College Football 2022

[Kevin W.]

Thank God the committee did the right thing and left Bama out. We all know that if they thought they could get away with it, they would just give all four spots to the top four SEC teams but we're safe from that horror for another year.

[MJWalker45]

8 hours ago, WestCoastBias said:

 

I'm thinking take out Penn State or USC. 

Penn State moved up and USC had a better resume than Washington. 

[McCall]

11 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

You'd think I would know that considering I came up with the idea for the damned thing. (Yes, they stole my playoff idea, tweaked it a little, and called it their own. You can look it up on these here boards.)

Yes, I read the official ruling released by the Majestic XII. All 856 pages. And I fully agree with their conclusion, as I was instructed to do. The most convincing portion, that invalidated the possibility of any opposing argument, was the analysis of Petticoat Junction's direct influence on the Jurassic-era Roman Army's defeat at the hands of General Custer during the battle of Northern Antarctica. This historical event clearly, and undeniably, made Lawrence Moten the home run king of the 1525 regular season. It was pure poetry on a most authoritative level. I was left breathless.

[TBGKon]

3 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Penn State moved up and USC had a better resume than Washington. 

SC also had a better conference record.

[infrared41]

2 hours ago, McCall said:

Yes, I read the official ruling released by the Majestic XII. All 856 pages. And I fully agree with their conclusion, as I was instructed to do. The most convincing portion, that invalidated the possibility of any opposing argument, was the analysis of Petticoat Junction's direct influence on the Jurassic-era Roman Army's defeat at the hands of General Custer during the battle of Northern Antarctica. This historical event clearly, and undeniably, made Lawrence Moten the home run king of the 1525 regular season. It was pure poetry on a most authoritative level. I was left breathless.

 

As you should have been. It was pure brilliance on my part.

[LAWeaver]

As others have probably mentioned, I imagine the new playoff format will force conferences to dissolve their divisions and pit their top two teams against each other to increase their odds of making the postseason.

 

It would be a shame, though, as the idea of an unranked Purdue upsetting a #2-ranked tOSU or Michigan team potentially bumping an at-large team like Utah, Washington, Ole Miss, etc. - or even flat-out missing the playoff themselves! - intrigues me.

 

Instead, without divisions, we're likely to see Alabama-Georgia and Ohio State-Michigan conference title games for several years. 

[Sport]

I know why they don't do this (money) and I'm an Ohio State fan who will watch the playoff game against Georgia and root for them, but I must be consistent in my stance from previous years and say that I don't think you should be in the playoff without winning your conference. It diminishes the importance of rivalry and conference championship games. This season that would mean taking the 4 best conference champions, which would be 1. Georgia 2. Michigan 3. Utah and 4. Clemson. 

 

Now, people are going to circle Utah and Clemson and say "are they really deserving?" Sure. They're not "great", but they won their conferences and fulfilled my hypothetical requirements to qualify. OSU, TCU, Alabama, did not and their entire cases is all based on opinion. My system is based entirely on results.

 

People want an expanded playoff, but we already have an expanded playoff - It's called the regular season, which acts as round one of the playoff. The conference championship games would act as round 2 of the playoffs. With the system as it is now, though, the OSU loss at home to Michigan effectively means nothing. TCU's loss to Kansas State in the Big 12 title game effectively means nothing. How many SEC championship games have we seen lately that effectively meant nothing? Imagine if Georgia-LSU had had actual stakes. Why are we okay with neutering the importance of these big end of season games? 

 

Every time I say this people respond, "yeah, but would you really want to see Georgia play Clemson and Michigan play Utah?" IDK. Not much different from UGA-OSU or UM-TCU to me. First of all, we've had like 3 good games in the 9 year history of the 4 team playoff so potential game quality shouldn't be a consideration. Second, most years the 4 best conference champions would not have such a wide gulf of quality between the top 2 and 3/4. This is kind of an aberration this season. Notre Dame fans will then chime in and say "BUT what about us?" I don't give a honk if Notre Dame ceases to exist. Join the Big Ten West if you want a shot. I'm tired of giving you special treatment, ya dorks. 

 

That's what I think. In conclusion, the conference title games should actually mean something and expanding the playoffs beyond 4 will make the regular season matter less. 

