College Football Playoff 2018

[Wander]

Looks like we're heading toward Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, and the winner of Ohio State/Michigan. Maybe Oklahoma if there's an upset.

What's the point of having a playoff if a team on a 23 game winning streak has no chance of getting in? Sure, they'd be crushed by Alabama in the first game, but so would any other non-Clemson team.

[OldPhiKap]

Someone please tell me that the Ohio State University is out already.

[elvis14]

Looks like we're heading toward Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, and the winner of Ohio State/Michigan. Maybe Oklahoma if there's an upset.

What's the point of having a playoff if a team on a 23 game winning streak has no chance of getting in? Sure, they'd be crushed by Alabama in the first game, but so would any other non-Clemson team.

I think the idea is to get the 4 best teams into the playoffs within reason (meaning that if the best team ends up with 2 losses then they're out). UCF doesn't play a schedule that convinces anyone that they are one of the 4 best teams. If they played any of the 5 teams listed in the first sentence above, would they be favored?

Note, I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, it's just the reality of the situation.

[PackMan97]

Looks like we're heading toward Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, and the winner of Ohio State/Michigan. Maybe Oklahoma if there's an upset.

What's the point of having a playoff if a team on a 23 game winning streak has no chance of getting in? Sure, they'd be crushed by Alabama in the first game, but so would any other non-Clemson team.

This is why strength of schedule is important, even more so when you play in a weak conference. I'm sure none of the big boys want to play UCF, but it's up to their coaches and AD to figure out how to get it done. Every non-P5 school understands

When your non-conf is SC State, Cheater Hill, Florida Atlantic and Pitt, you aren't serious about getting in the playoffs. Even if you thought the Cheats and Panthers were going to be decent. Central Florida has the 72nd strongest schedule

[JasonEvans]

Looks like we're heading toward Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, and the winner of Ohio State/Michigan. Maybe Oklahoma if there's an upset.

I believe Georgia is the 2nd best team in the country and has a non-zero chance of beating Alabama in the SEC championship game. In that scenario -- unless Bama gets blown out and looks awful and Tua is hurt and will never come back for the playoff -- then Michigan/OK/tOSU are all going to be on the outside looking in.

And I've got a scenario for all of you -- let's say the GA-Alab game is similar to last year's National Title game, really close and maybe even goes to OT, but Bama wins. If Michigan falls to tOSU or NWestern, is there a case for putting Georgia into the Playoff? I suppose not because it would be an immediate rematch with Bama (#1-vs-#4) but I think a case could be made for the Dawgs.

-Jason "it would help if GA's loss at LSU had been closer" Evans

[devildeac]

Someone please tell me that the Ohio State University is out already.

Technically not, but our son laughs heartily at their chances and thinks they should be disqualified already simply based on surrendering 100 points to Purdue and UMd. :rolleyes:

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Looks like we're heading toward Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, and the winner of Ohio State/Michigan. Maybe Oklahoma if there's an upset.

What's the point of having a playoff if a team on a 23 game winning streak has no chance of getting in? Sure, they'd be crushed by Alabama in the first game, but so would any other non-Clemson team.


No playoff system is perfect.....NHL and NBA coming the closest I think. As for UCF, I am ambivalent. If going to the playoffs is your goal in life, then don't play or coach at UCF. The idea is to get the four best teams, and few if anyone thinks UCF is one of those. I think UCF goes 6-6 if they're in the SEC.....

[OldPhiKap]

Technically not, but our son laughs heartily at their chances and thinks they should be disqualified already simply based on surrendering 100 points to Purdue and UMd. :rolleyes:

Same here.

[AGDukesky]

My personal feeling is any undefeaated team should make the playoff unless there are one-loss teams who only lost to one of the undefeated teams - and have a better strength of schedule.

[Wander]

This is why strength of schedule is important, even more so when you play in a weak conference. I'm sure none of the big boys want to play UCF, but it's up to their coaches and AD to figure out how to get it done. Every non-P5 school understands

When your non-conf is SC State, Cheater Hill, Florida Atlantic and Pitt, you aren't serious about getting in the playoffs. Even if you thought the Cheats and Panthers were going to be decent. Central Florida has the 72nd strongest schedule

UCF crushed the champion of a power conference division. There's really not much more you can ask for of these teams.

What you're saying is that, in practice, it is impossible for a non-power-conference team to ever make it into the playoffs in the current system. And, in fact, I think you're right – it's just dumb and it's very obvious we need to go to 8 teams (among many other reforms in the sport).

[sagegrouse]

My personal feeling is any undefeaated team should make the playoff unless there are one-loss teams who only lost to one of the undefeated teams - and have a better strength of schedule.

I think that would happen in the Power Five conferences (plus Notre Dame).

Not buying your statement for schools outside the five major conferences. The case for the American Athletic Conference isn't very strong:
UConn, Temple, Cincy, Houston, Memphis, SMU, USF, UCF, Navy, Tulsa, Tulane, and East Carolina.

Overall, 7-11 against P5+ND, with only two wins against P5 teams with winning records -- UCF over Pitt and USF over GT. Four losses to P5 teams with losing records -- Houston to Texas Tech; SMU to TCU; Tulsa to Wake; and Tulane to Arkansas.

If UCF wants to be considered, it will need to schedule tougher games.

[Acymetric]

I think that would happen in the Power Five conferences (plus Notre Dame).

Not buying your statement for schools outside the five major conferences. The case for the American Athletic Conference isn't very strong:
UConn, Temple, Cincy, Houston, Memphis, SMU, USF, UCF, Navy, Tulsa, Tulane, and East Carolina.

Overall, 7-11 against P5+ND, with only two wins against P5 teams with winning records -- UCF over Pitt and USF over GT. Four losses to P5 teams with losing records -- Houston to Texas Tech; SMU to TCU; Tulsa to Wake; and Tulane to Arkansas.

If UCF wants to be considered, it will need to schedule tougher games.

Are better teams willing to play UCF? I would guess the answer is no for any team with championship aspirations...which leaves you with teams at the Pitt/GT level who apparently aren't good enough.

[sagegrouse]

Are better teams willing to play UCF? I would guess the answer is no for any team with championship aspirations...which leaves you with teams at the Pitt/GT level who apparently aren't good enough.

Well, they aren't trying very hard. This year, in addition to Pitt and UNC (canceled), the Knights played SC State and Florida Atlantic. That's pathetic. Duke's out-of-conference schedule was arguably tougher and our win over Northwestern may be better than any single victory in the entire American Conference.

Oh my, Acymetric, another season is about over. I had a fly-by for UNC but didn't get to tailgate. Oh well, maybe we can have a tailgate for the Final Four, although the last time I was at a FF in Minneapolis, there was still ice on the old Mississippi.

[JasonEvans]

UCF crushed the champion of a power conference division. There's really not much more you can ask for of these teams.

What you're saying is that, in practice, it is impossible for a non-power-conference team to ever make it into the playoffs in the current system. And, in fact, I think you're right – it's just dumb and it's very obvious we need to go to 8 teams (among many other reforms in the sport).

The ideal 8 team playoff: 5 champions of the power conferences, 2 at-large teams, 1 team from other conferences. By automatically including 1 non-P5 team, we not only give a chance to the litle guys, we also probably give the overall #1 seed a break (which they deserve for earning the #1 seed) by giving them what will probably be an easy opening round game.

Play your games on Xmas eve, NY eve, and then a week or so later. There would be much money made.

[AGDukesky]

I think that would happen in the Power Five conferences (plus Notre Dame).

Not buying your statement for schools outside the five major conferences. The case for the American Athletic Conference isn't very strong:
UConn, Temple, Cincy, Houston, Memphis, SMU, USF, UCF, Navy, Tulsa, Tulane, and East Carolina.

Overall, 7-11 against P5+ND, with only two wins against P5 teams with winning records -- UCF over Pitt and USF over GT. Four losses to P5 teams with losing records -- Houston to Texas Tech; SMU to TCU; Tulsa to Wake; and Tulane to Arkansas.

If UCF wants to be considered, it will need to schedule tougher games.

I understand, but until we have a true playoff (all power five conference champs are in) I’d prefer to see undefeated teams lose before they can be deemed unworthy of a championship. My caveat is if all playoff spots would have non-power five teams.

[sagegrouse]

I understand, but until we have a true playoff (all power five conference champs are in) I’d prefer to see undefeated teams lose before they can be deemed unworthy of a championship. My caveat is if all playoff spots would have non-power five teams.

Can't do it with a four-team playoff. A four-team playoff meshes well with the existing bowl system. An eight-team playoff means that the surviving teams play 16 games and may raise other issues. But it would allow the NCAA to include a non-Power 5 team.

[Wander]

The ideal 8 team playoff: 5 champions of the power conferences, 2 at-large teams, 1 team from other conferences. By automatically including 1 non-P5 team, we not only give a chance to the litle guys, we also probably give the overall #1 seed a break (which they deserve for earning the #1 seed) by giving them what will probably be an easy opening round game.

Play your games on Xmas eve, NY eve, and then a week or so later. There would be much money made.

Agreed, except I think it should be even a week earlier, so that the entire season ends on New Years Day. And the games should be played at the campus of the higher team, other than the title game, which can rotate around neutral sites.

And bowls should be completely eliminated, of course.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

And bowls should be completely eliminated, of course.

And just who will/can/would eliminate the bowls?

[-jk]

Bowls just become the NIT of the football world...

-jk

[sagegrouse]

Agreed, except I think it should be even a week earlier, so that the entire season ends on New Years Day. And the games should be played at the campus of the higher team, other than the title game, which can rotate around neutral sites.

And bowls should be completely eliminated, of course.

We have a zillion bowls. They aren't going anywhere. The four-team playoff utilizes three of the high-profile bowls. We might as well find a real use for others, hosting the quarterfinals. But the championship game isn't gonna be earlier than it is now -- week after New Year's Day. That works well with the NFL playoffs and fits most academic schedules.

[Wander]

And just who will/can/would eliminate the bowls?

No one. It's a pipe dream that I know won't happen. College football's postseason is permanently damaged. The best realistic scenario is probably expanding to 8 teams and hosting the first round on college campuses, which maybe will start a long process of relegating most bowls to NIT status like jk said.

Anyway, for this year... the Chaos Scenario is I guess what JE outlined... Georgia upsets Alabama, and Notre Dame and Clemson do not get upset. Then all of the Big 10, Big 12, and Pac 12 get locked out of the playoff (or Alabama gets left out).

[Acymetric]

No one. It's a pipe dream that I know won't happen. College football's postseason is permanently damaged. The best realistic scenario is probably expanding to 8 teams and hosting the first round on college campuses, which maybe will start a long process of relegating most bowls to NIT status like jk said.

Anyway, for this year... the Chaos Scenario is I guess what JE outlined... Georgia upsets Alabama, and Notre Dame and Clemson do not get upset. Then all of the Big 10, Big 12, and Pac 12 get locked out of the playoff (or Alabama gets left out).

Is that not true for most bowls already?

[duke09hms]

Can't do it with a four-team playoff. A four-team playoff meshes well with the existing bowl system. An eight-team playoff means that the surviving teams play 16 games and may raise other issues. But it would allow the NCAA to include a non-Power 5 team.

I think the solution could be a 6-team playoff with 1st round byes for the top 2 seeds. Top 5 ranking and top non-Power 5 team. It'd maintain the bowl structure while rewarding the top 2 teams.

[Reilly]

For those who want football brackets/playoffs:

https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/print/football/fcs/2018

https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/print/football/d2/2018 [ND got a bye.]

https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/print/football/d3/2018 [Does Hopkins take academics seriously anymore?]

[DU82]

We have a zillion bowls. They aren't going anywhere. The four-team playoff utilizes three of the high-profile bowls. We might as well find a real use for others, hosting the quarterfinals. But the championship game isn't gonna be earlier than it is now -- week after New Year's Day. That works well with the NFL playoffs and fits most academic schedules.

Move the conference championship to the Saturday after Thanksgiving as a 12th game. Schedule all rivalry conference games for the last week of the season that don't count in the standings. The two champions of the divisions play in the championship, their two opponents play each other, and the other teams play as normal.

An an example, in the ACC, you can rotate which division has the home game each year. For instance, the Coastal would have the home game this year. Clemson and Pitt play in the title game in Charlotte, Clemson's rival, Georgia Tech, plays Pitts rival, BC, at GT. (One negative is that one of the title teams loses a home game, unless the conference championship is played on the home field.) All the other rivalries, Duke-Wake, NCSU-Cheaters, etc., play as scheduled. This works for all five Power Five conferences.

Then the first round of the playoffs can be held at the home of the higher seeds, either a week after Thanksgiving, or the following week (when Army-Navy is scheduled) to give more time for preparations. Then a Christmas break, and the rest of the games are on the current schedule.

The teams that lose in the first round of the playoffs could be eligible for a bowl, if they choose. That would be game 14, which many already play.

[brevity]

What's the point of having a playoff if a team on a 23 game winning streak has no chance of getting in?

College football has been so wrong for so long that my grievances, which used to compel me to drink, are now old enough to drink.

Opinions:

1. College football is a game played by players on a field, but the postseason is political nonsense where the heroes are athletic directors and bowl committees. And every time there's a discussion about this -- on DBR or anywhere else -- the fans have consistently shown where their fantasy allegiances lie: with the athletic directors, and against the players. Whenever a fan says "UCF should schedule tougher games," they are telling players that their perfection on the field is irrelevant, and that the true solution involves the athletic department to go back in time about 2 years and properly anticipate the college football landscape. I don't understand why anyone says this, but would love to see a fan say it to the UCF players.

Bottom line: so far, the UCF players are perfect. Michigan players wear tattoos on their foreheads that say "Notre Dame's @#$%*."

2. This anti-player, pro-fantasy athletic director approach is a disease that has spread to the poll voters. Until today, and since about Week 6, UCF has been stuck with a ranking outside of the Top 8, in a holding pattern between #10-12. When Power 5 teams in front of UCF lose, they get replaced by other Power 5 teams behind them. UCF can't move up because of who they are. This is sometimes called a glass ceiling. Most college football fans are on board with this.

3. I'm actually less angry this year because three of the projected playoff teams are undefeated. I'm reserving my real anger for when/if the CFP spots Alabama 2 losses, like they did last year.

4. I've advocated an eight-plus playoff system for years. Not eight, but eight-plus. Every year's playoff field will have the five power conference champions and the three highest rated at-large teams (which can include Notre Dame or other independents) using existing metrics. Then, if there are any teams not in those five conferences and not among the three at-larges that are undefeated (whether an independent or non-power conference team), they automatically qualify as well. Using the most recent CFP rankings and projected non-upset results, this season's playoff might look like this:


Alabama (SEC champ)
Clemson (ACC champ)
Notre Dame (At-large)
Michigan (Big Ten champ)
Oklahoma (Big XII champ)
Washington State (Pac-12 champ)
LSU (At-large)
Georgia (At-large)
UCF (Undefeated addition)

Had Utah State won their opener, they'd be undefeated and the 10th team in the field. If UCF loses, this goes back to an 8-team field.

At this point there are smaller quibbles to make. When and where do the 8/9 game and quarterfinals take place? Should the SEC at-larges dip below Oklahoma and Washington State when they are just losing to each other? Are we okay with LSU making the field when it does not play in a conference championship game? Mostly, I don't care. UCF would probably take a play-in game against Georgia in Athens with a chance to advance if the alternative is an okay bowl game.

5. To bring this back to Duke, until the playoff system is fixed (or less "fixed"), there is no doubt in my mind that UCF will win a championship in basketball before they win one in football. Go Johnny Dawkins!

[Tripping William]

College football has been so wrong for so long that my grievances, which used to compel me to drink, are now old enough to drink.



I’m biased, but this is a 34-year-old issue, namely, making sure a national title akin to BYU 1984 never happens again.

[Wander]

4. I've advocated an eight-plus playoff system for years. Not eight, but eight-plus.

The most logical, and my preferred, playoff format would be 16 teams – 10 conference champions and 6 at-larges. The fact that this is considered a radical idea when it is the exact same as nearly every single other American college and pro sport works tells you all you need to know. This is what it could look like this year:

16 Buffalo @ 1 Alabama
9 LSU @ 8 Washington State

13 Utah State @ 4 Michigan
12 Texas @ 5 Oklahoma

11 West Virginia @ 6 Georgia
14 UAB @ 3 Notre Dame

10 Ohio State @ 7 UCF
15 Troy @ 2 Clemson

I don't really see how any football fan would not love to see the above bracket. Wouldn't it be great to see perennially overrated Notre Dame fend off a Cinderella upset, to see what UCF could do against a powerful team with home field advantage, or to see the SEC try and prove that they're really all that without the "we were unmotivated excuse" to fall back on?

But, an 8 team playoff is a fine substitute.

[OldPhiKap]

Well, they aren't trying very hard. This year, in addition to Pitt and UNC (canceled), the Knights played SC State and Florida Atlantic. That's pathetic. Duke's out-of-conference schedule was arguably tougher and our win over Northwestern may be better than any single victory in the entire American Conference.

Oh my, Acymetric, another season is about over. I had a fly-by for UNC but didn't get to tailgate. Oh well, maybe we can have a tailgate for the Final Four, although the last time I was at a FF in Minneapolis, there was still ice on the old Mississippi.

