2016 NCAA Football Thread

[Seadragon76]

It's all about the money... you can get big bucks having the championship game at a neutral site then at the home stadium of the best team.

 

Speaking of Mid-Majors, Western Michigan just survived a scare from Ohio to take the MAC Championship. At 13-0, it sounds like the Broncos are Cotton Bowl bound... but, hold on a second. Navy is two spots away at #19 in the CFP poll. They host Temple tomorrow in the AAC title game. The fear is that Navy could jump past Western Michigan and 'paralyze' the system by forcing them to wait after the Army-Navy game... but there might be a solution to this little quagmire.

 

In short, the two remaining 5-6 teams (UL Lafayette and South Alabama) need to win and both Washington and Clemson need to win their respective title games. Then, the scenarios would play out like this...

 

If Navy is the G5 Rep

-Navy to the Cotton Bowl

-Western Michigan vs. North Texas in the Heart of Dallas Bowl

-Army vs. Big 12 in the Armed Forces Bowl

 

If Western Michigan is the G5 Rep

-Western Michigan to the Cotton Bowl

-Army vs. North Texas in the Heart of Dallas Bowl

-Navy vs. Big 12 in the Armed Forces Bowl

[ICTknight]

I like an eight team playoff only because it is easier to distinguish between 8-9 than it is for #'s 4-5.

[stumpygremlin]

27 minutes ago, Seadragon76 said:

It's all about the money... you can get big bucks having the championship game at a neutral site then at the home stadium of the best team.

 

Speaking of Mid-Majors, Western Michigan just survived a scare from Ohio to take the MAC Championship. At 13-0, it sounds like the Broncos are Cotton Bowl bound... but, hold on a second. Navy is two spots away at #19 in the CFP poll. They host Temple tomorrow in the AAC title game. The fear is that Navy could jump past Western Michigan and 'paralyze' the system by forcing them to wait after the Army-Navy game... but there might be a solution to this little quagmire.

 

In short, the two remaining 5-6 teams (UL Lafayette and South Alabama) need to win and both Washington and Clemson need to win their respective title games. Then, the scenarios would play out like this...

 

If Navy is the G5 Rep

-Navy to the Cotton Bowl

-Western Michigan vs. North Texas in the Heart of Dallas Bowl

-Army vs. Big 12 in the Armed Forces Bowl

 

If Western Michigan is the G5 Rep

-Western Michigan to the Cotton Bowl

-Army vs. North Texas in the Heart of Dallas Bowl

-Navy vs. Big 12 in the Armed Forces Bowl

I'd be furious if Western Michigan had such a good year, finishing undefeated, and their reward was a bowl game against a 5-7 North Texas team out of CUSA. UNT's best win is against Army.

[dfwabel]

45 minutes ago, stumpygremlin said:

I'd be furious if Western Michigan had such a good year, finishing undefeated, and their reward was a bowl game against a 5-7 North Texas team out of CUSA. UNT's best win is against Army.

The MAC needs to be appeased with more $$$ too.

 

Putting WMU in a Dallas area bowl game is additionally insulting since you'd be playing 15-20 miles from AT&T Stadium, where the Goodyear Cotton Bowl will be played but you're in Funkytown Ft. Worth or playing in Fair Park ten days earlier. They won't sell many tickets for that, but the MAC pools all of that.

[Dynasty]

Washington is making their case.

[BlackBolt3]

If Washington isn't in, it's a travesty.

[FinsUp1214]

Washington beat the pads off of Colorado. Making their case indeed! Wowza. If the committee ends up leaving them out, I'd sure love to hear why. 

 

I still would rather Colorado go to the Rose Bowl (division titles need to mean something, I'm sorry), but after tonight, I fully expect USC to catapult over them in the rankings and punch a ticket to Pasadena. It just seems inevitable at this point.

[JTernup]

1 hour ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Washington beat the pads off of Colorado. Making their case indeed! Wowza. If the committee ends up leaving them out, I'd sure love to hear why. 

 

I still would rather Colorado go to the Rose Bowl (division titles need to mean something, I'm sorry), but after tonight, I fully expect USC to catapult over them in the rankings and punch a ticket to Pasadena. It just seems inevitable at this point.

This is exactly what I was fearful of. A division champ CAN'T be punished for playing an extra game against a CFP opponent but that is exactly what I think will happen. 

 

That was my issue with the CFP and Ohio State, If you are truly deserving of a top 4 ranking (or Rose Bowl birth) why didn't you win your conference? Can you imagine this type of thing happening in the NFL? Is there anyone in the world that thanks the 18-1 Patriots aren't a better team than the Giants? No, but they lost to the wrong team at the wrong time and that one loss excludes them from being the best team. OSU lost the wrong game, USC lost two conference games CU lost one. There shouldn't even be a discussion IMO.

[dfwabel]

18 minutes ago, kcchiefsfan said:

This is exactly what I was fearful of. A division champ CAN'T be punished for playing an extra game against a CFP opponent but that is exactly what I think will happen. 