 

 

[Dilbert]

Cincinnati has hired Scott Satterfield from Louisville to be the new head coach. The two schools will play each other in the third annual inaugural Fenway Bowl. Im hearing mixed reaction from this hire. He led Louisville to bowl games in 3 of 4 seasons but only at mediocre records 7-5, 6-7, 4-7, 8-5. He is good at recruitment and NIL, but otherwise doesnt have much else going for him. There many other big name coaches being thrown around and coming up with none of them for this guy is very underwhelming for Cincinnati fans. On the other side, many Louisville fans are happy he is gone. When the other teams fans say thank you for taking him off our hands, he sucks, to me thats not a good hire. Cincinnati is heading into the Big 12 next season. If he was very underwhelming in the ACC, I dont have high hopes for him in the Big 12.

[MJWalker45]

4 minutes ago, Dilbert said:

Cincinnati has hired Scott Satterfield from Louisville to be the new head coach. The two schools will play each other in the third annual inaugural Fenway Bowl. Im hearing mixed reaction from this hire. He led Louisville to bowl games in 3 of 4 seasons but only at mediocre records 7-5, 6-7, 4-7, 8-5. He is good at recruitment and NIL, but otherwise doesnt have much else going for him. There many other big name coaches being thrown around and coming up with none of them for this guy is very underwhelming for Cincinnati fans. On the other side, many Louisville fans are happy he is gone. When the other teams fans say thank you for taking him off our hands, he sucks, to me thats not a good hire. Cincinnati is heading into the Big 12 next season. If he was very underwhelming in the ACC, I dont have high hopes for him in the Big 12.

Is it thought he'll get them better quarterbacks and receivers? I think his biggest issue this year was that his starting QB did not progress from last year. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

1 hour ago, Sport said:

TCU's loss to Kansas State in the Big 12 title game effectively means nothing.

 

While at the same time, USC's loss means everything.

 

Doesn't seem right!

[McCall]

9 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

While at the same time, USC's loss means everything.

 

Doesn't seem right!

TCU has 1 loss.

USC has 2 losses.

In any scenario, TCU would be ahead of USC.

[McCall]

1 hour ago, Sport said:

I know why they don't do this (money) and I'm an Ohio State fan who will watch the playoff game against Georgia and root for them, but I must be consistent in my stance from previous years and say that I don't think you should be in the playoff without winning your conference. It diminishes the importance of rivalry and conference championship games. This season that would mean taking the 4 best conference champions, which would be 1. Georgia 2. Michigan 3. Utah and 4. Clemson. 

 

Now, people are going to circle Utah and Clemson and say "are they really deserving?" Sure. They're not "great", but they won their conferences and fulfilled my hypothetical requirements to qualify. OSU, TCU, Alabama, did not and their entire cases is all based on opinion. My system is based entirely on results.

 

People want an expanded playoff, but we already have an expanded playoff - It's called the regular season, which acts as round one of the playoff. The conference championship games would act as round 2 of the playoffs. With the system as it is now, though, the OSU loss at home to Michigan effectively means nothing. TCU's loss to Kansas State in the Big 12 title game effectively means nothing. How many SEC championship games have we seen lately that effectively meant nothing? Imagine if Georgia-LSU had had actual stakes. Why are we okay with neutering the importance of these big end of season games? 

 

Every time I say this people respond, "yeah, but would you really want to see Georgia play Clemson and Michigan play Utah?" IDK. Not much different from UGA-OSU or UM-TCU to me. First of all, we've had like 3 good games in the 9 year history of the 4 team playoff so potential game quality shouldn't be a consideration. Second, most years the 4 best conference champions would not have such a wide gulf of quality between the top 2 and 3/4. This is kind of an aberration this season. Notre Dame fans will then chime in and say "BUT what about us?" I don't give a honk if Notre Dame ceases to exist. Join the Big Ten West if you want a shot. I'm tired of giving you special treatment, ya dorks. 

 

That's what I think. In conclusion, the conference title games should actually mean something and expanding the playoffs beyond 4 will make the regular season matter less. 

 

 

You do realize in 2 years this argument will be irrelevant, right? As the top 6 ranked conference champions are in, regardless of where they're ranked. 16th ranked Tulane would be in this year if the new format were in place.

[Sport]

4 minutes ago, McCall said:

You do realize in 2 years this argument will be irrelevant, right? As the top 6 ranked conference champions are in, regardless of where they're ranked. 16th ranked Tulane would be in this year if the new format were in place.

 

I do realize that. I'm saying we've been doing it wrong this whole time and even as an OSU fan their inclusion this year goes against my belief of how the system should work.  The new system will only make the problem worse with the extra at-large bids. It's too bad.  

[McCall]

1 minute ago, Sport said:

 

I do realize that. I'm saying we've been doing it wrong this whole time and even as an OSU fan their inclusion this year goes against my belief of how the system should work.  The new system will only make the problem worse with the extra at-large bids. It's too bad.  

