Bowl Games 2017-18

#101      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
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

Deciding whether a team is/or is not worthy of playing for the championship based off speculation is why we are in this situation in the first place. I have a hard time believing athletes at this level can just turn off their competiveness. And if Auburn gets a pass then should Ohio State have gotten a pass vs Iowa? We could speculate they really didn't think Iowa was going to give them a game so they weren't prepared... it could go on forever. It should be a results oriented champion and not keep teams out based on Condoleezza Rice's opinion.
 
#102      

Deleted member 631370

D
Guest
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


That last part is absolutely true, and we see similar cases every year.

The most striking example to me is when undefeated Kansas State lost in the Big XII title game to Texas A&M back in 1998. They fell to #3 and got punished by going to the Alamo Bowl against 8-4 Purdue. It was clear that K-State was disinterested, and ended up losing the game to Drew Brees and company.

Auburn was definitely less interested, going from the possible #2 spot to playing an AAC team. But, that's sports. If you're not focused, you're going to lose.

Do I think UCF is better than Auburn? Not really. UCF probably loses 4+ games if it had Auburn's schedule. But you can only evaluate them on the basis of reality -- not hypotheticals. And the reality is, they went unbeaten. Hopefully the field expands to 8 so that a team like UCF or Boise State from 2007 can prove themselves. In the end, I dont' think a team like that will ever win it all, but they at least have earned the shot.
 
#103      

Deleted member 631370

D
Guest
Deciding whether a team is/or is not worthy of playing for the championship based off speculation is why we are in this situation in the first place. I have a hard time believing athletes at this level can just turn off their competiveness. And if Auburn gets a pass then should Ohio State have gotten a pass vs Iowa? We could speculate they really didn't think Iowa was going to give them a game so they weren't prepared... it could go on forever. It should be a results oriented champion and not keep teams out based on Condoleezza Rice's opinion.


It IS results-oriented.

You have to win 2 games against top-4 teams in a span of 7-8 days to be champion. And to even be in the top-4, you have to have a pretty strong season. So how is the current system not results-oriented?

So, you don't like Condi Rice and others picking the playoff field (although she's not on the committee anymore). But you'd rather AP voters vote for a champion based on the old bowl system? I'm having a hard time following the logic on this one.

A playoff decreases subjectivity. And expanding the playoff further diminishes that degree of subjectivity. How is that not a good thing?
 
#104      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
It IS results-oriented.

You have to win 2 games against top-4 teams in a span of 7-8 days to be champion. And to even be in the top-4, you have to have a pretty strong season. So how is the current system not results-oriented?

So, you don't like Condi Rice and others picking the playoff field (although she's not on the committee anymore). But you'd rather AP voters vote for a champion based on the old bowl system? I'm having a hard time following the logic on this one.

A playoff decreases subjectivity. And expanding the playoff further diminishes that degree of subjectivity. How is that not a good thing?

I do not think it is result oriented because it is currently taking only 4 teams based off people's opinions. And yes, CR was on the committee. Regardless if she is or is not on anymore is immaterial. The fact of even having someone like that on the committee shows how ridiculous it has been.
If you have read any of my previous post, I am all about an 8/6 team playoff. The Power 5 conference Champs and the top team from the Group of 5. If you don't win your conference, then you have no leg to stand on
 
#105      

Deleted member 631370

D
Guest
It's funny, I can remember Auburn going 13-0 and Tommy Tubberville being interviewed after the bowl game, but I couldn't tell you who won that year. In 1994, I know Nebraska beat out Penn State in the polls only because Nebraska has since joined the Big Ten and the fans still argue about it. And I remember Nebraska won in 1997, but I thought Michigan was the better team. Tom Osborne was retiring, so he was given the title by the voters (right???). Who won in the years between those two Nebraska championships? I couldn't tell you.

I didn't mind the bowl tie-ins and I don't mind the four team playoff (no need to expand). But I doubt 20 years from now anyone will be lamenting that Ohio State or UCF weren't included in the playoff. And I think I will miss that.


'97 is when Nebraska shared with Michigan. Michigan went in #1, but Nebby got a boost by beating Peyton Manning and Tennessee while Michigan beat #8 Wazzu. I remember Scott Frost grabbing a microphone after the game and pleading to the TV cameras to give Nebby a share of the title. Well, they did.

USC destroyed Oklahoma in the 2004 game. And in fairness, OU struck most as the #2 team -- they had both Jason White and Adrian Peterson, IIRC.

That 1994 Penn State team was one of the best offensive teams ever. 5 first team All-Americans on offense -- Kerry Collins, Ki Jana Carter, Bobby Engram, Kyle Brady, and one of their linemen. Interestingly, the only defense that slowed them down that year was Illinois. They blasted pretty much everybody else.
 
#106      

Deleted member 631370

D
Guest
I do not think it is result oriented because it is currently taking only 4 teams based off people's opinions. And yes, CR was on the committee. Regardless if she is or is not on anymore is immaterial. The fact of even having someone like that on the committee shows how ridiculous it has been.
If you have read any of my previous post, I am all about an 8/6 team playoff. The Power 5 conference Champs and the top team from the Group of 5. If you don't win your conference, then you have no leg to stand on

Sorry, got you confused for one of the others who argued for a return to the old bowl system.

