The home teams are 4-0 in the playoffs . . . how long will that continue? *
- Thread starter rockingamecock
- Start date
Pretty wild seeing that huge crack in that Tenn players football helmet... guessing from the cold.
Or set up regional sites like in basketball. Probably would have to expand playoff to do that
And a lot of it was because they had two teams that were hosting 1st round games that in reality should have gotten top 4 seeding and a first-round bye. Texas should have been the 3 seed and Penn State should have been the 4 seed.
We had a few teams that shouldn't have been in the playoff at all playing in those games too. We will see 2 more blowouts in the next round. Boise and ASU have no business being there either.
I do expect Texas to beat ASU but personally I hope ASU does well considering they beat more ranked teams this year than most of the other teams in the playoffs. Hard for me to say they dont belong.
Last edited:
I personally have no issue with any of the teams that made it to the playoffs being there. They made it based on the criteria set in place for this system. I do have issues with the criteria but that is a different debate. No matter what system we have, there will always be blowouts in the playoffs. But this season it was amplified based on incorrect seeding.
Now on the debate of the system setup, if I were in charge of things this would be my system.
Auto Bids. I have no problem with conference champions getting automatic bids. That is the standard on every other college playoff system in existence for the most part. I would however have a minimum ranking requirement. For a 12 team playoff, I would not allow a team outside the top 14. I think that would be a good compromise to still reward teams for winning their conference. And most every season you will have 5 conference champions inside the top 14.
Ranking system. I would bring back the old BCS rankings instead on having a group of people sitting around a conference table in some hotel selecting teams. One thing I would change with the BCS ranking would be making sure it incorporated some kind of SOS/SOR system that is similar to the quad rating system we have in basketball. This would drastically minimize the subjectivity of the system we have now.
Seeding. I would seed the teams as they are ranked. No auto-bye for teams. If you want a bye, be one of the top 4 ranked teams.
Now on the debate of the system setup, if I were in charge of things this would be my system.
Auto Bids. I have no problem with conference champions getting automatic bids. That is the standard on every other college playoff system in existence for the most part. I would however have a minimum ranking requirement. For a 12 team playoff, I would not allow a team outside the top 14. I think that would be a good compromise to still reward teams for winning their conference. And most every season you will have 5 conference champions inside the top 14.
Ranking system. I would bring back the old BCS rankings instead on having a group of people sitting around a conference table in some hotel selecting teams. One thing I would change with the BCS ranking would be making sure it incorporated some kind of SOS/SOR system that is similar to the quad rating system we have in basketball. This would drastically minimize the subjectivity of the system we have now.
Seeding. I would seed the teams as they are ranked. No auto-bye for teams. If you want a bye, be one of the top 4 ranked teams.
If you used the bcs the same teams would get in with your criteria including smu and Clemson from what I saw.
True. The games would have been the following using the unchanged BCS formula.
Clemson @ Ohio State with the winner playing Texas.
Boise State @ Indiana with the winner playing Oregon.
Alabama @ Penn State with the winner playing Notre Dame.
Arizona State @ Tennessee with the winner playing Georgia.
Now keep in mind that is the unchanged BCS ranking. My proposed system incorporates more importance in the SOS/SOR with a similar quad ranking system as we have in NCAA Basketball. So those rankings could change some with those data points included. Not sure how much or little.
Nothing wrong with first-round campus games. They add excitement.
But the trick is to get the 12 actual best teams in to start with. That starts with eliminating automatic bids tied to conference championships and not assigning added weight to teams that appeared in a conference championship game, but lost.
That would have knocked out SMU and quite possibly UPC or Boise State, which didn't even have to play in Round One, and that due to winning a second-tier conference championship and being assigned a questionable ranking thereby - very dubious.
But the trick is to get the 12 actual best teams in to start with. That starts with eliminating automatic bids tied to conference championships and not assigning added weight to teams that appeared in a conference championship game, but lost.
That would have knocked out SMU and quite possibly UPC or Boise State, which didn't even have to play in Round One, and that due to winning a second-tier conference championship and being assigned a questionable ranking thereby - very dubious.
One thing is for sure is the committee took something that should have been easy peasy and made it difficult by over-thinking it. I can only hope it understands that it got in its own way in a big way. Personally I think they missed the mark on nearly all aspects of this thing.
1. Number of teams should be enough to have no byes. 8 or 16. I like 16.
2. Computer rankings should be used. Thanks to this committee I have lost what little faith I had in the humans. These final rankings along with "invitations" should come out after all teams have played 12 games and prior all Conference Championship Games. CCGs are not considered at all in making the playoffs meaning no advantage for those that do play in one and no advantage to those that dont. Period.
3. Yes rankings should dictate the seeds but rankings need to be right. See #2. Computer rankings.
4. No AQs of any kind. Totally unnecessary. Top 16 in the rankings should get in in a 16 team tournament or whatever the number of teams used.
The only thing I can point to that can say I did like was home field advantages to the higher seeds in the first round. Yeah that was a good idea.
1. Number of teams should be enough to have no byes. 8 or 16. I like 16.
2. Computer rankings should be used. Thanks to this committee I have lost what little faith I had in the humans. These final rankings along with "invitations" should come out after all teams have played 12 games and prior all Conference Championship Games. CCGs are not considered at all in making the playoffs meaning no advantage for those that do play in one and no advantage to those that dont. Period.
3. Yes rankings should dictate the seeds but rankings need to be right. See #2. Computer rankings.
4. No AQs of any kind. Totally unnecessary. Top 16 in the rankings should get in in a 16 team tournament or whatever the number of teams used.
The only thing I can point to that can say I did like was home field advantages to the higher seeds in the first round. Yeah that was a good idea.
Essentially, you're saying what I've been saying. You and I are correct. Everyone who doesn't agree isn't correct.
This committee has taken dragging their feet and tiptoeing into the deep end and turned it in to an art form. I heard something not long ago about the next step being 14 teams meaning more byes. SMH. If we get what we want (what is right for college football) it will be many more years in the making with this group in power
They are dumb@sses. Conference representation should be the last thing they are trying to rig. Let the teams that measurably deserve to be there - by a comprehensive set of key values - be there. It's up to leadership to set the key measures; the computer can sort out the teams. Let conference representation fall as it may.
No computers. Set up the playoff so teams are in based on on field results, no committee to decide who is in or out.