CFP since 1998...

[4down20]

I wouldnt say that. They were undefeated but Alabama and four other teams were there with only one loss. No way they were guaranteed if they were one of five with one loss. So their last game before the playoffs was critical to keep them in the the hunt.

If you move to 6 or 8 games, can you still make the same argument?

 

[outofyourmind]

It was already less meaningful last year with just 4 teams. As I already pointed out, for the first time in my entire life a game in Nov/Dec that Alabama played in had absolutely no bearing on the national championship picture.

That is 100% proof that the college football season lost meaning last year after the introduction of a 4 team playoff. But at least there is justification for a 4 team playoff because it fixes an actual problem. There is no problem you are fixing with 6 or 8, it's just expansion for the sake of expansion.

Nevermind how ignorant AQ is on top of it all.

How about you start with this: Justification for expansion in the first place.

By your standard, it became less meaningful when:

1. Nebraska got in the NC while getting crushed in their last game of the year and not playing in the CCG.
2. Oklahoma getting beat in the CCG by Kansas State and still getting into the NC.
3. Alabama getting beat by LSU but got a rematch for the NC.

And I would agree. That's why it needs to expand.
Another reason that most people express concerns over:

• Getting the best team into the NC game is the most important factor, and that might not be that top 3 are the only certain options.
• Auburn and Oklahoma State getting left out of a 2 game matchup could be similar to #6-#8 in the future.

And people might be of the opinion that those last 2-4 spots creates even more interest in CFB especially the last few weeks of the season when there could be any number of teams playing to get in.

 

[4down20]

By your standard, it became less meaningful when:

1. Nebraska got in the NC while getting crushed in their last game of the year and not playing in the CCG.
2. Oklahoma getting beat in the CCG by Kansas State and still getting into the NC.
3. Alabama getting beat by LSU but got a rematch for the NC.

You just named reasons why they changed the system in the past.

And I would agree. That's why it needs to expand.
Another reason that most people express concerns over:

• Getting the best team into the NC game is the most important factor, and that might not be that top 3 are the only certain options.
• Auburn and Oklahoma State getting left out of a 2 game matchup could be similar to #6-#8 in the future.

And people might be of the opinion that those last 2-4 spots creates even more interest in CFB especially the last few weeks of the season when there could be any number of teams playing to get in.

When the Auburn and Oklahoma St thing happens with a 4 team playoff, give me a call.

Or hell, give me a call when you can show such a possible situation would have happened anytime in the past 50 years. Then you would have an actual problem that needed to be fixed, the same as why we went to 4 team playoff.

 

[socaljim242]

If you move to 6 or 8 games, can you still make the same argument?

How many times do you have more than one undefeated team coming into the last game of the season? It does give that team a cushion for sure. Not arguing that. But I think the interest from more fan bases is better. IMO

 

[outofyourmind]

Or hell, give me a call when you can show such a possible situation would have happened anytime in the past 50 years. Then you would have an actual problem that needed to be fixed, the same as why we went to 4 team playoff.

I'll bet you say that "they got it right" and that opinion is just fine when picking 2 teams.
I don't.

The year 2000 final BCS poll.

1 Oklahoma 12-0
2 Florida State 11-1
3 Miami (Fla.) 10-1
4 Washington 10-1
5 Virginia Tech 10-1
6 Oregon State 10-1

and that's just the first one that came to mind.

 

[socaljim242]

You just named reasons why they changed the system in the past.



When the Auburn and Oklahoma St thing happens with a 4 team playoff, give me a call.

Or hell, give me a call when you can show such a possible situation would have happened anytime in the past 50 years. Then you would have an actual problem that needed to be fixed, the same as why we went to 4 team playoff.

And seriously though. You're on the record not giving a shit that Alabama plays Chattanooga and Mercer and Towsend and Southern Carolina in late november but you're saying it bothers you that Alabama plays a "meaningless game" against say Florida or LSU as their final game? WTF?

 

[outofyourmind]

2004

1 USC 12-0
2 Oklahoma 12-0
3 Auburn 12-0
4 Texas 10-1
5 California 10-1
6 Utah 11-0
9 Boise State 11-0
10 Louisville 10-1

 

[outofyourmind]

2008

2 1 Oklahoma 12-1
4 2 Florida 12-1
3 3 Texas 11-1
1 4 Alabama 12-1
5 5 USC 11-1
6 6 Utah 12-0
7 7 Texas Tech 11-1
8 8 Penn State 11-1
9 9 Boise State 12-0

There are tons of example as to why it should expand

 

[4down20]

I'll bet you say that "they got it right" and that opinion is just fine when picking 2 teams.
I don't.

The year 2000 final BCS poll.

1 Oklahoma 12-0
2 Florida State 11-1
3 Miami (Fla.) 10-1
4 Washington 10-1
5 Virginia Tech 10-1
6 Oregon State 10-1

and that's just the first one that came to mind.

You are ignoring that Miami and Virginia Tech joined the ACC in 2004 which is the only thing that made those records possible.

 

[4down20]

2008

2 1 Oklahoma 12-1
4 2 Florida 12-1
3 3 Texas 11-1
1 4 Alabama 12-1
5 5 USC 11-1
6 6 Utah 12-0
7 7 Texas Tech 11-1
8 8 Penn State 11-1
9 9 Boise State 12-0

There are tons of example as to why it should expand

Anyone can have a bullshit opinion.



Just naming out teams doesn't mean it's legit.

 

[4down20]

2004

1 USC 12-0
2 Oklahoma 12-0
3 Auburn 12-0
4 Texas 10-1
5 California 10-1
6 Utah 11-0
9 Boise State 11-0
10 Louisville 10-1

Mid Majors and conference losers.

 

[4down20]

But hey, thanks for showing that strength of schedule doesn't mean shit to you.

 

[4down20]

And seriously though. You're on the record not giving a shit that Alabama plays Chattanooga and Mercer and Towsend and Southern Carolina in late november but you're saying it bothers you that Alabama plays a "meaningless game" against say Florida or LSU as their final game? WTF?

If Alabama loses to them it should matter...

Playing the game is one thing, going into the game knowing you can lose it and it doesn't matter is another.

 

[socaljim242]

If Alabama loses to them it should matter...

Playing the game is one thing, going into the game knowing you can lose it and it doesn't matter is another.

If Bama was concerned about playing meaningful games at the end of the season why would they schedule Chattanooga in November?

 

[4down20]

If Bama was concerned about playing meaningful games at the end of the season why would they schedule Chattanooga in November?

Because we can and there ain't shit you can do about it but cry.

I'd much rather have this for a November schedule:

ASU
Arizona
Colorado
UCLA

 

[socaljim242]

Because we can and there ain't shit you can do about it but cry.

lol. Thanks. You could have just said yeah you're right it doesn't make sense.

 

[4down20]

lol. Thanks. You could have just said yeah you're right it doesn't make sense.

This is what easy November looks like:

ASU
Arizona
Colorado
UCLA

 

[socaljim242]

This is what easy November looks like:

ASU
Arizona
Colorado
UCLA

You mean playing conference games instead of sneaking/scheduling in Mercer on purpose in the second to last game. Yeah ok. lol

 

[outofyourmind]

So
"Playing a weaker schedule = not being good enough".
4d20 is all about opinion and keeping teams out.
Most others are of the opposite opinion

 

[outofyourmind]

Mid Majors and conference losers.

So Alabama's rematch with LSU was bullshit and doesn't count then.