CFP since 1998...

[4down20]

Yeah, USC only beat the PAC-12 Champ, the team that won the PAC South and the B1G champ. Also, what the hell does this have to with the discussion? I already said USC didn't deserve to be in the playoff and said it at the time when some were suggesting they did. I used their situation as an example and you want to argue like I was saying they should have been in.

I guess when you have no other answers, you just argue against something that wasn't said.

But hey...thanks for your "truth." lol

And you lost 3 games.

Again, top5 is bullshit - but USC talking about AP polls after 2000 is nothing new.

 

[trojanfan12]

So the end of the season also doesn't really matter for them.

Just a matter of time before teams start using the end of the season to rest players, just like the NFL. Especially since any team that has success in the playoffs will get 1 or 2 extra games on the year.

And so what if they do. Isn't that why SEC teams schedule games vs. cupcakes in November?

There is a difference, but not so much of a difference that it supports your claim that it will equal out to much more money etc.

The opportunity to win a national championship, not to mention a couple of extra games if a team makes it to the NC, is a huge financial difference. Especially since, in some cases, going to a bowl game can actually cost a team money since they are often required to pay for unsold tickets.

If a P5 champ can't get in an 6 or 8 team playoff on it's actual merits, there is a reason for it. AQ is just stupid shit period.

No, it isn't. More often than not, it would come down to a virtual coin flip between 2 P5 champs, not one of them not being good enough.

If the mid-major deserved it - yes. The current playoff says 4 best teams, it doesn't say shit about AQ's or any of that other shit.

Yeah, you hold your breath until some mid-major gets a shot over a P5 team. Just because it technically could happen, doesn't mean it ever has an actual chance of happening.

What the hell do the polls matter?

Considering they are part of what the selection committee considers and that they also put out a poll. I'd say they matter. Perhaps not as much as they once did, but they do still matter.

 

[trojanfan12]

And you lost 3 games.

Again, top5 is bullshit - but USC talking about AP polls after 2000 is nothing new.

You may think so, but those there are plenty whose opinions actually mattered that disagree with you. No offense, but I'm gonna go with those whose opinions matter.

Lol at you and your "any opinion that doesn't agree with mine is bullshit" bullshit.

 

[4down20]

And so what if they do. Isn't that why SEC teams schedule games vs. cupcakes in November?

Alabama schedules the FCS game for 1 reason and 1 reason only: Auburn.

Auburn schedules the FCS game for 1 reason and 1 reason only: Alabama.

The rest of you just like to claim shit because it makes you feel better.

The opportunity to win a national championship, not to mention a couple of extra games if a team makes it to the NC, is a huge financial difference. Especially since, in some cases, going to a bowl game can actually cost a team money since they are often required to pay for unsold tickets.

Yeah, but those are lesser bowls. I don't think schools are having to pay for the Rose Bowl, and if they are, they really need to revamp these bowl games.

Obviously, there is more draw, but you are talking about teams going to big time bowl games already is the problem.

No, it isn't. More often than not, it would come down to a virtual coin flip between 2 P5 champs, not one of them not being good enough.

If you have 8 teams and your conference champion can't make the field, then it's their fucking problem. AQ is stupid.

Yeah, you hold your breath until some mid-major gets a shot over a P5 team. Just because it technically could happen, doesn't mean it ever has an actual chance of happening.

Because they won't play a schedule that is worthy of making them a playoff team.

Considering they are part of what the selection committee considers and that they also put out a poll. I'd say they matter. Perhaps not as much as they once did, but they do still matter.

You aren't citing the committees poll because it doesn't exist after the playoffs. The AP and Coaches polls no longer have real meaning or bearing on college football.

 

[4down20]

You may think so, but those there are plenty whose opinions actually mattered that disagree with you. No offense, but I'm gonna go with those whose opinions matter.

Lol at you and your "any opinion that doesn't agree with mine is bullshit" bullshit.

Well, go ahead and hang your "#3 in the AP poll" banner Les Miles Jr.

 

[Olyduck]

Again, I'd trade schedules with you in a heartbeat.

LSU
Miss St
Mercer
Auburn

is much tougher than:

ASU
Arizona
Colorado
UCLA

USC schedule is cruise control.

Kind of depends on what year.
are we talking last year
LSU 8-4, Miss St 6-7 Auburn 8-5 Mercer 6-5 in FCS 28-21
ASU 5-7, AZ 3-9, Colorado 10-3, UCLA 4-8 22-27 no FCS schedule

or like 2014
LSU 8-5, Miss St 10-3 Auburn 8-5 Mercer 6-6 FCS 32-19
ASU 10-3, Arizona 10-4 Colorado 2-10 UCLA 10-3 32-20 no FCS schedule

2012
LSU 10-3 Miss St 8-5, Auburn 3-9, Mercer didn't have a team in 2012 so to be fair I will use who Bama did play western Carolina 1-10 22- 27
ASU 8-5, AZ 8-5, Colorado 1-11, UCLA 9-5 26-26

Im failing to see how you can guarantee that Alabama has a harder Nov every year.

