College Football Thread

[GGGG]

And they have to be guidelines.  The NCAA has tried hard and fast rules in the past and it doesn't work.

For instance, Mount Union has won 12 national titles in D3 football.  They have been in 11 straight title games, only losing to UW-Whitewater on six occasions.  This year they were ranked #1 all year long, but lost to a conference foe the last game of the year.  That caused them to lose the automatic bid because they didn't win their conference - for the first time in 25 years.

Now there are only a handful of at-large bids given in D3 football.  There are guidelines in place for the selection of the at-large based on overall record, games played within the region, etc.  A few years ago, the NCAA experimented with making these hard and fast rules instead of guidelines.  If that were the case this year, Mount Union would not have gotten into the playoffs.  That would have been absurd.  Everyone knows they are one of the best teams.  They should be there - and they were selected. 

(Part of the reason why they wouldn't have made it based on "rules" is because the computer modelling eliminates margin of victory as a variable.  And they pretty much blew everyone out in their wins.)

[mu03eng]

And they have to be guidelines.  The NCAA has tried hard and fast rules in the past and it doesn't work.

For instance, Mount Union has won 12 national titles in D3 football.  They have been in 11 straight title games, only losing to UW-Whitewater on six occasions.  This year they were ranked #1 all year long, but lost to a conference foe the last game of the year.  That caused them to lose the automatic bid because they didn't win their conference - for the first time in 25 years.

Now there are only a handful of at-large bids given in D3 football.  There are guidelines in place for the selection of the at-large based on overall record, games played within the region, etc.  A few years ago, the NCAA experimented with making these hard and fast rules instead of guidelines.  If that were the case this year, Mount Union would not have gotten into the playoffs.  That would have been absurd.  Everyone knows they are one of the best teams.  They should be there - and they were selected. 

(Part of the reason why they wouldn't have made it based on "rules" is because the computer modelling eliminates margin of victory as a variable.  And they pretty much blew everyone out in their wins.)

All true, plus if there were hard and fast rules #embracedebate would not be as viable to fill non-game day air time

#conspiracy

[wadesworld]

What I think is really stupid is these weekly college football playoff rankings.  That's where people got upset about TCU getting bumped by OSU the first year.  If they simply just release the CFP field after the conference championships are finished nobody knows TCU is ahead of OSU up until TCU's...well, 52 point win.

Anyhow, what will be interesting is that if Colorado were to beat Washington, Michigan would not only have wins over both teams in the B1G title game, but also over the Pac 12 champion.

[MerrittsMustache]

Here's a bizarre hypothetical that would never actually happen...

What if teams could pass on playing in the conference championship game? For example, Alabama is in the playoff no matter what happens on Saturday. What's the point of them playing? Should they rest their starters like NFL teams do once they've clinched a playoff spot?

On the contrary, Clemson and Washington have nothing to gain and everything to lose in their conference championships. They'd both be in right now and a victory isn't going to change that. Meanwhile, Michigan will get the luxury of sitting at home while having a chance to get into the playoff as a result of not winning their division.

[GGGG]

Here's a bizarre hypothetical that would never actually happen...

What if teams could pass on playing in the conference championship game? For example, Alabama is in the playoff no matter what happens on Saturday. What's the point of them playing? Should they rest their starters like NFL teams do once they've clinched a playoff spot?

On the contrary, Clemson and Washington have nothing to gain and everything to lose in their conference championships. They'd both be in right now and a victory isn't going to change that. Meanwhile, Michigan will get the luxury of sitting at home while having a chance to get into the playoff as a result of not winning their division.

I would agree about Clemson.  But I think Washington needs to win.  They need another victory on their schedule against a decent team.

Very weak non-conference (Rutgers, Idaho, Portland State).  Conference schedule included only two teams in the top 25 and they lost to one of them.  (Lost to USC.  Beat Stanford.)

Without a conference championship game, the four would be Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson and IMO the Big Ten champion.  Beating Colorado gives them another big win.

[brewcity77]

I've always (before they even announced a playoff) advocated taking the top twelve teams. That way, your vaunted top four that currently make the playoff all get a bye. All the conference champs would be in and it leaves room for any undefeated small-conference schools (so there's your Western Michigan). And let's be honest...if you're the 13th best team in the country, you probably weren't going to beat the 5th, 4th, and 1st best teams in the country in consecutive weeks anyway, so quit your whining.

As far as the devaluing the season, does it devalue the basketball season that 68 teams get in? Right now, roughly 20% of the college basketball teams in the nation get a shot at winning the title. Is it that egregious that roughly 10% of the college football teams get the same shot?

[mu03eng]

I would agree about Clemson.  But I think Washington needs to win.  They need another victory on their schedule against a decent team.

Very weak non-conference (Rutgers, Idaho, Portland State).  Conference schedule included only two teams in the top 25 and they lost to one of them.  (Lost to USC.  Beat Stanford.)