So you don't think any non-conference champions should make the playoffs/tournament in any NCAA sport?

[Sport]

Just now, McCall said:

So you don't think any non-conference champions should make the playoffs/tournament in any NCAA sport?

 

I'm strictly talking about football. 

[McCall]

Just now, Sport said:

 

I'm strictly talking about football. 

What's the difference? The top 6 conference champions are in (that guarantees at least one Group of 5 champion). Why should there not be any at-large teams, in your opinion?

[Sport]

Just now, McCall said:

What's the difference? The top 6 conference champions are in (that guarantees at least one Group of 5 champion).

 

The difference between football and, say, basketball, is the college football regular season plays far fewer games and has always demanded start-to-finish (near) perfection. That's why the college football regular season is the best regular season in any sport. Every regular season game means a lot more because they're scarce and because one loss can eliminate a team. If you expand the tournament then suddenly Alabama's loss at LSU doesn't matter. The reason that was such a huge win and dramatic moment was it basically ended Alabama's shot at the playoff.  If you expand to 12 and give Alabama an at-large bid then it literally meant nothing. 

 

Just now, McCall said:

Why should there not be any at-large teams, in your opinion?

 

Because they cheapen the actual results on the field. Take OSU-Michigan, again. The winner of that game made the playoffs and the loser of that game made the playoffs rendering the game nearly pointless. I would even argue that OSU benefitted from losing the game because then they didn't have to go tear themselves up and risk injury in a meaningless conference championship game. That's a bad and dumb system. The more at-large bids you dole out the less losses sting, the less wins matter, and the less fun and dramatic the regular season becomes. 

[MJWalker45]

33 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

The difference between football and, say, basketball, is the college football regular season plays far fewer games and has always demanded start-to-finish (near) perfection.

I would say that this only applies to FBS level football. Every other NCAA/NAIA league has 16 to 32 team playoffs. People seem to fear we'll see a bunch of 7-5, 6-6 teams make the playoffs, and the chances of that being the case are pretty slim. An 8-4 team could probably make the 12 team playoff, but that would still not likely be the case since it's based on ranking systems that would eliminate most teams with 4 losses. North Dakota State won't make the FCS playoffs if they lose 4 regular season league games, and it would be pretty difficult to see a 8-4 Mississippi team make the playoffs unless they win the SEC Championship Game. And the chances of that happening if they go with the two best records in each league will see at most a 2 to 3 loss champion from most conference winners. 

[DCarp1231]

Maryland vs NC State for Duke’s Mayo Bowl.

 

Let’s just hope the trophy stays intact this year

 

 

[Sport]

36 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I would say that this only applies to FBS level football. Every other NCAA/NAIA league has 16 to 32 team playoffs.

 

Yes. The FBS season has always been different from the NFL and other levels of college football and I think it's what makes it great and I'll be sad when that element where winning nearly every game matters is gone.  

 

36 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

People seem to fear we'll see a bunch of 7-5, 6-6 teams make the playoffs, and the chances of that being the case are pretty slim. An 8-4 team could probably make the 12 team playoff, but that would still not likely be the case since it's based on ranking systems that would eliminate most teams with 4 losses. North Dakota State won't make the FCS playoffs if they lose 4 regular season league games, and it would be pretty difficult to see a 8-4 Mississippi team make the playoffs unless they win the SEC Championship Game. And the chances of that happening if they go with the two best records in each league will see at most a 2 to 3 loss champion from most conference winners. 

 

I'm not afraid of an 8-4 team making the playoffs. I'm afraid of a two (or three) loss at-large like this year's Alabama, OSU, Tennessee, Penn State, USC, etc making an expanded playoff because of how that undermines the regular season results. When Alabama lost to LSU this year it meant something. If we had a 12 team tournament it wouldn't have mattered at all.  

What I'm saying is conference championship games are often meaningless (See: Michigan-Purdue, See: Alabama-Georgia last year), but what if every single one mattered every single time? You can build some actual stakes to the conference title games by tying them to a playoff berth and removing at-larges. That way they'd be defacto playoff games. That also makes a game like OSU-Michigan for the right to go to the Big Ten title game into a defacto playoff game. That's your expanded playoffs, but it still preserves the demands of being perfect in the regular season.

 

Would it suck to lose one game all season and have the season end there? Yeah, but also tough ti***es. I grew up in the 90's and it happened all the time, I was in college in 2006 when we got them back, which is why the game mattered so much. Those stakes are pretty much gone now and it's a bummer.