College Football 2023

[BBTV]

I'm curious what message boards would have said about 1994 undefeated B1G champ Penn State not having the opportunity to play undefeated Nebaska, who was simply awarded the title.

 

Anyway, back to 2023.  There are no rules.  There are rules within the conference, but this playoff thing is a made-for-tv show.  It has no obligation to codify how it chooses, and it's just a room fool of good 'ole boys who are beholden to TV networks and ratings, so they can do whatever they want.  They're playing by the rules, not breaking them.  It's an entertainment show, not legitimate competition.

 

While I agree that the whole system is completely absurd, it always has been, and in a way, they're simply honoring that time-honored tradition.  They're actually heroes!

[PERRIN]

Unless the 12-team playoff format guarantees slots to conference champions, and then sorts out the remaining seeds based on legitimate statistical tiebreakers like any sane league would, I'm not optimistic that the new format is going to be any less biased and miserable as the current, though the likelihood of an obviously competitive and deserving team being fleeced would be lowered. After the top six or seven teams, there's a point where any team with 2 losses has a legitimate case for a spot, and some teams will inevitably get left out, but it would be far less egregious than what happened to FSU.

 

I'd love to see a playoff formatted as follows:

Seeds 1-4 go to Power Four conference champions, regardless of record.

Seeds 5-8 go to the next four best at-large teams, by record.

9-12 is simply chaos. There isn't really a good way to determine for sure which teams are more deserving of others if they don't have conference accolades or as impressive records compared to the above teams. So long as no 3-loss teams sneak in, unless there simply aren't enough 2-loss teams, I'll be happy.

 

This is by no means an ideal solution, but it'd be something. Use computers to decide the final seeds for all I care.

[BBTV]

3 minutes ago, PERRIN said:

like any sane league would,

It’s NOT A LEAGUE. It’s a separate system that works with several more/less independent leagues. There’s so much disparity between the individual leagues that there’s simply no avoiding subjectivity. 
 

 

[Sport]

13 minutes ago, BBTV said:

I'm curious what message boards would have said about 1994 undefeated B1G champ Penn State not having the opportunity to play undefeated Nebaska, who was simply awarded the title.

 

There was lots of IRL bitching about that so probably lots of online bitching too. 

 

13 minutes ago, BBTV said:

Anyway, back to 2023.  There are no rules.  There are rules within the conference, but this playoff thing is a made-for-tv show.  It has no obligation to codify how it chooses, and it's just a room fool of good 'ole boys who are beholden to TV networks and ratings, so they can do whatever they want.  They're playing by the rules, not breaking them.  It's an entertainment show, not legitimate competition.

 

While I agree that the whole system is completely absurd, it always has been, and in a way, they're simply honoring that time-honored tradition.  They're actually heroes!

 

You say this like you've hatched a new take. Welcome to college football in 2014. The problem with this take is yes, there are no rules, but they've always followed a precedent that the team with the better record goes. Only when two teams have the same record do they get into the "which team would be better for ratings?" consideration. This decision throws that out for your TV show, but this is the first time they've ever kept a Power 5 team out with an undefeated record in favor of a team with a worse record. It's not really justifiable on any grounds they've ever followed. This is a new screwjob entirely. 

 

 

 

[BBTV]

Help educate me, because I really don’t know - are there published rules? Or is it simply that this isn’t in line with precedent?  If the former, and they ignored them, then I take it all back. But if it’s the latter and it’s just that it’s not normal, then as a person with no skin in the game, it seems like they got the playoff that will result in the top 4 teams playing for a title. 
 

I can understand how an FSU fan or a fan of any other program that has uphill battles for the  committee’s respect would be pissed off. If I was wearing those shoes, I’d be too. 

[See Red]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

I'm curious what message boards would have said about 1994 undefeated B1G champ Penn State not having the opportunity to play undefeated Nebaska, who was simply awarded the title.

 

Anyway, back to 2023.  There are no rules.  There are rules within the conference, but this playoff thing is a made-for-tv show.  It has no obligation to codify how it chooses, and it's just a room fool of good 'ole boys who are beholden to TV networks and ratings, so they can do whatever they want.  They're playing by the rules, not breaking them.  It's an entertainment show, not legitimate competition.

