College Football 2023

[CS85]

TL;DR:  the college football "how to choose a champion" methodology was dramatically botched one final time before playoff expansion, and the elite shadow cabal of knights templar* looks forward to screwing around again in the coming years.

[WJMorris3]

25 minutes ago, CS85 said:

TL;DR:  the college football "how to choose a champion" methodology was dramatically botched one final time before playoff expansion, and the NCAA looks forward to screwing around again in the coming years.

Point of order: the NCAA has nothing to do with this.

[WJMorris3]

10 hours ago, Ted Cunningham said:

Next year should be an improvement as essentially you'll have the top 10 getting in (covering the Power 4 champs and the 6 at large teams) plus two lower-ranked conference champions. And I'm sure there will be arguments made about how they should just take the top 12 and how nos. 11 and 12 are better than a no. 19 Sunbelt champ and no. 24 CUSA champ. But, the criteria are clear: those last two "other champion" spots go to conference champs, not necessarily the best teams (however the latter is determined).

Point of order: it's going to be a 5+7 model next year thanks to the Pac-12 demise. Also they're forcing the top 4 to be conference champions so even if Notre Dame goes 12-0, they can't be seeded any higher than fifth.

[walkerws]

15 minutes ago, WJMorris3 said:

Point of order: it's going to be a 5+7 model next year thanks to the Pac-12 demise. Also they're forcing the top 4 to be conference champions so even if Notre Dame goes 12-0, they can't be seeded any higher than fifth.

That makes sense but is so restrictive at the same time. It's like the CFP (not the NCAA) wants this craziness to continue

[McCall]

4 minutes ago, walkerws said:

That makes sense but is so restrictive at the same time. It's like the CFP (not the NCAA) wants this craziness to continue

How's it restrictive?

[walkerws]

If a Notre Dame team (12-0) is the best team, meaning all the champs have losses, then it's restrictive. It seems like a forcing  function to make the champions get seeds 1-4. 

[McCall]

12 minutes ago, walkerws said:

If a Notre Dame team (12-0) is the best team, meaning all the champs have losses, then it's restrictive. It seems like a forcing  function to make the champions get seeds 1-4. 

Yes. That's the point. Only conference champions get a bye. Notre Dame doesn't have the possibility of losing in their conference championship game, like Georgia did this year, which knocked them out of the playoff. This takes away that advantage. While simultaneously only rewarding conference champions. So if this were next year, Georgia, who would still be in, doesn't get rewarded for NOT winning the championship.

[Ted Cunningham]

36 minutes ago, WJMorris3 said:

Point of order: it's going to be a 5+7 model next year thanks to the Pac-12 demise. Also they're forcing the top 4 to be conference champions so even if Notre Dame goes 12-0, they can't be seeded any higher than fifth.

Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks. That's an interesting wrinkle. And it makes sense that they would only want one non-P4 conference champ.

[MJWalker45]

19 minutes ago, WJMorris3 said:

Point of order: it's going to be a 5+7 model next year thanks to the Pac-12 demise. Also they're forcing the top 4 to be conference champions so even if Notre Dame goes 12-0, they can't be seeded any higher than fifth.

 

22 minutes ago, walkerws said:

If a Notre Dame team (12-0) is the best team, meaning all the champs have losses, then it's restrictive. It seems like a forcing  function to make the champions get seeds 1-4. 

The surprising bit of this is that Notre Dame agreed to this, because they don't want to be tied down to a conference. They're part of the ACC for everything else except hockey, but are beholden to staying independent in football. They're also expecting that with a 10-2 or 9-3 season they'll make a 12 team field without issues. And if the same committee is used, they're right. Notre Dame's schedule at 12-0 should be enough for the #1 seed, but unless it's written into the contracts it's moot. 

2 minutes ago, walkerws said:

It's like the CFP (not the NCAA) wants this craziness to continue

 

8 minutes ago, Ted Cunningham said:

Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks. That's an interesting wrinkle. And it makes sense that they would only want one non-P4 conference champ.

They want to keep printing money, they don't care about equity or all leagues would get a seat in the playoffs. 

[CS85]

1 hour ago, WJMorris3 said:

Point of order: the NCAA has nothing to do with this.

 

Ah, sorry; updated my post.

 

2 hours ago, CS85 said:

TL;DR:  the college football "how to choose a champion" methodology was dramatically botched one final time before playoff expansion, and the elite shadow cabal of knights templar* looks forward to screwing around again in the coming years.

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

3 hours ago, Sport said:

Maybe a 100th person in this thread can chime in to explain how they were after the four “best” teams? 

 

For a not insignificant portion of the fanbase, the injustice is part of the appeal.

[Sport]

22 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Yeah, I saw where you said "maybe" they should.  But I didn't see where you got indignant about Liberty's exclusion, and went on an extended discussion about why it's a travesty that teams with a worse record got in over them.  It's almost as if... I dunno... deep down you know that records don't tell the whole story.

 

  

They don't tell the whole story, but if you want the season to matter, and I suspect most of you do, you have to honor them wholly. I say this as someone who went to a MAC school, records are all that matters for the Power 5 conferences. Truthfully I wasn't aware Liberty was undefeated until a couple days ago, but the playoff/BCS national championship game was always reserved for the best of the Power 5 (save for one actually good exception*). There's no expectation at the beginning of the season for my Ohio Bobcats to be considered for the playoff if they're undefeated, and I wouldn't argue for them if they were, but if you're FSU or any P5 team there's a reasonable expectation in summer camp up through last Sunday that an undefeated season would come with a playoff bid. That's why the stakes are so high even in early season games and telling an undefeated P5 school that doesn't matter ruins all of that. An undefeated team from outside the power 5 not making it isn't unprecedented**. An undefeated power 5 champion getting snubbed for two teams with worse records very much is.

