College Football Invitational

[johnmpsu]

Sorry, not a playoff.
One team didn't win its conference.
One team didn't even win their division.

Two teams lost there last game. So much for losing "early". The whole thing is a joke.

How about 10 conference winners advance to a real "playoff". No wildcards aka lucky losers.

Until there is actual discrete criteria (like winning your conference) for getting in it's never going to be a real playoff.

 

[SouthCarolion]

Sorry, not a playoff.
One team didn't win its conference.
One team didn't even win their division.

Two teams lost there last game. So much for losing "early". The whole thing is a joke.

How about 10 conference winners advance to a real "playoff". No wildcards aka lucky losers.

Until there is actual discrete criteria (like winning your conference) for getting in it's never going to be a real playoff.

But if you have actual criteria, ESPN talking heads lose the control to create the match ups they want. Truth is, there was no way that two SEC schools and two BIG schools were going to the playoffs.

 

[Nitt1300]

none of this is new

 

[LionJim]

none of this is new

Correct, and this plays into why people are so frustrated. The problem has been around forever and we don’t seem to be any closer to a fix.

I HATE the idea of a 12-team playoff. At the college level, byes are inherently unfair and the deck will be only a little less stacked than it is now. Lipstick on a pig. Go to 16 teams, or to 8.

 

[leinbacker]

Sorry, not a playoff.
One team didn't win its conference.
One team didn't even win their division.

Two teams lost there last game. So much for losing "early". The whole thing is a joke.

How about 10 conference winners advance to a real "playoff". No wildcards aka lucky losers.

Until there is actual discrete criteria (like winning your conference) for getting in it's never going to be a real playoff.

yeah, but it isn’t like there were a lot of alternative choices.

 

[bbb2021]

We can complain all we want but we should know by now that probably the first thing they look at is number of losses. All 4 teams in the CFP have one loss or less. Everyone outside the Playoffs have at least 2 losses. Just the way it has been and is in 2022

 

[ILLINOISLION]

Well, if we had beaten tOSU (or UMich) we’d be in!

We had a 4th quarter lead in one a 3rd quarter lead in another.

 

[johnmpsu]

yeah, but it isn’t like there were a lot of alternative choices.

Sure there were. Any other team that actually won their conference would be a good choice. Utah has WON the Pac 12 two years in a row. They aren't given a shot. They are more worthy than OSU who didn't even win their division. I'm in favor of eliminating the eye tests and settling it on the field.

 

[leinbacker]

Sure there were. Any other team that actually won their conference would be a good choice. Utah has WON the Pac 12 two years in a row. They aren't given a shot. They are more worthy than OSU who didn't even win their division. I'm in favor of eliminating the eye tests and settling it on the field.

because all conference divisions are the same?
How about UTSA? They have a better record than Utah

 

[BobPSU92]

I’m looking forward to the expansion in 2024. Hopefully we can steal an invite and sh|t in the punch bowl.

 

[TheBigUglies]

Why don't we just give everyone a trophy for participating as they are all champions and just call it a season.

 

[BobPSU92]

Why don't we just give everyone a trophy for participating as they are all champions and just call it a season.

Fine, but it still won’t mean as much as the Land Grant Trophy.

 

[rudedude]

 

[PSUJam]

Well, if we had beaten tOSU (or UMich) we’d be in!

We had a 4th quarter lead in one a 3rd quarter lead in another.

 

[Woodpecker]

Under what circumstances would it be a playoff and not an invitational? When only conference champions are "invited"? I suppose that all 131 schools could have a true all-inclusive tournament but it would take the 7 or 8 weeks to play it so half the teams (first round losers) would only have 4 or 5 game seasons.

 

[Mufasa94]

Sure there were. Any other team that actually won their conference would be a good choice. Utah has WON the Pac 12 two years in a row. They aren't given a shot. They are more worthy than OSU who didn't even win their division. I'm in favor of eliminating the eye tests and settling it on the field.

Why do almost all advocates of participation invites like to include phrases like “settling it on the field” when the teams they say they support actually lost more often on the field?

Aren’t you really saying you are selectively choosing which results on the field games are important and those you deem inconsiquential?

 

[johnmpsu]

Why do almost all advocates of participation invites like to include phrases like “settling it on the field” when the teams they say they support actually lost more often on the field?