Without a conference championship game, the four would be Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson and IMO the Big Ten champion.  Beating Colorado gives them another big win.

The sweet delicious joy I take is if Clemson loses the conference that ESPN crafted by gutting the Big East will likely be left out of the playoffs all together.

[mu03eng]

I've always (before they even announced a playoff) advocated taking the top twelve teams. That way, your vaunted top four that currently make the playoff all get a bye. All the conference champs would be in and it leaves room for any undefeated small-conference schools (so there's your Western Michigan). And let's be honest...if you're the 13th best team in the country, you probably weren't going to beat the 5th, 4th, and 1st best teams in the country in consecutive weeks anyway, so quit your whining.

As far as the devaluing the season, does it devalue the basketball season that 68 teams get in? Right now, roughly 20% of the college basketball teams in the nation get a shot at winning the title. Is it that egregious that roughly 10% of the college football teams get the same shot?

Except the regular season has a third of the games that basketball does and is much more lopsided in terms of who plays who. Plus once you open it that far, all the P5 teams (it's a relevant usage here guys!) will stop scheduling each other in the non-conference because all they have to do is be a top 1 or 2 team in their own conference. Non-conference slate then sucks.

Besides, people are going to debate whether it's the 16th team or the 70th team that gets in so if the goal is to eliminate the debate that won't happen.

[wadesworld]

I've always (before they even announced a playoff) advocated taking the top twelve teams. That way, your vaunted top four that currently make the playoff all get a bye. All the conference champs would be in and it leaves room for any undefeated small-conference schools (so there's your Western Michigan). And let's be honest...if you're the 13th best team in the country, you probably weren't going to beat the 5th, 4th, and 1st best teams in the country in consecutive weeks anyway, so quit your whining.

As far as the devaluing the season, does it devalue the basketball season that 68 teams get in? Right now, roughly 20% of the college basketball teams in the nation get a shot at winning the title. Is it that egregious that roughly 10% of the college football teams get the same shot?

But every single basketball team has a route into the NCAA Tournament.  As we see with Western Michigan, for a large number of college football teams, no matter what you do in the regular season you aren't going to have a shot to play in the CFP.

[MerrittsMustache]

But every single basketball team has a route into the NCAA Tournament.  As we see with Western Michigan, for a large number of college football teams, no matter what you do in the regular season you aren't going to have a shot to play in the CFP.

Exactly. There are 128 FBS teams but only half of those team have a legit chance at making the playoff.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the 128 teams split into two 64-team "leagues." Within each league, the teams fit into 8 conferences with the 8 conference champs automatically going to an 8-team playoff. Regular season consists of 7 conference games plus 5 non-conf games rotating to be against a team from another conference who finished in a corresponding place in the standings the previous season, similar to the NFL format. It gives the "BCS" teams a chance to earn their berth on the field and gives the non-BCS schools a chance at a championship.

Obviously that would never happen for countless reasons but it'd be better than the highly subjective system that is currently in place.



EDIT: Actually, there are 65-66 teams with a shot at a title if you include independents ND and BYU. Darn! I was so close to the perfect solution! 

[brandx]

Here's a bizarre hypothetical that would never actually happen...

What if teams could pass on playing in the conference championship game? For example, Alabama is in the playoff no matter what happens on Saturday. What's the point of them playing? Should they rest their starters like NFL teams do once they've clinched a playoff spot?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[GGGG]

But every single basketball team has a route into the NCAA Tournament.  As we see with Western Michigan, for a large number of college football teams, no matter what you do in the regular season you aren't going to have a shot to play in the CFP.

That is correct.

Remember though that the College Football Playoff is not an NCAA creation.  It was done by the top conferences and therefore is going to benefit the top conferences.

Western Michigan has a choice.  Stay at the FBS level and deal with the inequities for the sake of exposure and $$$.  Or move down to FCS and a more level playing field where you can attempt to win a more pure championship.

Because the Western Michigans are likely never going to be in the top four.  And likely won't even make the top 8 if it expands.  That isn't going to change.

[jesmu84]

Just realized the committee has a pretty easy way of getting Michigan and OSU into the playoffs. Keep OSU in the top 4 tonight, which is justifiable. Put Michigan at 5. If Clemson or Washington loses, boom, Michigan in.

[jesmu84]

Just realized the committee has a pretty easy way of getting Michigan and OSU into the playoffs. Keep OSU in the top 4 tonight, which is justifiable. Put Michigan at 5. If Clemson or Washington loses, boom, Michigan in.

Well...

[GGGG]

Say Washington loses to Colorado.  Does the Big Ten champion leapfrog Michigan to get into the top four?  I would think so.  That's another quality win for either team and gives them a better overall record.

[mu03eng]

Say Washington loses to Colorado.  Does the Big Ten champion leapfrog Michigan to get into the top four?  I would think so.  That's another quality win for either team and gives them a better overall record.

