2017-18 NCAA Football Thread

[MJWalker45]

There was precedent when they let in Ohio State last year. They felt Bama-Clemson would be the better game than Clemson-Ohio State and went with it. In the future I think we'll see two teams from the same conference and  they'll stick them together in a semi-final if they can justify it. They could have done that with Georgia if Clemson hadn't drilled Miami. 

[alxy8s]

2011 Bama-LSU led to the cry for the playoff being answered. I think every SEC fan believed that a playoff would only increase the likelihood of an all-SEC CG. 

 

An 8 team wouldn’t fix anything.

 

Please look at the rankings this year and come up with an iron-clad 8-team field. It’s impossible. There are 12 teams this year that have an argument to be included. The playoff isn’t a reward for having a good year, it’s a system of determining the national champion. That should be a highly selective group, not an everyone’s-welcome crapshoot. 

 

3 teams in the final 8 of this year’s rankings are in the SEC. Expand the field to 8 and you almost always will have at least 2 SEC schools included. 

 

I’ve never bought into the idea that a UCF, Boise State, Hawaii, NIU, or whomever else had any real claim to being among the top 2 teams when we had the BCS. Sure, they could pull off a win against a better team. I always question the team’s motivation and preparation for the prospect of playing some second tier opponent for the sake of taking home a meaningless bowl trophy. Maybe a team that goes undefeated deserves a shot. I thought this year would have been a good year to try it out because there was no clear-cut power 5 team for the 4 seed. But when expanding to 8 teams, does anyone really believe that that kind of team is going to rattle off 3 consecutive wins of that magnitude?

 

I’d hate to see the effect of an 8 team playoff on conference championship week. It’d turn it into a version of NFL Week 17 where half the teams can pack it in and give themselves a bye. 

 

Anyhow, on a more personal note, how bout them Dawgs? That was the best game I’ve ever seen, despite being sick over it for one reason or another for 4+ hours. I know most of the country hates the matchup, but I’m excited to play Alabama. It wouldn’t feel complete to win the SEC and the playoff without ever facing Bama. Here’s their shot. Go Dawgs!

[TBGKon]

True, but in an 8 team playoff you'd have to have all 5 Power conference champs, plus the highest ranked non Power 5 champ and 2 wild cards.  A rule should state that the wild cards cannot be ranked higher than 6 to reward the conference champs.  Quarterfinal matches would be played at campus sites the week after conference championship weekend, with the semis and finals no different than they are today.

 

Under my plans, this year would've looked like:

 

8 UCF (top G5) @ 1 Clemson (ACC champ)

7 Auburn (wild card) @ 2 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ)

6 Alabama (wild card) @ 3 Georgia (SEC Champ)

5 USC (Pac 12 champ) @ 4 Ohio State (Big Ten Champ)

 

Of course, nothing is perfect and a team like Wisconsin could have a beef with not getting in, but those wild cards would be decided under the best of the remaining teams.

 

 

 

[Unocal]

You had ONE job, committee.

 

Instead, you showed your true colors- Crimson and White.

[Sport]

I like the 4 team playoff because it keeps things exclusive and the regular season meaningful. For that same reason only conference champions should be eligible. Georgia is essentially punished for playing in the SEC championship game because they added an extra game to their bodies compared to their national championship opponent who wasn't good enough to qualify for the conference championship. How's that make sense? 

 

 

[AstroCree]

The playoff committee is a big joke. This whole system is nothing but an embarrassment to College Football. I hate this "quality wins and losses" crap that the committee factors in when deciding who gets in the playoffs. That's not it should work and that's how life works. They weren't good enough to play in the conference game and yet they got awarded to play in the playoffs over a team that went undefeated. 

 

UCF are the National Champions and they proved that last night by not only beating an SEC team but the same one that beat Alabama. I won't be watching this game because in my eyes, the season ended last night.

[See Red]

At the time I didn't really think Alabama deserved to get into the playoffs but I also didn't really think any of the other teams in the conversation had a great argument themselves.  The goal is to find the best teams in the country.  If you believe otherwise, you are wrong as the committee every single year has been clear about their purpose.  Considering Alabama was the odds on favorite to win even before this weekend and everybody's already crowning them, how can anybody reasonably argue Alabama is not one of the four best teams?  Ohio State losing by 100 to a mediocre Iowa team was a disqualifier. Wisconsin would have to be disqualified for the same reason as Alabama as they're not conference champions.  I'm not willing to give them bonus points for playing in a weak division while Alabama played in maybe the toughest one.  Not sure anybody can reasonably argue the Pac 12 champ deserved to be in this year.

 

I could have lived with UCF but come on, they'd be a big underdog against any of the four playoff teams.  Though UCF staking a claim to the National Title would still be more legit than some of the championships Alabama claims.