Back in the day, when FSU was an independent, Bobby Bowden would play anyone anywhere.

There are certainly teams that duck UCF, but they can do better if they want folks to take them seriously.

[AtlDuke72]

College football has been so wrong for so long that my grievances, which used to compel me to drink, are now old enough to drink.

Opinions:

1. College football is a game played by players on a field, but the postseason is political nonsense where the heroes are athletic directors and bowl committees. And every time there's a discussion about this -- on DBR or anywhere else -- the fans have consistently shown where their fantasy allegiances lie: with the athletic directors, and against the players. Whenever a fan says "UCF should schedule tougher games," they are telling players that their perfection on the field is irrelevant, and that the true solution involves the athletic department to go back in time about 2 years and properly anticipate the college football landscape. I don't understand why anyone says this, but would love to see a fan say it to the UCF players.

Bottom line: so far, the UCF players are perfect. Michigan players wear tattoos on their foreheads that say "Notre Dame's @#$%*."

2. This anti-player, pro-fantasy athletic director approach is a disease that has spread to the poll voters. Until today, and since about Week 6, UCF has been stuck with a ranking outside of the Top 8, in a holding pattern between #10-12. When Power 5 teams in front of UCF lose, they get replaced by other Power 5 teams behind them. UCF can't move up because of who they are. This is sometimes called a glass ceiling. Most college football fans are on board with this.

3. I'm actually less angry this year because three of the projected playoff teams are undefeated. I'm reserving my real anger for when/if the CFP spots Alabama 2 losses, like they did last year.

4. I've advocated an eight-plus playoff system for years. Not eight, but eight-plus. Every year's playoff field will have the five power conference champions and the three highest rated at-large teams (which can include Notre Dame or other independents) using existing metrics. Then, if there are any teams not in those five conferences and not among the three at-larges that are undefeated (whether an independent or non-power conference team), they automatically qualify as well. Using the most recent CFP rankings and projected non-upset results, this season's playoff might look like this:


Alabama (SEC champ)
Clemson (ACC champ)
Notre Dame (At-large)
Michigan (Big Ten champ)
Oklahoma (Big XII champ)
Washington State (Pac-12 champ)
LSU (At-large)
Georgia (At-large)
UCF (Undefeated addition)

Had Utah State won their opener, they'd be undefeated and the 10th team in the field. If UCF loses, this goes back to an 8-team field.

At this point there are smaller quibbles to make. When and where do the 8/9 game and quarterfinals take place? Should the SEC at-larges dip below Oklahoma and Washington State when they are just losing to each other? Are we okay with LSU making the field when it does not play in a conference championship game? Mostly, I don't care. UCF would probably take a play-in game against Georgia in Athens with a chance to advance if the alternative is an okay bowl game.

5. To bring this back to Duke, until the playoff system is fixed (or less "fixed"), there is no doubt in my mind that UCF will win a championship in basketball before they win one in football. Go Johnny Dawkins!

Alabama lost one game last year.

[TampaDuke]

Three thoughts:

1. Given what happened the only other time they played, I don’t think Alabama will agree to play UCF again any time soon. Nor will Auburn. Or Baylor. Heck, UNC could have re-scheduled them this year but wanted no part of it.

2. For those that think the best non-P5 school would only be average in a P5 conference, you haven’t paid attention to their record in BCS and New Year’s 6 bowls since they were guaranteed one spot. Watch ND v. Pitt and UCF v. Pitt this year and then try to make the case that UCF is clearly inferior.

3. Does anyone doubt that Gonzaga was one of the best basketball teams last year? What was their strength of schedule?

[Spoke]

I believe Georgia is the 2nd best team in the country and has a non-zero chance of beating Alabama in the SEC championship game. In that scenario -- unless Bama gets blown out and looks awful and Tua is hurt and will never come back for the playoff -- then Michigan/OK/tOSU are all going to be on the outside looking in.


It seems to me that (barring an unexpected loss to Auburn or Georgia Tech, respectively) the SEC championship is a play-in game for the national title. Could you really let Bama and UGA both into the playoff if Bama loses (even if it's a close game)? It would be kind of unfair to make UGA beat Bama twice to win the national title, wouldn't it?

[OldPhiKap]

It seems to me that (barring an unexpected loss to Auburn or Georgia Tech, respectively) the SEC championship is a play-in game for the national title. Could you really let Bama and UGA both into the playoff if Bama loses (even if it's a close game)? It would be kind of unfair to make UGA beat Bama twice to win the national title, wouldn't it?

If an undefeated Alabama lost to a one-loss UGA, I have both in the final four. Would be hard for me to conclude that there are three teams better.

[Ranidad]

My thoughts on a couple of points raised so far...

1). UCF should schedule tougher non conference

If scheduling Pitt and UNC doesn’t satisfy nothing will. Notre Dame has FSU and USC as two of their last 3 which sounds impressive but could be easier this year than UNC and Pitt. Also P5 teams should ‘t be excluded from the requirement of a tough non-conf game to be considered ...SEC

2). Bowl games are the NIT and should fade away.

As long as the number of games is small,12 vs 30+ in hoops, and TV $$$ are still there they will continue at their current bloated level. If the TV $$ fall so will number of games but many I will continue if they make money

3). Ideal number of teams for playoff

Personally 2 and 4 don’t work because there are usually several teams with the same record and only one gets in. For that same reason I don’t support any number that gives anyone a bye. 8 teams seems like the sweet spot only adding one additional week and ensuring that anyone good enough to win three straight against top teams is included.

4)Conference championship games are an obstacle to a clean playoff lineup

Since they bringing in big $$$ they aren’t going anywhere but eliminating them does give a week back that could be allocated to playoff games. How many times in the last several years has the conference championship been played between the two best teams in the conference? Unbalanced divisions and schedules often leave a potential playoff team playing one less game and if there is an upset present problems eg if Northwestern or Pitt wins championship game.

My perfect world is go back to conferences of ten teams, 12 game schedule, play 9 conference games and no championship game with an 8 team playoff and bowl game opportunities for any team that finishes ABOVE .500

[gofurman]

UCF crushed the champion of a power conference division. There's really not much more you can ask for of these teams.

What you're saying is that, in practice, it is impossible for a non-power-conference team to ever make it into the playoffs in the current system. And, in fact, I think you're right – it's just dumb and it's very obvious we need to go to 8 teams (among many other reforms in the sport).

Our division of Football (FCS) has 24 teams in playoffs. FBS just doesn't want it to happen.

Of course my other team (see user name - GoFurman) just beat national champion Villanova AND Loyola- Chicago in basketball too !!! In an 8 day span. And tied the record for most three pointers by one player in a game - 15. FIFTEEN.

Anyway. Back To football it can EASILY be done. Easily. Especially when you consider FCS like Furman and Elon football are more student athlete than say Auburn - and we Run a 24 team playoff and make it work with classes etc . Very glad FBS finally got a playoff (people also said that would never happen and it did). But let's get 8 teams. Or 12 and 4 best get a bye. Most people would love that. Think how much we all love March madness. The more the better

Go Furman. Go Duke

[HereBeforeCoachK]

No one. It's a pipe dream that I know won't happen. College football's postseason is permanently damaged. The best realistic scenario is probably expanding to 8 teams and hosting the first round on college campuses, which maybe will start a long process of relegating most bowls to NIT status like jk said.

Anyway, for this year... the Chaos Scenario is I guess what JE outlined... Georgia upsets Alabama, and Notre Dame and Clemson do not get upset. Then all of the Big 10, Big 12, and Pac 12 get locked out of the playoff (or Alabama gets left out).

I think that's a cynical and not quite accurate view on the bowls. The bowls have been part of what made college football so popular - a significant part of the traditions of the sport. You can't say we'd be better off if they just didn't exist. The entire sport would be different. My feeling is this relationship is slipping away slowly, and will continue to, but incorporating some bowls into the FBS playoff system is kind of giving the sport the best of both worlds.

And beyond the big bowls, that NIT feel has always been there.

[JasonEvans]

Anyway, for this year... the Chaos Scenario is I guess what JE outlined... Georgia upsets Alabama, and Notre Dame and Clemson do not get upset. Then all of the Big 10, Big 12, and Pac 12 get locked out of the playoff (or Alabama gets left out).

It seems none of us like the current 4-team playoff, so we should all be rooting for my chaos scenario. As Wander notes, it keeps three of the 5 major conferences on the sidelines, which would be a huge problem for those leagues. The B10, B12, and P12 have the kind of power to force a bigger playoff to happen. It won't be overnight, but it could happen in a couple years, I think.

And anyone who doubts that Bama makes the playoff if they lose to UGA is crazy. As I noted, the only way they don't is if the game is really lopsided and Bama suffers some serious injuries that make them look like a shell of the currently dominant team. My only question would be where they would be seeded. Poor Clemson is terrified that Bama will lose and drop to the #4 slot, again giving Clemson the unlucky task of being the #1 team that has to play the best team.

-Jason "there is no way the playoff will put UGA and Bama into the #2/#3 spots to give them an immediate rematch" Evans

[CrazyNotCrazie]

It seems none of us like the current 4-team playoff, so we should all be rooting for my chaos scenario. As Wander notes, it keeps three of the 5 major conferences on the sidelines, which would be a huge problem for those leagues. The B10, B12, and P12 have the kind of power to force a bigger playoff to happen. It won't be overnight, but it could happen in a couple years, I think.

And anyone who doubts that Bama makes the playoff if they lose to UGA is crazy. As I noted, the only way they don't is if the game is really lopsided and Bama suffers some serious injuries that make them look like a shell of the currently dominant team. My only question would be where they would be seeded. Poor Clemson is terrified that Bama will lose and drop to the #4 slot, again giving Clemson the unlucky task of being the #1 team that has to play the best team.

-Jason "there is no way the playoff will put UGA and Bama into the #2/#3 spots to give them an immediate rematch" Evans

Would an even worse (or better, depending on your perspective) scenario be if you took your chaos scenario then add on Clemson and ND losing? Then there is a long list of one loss teams and it would be very challenging to choose between them. I know this is extremely unlikely but just throwing it out there.

[JasonEvans]

Would an even worse (or better, depending on your perspective) scenario be if you took your chaos scenario then add on Clemson and ND losing? Then there is a long list of one loss teams and it would be very challenging to choose between them. I know this is extremely unlikely but just throwing it out there.

Yes, that would be more chaotic, but I think the key to change is pissing off the power players, and that means locking as many major conferences out of the playoff as possible. Believe me, watching 2 SEC teams and an independent play for the title while the B10, P12, and B12 sit at home will get those three conferences motivated to create a bigger playoff.

[Pghdukie]

While I agree that the Playoff system is in need of repair - my bigger concerns are with the academics. Semester Finals, Holiday break, etc. I also understand that Football is the cash cow.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

It seems none of us like the current 4-team playoff, so we should all be rooting for my chaos scenario. As Wander notes, it keeps three of the 5 major conferences on the sidelines, which would be a huge problem for those leagues. The B10, B12, and P12 have the kind of power to force a bigger playoff to happen. It won't be overnight, but it could happen in a couple years, I think.

These things change in a progression. The bowls were an improvement on there being only a regular season. Then the BCS was an improvement on the bowls. What so many people never understood is that the problem wasn't the BCS - it was the totally broken system (meaning, a broken system for getting a consensus natty champ). The BCS moved us closer to a legit nat champ than the bowl systems with the Rose and Orange and Cotton and Sugar automatic tie ins - but people acted like we had a perfect system and the BCS came and messed it up. Not so. The people who designed the BCS system KNEW there would eventually be a playoff system. They knew the BCS was interim step

Now the 4 team play off is an improvement to the old BCS. An 8 team will probably be the sweet spot, and it will happen.

[Troublemaker]

The most logical, and my preferred, playoff format would be 16 teams – 10 conference champions and 6 at-larges. The fact that this is considered a radical idea when it is the exact same as nearly every single other American college and pro sport works tells you all you need to know. This is what it could look like this year:

I actually dislike that we're losing diversity in postseason formats. It's not just college football. I didn't like it when baseball expanded to 3 rounds and added a wild card. I enjoyed it when only 4 teams made the MLB playoffs and would not have terribly minded even if it were still just the NL regular season champ vs the AL regular season champ playing in the World Series like it was in the old, old days. I think I'm supposed to end this post with a lawn joke or something.

[Reilly]

... I think I'm supposed to end this post with a lawn joke or something.

A pun (a good one) or some beer knowledge would suffice. But some look askance even at that. We've become so fractious.

[Wander]

So, the playoff relevant rankings are

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Notre Dame
4. Georgia
5. Oklahoma
6. Ohio State
7. Michigan
8. UCF

Seems pretty straightforward... except in the chaos scenario of Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State all losing. The most logical thing based strictly on resumes and these rankings would be Georgia staying at #4... leading to an immediate, boring rematch with Alabama. Would the committee consider UCF at all in that scenario? Probably not, but it should be considered. It's too bad about their injury at QB.

[JasonEvans]

Seems pretty straightforward... except in the chaos scenario of Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State all losing. The most logical thing based strictly on resumes and these rankings would be Georgia staying at #4... leading to an immediate, boring rematch with Alabama.

If... if GA and Bama play a close, exciting game then the rematch could be really interesting. But, if GA gets blown out by 14+ points then I see no way they make the playoff even if everything else breaks perfectly for them.

[OldPhiKap]

If... if GA and Bama play a close, exciting game then the rematch could be really interesting. But, if GA gets blown out by 14+ points then I see no way they make the playoff even if everything else breaks perfectly for them.

I think UGA is out with two losses.

I think Alabama is still in if UGA wins.

[Wander]

If... if GA and Bama play a close, exciting game then the rematch could be really interesting. But, if GA gets blown out by 14+ points then I see no way they make the playoff even if everything else breaks perfectly for them.

I agree... but who gets in then? Georgia is ahead of Ohio State and Oklahoma right now, and would have a "better" loss to Alabama than OSU or OU would have, so can't imagine OSU or OU jumping them. But putting a 2-loss Michigan team over a 2-loss OSU team would be indefensible given the head to head result.

So, does UCF have a small but realistic chance? In the scenario where UCF wins, and Georgia, Ohio State, and Oklahoma all lose, and the Georgia loss isn't particularly close?

[Acymetric]

I agree... but who gets in then? Georgia is ahead of Ohio State and Oklahoma right now, and would have a "better" loss to Alabama than OSU or OU would have, so can't imagine OSU or OU jumping them. But putting a 2-loss Michigan team over a 2-loss OSU team would be indefensible given the head to head result.

So, does UCF have a small but realistic chance? In the scenario where UCF wins, and Georgia, Ohio State, and Oklahoma all lose, and the Georgia loss isn't particularly close?

Not quite...Georgia would have two losses in that scenario. Yes, both would be better than than the teams they're up against, but they still have two of them. That should be enough to move them behind both OSU and OU. It wouldn't completely shock me if Georgia made it in anyway over both, but it would be a huge controversy. I think one of the one-loss conference champs gets in over them assuming a UGA loss. If UGA wins the SEC will send two teams (again, ugh).

In the "nightmare scenario" where 'Bama blows the doors of UGA, I could actually see UCF getting in. OSU, OU, and UGA will be knocked down by the losses so you theoretically have Michigan and UCF as your 4/5 spots. But the Ohio State loss hurts Michigan's resume (makes their loss to OSU look much worse). That all might be enough to sneak UCF in at #4. This is made significantly less likely by the UCF QB injury and depends on how well they show in their championship game.

Assuming all these losses happen and UCF doesn't get in, I think whoever has the better losing game of OSU and OU gets the fourth spot. OU gets the edge if they lose in similar fashions because Texas is ranked higher. I just don't see any appetite for a Bama-Georgia rematch, and the logic to include Michigan over the two conference champs is too twisted.

[Wander]

It wouldn't completely shock me if Georgia made it in anyway over both, but it would be a huge controversy.

My prediction for controversy is for that if all the favorites win, Oklahoma could jump Notre Dame for the more favorable semi-final.

[Ranidad]

How about 4 undefeated teams and NO one loss teams

If Georgia, Ohio State, and Oklahoma lose this weekend then UCF would be the only team on the outside with fewer than 2 losses. In addition none of the the two loss teams would have won their last game. This does discount the Mountain West teams with 2 losses.

Can you keep an undefeated UCF team out of he last spot in that scenario?

[Acymetric]

How about 4 undefeated teams and NO one loss teams

If Georgia, Ohio State, and Oklahoma lose this weekend then UCF would be the only team on the outside with fewer than 2 losses. In addition none of the the two loss teams would have won their last game. This does discount the Mountain West teams with 2 losses.

Can you keep an undefeated UCF team out of he last spot in that scenario?

That's what the last few posts are discussing (although I'm not sure what you mean by "4 undefeated teams" which isn't possible since there are only currently 2).

[OldPhiKap]

That's what the last few posts are discussing (although I'm not sure what you mean by "4 undefeated teams" which isn't possible since there are only currently 2).

Alabama
Clemson
ND
UCF

are all undefeated

I would laugh if ND somehow got jumped because they are not in a league and don't play a playoff game. If they were fully in the ACC, either they would be playing Clemson for the championship or the two teams would have already played each other and knocked one down.

[Acymetric]

Alabama
Clemson
ND
UCF

are all undefeated

I would laugh if ND somehow got jumped because they are not in a league and don't play a playoff game. If they were fully in the ACC, either they would be playing Clemson for the championship or the two teams would have already played each other and knocked one down.

