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

[cane_man]

You say now they didnt belong because Miami beat the fuck outta yall. But back then u were probably screaming louder than anyone that they were one of the two best teams and deserved to play.

I remember a lot of nu fans not really happy with how that played out before the game was played. They just didnt want colorado to go.....really, really bad.

I think the majority wanted oregon. But, if that was a cfp year, that was a perfect semis round, with miami and oregon crushing nu and cu, respectively. Setting up a nice finale.

 

[HuskerOC]

You say now they didnt belong because Miami beat the fuck outta yall. But back then u were probably screaming louder than anyone that they were one of the two best teams and deserved to play.

No.

You have me confused with a blind homer fan.

A lot Husker fans were embarrassed we were in that game, self included. We didn't belong. Either Oregon or Colorado should have gotten raped by that 2001 Miami team.

Teams that can't win their division, much less conference, don't belong in national championship games or playoffs. Especially if you get beat 62-36.

 

[Codaxx]

I love Bama fans. Same Bama fan that thinks Bama deserved it over OSU, despite admittingly having a softer schedule, says all conferences are not equal. So SOS is very important when comparing conferences, but not so much if you compare Bama to another team.

 

[Mistaken4193]

No.

You have me confused with a blind homer fan.

A lot Husker fans were embarrassed we were in that game, self included. We didn't belong. Either Oregon or Colorado should have gotten raped by that 2001 Miami team.

Teams that can't win their division, much less conference, don't belong in national championship games or playoffs. Especially if you get beat 62-36.

Damn I figured you would have been hyping Nebraska up cause I sure as hell was in 2011 with Alabama. I don't know if we were more deserving than OSU but I do think we were a better team than them so I was hyping us up like 1 blind homer son of a bitch.

 

[Mistaken4193]

I remember a lot of nu fans not really happy with how that played out before the game was played. They just didnt want colorado to go.....really, really bad.

I think the majority wanted oregon. But, if that was a cfp year, that was a perfect semis round, with miami and oregon crushing nu and cu, respectively. Setting up a nice finale.

It didn't matter if it was Nebraska, Oregon, or Colorado wouldn't nobody touching that Miami team

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

No.

You have me confused with a blind homer fan.

A lot Husker fans were embarrassed we were in that game, self included. We didn't belong. Either Oregon or Colorado should have gotten raped by that 2001 Miami team.

Teams that can't win their division, much less conference, don't belong in national championship games or playoffs. Especially if you get beat 62-36.

Exactly. I know a Michigan fan, and he told me that Michigan didn't deserve to play for a National Championship in 2006, because they didn't win the conference. His fellow Michigan fans argued that their team deserved it because they had the "better loss."

It's rather humorous to see SEC teams all of a sudden argue that "best loss" should trump conference championship status and SOS. Back in 2008, we could have easily saw Oklahoma vs. Texas. The computers all put Oklahoma and Texas #1 and #2. Florida lost to an 8-4 team at home. Texas beat Oklahoma in a one-on-one match, and only lost by 6 points to 11-1 Texas Tech.

This line of logic will continue to happen, if college football does not drill down the specific criteria on how to pick the teams.

 

[HuskerOC]

Damn I figured you would have been hyping Nebraska up cause I sure as hell was in 2011 with Alabama. I don't know if we were more deserving than OSU but I do think we were a better team than them so I was hyping us up like 1 blind homer son of a bitch.

Well, you didn't get beat 62-36 in your season finale either. If LSU had beat you guys like a rented mule the first time around I doubt you would have been as vocal.

In 2011 I thought Bama was the best team in the country. They showed it in the title game. However, you didn't earn the right to play in that game. There are a lot of best teams that didn't win a championship because of a fluky play, an off night, or a stunning upset. It is why we play the games.

 

[charlie42s]

Exactly. I know a Michigan fan, and he told me that Michigan didn't deserve to play for a National Championship in 2006, because they didn't win the conference. His fellow Michigan fans argued that their team deserved it because they had the "better loss."

