This is how much sense the CFP makes

[18IsTheMan]

Oregon won their conference championship game on the heels of an undefeated regular season, in the process sending Penn State to their second loss. As a result, Penn State opens with a weak SMU team, and would then advance to play Boise State.

Oregon, for their reward, gets to face the winner of the Ohio State/Tennessee game.

Yeah, Penn State has to play one extra game, but I would take SMU and Boise State over facing off against Tennessee or Ohio State any day of the week. Oregon fans pretty ticked right now. Understandably. Saying they would’ve been better off to lose.

 

[18IsTheMan]

This 12-team CFP is just a disaster all around. And folks think the solution is more expansion? “You can’t handle picking the right 12 teams and seeding them properly? Here’s another four.”

 

[HuntinAces]

Oregon barely escaped Boise St. the first time they played….not sure of their gripe.
The real gripe is how the byes are rewarded not the expansion.
Another thing that will come into play with the bye is the rust, while the other team plays the previous week. There are pros/cons of not receiving the bye but there is already a large gap between playing the first game as is.

 

[18IsTheMan]

No matter how you slice it, playing SMU and then Boise St is a considerably easier path than having to play Ohio State or Tennessee. Without question.

 

[Greer]

Oregon already beat Ohio State, it was a close game like the Boise State game. I think if you want to be champ you play whoever you need to and don't complain about if the path is easier or harder than the other guy's path. You just go out and do what you have to. Have you ever heard Mike Tyson complain or MIchael Jordan? Michael Phelps? The list can go on and on. You just go take care of what you can control and let the rest go. The Oregon fans who complain just don't know any better because for all of the resources backing that program, what have they really won prior to this years Big 10 Championship?

 

[18IsTheMan]

Oregon already beat Ohio State, it was a close game like the Boise State game. I think if you want to be champ you play whoever you need to and don't complain about if the path is easier or harder than the other guy's path. You just go out and do what you have to. Have you ever heard Mike Tyson complain or MIchael Jordan? Michael Phelps? The list can go on and on. You just go take care of what you can control and let the rest go. The Oregon fans who complain just don't know any better because for all of the resources backing that program, what have they really won prior to this years Big 10 Championship?

That's not the point. It's just another example of how nothing about this CFP structure makes sense.

The committee has now confirmed: there is zero value to SOS and scheduling tough OOC opponents AND there is no great value to winning your conference championship game.

 

[92Pony]

These committee members and the group as a whole have/has ZERO credibility!! None.

 

[Blues man]

This 12-team CFP is just a disaster all around. And folks think the solution is more expansion? “You can’t handle picking the right 6 teams and seeding them properly? Here’s another four.”

Gotta address the problem... the rankings. The solution is taking human opinions out of the equation and dealing with a set criteria. SMU shouldn't have been nowhere near (lifted to) the top 12 after Clemson and Miami were exposed. And yeah Oregon got hosed. Appears we have guys building a bracket who have never built a bracket. Whoever thought that was a good idea needs to have his man card revoked.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Gotta address the problem... the rankings. The solution is taking human opinions out of the equation and dealing with a set criteria. SMU shouldn't have been nowhere near (lifted to) the top 12 after Clemson and Miami were exposed. And yeah Oregon got hosed. Appears we have guys building a bracket who have never built a bracket. Whoever thought that was a good idea needs to have his man card revoked.

The hilarious thing is, for those who have been around, we adopted the BCS because folks complained about the arbitrary nature of having humans pick the champion. Computers were the solution to a data-based, unbiased selection process. Well, then folks eventually wearied of having the title game participants selected by a purely analytical method, with no thought given to intangibles. Usher in the CFP. And no folks are back to complaining about the arbitrary nature of having humans pick the teams.

 

[Blues man]

The hilarious thing is, for those who have been around, we adopted the BCS because folks complained about the arbitrary nature of having humans pick the champion. Computers were the solution to a data-based, unbiased selection process. Well, then folks eventually wearied of having the title game participants selected by a purely analytical method, with no thought given to intangibles. Usher in the CFP. And no folks are back to complaining about the arbitrary nature of having humans pick the teams.

I dont know who these people were that wanted intangibles considered when ushering out invitations to a tournament, but I can only conclude they shouldn't be building brackets as well. Moving further away from a champion being crowned by it's play on the field by asking folks to read between the lines and overthinking "what ifs" and the likes has no place in sports. It's not rocket science and I dont know why we continue to think it is.

 

[gamecock stock]

The problem is that the playoffs are not "merit-based" (which is the American way).That can be changed if the committee wants it to. Many of us have been saying to follow the college basketball model. The ball is in the committees court. Paul Finebaum said this morning that the committee is working on changes "as we speak".

