College Football 2018-19: Santa Clara is that a way.

[Dynasty]

On 12/29/2018 at 9:01 PM, Red Wolf said:

Maybe the BCS was right all along.

 

It still would've been Alabama-Clemson though.

[alxy8s]

7 hours ago, crashcarson15 said:

the current system disproportionately favors talented teams that slipped up during the regular season over less-talented squads that didn't slip up over 12 or 13 games. 

I see what you're saying, but there's really only one test case for that so far: Bama/Oklahoma over UCF the last two years. We don't really have a test case yet of a deserving P5 team (well, a blue blood one anyway) being left out. There's a ton of discussion around who belongs among college football's elite that's based on assumption. No matter what they actually do, we just know that Alabama is the best. In fact, we have no idea what it would take for the committee to leave them out, because it's never happened.

 

I agree with you that the 4-team playoff hasn't worked once. It was a response to there sometimes being an outcry over an extremely deserving #3, and I think it reached a fever pitch with 2011's LSU-Alabama rematch. So now we've got a field of four that has left out deserving teams and/or had to invite undeserving ones every single year. 

 

I really don't think a postseason template works for college football. Is there any other league where each team competes in such completely different situations, then such a small number are selected to compete for a championship? I know I'm arguing for something that will never happen, but we don't know who belongs until the conference championships conclude. Have we yet to have a playoff where all 4 teams even belonged?

 

You could say that setting the playoff field that late creates a system where teams don't know what they need to accomplish to make the championship, but we already have that. What did Oklahoma accomplish that Ohio State didn't? What could UCF have done better? And lord knows Georgia only came up because we just have to have a fourth team!

 

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

Quarters would most likely start the week after Army-Navy with 1-4 hosting 8-5 at their home stadiums.

I'm curious as to what this solves. People are upset with the playoffs because some teams are still excluded and because the semifinals are uncompetitive slogs. You certainly solve the first problem by including more teams. I'm sure the complaining shifts from being about who gets stuck at #5 to who gets stuck at #9.

 

The competitiveness would almost certainly be harmed, though. Seeds 5-8 are all being asked to play a top-4 team in a true road game. If a team dropped such a game in the regular season, it'd hardly be held against them at all (i.e. Georgia-Auburn 2017, Georgia-LSU 2018). Four teams are given such an insane advantage that there's scarcely a point holding the games at all.

 

This year, we'd have UCF @ Alabama, Michigan @ Clemson, Ohio State @ Notre Dame, and Georgia @ Oklahoma. Maybe OSU/ND is a decent game, but we've got 3 almost-certain blowouts otherwise. And then what? OSU/ND vs. Clemson and Oklahoma vs. Alabama anyway and the expanded field was all to avoid hurt feelings about being left out (while introducing a greater possibility of injured players).

[dfwabel]

12 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Quarters would most likely start the week after Army-Navy with 1-4 hosting 8-5 at their home stadiums. The reason being is that it's easier to set up and accommodate that many people on short notice than say picking 4 random sites around the United States and letting 1-4 pick what site they want to play at based on how many of their fans and the opponents fans could attend. That and cost are what is threatening to provide low numbers for this year's championship game. The question then becomes do those bowl games that host the semi-final slide forward a week or stay in place? Will the sponsors rather they have as close to an even split of time between each round or only worry about the time gap between the semis and the championship?

 

One suggestion made by Mark Packer is to move the season forward a week rather than back a week. He also suggested a rule of no FCS teams after Week 3. 

 

I think if they decide on this then we'll see divisions done away with. For this year, it wouldn't have changed the SEC or ACC matchups but it would have changed the Big Ten title game, with Michigan replacing Northwestern. The so called experts would have a more even population to draw from when seeding the playoffs if everyone in the conference championships are potential playoff contenders. 

Starting the season a week eariy would also require a bylaw change from the membership.