Problem is, Michigan beat both head to head.....so the guidelines are in conflict (h2h vs conference champion)

What's also interesting is that a lot of the speculation is based off of chatter from the previous head of the playoff committee. There is a new head this year who seems to have a different philosophy.

[GGGG]

Problem is, Michigan beat both head to head.....so the guidelines are in conflict (h2h vs conference champion)

What's also interesting is that a lot of the speculation is based off of chatter from the previous head of the playoff committee. There is a new head this year who seems to have a different philosophy.

Well sure they beat both head-to-head.  But with a better overall record, both beating a team that Michigan lost to, and winning the conference championship, I think either team would be more deserving.

[mu03eng]

Well sure they beat both head-to-head.  But with a better overall record, both beating a team that Michigan lost to, and winning the conference championship, I think either team would be more deserving.

Not sure that they would have a better record. The winner would have one more win, but they'd be equal in the loss column.

If Wisconsin wins B1G: Wins over PSU(7), LSU(21), Loss to OSU (2), Michigan (5) and SoS 20th in country (improves from there with win)
If Penn State wins B1G: Wins over Wisconsin (6), OSU (2), Loss to Michigan(5), Pitt(25) and SoS 39th in country (improves from there with win)
Michigan: Wins over Wisconsin(6), PSU(7), Colorado(8), Loss to OSU(2) and Iowa(NR) and SoS 33rd in the country

I would assume both PSU and Wisconsin would move ahead of Michigan on SoS if either wins. Michigan has a better volume/quality of wins than both but a worse collection of losses than both. Michigan beat both head to head(at home) but isn't in the championship.

Not saying Michigan should get in over either....but there is definitely an easy argument to be made that they could/should.

[MerrittsMustache]

Simple solution. If you don't win your conference championship, you can only go to the CFP if your conference champion also goes (to prevent a #2 team in the country from missing out if #1 is the conf champ).

Assuming Bama and Clemson win this weekend...

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Washington (or B10 Champ if Col wins)
4. Big 10 Champ (or OSU if Col wins)

[mu03eng]

Simple solution. If you don't win your conference championship, you can only go to the CFP if your conference champion also goes (to prevent a #2 team in the country from missing out if #1 is the conf champ).

Assuming Bama and Clemson win this weekend...

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Washington (or B10 Champ if Col wins)
4. Big 10 Champ (or OSU if Col wins)

Simply no way you can leave OSU out. If a rule leaves the clear #2 in the country out of the mix than it's a bad rule. Also that would mean if Alabama lost to Florida they would be left out...not sure I'd agree with that either.

[MerrittsMustache]

Simply no way you can leave OSU out. If a rule leaves the clear #2 in the country out of the mix than it's a bad rule. Also that would mean if Alabama lost to Florida they would be left out...not sure I'd agree with that either.

If the best team on paper doesn't get it done on the field by winning enough games, that's on them.

If conference standings and championships don't matter, what's the point of having conferences? Get rid of conferences all together and let each program make their own 12-game schedule.

[mu03eng]

If the best team on paper doesn't get it done on the field by winning enough games, that's on them.

If conference standings and championships don't matter, what's the point of having conferences? Get rid of conferences all together and let each program make their own 12-game schedule.

Sure, if we live in a utopia but we don't. Besides your blow it up theory actually makes it significantly harder to pick the best teams because how do you determine a strength of schedule?

We live in a world where the NCAA and the universities are trying to sit between the desire to make a ton of money and the desire to appear as if they don't want to make a ton of money. As a result we get a bastardized system. The only reason we have conference championship games is because there is money to be made....not to determine who the best team is to put in the playoffs. My stance merely reflects that reality and trying to be as pragmatic as possible.

[GGGG]

Right.  The major conferences set this up to benefit the major conferences.  They're gonna keep the rules as loose as possible because everyone knows Alabama is one of the best four teams in the country regardless of what they do Saturday. 

[MerrittsMustache]

Sure, if we live in a utopia but we don't. Besides your blow it up theory actually makes it significantly harder to pick the best teams because how do you determine a strength of schedule?

We live in a world where the NCAA and the universities are trying to sit between the desire to make a ton of money and the desire to appear as if they don't want to make a ton of money. As a result we get a bastardized system. The only reason we have conference championship games is because there is money to be made....not to determine who the best team is to put in the playoffs. My stance merely reflects that reality and trying to be as pragmatic as possible.

Right.  The major conferences set this up to benefit the major conferences.  They're gonna keep the rules as loose as possible because everyone knows Alabama is one of the best four teams in the country regardless of what they do Saturday. 

To paraphrase Don Ohlmeyer, the answer to all of my questions is money. I understand why the set-up is what it is, but that doesn't mean it isn't completely illogical and ridiculous.

[mu03eng]

To paraphrase Don Ohlmeyer, the answer to all of my questions is money. I understand why the set-up is what it is, but that doesn't mean it isn't completely illogical and ridiculous.

Both can absolutely true and very often are.