2017 SEC champion: Georgia. 2017 NC: Alabama. Weird.

[newAD]

Again, stop the nonsense of conference champs. There are no TRUE conference champs. Until it's round robin and you play everyone that point is invalid.

Oh, but we have divisions where everyone does play everyone. But if you are a "benefit of the doubt" team like Bama, those rules are thrown out.

If there are no true conference champions, then eliminate the conference championship games all together. They are basically pointless. If they are going to stick with four teams, there is no purpose to having them. If they are going to keep the conference championship games then expand to 8, and reward those who win their CCGs.

So you must also feel the NFL is flawed too? They should just form a committee and go to a secluded room and decide who are the best four teams and have a short playoff.

Oh, and if there are no true conference champions, then there are no true national champions either.

 

[newAD]

You can agree with all those arguments about Neb deserving to be there. However the problem is the complaint this year is Alabama did not win their conf. You cannot make that argument and not make the same argument about Neb in 2001.

The argument is you must win your conf to be in the playoff. I personally disagree with that argument. It should be IMO the best four teams.

Winning your conference is an objective standard. Either you did or you didn't. A bunch of people in a room deciding who 'the best four teams' are, is subjective.

I like the idea of making it known, "You must win your conference." That makes what a lot of people claim they want important, the team's season. Conference games will be of the utmost importance. Conference championship games would be potential 'defacto' playoff games. Conferences are too big to play everyone, so it's not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot more fair and clear cut.

I could make an argument that Auburn should have got in the playoff over Georgia and/or Alabama. They played Georgia twice, and Auburn beat them soundly in the first meeting, then lost a close game in Atlanta. Auburn also beat Bama, the so called National Champions. They freaking beat two #1s in what 3 weeks? So how is it that they are not one of the best 4 teams? Oh, that's right, they lost last. Oh, that's right, they lost 3 games (one being the CCG, but wait, that doesn't matter in the eyes of the committee).

It's time for everyone to put their big boy pants on, trash this committee BS (which is clearly biased, and I'm not just talking about UCF rankings all season, but others), and make it clear on what exactly the path is to play for the championship.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

Main problem with requiring a team to be conference champ to make the playoff is the unbalanced conferences. Big 12 has 10 teams but Big 10 has 14. Thus teams in the Big 12, all else equal, have a much greater chance of winning the conference competing against 9 other teams rather than 13.

 

[HuskerO]

So how is it that they are not one of the best 4 teams? Oh, that's right, they lost last. Oh, that's right, they lost 3 games (one being the CCG, but wait, that doesn't matter in the eyes of the committee).

But if you put Auburn in the Playoffs then you're saying their 2 regular season losses don't matter.

Being Conference Champions is important, yes, but so does your Strength of Schedule and regular season record. That's why Ohio St didn't get in either. They had 2 regular season losses. It is important.

 

[Mr.Scary13]

Oh, but we have divisions where everyone does play everyone. But if you are a "benefit of the doubt" team like Bama, those rules are thrown out.

If there are no true conference champions, then eliminate the conference championship games all together. They are basically pointless. If they are going to stick with four teams, there is no purpose to having them. If they are going to keep the conference championship games then expand to 8, and reward those who win their CCGs.

So you must also feel the NFL is flawed too? They should just form a committee and go to a secluded room and decide who are the best four teams and have a short playoff.

Oh, and if there are no true conference champions, then there are no true national champions either.

Why is the NFL flawed? Last time I checked super bowl winners have been wild card teams, so they didn't WIN their own division. You and the other butt hurt Alabama haters should have a problem with the NFL system, correct?

 

[newAD]

But if you put Auburn in the Playoffs then you're saying their 2 regular season losses don't matter.

Being Conference Champions is important, yes, but so does your Strength of Schedule and regular season record. That's why Ohio St didn't get in either. They had 2 regular season losses. It is important.

Auburn's strength of schedule was pretty damn high, depending on who's rankings you look at. They beat both teams that played in the championship. They split with Georgia and their games were decided by 23-21 points. They lost to the defending national champions and 2018 playoff team Clemson by 8 on the road, and blew a game at LSU, on the road, losing by 4.

The committee can't talk out of both sides of their mouth and say that strength of schedule is important AND then put an arbitrary number of losses as being acceptable, AND then be hypocritical about when the losses occurred (meaning punish the teams that lose last).

This whole system is a joke, subject to bias and agendas.

 

[newAD]

Why is the NFL flawed? Last time I checked super bowl winners have been wild card teams, so they didn't WIN their own division. You and the other butt hurt Alabama haters should have a problem with the NFL system, correct?

Where in the hell do you get that I have an issue with the NFL system? I was responding to the claim that conference champions aren't important because everyone doesn't play everyone. There's 16 teams in each conference and all 16 don't play each other, but the division champions are rewarded but as we have seen, that isn't always the case in college football. The difference between the two is non-conference games in college have no factor in the conference championship, and as long as there are no rules about who teams play in the non-con it should stay that way.

In the NFL the rules are clear. In college football with this committee its based on what they feel is important at the time.

 

[timnsun]

Why is the NFL flawed? Last time I checked super bowl winners have been wild card teams, so they didn't WIN their own division. You and the other butt hurt Alabama haters should have a problem with the NFL system, correct?

They also have more than 4 teams in the playoffs. Those saying an 8 team playoff would allow for a natural invitation to other teams, and people would be fine with it.

In the NFL, not a single conference winner is excluded from the playoffs. Not one. Why can’t the NCAA come up with a similar system?