It's rather humorous to see SEC teams all of a sudden argue that "best loss" should trump conference championship status and SOS. Back in 2008, we could have easily saw Oklahoma vs. Texas. The computers all put Oklahoma and Texas #1 and #2. Florida lost to an 8-4 team at home. Texas beat Oklahoma in a one-on-one match, and only lost by 6 points to 11-1 Texas Tech.

This line of logic will continue to happen, if college football does not drill down the specific criteria on how to pick the teams.

Florida lost to Ole Miss. which was QB'ed by Jevan Snead who transferred from Texas!

 

[Mistaken4193]

Well, you didn't get beat 62-36 in your season finale either. If LSU had beat you guys like a rented mule the first time around I doubt you would have been as vocal.

In 2011 I thought Bama was the best team in the country. They showed it in the title game. However, you didn't earn the right to play in that game. There are a lot of best teams that didn't win a championship because of a fluky play, an off night, or a stunning upset. It is why we play the games.

Well if they could expand the playoffs to 8 teams then we could have the 5 conference champions and 3 at large teams and everyone would be happy.

 

[HuskerOC]

Well if they could expand the playoffs to 8 teams then we could have the 5 conference champions and 3 at large teams and everyone would be happy.

Well, I've already stated I don't want the playoffs to expand due to the number of postseason games and the extra travel. I like to attend my teams bowl games, and hopefully at some point playoff games. Couldn't pull off the 3 weeks.

Also, it dilutes the best regular season in all of sports. That feeling that each Saturday is an elimination game for a number of teams each weekend. The push for that undefeated season and shot at the title. A lot of that goes away by expanding to 8 teams. Instead of people paying attention to the best teams, we'd be constantly talking about the 8,9,10 and 11 teams just like college basketball's final month revolves around bubble talk and not who are the real best teams.

 

[Mistaken4193]

Well, I've already stated I don't want the playoffs to expand due to the number of postseason games and the extra travel. I like to attend my teams bowl games, and hopefully at some point playoff games. Couldn't pull off the 3 weeks.

Also, it dilutes the best regular season in all of sports. That feeling that each Saturday is an elimination game for a number of teams each weekend. The push for that undefeated season and shot at the title. A lot of that goes away by expanding to 8 teams. Instead of people paying attention to the best teams, we'd be constantly talking about the 8,9,10 and 11 teams just like college basketball's final month revolves around bubble talk and not who are the real best teams.

Damn u just changed my mind with that post. I now agree with u 4 is the max number of teams for a playoff. But what if they did top 3 ranked conference champs and 1 at large team. Unless the top 4 were all conference champs.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Well if they could expand the playoffs to 8 teams then we could have the 5 conference champions and 3 at large teams and everyone would be happy.

It's a good idea. The only issue would be the potential anti-trust lawsuits. I think you're probably going to have to throw in the highest ranked/rated non-AQ conference champion into the mix. This would promote competition within the minor conference section and force them to play somebody relevant.

 

[KansasSooner]

Well, I've already stated I don't want the playoffs to expand due to the number of postseason games and the extra travel. I like to attend my teams bowl games, and hopefully at some point playoff games. Couldn't pull off the 3 weeks.

Also, it dilutes the best regular season in all of sports. That feeling that each Saturday is an elimination game for a number of teams each weekend. The push for that undefeated season and shot at the title. A lot of that goes away by expanding to 8 teams. Instead of people paying attention to the best teams, we'd be constantly talking about the 8,9,10 and 11 teams just like college basketball's final month revolves around bubble talk and not who are the real best teams.

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.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

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.

16/128 = 13% of the college football population
8/128 = 6% of the college football population

If we did expand past 4 teams, then the only thing would get happen is more rematches. Teams which failed to win their conference or division, could get the opportunity to beat them in the postseason. If it was 2007, then Missouri could have the opportunity to beat Oklahoma after two failed attempts. It could mean Stanford in 2011, would get a 2nd shot at Oregon after getting embarrassed in its own stadium.