D'oh! I temporarily forgot about Clemson and ND. Thanks for the correction and my apologies to Ranidad.

I was very much rooting for Notre Dame to lose a game for this very reason. Really did not want to see them in the playoff as an independent (I hate their current arrangement with the ACC at all levels in all sports).

I guess it didn't click in my mind because this is by far the most likely scenario and with the most obvious outcome (the first three teams plus one of OSU or OU) and so not very interesting. The argument is no better for UCF this year than last (in fact worse after losing their QB), if that wasn't enough it won't be now either (not saying I agree with the process).

[Wander]

The argument is no better for UCF this year than last (in fact worse after losing their QB), if that wasn't enough it won't be now either (not saying I agree with the process).

Well, UCF was ranked 14th at this point last year. Now they're ranked 8th. So they ARE in a better spot. Although I agree about their QB – the new guy will have to look really good in the game this weekend or else UCF will be eye tested down the rankings no matter what happens.

One last wrinkle to my scenario above – Pitt upsetting Clemson. Could you really keep out an undefeated team in favor of a two-loss team, when that undefeated team has a win over a power conference champion?

[Acymetric]

Well, UCF was ranked 14th at this point last year. Now they're ranked 8th. So they ARE in a better spot. Although I agree about their QB – the new guy will have to look really good in the game this weekend or else UCF will be eye tested down the rankings no matter what happens.

One last wrinkle to my scenario above – Pitt upsetting Clemson. Could you really keep out an undefeated team in favor of a two-loss team, when that undefeated team has a win over a power conference champion?

Yes, but the two-loss team would be Georgia. In a scenario where OSU, OU, Clemson, and Georgia all lose I could see:

1. Alabama
2. Notre Dame
3. Georgia
4. UCF

But would probably put my money on

1. Alabama
2. Notre Dame
3. Georgia
4. Oklahoma (assuming not a terrible loss to Texas)

If Georgia were to win the order gets shaken all up but the teams stay the same. Of course, OSU, OU, and Clemson all losing would have to be among the most unlikely events in sports postseason history. Wonder what that parlay gets you?

[Stray Gator]

Yes, but the two-loss team would be Georgia. In a scenario where OSU, OU, Clemson, and Georgia all lose I could see:

1. Alabama
2. Notre Dame
3. Georgia
4. UCF

But would probably put my money on

1. Alabama
2. Notre Dame
3. Georgia
4. Oklahoma (assuming not a terrible loss to Texas)

If Georgia were to win the order gets shaken all up but the teams stay the same. Of course, OSU, OU, and Clemson all losing would have to be among the most unlikely events in sports postseason history. Wonder what that parlay gets you?

I must be missing something. Clemson currently has no losses. If Pitt upsets Clemson, that would leave Clemson with only one loss. Why would a one-loss Clemson be left out of the playoff in favor of any two-loss team (or. for that matter, any other one-loss team, with the possible exception of Georgia and Alabama, should the SEC Championship Game result in an upset)?

[Acymetric]

I must be missing something. Clemson currently has no losses. If Pitt upsets Clemson, that would leave Clemson with only one loss. Why would a one-loss Clemson be left out of the playoff in favor of any two-loss team (or. for that matter, any other one-loss team, with the possible exception of Georgia and Alabama, should the SEC Championship Game result in an upset)?

I suppose my line of thinking is that the Pitt loss would be worse than OU's loss to Texas by enough that they would fall behind them (all of Clemson, UGA, OU, and OSU "drop" because everyone lost, but Clemson drops further because they lost to the worst team and since there's only so far to fall that means the other teams move up). Pitt is the only team in the Big 4 champ weekend not currently ranked in any poll, and I think that loss hurts if it were to happen (unlikely). It wouldn't take a whole lot to convince me Clemson still gets the 4th spot over OU with one less loss, but I think losing to Pitt takes them out of the running in a way that losing to Texas doesn't for OU. I don't care that they won their terrible division, Pitt is not a good team and that would be a bad look.

[75Crazie]

There is an idea that seems to be getting some traction now that I have not seen mentioned in this thread so far: the playoff could be extended to an 8-team playoff without having to add an additional game, by eliminating the incredibly stupid conference title games and replacing them with the first round of the 3-round playoff. These title games are rarely compelling to anybody other than fans of the specific teams and conference officials, and this year is a case in point. Here is how I would rate the five P5 conference title games, in descending order of interest:


SEC: The only reason I list this at the top is because it is the only game where both participants belong in an 8-team playoff; Alabama is obviously already the conference champion. The problem is that Alabama is in the 4-team playoff regardless of the result of this game, and Georgia is out of the playoff unless it pulls a big upset and wins the game … where it will quite possibly have to play Alabama yet again. I think most people believe Georgia belongs in a 4-team playoff; in an 8-team playoff, it should be ranked in the top 4 and play one of the next 4 teams in the first round.
Big 12: The only reason I rank this second is because Oklahoma has a lot to gain by winning this game. These two teams have already played this year and that, I believe, significantly reduces the neutral fan's interest in the game. Texas has little to gain in this game, aside from bragging rights. This is one of only two P5 conferences where the conference champion is not already obvious.
Big 10: The only possible interest in this game is the chaos that might result if Ohio St wins the game (along with an Oklahoma win), and that just continues the discussion that is already underway regarding the relative merits of these two teams. Otherwise, I believe this game is a big "meh" to most of the country. Ohio St is already the obvious conference champion.
ACC: The only reason I rate this game above the Pac 10 is because that latter game is a complete snooze; at least Clemson is well entrenched in the playoff discussion, and will remain there regardless of the result of this game. Pitt (really? Pitt? in a conference title game???) has little to gain here (I don't think it will gain a whole lot in bowl ranking), and Clemson really not much to lose (it is already the obvious conference champion).
Pac 10: Nothing much to say here, a complete "meh" game, justifying the anti-West bias of the rest of the country. The only reason at all to play it is if anybody really cares who the Pac-10 conference champ is.

The only reason for conference title games is a money grab … but would that money really be much (if any) less than the first round of a three-round playoff would generate? And the level of interest in the casual fan would be much greater, I believe, with a three-round playoff.

I am not much of a fan of conference championship tournaments in basketball, but I believe basketball is much more suited to accepting them. They make no sense at all for football (except, as mentioned, as a money grab).

[OldPhiKap]

I don’t think you can eliminate conference playoffs given the unbalanced schedules.

[AGDukesky]

I don’t think you can eliminate conference playoffs given the unbalanced schedules.

I say you can keep conference championships if no non-winners can make the playoff over an undefeated team. Treat it as an elimination game in that scenario...

[Stray Gator]

I suppose my line of thinking is that the Pitt loss would be worse than OU's loss to Texas by enough that they would fall behind them (all of Clemson, UGA, OU, and OSU "drop" because everyone lost, but Clemson drops further because they lost to the worst team and since there's only so far to fall that means the other teams move up). Pitt is the only team in the Big 4 champ weekend not currently ranked in any poll, and I think that loss hurts if it were to happen (unlikely). It wouldn't take a whole lot to convince me Clemson still gets the 4th spot over OU with one less loss, but I think losing to Pitt takes them out of the running in a way that losing to Texas doesn't for OU. I don't care that they won their terrible division, Pitt is not a good team and that would be a bad look.

I just don't see how the Committee could rationalize a decision by which an Oklahoma team with an 11-2 record gets a spot in the playoff over a Clemson team with a 12-1 record. And if that happened, I believe it would prompt an uproar of protest from voices far beyond ACC officials and fans. Say what you will about Pitt, but they are a division champion that won 4 of their last 5 games, including at then-ranked Virginia, and were ranked until the loss to Miami last Saturday. Texas has only 1 more win on the season than Pitt, so it's not like the Longhorns are due that much more respect, at least based on their record.

[jimsumner]

A pun (a good one) or some beer knowledge would suffice. But some look askance even at that. We've become so fractious.

A lawn joke with a pun about beer would be perfect.

[luvdahops]

I just don't see how the Committee could rationalize a decision by which an Oklahoma team with an 11-2 record gets a spot in the playoff over a Clemson team with a 12-1 record. And if that happened, I believe it would prompt an uproar of protest from voices far beyond ACC officials and fans. Say what you will about Pitt, but they are a division champion that won 4 of their last 5 games, including at then-ranked Virginia, and were ranked until the loss to Miami last Saturday. Texas has only 1 more win on the season than Pitt, so it's not like the Longhorns are due that much more respect, at least based on their record.

Pitt also played Notre Dame very tough in South Bend, losing 19-14 after leading for 3+ quarters, and totally shutting down the Irish running game. The Panthers were a completely different - and very good - team after their miserable September.

[Acymetric]

I just don't see how the Committee could rationalize a decision by which an Oklahoma team with an 11-2 record gets a spot in the playoff over a Clemson team with a 12-1 record. And if that happened, I believe it would prompt an uproar of protest from voices far beyond ACC officials and fans. Say what you will about Pitt, but they are a division champion that won 4 of their last 5 games, including at then-ranked Virginia, and were ranked until the loss to Miami last Saturday. Texas has only 1 more win on the season than Pitt, so it's not like the Longhorns are due that much more respect, at least based on their record.

The same way a 13-0 UCF gets left out. Better resume. What does the committee value more? One bad loss, or two decent losses? How bad do they see the Pitt loss vs. a Texas loss? I don't know the answer and wouldn't be comfortable putting any money on an outcome either way, but Oklahoma passing Clemson certainly seems within the realm of possibility in that case. When your playoff includes 3 teams that didn't win their conference, things are going to be squirrelly no matter what.



I say you can keep conference championships if no non-winners can make the playoff over an undefeated team. Treat it as an elimination game in that scenario...

I would like this rule no matter what happens with playoff expansion.

[75Crazie]

I don’t think you can eliminate conference playoffs given the unbalanced schedules.
I do not think that a conference championship game in any way eliminates or compensates for the inherent unfairness of unbalanced schedules. And I am not about to post my feelings regarding the absurdity of 16-member football conferences … I know that ship has long sailed, for worse or for worser.

[OldPhiKap]

I do not think that a conference championship game in any way eliminates or compensates for the inherent unfairness of unbalanced schedules. And I am not about to post my feelings regarding the absurdity of 16-member football conferences … I know that ship has long sailed, for worse or for worser.

It does not eliminate it, but it would be worsterer (a/k/a/ "Wirtz") if the winners of the two divisions at least did not play. Pitt should have a chance to knock of Clemson and grab the title. Georgia deserves a shot at Alabama. Notre Dame gets a ding for being a special snowflake too good to join a conference. JMO, reasonable minds can differ.


I say you can keep conference championships if no non-winners can make the playoff over an undefeated team. Treat it as an elimination game in that scenario...

I am okay with the four-team-playoff. But if they want to make it eight, just have four playoff bowls before New Year's Eve; two more for the winners the next weekend; and then play the championship the Saturday before the Super Bowl.

But that really gives the teams who get all that extra practice a big leg-up for the next year. And theoretically, there are classes and you don't want to drag into another semester. So I'm fine with what we have, and would rather argue about who is the left out fifth team than the old days where you argued over who was #1 or #2 since one would be playing in the Rose Bowl and the other would be playing in the Cotton Bowl or Orange Bowl, without ever settling it on the field.

[JasonEvans]

Pac 10: Nothing much to say here, a complete "meh" game, justifying the anti-West bias of the rest of the country. The only reason at all to play it is if anybody really cares who the Pac-10 conference champ is.

I promise, I did not cheat and peek. I have no idea who is playing in the Pac 10 (isn't it Pac 12 now?) championship game. None. I recall Wash St (Mike Leach is an offensive genius) being surprisingly good, but I think they lost to Washington this past week, didn't they?

I'll go out on a limb and say that the Pac 10 championship game is Washington versus Stanford because those two teams have been fairly good in recent years. Really, unless there is a Pac 10 team near the top of the standings, I just have no reason to pay attention to that league as it is generally really mediocre (and I'm an ACC fan saying that!).

Ok, let me look to see who is actually playing... It is Washington and Utah. I got it half right. Wow, you could have given me at least 5 or 6 guesses before I got to Utah.

-Jason "the fact that none of us really cares whether it is Pac 10 or Pac 12 also speaks volumes" Evans

[Wander]

I promise, I did not cheat and peek. I have no idea who is playing in the Pac 10 (isn't it Pac 12 now?) championship game. None. I recall Wash St (Mike Leach is an offensive genius) being surprisingly good, but I think they lost to Washington this past week, didn't they?

I'll go out on a limb and say that the Pac 10 championship game is Washington versus Stanford because those two teams have been fairly good in recent years. Really, unless there is a Pac 10 team near the top of the standings, I just have no reason to pay attention to that league as it is generally really mediocre (and I'm an ACC fan saying that!).

Ok, let me look to see who is actually playing... It is Washington and Utah. I got it half right. Wow, you could have given me at least 5 or 6 guesses before I got to Utah.

-Jason "the fact that none of us really cares whether it is Pac 10 or Pac 12 also speaks volumes" Evans

I agree... but the ACC would be even worse if not for Clemson. UCF arguably faces a tougher opponent in its championship game than Clemson does.

- Wan "does anyone believe anyone of this really matters because Alabama is going to roll to the title anyway?" der

[devildeac]

A lawn joke with a pun about beer would be perfect.

Thanks to Jim for getting me/us self-propelled and pinted in the proper direction.

[devildeac]

I agree... but the ACC would be even worse if not for Clemson. UCF arguably faces a tougher opponent in its championship game than Clemson does.

- Wan "does anyone believe anyone of this really matters because Alabama is going to roll to the title anyway?" der

Did you *really* mean "roll to the tide-le?"

:o

[Stray Gator]

The same way a 13-0 UCF gets left out. Better resume. What does the committee value more? One bad loss, or two decent losses? How bad do they see the Pitt loss vs. a Texas loss? I don't know the answer and wouldn't be comfortable putting any money on an outcome either way, but Oklahoma passing Clemson certainly seems within the realm of possibility in that case. When your playoff includes 3 teams that didn't win their conference, things are going to be squirrelly no matter what. . . .

I can see we're probably headed towards an impasse and must simply agree to disagree. But I'll add these observations/opinions:

1. I think that leaving UCF out of the playoff is justified not only because their strength of schedule is far below that of Clemson or Oklahoma -- or, for that matter, Texas or Pitt -- but also because their star quarterback would not be able to play. We've seen the NCAA Basketball Tournament Committee drop the seeding of teams that suffer injuries to key players (most notably, when a Cincinnati team with the top RPI was dropped to a 2 seed in 2000 after Kenyon Martin broke his leg in the conference tourney). Of course, if UCF appears to be just as strong against Memphis in the conference championship game with a back-up QB, that reason may have less merit; but to ignore the likelihood of a drop-off in offensive effectiveness would be unrealistic, and IMO unfair to the other contenders, even if UCF wins on Saturday.

2. If you ascribe credibility to Sagarin, whose metrics are generally regarded around here as reliable, Oklahoma's strength of schedule is ranked 37th, while Clemson's is ranked 48th -- a relatively modest difference of 11 spots. Texas has an SOS ranking of 20, which is fairly impressive; but Pitt's SOS ranking is slightly better at 19. Given that Texas has won one more game, I'll grant that a Clemson loss to Pitt would be a little worse than an Oklahoma loss to Texas. But not, in my judgment at least, sufficiently worse to overcome the fact that Oklahoma would have 2 losses while Clemson would have only 1. I certainly don't believe the difference so great as to support your view that a loss to Texas would be "decent" while a loss to Pitt would be "bad." By comparison, UCF's strength of schedule ranking is 94.

3. It seems to me that your argument, at least implicitly, tries to have it both ways. You suggest that it might be unfair to exclude UCF based on its resume; yet the only Power 5 team that UCF has defeated is Pitt -- a team that you say "is not a good team." And no team that UCF has played now ranks in the top 30. If a college basketball team goes undefeated playing a schedule that ranks well into the lower half of all Division I schools and includes no team in the top 30, don't you agree that it would it be appropriate for the Committee to consider the difference in competition as a significant factor when determining that team's seeding?

4. Finally, count me in the camp that believes the playoff is meaningless unless it matches the four best college football teams, and that conference championships should have no bearing unless it comes down to breaking a tie between two of the five best teams that otherwise appear equal.

[Ranidad]

Contrary to a mention previously in the thread Pitt is ranked. While it is hard to forget about Pitt's loss to the Cheats, their other losses are: Notre Dame, UCF, and Penn State - three teams with a combined total of three losses (and those losses were Ohio St., Michigan, and Michigan State).

Not saying that they are a great team but they are similar to Northwestern this year... Awful non-conference record followed by a one loss conference season.


The UCF QB injury clearly leaves the committee with an easy way to "justify" leaving an undefeated UCF out of the playoff even without any one loss teams available to fill the last open slot. I just think that a scenario with NO one loss teams is another fun chaos scenario.

In that scenario I think that Georgia would be the last team in because:
- Loss to #1 Alabama would be the best 2nd loss on the board
- they are the highest ranked one loss team now

[Kfanarmy]

What is the purpose of the CFP? I believe it is to decide who the national champion is, not to showcase the top 4 rated teams in the country, regardless of the metric.

