Bowl Games 2017-18

[Deleted member 654622]

I really hope every nonSEC fan watches something else next week. Money rules all things and if they still pull a good rating for the game then there is no reason for them to change up what they are doing.

Another note: I am glad Scott Frost is finally speaking up about the committee. Auburn beats Georgia by 23 and Alabama by 12, UCF beats Auburn by 7 and cant even get in the playoff. Please Please Please keep screwing this up so we can finally get the 8 team playoff and call it a day

 

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I have a terrible feeling that we're going to get an SEC conference matchup for our championship game.

committee, why

I get being sick of the SEC, but doesn't both teams winning justify the Committee's decision to put them both in?

 

[Deleted member 654622]

I get being sick of the SEC, but doesn't both teams winning justify the Committee's decision to put them both in?

I would say yes, much like Ohio State in year 1 of the playoff. However, with only 4 slots, it is risking someone that looks more disserving out. Year 1 it was TCU embarrassing Ole Miss and this year UCF has a legit beef.

 

[blmillini]

I get being sick of the SEC, but doesn't both teams winning justify the Committee's decision to put them both in?

Not when UCF just beat the team that beat both of those teams. I am of the opinion you had your chance all season, first with the regular season and then with the conference championship. If you don't make it through those two, you are not deserving.

 

[WhiteRhino]

I get being sick of the SEC, but doesn't both teams winning justify the Committee's decision to put them both in?

One game does not a season make. Should we declare Iowa B1G champions because they beat Ohio State?

Should Auburn have been in the playoff instead of Alabama because they beat them head-to-head and also went 1-1 against Georgia?

 

[Spoon House]

I get being sick of the SEC, but doesn't both teams winning justify the Committee's decision to put them both in?

I hear where you're coming from, and I guarantee that's the narrative being pushed south of the Mason-Dixon line. But there's a big UCF-shaped hole in that argument, as others have detailed.

Or if they wanted to set up a title game with a larger and broader geographic audience, why not have 'Bama and Georgia play in the semis?

Give me and people like me grief for being salty all you want, but I just instantly stopped caring about the title game once yesterday's games were played. And I'm not the only one in America.

 

[WhiteRhino]

I hear where you're coming from, and I guarantee that's the narrative being pushed south of the Mason-Dixon line. But there's a big UCF-shaped hole in that argument, as others have detailed.

Or if they wanted to set up a title game with a larger and broader geographic audience, why not have 'Bama and Georgia play in the semis?

Give me and people like me grief for being salty all you want, but I just instantly stopped caring about the title game once yesterday's games were played. And I'm not the only one in America.

Ditto for me. I do not care about the final game and won't be watching or following online. I hope their ratings are dismal for setting up this travesty.

 

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

One game does not a season make. Should we declare Iowa B1G champions because they beat Ohio State?

Should Auburn have been in the playoff instead of Alabama because they beat them head-to-head and also went 1-1 against Georgia?

This is kind regards of contradictory, isn't it? Alabama lost a relatively close game on the road to their biggest rival, who was ranked in the top 10. If 'one game does not a season make' why doesn't the rest of bamas season matter?

 

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I hear where you're coming from, and I guarantee that's the narrative being pushed south of the Mason-Dixon line. But there's a big UCF-shaped hole in that argument, as others have detailed.

Or if they wanted to set up a title game with a larger and broader geographic audience, why not have 'Bama and Georgia play in the semis?

Give me and people like me grief for being salty all you want, but I just instantly stopped caring about the title game once yesterday's games were played. And I'm not the only one in America.

Completely understand re: UCF - but this isn't a new narrative. P5 teams have a heavy advantage due to inherent SOS boost they get from being in a stronger conference. Teams like UCF Have to understand that, and do a better job of scheduling their out of conference opponents. The win vs. auburn was a great one, but it was too little too late in the eyes of the committee.

The system isn't perfect, and it won't be until they move to an 8 team playoff. But until then, there are going to be deserving teams left off, conference champions even. Who should have gotten in over bama? Ohio state was the first team out, and they lost to an unranked team by 30. Wisconsin was next, and they had a very soft schedule and lost to that Ohio state team. Next up is auburn and they finished with 3 losses. UCF was all the way down at #12 (which I don't agree with) but it just goes to show how important SOS is to the committee.

 

[WhiteRhino]

This is kind regards of contradictory, isn't it? Alabama lost a relatively close game on the road to their biggest rival, who was ranked in the top 10. If 'one game does not a season make' why doesn't the rest of bamas season matter?

But you can't have it both ways. If you want to say that you should only be penalized for your losses, then Central Florida should have been in. They had zero losses.

