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

[Red_Alert]

this here is the main thing. You guys keep talking about undefeated and 1 loss teams, but you need to think about teams winning championships with more losses.

Here's an example, it's purely hypothetical:
Oregon is 12-1 and PAC 12 champs
MSU is 12-1 and B1G champs
FSU is 13-0 and ACC champs
OK is 11-1 and the Big 12 champ
Then the SEC gets fucked up by having Florida (with losses to Bama, LSU, FSU) at 8-3 manages to win the SEC championship over say a 12-0 Auburn or Bama or Miss St team. Then there is also a 11-1 Auburn or Bama or Miss St team sitting there in SEC West. So your SEC choices are: Champ Florida at 9-3, Loser to Florida at 12-1 and other SEC West team at 11-1.

There's your worse case scenario. I'm realistic the B1G is down so you take an SEC team over MSU, but which one?

throw in some more oddities. say:
PAC12 beats up on each other and Stanford wins it at 11-2.
ND manages to beat FSU, so they are 12-0 and FSU is 12-1.
Big 12 also beats up each other and it's Baylor at 11-2 and considered champs.
MSU is still 12-1 and B1G champs.
SEC is even worse than above, FL wins it at 9-3, Bama loses the champ game and is 11-2, there is another SEC West team at 10-2.
Now what? Can you really ignore the SEC? ND gets in as undefeated, I think MSU as a conference champ gets in. (but does this change if it's Oregon instead of Stanford at 11-2). Is FSU out since they lost to ND or is that better record trump SEC and Big 12?

Man, this can sure be a cluster if the incorrect team wins their conferences championship game.

Right. Upsets happen in CCG's. The odds of it happening increase when the game is a rematch of the regular season.

Case in point 2012 Wiisconsin (7-5) winning the Big 10 CCG over a (10-2) Nebraska team that had already beat them in the regular season. It's difficult to win rematches because the team that won the first game knows how they got beat the first time and makes adjustments.

In that case neither team deserved to go to the play-off even though Wisconsin was the conference champ.

 

[Ironbreaker]

Think there should be a sixteen-team playoff.

Isn't 16 a bit much?

I suppose it would depend on who the 16 were. But even if it were 3 teams from each P5 conference and the ND exception thats a bit redundant for me. We just played a season, if you can't win the conference then see you next year.

So then we open it up to a lot more middies. But the fact is theres P5 conferences for a reason. As a rule they destroy middies year in and year out. Sure a BSU/TCU/BYU etc emerges once in awhile, but most years theres not more than 1 legit threat to the best teams in the P5 conferences coming out of the mids. And calling them a legit threat may be stretching things when it comes to the top teams in the P5s.

 

[Oney]

A 10-3 conference champ is in?

Even though that conference champ lost to a one loss runner up of another conference?

That is not a play-off. That is a do-over.

So it's better to give a do over to the team that didn't win their conference? That's really dumb.

 

[UNA Lion]

Isn't 16 a bit much?

I suppose it would depend on who the 16 were. But even if it were 3 teams from each P5 conference and the ND exception thats a bit redundant for me. We just played a season, if you can't win the conference then see you next year.

So then we open it up to a lot more middies. But the fact is theres P5 conferences for a reason. As a rule they destroy middies year in and year out. Sure a BSU/TCU/BYU etc emerges once in awhile, but most years theres not more than 1 legit threat to the best teams in the P5 conferences coming out of the mids. And calling them a legit threat may be stretching things when it comes to the top teams in the P5s.

I don't think so. Lower divisions start off with 32 teams, so don't think 16 would be a stretch. You're still talking about only an eight-game playoff.

 

[Oney]

Right. Upsets happen in CCG's. The odds of it happening increase when the game is a rematch of the regular season.

Case in point 2012 Wiisconsin (7-5) winning the Big 10 CCG over a (10-2) Nebraska team that had already beat them in the regular season. It's difficult to win rematches because the team that won the first game knows how they got beat the first time and makes adjustments.

In that case neither team deserved to go to the play-off even though Wisconsin was the conference champ.

4 spots/5 conference champs. Wisconsin left out.

 

[Ironbreaker]

I don't think so. Lower divisions start off with 32 teams, so don't think 16 would be a stretch. You're still talking about only an eight-game playoff.

Well I wouldn't complain really, and I think 16 is better than 4. I do believe there would be a ton of blowouts though every year.

I've heard one of the arguments against a full playoff coming from Universities is it would be too many games.

Not my argument mind you, but it's out there.

 

[BucksFanInGA]

Lower divisions also have fewer regular season games IIRC

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

I thought LSU just lost to Mississippi State. Let me check again.

Yep. According to your worldwide leader in sports LSU indeed lost to Mississippi St.

If Mississippi St remains undefeated and wins their CCG (13-0) they are in the Play-off and LSU (11-1) would go into the pool of one or two loss teams.

Wisconsin (12-1) would be in that pool as a conference champ, but LSU would get in over them due to head-to-head.

Get it now?

Far be it from me to speak for TB, but it might be that he simply doesn't believe LSU can come back and finish 11-1.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Every other sport everywhere utilizes and recognizes the conference champions as automatic. I don't know why people think college football should be different. Top 4 conference champs, done deal. Win and your in. By reverting back to an opinion poll, or committee's opinion, we lose sight of what the playoff is for in the first place.