 

While I agree that the whole system is completely absurd, it always has been, and in a way, they're simply honoring that time-honored tradition.  They're actually heroes!

 

The year before that Florida State played against Nebraska in the National Championship game over undefeated West Virginia and a one-loss Notre Dame team that had beaten them in the regular season.

 

38 minutes ago, BBTV said:

Help educate me, because I really don’t know - are there published rules? Or is it simply that this isn’t in line with precedent?  If the former, and they ignored them, then I take it all back. But if it’s the latter and it’s just that it’s not normal, then as a person with no skin in the game, it seems like they got the playoff that will result in the top 4 teams playing for a title. 
 

I can understand how an FSU fan or a fan of any other program that has uphill battles for the  committee’s respect would be pissed off. If I was wearing those shoes, I’d be too. 

 

Here's the CFP protocol.

 

It ambiguously specifies that the committee selects the four best teams, and can consider "other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance."

 

They've been pretty lucky so far that there haven't been this many P5 teams that had a case but in 2014 (I think) Ohio State had suffered an injury to their two starting QBs and the injury thing was up for discussion.  But then Ohio State went out and beat a 10-win Wisconsin team 59-0 in the Big Ten Championship Game and went on the win the National Championship.

 

 

Having an undefeated P5 conference team missing is unprecedented, but having an one-loss team ranked higher than an undefeated P5 team isn't since, again in 2014, one-loss Oregon was #2 and undefeated FSU #3.

 

I don't think it's fair to FSU, personally, but I don't think the wrong decision was made either.  If it's "best" teams, it's hard to argue FSU without Travis is better than Alabama.  And the playoff would have been expanded this year rather than next if the ACC/Big Ten/Pac 12 alliance didn't vote against it in an effort to screw the SEC, so the irony is pretty great.

[Sport]

Alabama doesn’t have a case, though. Their case is they’re Alabama. There’s exactly four teams with a case this season - The three undefeated teams and the team who beat Alabama. If you put this Tide team in Missouri’s uniforms then FSU is in the playoff right now. 

[See Red]

4 minutes ago, Sport said:

Alabama doesn’t have a case, though. Their case is they’re Alabama. There’s exactly four teams with a case this season - The three undefeated teams and the team who beat Alabama. If you put this Tide team in Missouri’s uniforms then FSU is in the playoff right now. 

 

Their lone loss is to the #3 team, they just beat the previous #1 team, and their third best win is equal to FSU's best win as both teams beat LSU.  And also that Jordan Travis got hurt and FSU suddenly has an offense that rivals Iowa's.

[Sport]

1 minute ago, See Red said:

 

Their lone loss is to the #3 team, they just beat the previous #1 team, and their third best win is equal to FSU's best win as both teams beat LSU.  And also that Jordan Travis got hurt and FSU suddenly has an offense that rivals Iowa's.

I don’t care. They won every game. Alabama didn’t. 

[infrared41]

2 minutes ago, See Red said:

FSU suddenly has an offense that rivals Iowa's.

 

Let's not get carried away here. Iowa's offense has no rivals.

[alxy8s]

3 hours ago, Seadragon76 said:

All this talk about Florida State has me thinking... they need to be mad at Georgia for losing the SEC Championship Game.

 

If it wasn't for the Bulldogs losing, they're more then likely in the playoff as you would have four unbeaten teams and a one loss Texas team as Big 12 Champion. Guess who gets hosed there?

 

So, for all the talk of Florida State boycotting the game and stuff... I say nay. Go out there and beat the Bulldogs senseless. Make an example out of them and let the committee know that they screwed up.

I haven’t pulled against Georgia since my primary rooting interest was Mark Richt being fired, but I wouldn’t give a damn if we lost to FSU. I hope the AP votes them #1 no matter what happens in the playoff.

 

Why it was absolutely imperative that Alabama be included, who can say. Are they really that big of a draw? I always had the impression that everyone was pretty well sick of them. 

[Unocal]

1 hour ago, Sport said:

Alabama doesn’t have a case, though. Their case is they’re Alabama. There’s exactly four teams with a case this season - The three undefeated teams and the team who beat Alabama. If you put this Tide team in Missouri’s uniforms then FSU is in the playoff right now. 