 

That was my issue with the CFP and Ohio State, If you are truly deserving of a top 4 ranking (or Rose Bowl birth) why didn't you win your conference? Can you imagine this type of thing happening in the NFL? Is there anyone in the world that thanks the 18-1 Patriots aren't a better team than the Giants? No, but they lost to the wrong team at the wrong time and that one loss excludes them from being the best team. OSU lost the wrong game, USC lost two conference games CU lost one. There shouldn't even be a discussion IMO.

Wisconsin got punished in 2014 when Ohio State beat them down 59-0.

 

Y'all were closer to that as opposed to #10 UNC losing to #1 Clemson or Iowa/MSU from last year.

 

You listened to the "SEC on CBS" podcast, didn't you? You gave Gary Danielson's thoughts from earlier in the week.

 

[HedleyLamarr]

4 hours ago, ICTknight said:

I like an eight team playoff only because it is easier to distinguish between 8-9 than it is for #'s 4-5.

The hell it does.  The bigger the number, the more teams that feel they're worthy of being in that final spot.  If you need any proof, look at the number of bubble teams for the basketball tournament.  Of their "last four in", about 12 other teams that didn't get selected feel they're just as qualified.

 

When we had just two teams to worry about, you only had up to three teams that could make a legit claim of "We're #2!" (and three is being pretty generous...for the most part, the top 2 were pretty clear cut or debating between two teams that's worthy of being #2).  You can see the number of teams being considered for a four team playoff right now.  That number only grows as you open more spots.  8-team playoff?  Be ready for another six teams that feel "We're #8!"....

[Still MIGHTY]

2 hours ago, HedleyLamarr said:

The hell it does.  The bigger the number, the more teams that feel they're worthy of being in that final spot.  If you need any proof, look at the number of bubble teams for the basketball tournament.  Of their "last four in", about 12 other teams that didn't get selected feel they're just as qualified.

 

When we had just two teams to worry about, you only had up to three teams that could make a legit claim of "We're #2!" (and three is being pretty generous...for the most part, the top 2 were pretty clear cut or debating between two teams that's worthy of being #2).  You can see the number of teams being considered for a four team playoff right now.  That number only grows as you open more spots.  8-team playoff?  Be ready for another six teams that feel "We're #8!"....

 

I think in terms of leaving out #9 versus leaving out #5, what makes it "easier" is that I don't give a damn who the #9 team is. They're not going to win the thing.

 

Again, I feel that's similar to the first year of the playoff and the TCU/Baylor vs Ohio State thing. Take this week's rankings, just for the sake of argument, let's say we were going straight 1-8 for playoff seedings. If I was a playoff committee, I'd sleep much easier leaving #9 Colorado out than I would #5 Michigan.

 

And I agree with Mike/Ice Cap's proposal (mostly because it's OUR, StillMIGHTY/infrared41/IceCap's, Basically a College Football Playoff), which would mean it really isn't even picking straight 1-8. Take the Power 5 champions and 3 at-larges. I'm even okay with letting the Group of 5 rep be an automatic leaving two at-larges. I think that covers all the bases pretty nicely. This year, that'd give you Alabama, Clemson, Washington, Penn State/Wisconsin, Oklahoma/Oklahoma State + Western Michigan + Ohio State, Michigan, and then seed accordingly. Done and Done.

 

And sure, you'd have discussion on the at-larges or even the Group of 5 rep maybe. But again, if we're arguing about who the 3rd-best non-conference-winner is or if the MAC champ is more deserving than the Mountain West champ to get their doors blown down (orrrrr pull that elusive upset), I'm less concerned about leaving them out.

[nickp91]

the 30 for 30 they make about PJ Fleck is going to be absolutely AMAZING

[dfwabel]

1 hour ago, nickp91 said:

the 30 for 30 they make about PJ Fleck is going to be absolutely AMAZING

Yea, if you appreciate "coach speak" and other verbal bull$hit. 

[HedleyLamarr]

2 hours ago, Still MIGHTY said:

 

I think in terms of leaving out #9 versus leaving out #5, what makes it "easier" is that I don't give a damn who the #9 team is. They're not going to win the thing.

 

Again, I feel that's similar to the first year of the playoff and the TCU/Baylor vs Ohio State thing. Take this week's rankings, just for the sake of argument, let's say we were going straight 1-8 for playoff seedings. If I was a playoff committee, I'd sleep much easier leaving #9 Colorado out than I would #5 Michigan.

You "may not care" who #9 is, but the bigger point is that figuring out who that #8 team is.  More teams can make a claim in being that 8th team than they could with 2 or 4 teams.

 

Dunno about you, but I could sleep pretty easily not having #5 Michigan.  "So, you had two losses. One of which was the final game when you controlled your own destiny in relation to winning your own division and playing for the conference championship, and you blew a double-digit lead in said final game.  New Year's Six for you.".

