Mark Dantonio only wants conference champs in play-offs...

[The Authority]

And I don't want to see teams rewarded for losing their divisions or conferences and have the teams that do win the division / conference penalized.

and BTW with this statement I made I am referring to teams in the same conference.

The losers of the conference get rewarded over the winners of the same conference.

 

[The Authority]

If we end up with a conference champ losing 2-4 games, there's no way they deserve to be there.

So take that conference winner out. There are 5 conferences and only 4 spots.

 

[The Authority]

Wake Forest and OU both lost TWICE that season. Aren't you rewarding them? And you're rewarding Wake Forest for losing to a team that finished unranked?

And I'm not rewarding Michigan for losing to Ohio State, I'm rewarding them because it's clear they have a better resume than both Wake and OU based on the entire season.

Wake and OU are not rewarded because of the loss. They won their conference despite of it.

And both do not have to be selected. One would get shut out.

In your Michigan v OSU example the winner would have gone on to the CCG. thus, because of that actual loss alone, you are rewarding the loser and penalizing the winner.

I really don't see why you can't understand your flawed logic.

 

[gpm1976]

If we end up with a conference champ losing 2-4 games, there's no way they deserve to be there if there's other teams with less losses that played decent schedules whether they won their conference or not. I don't want to see mediocre teams rewarded just because they play in a shitty conference and obviously better teams penalized for playing in a much tougher conference.

So let me see if I understand this.. we no longer give a flying F about winning our conference? Then why even have conferences? Let's just schedule whoever the hell we want and make sure there are enough cupcakes in there that we can rest between big games. This push for playoffs and crowning a true NC is freaking ruining CFB!

 

[gpm1976]

Yeah they also had zero losses, not 2. Big difference.

But as you said.. they were rewarded by not having to play a tough schedule, right?

 

[dennis580]

Problem is, is that there will be 5 Conference Champions.

Actually there will be 10 conference champs NOT 5.

 

[The Authority]

Actually there will be 10 conference champs NOT 5.

Power 5

 

[ericd7633]

Wake and OU are not rewarded because of the loss. They won their conference despite of it.

And both do not have to be selected. One would get shut out.

In your Michigan v OSU example the winner would have gone on to the CCG. thus, because of that actual loss alone, you are rewarding the loser and penalizing the winner.

I really don't see why you can't understand your flawed logic.

And I don't understand why you would reward either of those teams for winning their crappy conference with multiple losses.

You're rewarding a team that has more losses, a worse SOS, less quality wins, and a worse loss.

 

[ericd7633]

But as you said.. they were rewarded by not having to play a tough schedule, right?

Yeah they played an easy schedule last year. So did Wake the year they lost two games. I'm rewarding FSU because they had zero losses. If FSU lost two games last year with that schedule they wouldn't have sniffed a 4 team playoff.

 

[The Authority]

And I don't understand why you would reward either of those teams for winning their crappy conference with multiple losses.

You're rewarding a team that has more losses, a worse SOS, less quality wins, and a worse loss.

Because we don't know if that team who won a crappy conference couldn't in fact beat the winner of a good conference.

Because it beats having a team be better off after losing a game than winning one which is what would happen with your logic.

Because its the foundation of every other sport that uses playoffs.

Because its a black and white goal that every team would have to achieve if they want in. Takes a lot of the guessing out of it.

 

[dennis580]

because we don't know if the 2 loss team is better than the 1 loss team.

The bottom line is that the 1 loss CCG loser didn't do what was needed to be done to make it to the playoff and if this was the criteria going in they couldn't complain to anyone but themselves for losing.

No W-L should be the most important factor as long as there is not a BIG difference in SOS. I think the committee is going to be reluctant to put 2 loss team in the playoff even if that 2 loss team beat a 1 loss team head to head, and won the CCG.

 

[gpm1976]

Yeah they played an easy schedule last year. So did Wake the year they lost two games. I'm rewarding FSU because they had zero losses. If FSU lost two games last year with that schedule they wouldn't have sniffed a 4 team playoff.

They probably should be a consideration just for winning the conference.

 

[The Authority]

No W-L should be the most important factor as long as there is not a BIG difference in SOS. I think the committee is going to be reluctant to put 2 loss team in the playoff even if that 2 loss team beat a 1 loss team head to head, and won the CCG.

So you are cool with penalizing teams that win their divisions?

 

[The Authority]

Honestly it makes the season better if teams know going in they have to win their division and then
Win their Conference.

What good is it , if we say well they could lose this but still get in. That makes for bad games.

And even if a team has their division clinched they know that one conference is going to get shut out regardless, so they better not hold back.

 

[gpm1976]

Honestly it makes the season better if teams know going in they have to win their division and then
Win their Conference.

What good is it , if we say well they could lose this but still get in. That makes for bad games.

And even if a team has their division clinched they know that one conference is going to get shut out regardless, so they better not hold back.

and this has been the big issue w/the NC game so far. The NCAA kind of picks and chooses who they want in there.

 

[ericd7633]

and this has been the big issue w/the NC game so far. The NCAA kind of picks and chooses who they want in there.

When in the hell has the NCAA picked the NC game?

 

[dennis580]

So you are cool with penalizing teams that win their divisions?

If those teams have 2 losses I am.

 

[The Authority]

If those teams have 2 losses I am.

No I am talking about the ones that have 0 - 1 losses.

Let me rephrase.

If you are fine with letting non conference winners in the playoff then what you are saying is that those non conference winners were rewarded for not winning their division while the winner of their division was penalized by having to play an extra game. And you are cool with that?

 

[The Authority]

Its fun painting people into a corner.

 

[gpm1976]

When in the hell has the NCAA picked the NC game?

06 - OSU and Michigan have the #1 and #2 highest BCS points. NCAA mucks w/the system and puts UF ahead of them... this was fine. No one wants to see a repeat of that game.

11 - LSU and OK st. have the highest BCS point totals. NCAA mucks w/the system again and puts Bama in that NC game.

NCAA does what it wants.