC would have 3 of 4 Final Four teams. The SEC has been showing everyone the path to success. The problem is the other conferences are yet to get the attention of high end 14-18 year old males like the SEC has.

Then they should win their conference. The problem is how "strong" teams are identified as "strong." It's subjective and highly biased. I've shown specific evidence of this, so I'm not going down this road with you again. The "path to success" the SEC has been showing is the path through the hype machine, buoyed by ESPN who has a vested financial interest in touting the SEC over other conferences.

 

[forensicbuzz]

There are four B1G teams in the top ten and another at #11. Whoever wins the B1G will have survived a brutal gauntlet. But, the chances of them being undefeated is probably very low. Would a once defeated B1G champion be picked over a one loss SEC runner up?

ALL DAY, EVERY DAY!

 

[Jerry the Jacket]

All conference winners should automatically qualify for the CFP. The field needs to expand to accommodate every conference and a few wild cards.

 

[georgytech]

Only conference champs should be in the CFP in my opinion.
A full season shows which team was best. All the D1 conference champs or whatever they call it these days should be in the playoff & instead of seeding teams a random draw for matchup.
Personally I would like conferences where teams played every member of that conference.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Then they should win their conference. The problem is how "strong" teams are identified as "strong." It's subjective and highly biased. I've shown specific evidence of this, so I'm not going down this road with you again. The "path to success" the SEC has been showing is the path through the hype machine, buoyed by ESPN who has a vested financial interest in touting the SEC over other conferences.

I agree with everything you said. Except the hype machine part. Listen, college football since we all have been alive has been a beauty pageant. It’s been the Russian judge always giving the Russian a higher score. It’s never been about finding the best team. The SEC is just smarter than everyone in using this stupid system to their conference benefit. Y’all act like they are doing something morally wrong by having the forethought to get in bed with ESPN and hype themselves. The ACC could have and SHOULD have done it, but they were too busy taking execs at Jefferson Pilot to lunch. I’ve mentioned before that I live in South Georgia with high end teams all over this area. We’ve had the SEC network on local cable (which most players have) since it’s inception. We got the ACC network this past August. And we wonder why high end players in Albany, Lee, Moultrie, Thomasville, Valdosta, Bainbridge, Tifton, etc go to SEC schools. It’s what they see on TV every day.

In the old days you had teams like Norte Dame, Texas, and others who used the “hype machine” of the sportswriters to ensure their votes. The media evolved and the SEC evolved with it. I believe it’s still evolving from TV to streaming and I’ve praised Collins for his forethought in this area.

But regarding the playoff system, once they expand to 20 plus teams then these issues you have of “hype” will go away as every team will get a real shot on the field and won’t have to worry about the “subjective” or “biased” opinions. I think they’ll get to 24 teams where the top 8 get byes and the bottom 16 play at the higher seed field. The the top 8 host the winners of round 1 at their field. Once you get to 8 you can use whatever is left of the bowl system to finish it out. And the NCAA has already proven by actions they don’t care about the health of any athletes.

 

[slugboy]

Oklahoma, losing to-ehrm, Kansas???

In other news, Navy and Cincinnati tied at 10.

 

[YoungSting]

Only conference champs should be in the CFP in my opinion.
A full season shows which team was best. All the D1 conference champs or whatever they call it these days should be in the playoff & instead of seeding teams a random draw for matchup.
Personally I would like conferences where teams played every member of that conference.

You say we can tell who the best through the season is, but then want AQ for conference champions. So do you want the best teams, or conference champions? Because that’s not always the same
And random draw? We’re going to crown a champion based on complete luck of the draw? I realize some will say it’s luck to get the 3 over 4 seed, but most years you can probably make a distinction between the 2 seeds

 

[slugboy]

You say we can tell who the best through the season is, but then want AQ for conference champions. So do you want the best teams, or conference champions? Because that’s not always the same
And random draw? We’re going to crown a champion based on complete luck of the draw? I realize some will say it’s luck to get the 3 over 4 seed, but most years you can probably make a distinction between the 2 seeds

You don’t have to AQ for the conference champions, but in a four team playoff you can certainly and reasonably limit the playoffs to conference champions.
If you’re not going to play “best of 5” or something like it, you’re already accepting single elimination. Make the conference games count and start the eliminations there.

 

[slugboy]

Kansas is feeling their oats

 

[YoungSting]

ALL DAY, EVERY DAY!

This absolutely baffles me. Sure, you might not be able to compare conferences, but to not be able to sit back and look and say “huh, this conference is really bad” is beyond me.
One example: one side of the ACC becomes an absolute beast (will say coastal). Team A from coastal goes undefeated, team b has only one loss (to team a), Team C wins the weak Atlantic at .500 record (one of the losses coming from team B) Team C pulls the upset in the conference championship. So team C gets to go over team A and B?

 

[YoungSting]

You don’t have to AQ for the conference champions, but in a four team playoff you can certainly and reasonably limit the playoffs to conference champions.
If you’re not going to play “best of 5” or something like it, you’re already accepting single elimination. Make the conference games count and start the eliminations there.

Oh I can completely agree with that. I have been saying that a conference championship should be a heavy factor in the equation

 

[forensicbuzz]

This absolutely baffles me. Sure, you might not be able to compare conferences, but to not be able to sit back and look and say “huh, this conference is really bad” is beyond me.
One example: one side of the ACC becomes an absolute beast (will say coastal). Team A from coastal goes undefeated, team b has only one loss (to team a), Team C wins the weak Atlantic at .500 record (one of the losses coming from team B) Team C pulls the upset in the conference championship. So team C gets to go over team A and B?

My response is that a 1 loss B1G champion will get in ahead of 1 loss SEC runner-up EVERY TIME. I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind even contemplating that wouldn’t happen.

A 1-loss B1G champion would most likely get in over an undefeated G5 team. I don’t agree with that necessarily, but it is what it is.