Given the current schedule and number of games, it is patently unfair for team A to have to beat team B twice to win the national championship; while team B only has to beat team A once in two games, ie. lose the first game but win the second. ala Alabama a few years ago against LSU.

Conference strength I believe is unduly weighted by the bowl results, which inherently favor the SEC and teams in the south because of climate and proximity to the fan base. Rules I'd like to see:

1) if you have a conference championship game, you must win it to be in consideration for the playoff.
2) Undefeated teams are selected first.
3) Out-of-conference SOS determines selection after undefeated teams, beginning with all one loss teams. (if you are a one loss conference champion and your best OOC win is against an FCS opponent, you shouldn't be playing for the NCAA Championship IMHO).

An undefeated conference champion should get the opportunity, every day, over a team that didn't win their conference. It is a ridiculous argument that the second or third place finisher in one conference might have a better chance of beating the top ranked team than another conference champion. The reality is that on any given day a team can be beat. Regardless of potential to win a single head-to-head game, the undefeated team has earned the right to compete for the national championship while the non-conference-champion has not.

In my view the conference championships have to be considered paramount. Imagine if the NCAA Basketball tournament, with 64 teams, decided to take the 6th best PAC12 team over the AAC champion because someone decided UCLA was more likely to beat Gonzaga than the AAC team. There would be a justified outcry.
So why give the second (or third) place SEC team a shot to win the four-team NCAAF tournament, over a team that has won their conference, or gone undefeated, or beaten multiple ranked teams from multiple conferences? A system that does that is inherently flawed because it lives off of self-fulfilling bias.

[Kfanarmy]

Contrary to a mention previously in the thread Pitt is ranked. While it is hard to forget about Pitt's loss to the Cheats, their other losses are: Notre Dame, UCF, and Penn State - three teams with a combined total of three losses (and those losses were Ohio St., Michigan, and Michigan State).

Not saying that they are a great team but they are similar to Northwestern this year... Awful non-conference record followed by a one loss conference season.


The UCF QB injury clearly leaves the committee with an easy way to "justify" leaving an undefeated UCF out of the playoff even without any one loss teams available to fill the last open slot. I just think that a scenario with NO one loss teams is another fun chaos scenario.

In that scenario I think that Georgia would be the last team in because:
- Loss to #1 Alabama would be the best 2nd loss on the board
- they are the highest ranked one loss team now

UCF's backup lead them to 28 points if my facts are correct...that consideration is just noise to justify keeping the $ market share in the power conferences.

[Wander]

Contrary to a mention previously in the thread Pitt is ranked. While it is hard to forget about Pitt's loss to the Cheats, their other losses are: Notre Dame, UCF, and Penn State - three teams with a combined total of three losses (and those losses were Ohio St., Michigan, and Michigan State).

Not saying that they are a great team but they are similar to Northwestern this year... Awful non-conference record followed by a one loss conference season.


The UCF QB injury clearly leaves the committee with an easy way to "justify" leaving an undefeated UCF out of the playoff even without any one loss teams available to fill the last open slot. I just think that a scenario with NO one loss teams is another fun chaos scenario.

In that scenario I think that Georgia would be the last team in because:
- Loss to #1 Alabama would be the best 2nd loss on the board
- they are the highest ranked one loss team now

I think you are watching a television feed that has a one-week delay on it. Pitt is not ranked, and they have another loss to Miami. They might be the worst power conference division winner ever... but if they win you have to give UCF credit for beating the ACC champion.

That being said, I agree that Georgia probably gets in the playoff in the Chaos Scenario. But what if they lose by a lot, and UCF's offense still looks good in a win? So five things have to happen:

1. Alabama beats Georgia, by a lot
2. Northwestern beats Ohio State
3. Texas beats Oklahoma
4. UCF beats Memphis, and their offense looks really good doing it
5. Pitt beats Clemson

I think UCF gets in if all of the above happen. That is obviously extremely unlikely, but it's fun that going into conference championship weekend UCF has a tiny chance... I think.

[Acymetric]

I can see we're probably headed towards an impasse and must simply agree to disagree. But I'll add these observations/opinions:

1. I think that leaving UCF out of the playoff is justified not only because their strength of schedule is far below that of Clemson or Oklahoma -- or, for that matter, Texas or Pitt -- but also because their star quarterback would not be able to play. We've seen the NCAA Basketball Tournament Committee drop the seeding of teams that suffer injuries to key players (most notably, when a Cincinnati team with the top RPI was dropped to a 2 seed in 2000 after Kenyon Martin broke his leg in the conference tourney). Of course, if UCF appears to be just as strong against Memphis in the conference championship game with a back-up QB, that reason may have less merit; but to ignore the likelihood of a drop-off in offensive effectiveness would be unrealistic, and IMO unfair to the other contenders, even if UCF wins on Saturday.

2. If you ascribe credibility to Sagarin, whose metrics are generally regarded around here as reliable, Oklahoma's strength of schedule is ranked 37th, while Clemson's is ranked 48th -- a relatively modest difference of 11 spots. Texas has an SOS ranking of 20, which is fairly impressive; but Pitt's SOS ranking is slightly better at 19. Given that Texas has won one more game, I'll grant that a Clemson loss to Pitt would be a little worse than an Oklahoma loss to Texas. But not, in my judgment at least, sufficiently worse to overcome the fact that Oklahoma would have 2 losses while Clemson would have only 1. I certainly don't believe the difference so great as to support your view that a loss to Texas would be "decent" while a loss to Pitt would be "bad." By comparison, UCF's strength of schedule ranking is 94.

3. It seems to me that your argument, at least implicitly, tries to have it both ways. You suggest that it might be unfair to exclude UCF based on its resume; yet the only Power 5 team that UCF has defeated is Pitt -- a team that you say "is not a good team." And no team that UCF has played now ranks in the top 30. If a college basketball team goes undefeated playing a schedule that ranks well into the lower half of all Division I schools and includes no team in the top 30, don't you agree that it would it be appropriate for the Committee to consider the difference in competition as a significant factor when determining that team's seeding?

4. Finally, count me in the camp that believes the playoff is meaningless unless it matches the four best college football teams, and that conference championships should have no bearing unless it comes down to breaking a tie between two of the five best teams that otherwise appear equal.

We don't need to agree to disagree, because I (personally) think your points are reasonable. I wouldn't jump Oklahoma over Clemson if both were to lose. But while I do put quite a bit of stock into Sagarin, when it comes to predicting what the committee will do, I put more stock into what the committee has already said. And they believe Texas is the #14 team in the nation while Pitt is not ranked in the top 25 at all. My take is that the committee views Pitt as a worse team than Sagarin might indicate, and Texas as a better one. I'm not suggesting that the committee is more correct than Sagarin, but I am saying that the committee's rankings will have more influence on the committee than Sagarin will. I'm not saying that Oklahoma will jump Clemson in this scenario or necessarily that they should, I am saying it is a plausible outcome based on how the committee has ranked the teams thus far. Less than 50%, but not by as much as you might think.


Contrary to a mention previously in the thread Pitt is ranked. While it is hard to forget about Pitt's loss to the Cheats, their other losses are: Notre Dame, UCF, and Penn State - three teams with a combined total of three losses (and those losses were Ohio St., Michigan, and Michigan State).

Incorrect. They are not ranked in the committee's rankings and did not receive votes in the AP or Coaches polls this week. They were ranked last week. That they were dropped from the committee rankings is particularly important to my discussion with Stray Gator above. They also didn't just fall out of the top 25 of the polls, they received no votes in either poll.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings

Note the "dropped from rankings" sections for each poll.

In case you don't trust ESPN: https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings

[Highlander]

IMO, no matter how big the playoff is, we will always quibble with the last team in/out. NCAA field is 68(ish) teams and every year when the bracket is announced we have to listen to the prognosticators argue about how team 69 should have gotten in over someone. So the same thing will happen with team #9 in an 8 team field. We just move the goalposts a few spots down the rankings.

Most of the quibbles I have heard with the current system I think boil down to that its goal is to pick the 4 "best" teams and the criteria of who is best is inherently subjective. Looking back, I personally haven't had any complaints on who the committee has chosen in any year, and most years the winner has been a slight surprise based on seeding (the #1 seed has never one the playoff, and the #4 seed has won twice FWIW). If the goal is to get the 4 best teams, I'm less concerned about whether #5 deserved a spot and more concerned with whether #5 was a legitimate title contender. If the answer is yes, then maybe we need a bigger field. If the answer is no, then I think it's fine the way it is. One advantage of the current system is the regular season is incredibly important and serves as a season long playoff. If you lose twice, you're out. Go undefeated, and you're most likely in (if you're in a P5 conference anyway).

Lastly, I think a lot of this is SEC and Alabama fatigue. The SEC conference champion was a virtual lock for the BCS title game every year (by my count the SEC played in 10 of the 15 BCS title games, and in 2012 they took both spots). They've also made every single playoff, and in 2018 even had 2 of the 4 spots, including both spots in the National title game. Oh, and they are 5-2 in the CFB playoff (6-3 if you count their win and loss in 2018). The SEC gets the benefit of the doubt when resumes are equal, but it's hard to argue they haven't earned that distinction. Many grumbled that Alabama should not have made the playoff last year after failing to win their SEC division, but it's hard to criticize their selection when they won the whole thing as a #4 seed.

[Wander]

But while I do put quite a bit of stock into Sagarin, when it comes to predicting what the committee will do, I put more stock into what the committee has already said. And they believe Texas is the #14 team in the nation while Pitt is not ranked in the top 25 at all. My take is that the committee views Pitt as a worse team than Sagarin might indicate, and Texas as a better one. I'm not suggesting that the committee is more correct than Sagarin, but I am saying that the committee's rankings will have more influence on the committee than Sagarin will.

Sagarin has Texas at 20 and Pitt at 50. So I think you and I and the committee and Sagarin are all on the same page. Pitt is an average team overall and extremely bad for a power divison champion. I would guess Clemson stays ahead of Oklahoma if Clemson loses and Oklahoma wins, but I agree it is not 100%.

[Acymetric]

IMO, no matter how big the playoff is, we will always quibble with the last team in/out. NCAA field is 68(ish) teams and every year when the bracket is announced we have to listen to the prognosticators argue about how team 69 should have gotten in over someone. So the same thing will happen with team #9 in an 8 team field. We just move the goalposts a few spots down the rankings.

Most of the quibbles I have heard with the current system I think boil down to that its goal is to pick the 4 "best" teams and the criteria of who is best is inherently subjective. Looking back, I personally haven't had any complaints on who the committee has chosen in any year, and most years the winner has been a slight surprise based on seeding (the #1 seed has never one the playoff, and the #4 seed has won twice FWIW). If the goal is to get the 4 best teams, I'm less concerned about whether #5 deserved a spot and more concerned with whether #5 was a legitimate title contender. If the answer is yes, then maybe we need a bigger field. If the answer is no, then I think it's fine the way it is. One advantage of the current system is the regular season is incredibly important and serves as a season long playoff. If you lose twice, you're out. Go undefeated, and you're most likely in (if you're in a P5 conference anyway).

Lastly, I think a lot of this is SEC and Alabama fatigue. The SEC conference champion was a virtual lock for the BCS title game every year (by my count the SEC played in 10 of the 15 BCS title games, and in 2012 they took both spots). They've also made every single playoff, and in 2018 even had 2 of the 4 spots, including both spots in the National title game. Oh, and they are 5-2 in the CFB playoff (6-3 if you count their win and loss in 2018). The SEC gets the benefit of the doubt when resumes are equal, but it's hard to argue they haven't earned that distinction. Many grumbled that Alabama should not have made the playoff last year after failing to win their SEC division, but it's hard to criticize their selection when they won the whole thing as a #4 seed.

The problem is (IMO) that the sample size of the season is not enough to really determine who is and isn't a title contender. With 8 teams, you probably include 1 or 2 teams who are not true contenders, but you also include all the teams that are which is ideal and also open up some underdog storylines every 10-15 years or so. I would rather include an extra team than exclude 2 teams that deserve a shot (including the extra team is even a bit of a feature, gives the #1 team a softer "non-contender" opponent if they really aren't contenders. The NCAA basketball tournament is just about being left out, nobody really thinks those borderline teams are legit title contenders so there is no need to expand (please dear lord no expansion there). Football is different because you can certainly argue that UGA, OU, and OSU and UCF are legit contenders, or at least should have a shot.

[budwom]

Spending ten seconds wondering about the ramifications of a Pitt win vs. Clemmons is a waste of ten seconds. Clemmons is going to sit on Pitt and asphyxiate them. It's not going to be close.

[elvis14]

I know the 8 team playoff has been discussed in the past but I'd much rather argue over who's #9 than who's #5. Simple solution (which I read here on DBR last year): 5 power conference champions and 3 at large bids. This would get UCF and ND in as at large and if Ga beats 'Bama, it would get a team like Alabama in. If all the top teams win this week we have to choose between OSU and OU. With 8 teams, they would both be in.

If all the top teams win the playoffs might look like this:

1) Alabama (SEC)
2) Clemson (ACC)
3) ND (At Large)
4) OU (Big 12)
5) OSU (Big 10)
6) UCF (At Large)
7) UGa (At Large)
8) Washington (Pac-12)

Bama-Washington
Clemson-UGa
ND-UCF
OU-OSU

That's 3 awesome games, and a Bama game.
Bama-OU
Clemson-ND

Then Clemson beats Bama to win the Natty!

See I have it all figured out! Gold star for me!

Go Tigers!!!!

[budwom]

I know the 8 team playoff has been discussed in the past but I'd much rather argue over who's #9 than who's #5. Simple solution (which I read here on DBR last year): 5 power conference champions and 3 at large bids. This would get UCF and ND in as at large and if Ga beats 'Bama, it would get a team like Alabama in. If all the top teams win this week we have to choose between OSU and OU. With 8 teams, they would both be in.

If all the top teams win the playoffs might look like this:

1) Alabama (SEC)
2) Clemson (ACC)
3) ND (At Large)
4) OU (Big 12)
5) OSU (Big 10)
6) UCF (At Large)
7) UGa (At Large)
8) Washington (Pac-12)

Bama-Washington
Clemson-UGa
ND-UCF
OU-OSU

That's 3 awesome games, and a Bama game.
Bama-OU
Clemson-ND

Then Clemson beats Bama to win the Natty!

See I have it all figured out! Gold star for me!

Go Tigers!!!!

Alas, such a proposed solution would require that too many of our bookwormish student ath-a-leets be away from their theses, regression analyses and the like. Having begun practice in August, they simply don't have the time
for a possible extra game, that would ruin everything.

[devildeac]

I know the 8 team playoff has been discussed in the past but I'd much rather argue over who's #9 than who's #5. Simple solution (which I read here on DBR last year): 5 power conference champions and 3 at large bids. This would get UCF and ND in as at large and if Ga beats 'Bama, it would get a team like Alabama in. If all the top teams win this week we have to choose between OSU and OU. With 8 teams, they would both be in.

If all the top teams win the playoffs might look like this:

1) Alabama (SEC)
2) Clemson (ACC)
3) ND (At Large)
4) OU (Big 12)
5) OSU (Big 10)
6) UCF (At Large)
7) UGa (At Large)
8) Washington (Pac-12)

Bama-Washington
Clemson-UGa
ND-UCF
OU-OSU

That's 3 awesome games, and a Bama game.
Bama-OU
Clemson-ND

Then Clemson beats Bama to win the Natty!

See I have it all figured out! Gold star for me!

Go Tigers!!!!

88508850

Because I can't give you any (gold) sporks as I've temporarily depleted my supply for you.

But, two stars is as many as I will give for now. Maybe more if Clemson wins the ACCCG and a couple CFP games ;).

[JasonEvans]

Alas, such a proposed solution would require that too many of our bookwormish student ath-a-leets be away from their theses, regression analyses and the like. Having begun practice in August, they simply don't have the time for a possible extra game, that would ruin everything.

I get that the argument you outlined is the one used by all the powers that be as they feign concern, but the reality is that we are talking about adding 1 more game in late Dec/early Jan, which is a time of year that generally all schools are on break. Play the first R8 games on Xmas eve or day, the R4 games on Jan 1, and the championship game on the first Sat/Sun/Mon after New Year's and no one misses any extra classes.

[luvdahops]

I get that the argument you outlined is the one used by all the powers that be as they feign concern, but the reality is that we are talking about adding 1 more game in late Dec/early Jan, which is a time of year that generally all schools are on break. Play the first R8 games on Xmas eve or day, the R4 games on Jan 1, and the championship game on the first Sat/Sun/Mon after New Year's and no one misses any extra classes.

FWIW, most of the "expand to 8" discussions that I have seen propose having the round of 8 games in mid-December on campuses of the higher seeded teams to minimize impact on bowls and the need for out of town travel (teams and fans).

[JasonEvans]

FWIW, most of the "expand to 8" discussions that I have seen propose having the round of 8 games in mid-December on campuses of the higher seeded teams to minimize impact on bowls and the need for out of town travel (teams and fans).

I like that even better. Play the games the weekend before Xmas and you still don't impact classroom attendance**.

-Jason "**- worth noting that the NCAA pretty much forfeited their moral high ground to cry about educating players with their hands off attitude about the worst academic scandal in NCAA history" Evans

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I like that even better. Play the games the weekend before Xmas and you still don't impact classroom attendance**.