I still think a 4-team playoff -- despite its warts -- is better than anything before it. And in this particular year, they got the 4 best teams right. But I completely agree -- we need to expand to 8.
 
#107      
Technically speaking expanding to 8 teams still wouldve left out UCF, and they should've been in.

Totally behind them declaring this a Championship season. Mostly because I think a lot about CFB should change.
 
#108      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
Technically speaking expanding to 8 teams still wouldve left out UCF, and they should've been in.

Totally behind them declaring this a Championship season. Mostly because I think a lot about CFB should change.

That is why you have automatic bids. 5 for the power 5 conference champs and 1 for the top ranked group of 5. Then we would have:
Clemson
Oklahoma
Georgia
Ohio State
USC
UCF
I would be fine with 6. If it was 8, then you throw in Wisconsin/Penn State and Alabama. Yes people would still argue, that is sports, but its hard to argue against the legit national champ if that was the playoff
 
#109      

Deleted member 631370

D
Guest
That is why you have automatic bids. 5 for the power 5 conference champs and 1 for the top ranked group of 5. Then we would have:
Clemson
Oklahoma
Georgia
Ohio State
USC
UCF
I would be fine with 6. If it was 8, then you throw in Wisconsin/Penn State and Alabama. Yes people would still argue, that is sports, but its hard to argue against the legit national champ if that was the playoff


I agree with the auto bid part, but disagree that the Group of 5 should get an auto bid each year.

If there is an undefeated Group of 5 team = auto bid. If a Group of 5 team falls within the top 12 = auto bid. But the best Group of 5 team often is borderline top-20. Do we really want to use a playoff spot for that team?

In 2015, that team would have been 12-1 Houston who was ranked #18.
In 2014, it would have been 11-2 Boise State who was ranked #20.
In 2013, it would have been 11-1 UCF who was ranked #15.
In 2012, it would have been 11-1 Northern Illinois who was #15.

I can see arguments for and against, but I personally believe that a team like Boise State or Northern Illinois or UCF who has a loss forfeits any real chance to make an argument that they deserve to play for a national title instead of a 2-loss team ranked #8 in the country (like this year's Penn State or USC).
 
#110      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
Good points about not giving auto bid to group of 5. Need a criteria, such as Top 12-15 for example.

People are also forgetting Notre Dane. I know most opinions about them are negative, join in a conference if you want in, etc. However, if playoffs are expaned, and you nclude automatic conference champions, ND WILL HAVE a say in being in the mix. You don't have to like it, and you can argue on here all you want, but it will happen. It happened iirc with the BCS, they have sway for it happening with a field of 8 that is beyond just polls.

Great Point about Notre Dame
 
#112      

KrushCow31

Former Krush Cow
Chicago, IL
Good points about not giving auto bid to group of 5. Need a criteria, such as Top 12-15 for example.

People are also forgetting Notre Dane. I know most opinions about them are negative, join in a conference if you want in, etc. However, if playoffs are expaned, and you nclude automatic conference champions, ND WILL HAVE a say in being in the mix. You don't have to like it, and you can argue on here all you want, but it will happen. It happened iirc with the BCS, they have sway for it happening with a field of 8 that is beyond just polls.

I go to ND and I didn't even think about ND haha. Good point. This school has a lot of sway and some big money contracts to push around. We could go full ACC...but then we would lose our biggest rivalries like USC, Michigan, MSU, Army, and Stanford. We already partially lost the Michigan rivalry, and lost the Purdue game by joining. Also won't be switching to the B1G as we just signed a multi year contract this year with the ACC through 2037.

You could make it Power 5 champs +3 at large bids with 1 automatically going to a group 5 conference if they meet x criteria. That way if Notre Dame is good then they will get in. However, a #~8 Notre Dame would have a good argument if they get hosed but 11-3 Stanford ranked #11 circa 2013 gets into the playoffs. Sometimes even the Power 5 conference champs don't deserve to be in. So there are pluses and minuses to everything. This season for example lets say ND beat Stanford. Only loss is 1pt to Georgia, and an atrocious game to Miami. Curb stomped USC 49-14. USC is Pac 12 champs, and 11-3. ND is 12-2 but ranked ~8.

This year with my layout the playoff would have been:

1. Clemson (#1)
2. Oklahoma (#2)
3. Georgia (#3)
4. Ohio State (#5)
5. USC (#8)
6. Alabama (#4)
7. Wisconsin (#6)
8. UCF (#12)

If you're Miami or Penn or ND you're probably pretty mad a 11-3 team made the playoff and you're outside looking in with 2 losses, especially if you beat that team by a large margin like ND did.
 
Last edited:
#113      

UofI08

Chicago
ND is going to require something. I know they had something with the BCS. I would love to see an 8 team playoff. 5 P5 champs, Top G5 team, 2 at larges. ND gets 1 at large if finishing in top 10.

So yeah it would be just like KrushCow's bracket this year. If ND finished #10, they get in instead of Wisconsin.
 
