Final 4
- Thread starter Charlie Marlow
- Start date
Sounds right. I think Washington has done enough even though they have a weaker SOS. Even if Bama loses today they would still be in.
I agree. Clemson losing would probably be the only door opener. Then maybe BiG ChAmP or joklahoma
Too bad there can't be 8 teams so that USC, Oklahoma, Michigan and the Penn St./Wisconsin winner could be in it too.
Maybe USC, Okahoma, Michigan, Wisconsin/ Penn St should have not lost that 2nd game...
The whole season is still a Playoff.
Yes! 8 teams. Winner of each power 5 plus 3 at large. 2 teams max from each conference, sorry $ec. Too easy
I'm a Husky fan when the playoff start... I have very good memories winning in 1997 and 2010 in Seattle...
why? Just so they can get in? There will always be an argument for another group no matter where you stop.
I still think it needs to be the 5 power conference champs and 3 wildcards. Whatever they do, people will always bitch about something.
What happens when 7-5 Wisconsin team wins the B1G? They don't deserve a chance to be National Champs with 5 losses.
The people who didn't want a playoff said that it would water down or end the importance of the regular season. That hasn't happened, but many seem to want it to happen by making automatic bids.
If Clemson wins tonight, you only have four power 5 teams with one or fewer losses. That is a perfect scenario for the playoff system.
If Clemson and Washington both lost, you might as well have gone back to the BCS system and play Bama vs tOSU since every other P5 team would have 2 losses.
The people who didn't want a playoff said that it would water down or end the importance of the regular season. That hasn't happened, but many seem to want it to happen by making automatic bids.
If Clemson wins tonight, you only have four power 5 teams with one or fewer losses. That is a perfect scenario for the playoff system.
If Clemson and Washington both lost, you might as well have gone back to the BCS system and play Bama vs tOSU since every other P5 team would have 2 losses.
Nitts over buckeyes if they win tonight. they won the head to head and they're the conf champion.
Dream on. The Buckeyes earned their spot and I must say it was nice getting an extra weeks rest for the team. It also allowed the coaches to hit the recruiting trail.
I agree with this to the degree that having a smaller playoff field forces teams to show up every week, and I can appreciate that.
I don't want to speak for others, but I would love to see more inter-conference/cross region games when the chips are on the table. There is still a feeling for me that the conferences to a large degree operate in a vacuum, and the case for playoff consideration becomes a style points issue and how badly can you plow through your conference balanced with the difficulty of your conference.
Look at this season for example. In Fox's pregame last night for the Pac 12 title game, Washington's non-conference schedule was 112th (?) out of 125 in FBS. They played no one in their three non-conference games. I think most people would say the Pac 12 is down this season. Now compare that with Oklahoma. They went out and played Houston and Ohio State in their non-conference, and then ran the table in the Big 12. Most would say the Big 12 and Pac 12 are comparable this season, but because one conference's champion challenged themselves in their non-conference schedule and the other didn't, Washington will likely get in while Oklahoma is not even in consideration. Do I think OU should be in contention for the national title? No. But there is a level of prestige that comes with being a playoff qualifier that will be used as a recruiting advantage.
Likewise, when the Big Ten expanded to 14 teams and started scheduling their cross-division games based on TV inventory, they are setting themselves up to cannibalize their playoff chances (unlike the SEC, who expanded to 14, stayed at 8 conference games, and deliberately avoid cross-division games among top teams in general other than the permanent crossover). I don't know how long the Big Ten can ride the strength in parity at the top of the conference. The Big Ten is essentially in the same spot as the SEC was about 2-5 years ago. It's all cyclical, but there will be a perception of the conference strength that has a residual effect. The SEC rode that perception for a couple years and we've all partaken in the jokes about "Top 10 SEC team loses to unranked SEC team, who will be in the Top 10 next week". The Big Ten will now be the target of those jokes, and then another conference, and so on, and teams are evaluated on the basis of conference reputation.
Sorry, this got long-winded. My opinion is there needs to be an objective path for EVERY team to win the national championship. So if we are going to have 10 conferences in FBS, then the playoff needs to have at least those 10 conference champions. I think most would agree that most Group of 5 conference champions wouldn't be competitive with the Power 5 champions, but the bowl executives and CFP committee (which has just 2 of 12 members currently with past affiliations with Group of 5 schools) want the selection criteria to be as subjective as possible to maintain an advantage for their schools while avoiding anti-trust suits. The Power 5 needs to just break off and have their own division, but they won't do that until there is legal action threatened. That's how changes were made to the BCS and then from the BCS to the CFP.
As I said people are gonna bitch no matter what. No system is perfect but every big time conference title game winner needs to be rewarded. Record aside, they earned it! With these super conferences developing, it's gonna get harder and harder to win and the teams that do will be damn good!