The whole point of the tournament is not to pick the mythical best team, but to pick a tournament winner.

I don't have a problem with preserving the bowl system, even though they are becoming rather irrelevant and fans don't want to pay the extra fees to the schools, when they can go on stubhub and get cheater and better seating.

 

[KansasSooner]

Would we really get more rematches? That's supposing a lot of the invites are from the same conference or teams worth a shit actually play each other OOC.

 

[LawDawg]

Getting fans to travel for top bowl games has never been an issue, and it won't be an issue for playoff games either.

Duke might have some trouble I guess, but not because of distance, but because of fanbase size. Hell we played them a few years ago in their stadium and Alabama had way more fans than they did.

I am not sure I totally agree with what you are saying.

This is one of the main reasons why you will never see a 16 team NCAAFB playoff (maybe even 8). With 16 teams, you would have 4 games in 4 consecutive weeks. No way you are selling out the first two rounds. And, no way are the people going to the first 2 rounds going to the location for a week, spending a ton of money in the host city.

I had a similar situation 2 years ago when UGa played Bama in the SECCG. If the Dawgs win, they go to NC against ND. I couldn't afford to go to both games with ticket prices as they were. I chose to go the NC game, had we won. My income isn't too shabby, but I know I couldn't afford to go to back to back games across the country.

So, yes, they would have to consider location if they want to fill seats. And, because it is about money, they will do just that.

 

[LawDawg]

What does the term "best team" mean?

The team that is better than all the others?

Is it the team which can't lose? Is it the team which would win a best-of-three tournament style playoff? If you can't define what it means ahead of time, then it is pure opinion.

Winning your conference means something, sir. It's a distinct and objective achievement. It means you conquered your conference's obstacle course. Virtually all team sports give conference champions a leg-up in the competition and preferential treatment. Most of the time, you can't control who you play within your conference.

All those would be considerations made by the committee.

Because you can't have all teams playing each other, you are always going to have a lack of total objectivity.

 

[LawDawg]

Agreed. I think it is pivotal for college football to reserve its top 4 teams to conference champions or undefeated Independents. It does the following things:

1. Puts high emphasis on winning your conference or completing your obstacle course.
2. Prevents teams from winning by losing. Too often we see teams avoiding upper crust competition within their own conference simply because they lost their division. See Alabama in 2011 and Oregon in 2012.
3. Cuts down on the gray area. College football has too many great teams within the top 16 for us to pick an at-large opponent. Putting emphasis on conference champions, means we look at the big 5 conference champions and undefeated minor conference champions and Independents.
4. Gets us a chance to see cross-conference competition. Every conference plays a different style of ball, and it's more exciting to see how different styles match-up against each other.
5. Revenue sharing. Duplicate playoff entries means, one conference takes most of the playoff revenue. This will only cause major controversy.

Here's an easy response to this: TCU.

 

[4down20]

I am not sure I totally agree with what you are saying.

This is one of the main reasons why you will never see a 16 team NCAAFB playoff (maybe even 8). With 16 teams, you would have 4 games in 4 consecutive weeks. No way you are selling out the first two rounds. And, no way are the people going to the first 2 rounds going to the location for a week, spending a ton of money in the host city.

I had a similar situation 2 years ago when UGa played Bama in the SECCG. If the Dawgs win, they go to NC against ND. I couldn't afford to go to both games with ticket prices as they were. I chose to go the NC game, had we won. My income isn't too shabby, but I know I couldn't afford to go to back to back games across the country.

So, yes, they would have to consider location if they want to fill seats. And, because it is about money, they will do just that.

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.

 

[LawDawg]

Please stop using the word "best team" without any proper definition. All what you're doing is throwing out an opinion term aka subjective term. We want a more objective system.

Let me help you out ... the 4 "best teams" will be those teams determined as such by the committee constituted to do so based on SOS, conference affiliation, conference championships, and the smell test. And their 4 teams will almost always be better than simply taking 4 conference champions.