#114      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
If you're Miami or Penn or ND you're probably pretty mad a 11-3 team made the playoff and you're outside looking in with 2 losses, especially if you beat that team by a large margin like ND did.

I believe they would be salty, but ND gets all the benefit($) of being an independent so they can deal with the consequences as well. College football used to always say it was better than the NFL because every game counts. That is not as much the case anymore. In an automatic bid for Power 5 conference champs, it would bring that back a lot more IMO
 
#115      
Has it already been discussed the fact that having an 8 team playoff requires another game to be added to the season. This was a huge sticking point for those against a playoff in the first place.
 
#116      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
Maybe its my overall opinion about the NCAA but I seriously doubt adding another revenue stream is the issue. I believe it is whether they would lose money on the multiple playoff teams because their fans are being asked to travel to multiple cities instead of one as was the BCS system. For example, the pool of UCF alum and students that can afford to travel to 3 cities I am assuming is quite smaller than say USC.
 
#117      
The reason UCF isn't playing for a national championship is not due to the lack of an 8 team playoff. It's due to money and politics. Penn State should have had their football program shut down for a period of time but instead they were just a tick or two away from getting in the almighty playoff (see money and politics). It's been about money and politics for over a half century or longer and some days it's harder to swallow than others.

I'll say it again. Forget the playoff foolishness and go back to how it was. At least then it was clearly obvious it was about money and politics. It still is but the NCAA felt they needed to appeased those who would crow how a playoff is the end all be all.
 
#118      
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.

You can add UCF to that group that is perceived to have been screwed and we have the all important playoff!

13-0 with several 2 loss teams and one 3 loss team with a better chance of getting into the playoff. Yeesh.
 
#119      
Maybe its my overall opinion about the NCAA but I seriously doubt adding another revenue stream is the issue. I believe it is whether they would lose money on the multiple playoff teams because their fans are being asked to travel to multiple cities instead of one as was the BCS system. For example, the pool of UCF alum and students that can afford to travel to 3 cities I am assuming is quite smaller than say USC.

Make the first round home games for the higher seed? Then go into your New Years Six for the Semifinals and Championship.
 
#121      
That is a great idea actually

To you're point, not many fans will be willing to travel to three neutral site games. And I don't think there are enough casual fans that would be just willing to go and thereby picking up any slack from either (or both) fan bases.

Plus, it continues to reinforce the idea that the regular season matters. The one downside, if you can call it that, is that one of the conference champs will have to play on the road. However, once you get to this point you are being as fair as you possibly can and if a team doesn't like it? Too bad, win more games during the regular season and don't leave it to a committee ranking.
 
#122      
I like this idea, except you just know a northern school will get screwed out of hosting a home game. You think the committee would allow a Florida team, hypothetically, to travel to Madison or Ann Arbor in January or December!

That would be pretty awesome to see that happen.
 
#123      

BZuppke

Plainfield
Well we bowl tie in guys predicted the 4 team playoff wouldn’t satisfy the insatiable. So with an 8 team playoff (which every college president will veto), you have all 5 power conference champs in. First, there are times a conference champ is 8-4. So how does that team merit over the 10-2 third place team from another conference? Additionally would Wisky and tOSU both get in this year? PSU and tOSU last year? You’re adding more teams but numbers 9,10 and 11 will still !!!!!. So to me, knowing that if you win the B1G championship you go to the Rose Bowl is a more satisfying outcome than being an also ran in a BS playoff. Which do Illini fans talk about/cherish most? The 2001 Sugar Bowl or going to the Rose Bowl in 2008? We’ve given up a guaranteed Rose Bowl - the greatest bowl of all, for a chance to participate in a BS playoff. I couldn’t care less which cheating, slimey SEC team wins on Monday. It means nothing. Come home with a Rose Bowl championship and it stands forever.
 
#124      
I'm just not seeing the need for expanding. Increasing the number of teams in the playoffs will increase the number of teams claiming they got screwed. So you want to expand to six or eight teams so you definitely have the top four teams. How about being satisfied that the top two teams are among the four chosen?

I think to a point you're right. But the problem, in some peoples opinion (mine included), is that while we might be able to assume that representatives from the PAC 12 and B1G shouldn't have been included in the playoff we don't know what would have happened if they were there. Throw in the UCF team this year (and Boise State from a few years back) and it just raises more questions about whether or not the right teams got in. And given that top teams aren't just going to fill their non-conference slate with top teams from other Power 5 conferences it can become difficult to really get an idea of where every conference belongs.

I've seen it mentioned that more teams in the playoffs makes the regular season mean less, but I believe that given the option laid out in this thread (Five Power 5 Conference Champions + one Highest Group 5 Ranked team - as long they are ranked higher than ~15 + two "at-large" teams that have the highest ranking that didn't win their conference championship) it makes the regular season mean that much more. As it stands now a team can win their conference but not even get a shot at winning that National Championship...so what does that make the regular season? If the ultimate goal is a National Championship then the regular season (and whatever consolation bowl the team gets) would seem worthless.

As for your point about more teams complaining... Yeah that probably will happen but at least then you can say "Hey, you didn't even win your conference so you're lucky to be considered at all."