If you argue that it matters who you beat, then Ohio State or even Auburn should have been in over Alabama. Alabama's best win was #17 LSU.

 

[Deleted member 4333]

But you can't have it both ways. If you want to say that you should only be penalized for your losses, then Central Florida should have been in. They had zero losses.

If you argue that it matters who you beat, then Ohio State or even Auburn should have been in over Alabama. Alabama's best win was #17 LSU.

Since Alabama didn't even make it to their conference title game, you have to put Wisconsin in that group , too. They beat Iowa which crushed Ohio State.

 

[Deleted member 654622]

This is kind regards of contradictory, isn't it? Alabama lost a relatively close game on the road to their biggest rival, who was ranked in the top 10. If 'one game does not a season make' why doesn't the rest of bamas season matter?

It was by 12 points. Not really "relatively close" IMO

 

[Deleted member 654622]

The system isn't perfect, and it won't be until they move to an 8 team playoff. But until then, there are going to be deserving teams left off, conference champions even. Who should have gotten in over bama? Ohio state was the first team out, and they lost to an unranked team by 30. Wisconsin was next, and they had a very soft schedule and lost to that Ohio state team. Next up is auburn and they finished with 3 losses. UCF was all the way down at #12 (which I don't agree with) but it just goes to show how important SOS is to the committee.

This is why I get annoyed with the national media. Wisconsin played Northwestern, Iowa, Michigan and Ohio State. Now after the bowl games I would assume Michigan and Iowa will remain out of the top 25. Is LSU Miss State and Auburn even a better resume?

I agree the 8 team playoff is the way to go. The automatic spots go to the 5 Power 5 conference champs and the top ranked Group of 5. Then you have 2 at large bids to make sure Alabama is always in the playoff. But nothing will change until they are forced to change

 

[Deleted member 631370]

One game does not a season make. Should we declare Iowa B1G champions because they beat Ohio State?

Should Auburn have been in the playoff instead of Alabama because they beat them head-to-head and also went 1-1 against Georgia?

Apples to oranges.

Iowa went 7-5. Alabama went 11-1. You can see the difference, right? One can make a reasonable argument that Alabama was a top-4 team. One cannot make a reasonable argument that Iowa was the Big Ten champion.

Additionally, the transitive property doesn't work unless you have identical or near-identical records. Yes, Auburn beat Alabama. But Auburn finished 10-3 vs. Alabama's 11-1. If you play the transitive property game, then shouldn't 9-3 LSU be in over 10-3 Auburn given LSU's win over Auburn? But then Alabama beat LSU, so.....

That argument becomes untenable real quick.

Alabama was absolutely one of the best 4 teams in America. The committee saw that they have a lot of injuries on the defensive end -- injured guys that would soon return. That played into their decision-making, and it was the right decision.

I'm no SEC fan, but Alabama is very clearly one of the 4 best teams in America. The committee got it right.


All that said......UCF's win will move the needle closer to an eventual 8 team playoff, IMO.

 

[BZuppke]

But I thought a playoff was supposed to resolve all debate so that a ‘true’ national champion could be decided on the field. Ha ha. Bring back the old bowl tie ins and forget about this playoff nonsense.

 

[Illwinsagain]

But I thought a playoff was supposed to resolve all debate so that a ‘true’ national champion could be decided on the field. Ha ha. Bring back the old bowl tie ins and forget about this playoff nonsense.

I think you and I may be the only two people that feel this way. Every system will be flawed, so go back to the old way and let us argue over Rose vs. Orange vs. Sugar vs. Fiesta vs. Cotton champs!

 

[FiveStar]

I like a top 8 idea. Always thought that’s what it should have been. However, I would also settle for a top 6. 1 and 2 seeds get a bye. Those teams are almost never in question anyway. 3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5. Lowest remaining seed plays 1, highest remaining plays 2.

All power 5 conferences represented plus an at large with preference to an undefeated group of 5 team.

 

[Serious Late]

Apples to oranges.

Iowa went 7-5. Alabama went 11-1. You can see the difference, right? One can make a reasonable argument that Alabama was a top-4 team. One cannot make a reasonable argument that Iowa was the Big Ten champion.

Additionally, the transitive property doesn't work unless you have identical or near-identical records. Yes, Auburn beat Alabama. But Auburn finished 10-3 vs. Alabama's 11-1. If you play the transitive property game, then shouldn't 9-3 LSU be in over 10-3 Auburn given LSU's win over Auburn? But then Alabama beat LSU, so.....

That argument becomes untenable real quick.

