2020 College Football

[See Red]

Speaking of low-scoring college football games, there's this great image. 

 

[tBBP]

Well in the polar opposite of low-scoring games...how 'bout my Seminoles pulling the upset of the month tonight? (Then again, why was UNC ranked #5?) No this will not--or at least it better not--put FSU in the national rankings, nor will it cause me to flip Chief Osceola right side up just yet, but doggone it,  for as trash as we've been the past two seasons plus this one thus far....let us have this one, at least through this weekend. 

[Red Wolf]

34 minutes ago, Buc said:

Well in the polar opposite of low-scoring games...how 'bout my Seminoles pulling the upset of the month tonight? (Then again, why was UNC ranked #5?) No this will not--or at least it better not--put FSU in the national rankings, nor will it cause me to flip Chief Osceola right side up just yet, but doggone it,  for as trash as we've been the past two seasons plus this one thus far....let us have this one, at least through this weekend. 

Top 25 means nothing this year. Almost half the conferences haven’t played, the SEC didn’t play any non-conference, lots of postponements and cancellations, teams playing without large chunks of their roster, etc.

[MJWalker45]

6 hours ago, Red Wolf said:

Top 25 means nothing this year. Almost half the conferences haven’t played, the SEC didn’t play any non-conference, lots of postponements and cancellations, teams playing without large chunks of their roster, etc.

The fact ESPN is still trying to tout Georgia as a playoff team this morning proves that the Top 25 is worthless. 

[See Red]

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

The fact ESPN is still trying to tout Georgia as a playoff team this morning proves that the Top 25 is worthless. 

 

Georgia gets more leeway than any other program.  This happens every year.  Lasy year after the loss to South Carolina and then getting boat-raced by LSU there were still people arguing they were a playoff team 

[JayMac]

If the college football playoff were to expand to 8 teams, ESPN would want 6 SEC teams, an 8-win Notre Dame team, and Ohio State. 

[MJWalker45]

14 minutes ago, JayMac said:

If the college football playoff were to expand to 8 teams, ESPN would want 6 SEC teams, an 8-win Notre Dame team, and Ohio State. Oklahoma or Texas 

Realistically, the Big XII has to count on Oklahoma State to run the table to have any shot, but I'm sure we'll see a multiple loss team this year.

[Magnus]

I'm frankly a little more disturbed that a team like Ohio State, who HASN'T PLAYED A GAME YET, is somehow included in the national rankings. Same with the other teams in the top 25 who haven't started their seasons yet.

Why have rankings at all? It's clearly more about biased perception than on-field performance if a team can be ranked higher than others without even playing a down. 
Conference champs only for a playoff. That's how it should be. If they want to keep it a 4-team playoff, pick four of the five Power 5 champions and be done with it. It's basically what they do now anyway.

If they decide to expand to 8 teams, they have to, in my mind, allow for 3 of the G5 champs to get in.

I should say at this point that I'm not really pro- or anti- any particular FBS team (ok maybe Bama), but it should be the same system for all teams involved if they are all technically in the FBS. Otherwise, split the G5 teams from the P5 teams and be done with it. I realize there's money and politics involved, but really, it's stupid.

[MJWalker45]

36 minutes ago, Magnus said:

I'm frankly a little more disturbed that a team like Ohio State, who HASN'T PLAYED A GAME YET, is somehow included in the national rankings. Same with the other teams in the top 25 who haven't started their seasons yet.

This happens every year, and that's why I normally pay so little attention. The SEC and ACC teams started weeks after everyone else and it wasn't an issue then. People also expect to see teams like Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin dominate most of their schedules, if not run the table. That's why Georgia dropped one spot after getting blown out in the second half, while North Carolina fell like a log after almost coming back to win at Florida State. 

47 minutes ago, Magnus said:

If they decide to expand to 8 teams, they have to, in my mind, allow for 3 of the G5 champs to get in.

If they expanded to 8, I think we'd be lucky to get one G5, let alone 3. Which is disappointing when the Sun Belt beat the Big XII 3 times this year. Only Kansas should have been considered a likely win for the Sun Belt. 

[See Red]

1 hour ago, Magnus said:

I'm frankly a little more disturbed that a team like Ohio State, who HASN'T PLAYED A GAME YET, is somehow included in the national rankings. Same with the other teams in the top 25 who haven't started their seasons yet.

