Did Notre Dame get screwed in the bowl selection?

[Tin Man]

Didn't BYU leave their conference over basketball scheduling? They did not want to play on Sundays?

 

[belcherboy]

Didn't BYU leave their conference over basketball scheduling? They did not want to play on Sundays?

I don't think so. Weren't they one of the finalists to join the Big 12 back when they were expanding? They most definitely would have had Sunday games.

 

[ericd7633]

After watching what Michigan did to ND — I’m more shocked they won 10 games than I am about the bowl games they received.

We've gotta be the shittiest shitty weather team in the country.

 

[78Cyclones]

I hope Paul Hornung gets to be an Honorary Captain or something. That would go over huge in Green Bay.

True Story: My first football game @ Notre Dame was in 1996 vs. Rutgers. It was the last game in the old configuration and Lou Holtz' last home game. Fun day (even though it was a blowout). The best part was that I was in box seats on the ND side (thanks to a friend of my sister), and Paul Hornung walked by during the game. He received a nice ovation as he passed and returned with a nice smile and royal wave. Seeing the Golden Boy in person on my first trip @ ND was super special! Go Iri...er, Cyclones!

 

[desert heat]

I think it's just time to skip 16 and go straight to 64.

be better than what we have now.

 

[78Cyclones]

I'm excited for that game, anything beats playing lousy ACC opponents or MAC opponents. Love the Big 10 matchups.

That's the ticket! At least the Cyclones are a Big Xii Team (tied for 3rd this year). Interesting note, Notre Dame is the 15th different team for ISU to play in their 15 Bowl Games. Still not a repeat yet! The Irish are defintitely one of the two most prestigious opponents for the Cyclones to Bowl against along with Alabama in the 2001 I-Bowl.

Have also played former National Champions LSU (1971 Sun), Georgia Tech (1972 Liberty), Texas A&M (1978 Hall of Fame), Pitt (2000 insight.com), TCU (2005 Houston) and Minnesota (2009 Insight). Hopefully, it is a good experience for both sides and the first of many future meetings (due to ISU kicking it up a notch). Next year @ CFB Playoffs! Let's Get it on!

 

[Diego Roll Tide]

Didn't BYU leave their conference over basketball scheduling? They did not want to play on Sundays?

I heard it was that they caught some opponents trying to spike their Gatorade with Mountain Dew.

 

[Diego Roll Tide]

That's the ticket! At least the Cyclones are a Big Xii Team (tied for 3rd this year). Interesting note, Notre Dame is the 15th different team for ISU to play in their 15 Bowl Games. Still not a repeat yet! The Irish are defintitely one of the two most prestigious opponents for the Cyclones to Bowl against along with Alabama in the 2001 I-Bowl.

Have also played former National Champions LSU (1971 Sun), Georgia Tech (1972 Liberty), Texas A&M (1978 Hall of Fame), Pitt (2000 insight.com), TCU (2005 Houston) and Minnesota (2009 Insight). Hopefully, it is a good experience for both sides and the first of many future meetings (due to ISU kicking it up a notch). Next year @ CFB Playoffs! Let's Get it on!

Should we play some Marvin Gaye?

 

[belcherboy]

be better than what we have now.

I'm all in on leaving it at four teams. I don't need to see Georgia, Baylor, Wisconsin, Michigan, Notre Dame, Iowa, etc. play again to know they aren't worthy of a national title this year. The committee got the best four teams in the playoffs again. Money will likely change it to eight teams, but I think four teams is a GREAT system. I hope they leave it.

 

[desert heat]

I'm all in on leaving it at four teams. I don't need to see Georgia, Baylor, Wisconsin, Michigan, Notre Dame, Iowa, etc. play again to know they aren't worthy of a national title this year. The committee got the best four teams in the playoffs again. Money will likely change it to eight teams, but I think four teams is a GREAT system. I hope they leave it.

you will never know who the best 4 teams are unless there's a legit playoff.

the selection process is somewhat arbitrary, and leaves us with a bunch of bowls games that are essentially meaningless. what other sport only allows 3% of the teams into the championship playoff?

in 2017, the new england patriots lost to kansas city 42-27 during the regular season, but still won the super bowl. any team can have a bad day, and for a variety of reasons, yet still be the best team by year's end.

i don't think there's any question a more legit playoff is desired by most. the problem is coordinating it with finals week, and possible revenue loss if the current bowl system is eliminated.