Alabama was absolutely one of the best 4 teams in America. The committee saw that they have a lot of injuries on the defensive end -- injured guys that would soon return. That played into their decision-making, and it was the right decision.

I'm no SEC fan, but Alabama is very clearly one of the 4 best teams in America. The committee got it right.


All that said......UCF's win will move the needle closer to an eventual 8 team playoff, IMO.

This is the best outcome of all this. Round of 8 kicks off bowl season, round of 4 ends bowl season, championship game 1-2 weeks later. Can't wait! #BartScott

 

[Deleted member 631370]

I like a top 8 idea. Always thought that’s what it should have been. However, I would also settle for a top 6. 1 and 2 seeds get a bye. Those teams are almost never in question anyway. 3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5. Lowest remaining seed plays 1, highest remaining plays 2.

All power 5 conferences represented plus an at large with preference to an undefeated group of 5 team.

I don't know......this year, who is the clear cut #2? I personally felt as though UGA was better than Oklahoma going into the Rose Bowl, despite OU getting the #2 spot. The game proved the two to be remarkably similar......too similar, in fact, to justify one team getting a bye and the other having to play.

Sometimes the #1 and/or are #2 pretty clear cut. But not always. Plus.....8 teams gives us the benefit of adding 2 additional teams. So this year, instead of adding Ohio State and UCF, we add Ohio State, UCF, Auburn, and Wisconsin. Gives a 1-loss team like Wisconsin a chance to prove themselves.

 

[KenR]

I think you and I may be the only two people that feel this way. Every system will be flawed, so go back to the old way and let us argue over Rose vs. Orange vs. Sugar vs. Fiesta vs. Cotton champs!

Nope, you guys aren't alone. I feel the same way and I have many friends and acquaintances who also feel like this wonderful playoff system is an unneeded joke.

The fact that UCF didn't get even so much as a sniff at the useless playoff is reason enough to scrap it and go back to the old system.

I have lost a lot of interest in college football other than Illinois due to this playoff. We watched the UCF-Auburn game for obvious reasons but hardly paid any attention to the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl. However, I wish we had watched the last few minutes of the Rose Bowl to see Mayfield and Oklahoma go down in flames.

 

[Deleted member 631370]

Nope, you guys aren't alone. I feel the same way and I have many friends and acquaintances who also feel like this wonderful playoff system is an unneeded joke.

The fact that UCF didn't get even so much as a sniff at the useless playoff is reason enough to scrap it and go back to the old system.

I have lost a lot of interest in college football other than Illinois due to this playoff. We watched the UCF-Auburn game for obvious reasons but hardly paid any attention to the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl. However, I wish we had watched the last few minutes of the Rose Bowl to see Mayfield and Oklahoma go down in flames.

UCF's omission requires an 8-team playoff, not a reversion to a bowl system that gave us split national champions and instances of undefeated teams like 1994 Penn State or 2004 Auburn getting nothing.

The old bowl system was an absolute joke in terms of determining a national champion. If you want justice for teams like UCF, the old system is the worst thing you can ask for. The new system is a step in the right direction, but that next step -- expansion to 8 teams -- will get us even closer.


By the way, if you didn't watch the Rose Bowl, you missed an absolute classic. Big Ten or not, that was definitely the best football game I've seen in person, and one of the better games I've seen, period.

 

[snakebit12]

but hardly paid any attention to the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl.

That is a shame as UGA/OU may have been the best college football game I ever watched.

 

[icengineer]

Why do we need a National Champion? I preferred just having bowl games. I hardly watch any more outside of the Illini. Having a debate over the mythical National Champ was half the fun of College football.

 

[Deleted member 631370]

Why do we need a National Champion? I preferred just having bowl games. I hardly watch any more outside of the Illini. Having a debate over the mythical National Champ was half the fun of College football.

That debate was fun unless you're the '94 Penn State or '04 Auburn that gets nothing despite going 12-0

Why have a champion? Simple. Because somebody has to be the best. A sport without a champion is, well, strange.

 

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

People arguing that we should get rid of the playoff because UCF didn't get in/ there was no "justice" in the selection of teams must be forgetting how much more ambiguous things were in the past. Under the previous systems, this year's champion would have been even more in question. FBS is the only collegiate sport that didn't have some sort of playoff which was crazy - every other level of football in college has a playoff.

Also - playing devil's advocate re: UCF, does anyone else think that perhaps they came in with a chip on their shoulder for not having made the CFP and that they caught a seriously deflated Auburn team that controlled their own destiny, and laid an egg in the SEC championship vs a team they smoked earlier this year? Auburn had their ticket to the playoff and lost it - UCF was playing to prove that they belonged in the playoff