This conference champion getting an automatic bid

[Nat Mann]

And it says the precise same thing about the BCS for the years 1998 through 2013. And as you ought to be aware, college football had multiple champions in nine of those fifteen seasons. And if you are not aware of that fact, the very rule book which we are discussing can fill in the gaps in your knowledge.

The CFP system was put in place precisely to get rid of this dual championship nonsense.

To put all too fine a point on your inability to read accurately, the statement above pointedly does not read "Beginning in 2014, the College Football Playoff was used to determine the national champion in FBS." In fact, the full footnote goes on to precisely explain which other national champions are recognized.


Then why, precisely, does the NCAA's official rule book list two different national champions for the 2017 season?

No, it doesn't except in your imagination.

Here's another piece of objective evidence for you to ignore / rationalize away. It's the NCAA list of champions:

FBS Football Championship History | NCAA.com

The complete list of NCAA Football FBS champions from the first season to today.

www.ncaa.com

Please note that UCF is NOT listed as a champion for the 2017 season, for the very good reason that they were not champions. Your premise that winning a poll or a metric makes a team a champion is absurd.

 

[Jordan23]

Proving the seeding maybe isn’t correct at all. Arizona state and Boise shouldn’t have had byes.

 

[PIBuckeye]

Proving the seeding maybe isn’t correct at all. Arizona state and Boise shouldn’t have had byes.

Nope
Not at all

 

[dtgold88]

That is not only not "crystal clear", it is incorrect. You are misreading "CFP champion" -- which is the text you quoted -- as "college football champion". Those are two different concepts.

The footnote that you quoted merely distinguishes the timeframes when the BCS and CFP, respectively, were used as a selector. The entire footnote is actually:


(all typos courtesy of the NCAA)



The Colley matrix isn't a poll, and winning it explicitly does make them an NCAA college football national champion, which is the entire point of the NCAA publishing a list of recognized championship selectors, and listing those selected champions in their rulebook.

And, once again, worth noting that 4 AP voters declined to vote for that Alabama team in the final poll, and instead chose UCF as their national champion. Which demonstrates that AP voters are not required to vote for the CFP winner as national champion. They are, in fact, free to select the most-deserving team in their opinion, regardless of the participants or outcome of the final game.

at least no need to buy a banner for their fake title?

 

[dtgold88]

Nope
Not at all

I don't think so either and think eventually they change this. Maybe not after 1 season, though.

 

[PIBuckeye]

I don't think so either and think eventually they change this. Maybe not after 1 season, though.

this SHOULD have been the CFP rankings and matchups.

1 oregon
2 georgia
3 texas
4 penn st
5 notre dame
6 Osu
7 tenn
8 indiana
9 boise
10 smu
11 ariz. st.
12 clem.

1st rd
Boise @ Indiana - winner plays oregon
clemson @ ND - winner plays penn st.
SMU @ Tenn - winner plays georgia
Ariz. St @ OSU - winner plays texas

 

[Nat Mann]

this SHOULD have been the CFP rankings and matchups.

1 oregon
2 georgia
3 texas
4 penn st
5 notre dame
6 Osu
7 tenn
8 indiana
9 boise
10 smu
11 ariz. st.
12 clem.

1st rd
Boise @ Indiana - winner plays oregon
clemson @ ND - winner plays penn st.
SMU @ Tenn - winner plays georgia
Ariz. St @ OSU - winner plays texas

It's a good scheme as far as matchups go, but it doesn't address the problem of extra conference championship games.

The larger problem is that the CC system and the CFP are not really compatible.

 

[dtgold88]

this SHOULD have been the CFP rankings and matchups.

1 oregon
2 georgia
3 texas
4 penn st
5 notre dame
6 Osu
7 tenn
8 indiana
9 boise
10 smu
11 ariz. st.
12 clem.

1st rd
Boise @ Indiana - winner plays oregon
clemson @ ND - winner plays penn st.
SMU @ Tenn - winner plays georgia
Ariz. St @ OSU - winner plays texas

I definitely think that would have been better. TX and PSU 3 and 4 somewhat debatable but can make a case for them.

What I don't like hearing is because of some blowouts they took the wrong teams. I mean, there are blowouts and sweeps in opening rounds of NBA and NFL playoffs. Committee stuck to the task they were given.