 

[belcherboy]

you will never know who the best 4 teams are unless there's a legit playoff.

If the only way to know who the best 4 teams are is a playoff, then we have to include all teams, right? Also, who determines what a "legit playoff" is? People still complain about the NCAA tournament in basketball, and they are up to 68 teams now. Looking at the top 16 teams in the final playoff rankings, I don't need to see 12 of them play again to determine they don't deserve a shot at a national title this year, they had 12-13 chances to prove they were playoff worthy already during the season, and they failed on multiple occasions. I think a lot of people would agree with me (although I've been wrong before)

That bottom line to me is that it has been fairly easy to figure out who the best 4 teams are each season. The committee has gotten it right IMO. Leave it at four, and keep every regular season game important.

 

[BigKen]

we

Who's we?

You on the Bowl Selection Committee??

 

[desert heat]

If the only way to know who the best 4 teams are is a playoff, then we have to include all teams, right? Also, who determines what a "legit playoff" is? People still complain about the NCAA tournament in basketball, and they are up to 68 teams now. Looking at the top 16 teams in the final playoff rankings, I don't need to see 12 of them play again to determine they don't deserve a shot at a national title this year, they had 12-13 chances to prove they were playoff worthy already during the season, and they failed on multiple occasions. I think a lot of people would agree with me (although I've been wrong before)

That bottom line to me is that it has been fairly easy to figure out who the best 4 teams are each season. The committee has gotten it right IMO. Leave it at four, and keep every regular season game important.

there are numerous 1 and 2 loss teams every year that never make the playoff. most of these teams never played one another and don't even have common opponents. so no, you would not be watching them play again. the selection process is arbitrary, much like a beauty contest.

you can debate whether all 130 teams should be in the playoff to make it 100% legit, however i think there's little debate that a 16 team playoff is more legit than a 4 team playoff, and more entertaining. the issue with expanding the playoff is logistics.

the best should determined on the field, not by committee, or fan opinion.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Who's we?

You on the Bowl Selection Committee??

That’s confidential.

 

[handicappers]

queue up the Catholic jokes

 

[belcherboy]

there are numerous 1 and 2 loss teams every year that never make the playoff.

This year there is no one loss team in the top 16 rankings that didn't make the playoffs. If they didn't make the playoff, it is because they lost more than one game.

most of these teams never played one another and don't even have common opponents. so no, you would not be watching them play again. the selection process is arbitrary, much like a beauty contest.

Of course it is like a beauty contest....just like the NCAA basketball tournament. They choose the best looking candidates as judged by their regular season performances. They do have conference champ bids, but for the majority of the playoff participants, it is a beauty contest.

you can debate whether all 130 teams should be in the playoff to make it 100% legit, however i think there's little debate that a 16 team playoff is more legit than a 4 team playoff, and more entertaining. the issue with expanding the playoff is logistics.

the best should determined on the field, not by committee, or fan opinion.

I just don't see how a 16 team playoff is any more legit than a 4 team playoff. If any of the teams in the top 16 had gone undefeated, they would have been in the playoffs. They had a 12-13 game playoff during the season. Also, I'm pretty sure we have had at least 1 "one loss" team in every playoff so far, and even had a few teams that didn't even win their conference make the playoffs, so there is room for error.

Expanding it to 16 teams would seriously harm the value of regular season from my perspective. Each week legitimately means something during the regular season. Also, it would be EASY to logistically make it work, if they expanded it. Incorporate many of the bowl games into the playoffs. It may add a few weeks to the season, but it wouldn't be tough to make it work.

