All Five Conference Champs Lost Their First Game In The Playoff
- Thread starter Quix0te
- Start date
I guess they were not deserving of consideration for the cfp . Or you could say they were just as deserving as IU was.
I believe it’s time to cut IU some slack and give them their props. They had a good year. Were they on the same level as PSU and OSU? No. But they were just as good or bad as several of the other teams in the cfp.
The CFP should never have been expanded to 12 teams and conferences like the mountain whatever, pac 12 and acc should never have been given automatic seeds. The overall seeding was terrible!
As for IU, I believe they could have beat Boise at, Arizona st and smu.
I believe it’s time to cut IU some slack and give them their props. They had a good year. Were they on the same level as PSU and OSU? No. But they were just as good or bad as several of the other teams in the cfp.
The CFP should never have been expanded to 12 teams and conferences like the mountain whatever, pac 12 and acc should never have been given automatic seeds. The overall seeding was terrible!
As for IU, I believe they could have beat Boise at, Arizona st and smu.
They are conference champions and certainly deserve to be in the playoffs. I'm waiting for the day in the basketball tournament when a team wth a losing record wins it all. Suppose a team never wins a game or just enough to qualify for their conference tournament. Then wins 4 or so games and is then the conference champion. They are then automatically in the tournament and if they win all of the rest of their games and are declared champions they may have only won about 10 games and lost 20. These championship games only award late season play and not losing any games then, not the entire season record. Are they really the best team? There can be any number of schemes to determine a national champion, the winner of that scheme is then national champion, they are that scheme's national champion, but are they the season's best team?
They got obliterated by ND.
The only reason the score was close is because they scored two meaningless touchdowns at the end against ND's backups.
Georgia was in the game pretty much the entire time while playing their backup QB.
They final point differential in the IU game doesn't tell the story of that game at all as it was a beatdown from opening kickoff and the outcome was never in doubt.
Some they IU crowd can stop with the, "We only lost by 10" comment because that 10 was not nearly as close as the 13 Georgia lost by. And if people don't understand that, they shouldn't talk about sports.
You don’t think Oregon and Georgia were deserving of the CFP?
The mountain west doesn’t get an automatic seed. It’s the top 5 conferences regardless, it’s been that way for the big six games for as long as I can remember. And when it was the P5 it was the top 6 conference champions.
Overall rankings was not Terrible. I think they got it right or at least close. Indiana was 8 and ahead of those 3 you mentioned… do you mean the fact they gave the conference champs byes? Yes that was questionable and no one is denying it. They made it clear with the status of conferences changing they would try it out this way and then evaluate it. You think two of the people on the large committee would get away with saying you other conferences don’t get byes? They needed it to play out so they can prove a point. I expect moving forward the brackets will be based on final rankings not conference champs. Then Texas and PSU would have gotten byes and indiana would have got to host Boise state.
Other changes I would like to see if they use quad wins like they do in basketball and just go with top 12 regardless of conference. Indiana still makes it but I suspect would have been passed up by Alabama (who would replace clemson) and SMU for the 10 seed and play tennessee in first round which I think would have been a good game.
Even in this scenario you would have had 5 conferences represented, but clemson wouldn’t have gotten in automatically and SMU would at least represent their conference.
What I was saying was that IU had a good season. Give them some props.
They got blown out by ND. Several other teams also go blown out. Was Tennessee deserving? They also got blown away as did Oregon. People here are quick to rag on IU, basically because they are IU.
What I’m really saying is they made the playoffs include too many teams, and several teams were not deserving. And the decision for automatic bids needs to be reassessed.
A better number would have been 8 teams. If it were 8 teams and no automatic berths, it would have a lot better representation of today’s college football.
And yes, if it were only 8 teams, I would not have selected IU. Yes, they had a nice year. But they were no where close to being one of the top 10 teams in college football this year. And in saying that, neither was Alabama or SMu
They got blown out by ND. Several other teams also go blown out. Was Tennessee deserving? They also got blown away as did Oregon. People here are quick to rag on IU, basically because they are IU.
What I’m really saying is they made the playoffs include too many teams, and several teams were not deserving. And the decision for automatic bids needs to be reassessed.
A better number would have been 8 teams. If it were 8 teams and no automatic berths, it would have a lot better representation of today’s college football.
And yes, if it were only 8 teams, I would not have selected IU. Yes, they had a nice year. But they were no where close to being one of the top 10 teams in college football this year. And in saying that, neither was Alabama or SMu
I think most would say that the 12 that made it “deserved” it. Maybe 1-2 outliers in there. Some could argue SMU. Very few will argue Indiana didn’t deserve it. What people argue is they didn’t take the 12 best teams. The only conference champion I questioned was clemson. The other 4 were ranked in the top 12. I think Boise State was better than Indiana, their only loss was a close game against Oregon and they held on to PSU until the 4th quarter whereas those two teams would have smoked indiana like ND and OSU did. Arizona state was questioned but they won some good games down the stretch and had a close game against Texas.
So my only main gripes was clemson getting in and giving byes to conference champs. I don’t mind the top rated from 5 conferences if they are the top 5 rated, forget about conference championship games. And the seeds should be based on ratings just like in basketball. You could have multiple teams from same conference as 1 seeds in basketball, why can’t we do that here? Otherwise I thought the rating committee did great.
If they could change it I think the quad wins like basketball would make this more competitive but I don’t think they necessarily got that wrong, that is really an opinion that the vast majority may not agree with.
Right. Abolish all CCGs and expand the playoff to 32 teams. Give a guaranteed spot to each P4 and G5 conference champ, but teams are seeded by their ranking and not by being a conf champ. Four brackets with four #1 seeds, four #2 seeds, etc, just like March Madness. The 2 or 3 G5 conf champs who aren't ranked in the top 32 would displace the #32, #31, #30 whatever ranked teams.
Tweak the brackets to avoid repeat matchups and to spread out the Big Ten and SEC teams as much as possible. No more Oregon-Ohio St repeat games unless they reach the Final Four.
Conference championship games are now meaningless. The losers of the Big Ten CCG and the SEC CCG ended up with easier pathways to the NC than the CCG winners did.
I hope you are kidding! I wouldn’t mind going to 14 teams. So add two more first round games but same number of rounds. I’m sure the big ten and sec would like each of their top rated teams to get the bye
Every team with a first round bye lost. And bear in mind, if B1G champ Oregon plays AAC champ Tulane and SEC champ Georgia plays Sunbelt champ Marshall, that 'warm-up game" would be just as good as a bye, or better. Plus everybody has a shot at it. All five G5 champs would be in the playoff. Just like March Madness.
And this 32-team format doesn't add a week to the schedule. If you end all CCGs and play the first round of 16 games that week, then the second round of 8 games is played the following week then that is the same dates as the first round with the current 12-team format.
And just think of the extravaganza of games for TV. Instead of showing a handful of CCGs followed by an array of totally meaningless bowl games, we'd have dozens of games in an NC playoff. And every conference would cash in on it.
Last edited:
IMO: the NFL should follow the same advice. No more ~.500 teams getting a home playoff game as a reward for winning a weak division. Meanwhile, the loser of today's Lions/Vikings game will fall from the #1 to the #5 seed with a 14-3 record.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Purdue men's basketball Northwestern at Purdue: MASTER DISCUSSION THREAD- Latest: Casey Bartley