 

Only five teams in the FCS and lower played 16 games in a season. Towson's coach, Rob Ambrose, on playing 16 games in 2013.

Quote

“It was very challenging,” Towson coach Rob Ambrose said. “While it was a great experience for the kids and the university and the city of Baltimore, after being involved in this, to hear the NCAA pound the table for student-athlete welfare is impressively disingenuous.

 

“Now, if you want to really figure out who the national champion is, then this is the way to go about it. But I want to say that, the year that we did it, we played the same amount of games as the Baltimore Ravens. They’re professionals. They don’t go to class. They don’t have finals. We played 16, and that’s all through finals. So, there’s a big disconnect. What do you want to do? Do you want the kids to have a great educational experience? Or do you want to figure out who the national champion is?”

The winning team wouldn't be the best one, but the healthiest.

[MJWalker45]

4 hours ago, dfwabel said:

Starting the season a week eariy would also require a bylaw change from the membership.

 

Only five teams in the FCS and lower played 16 games in a season. Towson's coach, Rob Ambrose, on playing 16 games in 2013.

The winning team wouldn't be the best one, but the healthiest.

That's still possible now if a key player is injured in the semifinal or Championship game. 

[MJWalker45]

16 hours ago, alxy8s said:

I see what you're saying, but there's really only one test case for that so far: Bama/Oklahoma over UCF the last two years. We don't really have a test case yet of a deserving P5 team (well, a blue blood one anyway) being left out. There's a ton of discussion around who belongs among college football's elite that's based on assumption. No matter what they actually do, we just know that Alabama is the best. In fact, we have no idea what it would take for the committee to leave them out, because it's never happened.

 

I agree with you that the 4-team playoff hasn't worked once. It was a response to there sometimes being an outcry over an extremely deserving #3, and I think it reached a fever pitch with 2011's LSU-Alabama rematch. So now we've got a field of four that has left out deserving teams and/or had to invite undeserving ones every single year. 

 

I really don't think a postseason template works for college football. Is there any other league where each team competes in such completely different situations, then such a small number are selected to compete for a championship? I know I'm arguing for something that will never happen, but we don't know who belongs until the conference championships conclude. Have we yet to have a playoff where all 4 teams even belonged?

 

You could say that setting the playoff field that late creates a system where teams don't know what they need to accomplish to make the championship, but we already have that. What did Oklahoma accomplish that Ohio State didn't? What could UCF have done better? And lord knows Georgia only came up because we just have to have a fourth team!

 

I'm curious as to what this solves. People are upset with the playoffs because some teams are still excluded and because the semifinals are uncompetitive slogs. You certainly solve the first problem by including more teams. I'm sure the complaining shifts from being about who gets stuck at #5 to who gets stuck at #9.

 

The competitiveness would almost certainly be harmed, though. Seeds 5-8 are all being asked to play a top-4 team in a true road game. If a team dropped such a game in the regular season, it'd hardly be held against them at all (i.e. Georgia-Auburn 2017, Georgia-LSU 2018). Four teams are given such an insane advantage that there's scarcely a point holding the games at all.

 

This year, we'd have UCF @ Alabama, Michigan @ Clemson, Ohio State @ Notre Dame, and Georgia @ Oklahoma. Maybe OSU/ND is a decent game, but we've got 3 almost-certain blowouts otherwise. And then what? OSU/ND vs. Clemson and Oklahoma vs. Alabama anyway and the expanded field was all to avoid hurt feelings about being left out (while introducing a greater possibility of injured players).

As far as true home games, we ask that at every other level why not ask them to do it at the FBS level? There could also be a mandate that a certain percentage of seats be reserved for the visitors.

[dfwabel]

52 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

That's still possible now if a key player is injured in the semifinal or Championship game. 

Tua had ankle surgery on December 3 and wouldn't have played in a quarterfinal

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, dfwabel said:

Tua had ankle surgery on December 3 and wouldn't have played in a quarterfinal

JT Barrett broke his ankle in 2014 and missed the entire playoffs, injury and overcoming it is part of the game. 

