Should the committee take into consideration location of semi-final?

[LawDawg]

Well for 1 individual fan to go to all games, sure. But among the entire fan base to go? I think no problem.

I'm also reminded Ohio St and their Cal game last year. Just a regular season game @ Cal and Ohio St fans were the majority. Did that happen because Ohio St fans traveled so well? It probably helped. But the bigger reason was likely all the Ohio St fans who lived in the bay area buying up tickets.

All that said, I don't want anything more than 4 teams/2 games.

You are biased as being in one of the best, if not the best, traveling fanbases. That's a good thing for you. There is just no way you are going to get 200K fans traveling and spending money 4 consecutive weekends. People would avoid the first games, saving the money and time off for the later games. But, we can agree to disagree.

 

[4down20]

You are biased as being in one of the best, if not the best, traveling fanbases. That's a good thing for you. There is just no way you are going to get 200K fans traveling and spending money 4 consecutive weekends. People would avoid the first games, saving the money and time off for the later games. But, we can agree to disagree.

I think there are lots of teams out there that travel just as well. You either sell out the stadium or you don't, and lots of the top teams can.

I'd say Georgia is among them. Could Vandy? Probably not.

 

[HuskerOC]

Not if you go back to an 11 game schedule and make the first round a regional game, high seed hosts the game. And I don't think you can dilute the regular season any more than it already is with so many schools playing FCS teams, some really late in the season...if anything maybe it'll force teams to schedule better to prove their worth to the committee.

I think the playoff committee will take SOS very seriously as well as teams that avoid competition outside of conference play. I really believe they will make a call in its first few years that may be controversial to set that precedent. A precedent that you better damn well schedule teams outside of conference or you won't really be considered.

The Big 10 has laid down the law on its schools to quit scheduling FCS teams. I get that sometimes you can't avoid it if previously scheduled teams and contracts are voided and you are left with no time to get a replacement. But there are some OOC schedules that we see every year that should eliminate a team from even being considered.

I think that type of shitty scheduling will go by the wayside.

 

[bocomo007]

Conference champions means nothing, you take the best teams. Most often times that will include conference champions, but if the conferences champions don't fall in the category of being among the best teams, tough. Lets just get that out of the way right now.

I don't disagree that more games dilutes the value. But considering the prices that seats for the National Championship games are going for, I don't think there is going to be any problem for the teams.

of course a Bama fan would say this

 

[4down20]

of course a Bama fan would say this

Sorry you didn't get the easier opponent?

 

[bocomo007]

Sorry you didn't get the easier opponent?

yeah, i bitched about it until we embarrassed ourselves in the champ game

then...never happened!

 

[LawDawg]

I think the playoff committee will take SOS very seriously as well as teams that avoid competition outside of conference play. I really believe they will make a call in its first few years that may be controversial to set that precedent. A precedent that you better damn well schedule teams outside of conference or you won't really be considered.

The Big 10 has laid down the law on its schools to quit scheduling FCS teams. I get that sometimes you can't avoid it if previously scheduled teams and contracts are voided and you are left with no time to get a replacement. But there are some OOC schedules that we see every year that should eliminate a team from even being considered.

I think that type of shitty scheduling will go by the wayside.

Without impugning any specific B1G team, and being someone that is against playing FCS teams, there are plenty of piece of shit schools that you can schedule that are no better than FCS schools. So, it isn't just FCS schools that have to eliminate.

I agree with you that SOS will come into play.

 

[HuskerOC]

Without impugning any specific B1G team, and being someone that is against playing FCS teams, there are plenty of piece of shit schools that you can schedule that are no better than FCS schools. So, it isn't just FCS schools that have to eliminate.

I agree with you that SOS will come into play.

Wholeheartedly agree.

It isn't tough to see if a team is actually scheduling to win or scheduling to challenge themselves.

I'm embarrassed by my own teams schedule. Sure, we'll take on a Virginia Tech, or a UCLA, or this year a Miami, but what about the rest?

In 1995, Nebraska played the following OOC schedule: @ Michigan State, Arizona State, Pacific, and Washington State.

In 1981, Nebraska played the following OOC schedule: @ Iowa, Florida State, Penn State, and Auburn

What the fuck happened to those days?

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Wholeheartedly agree.

It isn't tough to see if a team is actually scheduling to win or scheduling to challenge themselves.

I'm embarrassed by my own teams schedule. Sure, we'll take on a Virginia Tech, or a UCLA, or this year a Miami, but what about the rest?

In 1995, Nebraska played the following OOC schedule: @ Michigan State, Arizona State, Pacific, and Washington State.

In 1981, Nebraska played the following OOC schedule: @ Iowa, Florida State, Penn State, and Auburn

What the fuck happened to those days?

Here's the problem, and let me use Stanford and Oregon in 2012 as an example:

Oregon's out of conference schedule: Arkansas State (9-3), Fresno State (9-3), and Cupcake
Stanford's out of conference schedule: San Jose State (10-2), Duke (6-6), and Notre Dame (12-0)

Both teams had the same divisional record, and the tie went to Stanford, because they won the head-to-head match-up. Oregon never faced off against UCLA that season.

Stanford's quality victories against AQ competition in 2012 were UCLA twice, Oregon, Oregon State. What was Oregon's quality victories? Just Oregon State.

What did voters do? They picked Oregon 4th and Stanford 7th. Why is that? It was because Stanford lost twice, and Oregon lost only once. This flies in the face of logic because (1) Stanford won the conference, (2) Stanford played and beat more quality opponents than Oregon, (3) Stanford beat them in the head-to-head match-up, and (4) Oregon played a weak OCC, and Stanford played against three bowl eligible opponents, including an undefeated team.

Our system would be encouraging better competition, if we were not so win-loss record sensitive.

btw, those who think I am being "Oregon biased," I would have argued the direct opposite in 2011. Stanford should have never been ranked 4th and Oregon 5th.

 

[HuskerOC]

Here's the problem, and let me use Stanford and Oregon in 2012 as an example:

Oregon's out of conference schedule: Arkansas State (9-3), Fresno State (9-3), and Cupcake
Stanford's out of conference schedule: San Jose State (10-2), Duke (6-6), and Notre Dame (12-0)

Both teams had the same divisional record, and the tie went to Stanford, because they won the head-to-head match-up. Oregon never faced off against UCLA that season.

Stanford's quality victories against AQ competition in 2012 were UCLA twice, Oregon, Oregon State. What was Oregon's quality victories? Just Oregon State.

What did voters do? They picked Oregon 4th and Stanford 7th. Why is that? It was because Stanford lost twice, and Oregon lost only once. This flies in the face of logic because (1) Stanford won the conference, (2) Stanford played and beat more quality opponents than Oregon, (3) Stanford beat them in the head-to-head match-up, and (4) Oregon played a weak OCC, and Stanford played against three bowl eligible opponents, including an undefeated team.

Our system would be encouraging better competition, if we were not so win-loss record sensitive.

btw, those who think I am being "Oregon biased," I would have argued the direct opposite in 2011. Stanford should have never been ranked 4th and Oregon 5th.

I think you missed the entire point.