Again, the playoffs are likely to expand (too much money is on the table), but IMO it doesn't make the playoffs more "legit", it just waters down the regular season, especially when you let a bunch of teams that have 3 losses into the playoffs. That's 25% of their games they lost. Also, why risk an OOC loss? Cupcakes would be the way to go if all you needed was to be a top 16 team. That's just the way I see it.

I don't see the need for change.

 

[desert heat]

This year there is no one loss team in the top 16 rankings that didn't make the playoffs. If they didn't make the playoff, it is because they lost more than one game.



Of course it is like a beauty contest....just like the NCAA basketball tournament. They choose the best looking candidates as judged by their regular season performances. They do have conference champ bids, but for the majority of the playoff participants, it is a beauty contest.



I just don't see how a 16 team playoff is any more legit than a 4 team playoff. If any of the teams in the top 16 had gone undefeated, they would have been in the playoffs. They had a 12-13 game playoff during the season. Also, I'm pretty sure we have had at least 1 "one loss" team in every playoff so far, and even had a few teams that didn't even win their conference make the playoffs, so there is room for error.

Expanding it to 16 teams would seriously harm the value of regular season from my perspective. Each week legitimately means something during the regular season. Also, it would be EASY to logistically make it work, if they expanded it. Incorporate many of the bowl games into the playoffs. It may add a few weeks to the season, but it wouldn't be tough to make it work.

Again, the playoffs are likely to expand (too much money is on the table), but IMO it doesn't make the playoffs more "legit", it just waters down the regular season, especially when you let a bunch of teams that have 3 losses into the playoffs. That's 25% of their games they lost. Also, why risk an OOC loss? Cupcakes would be the way to go if all you needed was to be a top 16 team. That's just the way I see it.

I don't see the need for change.

would you like to see the nfl or nba reduce their playoffs to just the championship game? all those teams actually do play one another during the regular season.

expanding to 16 teams would have zero effect on the regular season. just cancel the conference championships, and start the playoffs.

had a boise st, ucf, cincinnati, or memphis gone unbeaten, unlikely they make the top four. they are lucky if they can even get a top ten team on their schedule.

 

[PEOPLESCHICKEN]

Nope....weak-assed schedule eliminates them from the discussion

 

[belcherboy]

would you like to see the nfl or nba reduce their playoffs to just the championship game? all those teams actually do play one another during the regular season.

It's comparing apples and oranges in comparing those leagues. Every NBA team plays each other multiple times during the season. The NFL is similar as all schedules are weighted (it doesn't mean that some are not easier than others, but they all play common opponents, and have tough games throughout). It's just incomparable when having 100 teams in the discussion, who all play 2/3's of the amount of games that the NFL teams play.

expanding to 16 teams would have zero effect on the regular season. just cancel the conference championships, and start the playoffs.

had a boise st, ucf, cincinnati, or memphis gone unbeaten, unlikely they make the top four. they are lucky if they can even get a top ten team on their schedule.

When BSU, Cincy or Memphis have gone unbeaten in this playoff era, let's have that discussion. So far it hasn't happened with those teams. Regardless, what incentive would Boise St, have in scheduling any tough OOC games? From 2002-2012 they had 4-5 seasons where their only regular season loss was to a POWER 5 OOC team. So, if all they had to do was go undefeated to make the playoffs every year, why would they schedule anyone tough OOC? During that time period, they would have be an automatic in the playoffs for most of a decade. How is that fair to middle of the pack POWER 5 teams that would likely do the same as BSU if they played the same schedule? (No disrespect to Boise St, I'm just using them as an example)

I understand the dilemma you are painting, but why create solutions for problems that have not really existed in this 4 team playoff era? UCF could be an argument though. I just don't see anyone rationally thinking they were a top 4 team that year. They would have made the playoffs simply by not playing anyone that season. I don't see that as making the playoffs more legit. That could make the playoffs a farce, and hurt the middle of the pack Power 5 teams who could likely have better rosters, but a much more robust schedule.

 

[jeffro151]

It's going to be enjoyable watching UVa fuck Florida's shit up.