[stumpygremlin]

I'm in favor of playing things out on the field as much as possible. Where we don't have balanced schedules among the 130-odd teams in FBS, there is really only one fairest way to do it, and that is a 16-team playoff. You fill that bracket with the ten conference champions and the six best at-larges. You can have it at campus sites, with 

 

This year, your bracket would have looked like:

1) Clemson vs Toledo

2) Oklahoma vs Troy

3) Georgia vs FAU

4) Alabama vs Boise State

5) Ohio State vs UCF

6) Wisconsin vs Washington

7) Auburn vs Miami

8) USC vs Penn State

(Note: I seeded teams 14-16 based on Sagarin ratings, those teams being CFP-unranked conference champions.)

 

How would this play out? I have no idea, but I think that this system gives real meaning to winning a conference, yet rewards other really good teams. The percentage of teams that get into this playoff is less than 13%, which is even less than what gets in to the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament.

[Cosmic]

3 minutes ago, stumpygremlin said:

I'm in favor of playing things out on the field as much as possible. Where we don't have balanced schedules among the 130-odd teams in FBS, there is really only one fairest way to do it, and that is a 16-team playoff. You fill that bracket with the ten conference champions and the six best at-larges. You can have it at campus sites, with 

 

This year, your bracket would have looked like:

1) Clemson vs Toledo

2) Oklahoma vs Troy

3) Georgia vs FAU

4) Alabama vs Boise State

5) Ohio State vs UCF

6) Wisconsin vs Washington

7) Auburn vs Miami

8) USC vs Penn State

(Note: I seeded teams 14-16 based on Sagarin ratings, those teams being CFP-unranked conference champions.)

 

How would this play out? I have no idea, but I think that this system gives real meaning to winning a conference, yet rewards other really good teams. The percentage of teams that get into this playoff is less than 13%, which is even less than what gets in to the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament.

As a video game project or some kind of thought experiment, I agree with everything you said. However, the two teams in the championship will have played four playoff games; that's too long for college football.

[Seadragon76]

16 might be too much for now... I'm thinking 8 would be good for an expansion process of the playoff. You can have the five conference champions from the Power 5, the highest ranked Group of 5 champion and two wild cards. Those wild cards would be determined by the CFP rankings.

 

So, what you would have is this:

 

-(8) UCF vs. (1) Clemson

-(5) Ohio State vs. (4) Alabama

-(7) USC vs. (2) Oklahoma

-(6) Wisconsin vs. (3) Georgia

[stumpygremlin]

45 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

As a video game project or some kind of thought experiment, I agree with everything you said. However, the two teams in the championship will have played four playoff games; that's too long for college football.

My argument against that is that the Division III champions played 15 games this season. As it would stand right now, you'd have Georgia play 17 games and Alabama playing 16. That extra game or two, including conference championships in the deal, are not too bad in reality. Certainly doable with some finessing.

 

30 minutes ago, Seadragon76 said:

16 might be too much for now... I'm thinking 8 would be good for an expansion process of the playoff. You can have the five conference champions from the Power 5, the highest ranked Group of 5 champion and two wild cards. Those wild cards would be determined by the CFP rankings.

 

So, what you would have is this:

 

-(8) UCF vs. (1) Clemson

-(5) Ohio State vs. (4) Alabama

-(7) USC vs. (2) Oklahoma

-(6) Wisconsin vs. (3) Georgia

My main issue with this is essentially, you're creating a third separation within Division I. (I have that problem with the current system as well.) If you're going to have ten conferences nominally playing at the same level, then I think that their champions all deserve a shot at the championship. Literally every other NCAA sport works this way, and football should be the same. Sure, in most years teams like Troy would get blitzed by Oklahoma, but that happens in basketball with SWAC/MEAC teams getting blitzed by Kentucky.

[crashcarson15]

4 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I like the 4 team playoff because it keeps things exclusive and the regular season meaningful. For that same reason only conference champions should be eligible. Georgia is essentially punished for playing in the SEC championship game because they added an extra game to their bodies compared to their national championship opponent who wasn't good enough to qualify for the conference championship. How's that make sense? 

The flip side is that why was Georgia good enough to qualify for the conference championship, but not Alabama? Both went 7-1 in the SEC, both lost to Auburn on the road relatively convincingly, and neither had too many big wins of consequence — yet since Georgia is located further east than Alabama, they got the chance to be conference champions and avenge that loss.

 

The division setup is awful, especially so when teams play disproportionately different schedules, yet compete against each other for the same “championship.” I’d love to see college football eliminate championship games and divisions, crown the team(s) with the best record(s) (co-)champion(s), and either add a 13th game for everyone or add a round to the playoff.

[MJWalker45]

2 hours ago, Cosmic said:

As a video game project or some kind of thought experiment, I agree with everything you said. However, the two teams in the championship will have played four playoff games; that's too long for college football.

Go  back to 11 game schedule. FCS schools already play 15-16 games to make it to the final, Division III as well. 

[Sport]

1 hour ago, crashcarson15 said:

The flip side is that why was Georgia good enough to qualify for the conference championship, but not Alabama? Both went 7-1 in the SEC, both lost to Auburn on the road relatively convincingly, and neither had too many big wins of consequence — yet since Georgia is located further east than Alabama, they got the chance to be conference champions and avenge that loss.