[oldschoolvikings]

Whether it's four teams, eight teams, sixteen teams, whatever, I have no interest in this "automatic bids for conference champs" stuff. The best thing about this current set up is the complete lack of any automatics.

 

I do not want to see a four loss team from a weak division play one good game and steal a spot.  No thanks.

[MJWalker45]

52 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Whether it's four teams, eight teams, sixteen teams, whatever, I have no interest in this "automatic bids for conference champs" stuff. The best thing about this current set up is the complete lack of any automatics.

 

I do not want to see a four loss team from a weak division play one good game and steal a spot.  No thanks.

I just think the rules should match those used in the rest of the NCAA. And that's why I think you'll see leagues pick the top 2 teams rather than division champs for those conference title games if that was a requirement for the playoffs.

[Gary]

41 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I just think the rules should match those used in the rest of the NCAA. And that's why I think you'll see leagues pick the top 2 teams rather than division champs for those conference title games if that was a requirement for the playoffs.

 

Mid that’s the case, we should do away with divisions and go with the top two per conference, but then we’ll be at 20 teams. Which would mean that we would have 4 teams that would be on a bye week. 

[crashcarson15]

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Whether it's four teams, eight teams, sixteen teams, whatever, I have no interest in this "automatic bids for conference champs" stuff. The best thing about this current set up is the complete lack of any automatics.

 

I do not want to see a four loss team from a weak division play one good game and steal a spot.  No thanks.

Just get rid of conference championships if you go to 8 or whatever.

 

Here’s an out-there idea for the Big Ten, for example: Play your entire 6-game division slate, then take the top 3 in each division, and have them play the other division’s top 3 in the last three weeks of the season. The other four teams in each division can play each other to fill out their seasons. You can schedule a league-wide bye for the first weekend in November to give teams an extra week to scout, and then each division can have scheduled “home” weeks and “road” weeks for the cross-over games (to make it easier to sell tickets).

 

For example, this year in the B1G, you’d have taken the following six teams:

• Northwestern 6-0
• Ohio State 6-0
• Michigan 5-1
• Michigan State 4-2
• Wisconsin 4-2
• Purdue 3-3

Then, after everyone plays each other (using either real results or taking the top team in S&P+), you might’ve had:

• Ohio State 8-1
• Michigan 8-1
• Northwestern 7-2
• Wisconsin 5-4
• Michigan State 5-4
• Purdue 4-5

You can now award Ohio State a clear conference championship, and you’ve guaranteed that the top teams in the conference have all played each other — all you’re swapping out between schedules are bottom-feeders. You also can effectively guarantee conference championship implications in the final week of the season if you schedule the top teams from each division to play that week.

[oldschoolvikings]

Or here's a crazy suggestion... Let's leave things the way they are.  The four team playoffs have given us great games, clear cut champs, and still left room for a little old fashioned controversy and argument. It's perfect.

[alxy8s]

 

wheeeeew! Enjoy the game, everyone. 

[dfwabel]

Well, first one to 49

[Crabcake]

BFBS end zone for Bama. 

[dfwabel]

1 minute ago, Crabcake47 said:

BFBS end zone for Bama. 

The College Football Playoffs have had black endzones for each of the five championship games.

[Crabcake]

Just now, dfwabel said:

The College Football Playoffs have had black endzones for each of the five championship games.

Oh ok cool, I didn’t know that. I don’t watch college football generally, and have only caught the other CFB Championships in bits. 

[See Red]

The kind of game so far that's going to make Saban coach another 20 years...

 

Oh well.  I hope Clemson runs the score up.  I suspect Alabama will make it a game.

[FiddySicks]

Welp. It’s still early, but Bama is doing it again...

[dfwabel]

Nice of Saban to keep looking out for his former assistants.

 

That fake FG call was worse than Kirby's fake punt.