-Jason "**- worth noting that the NCAA pretty much forfeited their moral high ground to cry about educating players with their hands off attitude about the worst academic scandal in NCAA history" Evans

The NCAA is so worried about missing school for a small number of "student athletes" on the few teams involved. Meanwhile, I just did a little research on the FCS playoffs. It appears to include 24 teams at the beginning. All games are played on campus until the championship. Games were played November 24, Dec. 1, Dec. 7/8, Dec. 14/15 with the final in early January (that's a lot of games during exams for those of you scoring at home).

A lot of these schools are in pretty remote locations and I'm guessing these teams do not have the budgets to fly private jets to get there. I'm guessing some effort is made to keep teams relatively local in early rounds like in basketball but this obviously falls apart as it progresses. Very few of these players will make a dime playing football. Yet no one complains about the academic impact. So I think D1 football can manage to have 3 rounds.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2018-11-15/2018-fcs-playoffs-bracket-schedule-scores-how-watch

[Ranidad]

My bad on Pitt, I believe that I have erased last weekend from my mind after Duke and Michigan apparently had already decided that the season was over.

[arnie]

The NCAA is so worried about missing school for a small number of "student athletes" on the few teams involved. Meanwhile, I just did a little research on the FCS playoffs. It appears to include 24 teams at the beginning. All games are played on campus until the championship. Games were played November 24, Dec. 1, Dec. 7/8, Dec. 14/15 with the final in early January (that's a lot of games during exams for those of you scoring at home).

A lot of these schools are in pretty remote locations and I'm guessing these teams do not have the budgets to fly private jets to get there. I'm guessing some effort is made to keep teams relatively local in early rounds like in basketball but this obviously falls apart as it progresses. Very few of these players will make a dime playing football. Yet no one complains about the academic impact. So I think D1 football can manage to have 3 rounds.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2018-11-15/2018-fcs-playoffs-bracket-schedule-scores-how-watch

Bingo. The expansion to 8 teams will be expedited when the B1G misses the current playoff format another couple of years. The very slow movement to an equitable playoff is entrenched in B1G and to lesser extent PAC 12 resistance. They’ve always wanted to keep the party small(remember they loved the idea that Rose Bowl crowned the best team - and strongly resisted the BCS concept). Now that they may not invited to a smaller party, I think the train will roll to 8. None this has anything to do with students missing classes.

[TampaDuke]

UCF's backup lead them to 28 points if my facts are correct...that consideration is just noise to justify keeping the $ market share in the power conferences.

Not to mention leading them to 30 points in an easy 37-10 win earlier this season when UCF’s QB was out injured, albeit over a terrible ECU team.

Unfortunately, Milton’s injury gives the committee a ready-made excuse to drop them from consideration, even in the doomsday scenario.

For what it’s worth, I think expanding the playoffs to 8 teams is the way to go. But if that’s in exchange for not having conference championships, I think non-Power 5 teams actually have less of a shot of getting in. The smaller conferences need the guaranteed chaos of P5 teams beating each other at season’s end. Otherwise, you’d have mediocre teams like UF, Penn State, Texas, WV, Kentucky, etc., clamoring that they should get in. UCF is only ranked as high this year because of last year and the fact that they beat Auburn, the only team to beat Alabama. That wouldn’t be the norm in my opinion.

[Acymetric]

Did the Duke receivers transfer to Alabama for the postseason? Some very familiar looking drops...

[Indoor66]

How 'bout dem dawgs!

[Bob Green]

Georgia offense is utilizing an unbalanced line which seems to have Alabama defense confused.

[Acymetric]

So...I guess it's Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, and Notre Dame assuming Clemson wins? Wonder what the order will be? Clemson #1? UGA leapfrogs all the way to #1?

[jimsumner]

I thought Georgia had Alabama beat the last time they played. Several times.

[Bob Green]

Alabama throws another interception.

[Bob Green]

Touchdown Alabama. This is a great game. Georgia 28, Alabama 21.

[Acymetric]

If this score holds and the Big 12/Big 10 get left out, do they (and maybe the PAC-?) start making a push to require that you win your conference to get in after being left out in favor of multiple SEC teams again?

[JasonEvans]

I don’t care what happens for the next 12 minutes. If Alabama comes back and wins, Georgia should be in the playoffs. There’s little question that they are one of the four best teams in the country. Heck, I think there’s little question that they’re one of the two best teams in the country.

[JasonEvans]

If Jalen Hurts leads Alabama to victory here, every Georgia fan in the world is just going to slit their throat so they can have these sweet, sweet release of death.

[Acymetric]

Did Tua get injured? I know he tweaked something earlier in the game, why did they take him out?

[OldPhiKap]

If Jalen Hurts leads Alabama to victory here, every Georgia fan in the world is just going to slit their throat so they can have these sweet, sweet release of death.

Either of these teams would be favored over Clemson over ND I think. Agree.

[JasonEvans]

The fake punt on fourth down felt like a desperation move by the Dawgs.

[Bluedog]

Is it just me or does it seem like Bama gets all the calls? Hahaha, I don't think there's some conspiracy for the record. Just random. Missed a clear face mask. Georgia now down to one last play...missed chip FG, poor fake punt, etc have proved costly.

[Acymetric]

I don’t care what happens for the next 12 minutes. If Alabama comes back and wins, Georgia should be in the playoffs. There’s little question that they are one of the four best teams in the country. Heck, I think there’s little question that they’re one of the two best teams in the country.

Ugh. I can't think of something I'd be less interested in seeing than UGA - Bama again.

[JasonEvans]

I am really really glad I am not a big Ga fan. This would be extremely painful... and it feels unfair. They were the better team a year ago and the better team tonight. 2 losses, 0 national titles.

[JasonEvans]

Ugh. I can't think of something I'd be less interested in seeing than UGA - Bama again.

Because you would prefer to watch Bama crush lesser teams instead? This was a great game, extremely entertaining and competitive. Why would you not want to see these excellent teams play again?

[OldPhiKap]

The fake punt on fourth down felt like a desperation move by the Dawgs.

Yup, and really dumb.

[Acymetric]

Because you would prefer to watch Bama crush lesser teams instead? This was a great game, extremely entertaining and competitive. Why would you not want to see these excellent teams play again?

Because I already saw them play. Don't need to see it again. Maybe any team other than Georgia will get run off the field. Maybe not. Would prefer to find out than to assume it to be the case and see the rematch.

[arnie]

I am really really glad I am not a big Ga fan. This would be extremely painful... and it feels unfair. They were the better team a year ago and the better team tonight. 2 losses, 0 national titles.

Not sure why you think Georgia the better team tonite😞. Bama loses their QB and still wins. Will agree that was a stupid fake punt call on 4th and long at midfield.

[Acymetric]

Not sure why you think Georgia the better team tonite😞. Bama loses their QB and still wins. Will agree that was a stupid fake punt call on 4th and long at midfield.

Looked like bad play calling and clock management by UGA starting with that fake punt to me. Hate to use the word "choked" but..

[OldPhiKap]

Go Clemson, go Northwestern!

[Bob Green]

Go Clemson, go Northwestern!

Seconded!

I want to see Clemson keep winning for conference pride and I want to see Northwestern, a team we beat in Week 2, win their conference championship.

[jimsumner]

I rest my case.

[A-Tex Devil]

For those advocating Georgia get in, they shouldn’t have lost to LSU. The regular season still needs to have an elimination quality to it [sarcasm font] or we might as well just put four SEC teams in each year given their top 6 or 7 teams would clearly win all of the other conferences[/sarcasm font].

Seriously, though, if Georgia gets in and we don’t immediately expand to 8 after this year, we might as well just give the SEC two spots each year in tribute.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Saw more amazing one handed catches today in two games (UT-OU and Bama Georgia) than we see in Duke's games for a decade........

[Bob Green]

Saw more amazing one handed catches today in two games (UT-OU and Bama Georgia) than we see in Duke's games for a decade....

Your negativity toward Duke football is obnoxious and getting old, quickly.

[YmoBeThere]

Go Clemson, go Northwestern!


Seconded!

I want to see Clemson keep winning for conference pride and I want to see Northwestern, a team we beat in Week 2, win their conference championship.

Is anyone really going to watch these two games? We'll see if Clemson can muster something when they face 'bama for the title.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Is anyone really going to watch these two games? We'll see if Clemson can muster something when they face 'bama for the title.

Absolutely gonna watch....weather could be the big equalizer tonight...rain in Charlotte....Pitt a good mudder team

[Acymetric]

Weather not helping Pitt much so far.

[OldPhiKap]

Is anyone really going to watch these two games? We'll see if Clemson can muster something when they face 'bama for the title.

Yeah, but gonna be hard to bear that SEC game.

And although I think UGA > Oklahoma > tOSU, a two-loss UGA falls behind both in the playoff picture I think.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Weather not helping Pitt much so far.

...helping them a lot now

[Stray Gator]

I am really really glad I am not a big Ga fan. This would be extremely painful... and it feels unfair. They were the better team a year ago and the better team tonight. 2 losses, 0 national titles.

I've never been accused of being a fan of either team, but I don't understand why you think the outcome "feels unfair," and I certainly don't agree that Georgia was "the better team," either last year or tonight. In this game, Alabama had to overcome far greater adversity -- a key defensive player ineligible for the first half, a quarterback playing for three quarters on a gimpy ankle that left him unable to run or scramble effectively and whose normal passing accuracy was obviously hampered by the injury, several dropped passes by usually reliable receivers, and giving up two turnovers -- both of which abruptly terminated drives at or near the goal line -- while having no takeaways. I expect that Dawg fans will question the penalty differential, but the only thing I saw in the game that was truly "unfair" to Georgia was some inexplicably boneheaded playcalling by their own head coach.

[devilsadvocate85]

Yeah, but gonna be hard to bear that SEC game.

And although I think UGA > Oklahoma > tOSU, a two-loss UGA falls behind both in the playoff picture I think.

I think you are correct about what will happen but I don’t think it should. The committee felt Georgia was better going into this weekend. How does what happened today provide any evidence that either or both Oklahoma or Ohio State are now better than Georgia?

[Stray Gator]

I think you are correct about what will happen but I don’t think it should. The committee felt Georgia was better going into this weekend. How does what happened today provide any evidence that either or both Oklahoma or Ohio State are now better than Georgia?

Consider this: With the win over Texas today, Oklahoma has now beaten every team on its schedule. To exclude them in favor of a Georgia team that lost two games, including a blowout to LSU, would IMO be indefensible. And before the Committee buys into the notion that Georgia should be rewarded for playing a close match against a tough Alabama team, consider that, as I explained above, it was Alabama that had to overcome all of the significant adversity in this game.

Georgia had every advantage going into this game, including playing close to home in front of an adoring crowd of fans, and enjoyed a two-touchdown lead late into the third quarter. In my judgment, the fact that the abrupt reversal and loss that Georgia suffered was largely attributable to some monumentally boneheaded decisions by their head coach shouldn't constitute an excuse for conferring on them an unearned benefit at the expense of a more deserving Oklahoma team.

[OldPhiKap]

I think you are correct about what will happen but I don’t think it should. The committee felt Georgia was better going into this weekend. How does what happened today provide any evidence that either or both Oklahoma or Ohio State are now better than Georgia?

Not necessarily disagreeing, but Oklahoma avenged their only loss and won the league. tOSU lost to Perdue in a blowout and should not even be as high as they are. Go Northwestern.

But the committee is there to serve the interests of the five P5 conferences. Could they really seed two SEC teams again for the second year?

Right or wrong, ND is rewarded by not playing in a conference (they would be facing off against Clemson right now, or have already played them with one picking up a loss). UGA is penalized by being in the toughest conference in the country year in and year out (IMHO).

But ultimately — If Kirby Smart doesn’t try a boneheaded fake field goal in Baton Rouge, and a boneheaded fake funk tonight, UGA likely doesn’t have this problem.

[devildeac]

Wait, why/how are the officials in the Northwestern-OSU game trying to figure out how many men Northwestern has on the field (10? 11? 12?) when they can't figure out the correct name/number of teams for their conference?

:rolleyes:;)

[Acymetric]

Some commentator (I don't remember who or what channel) made an interesting point. It was essentially "why should Alabama have to beat Georgia twice?" In other words, UGA had their shot, and lost. Why should they get another crack in a few weeks? Especially since it would probably be in the semi-final this year (unless you somehow bump 2-loss UGA up #3 over undefeated Notre Dame for some reason).

Stray Gator's post above captures my take pretty well. Got to be

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Notre dame
4. Oklahoma

at this point. And I think that creates a much more interesting playoff with a lot more narratives than what you get swapping Oklahoma with UGA.

[Troublemaker]

Some commentator (I don't remember who or what channel) made an interesting point. It was essentially "why should Alabama have to beat Georgia twice?" In other words, UGA had their shot, and lost. Why should they get another crack in a few weeks? Especially since it would probably be in the semi-final this year (unless you somehow bump 2-loss UGA up #3 over undefeated Notre Dame for some reason).

Stray Gator's post above captures my take pretty well. Got to be

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Notre dame
4. Oklahoma

at this point. And I think that creates a much more interesting playoff with a lot more narratives than what you get swapping Oklahoma with UGA.

LSU fans who remember the 2011-12 season are tearing their hair out listening to that analysis

[chris13]

Consider this: With the win over Texas today, Oklahoma has now beaten every team on its schedule. To exclude them in favor of a Georgia team that lost two games, including a blowout to LSU, would IMO be indefensible. And before the Committee buys into the notion that Georgia should be rewarded for playing a close match against a tough Alabama team, consider that, as I explained above, it was Alabama that had to overcome all of the significant adversity in this game.

Georgia had every advantage going into this game, including playing close to home in front of an adoring crowd of fans, and enjoyed a two-touchdown lead late into the third quarter. In my judgment, the fact that the abrupt reversal and loss that Georgia suffered was largely attributable to some monumentally boneheaded decisions by their head coach shouldn't constitute an excuse for conferring on them an unearned benefit at the expense of a more deserving Oklahoma team.

If they put Georgia in and have two SEC teams, then the Big 12, Big 10 and Pac 12 are going to leave the CFP. The 4 team playoff is almost but not quite as big a scam as the old BCS and the polls before that. There are not enough teams to make it a legitimate playoff and I still consider it a mythical national championship.

[devilsadvocate85]

Some commentator (I don't remember who or what channel) made an interesting point. It was essentially "why should Alabama have to beat Georgia twice?" In other words, UGA had their shot, and lost. Why should they get another crack in a few weeks? Especially since it would probably be in the semi-final this year (unless you somehow bump 2-loss UGA up #3 over undefeated Notre Dame for some reason).

Stray Gator's post above captures my take pretty well. Got to be

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Notre dame
4. Oklahoma

at this point. And I think that creates a much more interesting playoff with a lot more narratives than what you get swapping Oklahoma with UGA.

One reason only - the committee is supposed to be ranking the “best” teams for the playoff. Not give more teams a chance to beat Alabama or create an interesting playoff. They are supposed to rank the best teams in order. Period. I hear and frankly agree with a lot of your points, but nothing about this weekends games would make me move Georgia below either of the other teams in the rankings if my only objective was to put them in order. Ohio State beating Northwestern in a competitive game doesn’t suddenly make me think they are better than Georgia. Oklahoma beating Texas in a very close game doesn’t really convince me either. All of this because Georgia was ranked higher going in. I also wouldn’t bump Georgia over either of those teams based on a good loss had the rankings been reversed coming into this week. Who would have thought that the conference championship games would start to become a detriment? Georgia would have been better off not playing Alabama. Clemson could only lose against Pitt. Ohio State proves nothing against Northwestern. Notre Dame doesn’t play one.

[Acymetric]

LSU fans who remember the 2011-12 season are tearing their hair out listening to that analysis

Different postseason system (although I don't disagree, I wasn't a fan of that championship matchup either).

[A-Tex Devil]

One reason only - the committee is supposed to be ranking the “best” teams for the playoff. Not give more teams a chance to beat Alabama or create an interesting playoff. They are supposed to rank the best teams in order. Period. I hear and frankly agree with a lot of your points, but nothing about this weekends games would make me move Georgia below either of the other teams in the rankings if my only objective was to put them in order. Ohio State beating Northwestern in a competitive game doesn’t suddenly make me think they are better than Georgia. Oklahoma beating Texas in a very close game doesn’t really convince me either. All of this because Georgia was ranked higher going in. I also wouldn’t bump Georgia over either of those teams based on a good loss had the rankings been reversed coming into this week. Who would have thought that the conference championship games would start to become a detriment? Georgia would have been better off not playing Alabama. Clemson could only lose against Pitt. Ohio State proves nothing against Northwestern. Notre Dame doesn’t play one.

The committee has Georgia and Bama up there because Ess Eee See period. Michigan played a schedule not much different than Georgia’s and no one is talking about them. Nor should they. Lose twice and you are disqualified, especially if you didn’t win your conference, unless the field comes back to you.

I’ll add that I have no love loss for OU but even before this week their resume (win wise) was better than Georgia’s. Do I think OU is better than Georgia? Probably not. But WVU (and now Texas) were better than every team Georgia beat (yes, including Florida).

[YmoBeThere]

But WVU (and now Texas) were better than every team Georgia beat (yes, including Florida).