 

[18IsTheMan]

I dont know who these people were that wanted intangibles considered when ushering out invitations to a tournament, but I can only conclude they shouldn't be building brackets as well. Moving further away from a champion being crowned by it's play on the field by asking folks to read between the lines and overthinking "what ifs" and the likes has no place in sports. It's not rocket science and I dont know why we continue to think it is.

Part of the issue that we have to get back to placing a heavy emphasis on SOS. A bit of PC culture took over and bleeding hearts for the G5 schools and gradually SOS has come to be viewed less and less important. Hence, having Boise State in the top 10.

It absolutely matters who you play.

 

[Blues man]

Part of the issue that we have to get back to placing a heavy emphasis on SOS. A bit of PC culture took over and bleeding hearts for the G5 schools and gradually SOS has come to be viewed less and less important. Hence, having Boise State in the top 10.

It absolutely matters who you play.

100%

 

[92Pony]

The problem is that the playoffs are not "merit-based" (which is the American way).That can be changed if the committee wants it to. Many of us have been saying to follow the college basketball model. The ball is in the committees court. Paul Finebaum said this morning that the committee is working on changes "as we speak".

I've likened this committee-pick-process to participation trophies. Gotta give G5 schools a chance. Gotta give conference champs spots, well, because that makes it fair.... NO! I don't give a crap whether you're 1st or last in your conference. I don't care if you're Bama, or 1st-yr FBS with a student body pop. of 2500; If you're one of the 12 best teams, then you're in the CFP bracket.
If the 12 best teams in the country are all from the SEC, well, so be it. If it's 6 in the SEC and 6 in the ACC ( ), then so be it. Stop handing out predetermined slots just to make it "fair". Are we pitting the best of the best in order to find the best, or are we handing out invites based on who you are/where you're from??

 

[Greer]

That's not the point. It's just another example of how nothing about this CFP structure makes sense.

The committee has now confirmed: there is zero value to SOS and scheduling tough OOC opponents AND there is no great value to winning your conference championship game.

I disagree. If Boise State, Arizona State, or Clemson don't win their conference championships none of them make the playoffs. If Boise St doesn't schedule Oregon and play them close then they are the UCF of 2024 with a bunch of wins against no one of note. If Georgia doesn't win the SEC then they are a 3 loss team without a conference championship, at a minimum they don't get the bye. At worst they are in a debate against Miami and Alabama (who beat them) so maybe they do not make the playoff. The statement that conference championships don't matter is whining from Oregon fans. We shouldn't buy into it. The idea that teams should not schedule tough non-conference games is an excuse put forth by ADs and coaches who need to give the fans an excuse to focus on.

 

[Blues man]

I've likened this committee-pick-process to participation trophies. Gotta give G5 schools a chance. Gotta give conference champs spots, well, because that makes it fair.... NO! I don't give a crap whether you're 1st or last in your conference. I don't care if you're Bama, or 1st-yr FBS with a student body pop. of 2500; If you're one of the 12 best teams, then you're in the CFP bracket.
If the 12 best teams in the country are all from the SEC, well, so be it. If it's 6 in the SEC and 6 in the ACC ( ), then so be it. Stop handing out predetermined slots just to make it "fair". Are we pitting the best of the best in order to find the best, or are we handing out invites based on who you are/where you're from??

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that if the SEC can usually make up half the field of a four team playoff, it may very well be able to make up half the field in a 12 team playoff. In fact there are years it appears the rankings start looking that way unless the powers that be decide the wealth needs spreading in the name of national interest.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I disagree. If Boise State, Arizona State, or Clemson don't win their conference championships none of them make the playoffs. If Boise St doesn't schedule Oregon and play them close then they are the UCF of 2024 with a bunch of wins against no one of note. If Georgia doesn't win the SEC then they are a 3 loss team without a conference championship, at a minimum they don't get the bye. At worst they are in a debate against Miami and Alabama (who beat them) so maybe they do not make the playoff. The statement that conference championships don't matter is whining from Oregon fans. We shouldn't buy into it. The idea that teams should not schedule tough non-conference games is an excuse put forth by ADs and coaches who need to give the fans an excuse to focus on.

But the committee made it clear that winning your conference championship, in fact, doesn't matter. When winning your conference championship and landing the #1 overall seed lands you a more difficult path than the team that lost, then winning it doesn't matter.

 

[gamecock stock]

I've likened this committee-pick-process to participation trophies. Gotta give G5 schools a chance. Gotta give conference champs spots, well, because that makes it fair.... NO! I don't give a crap whether you're 1st or last in your conference. I don't care if you're Bama, or 1st-yr FBS with a student body pop. of 2500; If you're one of the 12 best teams, then you're in the CFP bracket.
If the 12 best teams in the country are all from the SEC, well, so be it. If it's 6 in the SEC and 6 in the ACC ( ), then so be it. Stop handing out predetermined slots just to make it "fair". Are we pitting the best of the best in order to find the best, or are we handing out invites based on who you are/where you're from??