What is the point of taking a non-conference champ if their conference champ has eliminated them, as in the example above with MSU and LSU? MSU already beat them.

Because if the ACC champion is 8-4, then they must suck, so why should they get in over another P5 team that is 11-1 or even 10-2?

 

[HuskerOC]

Well I wouldn't complain really, and I think 16 is better than 4. I do believe there would be a ton of blowouts though every year.

I've heard one of the arguments against a full playoff coming from Universities is it would be too many games.

Not my argument mind you, but it's out there.

Yes, why shouldn't we completely ruin the best regular season in all of sports by taking 3rd and 4th best teams in their conference and including them in a playoff.

 

[tometom]

this is why they should just do away with non-conference games or maybe limit it to 1 or 2 as "preseason" games. They should have a 32 or 16 team playoff starting in Mid November.

Then teams not making the playoff and losers in the playoff can just schedule games against others that aren't in the playoffs so their fans get to see more games.

 

[Oney]

Because if the ACC champion is 8-4, then they must suck, so why should they get in over another P5 team that is 11-1 or even 10-2?

There's only 4 spots. 5 teams. ACC Champ left out.

I don't understand why everyone wants to use the least likely scenario's.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Lower divisions also have fewer regular season games IIRC

Also, I believe some AA teams get a first-round bye in their playoffs. Embarrassed to say I'm not sure how many, maybe 8, maybe 12?

 

[ericd7633]

This is the dumbest thing ever. Just look at 2012 for instance:

Obviously ND gets selected.
Bama won the SEC - 11-2
FSU won the ACC - 11-2
Stanford won the Pac 12 - 11-2
Wisconsin won the Big 10 - 8-5
Kansas State wins the Big 12 - 11-1

Take ND out of the equation because more times than not they won't go 12-0. Who do you take with the other 4 spots?

Looking at it, you'd assume you take Bama, Kansas State, Stanford and FSU. Then you realize FSU lost to Florida in the last week of the regular season so it would be idiotic to take FSU when Florida was ranked #3 and just beat their ass head to head.

Simply put, give me the 4 best teams. I don't care if they're all from the SEC or B1G.

 

[ericd7633]

There's only 4 spots. 5 teams. ACC Champ left out.

I don't understand why everyone wants to use the least likely scenario's.

What about 2011 when Alabama was clearly better and more deserving than the B1G and ACC Champion?

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

The conference champion model just makes it more nfl like. And the cc games are the defacto first round. You can have a 10-6 Super Bowl champ. Why not a 8 - 4 national champ?

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

There's only 4 spots. 5 teams. ACC Champ left out.

I don't understand why everyone wants to use the least likely scenario's.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm doing it just to piss you off.

Nah, I'm just joking with ya! I wouldn't bother wasting my valuable time fucking with someone with such a low sperm count.

BWAH! Nah, I'm still just messing with you...everyone knows you have no testicles.

Nah, seriously...! Seriously dude...I kid...(not kidding)


Sorry for not spelling it out e-x-p-l-i-c-i-t-l-y, but the point was what if there are TEAMS (plural) that did not win their conferences, and they have better records than AT LEAST 2 of the conference champions?

Yes, it may be unlikely, but not un-possible. Something like that may only happen once a decade. And it probably won't be this season either, because there just aren't any teams that have separated themselves distinctly from the other 127 programs.

 

[WhiteMamba]

this is why they should just do away with non-conference games or maybe limit it to 1 or 2 as "preseason" games. They should have a 32 or 16 team playoff starting in Mid November.

Then teams not making the playoff and losers in the playoff can just schedule games against others that aren't in the playoffs so their fans get to see more games.

Let's just let every one in...

Meanwhile destroying the best reg season in all of sports.

 

[ericd7633]

The conference champion model just makes it more nfl like. And the cc games are the defacto first round. You can have a 10-6 Super Bowl champ. Why not a 8 - 4 national champ?

Because an 8-4 team doesn't deserve to be included in a FOUR team playoff. Generally speaking a 10-6 team in the NFL is more likely than not one of the top 12 teams in league. Therefore they deserve to make the playoffs because the NFL has a set up of 12 teams. That 10-6 team, if good enough to win 3 or 4 games against other deserved teams, is rightfully declared super bowl champions. Sure the NFL has division champs with an auto bid, and yes, Seattle made the playoffs with an 8-8 record, but they weren't good enough to win it anyway and that was proven in the playoffs.

 

[WhiteMamba]

This is the dumbest thing ever. Just look at 2012 for instance:

Obviously ND gets selected.
Bama won the SEC - 11-2
FSU won the ACC - 11-2
Stanford won the Pac 12 - 11-2
Wisconsin won the Big 10 - 8-5
Kansas State wins the Big 12 - 11-1

Take ND out of the equation because more times than not they won't go 12-0. Who do you take with the other 4 spots?

Looking at it, you'd assume you take Bama, Kansas State, Stanford and FSU. Then you realize FSU lost to Florida in the last week of the regular season so it would be idiotic to take FSU when Florida was ranked #3 and just beat their ass head to head.

Simply put, give me the 4 best teams. I don't care if they're all from the SEC or B1G.

Oregon lost one game to Stanford in 2012. Stanford won PAC but lost to Unranked UW and #1 ND.

Who goes?

2011 very similar.

Oregon is the two loss team (LSU #1 and SC #6) and conference champ but gave Stanford their only loss.

Who goes?