 

[4down20]

Kind of depends on what year.
are we talking last year
LSU 8-4, Miss St 6-7 Auburn 8-5 Mercer 6-5 in FCS 28-21
ASU 5-7, AZ 3-9, Colorado 10-3, UCLA 4-8 22-27 no FCS schedule

or like 2014
LSU 8-5, Miss St 10-3 Auburn 8-5 Mercer 6-6 FCS 32-19
ASU 10-3, Arizona 10-4 Colorado 2-10 UCLA 10-3 32-20 no FCS schedule

2012
LSU 10-3 Miss St 8-5, Auburn 3-9, Mercer didn't have a team in 2012 so to be fair I will use who Bama did play western Carolina 1-10 22- 27
ASU 8-5, AZ 8-5, Colorado 1-11, UCLA 9-5 26-26

Im failing to see how you can guarantee that Alabama has a harder Nov every year.

I'd previously considered adding up the recruiting rankings between the 2 before deciding I was way too lazy to put the effort in.

But going with your records, I'd still change with them in all those years.

 

[PhilSimms11]

What is the point of winning a conference title if it doesn't lead anywhere? I'd rather hear, "Hey, guys, we win the conference and we are playoff bound!" as opposed to "...Independence Bowl bound." It's like winning your division in the NFL and going to the Pro Bowl. That's just a downer. I think EVERY conference champ should be a playoff team. Not in the same playoff, however. This would make every conference viable. Hell, the way it is now, not all P5 conferences are viable.

(1)Alabama (13-0)
(2)Clemson (12-1)
(3)*Ohio St (11-1) vs (6)Oklahoma (10-2)
(4)Washington (12-1) vs (5)Penn St (11-2)
---------------------------------
(1)Western Michigan (13-0)
(2)Temple (10-3)
(3)*So Florida (10-2) vs (6)App St (9-3)
(4)San Diego St (10-3) vs (5)Western Kentucky (10-3)
(*)at-large

 

[7Samurai13]

What is the point of winning a conference title if it doesn't lead anywhere? I'd rather hear, "Hey, guys, we win the conference and we are playoff bound!" as opposed to "...Independence Bowl bound." It's like winning your division in the NFL and going to the Pro Bowl. That's just a downer. I think EVERY conference champ should be a playoff team. Not in the same playoff, however. This would make every conference viable. Hell, the way it is now, not all P5 conferences are viable.

(1)Alabama (13-0)
(2)Clemson (12-1)
(3)*Ohio St (11-1) vs (6)Oklahoma (10-2)
(4)Washington (12-1) vs (5)Penn St (11-2)
---------------------------------
(1)Western Michigan (13-0)
(2)Temple (10-3)
(3)*So Florida (10-2) vs (6)App St (9-3)
(4)San Diego St (10-3) vs (5)Western Kentucky (10-3)
(*)at-large

Because in a year like 2012, 8-5 Wisconsin shouldn't be in the playoffs. If you aren't ranked in the top 4/6/8 on your own you shouldn't be gifted a spot.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

What is the point of winning a conference title if it doesn't lead anywhere? I'd rather hear, "Hey, guys, we win the conference and we are playoff bound!" as opposed to "...Independence Bowl bound." It's like winning your division in the NFL and going to the Pro Bowl. That's just a downer. I think EVERY conference champ should be a playoff team. Not in the same playoff, however. This would make every conference viable. Hell, the way it is now, not all P5 conferences are viable.

(1)Alabama (13-0)
(2)Clemson (12-1)
(3)*Ohio St (11-1) vs (6)Oklahoma (10-2)
(4)Washington (12-1) vs (5)Penn St (11-2)
---------------------------------
(1)Western Michigan (13-0)
(2)Temple (10-3)
(3)*So Florida (10-2) vs (6)App St (9-3)
(4)San Diego St (10-3) vs (5)Western Kentucky (10-3)
(*)at-large

Look at it this way. The play offs were instituted to attempt to ensure the best teams have a chance to compete for a championship. Quit arguably in part to a flawed BCS system.That weighed far too heavily on rankings which are subjective to bias and human error. i.e. AP,coaches polls and a flawed computer system. As well as the many examples you set forth.In which several teams had a very valid case for an opportunity to compete for a national championship.