The Texas team that lost to 5-7 Maryland and 6-6 Oklahoma State?

[royalblue]

UGA is one of 4 best with out question
OK probably most deserving
If ND had not had the great game vs Cuse I would have been fine dropping them out and adding both of these. Never mind I would still leave them out
If I was going to give my 4

Bama
Tigers
Dawgs
Sooners

Put ND vs UCF in a bowl

Committee most likely picks

Bama
Tigers
Irish
Sooners

Injustice bowl sponsored by some law firm Should be created for the 2 best/most deserving teams left out of playoffs

[Reilly]

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

Alabama
Clemson
Georgia
Ohio State

Seems right to me.

[arnie]

My 2 cents. UGA beat only one really good team, Florida. The SEC East is not that good (no news to anyone) and their OOC wins are let’s go peay, Middle Tennessee or something like that and GAT. So their case with 2 losses is essentially predicated with one good (but not great) win. With that resume, they don’t get in over a one loss Oklahoma or undefeated ND.

[chris13]

I hate Notre Dame football but there is no way an undefeated Notre Dame team gets left out. Hopefully they’ll lose 57 to nothing in the semi final

[YmoBeThere]

Notre Dame did go 5-0 in the ACC so matching them up against Clemson is sort of like having the real ACC title game.

[OldPhiKap]

LSU fans who remember the 2011-12 season are tearing their hair out listening to that analysis

As is last year’s Auburn team that beat both Alabama and Georgia in the regular season, but lost a rematch to UGA in the SECCG and got left out. (Correctly IMO).

Bama, Clemson, ND and Oklahoma are the fairly obvious four IMO. Although ND should get left out for dodging a twelfths game. I would laugh if they and UCF played the 5/6 — won’t happen but would be poetic.


FWIW: ESPN power rankings have the top four Alabama, Clemson, Georgia and Michigan. ND seventh.

[devilsadvocate85]

The committee has Georgia and Bama up there because Ess Eee See period. Michigan played a schedule not much different than Georgia’s and no one is talking about them. Nor should they. Lose twice and you are disqualified, especially if you didn’t win your conference, unless the field comes back to you.

I’ll add that I have no love loss for OU but even before this week their resume (win wise) was better than Georgia’s. Do I think OU is better than Georgia? Probably not. But WVU (and now Texas) were better than every team Georgia beat (yes, including Florida).

My issue is the published protocol / objective and where the teams were ranked coming into the conference championship games. The stated role of the committee is to get the 4 best teams in the playoff. The consensus opinion was that, barring some really unexpected results Saturday & there weren’t any, the last spot would come down to:

11/27 rankings
4 - Georgia
5 - Oklahoma
6 - Ohio State

If the committee moves either or both teams above Georgia, they are essentially telling Georgia that the only way Georgia could convince the committee that they were truly better than the other two was to beat the team that no one thinks either of the others would beat. That makes no sense. They didn’t get blown out, rather they had the unbeatable team on the ropes for over 50 minutes.

I’m not a Georgia fan, don’t particularly care to see Georgia in the playoff. I just see no rational argument that this weekends results should alter the order of those 3 teams if you start with the order from last week and your “protocol / objective” hasn’t changed.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

My issue is the published protocol / objective and where the teams were ranked coming into the conference championship games. The stated role of the committee is to get the 4 best teams in the playoff. The consensus opinion was that, barring some really unexpected results Saturday & there weren’t any, the last spot would come down to:

11/27 rankings
4 - Georgia
5 - Oklahoma
6 - Ohio State

If the committee moves either or both teams above Georgia, they are essentially telling Georgia that the only way Georgia could convince the committee that they were truly better than the other two was to beat the team that no one thinks either of the others would beat. That makes no sense. They didn’t get blown out, rather they had the unbeatable team on the ropes for over 50 minutes.

I’m not a Georgia fan, don’t particularly care to see Georgia in the playoff. I just see no rational argument that this weekends results should alter the order of those 3 teams if you start with the order from last week and your “protocol / objective” hasn’t changed.

With due respect, you cannot put previous weeks rankings of 4,5 and 6 AHEAD of what happened THIS week...because had these same results happened in week 8, say, Oklahoma and Ohio State would jump Georgia likely...as they will now. At least Oklahoma. Georgia may well be one of the best four, but on a day when their QB was on fantasy island and Tua was clearly hurt, they didn't get it done.

It's unusual that the NCAA T actually crowns the best team as Champ in hoops. It's a horribly flawed way to ascertain a "best team", but it's such a dadgum terrific event. This FB system is also not perfect, but more likely to crown the best team as champ than the NCAAT by far.

[A-Tex Devil]

My 2 cents. UGA beat only one really good team, Florida. The SEC East is not that good (no news to anyone) and their OOC wins are let’s go peay, Middle Tennessee or something like that and GAT. So their case with 2 losses is essentially predicated with one good (but not great) win. With that resume, they don’t get in over a one loss Oklahoma or undefeated ND.

This. I don’t care if it’s OU or OSU (well, I do, I want to watch Texas play Georgia in Sugar Bowl which unfortunately requires OU in playoff), but Georgia can’t get in simply because they played well in a loss when there are conference champions with equal or better wins on the resume and one less loss. After Bama and presumably Georgia, you have two good teams (UF, LSU), two above average teams (A&M, Miss St) and the rest is mediocre with a good win or hot garbage. Just like every other conference.

As I sarcastically implied upthread, if we are going to put Georgia in, we might as well just include LSU and Florida too, at this point. I mean, they each had some losses, but it’s the SEC, so they get one forgivable loss and they all beat each other, right? Amiright?

[devilsadvocate85]

With due respect, you cannot put previous weeks rankings of 4,5 and 6 AHEAD of what happened THIS week...because had these same results happened in week 8, say, Oklahoma and Ohio State would jump Georgia likely...as they will now. At least Oklahoma. Georgia may well be one of the best four, but on a day when their QB was on fantasy island and Tua was clearly hurt, they didn't get it done.

It's unusual that the NCAA T actually crowns the best team as Champ in hoops. It's a horribly flawed way to ascertain a "best team", but it's such a dadgum terrific event. This FB system is also not perfect, but more likely to crown the best team as champ than the NCAAT by far.

I feel like you are mixing the “legacy poll rankings” world, where you move up or down solely because of when you lose with what the committee is supposed to do. If Georgia was “better” 5 days ago, losing in the last minutes to the team that no one thinks can be beaten doesn’t change that. Oklahoma wasn’t dominant over a not great Texas team and neither was Ohio State over Northwestern. If you take those 3 games alone, I’m not sure how you decide who is better. 5 days ago Georgia was better according to the committee.

I also feel that Alabama would rather play either of those teams than Georgia again.

I also know, that in the hypothetical world where Duke was in Georgia’s position, we would all be arguing vigorously that Duke had done enough to prove we belonged in the playoff as one of the best 4 teams.

[devilsadvocate85]

This. I don’t care if it’s OU or OSU (well, I do, I want to watch Texas play Georgia in Sugar Bowl which unfortunately requires OU in playoff), but Georgia can’t get in simply because they played well in a loss when there are conference champions with equal or better wins on the resume and one less loss. After Bama and presumably Georgia, you have two good teams (UF, LSU), two above average teams (A&M, Miss St) and the rest is mediocre with a good win or hot garbage. Just like every other conference.

As I sarcastically implied upthread, if we are going to put Georgia in, we might as well just include LSU and Florida too, at this point. I mean, they each had some losses, but it’s the SEC, so they get one forgivable loss and they all beat each other, right? Amiright?

Not disagreeing with your points. But in order for the committee process to make sense, Georgia shouldn’t have been ahead of Oklahoma and maybe not ahead of Ohio State to begin with. The committee is supposed to pick best 4 period. Regardless of conference, etc. I can accept that anyone thinks either or both Oklahoma and Ohio State are better than Georgia. But the committee didn’t think so 5 days ago and I don’t see how what happened this weekend would change that. Based on all information, Georgia was supposed to lose. The played very well, arguably looked as good if not better than either of the other teams who were clearly playing opponents inferior to Alabama. Again, not arguing who truly should be in, but if the committee said Georgia was better last Tuesday, how does the committee use what we saw this weekend to say that has changed? There is no “you had your chance, now someone else gets a chance” clause in the committee protocol. I’m trying to point out one of many flaws in the system. Comparing results against unrelated opponents is inaccurate at best.

[A-Tex Devil]

Not disagreeing with your points. But in order for the committee process to make sense, Georgia shouldn’t have been ahead of Oklahoma and maybe not ahead of Ohio State to begin with. The committee is supposed to pick best 4 period. Regardless of conference, etc. I can accept that anyone thinks either or both Oklahoma and Ohio State are better than Georgia. But the committee didn’t think so 5 days ago and I don’t see how what happened this weekend would change that. Based on all information, Georgia was supposed to lose. The played very well, arguably looked as good if not better than either of the other teams who were clearly playing opponents inferior to Alabama. Again, not arguing who truly should be in, but if the committee said Georgia was better last Tuesday, how does the committee use what we saw this weekend to say that has changed? There is no “you had your chance, now someone else gets a chance” clause in the committee protocol. I’m trying to point out one of many flaws in the system. Comparing results against unrelated opponents is inaccurate at best.

The committee already set this precedent in a much worse way by taking Ohio St over TCU and dropping TCU 3 spots after they WON!!! So I have zero problem and it wouldn’t be out of line at all to drop Georgia as many as 3 spots.

[YmoBeThere]

Will the #1 seed finally win this thing? They are 0-4 with respect to winning a title so far.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I feel like you are mixing the “legacy poll rankings” world, where you move up or down solely because of when you lose with what the committee is supposed to do. If Georgia was “better” 5 days ago, losing in the last minutes to the team that no one thinks can be beaten doesn’t change that. Oklahoma wasn’t dominant over a not great Texas team and neither was Ohio State over Northwestern. If you take those 3 games alone, I’m not sure how you decide who is better. 5 days ago Georgia was better according to the committee.

I also feel that Alabama would rather play either of those teams than Georgia again.

I also know, that in the hypothetical world where Duke was in Georgia’s position, we would all be arguing vigorously that Duke had done enough to prove we belonged in the playoff as one of the best 4 teams.

I don't think you know me nearly as well as you assume you do. I can make the case, for example, that with a healthy Tua, Bama scores 56 and it doesn't matter. You can make the case that the SEC east was weak this year. And UGa's non conference schedule was pathetic.

I can also understand the case for Georgia and I happen to think that they are one of the best 4 teams....but you know, people need to grow up and realize yesterday was a quarter finals of sort....and very often does the second or third best team in the nation lose to the eventual National Champs before the final four. That's the way it is. There are huge advantages to being in the SEC. You can't take the money and the TV contracts and the exposure without taking the fact that it's the toughest conference title to win.

[AGDukesky]

I fully understand that UCF played a lesser schedule, but there are four playoff slots and four undefeated teams. Seems almost TOO perfect....

[Wander]

You guys are arguing over something that isn't going to be close IMO. There's no drama at all about who the four teams in the playoffs will be – Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma. I agree that in a vacuum you could argue for Georgia, Ohio State, or UCF (for example, I think all three of those teams are better than Notre Dame). But based on what the committee has done in the past, especially last week's rankings, I think it's clear-cut.

The only point of debate is going to be the order of 3 vs 4. I think Oklahoma has a chance to jump Notre Dame for the more favorable semi-final matchup.

[sagegrouse]

Applying a little non-partisan politics to the College Football Playoffs: the Power Five conferences and member schools control just about everything in college athletics. So, lessee.... a CFP field of Bama, Clemson, Notre Dame and Georgia would have only two of the Power Five conferences represented. I can't believe that would happen. OK, you say, leave off Notre Dame -- its power rankings are lower than six other teams? Uh, an undefeated Notre Dame not in the CFP playoffs when there are only three undefeated teams? Are you kidding me?

[OldPhiKap]

Applying a little non-partisan politics to the College Football Playoffs: the Power Five conferences and member schools control just about everything in college athletics. So, lessee... a CFP field of Bama, Clemson, Notre Dame and Georgia would have only two of the Power Five conferences represented. I can't believe that would happen. OK, you say, leave off Notre Dame -- its power rankings are lower than six other teams? Uh, an undefeated Notre Dame not in the CFP playoffs when there are only three undefeated teams? Are you kidding me?

^^^^ this, exactly.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

You guys are arguing over something that isn't going to be close IMO. There's no drama at all about who the four teams in the playoffs will be – Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma. I agree that in a vacuum you could argue for Georgia, Ohio State, or UCF (for example, I think all three of those teams are better than Notre Dame). But based on what the committee has done in the past, especially last week's rankings, I think it's clear-cut.

The only point of debate is going to be the order of 3 vs 4. I think Oklahoma has a chance to jump Notre Dame for the more favorable semi-final matchup.

Many of us are arguing precisely that.

[gotoguy]

I've never been accused of being a fan of either team, but I don't understand why you think the outcome "feels unfair," and I certainly don't agree that Georgia was "the better team," either last year or tonight. In this game, Alabama had to overcome far greater adversity -- a key defensive player ineligible for the first half, a quarterback playing for three quarters on a gimpy ankle that left him unable to run or scramble effectively and whose normal passing accuracy was obviously hampered by the injury, several dropped passes by usually reliable receivers, and giving up two turnovers -- both of which abruptly terminated drives at or near the goal line -- while having no takeaways. I expect that Dawg fans will question the penalty differential, but the only thing I saw in the game that was truly "unfair" to Georgia was some inexplicably boneheaded playcalling by their own head coach.


Spoken like a true gator 😊

Had UGa made that field goal earlier in the second half Smart surely would have punted. As it was his being aggressive backfired on the fake punt probably costing his team the game.

That said Stray, would you prefer Dan Mullen over Kirby Smart? We will see how that plays out in the next 10 years.

[gotoguy]

Oklahoma and not theOSU( thank goodness) is number 4

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Oklahoma and not theOSU( thank goodness) is number 4

And they dropped OSU below Georgia...which was how they hedged their bet ('see, we gave Ga credit for a great performance in a loss') while also reminding Urban Meyer that he embarrassed college football.

I do feel for Georgia, but this was pre ordained last night. Every year, someone is going to have to play the best team in the nation on this week. It will require beating the top team to get to the final four, even if you're better than some other teams who will get in. That's just the way it is.

UPDATE: Reece just said the thing I was thinking.....that the old BCS system would be LESS controversial this year.....the way it worked out.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Personally I think the four teams need to be chosen only from conference champions and independents and a very high bar for any independent.

I also think keep it at four teams.

The lucky team here is Clemson. Would much rather play ND than Oklahoma.

SoCal "Wondering how many years before the Pac 12 gets a team in the playoffs."

[-jk]

Personally I think the four teams need to be chosen only from conference champions and independents and a very high bar for any independent.

I also think keep it at four teams.

The lucky team here is Clemson. Would much rather play ND than Oklahoma.

SoCal "Wondering how many years before the Pac 12 gets a team in the playoffs."

Pac 12 gets in when they go to 8 teams, and auto-bids for power 5 champs...

-jk

[tteettimes]

Norte Dame vs Clemson.....two ACC teams in the CFP semis... 😎😎

[kmspeaks]

For those advocating Georgia get in, they shouldn’t have lost to LSU. The regular season still needs to have an elimination quality to it [sarcasm font] or we might as well just put four SEC teams in each year given their top 6 or 7 teams would clearly win all of the other conferences[/sarcasm font].

Seriously, though, if Georgia gets in and we don’t immediately expand to 8 after this year, we might as well just give the SEC two spots each year in tribute.


Yeah, but gonna be hard to bear that SEC game.

And although I think UGA > Oklahoma > tOSU, a two-loss UGA falls behind both in the playoff picture I think.


I think you are correct about what will happen but I don’t think it should. The committee felt Georgia was better going into this weekend. How does what happened today provide any evidence that either or both Oklahoma or Ohio State are now better than Georgia?

As a (very heartbroken and devastated) Georgia fan I will say two things.

1. I don't think you can make a reasonable argument that Georgia should be included in the current system. A 2-loss team when there are 2 undefeated conference champs, 2 one-loss conference champs, and :rolleyes: Notre Dame doesn't belong even if the eye test says they're probably better than 3 of those 5 teams. I don't know which fact is more painful, that Georgia won't be playing for a National Championship, or that we don't get to hear Urban Meyer and Ohio State fans cry about getting left out in favor of an SEC team that didn't win the Conference Championship for a second year in a row. :p

2. I think you can make a reasonable argument that a system that doesn't include this year's Georgia team may need some tweaking. In any other sport or even division of NCAA football they would be included in the post-season field. The 4 team playoff > the BCS > polls but don't let the good be the enemy of the great. I'm not buying the argument that the conference championship games are some sort of de facto quarterfinal when a) Notre Dame doesn't have to play in one and b) they are heavily unbalanced with regards to the quality of teams involved.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

As a (very heartbroken and devastated) Georgia fan I will say two things.


2. I think you can make a reasonable argument that a system that doesn't include this year's Georgia team may need some tweaking. In any other sport or even division of NCAA football they would be included in the post-season field. The 4 team playoff > the BCS > polls but don't let the good be the enemy of the great. I'm not buying the argument that the conference championship games are some sort of de facto quarterfinal when a) Notre Dame doesn't have to play in one and b) they are heavily unbalanced with regards to the quality of teams involved.