 

If Ole Miss was the 12-1 SEC champion that beat Georgia, we all know they wouldn't have gotten in.

[PERRIN]

you know a situation is bad when unocal whips out a somewhat reasonable take. must be a sign of the end times.

[MJWalker45]

8 hours ago, PERRIN said:

Unless the 12-team playoff format guarantees slots to conference champions, and then sorts out the remaining seeds based on legitimate statistical tiebreakers like any sane league would, I'm not optimistic that the new format is going to be any less biased and miserable as the current, though the likelihood of an obviously competitive and deserving team being fleeced would be lowered. After the top six or seven teams, there's a point where any team with 2 losses has a legitimate case for a spot, and some teams will inevitably get left out, but it would be far less egregious than what happened to FSU.

 

I'd love to see a playoff formatted as follows:

Seeds 1-4 go to Power Four conference champions, regardless of record.

Seeds 5-8 go to the next four best at-large teams, by record.

9-12 is simply chaos. There isn't really a good way to determine for sure which teams are more deserving of others if they don't have conference accolades or as impressive records compared to the above teams. So long as no 3-loss teams sneak in, unless there simply aren't enough 2-loss teams, I'll be happy.

 

This is by no means an ideal solution, but it'd be something. Use computers to decide the final seeds for all I care.

Only the top 5 league champs are guaranteed a berth. 

[McCall]

9 hours ago, PERRIN said:

Unless the 12-team playoff format guarantees slots to conference champions, and then sorts out the remaining seeds based on legitimate statistical tiebreakers like any sane league would, I'm not optimistic that the new format is going to be any less biased and miserable as the current, though the likelihood of an obviously competitive and deserving team being fleeced would be lowered. After the top six or seven teams, there's a point where any team with 2 losses has a legitimate case for a spot, and some teams will inevitably get left out, but it would be far less egregious than what happened to FSU.

 

I'd love to see a playoff formatted as follows:

Seeds 1-4 go to Power Four conference champions, regardless of record.

Seeds 5-8 go to the next four best at-large teams, by record.

9-12 is simply chaos. There isn't really a good way to determine for sure which teams are more deserving of others if they don't have conference accolades or as impressive records compared to the above teams. So long as no 3-loss teams sneak in, unless there simply aren't enough 2-loss teams, I'll be happy.

 

This is by no means an ideal solution, but it'd be something. Use computers to decide the final seeds for all I care.

The 12-team format was initially the top 6 ranked conference champions plus the 6 highest ranked non-champions. The top 4 ranked conference champions get an automatic bye to the semifinals. However, with the dissolution of the Pac-12, for the most part, they're amending it to be the top 5 ranked conference champions and 7 highest ranked non-champions. They are also adding that a conference must have at least 8 members for their conference champion to have an automatic bid.

[Sport]

A minor annoyance I have is when people go "you know if they expand the playoff then we'll just argue about the 12th and 13th teams" Yeah and that's obviously preferable to leaving out an undefeated power 5 conference champion in the #5 spot. If you're 3 loss LSU I really have no sympathy for you missing out - Shouldnta lost 3 games, losers. There's never gonna be a Florida State that has a real case for the playoff at #13. 

 

That's like problem #37 on the list of problems with the expanded playoff. Number one is it further devalues the regular season and further NFLizes the college game (sort of like how taking Alabama over FSU devalues the regular season). The draw of D1 college football is that every game matters, which is why telling FSU, "actually this time we decided every game doesn't matter because uhhhh we think your QB is bad" sucks so hard. I still can't believe there's a single college football fan who supports that. Problem #2 with an expanded playoff is we already have an expanded playoff in place right now in the conference championship games, they just refuse to use them as official feeders to the playoff because they like to have control over their playoff picks so they can f*** over an FSU in the event their QB is inconvenient or whatever BS reason they concoct. Expanded playoff makes the already kind of useless conference championship games into very late season exhibitions. Again, not sure why any college football fan would want those games to matter less than they already do.