Thanks for making me laugh, too, regarding the ACC having 6 of the best teams in the nation. Laughter extends one's life.

 

[Greer]

But the committee made it clear that winning your conference championship, in fact, doesn't matter. When winning your conference championship and landing the #1 overall seed lands you a more difficult path than the team that lost, then winning it doesn't matter.

Let the games play out and lets see which paths are easier. I think we will see at least two upsets in the first round.

 

[will110]

That's not the point. It's just another example of how nothing about this CFP structure makes sense.

The committee has now confirmed: there is zero value to SOS and scheduling tough OOC opponents AND there is no great value to winning your conference championship game.

There was a great deal of value for Clemson, Arizona State, and Georgia winning their conference championship games.

 

[18IsTheMan]

There was a great deal of value for Clemson, Arizona State, and Georgia winning their conference championship games.

well, sure, if you HAVE to win your conference championship to get in, but that's not in the context of the discussion in the OP. if you're already in as a lock, though, like Oregon was, the seeding from the committee made winning their conference championship a liability.

And I don't really agree about UGA. Texas gets Clemson and then ASU if they win. I think that's an easier path than UGA having to play ND/IU winner.

 

[Piscis]

There was a great deal of value for Clemson, Arizona State, and Georgia winning their conference championship games.

Clemson more than anyone else. They were in a "win or go home" situation. They also backed into their championship game. Dabo has a deal with the devil.

 

[Gamecock72]

I hate the Gamecocks got left out but I understand it. Yes, we can blame the refs in the LSU game but at the same time, even with that happening, there were lots of other missed opportunities that were under the Gamecock's control that contributed to those 3 losses. Missed field goals, idiotic inexcusable penalties, and horrible plays called also were huge contributing factors. I hate Clemson got in but they made it fair and square under the current criteria. So congrats to them but at the same time Go Texas

And as I have said many times before, I have no issue with automatic bids. The other conferences and tons of fans cried like crazy under the 4 team playoffs of how they wanted conference championships to have more meaning, so this was put in place to appease that crowd. You get the rewards of winning the conference as well as rewarding the top-ranked 7 non-conference title winners. As I have said from the start, one thing I really do not agree with is not having a minimum ranking requirement. The first-round bye setup and everything else I really do not have much of an issue with.

I will say if they do not add more weight onto SOS and SOR, they are going to lose top-ranked P4 vs P4 OOC games. Teams will stop scheduling them since there is no benefit from playing them. That is why I have always been in favor of using the BCS rankings because I believe it does give reward for playing those games.

I am looking forward to some great post-season football games before Christmas. I think that is something to be excited about.

 

[Piscis]

well, sure, if you HAVE to win your conference championship to get in, but that's not in the context of the discussion in the OP. if you're already in as a lock, though, like Oregon was, the seeding from the committee made winning their conference championship a liability.

You could also say the same about UGA to a degree. If they don't play in the SECCG, they would have hosted a first round game and likely not had to face the possibility of playing Texas three times.

 

[will110]

well, sure, if you HAVE to win your conference championship to get in, but that's not in the context of the discussion in the OP. if you're already in as a lock, though, like Oregon was, the seeding from the committee made winning their conference championship a liability.

And I don't really agree about UGA. Texas gets Clemson and then ASU if they win. I think that's an easier path than UGA having to play ND/IU winner.

We'll see how things play out. I would say playing Notre Dame or Indiana is easier than playing both Clemson and Arizona State. If you move one round further, on paper Texas would have a more difficult road having to play Tennessee, Ohio State, or Oregon than Georgia with Penn State, SMU, or Boise State.

And if Georgia had lost to Texas, they would have been 10-3. There's no way they get left out of the playoff, but they easily could have been on the road for the first round. Then you're definitely talking about a more difficult path.

The SEC championship was very beneficial for UGA.

 

[Hoganman1]

There are some great points here, but I really hope they go to 16 teams with no byes. Granted conference championships should mean something and it would be very difficult to eliminate them. However, unlike basketball; football conference championships mean some teams play 13 games. This is unfair to CC losers in the scheme of things and creates other issues ranking the teams. If every team plays twelve games then the top 16 (whether they use a computer or a committee) make the playoffs. One would play sixteen, two plays fifteen and so on. This probably won't happen but it would be a fair system and we can then argue over the seventeenth and eighteenth rank teams and how they got hosed,.