Why have rankings at all? It's clearly more about biased perception than on-field performance if a team can be ranked higher than others without even playing a down. 
Conference champs only for a playoff. That's how it should be. If they want to keep it a 4-team playoff, pick four of the five Power 5 champions and be done with it. It's basically what they do now anyway.

If they decide to expand to 8 teams, they have to, in my mind, allow for 3 of the G5 champs to get in.

I should say at this point that I'm not really pro- or anti- any particular FBS team (ok maybe Bama), but it should be the same system for all teams involved if they are all technically in the FBS. Otherwise, split the G5 teams from the P5 teams and be done with it. I realize there's money and politics involved, but really, it's stupid.

 

Wait... what?  Why?  There's barely one G5 team, if any, in any given year that can reasonably be considered among the top eight teams.  What do you think an LSU vs Appalachian State playoff game would have looked like when LSU had Oklahoma scoring garbage time points in the second quarter and why is there any shred of interest in seeing that happen?  There's just too much of a discrepancy between G5 and P5 scheduling strength.  Everybody's so caught up on this idea of being "fair" to the G5 so they come up with inane solutions that make it completely unfair to the P5 teams.  I'd rather watch the best four or eight teams.  Everybody should rather watch the best four or eight teams.

[oldschoolvikings]

In my opinion, the current playoffs set up is pretty close to perfect, and the best thing about it is there's no automatic bids based  on conference championship. I want the best four teams, regardless of anything else. Maybe in the old days, when conferences were ten teams each, everyone played everyone, and there wasn't a championship game, you could say that the champ was always the best team. But now, with uneven divisions, and the opportunity for a 2 or 3 loss team to pull off an upset and steal a spot in the playoffs? No thanks. 

 

I'm sure an eight team playoff is coming. There's too much money involved, they're going to do it. And when they do, I'm also sure they will make the 5 conference champs automatically in. But it's sure going to suck the first time a 3 loss team from a crappy division gets to the championship game, plays the game of their lives, and takes up a slot a legitimate team should have.

[Magnus]

5 hours ago, See Red said:

 

Wait... what?  Why?  There's barely one G5 team, if any, in any given year that can reasonably be considered among the top eight teams.  What do you think an LSU vs Appalachian State playoff game would have looked like when LSU had Oklahoma scoring garbage time points in the second quarter and why is there any shred of interest in seeing that happen?  There's just too much of a discrepancy between G5 and P5 scheduling strength.  Everybody's so caught up on this idea of being "fair" to the G5 so they come up with inane solutions that make it completely unfair to the P5 teams.  I'd rather watch the best four or eight teams.  Everybody should rather watch the best four or eight teams.

Then, why even have the G5 teams as part of the FBS?
Or perhaps it should be FBS Tier 1 and Tier 2?

[PrimalCookie]

16 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

In my opinion, the current playoffs set up is pretty close to perfect, and the best thing about it is there's no automatic bids based  on conference championship. I want the best four teams, regardless of anything else. Maybe in the old days, when conferences were ten teams each, everyone played everyone, and there wasn't a championship game, you could say that the champ was always the best team. But now, with uneven divisions, and the opportunity for a 2 or 3 loss team to pull off an upset and steal a spot in the playoffs? No thanks. 

 

I'm sure an eight team playoff is coming. There's too much money involved, they're going to do it. And when they do, I'm also sure they will make the 5 conference champs automatically in. But it's sure going to suck the first time a 3 loss team from a crappy division gets to the championship game, plays the game of their lives, and takes up a slot a legitimate team should have.

Then why even play the season? Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Georgia. There you go, the four best teams. Maybe replace Georgia with Oklahoma every few years to spice it up.

[MJWalker45]

16 hours ago, Magnus said:

Then, why even have the G5 teams as part of the FBS?
Or perhaps it should be FBS Tier 1 and Tier 2?

It already is, they just don't admit it. If the P5 stopped playing G5 teams you would see blue bloods fall off the map because those 3-4 wins they planned for would no longer be there when they play games against similar talent. 

18 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I'm sure an eight team playoff is coming. There's too much money involved, they're going to do it. And when they do, I'm also sure they will make the 5 conference champs automatically in. But it's sure going to suck the first time a 3 loss team from a crappy division gets to the championship game, plays the game of their lives, and takes up a slot a legitimate team should have.