 

 

8 hours ago, alxy8s said:

I haven’t pulled against Georgia since my primary rooting interest was Mark Richt being fired, but I wouldn’t give a damn if we lost to FSU. I hope the AP votes them #1 no matter what happens in the playoff.

 

Why it was absolutely imperative that Alabama be included, who can say. Are they really that big of a draw? I always had the impression that everyone was pretty well sick of them. 

 

I think they just got really spooked by the idea of a playoff without an SEC team, which sucks. That shouldn't be a factor. 

[SFGiants58]

Here’s an idea:  no more national champions. You get conference titles and bowls as reward for winning a conference. That’s it.

 

Every method for finding a national champion is bafflingly stupid and we are better off without them.

[Sport]

14 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Here’s an idea:  no more national champions. You get conference titles and bowls as reward for winning a conference. That’s it.

 

Every method for finding a national champion is bafflingly stupid and we are better off without them.

 

The playoff should be the Champions League where all the conference champions go, no at large bids, and I don't see why that would be stupid. No good reason you should be able to win the National Championship if you couldn't win your smaller conference championship. I'm an OSU fan, they shouldn't have been in the playoff a year ago and I'm sort of glad they didn't make it this year. The only reason they don't do it that way is because they want to game the matchups to best fit their TV event. People would whine that one loss Georgia is better than Florida State or whoever wins the AAC and they're probably correct, but to them I say tough boogers shoulda beat Alabama. 

[See Red]

12 hours ago, PERRIN said:

Unless the 12-team playoff format guarantees slots to conference champions, and then sorts out the remaining seeds based on legitimate statistical tiebreakers like any sane league would, I'm not optimistic that the new format is going to be any less biased and miserable as the current, though the likelihood of an obviously competitive and deserving team being fleeced would be lowered. After the top six or seven teams, there's a point where any team with 2 losses has a legitimate case for a spot, and some teams will inevitably get left out, but it would be far less egregious than what happened to FSU.

 

I'd love to see a playoff formatted as follows:

Seeds 1-4 go to Power Four conference champions, regardless of record.

Seeds 5-8 go to the next four best at-large teams, by record.

9-12 is simply chaos. There isn't really a good way to determine for sure which teams are more deserving of others if they don't have conference accolades or as impressive records compared to the above teams. So long as no 3-loss teams sneak in, unless there simply aren't enough 2-loss teams, I'll be happy.

 

This is by no means an ideal solution, but it'd be something. Use computers to decide the final seeds for all I care.

People aren’t going to like it anymore than they like it now.  Look at the top 12 right now. There’s five teams that will be in the Big Ten next year, six teams that will be in the SEC, and one that will be in the ACC.  And you can probably add another loss to all of those SEC/B10 teams and take one away from the Big XII teams.

[OnWis97]

12 hours ago, BBTV said:

I'm curious what message boards would have said about 1994 undefeated B1G champ Penn State not having the opportunity to play undefeated Nebaska, who was simply awarded the title.

 

Anyway, back to 2023.  There are no rules.  There are rules within the conference, but this playoff thing is a made-for-tv show.  It has no obligation to codify how it chooses, and it's just a room fool of good 'ole boys who are beholden to TV networks and ratings, so they can do whatever they want.  They're playing by the rules, not breaking them.  It's an entertainment show, not legitimate competition.

 

While I agree that the whole system is completely absurd, it always has been, and in a way, they're simply honoring that time-honored tradition.  They're actually heroes!

I was pretty upset at the time. A few years later Nebraska beat out undefeated Michigan. I remember complaining about the "tie goes to Nebraska rule." It was why I was happy about the BCS; I felt the traditional Rose Bowl tie in was doing the Big Ten a disservice.

 

One of those two Nebraska wins (I think it was the Penn State year), there was a split in the polls. Then Penn State made the mistake of taking their foot off the gas against Indiana or someone and won by a lesser margin. From that point on, Nebraska had full control of both polls.

In the Michigan year, Tom Osbourne announced his retirement mid-year.  That effectively served as tiebreaker.

 

Quibbling over #5 is better than quibbling over #2 (BCS) and #1 (old system). I look forward to quibbling over #13; that'll better-resemble the quibbling over #69 in basketball where once the games start we forget about it.