Couple of thoughts here.....First: those teams who play in the Conf Championship games are (for the most part) in a de-facto quarterfinal.Not purely, not always, not perfectly, but in effect that's the situation OU and Georgia were in. That's what de facto means. As Dabo Swinney said, "lose one and see what happens."

As for tweaking, I"m all in favor of that, though I don't know what kind of tweaking could be done to have gotten Georgia in this year. To me, there is no perfect system to determine a champion in any sport, though the 4 of 7 playoff sports are the closest. Being in the SEC brings in ton of money and exposure. It also makes it a sure bet that getting a play off bid is a really tough goal. Comes with the territory. I believe that Georgia is one of the four best teams in the country. I think they are good enough to potentially win the Title. They had the bad luck of having the toughest road to the Final Four. Happens every single year in every sport. Someone has the toughest road......

[kmspeaks]

Couple of thoughts here....First: those teams who play in the Conf Championship games are (for the most part) in a de-facto quarterfinal.Not purely, not always, not perfectly, but in effect that's the situation OU and Georgia were in. That's what de facto means. As Dabo Swinney said, "lose one and see what happens."

As for tweaking, I"m all in favor of that, though I don't know what kind of tweaking could be done to have gotten Georgia in this year. To me, there is no perfect system to determine a champion in any sport, though the 4 of 7 playoff sports are the closest. Being in the SEC brings in ton of money and exposure. It also makes it a sure bet that getting a play off bid is a really tough goal. Comes with the territory. I believe that Georgia is one of the four best teams in the country. I think they are good enough to potentially win the Title. They had the bad luck of having the toughest road to the Final Four. Happens every single year in every sport. Someone has the toughest road...

If those are quarterfinal games then why is #4 Georgia playing #1 Alabama, why does Pitt get to participate, and why does Notre Dame not have to? I'd rather have a real quarterfinal, aka an 8 team playoff. Maybe I should call that a major change rather than a tweak. Don't get me wrong there are no sour grapes here. Georgia had tons of ways to make sure they got in to a 4 team playoff - beat LSU, don't have one of the best kickers in the country miss a 30 yard field goal, don't call for a fake punt, etc, etc. There's no perfect system, but since we have a playoff now let's see if we can get it as close as possible. In my opinion that means erring on the side of including teams that may not actually have a legitimate shot at a title, say UCF in an 8 team playoff, versus leaving out teams that do.

[75Crazie]

Couple of thoughts here...First: those teams who play in the Conf Championship games are (for the most part) in a de-facto quarterfinal.Not purely, not always, not perfectly...
Incredibly imperfectly, actually. No round of games that includes Northwestern and Pitt can claim to be any kind of quarterfinal at all, de facto or otherwise. I renew my claim that the conference championship games are a shameless money grab and should be eliminated in favor of a quarterfinal playoff round. If determining a conference champion really matters at all for a conference with more than 8 teams (and I don't think it does matter), then figure out a way to weight the regular season results and determine the champion on paper. Having a game between Clemson and Pitt determine the ACC champion is an all-out farce.

[Stray Gator]

Spoken like a true gator 😊

Had UGa made that field goal earlier in the second half Smart surely would have punted. As it was his being aggressive backfired on the fake punt probably costing his team the game.

That said Stray, would you prefer Dan Mullen over Kirby Smart? We will see how that plays out in the next 10 years.

Well of course if Georgia had been leading when faced with that 4th-and-11 at the 50-yard line and about 3 minutes left in the game, Smart would have punted. At least I think he would. :rolleyes: After all, you'd expect him to have enough confidence in his defense that he'd trust them to prevent Alabama from marching 80 yards and scoring a touchdown in under 3 minutes. But given the tie score, the time left on the clock, and the distance needed for a first down, I think it's fair to say that calling for a fake punt -- particularly once it became readily apparent that (a) Georgia's highly touted backup QB was positioned as the up blocker; and (b) Alabama's defense had read the formation and was lined up to stop a play from scrimmage -- it was foolhardy to proceed with the "plan of deception" instead of using one of Georgia's two remaining timeouts to reset.

I know that Kirby defended his decision in the postgame conference on the ground that he wanted to be "aggressive" and play to win. But under those circumstances, it appeared to be more an act of desperation by a coach who was panicked and thus failed to recognize that the essential element of surprise was blown. As one Auburn fan put it, "Alabama players may be as dumb as a box of rocks, but even they could see what was coming." And in case you haven't noticed, Gator fans and other Georgia rivals aren't the only ones who immediately recognized the call as, to put it as charitably as I can, an inexplicable blunder. In fact, some of the harshest criticism of that call is coming from Dawg fans, in language that could not be republished here without getting me permabanned from this forum.

As for whether I'd prefer to have Smart over Mullen as head coach, I think most Gator fans would acknowledge that Kirby has been a superb recruiter, who has amassed an impressive collection of talent in Athens, second only to Saban at Alabama. On the other hand, I believe Mullen has shown himself to be a better playcaller and game manager; and based on the improvement we've seen in Felipe Franks just over the course of this season, his reputation as a master at developing quarterbacks appears to be well deserved. I doubt that I'll be around for another 10 years, but I'm eager to see what Mullen can do after having a couple of years to recruit players for his style of offense. In any event, I certainly prefer to have Dan making the calls on when it's smart to fake a punt or field goal. :cool:

One trait I saw in Kirby last night that I did not admire was his effort to deflect responsibility for failure. Instead of acknowledging that the fake punt was a mistake, he defended it as a manifestation of his will to win; and then he suggested that the fake punt would have worked if the players had snapped the ball sooner. In effect, it seemed to me that he was trying to say that he was proud of the call, and blaming his own players for its failure. That may have been an out-of-character moment for him, prompted by the hailstorm of criticism brought on by the fake punt fiasco; but it was not a good look. Mullen is far from perfect, but I like the fact that he seems to accept responsibility for the losses and protect his players when things don't go well on the field.

[sagegrouse]

Incredibly imperfectly, actually. No round of games that includes Northwestern and Pitt can claim to be any kind of quarterfinal at all, de facto or otherwise. I renew my claim that the conference championship games are a shameless money grab and should be eliminated in favor of a quarterfinal playoff round. If determining a conference champion really matters at all for a conference with more than 8 teams (and I don't think it does matter), then figure out a way to weight the regular season results and determine the champion on paper. Having a game between Clemson and Pitt determine the ACC champion is an all-out farce.

I strongly disagree with your denigration of conference championships. The conference championships do "mean a lot." "Shameless money grab" is a harsh description of the sensible way that 14-team conferences determine the conference championship when only eight games are played in a conference schedule. Now you may say that there should be eight-team conferences and round-robin play; that ship has sailed.

[OldPhiKap]

Pitt and Northwestern both earned the right to compete for their conference championships, the same way that UGA (13 point underdog) did. The money grab would be in eliminating these conference games so that playoffs could be added IMO, and not the maintenance of conference championship games.

Were we big underdogs to FSU a few years ago in the ACC CG? Sure. Did we earn the right to compete for the championship against them, with a big bowl there as a prize? Damn straight we did. I would hate to think that we wouldn’t in those circumstances, instead somehow having someone decide “on paper” whether we would win. That’s the antithesis of Sports it seems to me.

UGA had their shot and lost. If Kirby doesn’t try an idiotic fake field goal at LSU, or the punt last night, perhaps they are undefeated right now or at least have but one loss. They can’t blame anyone but themselves, or their coach who called those unnecessarily risky plays. JMHO.

[75Crazie]

I strongly disagree with your denigration of conference championships. The conference championships do "mean a lot." "Shameless money grab" is a harsh description of the sensible way that 14-team conferences determine the conference championship when only eight games are played in a conference schedule. Now you may say that there should be eight-team conferences and round-robin play; that ship has sailed.
Fair enough, I admit my position that conference championship football games are ridiculous is unpopular with those that worship college football. And my "money grab" statement is probably much better applied to the process of expanding 8-school conferences to 14-16 schools; that was the result of a power play by all conferences that

[sagegrouse]

Fair enough, I admit my position that conference championship football games are ridiculous is unpopular with those that worship college football. And my "money grab" statement is probably much better applied to the process of expanding 8-school conferences to 14-16 schools; that was the result of a power play by all conferences that

Hey, you are compounding your errors: one has to "worship college football" to object to your statement?

[75Crazie]

I strongly disagree with your denigration of conference championships. The conference championships do "mean a lot." "Shameless money grab" is a harsh description of the sensible way that 14-team conferences determine the conference championship when only eight games are played in a conference schedule. Now you may say that there should be eight-team conferences and round-robin play; that ship has sailed.
Fair enough, I'll admit that my opinion regarding conference football game championships is undoubtedly a minority opinion amongst those who worship college football. And my "money grab" claim is probably better aimed at the event of conference expansion in the first place, rather to the probable inevitable result of such expansion (my ACC will always have 8 schools in it).

But, if you (the royal "you", because I know you did not say this sagegrouse) want to make the claim that conference championships have meaning, then do not also try to make a claim that such championships are "de facto" first-round playoff games. That just does not fly. While this year's P5 conference championship games were particularly execrable, I would venture that most any year would involve teams that have absolutely no business in a true first-round 8 team tournament … along with completely eliminating any worthy representative of second-tier conferences (e.g. UCF, who almost nobody in a P5 conference would want to play as a non-conference game). I am trying to find a way to expand the playoffs to three rounds while at the same time not adding an additional game to any school's load; to me, replacing conference championships with a first round of three is a definite improvement.

[75Crazie]

Hey, you are compounding your errors: one has to "worship college football" to object to your statement?
Sorry, something happened in the editing session of my previous post to send that post before I was finished. It probably reads rather incomplete, because it was. But, I do think that supporters of college football, in its current incarnation, are way too "religious" about it for my tastes; I see very little "collegiate" about college football as it exists today. And I could say the same thing about college basketball.

[sagegrouse]

Sorry, something happened in my previous post to send that post before I was finished. It probably reads rather incomplete, because it was. But, I do think that supporters of college football, in its current incarnation, are way too "religious" about it for my tastes; I see very little "collegiate" about college football as it exists today.

Could be, although I have personally never seen religious rituals at Duke tailgates.

No problem, 75Crazie.

The "rush to expand" occurred when, IIRC, the Big Ten and the SEC discovered the amount of financial support available from "conference networks" with large footprints. A conference that was "too small" risked marginalization or even extinction. The ACC, therefore, rushed to catch up, adding Pitt and Syracuse and even going so far as to add Louisville, a school which distorts ACC ethical and academic standards. The PAC-12 was stymied by geography in its attempt to expand, but did add Utah and Colorado, to get to twelve. (The PAC-12 also wins the "arithmetic award," handily defeating the ten-team Big 12 and the 14-team Big Ten.)

What became the Big 12 had to struggle to add teams, reaching all the way to WVa to get to ten teams.

[Wander]

2. I think you can make a reasonable argument that a system that doesn't include this year's Georgia team may need some tweaking. In any other sport or even division of NCAA football they would be included in the post-season field. The 4 team playoff > the BCS > polls but don't let the good be the enemy of the great. I'm not buying the argument that the conference championship games are some sort of de facto quarterfinal when a) Notre Dame doesn't have to play in one and b) they are heavily unbalanced with regards to the quality of teams involved.

It would have been a nice year for an 8 team playoff:

8 Washington @ 1 Alabama
5 Georgia @ 4 Oklahoma
6 Ohio State @ 3 Notre Dame
7 UCF @ 2 Clemson

[elvis14]

I know the 8 team playoff has been discussed in the past but I'd much rather argue over who's #9 than who's #5. Simple solution (which I read here on DBR last year): 5 power conference champions and 3 at large bids. This would get UCF and ND in as at large and if Ga beats 'Bama, it would get a team like Alabama in. If all the top teams win this week we have to choose between OSU and OU. With 8 teams, they would both be in.

If all the top teams win the playoffs might look like this:

1) Alabama (SEC)
2) Clemson (ACC)
3) ND (At Large)
4) OU (Big 12)
5) OSU (Big 10)
6) UCF (At Large)
7) UGa (At Large)
8) Washington (Pac-12)

Bama-Washington
Clemson-UGa
ND-UCF
OU-OSU

That's 3 awesome games, and a Bama game.
Bama-OU
Clemson-ND

Then Clemson beats Bama to win the Natty!

See I have it all figured out! Gold star for me!

Go Tigers!!!!

This thread is starting to repeat itself. As you can see from my post above, I clearly stated that I had it all figured out! :-)
This thread is starting to repeat itself.

[OldPhiKap]

Alabama (-14) v. Oklahoma
Clemson (-10.5) v. Notre Dame — line widened by a point or two depending on the book.

Others of note:
Georgia (-11) v. Texas
tOSU (-5.5) v. Washington — slimmed to -4.5 on some books
LSU (-8) v. UCF

[devildeac]

This thread is starting to repeat itself. As you can see from my post above, I clearly stated that I had it all figured out! :-)
This thread is starting to repeat itself.

And, I'm outta gold stars, too.

Gold sporks are also off the menu. :p

[gofurman]

The most logical, and my preferred, playoff format would be 16 teams – 10 conference champions and 6 at-larges.

The fact that this is considered a radical idea when it is the exact same as nearly every single other American college and pro sport works tells you all you need to know.




Not true. Not sure if you know but what you propose is "illegal" under current NCAA law.

That's why FCS playoffs have 24 teams. The ruling is that for every conference Champion (Auto Qualifier bid) you HAVE to have at least that many at-large bids. So if you want 10 Autobids for 10 conference Champions then you must allow AT LEAST 10 at-large bids or more. That's what drove FCS from 16 to a. 24 team playoff. We had 8 automatic qualifiers and 8 at- large. Then we went to 10 autobids (conf champs) so we had to go to AT LEAST 10 at large. FCS chose to add 4 more at large to make it work . Thus 24 teams. 16 play first weekend. 8 seeded teams get a bye. Then sweet sixteen start from the 8 first-weekend winners and the 8 with the bye

NCAA could change rule .... But for now a 10 conference champ system would require a 20 team (or more ) playoff

[-jk]

Not true. Not sure if you know but what you propose is "illegal" under current NCAA law.

That's why FCS playoffs have 24 teams. The ruling is that for every conference Champion (Auto Qualifier bid) you HAVE to have at least that many at-large bids. So if you want 10 Autobids for 10 conference Champions then you must allow AT LEAST 10 at-large bids or more. That's what drove FCS from 16 to a. 24 team playoff. We had 8 automatic qualifiers and 8 at- large. Then we went to 10 autobids (conf champs) so we had to go to AT LEAST 10 at large. FCS chose to add 4 more at large to make it work . Thus 24 teams. 16 play first weekend. 8 seeded teams get a bye. Then sweet sixteen start from the 8 first-weekend winners and the 8 with the bye

NCAA could change rule ... But for now a 10 conference champ system would require a 20 team (or more ) playoff

Does the rule apply if the FBS championship isn't an NCAA championship?

-jk

[AtlDuke72]

The fake punt on fourth down felt like a desperation move by the Dawgs.

I know that this is a minority view, but there were good reasons to call the fake punt. According to the post game interviews the play was supposed to be a pass to Swift and would have worked if the ball had been snapped immediately like it was supposed to. Alabama’ coaches caught on and had time to scream it out and get somebody on Swift. Also, Alabama was moving the ball and had plenty of time to go down the field for at least a field goal attempt. Probably smarter to punt but not an idiotic call as some suggest. Hindsight is almost always perfect.

Killer for Georgia - best kicker in the country misses a short field goal or they win. Three fumbles by Alabama that popped straight back to the guy who fumbled. Great game.

[OldPhiKap]

I know that this is a minority view, but there were good reasons to call the fake punt. According to the post game interviews the play was supposed to be a pass to Swift and would have worked if the ball had been snapped immediately like it was supposed to. Alabama’ coaches caught on and had time to scream it out and get somebody on Swift. Also, Alabama was moving the ball and had plenty of time to go down the field for at least a field goal attempt. Probably smarter to punt but not an idiotic call as some suggest. Hindsight is almost always perfect.

Killer for Georgia - best kicker in the country misses a short field goal or they win. Three fumbles by Alabama that popped straight back to the guy who fumbled. Great game.

I can defend the fake punt call although it's not what I would have done. Kirby said, though, that they could have checked out of the play. Once UGA saw that Alabama was playing "punt safe" defense with its regular defensive unit out there, and they covered up the targeted receiver, UGA should have checked out of the play; called one of their two time-outs; or just taken a delay of game penalty because their punter juiced everything into the end zone anyway. Kirby decided to gamble, but then kept barreling off when it was obvious the bluff was not working.

It's one thing to take a shot with a surprise play. It's another though to stick with it when it is clear the surprise didn't work. JMO.

Georgia played a great game, and will be back stronger next year. Texas and the Sugar Bowl is a good destination. Nothing to hang their heads about.

[AtlDuke72]

I can defend the fake punt call although it's not what I would have done. Kirby said, though, that they could have checked out of the play. Once UGA saw that Alabama was playing "punt safe" defense with its regular defensive unit out there, and they covered up the targeted receiver, UGA should have checked out of the play; called one of their two time-outs; or just taken a delay of game penalty because their punter juiced everything into the end zone anyway. Kirby decided to gamble, but then kept barreling off when it was obvious the bluff was not working.