I disagree with not having automatic bids. With the size of conferences and teams simply not playing each other it really is to hard to say a team with only one loss like osu is better than a two loss team. Hell teams in the same conference don't even play the same schedule with all the disparity in the cross over games. I would love for college football to go to a bigger playoff so that teams would be encouraged to play more competitive non-conference games early in the season rather than the crap FCS games. Just my two cents.
All the more reason why they should not be in. They get to rest, while the likes of Alabama, Washington and Clemson all have to play an extra game. If you can't win your conference much less your division in your conference, you should not get in a four team playoff, when you have 5 power conferences.
OSU only lost one game. They should replace the B1G champ. Yes PSU beat them but they also lost another game.
Yeah, this year that might be true. But I wouldn't have a problem keeping Michigan out of it. They:
- didn't win conference championship
- didn't win division
- didn't win 'at-large championship' vs Ohio st
- lost 2 out of last 3
I just fear most years where the pundits keep telling us how awesome $ec is that they would get all 3 at large bids.
The buckeye did not earn their spot they were selected for their spot. If it was Penn State at number 2 and osu playing in the conference championship because they had beaten Penn State in the regular season you would not feel the same way.
Yea that is a very good point that I admite I agree with, they didn't have to tee it up again to prove their deserving, which 2 years ago they need to be in the CCG to prove they belonged...
Still Wisky and Penn St didn't beat Michigan or a other conference Champ like OU and they didn't get blown out like PSU did against Michigan.
Must be nice to set at home and not tee it up no wonder we lost the 1996 National title when we were unbeaten and texass already had 3 losses going into the CCG...
Lucky for Bucknuts.
I agree with your point about OU, but osu beat Wisky in overtime and with the way college does overtime it really is a crap shoot who is going to win when both teams get the ball at the 25. All it takes is one team to hit a fg and the other get a holding call that takes them out of fg range and that may decide the game. If you go by comparative scores osu beat a bad MSU team 17-16 only because MSU through a pick on a two point conversion. Penn State beat that same team last weak 45-12, that is why head to head should be the first consideration when it comes to two deserving teams.
True, but in reverse Michigan blew out PSU and Bucknuts beat them... Bottom line all these games came down to where they played them and when.
Ok I really didnt think I would have to explain common sense. I think OSU has played a slightly tougher schedule. I can only imagine what a crappy B1G team would do in WMs conference. If you dont want to include schedule strength then you will never have a true champion.
Common sense tells me that there can be teams with two losses that are better than teams with one loss, see PSU vs OSU. Penn State beat them, enough said. Its not like they are a four or five loss team. They lost both games early in the year and are playing better than osu as of late. Osu beat MSU by 1 and PSU beat MSU 45-12. That is enough for me to believe they are the better team. Also Western Michigan beat Northwestern by 1 and the mighty Buckeyes beat Northwestern by 4. So I think Western Michigan on any given day could play with some teams in the Big Ten this year.
Every week is a new week. Michigan beat PSU by whatm 30 and OSU beat Michigan. Pitt beat PSU and 4 teams have beaten Pitt.
What I find funny in this whole mess is how Penn State was not good enough to be seeded over a team they beat, but in the end surpassed a Michigan team that beat them by 39 and to top it off Clemson who also lost to Pitt gets bumped over Ohio State.
PSU has an argument to be in the playoffs, same as OSU. If only one team from the Big can be in the playoffs PSU has an argument, same as OSU. What has very little place in the argument is the transitive property of scores. OSU beat MSU by 1, while PAU won by double digits. OSU best Michigan by 6, which beat PSU by 32. PSU beat Minnesota by 3, which lost to Nebraska, which lost to OSU by 59. It's not a great analysis tool, especially in isolation.
Team A
#6
At #7
At #8
And lost
At #5
Team B
Beat #3 at home
Beat #8 on a neutral field
Lost at #6
Lost at #23
Not even close.
#6
At #7
At #8
And lost
At #5
Team B
Beat #3 at home
Beat #8 on a neutral field
Lost at #6
Lost at #23
Not even close.
You left out the part where Team B beat Team A and also won a conference championship.
You can make arguments for both teams but to say they are not even close is not accurate.
You miss the part where Penn St lost 2 games. They were never in competition with Ohio St for the 4th spot. They were in competition with Washington and Michigan.
The fact that people put all their eggs in the one game basket is illogical to me. How can you ignore the 39 point loss to Michigan? 39 points. 5 TD and a FG difference. Then you have a loss to an 8-4 Pitt team that lost by 23 points to Miami and gave up 61 points to Syracuse.
If you think it should only be conference champs, that's fine. Then do away with the weekly rankings because they would be meaningless.
Have a committee get together the day after the conference championship games have been played. Take the Power 5 league champs, rank them 1-5 and tell #5 they are out of luck.
Under that scenario, your final five could have been
Florida
Virginia Tech
Washington
Oklahoma
Penn St
No thanks.
