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

[Red_Alert]

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

A (10-3) conference champ doesn't deserve to be in the play-off. I don't care what conference they are from.

The only exception would be that there is still an open slot after ALL of the undefeated and one loss teams have been utilized.

 

[rmilia1]

1. Record?
2. Conference champions?
3. SOS?
4. Injuries to key players that are now healthy?

- Those are my order of what Id look at when trying to get playoff teams. You filter down from 1-4. A 12-1 ACC champion Pitt deserves to be in the playoff over a 11-1 non division winning Miss State. Period. Now if both teams are conference champions then SOS should play in but ONLY if both teams won their league. Clearly with record being number 1 a 9-4 team would not make any kind of playoff.

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

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.

Why not? They won their conference. And maybe an 8-4 record is due to extenuating circumstances like injuries. Maybe that team is on an 8 game winning streak and doing so in dominant fashion.
They won their conference. Now let them continue to prove it on the field. Makes more sense tn a team that couldn't even win their conference getting in.

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

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?

The CC.

 

[ericd7633]

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?

I'd take Stanford in 2012 and Oregon in 2011. I'd give credit to Stanford in 2012 for playing ND OOC and I would reward Oregon in 2011 for playing LSU OOC. That is just my opinion but I'd be fine if somebody argued the other way. Only thing I'd disagree with is if somebody wanted to take Stanford or Oregon twice in both scenarios.

 

[Red_Alert]

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.

Sarcasm font mf'er.

USE IT!!!

 

[rmilia1]

Frankly if you are NOT going to give preference to conference champions then you need to do the playoff selection BEFORE the conference title games otherwise you are unfairly penalizing teams for making their championship game and rewarding teams that dont. Thats common sense.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Frankly if you are NOT going to give preference to conference champions then you need to do the playoff selection BEFORE the conference title games otherwise you are unfairly penalizing teams for making their championship game and rewarding teams that dont. Thats common sense.

But...BAYLOR!!!

 

[The Authority]

Sorry; not my fault the B1G has no contenders this year. These things go in cycles and when the day comes, and it will, the B1G has 2-3 teams ranked in the top 4 my opinion will remain unchanged. Why should a team worthy of playing for the title be ignored because they happen to have another team in their conference who is also worthy of playing for the title? You might consider being more mature in your responses.

This is the nature of EVERY other sport that has playoffs and those teams deal with it.

Look at the NBA, The west was so much better than the East.

 

[UNA Lion]

Lower divisions also have fewer regular season games IIRC

True. North Alabama's last regular-season game is on 8 November.

Then the playoffs go through until the championship game in mid-December. So don't think FBS schedules would have to be shortened all that much.

 

[ericd7633]

Why not? They won their conference. And maybe an 8-4 record is due to extenuating circumstances like injuries. Maybe that team is on an 8 game winning streak and doing so in dominant fashion.
They won their conference. Now let them continue to prove it on the field. Makes more sense tn a team that couldn't even win their conference getting in.

Because they aren't one of the best four teams in the country. Because an 8-4 team either (A - went 0-4 OOC then went onto to win a league that clearly doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt or (B - lost multiple games in conference and out of conference and by some fluke won a CCG. They in no way deserve anything.

So you would take a 2012 Wisconsin team over an 11-1 Florida team? Just know you're on an island in this one.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Reminds me of thru-hiking the AT or the CDT or PCT.

You got those purists who are all "I have to walk every single inch of the actual trail, or I'm not a thru-hiker!"

Then you got those blue-blazers who have no problem with slicing off a half-mile here or there after re-supplying or getting off the trail for some other reason, who say, "fuck it, I walked over 2,000 miles, I'm not gonna quibble over three or four that I missed."

If there are four conference winners who appear at least as good as any non-conference winners who might have a similar record/ranking, then I have no problem with it being only conference winners. If there are one or two teams that DIDN'T win their conference, but appear just as good as one or more conference winners and THEY get selected by the committee, I'll try not to get all bent out of shape -- depending on whether or not I think MY team got screwed.

Like I said earlier, there WILL be a season where this comes up. Maybe not this year, maybe not for another 5 or 6 years, but it will come. And then, maybe they'll bump up the number of playoff teams to 8.

 

[theboardref]

I'm sure he would seeing as the Big 10 doesn't deserve a representative thus far. Michigan State is the only team with a legit fighting chance... and of course Wisconsin because of Barry Alvarez being a board member.

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

Because they aren't one of the best four teams in the country. Because an 8-4 team either (A - went 0-4 OOC then went onto to win a league that clearly doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt or (B - lost multiple games in conference and out of conference and by some fluke won a CCG. They in no way deserve anything.

So you would take a 2012 Wisconsin team over an 11-1 Florida team? Just know you're on an island in this one.

But we are talking about playoffs. Removing human and computer voting. Last year The Arizona cardinals had a better record than some other playoff teams. Did they get in? Nope. Tough shit. Win your conference and you get in. End of story. No voting. It is all settled on the field.

 

[Ironbreaker]

I'm sure he would seeing as the Big 10 doesn't deserve a representative thus far. Michigan State is the only team with a legit fighting chance... and of course Wisconsin because of Barry Alvarez being a board member.

Why don't you think Nebraska is legit?

They have future NFL talent on both sides of the ball.


Don't sleep on the huskers like they slept on McNeese.

 

[ericd7633]

Frankly if you are NOT going to give preference to conference champions then you need to do the playoff selection BEFORE the conference title games otherwise you are unfairly penalizing teams for making their championship game and rewarding teams that dont. Thats common sense.

No that's stupid. Especially in the era of unbalanced schedule. Wisconsin could have conceivably gone the entire regular season having beaten maybe ONE ranked team by the time of the CCG. You can't reward a team like that knowing an 11-1 MSU could be waiting for them.

 

[WhiteMamba]

I'd take Stanford in 2012 and Oregon in 2011. I'd give credit to Stanford in 2012 for playing ND OOC and I would reward Oregon in 2011 for playing LSU OOC. That is just my opinion but I'd be fine if somebody argued the other way. Only thing I'd disagree with is if somebody wanted to take Stanford or Oregon twice in both scenarios.

So who you lost to shouldn't matter?

Losing to 6 and 1 is >> than Unranked and 1.

Conference champ with two losses to top 6 teams is ok.

Conference champ losing to #1 and a scrub is not equal.

In 2012 Oregon only loss is by 3 in OT. Stanford lost to UW in one of two losses.

In 2011 Stanford only loss was by 24 points at home to Oregon. Oregon's losses to #1 and #6.

These are decisions that a committee will have to make.

I am just playing devils advocate here ( while waving a green n yellow flag)

 

[ericd7633]

But we are talking about playoffs. Removing human and computer voting. Last year The Arizona cardinals had a better record than some other playoff teams. Did they get in? Nope. Tough shit. Win your conference and you get in. End of story. No voting. It is all settled on the field.

Again that's dumb. And I realize we are talking about playoffs. But the NFL already has a system in place. CFB doesn't have anything in place. They are essentially RANKING the 4 best teams.

So again let me ask are you taking an 8-5 Wisconsin team or an 11-1 Florida team from 2012.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Glad I am not making the decision.

 

[HawkeyeHater]

Again that's dumb. And I realize we are talking about playoffs. But the NFL already has a system in place. CFB doesn't have anything in place. They are essentially RANKING the 4 best teams.

So again let me ask are you taking an 8-5 Wisconsin team or an 11-1 Florida team from 2012.

11-1 Florida


Dantonio is just trying to keep a door open when Nebraska wins in east lansing in ten days.