You could say a big part of that debate.Was geared around avoiding past disasters like rematch games. Or split titles "AP titles".Due to lack of clarity when all was said and done. That said we came a lot closer than some people may realize.To seeing two teams from the B1G making the play offs this past season. Neither of which won a division title or a conference championship.It didn't happen.But if things fell the other direction it would have been a mess. That came down to a combination of tie breakers and polls including the CFP polls.

The theory play off expansion watering down the regular season.Is a myth imo. It doesn't effect OOC as much in the end scheduling OOC is on the universities.If they want the exposure and capital that generates from these OOC games.They will schedule them. If they want an easy path the potential for that is already in play in the current system. Or to boost their chances at an at large bid or bids.Which keeps it honest and gives both mid majors as we'll as P5 teams that were on the bubble.An opportunity that is earned rather than given.Thats where OOC still plays a role..In the end OOC has no bearing on conference.The two are separate. What Expansion does. Is raise the importance of conference games.Which is a major plus for the game. There would be no more coasting through a conference. And saying well fuck it if we don't win the conference we can fall back on.....The polls and opinion. CCG's and conference play are now raised.As well as the product as a whole.

Expansion also reduces the number of meaningless bowls.That some players have begun opting out of playing. Or just not showing up. When you break it down logically there are pluses across the board.I also think they should reduce or cut out FCS teams. In the end its really like a pro team playing a farm team. And That actually waters down the sport. Replace those games with mid majors at the least imo. I do think they are heading in the right direction.By going with a play off format. But just like new format. You tweak it until its as complete as possible. We could rattle through a million reasons why expansion is beneficial to the sport. I'm not seeing any solid reasons as to why not. Your brackets alone speak volumes in regards for the need for expansion> And thats without even delving deeper.

 

[trojanfan12]

Alabama schedules the FCS game for 1 reason and 1 reason only: Auburn.

Auburn schedules the FCS game for 1 reason and 1 reason only: Alabama.

The rest of you just like to claim shit because it makes you feel better.

It's complete cowardly bullshit. I don't know of any other rivalries where the teams schedule cupcakes the week prior to the game.

Yeah, but those are lesser bowls. I don't think schools are having to pay for the Rose Bowl, and if they are, they really need to revamp these bowl games.

The problem is that it shouldn't cost teams money to play in a bowl game. It shows that as I said earlier, the problem isn't too many playoff teams, it's too many bowl games. They could probably drop about 10 bowl games, replace them with an expanded playoff, end up with a much better postseason and everyone making money.

Obviously, there is more draw, but you are talking about teams going to big time bowl games already is the problem.

Going to big time bowls isn't a problem, it's just not the same as the playoff.

If you have 8 teams and your conference champion can't make the field, then it's their fucking problem. AQ is stupid.

lol @you not even knowing what you're arguing anymore. And if there are 8 teams, all of the conference champions would make the field which is part of the point. A P5 conference champ gets left out with a 4 team playoff.

 

[4down20]

It's complete cowardly bullshit. I don't know of any other rivalries where the teams schedule cupcakes the week prior to the game.

Cowardly?

You have them built in your conference.

The problem is that it shouldn't cost teams money to play in a bowl game. It shows that as I said earlier, the problem isn't too many playoff teams, it's too many bowl games. They could probably drop about 10 bowl games, replace them with an expanded playoff, end up with a much better postseason and everyone making money.

There aren't too many bowl games.

Going to big time bowls isn't a problem, it's just not the same as the playoff.

No, the problem is - the difference between major bowl games and playoff games isn't going to draw a ton extra viewers as you claim.

lol @you not even knowing what you're arguing anymore. And if there are 8 teams, all of the conference champions would make the field which is part of the point. A P5 conference champ gets left out with a 4 team playoff.

I know exactly what I'm arguing, you are the one who got mixed up. You are wanting AQ and 8 teams.

 

[7Samurai13]

Cowardly?

You have them built in your conference.



There aren't too many bowl games.




No, the problem is - the difference between major bowl games and playoff games isn't going to draw a ton extra viewers as you claim.



I know exactly what I'm arguing, you are the one who got mixed up. You are wanting AQ and 8 teams.

You have Kentucky, Vandy, South Carolina, Missouri, Ole Miss Miss St. in conference. Every conference has their chumps. Pretending like the SEC doesn't have them is ignorant.

 

[socaljim242]

You have them built in your conference.

And you have the SEC East along with Miss- Miss State- Arkansas. If not for playing one less conference game and the addition of cream filled FCS cupcakes their records would be even worse.

 

[4down20]

You have Kentucky, Vandy, South Carolina, Missouri, Ole Miss Miss St. in conference. Every conference has their chumps. Pretending like the SEC doesn't have them is ignorant.

