It seems fans DIDN'T want to see an outsider in the title game
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
I agree. I would like to see the viewership real time.
A lot of people who did watch probably shut it off some time in the 2nd quarter, like I did.
A lot of people who did watch probably shut it off some time in the 2nd quarter, like I did.
Yeah, in spite of all the hype pushing the possibility of an upset, fans knew what was coming.
The game was a total farce.
UGA is obviously good but NOT 58 points better than the #2 team in the nation good. This game showed, as much as anything, that all conferences are not created equal. TCU looked like a bad FCS team in comparison.
Last edited:
18IsTheMan you must be retired to be able to post the way you do. I enjoy all your post.
Well....the game was over in the first five mins. If it had been a close game more people would have kept watching.
What is more important?
What the public wants or what a team earns.
Seems to me if there is a flaw, it's in the ranking system. We were lead to believe the Big12 was pretty good and TCU's sos was phenomenal.
What the public wants or what a team earns.
Seems to me if there is a flaw, it's in the ranking system. We were lead to believe the Big12 was pretty good and TCU's sos was phenomenal.
If you can't win your conference championship, you should not be in the playoff.
Otherwise, get rid of conference championships!
Who would you have put in the playoff then? The #4 (Ohio State), #5 (Alabama), and #6 (Tennessee) teams in the final CFP rankings weren't conference champions. #7 (Clemson), #8 (Utah), and #9 (Kansas State) were conference champions, but all 3 of those teams were hammered in their bowl games. #10 Southern Cal didn't win its conference and neither did #11 Penn State.
While I agree in principle that a non-conference champion shouldn't be able to win a national championship, it just doesn't work in practice.
I'm actually at work all the time, haha. Lot's of telework meetings that having nothing to do with me, so I zone out and do other stuff.
I've also got a short attention span, so I can only work on my documents for about 20 minutes before I have to refresh the forum and see what's up
Back on the old site, I felt like I wasn't able to keep up. Here I feel like I'm the only starting any discussions most days.
I kind of agree about the conference championship, but this year, there were no other conference champions that were any good.
The point of the CFP was that they would get the 4 best teams in there. Didn't happen this year, some of which was beyond the committee's control. I don't think Michigan was one of the 4 best and probably would not have beaten Bama or UT, but an undefeated conference champ is getting in. Can't help that. If you're not a conference champion, though, I think it's entirely up to the committee to determine if you're one of the 4 best. It would have caused a riot if they had let Bama in over TCU, but Bama was obviously the better team.
Georgia, Michigan, Clemson, Utah, Kansas State, etc. were the ones who earned it on the field without interference with subjective rankings
I think we've already had this discussion. Even though Alabama was obviously the better team, they didn't take care of business on the field. There wasn't an argument using on-field results to put Alabama in. The only reason they were ranked as high as they were was because of the name on their jersey. That point is proved by the fact Tennessee beat them and had the same record, but still remained behind them.
And this is why the expanded playoff will be a good thing in my opinion. It will reward conference champions with a bye, but also not keep out teams that are obviously deserving that didn't win their conferences.
That is where the ncaa once again has to screw things up. They cant seem to help it
In my opinion, if you don't take care of business on the field, as neither Bama nor TCU did, then the committee gets to decide who is better. And, as with March Madness, when you leave it up to the committee to determine if you should get it, you may not like the outcome.
The obvious right move, if you were looking for the better team, was to let Bama in. It requires subjectivity assessment, but that's part of it. Is a one-loss Big 12 team better than a 2-loss SEC team. We already knew that answer was "no" and we had that played out for us for 4 brutal hours on Monday night.
No, clemson was overrated and proved it in the Orange bowl. The ACC as a whole is a joke.
But with the system that will be in place, I like having a bit more objectivity in the rankings. It gives teams a clear goal...win your conference, and you're in. If you're a top 4 conference champion, you're getting a bye. It reduces bias.
Conference Championship Games are here to stay because of the $$$$. They are the ones earning it on the field. Clemson does have the weak conference advantage. But conference winners are the deserving ones and maybe the expansion will fix this by allowing other deserving teams to prove they belong by knocking some of those teams off. But, we may still end up with a blowout in the Championship Game!
This is where we disagree...I believe TCU did take care of business. They lost one game, in overtime, on a neutral field, to a team they'd already beaten in the regular season. So that loss was canceled by their previous win. Furthermore, TCU lost in their conference championship game. They went 5-1 against ranked teams.
Alabama, on the other hand, lost to Tennessee and LSU. They went 2-2 against ranked teams. Alabama wasn't good enough to even make the conference championship.
Alabama was more talented. If Alabama played TCU, they'd be favored by two scores I imagine. But Alabama didn't win the games they needed to.
This is what I mean about a problem with the ranking system. I mean 5-1 against ranked teams. Then the conference goes on to have the worse bowl record out of all P5 conferences. Now I question how good they really were in their win against Michigan given that Michigan has a history of unexpectedly crapping the bed at critical times.
I only partially agree with this...because all conf's aren't created NEARLY equal.
If you're the SEC and 1 loss and don't win Conf.....you are probably a top 4 team no matter what the Michigan and OSU / big ten media says. H#ll - a top 4 team (Bama) didn't get in b/c of two losses this year. As much as everyone hates them and all...they lost 2 games by a total of 3 points at night in Baton Rouge and Neyland to two VERY good football teams.
I want the best teams in any playoff....not those who don't belong.
Right, it's hard to have accurate rankings when conferences are so different. I don't know what the solution is!
More interconference matchups could be encouraged. How would Oregon fair playing UF in Florida in early September or Alabama playing at Wisconsin in mid-December?
I'm all for it. Florida beating Utah in the Swamp to open the season is a good example, as well as the FSU-LSU matchup on Labor Day. Both were awesome games.
It would be awesome to have a conference to conference challenge week. Even better to have two. Each with a different conference.
So many rankings and SOS questions could be answered... at least better than they are now
IF Bama was obviously the better team, why would it have caused a riot if they had let Bama in over TCU???
12 team playoffs isn't going to help this. Only two teams facing off will guarantee it doesn't happen. In general, the four-team playoff has worked very well. I'm thinking that viewership would have been better had the game not been over at halftime.