 

The division setup is awful, especially so when teams play disproportionately different schedules, yet compete against each other for the same “championship.” I’d love to see college football eliminate championship games and divisions, crown the team(s) with the best record(s) (co-)champion(s), and either add a 13th game for everyone or add a round to the playoff.

I don't have a problem with that because that's the deal everyone agreed to well before the season. Those are the pre-established rules and these are the divisions that have been set up for years. Also it was understood by both Alabama and Auburn going into the Iron Bowl that the division and an appearance in the SEC Championship game was on the line. It didn't happen in an information-less vacuum and Alabama didn't perform in their big test. So Alabama had to go on the road to Auburn? Tough boogers, deal with your circumstances. So Alabama happened to be in the tougher division this time? Tough boogers, deal with your circumstances. It's sort of like the possession arrow in basketball. Sometimes it doesn't point your way. I just have an issue allowing a team to compete for the national championship when they didn't handle their business to get to their conference championship. 

 

The message the committee sent by putting Alabama in the playoff is that not only did the Iron Bowl not matter, but it was actually beneficial in the long run for Alabama to lose that game. And I realize OSU benefitted from this same thing in the past. In the interest of fairness I must say that I wouldn't have had an issue if they'd been left out. 

 

You're never going to get rid of conference championship games now that we have them so you might as well make them as important as possible and make it a prerequisite for the 4 team playoff. It'd result in less squabbling over politics because every team will have truly won their way into the playoff. IDK what to do with Notre Dame in this hypothetical. My suggestion is ya Domers join a conference like everybody else. 

[dfwabel]

Welcome to 2018 football coaches.

 

http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcats/football/ua-football-coach-rich-rodriguez-the-subject-of-notice-of/article_a5da70da-f02d-11e7-a7f8-17b0f5c5ce06.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share&id=201408

 

Quote

“After conducting a thorough evaluation of our football program and its leadership, both on and off the field, President Robbins and I feel it is in the best interest of the University of Arizona and our athletics department to go in a new direction,” UA athletic director Dave Heeke said. “We’ll move through the coaching search in an effort to identify a head coach that will build a solid foundation for our program and create an identity of Arizona football that the University, Tucson and Southern Arizona communities can be proud of. We’re excited about the future of our football program and we look forward to introducing our new head coach at the completion of the search process.”

 

The notice of claim was filed Thursday. The Star submitted a public-records request with the attorney general’s office Tuesday morning. As of Tuesday night, the documents had not been released.  A notice of claim is an advance notice of a lawsuit against a public body. Most notices of claim are first sent to the Arizona Board of Regents or the University of Arizona itself. This claim went directly to the attorney general's office.

 

[oldschoolvikings]

I'm fine with the 4 team format.  Every year so far, its given us a champion that felt deserved, and still left room for a little fun anger/controversy. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to going to 8, but only on one condition.  The 8 teams need to be decided on by the exact same process used to decide the 4.  None of this "5 conference champs" crap.  Screw that.  The absolute best part of the current set up is the lack of automatic bids. (And I'm saying that as a Big Ten champion Ohio State fan, when they just got shut out.) The last thing I want to see is a three loss team from a weak division getting into a conference championship game, playing one magic game, and getting an automatic bid. That would suck.

You want to go to eight? Fine, go to eight.  But take the best eight, nothing automatic, no "5 conference champs", unless those 5 champs are among the 8 best teams.  Chances are, most years the conference champ from the power 5's would be in an eight team field anyway, but on those odd years when a ringer playing the game of their lives slips through, I don't want to see them take up a slot that could've gone to a better team.  

[FiddySicks]

There's one solution to this that may not be the fix-all, but it damn sure would help to even things out. These major conferences need to ditch the two to three "tune up" games and play more in-conference games. Just look at Alabama, for example. They opened up with Florida State in week 1, and that's totally acceptable. Keep week one to big out of conference power 5 matchups like that. But then they play Fresno state AND Colorado State in back-to-back weeks. Really? Playing in one game vs a Mountain West school is a bit of a stretch, but at least I get that. It's a second-tier conference but at least it's still D1 and those smaller conferences need games like that occasionally. But playing two games in a row like that is where the whole thing falls apart and makes the entire process look stupid. And my goodness, There is absolutely ZERO good reason (other than throwing smaller schools a few hundred K) why Alabama should be playing a week 12 game vs someone like Mercer while missing other cross-conference opponents (like Georgia) entirely.

 

Doesn't the SEC only play 8 in-conference games anyway? That's insanity when you're in a 12-16 team conference. OF COURSE we're gonna have these problems when that crap happens. 

[PrimalCookie]

Honestly I'm not expecting the committee to put UCF higher than 9. Auburn will probably still be ahead of them.

 

I don't care what anyone says. UCF are your 2017-18 national champions.

[See Red]

They're not my national champions. On a neutral field in a game that matters Alabama would beat them by 30. 

[FiddySicks]

1 hour ago, See Red said:

They're not my national champions. On a neutral field in a game that matters Alabama would beat them by 30. 

 

Youre probably not wrong. Still though, I wish we could get some actual matchups rather than just these hypotheticals.