Aren’t you really saying you are selectively choosing which results on the field games are important and those you deem inconsiquential?

No, I'm saying the winners of each conference participate. It's a deterministic method. No look tests. No opinions. Every team knows the rules at the start. Win and you're in. I don't care if the BiG 10 second place team is better than the winner of the MAC. They are NOT the best team in the BiG. No lucky losers may apply. There is no way to know if the winner of the PAC 12 the last two years running is the best team if they never get a chance to play. Win and you're in.

 

[Alphalion75]

Sorry, not a playoff.
One team didn't win its conference.
One team didn't even win their division.

Two teams lost there last game. So much for losing "early". The whole thing is a joke.

How about 10 conference winners advance to a real "playoff". No wildcards aka lucky losers.

Until there is actual discrete criteria (like winning your conference) for getting in it's never going to be a real playoff.

Patience my friend. In a few years there will only be a few super-conferences with true conference champions determined by conference playoffs who will then move onto the national college playoffs.

 

[Alphalion75]

Sorry, not a playoff.
One team didn't win its conference.
One team didn't even win their division.

Two teams lost there last game. So much for losing "early". The whole thing is a joke.

How about 10 conference winners advance to a real "playoff". No wildcards aka lucky losers.

Until there is actual discrete criteria (like winning your conference) for getting in it's never going to be a real playoff.

Patience my friend. In a few years there will only be a few super-conferences with true conference champions determined conference playoffs who will then move onto the national college playoffs.

 

[johnmpsu]

Patience my friend. In a few years there will only be a few super-conferences with true conference champions determined by conference playoffs who will then move onto the national college playoffs.

I wish/hope that is true and you are right but "wildcards" aka lucky losers generate interest which in turn generates money. Look what's happened with baseball. In the end it's always about the money.

 

[Colt2169]

yeah, but it isn’t like there were a lot of alternative choices.

There is an alternative - actual “playoffs” require winning

so if you don’t win your division you don’t move on

if you don’t win your conf championship you don’t move on

it can be done - they just don’t WANT to do it

 

[Mufasa94]

No, I'm saying the winners of each conference participate…

How can you say no? You want to relegate OOC games to literally being meaningless. Players sitting out nowadays and you’re going to convince them to play in a literally meaningless games. Try and get people to watch on TV for games you have personally decided mean nothing.

There is no way to know if the winner of the PAC 12 the last two years running is the best team if they never get a chance to play. Win and you're in.

What do you mean no way to know? The PAC-12 champ played 2 FBS teams (not even P5) OOC last year and lost them both. Added to it by losing to B1G runner up tOSU in the bowl. They just proved they weren’t close to being the most successful team in cfb.

Should we move to Clemson this year, sporting that 0-2 OOC record against P5 equivalent teams? The Tigers who beat UNC, who also lost to ND this season, for the ACC champ. The ACC should have just handed their championship to 4-loss ND.

Your method reeks of everything wrong with quotas.

 

[johnmpsu]

How can you say no? You want to relegate OOC games to literally being meaningless. Players sitting out nowadays and you’re going to convince them to play in a literally meaningless games. Try and get people to watch on TV for games you have personally decided mean nothing.


What do you mean no way to know? The PAC-12 champ played 2 FBS teams (not even P5) OOC last year and lost them both. Added to it by losing to B1G runner up tOSU in the bowl. They just proved they weren’t close to being the most successful team in cfb.

Should we move to Clemson this year, sporting that 0-2 OOC record against P5 equivalent teams? The Tigers who beat UNC, who also lost to ND this season, for the ACC champ. The ACC should have just handed their championship to 4-loss ND.

Your method reeks of everything wrong with quotas.

Winning isn't a quota.

 

[Fac]

Correct, and this plays into why people are so frustrated. The problem has been around forever and we don’t seem to be any closer to a fix.

I HATE the idea of a 12-team playoff. At the college level, byes are inherently unfair and the deck will be only a little less stacked than it is now. Lipstick on a pig. Go to 16 teams, or to 8.

Byes are 100% unfair to the teams not receiving them.

 

[LionJim]

Byes are 100% unfair to the teams not receiving them.

The idea of byes outrages me. Totally unfair, what a crock of horse ****.