This happens in other divisions and we don't complain about it. If Alabama is 12-0 and loses to 9-3 Tennessee, is Alabama getting kept out of an 8 team playoff? Not a chance. Probably not even in a 4 team playoff setup unless the Pac-12, Big XII and Big Ten champs are all 13-0. The playoffs would probably still take Alabama as well because they don't have to take conference champs, just the four best teams. We also know in D-1AA and the other divisions, those teams that win the league but have a poor overall record will get the lower seed in the playoffs, if they even get a seed. this is why HBCU's generally aren't involved. They will make more money playing in Classic games against each other rather than losing money bidding for playoff games. The fact anyone should have to bid to host anything other than the national championship game seems kind of stupid. 

 

[oldschoolvikings]

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

 If Alabama is 12-0 and loses to 9-3 Tennessee, is Alabama getting kept out of an 8 team playoff? Not a chance. Probably not even in a 4 team playoff setup unless the Pac-12, Big XII and Big Ten champs are all 13-0. The playoffs would probably still take Alabama as well because they don't have to take conference champs, just the four best teams. 

 

 

I'm not saying a team should be able to lose the championship game and not have it matter. If someone gets taken down in that game by a three loss team, then obviously that means they weren't what we thought they were. But I just don't want to see that 3 loss team automatically get in just because of that game. Pick the next best team 

 

How about this? In an eight team playoff, you can have your five conference champs, unless a team with three or more losses wins it's championship. In those cases, that slot becomes an at large.

[MJWalker45]

10 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

How about this? In an eight team playoff, you can have your five conference champs, unless a team with three or more losses wins it's championship. In those cases, that slot becomes an at large.

I think it has to be one or the other. If you're fine taking a league champ that means you take them with the blemishes. Take Northwestern for example. They were 8-4 and had they beaten Ohio State, who also didn't make it that year, but finished 11-1 in the regular season, you'd tell them thanks but no thanks come back when you lose less games, we're going to take the Big XII team that went 10-2 but finished 2nd. Is that team better? Most likely, but they weren't league champs. Setting an arbitrary disqualifier before the season starts would probably allow G5 teams more chances to join the party, but I don't think it works. Say for example you somehow have a year, I know it's unlikely but go with this, where you see the SEC West  and Big Ten East basically take turns beating each other up and the top team has 2 losses in the league, and possibly more prior to the league starting up. Will a 12-0 Cincinnati get in front of either squad, even with a win against a mid-level Big Ten squad?

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I've never really understood the championship process for college football. For most other American sports, there's a playoff model and if a 5 seed or whatever wins, so be it. But with college football, there's a real aversion to even giving a 5 seed a chance. Each team plays dramatically different schedules, so there's no real way to compare teams until they play each other in an elimination tournament. A lot of entrenched college fandom seems to not want to even grant that shot, but instead entrench some combination of OSU, LSU, Alabama and random SEC/Pac-12/ACC team of the moment to compete for the title.

 

Not even European soccer is that staid. Yes, Barcelona and Bayern win year-in and year-out, but it's not like they've limited the Champions League to just 8 teams (yet; I know that discussion is underway too).

 

Sports are weird because on the one hand the ideal is pure competition and living with the results on the field. On the other hand, there's so much maneuvering to avoid any actual real competition in favor of reinforcing the status quo. I prefer when athletics are an escape from reality.

[DS729]

Four is perfect. Usually a few conference championships each year act like wild card games for the playoff anyways. 
 

Unfortunately, the NCAA is a soulless governing body and we will see some 3 loss teams and some deadweight conference championship games for some cold hard cash. 

[Magnus]

5 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

If Alabama is 12-0 and loses to 9-3 Tennessee, is Alabama getting kept out of an 8 team playoff? Not a chance. Probably not even in a 4 team playoff setup unless the Pac-12, Big XII and Big Ten champs are all 13-0. The playoffs would probably still take Alabama as well because they don't have to take conference champs, just the (four) best teams. 

By definition, a conference champion should be considered one of the best teams - whether there are 4,  8, or 10 of them in the playoff. No conference championship, no playoff spot for you! Basing worthiness on past historical performance (like, how good they were in season past) is the dumbest thing ever. Past examples (especially Alabama-LSU in 2012) bear this out. 

[AnPheitseog]

I wouldn't mind an 8 team.

Power 5

Two best/highest ranked non-power 5 conference winners

One P5 wild card team.