It's one thing to take a shot with a surprise play. It's another though to stick with it when it is clear the surprise didn't work. JMO.

Georgia played a great game, and will be back stronger next year. Texas and the Sugar Bowl is a good destination. Nothing to hang their heads about.

I agree with all of this. I don’t know who was supposed to change out of the call, but somebody blew it. My guess it was Field but the coaches are not going to throw him under the bus after the game.

[OldPhiKap]

I agree with all of this. I don’t know who was supposed to change out of the call, but somebody blew it. My guess it was Field but the coaches are not going to throw him under the bus after the game.

Yeah, Fields was probably the guy although Kirby could have called a timeout from the sidelines.

Kirby has a bright future, and he obviously loves UGA. And they could be scary good next year if they stay healthy. Fromm was the best QB on the field it seems to me.

[JasonEvans]

Kirby has a bright future, and he obviously loves UGA. And they could be scary good next year if they stay healthy. Fromm was the best QB on the field it seems to me.

GA has just 2 senior starters on offense (none of their QB or RBs) and 4 on defense. Obviously, we have no idea whether some of their juniors will turn pro but it is entirely possible they will return a scary amount of talent. Of course, that Tua kid will still be over in Tuscaloosa, but I expect UGA and Bama to be #1 and #2 in the preseason polls next year.

[wsb3]

Lot of good points made here.

I am glad that we at least have a 4 team playoff. It sure has added to my overall interest in College Football. I would love to see it expand to 8 teams. (No more than that) But I could see an argument for 6 teams. If that were the case this year. UGA, OSU, OK, are all in. As a fan I would love it. If it went to 8 teams you could on certain years add the Cinderella factor that March Madness brings. UCF would be in this year.

If it meant conference championships had to be sacrificed for 6 or 8 teams. Count me in.

[OldPhiKap]

Because SEC shorts always nails their games:

https://youtu.be/2cYvSrtz15c

[-jk]

Because SEC shorts always nails their games:

https://youtu.be/2cYvSrtz15c

Awesome!

-jk

[A-Tex Devil]

GA has just 2 senior starters on offense (none of their QB or RBs) and 4 on defense. Obviously, we have no idea whether some of their juniors will turn pro but it is entirely possible they will return a scary amount of talent. Of course, that Tua kid will still be over in Tuscaloosa, but I expect UGA and Bama to be #1 and #2 in the preseason polls next year.

.... and if Texas beats Georgia? I kid. Texas will never beat Georgia. Or might they?

[OldPhiKap]

... and if Texas beats Georgia? I kid. Texas will never beat Georgia. Or might they?

Longhorns definitely can win.

UGA played like one of the best two teams in the country Saturday. That is not how they played all year though.

UGA is a very good team. They are not a juggernaut. And Kirby has shown a propensity to do the dumbest thing at critical times.

[Acymetric]

... and if Texas beats Georgia? I kid. Texas will never beat Georgia. Or might they?

...and if LSU beats Georgia? I kid. LSU will never beat Georgia. Or might they?

This, of course, is why your record on the field is much more important than the "eye test". Some ESPN personality brought this up, and I thought it was appropriate. Would we pick UGA to beat Oklahoma? Probably, but we would have picked UGA to beat LSU and look what happened.

[gofurman]

The ideal 8 team playoff: 5 champions of the power conferences, 2 at-large teams, 1 team from other conferences. By automatically including 1 non-P5 team, we not only give a chance to the litle guys, we also probably give the overall #1 seed
a break (which they deserve for earning the #1 seed) by giving them what will probably be an easy opening round game.

Play your games on Xmas eve, NY eve, and then a week or so later. There would be much money made.

Not sure if you know but what you propose is "illegal" under current NCAA law. At least it was a few years ago

That's why FCS playoffs have 24 teams. The ruling is that for every conference Champion (Auto Qualifier bid) you HAVE to have at least that many at-large bids.
So if you want FIVE AUTOBIDS for 5 conference Champions then you must allow AT LEAST FIVE at-large bids or more. That's what drove FCS from 16 to a 24 team playoff.

FCS had 8 automatic qualifiers and 8 at- large for a 16 team playoff. Then we went to 10 autobids (conf champs) so we had to go to AT LEAST 10 at large. Which woulda been an odd number of 20 playoff participants. FCS chose to add 4 more at large to make it work . Thus 24 teams. 16 play first weekend. 8 seeded teams get a bye. Then sweet sixteen start from the 8 first-weekend winners and the 8 with the bye

NCAA could change rule ... But for now a 5 conference champ system would require a 10 team (or more ) playoff

* I put this post before but everyone seems to be ignoring it with ideas of 5 conference champs and 3 at large bids. The NCAA WONT ALLOW that Under current rules. Well, at least for now they won't.. Sure rules could be changed but i THINK that rule has been there a long time

Now a 12 team would work. 5 conf champs and 7 at large. Or an 8 team playoff with all teams as at-large !


Is someone aware that this rule is NOT the case anymore? I think it still is

[-jk]

Does it apply to FBS football, which doesn't have an official NCAA championship?

-jk

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Does it apply to FBS football, which doesn't have an official NCAA championship?

-jk

I don't think any of that applies to FBS football.......

[MarkD83]

So this year there are 3 conference champions in the playoff and one at large. Of course the 3 champions are not automatic qualifiers. So theway around the rule and have an 8 team playoff is to do what the committee does now. Every team is an at large selection but they give lots of weight to winning a conference.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

So this year there are 3 conference champions in the playoff and one at large. Of course the 3 champions are not automatic qualifiers. So theway around the rule and have an 8 team playoff is to do what the committee does now. Every team is an at large selection but they give lots of weight to winning a conference.

I don't think there's any rule that's the problem here. The FBS makes their own rules, impacted by the wishes of the college Presidents of the members. That body, for the time being, does not want to go to 8. I suspect that will change in time, but I really don't think this is a rule problem or an NCAA problem. I don't think it's a problem really.....there is no perfect system.

[AGDukesky]

I agree no system is perfect but if an undefeated team is ranked in the Top 10 of your sport at the end of the regular season and still has no chance to win the national championship, then that is a major flaw. Either your ranking system or playoff is out of whack...

[HereBeforeCoachK]

... and if Texas beats Georgia? I kid. Texas will never beat Georgia. Or might they?

Texas probably will beat Georgia.....because those teams are coming into this game with entirely different mindsets. We see this every year in bowls, that motivations and so on are powerful elements of human nature that often overwhelm the physical differences between teams. We see it with almost every Duke road game in hoops for that matter. Georgia thinks they should be in the national semifinals. That's where they'd rather be. Texas will be happy to play Georgia, and motivated to "shock the world" and prove the commentators - who will almost all pick Georgia - wrong.

Safest bet this bowl season? Texas.

[OldPhiKap]

Texas probably will beat Georgia...because those teams are coming into this game with entirely different mindsets. We see this every year in bowls, that motivations and so on are powerful elements of human nature that often overwhelm the physical differences between teams. We see it with almost every Duke road game in hoops for that matter. Georgia thinks they should be in the national semifinals. That's where they'd rather be. Texas will be happy to play Georgia, and motivated to "shock the world" and prove the commentators - who will almost all pick Georgia - wrong.

Safest bet this bowl season? Texas.

I'd bet a pie on Georgia in this one.

Here in the heart of Dawg Nation, I think most fans realize that they had their shot and acquitted themselves well. I don't think there is a lot of head-hanging here, although there is some head-scratching about the fake punt call.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I agree no system is perfect but if an undefeated team is ranked in the Top 10 of your sport at the end of the regular season and still has no chance to win the national championship, then that is a major flaw. Either your ranking system or playoff is out of whack...

Basketball is a pretty near perfect system. The final week of the season, almost every single team in D1 is still alive for the championship (sorry Ivy League). Then, the tournament selects every team with an my shot of actually winning the tournament, including almost wvery team that won their most recent game (again sorry, Ivy League).

Then, go win games.

The NCAA isn't perfect but it's darn close. That's why non-basketball fans take Fridays off in early March.

[Wander]

Not sure if you know but what you propose is "illegal" under current NCAA law. At least it was a few years ago


Thanks for the info, didn't know that. Football dominates so much of NCAA sports, I would think it would be somewhat easy to change the rule for football if that's what the powers wanted.

My preference is for a 16 team playoff played on college campuses, but I do think an 8 team playoff would be a vast improvement. In order for it to be fair, though, I think you'd need to guarantee one of the 8 spots for a conference champion of a non-power 5 league. So 5 auto bids, 2 at-larges, and 1 semi-at-large.

[AGDukesky]

Basketball is a pretty near perfect system. The final week of the season, almost every single team in D1 is still alive for the championship (sorry Ivy League). Then, the tournament selects every team with an my shot of actually winning the tournament, including almost wvery team that won their most recent game (again sorry, Ivy League).

Then, go win games.

The NCAA isn't perfect but it's darn close. That's why non-basketball fans take Fridays off in early March.

Agreed- my comment was specific to football. Football will never be perfect because you simply can’t play enough games to connect all the teams.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Basketball is a pretty near perfect system. ...The NCAA isn't perfect but it's darn close. That's why non-basketball fans take Fridays off in early March.

With due respect, I must disagree on the issue of near perfection. No single elimination set up in a sport like basketball is anywhere close to perfect. However, it is precisely that imperfection that arouses national interest and gets millions of even casual fans interested in March. The 4 of 7 sports are the only ones close to perfection....and it's that absolute lack of unpredictability that sets it apart.

The NCAAT is maybe the greatest sporting event on the planet. But as a valid way of determining "who's best" - it's very flawed.

[Indoor66]

The NCAAT is maybe the greatest sporting event on the planet. But as a valid way of determining "who's best" - it's very flawed.

The goal of the NCAAT is to determine a champion, not who is "best". For that goal, it is an ideal tournament.

[Highlander]

In general, the 4 team selected for the playoffs are conference champions. To my knowledge, the playoff committee (in its short history) has never selected a team for the playoff who lost their conference championship (CC) game. So these CC games do matter and serve as a de-facto playoff. Had Clemson or Oklahoma lost their respective CC games this year, no one would have been surprised or incensed if they also lost their playoff berths. Similarly, the only reason Alabama made the playoff last year was that OSU upset Wisconsin in the Big10 championship game, handing the Badgers their second loss (more on that in a moment). Had Wisconsin won, a one loss Alabama team would have probably been on the outside of the playoff looking in, even though they were quite capable of winning the NC. As such, expanding the playoff field to 8 teams would render the conference championship mostly meaningless, much as is it is in basketball.

Second, the committee looks at a team's entire body of work, not just the level of competition in their CC game. The ACC Coastal was hot garbage this year, but Clemson went undefeated thru a very competitive ACC Atlantic division, which is impressive. Speaking of the ACC Coastal, it's only fair to note the SEC East has also been pretty mediocre recently (2017 Georgia being the exception). Yet that mediocrity has never hurt the SEC champion's pedigree. Case in point - Clemson's 2018 win over a 3 loss Pitt team is pretty similar to Alabama's win over a 3 loss Florida team in 2015, no?

Lastly, the fact that Georgia was somehow in the discussion as a 2 loss team to me shows the overall cognitive bias towards the SEC. A two loss team from any other conference (or independent) would be laughed out of the room for arguing for a playoff bid. But when it's an SEC team, we somehow feel the need to make exceptions. I didn't like the fact that the SEC had 2 of 4 teams in the playoff last year, but it was hard to argue when no other conference champion had fewer than 2 losses and was left out. When the playoff is only 4 teams, the regular season record should matter, and I agree with A-Tex Devil that losing twice should disqualify you from the playoff. That means losing in your conference championship game will always disqualify you unless you were undefeated going in. Bottom line - if an undefeated or one loss conference champion can't reliably make the playoff, then there is no way in hades a two loss team should ever be in the conversation.

P.S. During the research for this post, uncovered a few random factoids:

SEC East has won only one SEC championship in the past decade - Georgia's last year. And that one win is completely overshadowed by Alabama's win over Georgia in the National Championship game.
The ACC Coastal has had six different winners over the past six years. Virginia is the only ACC Coastal team who has never won a division title. On the Atlantic side, State, Louisville, and Syracuse have never won the division.
NC State is therefore the only ACC school in North Carolina that has never played in an ACC championship game. Would not have expected that.
As noted upthread, the #1 seed in the Football playoff has never won the National Championship game. However, the #4 seed (aka the last team in) has won it twice.

[rasputin]

Basketball is a pretty near perfect system. The final week of the season, almost every single team in D1 is still alive for the championship (sorry Ivy League). Then, the tournament selects every team with an my shot of actually winning the tournament, including almost wvery team that won their most recent game (again sorry, Ivy League).

Then, go win games.

The NCAA isn't perfect but it's darn close. That's why non-basketball fans take Fridays off in early March.

It's not just the Ivy League. There are a number of conferences, for example, with more than 8 members, but which invite only 8 to their conference tournament.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The goal of the NCAAT is to determine a champion, not who is "best". For that goal, it is an ideal tournament.

Giving you the benefit of the fine line....what you say is true, though I assure you in the early days, it was indeed thought that a champion and a best would almost always be the same. That's before mega parity and great coaching and development everywhere. And BTW, the team who wins the title will indeed be voted Number 1 in the final poll as BEST TEAM. This even if they're a 4 seed.

That said, I was addressing the concept that we don't know who the best football team is unless Georgia and UCF and some others are allowed to compete. People who advocate for them say "decide it on the field/court." Sounds great, but a single game is a flawed concept by which to determine in dispositive fashion who the best team is. Body of work "eye test" is also somewhat flawed, but may be the best we have short of a 4 out of 7, which will never happen in football at any level.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

It's not just the Ivy League. There are a number of conferences, for example, with more than 8 members, but which invite only 8 to their conference tournament.

I could only remember Ivy League and used them as the convenient example.

[Kfanarmy]

If an undefeated Alabama lost to a one-loss UGA, I have both in the final four. Would be hard for me to conclude that there are three teams better.

on the other hand you already know, all things being equal, which of those two are better in a one-and-done scenario. Giving the loser a second chance, so they only have to have 50% success against the 1st game winner, to gain the national title is ridiculous. Give the opportunity to someone who isn't in the conference, and make 'em play up north just to even the playing field.

[OldPhiKap]

on the other hand you already know, all things being equal, which of those two are better in a one-and-done scenario. Giving the loser a second chance, so they only have to have 50% success against the 1st game winner, to gain the national title is ridiculous. Give the opportunity to someone who isn't in the conference, and make 'em play up north just to even the playing field.

Yeah, I've come around on that.

UGA is probably one of the four best teams right now. But they got their shot and lost.

I am okay with the four-team playoff as is. And I think they got the four correct teams.

If you want to win the NC, someone's gotta beat Bama ultimately this year. Georgia had their shot. Oklahoma will get their shot. And if that doesn't work, ND or Clemson will get their shot.

UGA and tOSU really have no serious complaint. I feel for UCF but I would not bump any of the four to put them in. Three undefeated teams, and a one-loss Oklahoma team with a great offense and a much tougher schedule. OK avenged their only loss, which was to a rival. I'm good.

[Wander]

As such, expanding the playoff field to 8 teams would render the conference championship mostly meaningless, much as is it is in basketball.


An expansion to 8 teams would have made the SEC championship game less meaningful (both teams would get in), but would have made the Big 10, Pac 12, and AAC championship games more meaningful (their winners would have gotten in). The net result of expanding the playoff field to 8 is making championship games more meaningful on average, not less.

[Highlander]

Giving you the benefit of the fine line...what you say is true, though I assure you in the early days, it was indeed thought that a champion and a best would almost always be the same. That's before mega parity and great coaching and development everywhere. And BTW, the team who wins the title will indeed be voted Number 1 in the final poll as BEST TEAM. This even if they're a 4 seed.

That said, I was addressing the concept that we don't know who the best football team is unless Georgia and UCF and some others are allowed to compete. People who advocate for them say "decide it on the field/court." Sounds great, but a single game is a flawed concept by which to determine in dispositive fashion who the best team is. Body of work "eye test" is also somewhat flawed, but may be the best we have short of a 4 out of 7, which will never happen in football at any level.

If Georgia did get in to the playoff and beat Alabama, shouldn't we then give Alabama a second chance too? After all, they are now 1-1 vs. Georgia, so a tiebreaker game would really be necessary to be sure who's best. :)

I do agree with you that the "best" team won't always win in a single game playoff, but that's what makes it exciting and unpredictable.

[Troublemaker]

Kyler Murray won the AP Player of the year award: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25469579/university-oklahoma-quarterback-kyler-murray-wins-associated-press-college-football-player-year

Which means Murray is now the favorite to win the Heisman. (Vegas odds concur if you're wondering).

That's crazy to me that Tua probably won't win the Heisman this season.

[JasonEvans]

Kyler Murray won the AP Player of the year award: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25469579/university-oklahoma-quarterback-kyler-murray-wins-associated-press-college-football-player-year

Which means Murray is now the favorite to win the Heisman. (Vegas odds concur if you're wondering).

That's crazy to me that Tua probably won't win the Heisman this season.

The Heisman is basically, "Who was the best player in November," not "who was the best player over the entire season." Last season was a great example of this as Saquon Barkley was a lock to win the Heisman until he had a couple so-so games in November and suddenly he wasn't even in the top 5.