 

[saluno22]

Why is the NFL flawed? Last time I checked super bowl winners have been wild card teams, so they didn't WIN their own division. You and the other butt hurt Alabama haters should have a problem with the NFL system, correct?

Sure. But every team that wins their division qualifies for the playoff.

I haven't trashed anyone on this board in years, but the argument you are attempting to make in the above post is an absolutely garbage comparison. You are grasping at straws.

What you are saying is that a committee would be selecting the Bills for the playoffs this year but not the Patriots, even though the Patriots won their division.

If the CFP expanded to include all conference champions plus a few other "deserving teams" (however that is determined), then you would have a valid comparison to the NFL.

The NFL playoffs feature 12 of the 32 teams (37.5%). The CFP features 4 of 130 teams (save for teams ineligible for the postseason while they transition from FCS to FBS; 3.08%). The NFL is about playing well enough through the season and peaking at the right time. In FBS, you have to have a clean resume on the season if you aren't a name program to even have a chance at the CFP. P5 Wisconsin lost their CCG and no other games, but did not make the playoffs in favor of name-program Alabama, who didn't play in a CCG.

 

[Mr.Scary13]

They also have more than 4 teams in the playoffs. Those saying an 8 team playoff would allow for a natural invitation to other teams, and people would be fine with it.

In the NFL, not a single conference winner is excluded from the playoffs. Not one. Why can’t the NCAA come up with a similar system?

I don't have a problem with it, but the same ones would be bitching, no matter the format. It's funny, because most on here bitching were completely fine with OSU getting in last year. Most, not all, bitching are just butt hurt because Alabama is completely dominating college football right now and they cant stand it.

 

[timnsun]

I don't have a problem with it, but the same ones would be bitching, no matter the format. It's funny, because most on here bitching were completely fine with OSU getting in last year. Most, not all, bitching are just butt hurt because Alabama is completely dominating college football right now and they cant stand it.

Good point... for some reason, I was thinking OSU won the conference. I had forgotten that Penn State was conference champion.

I’d like to think I would’ve started this thread a year ago, if Ohio State would’ve won it all. Maybe I wouldn’t have, who knows?

 

[HuskerO]

Auburn's strength of schedule was pretty damn high, depending on who's rankings you look at. They beat both teams that played in the championship. They split with Georgia and their games were decided by 23-21 points. They lost to the defending national champions and 2018 playoff team Clemson by 8 on the road, and blew a game at LSU, on the road, losing by 4.

The committee can't talk out of both sides of their mouth and say that strength of schedule is important AND then put an arbitrary number of losses as being acceptable, AND then be hypocritical about when the losses occurred (meaning punish the teams that lose last).

This whole system is a joke, subject to bias and agendas.

I agree about Auburn's SOS being tougher than Alabama's, but Bama still had a tough schedule and still had 2 losses while Alabama had 1.

In my opinion the committee isn't talking out of both sides of their mouth as they said both SOS and number of losses are important.

Alabama's SOS isn't as impressive as Auburn's, but their compared SOS aren't far enough apart to make Auburn's 2 losses (while making the CCG and losing) as impressive as Alabama's 1 loss.

Alabama's 1 loss isn't as impressive as UCF 0 losses, but their SOS were far enough apart that all those UCF wins weren't as impressive as Alabama's wins and 1 loss.

I can't see Auburn being a good example for making the playoffs. Ohio St, to me, would make more sense since they actually won their Conference and Ohio St's SOS was good too.

Alabama's loss came at the end of the season so the "end of the season loss" argument doesn't hold a ton of weight this year. Georgia losing to Auburn in the SEC CCG definitely would've been a bigger mess than what we saw this year especially if the committee would've chosen Alabama over Georgia.

 

[newAD]

I agree about Auburn's SOS being tougher than Alabama's, but Bama still had a tough schedule and still had 2 losses while Alabama had 1.

In my opinion the committee isn't talking out of both sides of their mouth as they said both SOS and number of losses are important.

Alabama's SOS isn't as impressive as Auburn's, but their compared SOS aren't far enough apart to make Auburn's 2 losses (while making the CCG and losing) as impressive as Alabama's 1 loss.

Alabama's 1 loss isn't as impressive as UCF 0 losses, but their SOS were far enough apart that all those UCF wins weren't as impressive as Alabama's wins and 1 loss.

I can't see Auburn being a good example for making the playoffs. Ohio St, to me, would make more sense since they actually won their Conference and Ohio St's SOS was good too.

Alabama's loss came at the end of the season so the "end of the season loss" argument doesn't hold a ton of weight this year. Georgia losing to Auburn in the SEC CCG definitely would've been a bigger mess than what we saw this year especially if the committee would've chosen Alabama over Georgia.

So it was a figment of my imagination that in week 13 when #1 Alabama lost on the road to Auburn (who 2 weeks prior beat another #1), they fell behind Clemson, who weeks prior lost on the road to Syracuse, and Clemson rose from #3 to #1. Which loss looked worse?

It must have also been a figment of my imagination that when Clemson (without their starting QB) lost to Syracuse, Clemson fell from #2 to #7, and Ohio State, who lost at home badly to OU, rose above Clemson.

It must have been a figment of my imagination when Georgia lost their first game on the road to Auburn and they fell from #1 to #7 behind OU (who lost weeks prior to Iowa State, and Clemson who lost to Syracuse weeks prior.

I guess it was a figment of my imagination when OU fell from #3 to 12, after losing to Iowa State, falling behind Ohio State, who they thumped in Columbus earlier in the season.

Makes sense to me. Old school poll voting dropping teams who lost behind teams who lost weeks earlier in the season. Oh, but at the end of the season they all the sudden consider the whole season.