 

They didn't even get the four best teams either! Georgia is definitely better than Washington and probably better than Michigan. This is why "Four best teams" is dumb and holding it up like this unquestionable football truth is even dumber, especially if you aren't actively employed by Disney and/or the SEC Network. It's just easier and fairer to go off of records and to give the bid to  the undefeated team and tell the team that lost "hey tough noogies, but if you were truly National Championship material, ya shouldnta lost", but they can easily pick the four most deserving teams without a committee and the committee has to justify their existence so here's Alabama. 

 

 

22 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

But, honestly, I think we're all getting off the main point here.  This year's playoff is not about having the most deserving team get crowned. It's about making sure, at all costs, that team isn't Michigan. 

 

 

Cheaters.

 

I'm not concerned about Michigan and I wouldn't be concerned about them if FSU was their opponent. They're going to get pantsed by Alabama because Michigan isn't good. Then Alabama is going to beat Texas in a rematch that shouldn't be happening and win another national title in a playoff they don't deserve to be in. Like 2012. 

 

 

*When Cincinnati made it two years ago they needed the perfect storm of conditions. Every team below them had two losses except for Notre Dame, who they beat. The committee was hoping they could elevate one loss Oklahoma State above them, which would've sucked for Cincinnati, but the Cowboys did the decent thing and lost the Big 12 championship game, which gave the committee no choice. Was UC one of the "four best teams"? No. Was UC capable of winning two playoff games? No, but they earned their way in and it was the right call by the committee because at a certain point you just gotta hand it to a team because winning every game you play is the biggest goal in college football. 

 

**which sucks because it creates a Class A and a Class B within D1. If I had my way the AAC, MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, MW, and WAC would have their own playoff. If every team in D1 had the same shot at a national championship it might have a leveling effect on talent spread. 

[SFGiants58]

Is Sport having his Frank Grimes moment? Because this is a textbook Frank Grimes moment.

[Sport]

1 minute ago, SFGiants58 said:

Is Sport having his Frank Grimes moment? Because this is a textbook Frank Grimes moment.

 

Explain. 

 

 

[Sport]

17 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

For a not insignificant portion of the fanbase, the injustice is part of the appeal.

 

And, apparently, so is shilling for ABC executives, for some reason. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I understand what people are saying about why Alabama is in over FSU. I just think it's stupid and speaks to systemic issues within college football. And is a big part of what I generally don't care unless the team of my childhood (Syracuse) or my grad school (Washington) are playing well.

 

Every year it's the same arguments and every year it's OSU, Alabama, Georgia or LSU getting the benefit of the doubt in one way or another. It starts with early rankings and continues the entirety of the season.

 

If you believe in "tradition" and can work your way backwards from that, NCAAF is for you. If you want the results on the field to dictate the results at the end of the season, the NFL is better.

[SFGiants58]

29 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

Explain. 

 

 

Long-winded ranting and a growing madness regarding the bizarrely-blessed nature of a person/thing. Sometimes it’s better to back away and realize that it’s an entirely optional part of your life.

 

College football is the most awful sport we have for a variety of reasons that are well-documented (and I can’t quite say here because forum rules). The sooner it dies, the better.

 

Also, the one dude complaining about the NIL and transfer portal? Those are good additions to the game. Anything to give the players any kind of above-table compensation/agency is a good thing. 

[Sport]

8 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Long-winded ranting and a growing madness regarding the bizarrely-blessed nature of a person/thing. Sometimes it’s better to back away and realize that it’s an entirely optional part of your life.

 

Honestly I'm not ranting. This is just something to pass the time while on zoom calls.

 

I care about justice and can't believe any sports fan supports what is clearly a business decision going out of the way to spit on competitive fairness. Unless your dad is Bob Iger or you're an Alabama graduate then you should all be on my side. If that makes me Frank Grimes then I'm Frank Grimes. 

 

8 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

College football is the most awful sport we have for a variety of reasons that are well-documented (and I can’t quite say here because forum rules). The sooner it dies, the better.

 

I didn't watch it for two years after the manufactured farce that was Alabama/LSU national championship rematch and I didn't miss it. The playoff brought me back because it felt more likely to avoid a major miss and I don't think they've had one until now. 

 

The conference realignment stuff feels really cynical and I'll probably be more checked out next season even with the expanded playoff. 

 

8 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Also, the one dude complaining about the NIL and transfer portal? Those are good additions to the game. Anything to give the players any kind of above-table compensation/agency is a good thing. 

 

No argument there. The players getting paid and being allowed agency to move where they wish is a positive development. 

[SFGiants58]

12 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

Honestly I'm not ranting. This is just something to pass the time while on zoom calls.

 

I care about justice and can't believe any sports fan supports what is clearly a business decision going out of the way to spit on competitive fairness.

 

I also care about the injustice of an undefeated team getting shafted, but I also don’t commit the energy to effort posts anymore. Maybe I was being a little too jestful.

 

Adding in Bama just made me wish for the fall of college football, the elimination of national champions in the sport, and for people to disengage with a truly rancid sports product.

 

As I said, revenue-earning college sports are the worst ones we have.

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by SFGiants58
Removed incendiary section

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

College football is the most awful sport we have

 

I'm guessing you've never seen college and high school basketball up close.

 

Quote

Adding in Bama just made me wish for the fall of college football, the elimination of national champions in the sport, and for people to disengage with a truly rancid sports product.

 

All due respect, but that seems a tad dramatic. Maybe even more than a tad.