 

[tc1]

The CFP system was put in place precisely to get rid of this dual championship nonsense.

[Delayed response, I was out of town for awhile, and frankly, this horse is beat well past dead.]

Then why did the NCAA use exactly the same words to describe the CFP and BCS in their own rule book -- as I previously quoted for you?

^From 1998-2013, the BCS was used to determine national champions in FBS. All“major selectors” not otherwise listed also selected the BCS champion as its higest ranked team in those seasons. In years where a “major selector” had a team other than the BCS champion as highest ranked team in its final poll that team is listed below the BCS Champion.

+Beginning in 2014, the College Football Playoff was used to determine national champions in FBS. All “major selectors” not otherwise listed also selected the CFP champion as its higest ranked team in those seasons.In years where a “major selector” had a team other than the CFP champion as highest ranked team in its final poll that team is listed below the CFP Champion.

That's exactly the opposite of what would be done, if the CFP was supposed to be a change from its predecessor.

No, it doesn't except in your imagination.

Here's another piece of objective evidence for you to ignore / rationalize away. It's the NCAA list of champions:

You are the one imagining a system that just does not exist, and never has. The list you quoted is not the official NCAA list of champions, which as repeatedly noted, can be found in their official rule book.

Your premise that winning a poll or a metric makes a team a champion is absurd.

This is not "my premise", this is what the NCAA's official rule book states. This is the entire reason why that rule book recognizes 12 major selectors of national champions.

Again, you may not like that. It cause you a great deal of heartache, or sadness, or whatever. But that is how the NCAA currently recognizes up to 12 national champions in FBS, each season. ( Obviously, 12 has never happened, but multiple champions happens regularly, and you ought to know this, if you are a college football fan. )

I'm done with this thread, unless you can come up with something better than "I really really wish it worked like I want it to, despite literally all of the words in the rule book saying precisely the opposite."

 

[dtgold88]

[Delayed response, I was out of town for awhile, and frankly, this horse is beat well past dead.]

Then why did the NCAA use exactly the same words to describe the CFP and BCS in their own rule book -- as I previously quoted for you?




That's exactly the opposite of what would be done, if the CFP was supposed to be a change from its predecessor.




You are the one imagining a system that just does not exist, and never has. The list you quoted is not the official NCAA list of champions, which as repeatedly noted, can be found in their official rule book.




This is not "my premise", this is what the NCAA's official rule book states. This is the entire reason why that rule book recognizes 12 major selectors of national champions.

Again, you may not like that. It cause you a great deal of heartache, or sadness, or whatever. But that is how the NCAA currently recognizes up to 12 national champions in FBS, each season. ( Obviously, 12 has never happened, but multiple champions happens regularly, and you ought to know this, if you are a college football fan. )

I'm done with this thread, unless you can come up with something better than "I really really wish it worked like I want it to, despite literally all of the words in the rule book saying precisely the opposite."

Next level again by you.....that last comment of yours applies far more to you than anyone here.

As an OSU fan I'm hoping my team wins their next 2 games and are crowned champs. If you really, really want to give a fake title to a team OSU beat along the way in this scenario have at it.

I'll keep laughing at you.

 

[Nat Mann]

[Delayed response, I was out of town for awhile, and frankly, this horse is beat well past dead.]

Then why did the NCAA use exactly the same words to describe the CFP and BCS in their own rule book -- as I previously quoted for you?




That's exactly the opposite of what would be done, if the CFP was supposed to be a change from its predecessor.




You are the one imagining a system that just does not exist, and never has. The list you quoted is not the official NCAA list of champions, which as repeatedly noted, can be found in their official rule book.




This is not "my premise", this is what the NCAA's official rule book states. This is the entire reason why that rule book recognizes 12 major selectors of national champions.

Again, you may not like that. It cause you a great deal of heartache, or sadness, or whatever. But that is how the NCAA currently recognizes up to 12 national champions in FBS, each season. ( Obviously, 12 has never happened, but multiple champions happens regularly, and you ought to know this, if you are a college football fan. )

I'm done with this thread, unless you can come up with something better than "I really really wish it worked like I want it to, despite literally all of the words in the rule book saying precisely the opposite."