This would be more valid if Alabama was in the SEC East.

Good example of why they need to get rid of divisions. It's basically like 2 different conferences right now.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

And you have the SEC East along with Miss- Miss State- Arkansas. If not for playing one less conference game and the addition of cream filled FCS cupcakes their records would be even worse.

If you actually look at it its really just a bunch of skewed numbers. Look at the SEC conference records. Then take their regular season records before bowl games. Subtract the November cupcakes. And add an extra conference game of relevance.And you'll notice with the numbers redistributed.And consistent with the competition level of other conference. Its really not that impressive. Which brings us back to the myth of the SEC.

By expanding the play offs.And going with 5 auto bids for champions.And 1-3 at large bids. It is in turn cutting out a lot of loop holes.Reducing the controversies of human polls significantly.And raising the importance of both conference play.And conference championships. And elevating both the regular season as well as the post season

 

[PhilSimms11]

Because in a year like 2012, 8-5 Wisconsin shouldn't be in the playoffs. If you aren't ranked in the top 4/6/8 on your own you shouldn't be gifted a spot.

That was a special circumstance. They actually had no business in the Big Ten Championship, but the two teams ahead of them were ineligible. It would've been Ohio St (13-0) or Nebraska (11-2) winning the Big Ten title that year. 2012 was also toward the end of the BCS era and I was still using that criteria, so Wisconsin (8-5) would not have been one of the 6 playoff teams that year. With the current CFP setup I would not like giving a team in that circumstance an automatic bid to the playoffs. I might consider giving an extra at-large bid in that situation.

 

[PhilSimms11]

I was reading Athlon's 2017 College Football Preview and this is what they predicted (I added seeds 5 and 6 to the equation):

(1)Alabama (12-1)
(2)Ohio St (12-1)
(3)Florida St (12-1) vs (6)*USC (11-2)
(4)Washington (12-1) vs (5)Oklahoma (11-2)
(*)at-large

 

[4down20]

If you actually look at it its really just a bunch of skewed numbers. Look at the SEC conference records. Then take their regular season records before bowl games. Subtract the November cupcakes. And add an extra conference game of relevance.And you'll notice with the numbers redistributed.And consistent with the competition level of other conference. Its really not that impressive. Which brings us back to the myth of the SEC.

By expanding the play offs.And going with 5 auto bids for champions.And 1-3 at large bids. It is in turn cutting out a lot of loop holes.Reducing the controversies of human polls significantly.And raising the importance of both conference play.And conference championships. And elevating both the regular season as well as the post season

7 total wins at the most, across the entire conference is what you are crying about. It's at most because teams don't always win OOC games to start with.

Last year, 2 SEC teams got a bowl game because of 1 win(aka had 6 wins at the end of the season): South Carolina and Vandy. Miss St got into a bowl game as a 5 win team because of their APR.

Last year, 2 Pac12 teams would have benefited from 1 extra win. Arizona St and Cal.

So just to make it clear, that's what you are bitching about. South Carolina and Vandy going to a bowl game while ASU and Cal didn't.

So my question is this: How the fuck does Miss St get the academic reward over those 2 Pac12 teams?

 

[socaljim242]

7 total wins at the most, across the entire conference is what you are crying about. It's at most because teams don't always win OOC games to start with.

Last year, 2 SEC teams got a bowl game because of 1 win(aka had 6 wins at the end of the season): South Carolina and Vandy. Miss St got into a bowl game as a 5 win team because of their APR.

Last year, 2 Pac12 teams would have benefited from 1 extra win. Arizona St and Cal.

So just to make it clear, that's what you are bitching about. South Carolina and Vandy going to a bowl game while ASU and Cal didn't.

So my question is this: How the fuck does Miss St get the academic reward over those 2 Pac12 teams?

Last season Cal played one more conference game and OCC games @ San Diego St. who finished ranked and Texas and Hawaii.

Last season South Carolina played no OCC games @ anyones house (what a shocker) , a neutral site game with NC State and the typical SEC home cupcakes LA tech and in November Wofford. lol

Yeah its just a little unbalanced. lol. You can spin all you want but it's neutral games early (just in case the SEC team loses) and home cup cakes the rest of the season. How many times in the last ten years has Florida and Alabama played OCC games at another teams home field? I know you wont answer because it's a pitiful number. Cal in any four year strech will have played more road OCC games than both of those schools played in ten maybe 12 years . But but but.... it's just one conference game. No it's not . It's your whole pussy scheduling philosophy.
While South Carolina was playing Wofford second to last game of the season . Cal was playing Stanford. Yeah, nothing to see here folks.lol