 

The big problem with "5 champions plus three" is that you diminish what the goal of the CFP are about...getting the best teams.  You allow teams to not give it their all.  You allow teams that may not be in the top 10 a playoff berth.  You severely water down the product.  Then, instead of having four weeks to plan out bowl game trips, you're chopping that down to what....a week or two?  Bowls are already struggling mightily with attendance because of the shorter-than-before buffer between bowl announcement and the game itself.  The Peach Bowl was so concerned about their attendance for the playoff game a year in advance that they offered the locals the same price for this year's semifinal game that they paid for last year's Peach Bowl if you bought tickets from the Peach Bowl's site.  (I know, because I've got a pair of Peach Bowl tickets sitting in my desk that cost, if I remember correctly, $142/ticket.)

 

The reason why a 4-team playoff works is that it still makes every game important.  One conference champion is guaranteed not to make it, so you can't afford to treat any game like a Week 17 NFL game when you've got a postseason spot locked up.  The 4-team playoff, to date, has placed a huge emphasis on winning your conference, scheduling harder games (and winning said games), and playing your best every game.  The 8-team playoff renders every non-conference game useless.  There would be no incentive in challenging yourself out of conference play when your ticket to the playoffs can be punched by winning your conference, no matter how many losses you have.  Teams would go back to finding 3-4 cupcakes and having those dates be non-shared revenue-making days.

 

Why would you want to support something that makes the product weaker?

[shstpt1]

But by doing the 5 plus 3, it makes the regular season mean something even more. Then you know HOW to get in the playoffs. You want a shot? WIN your conference title. Then you don't rely on a bias committee to have a shot at getting in. They would be there to select at large bids and for seeding, but that's it. And... it puts more emphasis on championship weekend, where those games are like playoff games. And like in the scenario of this year with the whole B1G issues... OSU could be an at large bid. IF Bama were to lose to Florida?? They could have an at large bid as well. 

[dfwabel]

5 minutes ago, shstpt1 said:

But by doing the 5 plus 3, it makes the regular season mean something even more. Then you know HOW to get in the playoffs. You want a shot? WIN your conference title. Then you don't rely on a bias committee to have a shot at getting in. They would be there to select at large bids and for seeding, but that's it. And... it puts more emphasis on championship weekend, where those games are like playoff games. And like in the scenario of this year with the whole B1G issues... OSU could be an at large bid. IF Bama were to lose to Florida?? They could have an at large bid as well. 

You'll end up with more schools scheduling lesser opponents to just get one of the two/three "open" spots. You would hurt the regular season more.

[HedleyLamarr]

12 minutes ago, shstpt1 said:

But by doing the 5 plus 3, it makes the regular season mean something even more. Then you know HOW to get in the playoffs. You want a shot? WIN your conference title. Then you don't rely on a bias committee to have a shot at getting in. They would be there to select at large bids and for seeding, but that's it. And... it puts more emphasis on championship weekend, where those games are like playoff games. And like in the scenario of this year with the whole B1G issues... OSU could be an at large bid. IF Bama were to lose to Florida?? They could have an at large bid as well. 

So...it makes championship weekend less important if a team can lose their conference championship game and still get in. 

 

Plus, you can lose all of your non-conference games and those games not mean anything because you won your conference championship game and finished the season 9-4.  Which means the regular season meant less.

[FinsUp1214]

7 hours ago, kcchiefsfan said:

This is exactly what I was fearful of. A division champ CAN'T be punished for playing an extra game against a CFP opponent but that is exactly what I think will happen. 

 

That, and I don't like the idea of a team jumping too many spots in a week where they didn't play a game. In my personal opinion, I really don't think USC should go any higher than 10 after today. That doesn't mean they won't go higher, though.

 

Here's how I think it should play out in regards to affecting the Rose Bowl: the Bedlam winner goes to 7 or 8 (I really can't see either team's resume pulling them any higher - play defense, dudes!), Big Ten runner up takes whichever of those spots the Bedlam winner doesn't, Colorado goes to 9 and USC to 10. Colorado has the division title outright and at least played for the conference title, and if that kind of a thing means anything anymore, then that should be the edge given between them and a team that did not play this weekend. While Colorado did get their socks beat off, I see them as having done enough by winning the same division USC is in.

 

But my fear is that, because this is college football, the sexier name will win out. I wouldn't be surprised if we find USC at 9 instead and Colorado at 10 or lower instead because "well, psh, who wants to watch Colorado in a Rose Bowl lol?" I don't like it and I'm not saying this appeals to me by any means, but truth is that USC would be the bigger draw realistically. Both for butts in seats and TV. I'd like to believe that wouldn't be a factor, but unfortunately I don't trust the powers-that-be enough to be comfortable in that belief. 

 

 

[shstpt1]

Just earlier this week people were saying Bama can lose to Florida and still get in as it is now, and not drop more than three spots. 

 

Non conference games would make a difference for the at large spots. Strength of schedule still matters for those spots. 

[OnWis97]

32 minutes ago, HedleyLamarr said:

So...it makes championship weekend less important if a team can lose their conference championship game and still get in. 

 

Plus, you can lose all of your non-conference games and those games not mean anything because you won your conference championship game and finished the season 9-4.  Which means the regular season meant less.

Aren't we already there?  If Penn State wins then the committee either will discount their non conference loss or their conference championship.